atinymonkey Posted February 23, 2004 Posted February 23, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :also: does that mean yer cool with me being a Gun Owner then? Acceptance and all that? Nope. Although I understand your reasoning behind why you would like guns to be legal, my disagreement is not a bigoted viewpoint. IMHO the possession of firearms is extremely antisocial, and legal acceptance of them would be severely detrimental to society as a whole. I also have used guns, and I've been trained in their use and also used them for sport. I just can't weigh the pro's of use in sport against the cons of their misapplication and accidental/purposeful application to cause harm/death to other people.
YT2095 Posted February 23, 2004 Posted February 23, 2004 fair point, and interesting that you also have experience, can you answer a few questions for me please? : did you ever consider missuse of the guns you used? would you ever use one for anything other than it`s intended purpose? do you consider yourself as being "anti-social" as a gun user in a legitimate sport? and finaly, did you ever have anything less than total respect for your gun(s) and it`s capabilities?
Sayonara Posted February 23, 2004 Posted February 23, 2004 I think that's probably a dead end, seeing as he's just stated that he has been there and still can't see how the pros outweigh the cons. You can't apply the argument atm was making in the homosexuality thread (about society accepting people as they are) to gun owners. His argument was about people who are unable to reasonably change what and who they are (regardless of whether or not they should). Gun owners aren't in that category. It would be a handy time saver, but unfortunately it's not a valid analogy.
atinymonkey Posted February 23, 2004 Posted February 23, 2004 YT2095 said in post # : fair point, and interesting that you also have experience, can you answer a few questions for me please? : did you ever consider missuse of the guns you used? As in using it to weed the garden, no. As in using it to harm another person, obviously yes. We all have an imagination, and like to pretend we are James Bond. would you ever use one for anything other than it`s intended purpose? Yes, of course. If someone attacked and murdered my family, I might shoot back. Dosen't give me the right to though. Having a gun does not make you a judge, jury and executioner. do you consider yourself as being "anti-social" as a gun user in a legitimate sport? Anti social. Big groups of people held protests, against clay pigion shooting and also hunting. They are part of society, and they objected to both the sports. My parcitipation in events is condemnable in itself. and finaly, did you ever have anything less than total respect for your gun(s) and it`s capabilities? I used it for golf once. Apart from that no, but I was aware of the fraility of the human condition and the ability to lose respect for the weapon.
YT2095 Posted February 23, 2004 Posted February 23, 2004 relinquishing your weapon was a wise idea in that case, and shows a level of responsibility at least. needless to say, you wouldn`t have got past the door at our gun club above once
atinymonkey Posted February 23, 2004 Posted February 23, 2004 I suspect that they wouldn't, no. I've never gone near a public gun club though, so I'll take your word for it.
-Demosthenes- Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 "Guns (as a concept) were designed to kill (well, cause severe damage, if you're taking them as evolving from cannon). Cars (as a concept) were designed to move people about faster than walking without the need for horses." Very first, guns were invented to help gather food and hunt. I think Well anyway, Just put gun education in public schools. That could at least help. :shrug: Better police force would be a lot of money, if the goveremnt had unlimited money there's a whole lot of things they could do. They could hire people to observe a firearm buyer and decide if they are able to own one safely. When it boils down to it (like soup ) We can: 1) Leave it alone, and do nothing 2) Spend gobs of money 3) Ban guns (which dosen't sound very practical) 4) Education 5) set off a bomb and kill everyone so we don't have this problem (sounds slightly less practical then #3 )
Sayonara Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Very first, guns were invented to help gather food and hunt. I think What? Well anyway, Just put gun education in public schools. That could at least help. :shrug: What? Better police force would be a lot of money, if the goveremnt had unlimited money there's a whole lot of things they could do. Yeah, and adding a whole new course into a national curriculum doesn't cost anything. If you looked at the links I posted earlier (not that you are the only person who didn't bother) you'd see that the ban on handguns in the UK has led to a reduction in armed policing, which we might reasonably expect to correlate with a reduciton in money expended on equipment, resource, and training. When it boils down to it (like soup ) We can:1) Leave it alone, and do nothing 2) Spend gobs of money 3) Ban guns (which dosen't sound very practical) 4) Education Doesn't (2) go hand-in-hand with all of the others? Spending money is something of a given. If you want to develop a plan of action in which money is a limiting factor, you're going to have to decide how much a single human life is worth. Good luck with that. 5) set off a bomb and kill everyone so we don't have this problem (sounds slightly less practical then #3 ) Oh be quiet.
atinymonkey Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # : Very first, guns were invented to help gather food and hunt. I think No, they were not. Quite simply, in the 14 century there was already a efficient farming community. The 'hunter gather' had disappeared at the start of the bronze age. That's a long time ago. The gun was developed, and produced, for exclusive use in the armed forces. It only came into public use late in development with rich landowners. The first gun developed primarily for hunting was the infamous 'punt gun' used on 12ft marsh punts to shoot large groups of wildfowl with one shot. Even the development of rapid shot pistols (Colt revolver) was developed for military application, to basically kill more native Americans. Each stage of gun development has been to make the armed forces more efficent at killing that the other. For over 50 years the British troops (from the napolionic wars) were feared simply because they could shoot 4 rounds a minute, with the French and Spanish only managing 2/3. Better police force would be a lot of money, if the goveremnt had unlimited money there's a whole lot of things they could do. Saving lives isn't worth an extra cent of tax per person per year? Gosh. When it boils down to it (like soup ) We can: We? Us? Only the US is left playing cowboys and indians. The rest of us grew up, invested in police and banned guns. Sorry, the rest of the world dosen't have the problem.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # :Saving lives isn't worth an extra cent of tax per person per year? Gosh. Even in the US, that's hardly anything. You know how much the government spends... We? Us? Only the US is left playing cowboys and indians. The rest of us grew up, invested in police and banned guns. Sorry, the rest of the world dosen't have the problem. BZZZT! Wrong! Do you know how many countries have problems with gun-waving criminals? Oh, and that's offensive, too.
-Demosthenes- Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 I'm tried of you American Bashing Brits! We are the only truly free country in the world. The rest of the world does have that problem, and if I have to give a little safety up to keep my freedom, THEN SO BE IT! My stance has changed!
atinymonkey Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #236 : Even in the US, that's hardly anything. You know how much the government spends... BZZZT! Wrong! Do you know how many countries have problems with gun-waving criminals? Oh, and that's offensive, too. It's not offensive, there is no other western country with a populace that is allowed to arm themselves unilaterally. It's quite simple really. The fact that gun's exisit in other countrys is neither here nor there. I was commenting on Demosthenes points, which quite clearly state that banning guns is not an option. It quite clearly has been adopted by all western states, which makes the points a bit 'pointless'. Ha. -Demosthenes- said in post #237 :I'm tried of you American Bashing Brits! We are the only truly free country in the world. The rest of the world does have that problem, and if I have to give a little safety up to keep my freedom, THEN SO BE IT! My stance has changed! Now, you are only as free as your system of government. Which, I may point out, is a carbon copy of the British government. Britain was the first country in human history to implement a democratic regime, the court system and the entire system of justice is also copied directly from the UK. To say America is ‘more free’ is like saying a fax is ‘more accurate’ than the original document. Ruling by the gun does not make a population free; it propagates a society based on fear and hate. If you have to own a gun to protect yourself from your fellow countrymen, you succeed in limiting your own civil liberties. If you can't appreciate that, then your horizons will never expand beyond inheritly selfish notions. The 'Brits' have ample reason for commenting on the American institutions, because the US attempt to emulate our own. The fact that I've drunk whisky that is older than the United States, just adds to the perception of a nation that is too young to have learnt the lessons of history. If you don't want residents of the United Kingdom to comment on your socioeconomic structure, go invent your own. Don't expect us not to baulk when you lecture us on our own system of justice. I thank you. Long live the Queen.
Sayonara Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # : if I have to give a little safety up to keep my freedom, THEN SO BE IT! You're quite happy to be shot in the face by a raving lunatic then?
-Demosthenes- Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 I really don't mean to slam Brtian, I really don't. It really stings to hear things like that from you. We're allies. If someone attcked England the US would be the first to smash the crap out of the nation that attacked. And I'm sure it works both ways too. Sorry. Anyway, if you think about it you have to give up rights to get more freedom and visa versa. I'm leaning more towards freedom, that's all.
Glider Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 living in so much fear that people feel their only option is to own firearms to protect themselves agains the people around them. Is that freedom?
Sayonara Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post # :Anyway, if you think about it you have to give up rights to get more freedom and visa versa. I'm leaning more towards freedom, that's all. Well, I don't own a gun. I don't particularly want to own a gun, and I certainly don't need to. I don't think I am any less "free" than you are, in fact I would say I am a couple of shades more free (Can you say "Patriot Act"?) to be perfectly honest. So I'm afraid I don't see your point. As Glider says, and atm alludes to; if you feel you need to have a gun in order to defend yourself from the people around you, you cannot possibly seriously think you are more free than people who require no such assurance? Compare the murder rates of the USA against any other major country with similar population distribution and socio-economic status. I think you'd have a job proving that "more people with guns means fewer people getting murdered". ( ^ I'm not talking about "more guns means more death by the gun" there, I'm talking about the fact that countries without a gun in every other home don't tend to descend into bloodbaths of homicide, so where did this idea/excuse of "self defence" come from?)
YT2095 Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 isn`t it also true that in some states the owning of a gun is required? (I think that sux!) where`s the "freedom in that? in the UK, I`m quite confident that our law enforcment officers are good enough for me to not event to have to THINK about owning or carrying a gun, much less make it a "requirement"! I own guns for my sport, that is the ONLY thing I NEED them for. if ever I decide to sell up and do another sport, I would do just just that, as I would have no need to own them anymore, but the key word is CHOICE, I would CHOOSE to do this, making me quite free if david Blunket were to anounce 2moro that all uk citizens had to own a gun, that would scare the hell outa me! I`de be one of the 1`st out of this country!
-Demosthenes- Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 It's not required anywhere to own a gun, not in the states! I don't get your problems with guns, there are plenty of other wepons and items that poeple can use for that kinda stuff. There are plenty of licences and waiting periods to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Guys get picked up soon enough for having a gun when they are not supposed to.
mooeypoo Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 When the means to the end are easy to obtain, the crime rises. That's my opinion. Those who don't NEED guns (most of the population) shouldn't have guns. True, people kill people -- but guns also kill people. We should treat both problems seperately, and avoiding the misuse of guns (as someone who owned a gun and was trained on a few kinds of guns, I can say that with the fullest confidence and belief-) is done by NOT giving a gun to those who don't really NEED one. those are my two cents. ~moo
-Demosthenes- Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 Heres a list of things that can kill people and should be out lawed: Cars Blenders (very messy) knives Pencils anything flamable Scisers anything that can be used to harm another person All people will wear padding on their hands at all times to prevent them from hurting others. No one can have a pet bigger than 8 inches tall. No one may run faster than 2 mph. Thank you.
atinymonkey Posted February 25, 2004 Posted February 25, 2004 Your not really helping win your case here. None of those objects was developed with efficent murder in mind. Before you mock, just think for a moment about the history of the country mooeypoo resides in.
iglak Posted February 26, 2004 Posted February 26, 2004 Ruling by the gun does not make a population free; it propagates a society based on fear and hate. If you have to own a gun to protect yourself from your fellow countrymen, you succeed in limiting your own civil liberties. If you can't appreciate that, then your horizons will never expand beyond inheritly selfish notions. living in so much fear that people feel their only option is to own firearms to protect themselves agains the people around them.Is that freedom? and avoiding the misuse of guns (as someone who owned a gun and was trained on a few kinds of guns, I can say that with the fullest confidence and belief-) is done by NOT giving a gun to those who don't really NEED one. precicely what i have been saying step 1) stop fear do this by educating everyone (just like sex ed. [which also needs to be made better]) step 2) that's it... you are done. nothing left. it's REALLY simple. or we could take that alternative route: step 1) better police force this will cause MORE fear, and will only cut down on gun deaths by a little bit. step 2) outlaw guns this will cause even more fear because the average citizen won't have acess to easy defense, while any criminals can just smuggle some guns in, probably pretty easily too. step 3) repeat steps 1 and 2 until people stop wanting guns yeah... like that would ever happen :haha: look at ANYTHING (fists, pencils, cars, drugs, sex, guns, tea cups, discrimination, electricity, new theories, new inventions, any concievable weapon, pets, jobs, friends, literally anything) and tell me that it can't be misused. how do we keep ourselves from misusing them all? EDUCATION ignorance is bliss (banning guns), knowlege is hell (see: U.S.), understanding is heaven (EDUCATION [on proper use and what misuse is, must not teach us how to be ignorant or misunderstanding]) P.S. hey, if you want to go for ignorance, here are the rules: all tools must be perfect shperes, and can't have any effect whatsoever on anything within a 10 foot radius of any life form. all muscles (not including the brain) must atrophy to the point that they cannot be used (at all). and all lifeforms must stay at least 10 feet away from eachother. and no violent thoughts (ever). you know what? just cause the universe to collapse and die, then nothing could ever hurt you. i don't know about you, but i'd even prefer knowlege without understanding to that existance
Sayonara Posted February 26, 2004 Posted February 26, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post #244 :It's not required anywhere to own a gun, not in the states! -Demosthenes- said in post #246 :Heres a list of things that can kill people and should be out lawed: If you aren't going to bother reading the thread, don't post to it.
Lance Posted February 26, 2004 Posted February 26, 2004 iglak said in post #248 : precicely what i have been saying step 1) stop fear do this by educating everyone (just like sex ed. [which also needs to be made better]) step 2) that's it... you are done. nothing left. it's REALLY simple. Sex Ed? Your joking right? Sex Ed solves nothing. What are you going to educate people on? Guns only hurt sometimes? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I’m sure that’s really going to make people feel better. Educating people would only make people more scared. Look at sex Ed, As soon as they started doing that what do you think everybody started doing? It just gave people ideas. If you started educating people on how dangerous guns are do you really think that’s going to make people less afraid?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 26, 2004 Posted February 26, 2004 -Demosthenes- said in post #237 :I'm tried of you American Bashing Brits! We are the only truly free country in the world. The rest of the world does have that problem, and if I have to give a little safety up to keep my freedom, THEN SO BE IT! My stance has changed! I say, good for you! atinymonkey said in post #238 :It's not offensive, there is no other western country with a populace that is allowed to arm themselves unilaterally. It's quite simple really. The fact that gun's exisit in other countrys is neither here nor there... Ha. You're not me. You don't know what's offensive. Have you checked with all 253 countries on that? A lot allow guns. Now, you are only as free as your system of government. Which, I may point out, is a carbon copy of the British government. Britain was the first country in human history to implement a democratic regime, the court system and the entire system of justice is also copied directly from the UK. To say America is ‘more free’ is like saying a fax is ‘more accurate’ than the original document. I thank the Baron Montesqieu for the system of government, but SORRY, they are NOT the same. There's the Queen, parliament, and stuff, and the US is different. We don't have silly "changing of the guard" ceremonies. Sayonara³ said in post #239 : You're quite happy to be shot in the face by a raving lunatic then? Not me, but the chances of that are so small I'd probably be hit by lightning, or win the lottery, or have a car crash, before that.
Recommended Posts