Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[nmgauss]

I am reminded of a National Geographic program on deadly animals in India. Venomous snakes in India kill other snakes. Is it better for the snake world that some have poisonous fangs and some do not? If the snake does not, it is more susceptible to being eaten.

Wouldn’t it be better for the snake world if no snakes had venomous fangs? Then they would not be eating each other.

 

[DianePa]

Yes it would but in human society the ‘snakes’ are the crimminals who would use any weapon even the knife to kill just as they now use the gun. I have a concealed weapon and never killed anyone but have seen the body of someone vunerable lying on the ground having been killed by a venomous parasite street snake. Try to unarm them with a law and see how far it will get you. Nope, let me have fangs and I just might be able to protect myself and perhaps even others in the absense of a peace officer who usually arrives to late.

 

[nmgauss]

So, in your opinion it is better to have everybody armed to the teeth, ready to kill one another at the slightest provocation. I can see it now: two cars bump into each other and the driver of one shoots the driver of the other. Or look at the increased probability of bar killings because everybody is carrying a gun. Look what happened in the George Zimmerman case: If there had been no gun in George’s holster, Trevon Martin would still be alive. George had a reputation of being trigger happy.

 

[Rau]

So, in your opinion it is better to have everybody armed to the teeth, ready to kill one another at the slightest provocation. I can see it now: two cars bump into each other and the driver of one shoots the driver of the other. Or look at the increased probability of bar killings because everybody is carrying a gun. Look what happened in the George Zimmerman case: If there had been no gun in George’s holster, Trevon Martin would still be alive. George had a reputation of being trigger happy.

It is surprising that many people base their belief that it’s good for **most people **to be able to have a gun on the view that they **themselves **are a worthy owner. This seems to be a somewhat narrow assessment of the issue!

 

[catybug]

I personslly dont ever want to shoot a gun, I dont like them for myself. I find them kind of scary, and I don’t think I could ever shoot to kill someone else. However, I am pro-gun. Criminals and crazy people are going to have guns no matter what laws you make, and I’d rather good law abiding citizens be able to have one too in order to protect themselves and others.

 

[Rau]

I personslly dont ever want to shoot a gun, I dont like them for myself. I find them kind of scary, and I don’t think I could ever shoot to kill someone else. However, I am pro-gun. Criminals and crazy people are going to have guns no matter what laws you make, and I’d rather good law abiding citizens be able to have one too in order to protect themselves and others.

Sadly, we have no means to limit access to guns to just the people you envisage. They will also go to those with a short temper, a latent mental condition, a new would-be criminal, a desperate person who perceives a crime to be the way out of a difficult situation, a person who wants a gun to appear tough to his mates, a careless parent, and so on, and on, and on.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, that’s a freedom I’d be happy to enjoy too, but I don’t think it’s the issue about which the pro-/anti- gun dispute revolves!

That issue is the crux of this whole debate…

Getting back to my original statement:

A RIGHT to do or not do something is the essence of FREEDOM.

People without Free Speech are not free.
People without the Freedom of Religion are not free.
People without the right to property are not free.

People without the freedom to use a firearm for a harmless sporting purpose…or for their own self defense are not free.

Anti-gun advocates have only goal. That is the elimination of all guns. This cannot be logically denied because, if only one gun existed there would be the potential of that gun being used to harm someone. So…every gun MUST be eliminated.

This, of course is irrational. But that does not stop the irrational.

Please tell my why a free person should give up the sporting use of a firearm, or a defensive firearm, or any firearm for that matter? Why should a free person give up any freedom?

 

[Rau]

That issue is the crux of this whole debate…

Getting back to my original statement:

People without Free Speech are not free.
People without the Freedom of Religion are not free.
People without the right to property are not free.

People without the freedom to use a firearm for a harmless sporting purpose…or for their own self defense are not free.

Anti-gun advocates have only goal. That is the elimination of all guns. This cannot be logically denied because, if only one gun existed there would be the potential of that gun being used to harm someone. So…every gun MUST be eliminated.

This, of course is irrational. But that does not stop the irrational.

Please tell my why a free person should give up the sporting use of a firearm, or a defensive firearm, or any firearm for that matter? Why should a free person give up any freedom?

Please see recent posts where the consequences of thinking narrowly are discussed.

Note also, I’m happy to have the use of a firearm for target shooting through organized venues. (And for the police and military to have them.). That limited distribution of a limited class of weapon, strictly controlled, is a far cry from the right of all and sundry to be armed to the teeth.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

What an odd thing to say! A person can be against this administration’s plan for healthcare, especially in the ways that it tramples personal religious liberty, without being “against healthcare” in general…!

A bit selective in your quoting Georgia’s…I don’t think religious concerns underpinned his point!

Not at all – in fact, less so than you were! After all, Tepo only complained about the “mandated healthcare”, not health care in general, and yet, look at the selective cherry-picking you engaged in! You explicitly accused him of being against health care, based only on the fact that he asserted that he was against this administration’s health care scheme!

Moreover, you too were “a bit selective” – my point wasn’t “religious concerns”, per se; it was that opposition to an adminstration’s particular plan wasn’t tantamount to opposition to the question at hand. Yet, did you address my point, or only one example I used to illustrate that point?

Pot, meet kettle…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Please see recent posts where the consequences of thinking narrowly are discussed.

Note also, I’m happy to have the use of a firearm for target shooting through organized venues. (And for the police and military to have them.). That limited distribution of a limited class of weapon, strictly controlled, is a far cry from the right of all and sundry to be armed to the teeth.

I am pleased that you are positive towards the legitimate use of firearms.

Could you GUARANTEE that the free use of firearms for target shooting and legitimate sporting purposes would be protected by the government?

 

[nmgauss]

I am pleased that you are positive towards the legitimate use of firearms.

Could you GUARANTEE that the free use of firearms for target shooting and legitimate sporting purposes would be protected by the government?

If you like guns, join a gun club and follow the rules of the club. This is a legitimate option for people who enjoy guns. But to have our streets crawling with all kinds of people carrying a gun, sane and insane, level-headed and short-tempered, including children, is frightening.

 

[Rau]

I am pleased that you are positive towards the legitimate use of firearms.

Could you GUARANTEE that the free use of firearms for target shooting and legitimate sporting purposes would be protected by the government?

A better question is “what social horrors am I prepared to risk to secure secure such protection”? Answer: Not much!

For sport, I’d also like to see improved firearms that shoot harmless light, rather than lethal projectiles. The sporting aspect is not dependent on the characteristics of the gun that render it dangerous.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If you like guns, join a gun club and follow the rules of the club. This is a legitimate option for people who enjoy guns. But to have our streets crawling with all kinds of people carrying a gun, sane and insane, level-headed and short-tempered, including children, is frightening.

I agree…it is frightening.

There are laws against carrying concealed weapons in just about every state. Lock up the the insane, short tempered and the parents of of children who violate the law. The sane, the level headed and law abiding have every right to carry a gun.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A better question is “what social horrors am I prepared to risk to secure secure such protection”? Answer: Not much!

For sport, I’d also like to see improved firearms that shoot harmless light, rather than lethal projectiles. The sporting aspect is not dependent on the characteristics of the gun that render it dangerous.

Rau, I am simply looking for a guarantee that something good will come from a restriction of my ability to own and use a firearm for legitimate purposes.

Come on …put your money where your mouth is…I am willing to give up my guns if it will make the world a better place. All you have to do is guarantee that I will never face a threat that a gun could provide some reasonable protection from.

PS: Your idea of an “improved firearm” already exists. It is known as a “Squirt gun”.

 

[nmgauss]

I agree…it is frightening.

There are laws against carrying concealed weapons in just about every state. Lock up the the insane, short tempered and the parents of of children who violate the law. The sane, the level headed and law abiding have every right to carry a gun.

Even if it means your higher risk of death by gunfire?

 

[catybug]

the fact is, illegal or not, if someone criminal, mentally disabled, insane, or whatever, wants a gun ,they’re going to get a gun no matter what if they want it bad enough. Thats like saying drug laws keep people from getting drugs. Let those who are sane and stable have a way to defend themselves.

 

[nmgauss]

Rau, I am simply looking for a guarantee that something good will come from a restriction of my ability to own and use a firearm for legitimate purposes.

Come on …put your money where your mouth is…I am willing to give up my guns if it will make the world a better place. All you have to do is guarantee that I will never face a threat that a gun could provide some reasonable protection from.

What are legitimate purposes? Is it desirable to carry your gun wherever you go? What is the likelihood that you will ever have to defend yourself with a gun? I was mugged one night with something hard being poked into my ribs. If the mugger really had a gun, I would have been dead at the least attempt for me to draw my weapon. Instead, I told him that I had some money in my wallet and he trusted me. I gave him a $100 bill, and he snatched it so fast the crisis was over in an instant. That was a much better outcome than me trying to resist with a gun.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Even if it means your higher risk of death by gunfire?

Actually, with all the “bad guys” locked up the risk of death by gunfire as well as a whole lot of other risks would be greatly reduced.

 

[nmgauss]

the fact is, illegal or not, if someone criminal, mentally disabled, insane, or whatever, wants a gun ,they’re going to get a gun no matter what if they want it bad enough. Thats like saying drug laws keep people from getting drugs. Let those who are sane and stable have a way to defend themselves.

That’s like saying there is no need to lock your door. If someone really wants to get in, a way will be found. Also, it also assumes that every angry or temperamental person can be identified, arrested, and locked up ahead of time, just so he will not be able to use a gun.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What are legitimate purposes? Is it desirable to carry your gun wherever you go? What is the likelihood that you will ever have to defend yourself with a gun? I was mugged one night with something hard being poked into my ribs. If the mugger really had a gun, I would have been dead at the least attempt for me to draw my weapon. Instead, I told him that I had some money in my wallet and he trusted me. I gave him a $100 bill, and he snatched it so fast the crisis was over in an instant. That was a much better outcome than me trying to resist with a gun.

A legitimate purpose is anything legal. Anything I have a RIGHT to do is legitimate.

If you want to donate $100 to every mugger that is your RIGHT. I happen to consider a mugging to be a violation of person’s rights. The fact that the mugger would have shot you IF you did not give him the $$$ is justification enough to defend your life. But you made your choice.

My wife was accosted by a mugger/rapist whatever in a parking lot…the result was mugger running away after wife pointed her gun at his face.