Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gamewell45 said:
Your analogy is flawed in this instance. Automobiles are not designed as weapons; whereas guns are made for the express purpose of killing/maiming of living creatures.
Click to expand...
HMMWVs and Jeeps are cars that were originaly designed soley for a military purpose. Sports cars were designed with the sole intent of hurling the occupants at deadly and illegal speeds. Baseball bats are also deadly weapons that were not intended to be used as such. However the orignial intent is irrelevant. For instance I have several “weapons” which were designed soley for the purpose of recreational target shooting that could also be used for defense. Once something enters use, the intent of the designer becomes somewhat irrelevant.
 
Newbie2 said:
I think we’re basically in agreement here, that it is exceedingly difficult to craft a way to constitutionally allow for some in our population to carry firearms and that not everyone should be doing so, as asked in the OP/thread title.
Click to expand...
There are some in our society that should not be armed. but those that fall into that category need to cared for in a way that is more proactive than just banning fire arms. The approach of some is the radical hoplophobic response of keep everyone from weapons because some person may flip out and go postal. My examples were to try to show that there are other dangers in society that pose as great of a risk if not greater. It is not to say that we should ingnore the risk of whackos getting guns, but we should address that risk in proportion to how we address the risks of that whacko getting other dangerous items.

Per some of your other points and some clarification on techicalities:

14 year olds can not opperate an aircraft solo. ( they have to have a licensed pilot with them even if that pilot is not directly opperating the controls.)

18 year olds opperate automatic weapons in war zones.
 
TinaG said:
Hi!

I don’t understand your statement. Would you mind restating or explaining it?

Thanks!

-Tina 🙂
Click to expand...
Sure.

Sort of an answer to the original posters question, here goes:

As Royal Archer has said, not everyone should be carrying a weapon in today’s society. The current laws prohibit felons, the mentally ill and I would guess in some states others (maybe such as the legally blind) from carrying firearms. This makes a good deal of sense.

As far as the rest of us folks, not all of should be carrying weapons either. What I and RA have been discussing is college kids; I don’t think, based on my experience, that college kids in general should be carrying firearms around campus.

My point is that it’s difficult for laws to exclude those who really shouldn’t be carrying around a weapon, as they for the most part are constitutionally allowed to own a weapon, and in many states might just qualify for a CCW permit.

In defense of this, I was giving examples of people that I know “with two left feet” as it were, people that would be more danger to those around them than for example the bad guy shooting up the local mall. Kind of Like Barney Fife from TV (back when it was black and white :D)

Clearer?
 
Newbie2 said:
Sure.

Sort of an answer to the original posters question, here goes:

As Royal Archer has said, not everyone should be carrying a weapon in today’s society. The current laws prohibit felons, the mentally ill and I would guess in some states others (maybe such as the legally blind) from carrying firearms. This makes a good deal of sense.

As far as the rest of us folks, not all of should be carrying weapons either. What I and RA have been discussing is college kids; I don’t think, based on my experience, that college kids in general should be carrying firearms around campus.

My point is that it’s difficult for laws to exclude those who really shouldn’t be carrying around a weapon, as they for the most part are constitutionally allowed to own a weapon, and in many states might just qualify for a CCW permit.

In defense of this, I was giving examples of people that I know “with two left feet” as it were, people that would be more danger to those around them than for example the bad guy shooting up the local mall. Kind of Like Barney Fife from TV (back when it was black and white :D)

Clearer?
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you!🙂

I think a better example would be requiring a quadraplegic to carry a handgun, as an example of the sort of person who is incapable of using it.

-Tina 🙂
 
Newbie2 said:
Sure.

Sort of an answer to the original posters question, here goes:

As Royal Archer has said, not everyone should be carrying a weapon in today’s society. The current laws prohibit felons, the mentally ill and I would guess in some states others (maybe such as the legally blind) from carrying firearms. This makes a good deal of sense.

As far as the rest of us folks, not all of should be carrying weapons either. What I and RA have been discussing is college kids; I don’t think, based on my experience, that college kids in general should be carrying firearms around campus.

My point is that it’s difficult for laws to exclude those who really shouldn’t be carrying around a weapon, as they for the most part are constitutionally allowed to own a weapon, and in many states might just qualify for a CCW permit.

In defense of this, I was giving examples of people that I know “with two left feet” as it were, people that would be more danger to those around them than for example the bad guy shooting up the local mall. Kind of Like Barney Fife from TV (back when it was black and white :D)

Clearer?
Click to expand...
And it is my belief that being in college should not (in it self) disqualify someone from carrying a weapon
 
royal_archer said:
And it is my belief that being in college should not (in it self) disqualify someone from carrying a weapon
Click to expand...
Well, to clarify, I think my objection has more to do with the campus setting (parties in dorms, stress levels in general and especially at exam times, etc.) and maturity of the individual than the academic or non-academic status of the individual.

And that would be a problem, wouldn’t it? Identifying who is mature (responsible) enough and who isn’t. Very big problem. Joe college student, very bright, upright student, etc. has trouble in a required class. He didn’t get the “A” that he’s used to. Distraught student + firearm has potential for a real problem.

However, not any more so that the 20 year old dude, living on his own who loses his job and has no real prospects. I’m just so much more familiar with the campus/academic setting and want to be careful that nobody uses intellectual capacity as a benchmark for who would get to carry and who would not.

Great discussion. 👍
 
Newbie2 said:
Well, to clarify, I think my objection has more to do with the campus setting (parties in dorms, stress levels in general and especially at exam times, etc.) and maturity of the individual than the academic or non-academic status of the individual.
Click to expand...
Alcohol and fire arems are a bad mix. alcohol and the first time someone is away from mom and dad is a bad mix also. But I won’t rund down the drinking age rabbit hole… thats another thread.
Newbie2 said:
And that would be a problem, wouldn’t it? Identifying who is mature (responsible) enough and who isn’t. Very big problem. Joe college student, very bright, upright student, etc. has trouble in a required class. He didn’t get the “A” that he’s used to. Distraught student + firearm has potential for a real problem.
Click to expand...
If a student goes postal over not getting an A, I doubt it is a maturity issue that he will outgrow.
Newbie2 said:
However, not any more so that the 20 year old dude, living on his own who loses his job and has no real prospects. I’m just so much more familiar with the campus/academic setting and want to be careful that nobody uses intellectual capacity as a benchmark for who would get to carry and who would not.
Click to expand...
Or a 19 year old taking fire in Afganistan?

My experience is at a school with a strong ROTC presence. I’d feel safer with my former class mates armed, even when partying, than some police.
Newbie2 said:
Great discussion. 👍
Click to expand...
ditto.
 
royal_archer said:
If a student goes postal over not getting an A, I doubt it is a maturity issue that he will outgrow.

Exactly. And he might end up as “death by cop”.

My experience is at a school with a strong ROTC presence. I’d feel safer with my former class mates armed, even when partying, than some police.

I would assume that even with an unarmed ROTC presence there is a feeling of a more secure environment. When I was at Michigan State University, the campus police were more like the keystone cops. When my floormate went in in the middle of the night to get a temporary parking pass, the campus cop on duty was watching TV and play-shooting at the bad guys on TV with his gun. Not kidding. Hopefully they’ve improved since then.

Fortunately they had the East Lansing police (I knew one of the officers personally from high school) and the State Police for real problems besides parking violations.

.
Click to expand...
 
royal_archer said:
HMMWVs and Jeeps are cars that were originaly designed soley for a military purpose. Sports cars were designed with the sole intent of hurling the occupants at deadly and illegal speeds. Baseball bats are also deadly weapons that were not intended to be used as such. However the orignial intent is irrelevant. For instance I have several “weapons” which were designed soley for the purpose of recreational target shooting that could also be used for defense. Once something enters use, the intent of the designer becomes somewhat irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I believe its quite relevant; here’s why; using your analogy, if it were irrelevant, they you’d need a license to be able to own a baseball bat, butter knife, chop sticks, pen or pencil, etc. These and other items are designed for other purposes as opposed to guns.

Motor vehicles are designed with the sole purpose to transport people and goods, not as weapons although almost anything could be declared a weapon based on how you use it.

Guns are solely designed as weapons; there’s no other way to get around it.

Just my 2 cents
 
gamewell45 said:
I believe its quite relevant; here’s why; using your analogy, if it were irrelevant, they you’d need a license to be able to own a baseball bat, butter knife, chop sticks, pen or pencil, etc. These and other items are designed for other purposes as opposed to guns.

Motor vehicles are designed with the sole purpose to transport people and goods, not as weapons although almost anything could be declared a weapon based on how you use it.

Guns are solely designed as weapons; there’s no other way to get around it.

Just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Another alternative is that you would not need to have a license to have a gun or a single license to own or opperate a dangerous implement.

22’s and .17 HMRs were not designed as weapons.

Cause of Death/Age Range All Ages
Total Number of Deaths 97,900 100%
Motor Vehicle 43,354 44.3%
Unspecified nontransport accid’ts 17,437 17.8%
Falls 13,322 13.6%
Poisoning and Noxious Subst’s 12,757 13.0%
Drowning 3,842 3.9%
Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames 3,377 3.4%
Other Land Transport Accidents 1,492 1.5%
Complications of Med/Surg Care 3,059 3.1%
Accidental Discharge of Firearms 776 0.8%
 
royal_archer said:
Another alternative is that you would not need to have a license to have a gun or a single license to own or opperate a dangerous implement.

22’s and .17 HMRs were not designed as weapons.

Cause of Death/Age Range All Ages
Total Number of Deaths 97,900 100%
Motor Vehicle 43,354 44.3%
Unspecified nontransport accid’ts 17,437 17.8%
Falls 13,322 13.6%
Poisoning and Noxious Subst’s 12,757 13.0%
Drowning 3,842 3.9%
Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames 3,377 3.4%
Other Land Transport Accidents 1,492 1.5%
Complications of Med/Surg Care 3,059 3.1%
Accidental Discharge of Firearms 776 0.8%
Click to expand...
Lets not forget this:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the latest figures for deliberate homicides/injuries involving discharge of firearms are: 75,684 (2000 figures) and suicides 16,907 (2004 figures). *information taken from wikipedia
 
gamewell45 said:
Lets not forget this:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the latest figures for deliberate homicides/injuries involving discharge of firearms are: 75,684 (2000 figures) and suicides 16,907 (2004 figures). *information taken from wikipedia
Click to expand...
Does that include bruised shoulders from an afternoon down at the skeet range?

NONE, not a single one of those were fatal. According to the CDC.
I see that 21,187 of those injuries were from BBs. and 862 appear to be Legal intervention.
 
Newbie2 said:
Well, to clarify, I think my objection has more to do with the campus setting (parties in dorms, stress levels in general and especially at exam times, etc.) and maturity of the individual than the academic or non-academic status of the individual.

And that would be a problem, wouldn’t it? Identifying who is mature (responsible) enough and who isn’t. Very big problem. Joe college student, very bright, upright student, etc. has trouble in a required class. He didn’t get the “A” that he’s used to. Distraught student + firearm has potential for a real problem.

However, not any more so that the 20 year old dude, living on his own who loses his job and has no real prospects. I’m just so much more familiar with the campus/academic setting and want to be careful that nobody uses intellectual capacity as a benchmark for who would get to carry and who would not.

Great discussion. 👍
Click to expand...
An adult is and adult. We went way off track when we decided that the drinking age should be 21. It is contradictory, if one turns 18 and is considered an adult there should be no law that implies the individual is not as mature as other adults in a certain situation.
There are stresses at every age, anywhere. One cannot deem that just because you are on a college campus you are incapable of protecting yourself.
 
royal_archer said:
Does that include bruised shoulders from an afternoon down at the skeet range?

NONE, not a single one of those were fatal. According to the CDC.
I see that 21,187 of those injuries were from BBs. and 862 appear to be Legal intervention.
Click to expand...
No, its strictly involving guns used in crimes or suicide.
 
gamewell45 said:
I believe its quite relevant; here’s why; using your analogy, if it were irrelevant, they you’d need a license to be able to own a baseball bat, butter knife, chop sticks, pen or pencil, etc. These and other items are designed for other purposes as opposed to guns.

Motor vehicles are designed with the sole purpose to transport people and goods, not as weapons although almost anything could be declared a weapon based on how you use it.

Guns are solely designed as weapons; there’s no other way to get around it.

Just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Fun fact- bows, arrows, hunting knives, throwing knives, crossbows, swords, maces, (insert rest the medieval arsenal here) require no permits.
 
If someone would be so kind as to look at the data carefully, they might come to a different conclusion. I notice that libs tend to spin and bend the truth.

A few years back, libs were saying that thousands of children were dying from gunshots and it turned out they were including gang-bangers and drug dealers UP TO THE AGE OF 25 as children.

So, let’s dissect the numbers.
 
fultonfish said:
If someone would be so kind as to look at the data carefully, they might come to a different conclusion. I notice that libs tend to spin and bend the truth.

A few years back, libs were saying that thousands of children were dying from gunshots and it turned out they were including gang-bangers and drug dealers UP TO THE AGE OF 25 as children.

So, let’s dissect the numbers.
Click to expand...
They also like to include injuries and non weapon “fire arms”, and incidents not related to the projectile in the mix in order to artificially inflate the numbers. At the asame time the tend to down play the deaths and injuries related to other common household items like stairs, bathtubs, cars bikes and pools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top