Guns

[mister dog]

Voted strict control here (which wouldn't surprise the folk that have been reading up in the popcorn thread).

Why you ask?:

Because they are lethal in the wrong hands

 

[phonyk]

Technically they're lethal in the right hands too

 

[FoolKiller]

It's almost too funny to take seriously.

 

[mister dog]

Technically they're lethal in the right hands too

Indeed, let's just conclude a bit 'too lethal' in general and in anyone's hands, so i prefer not be around them unless it's absolutely necessary (general crisis/ doomsday situations which hopefully will never occur).

 

[phonyk]

I think it's not really a question of legality or otherwise, but how that legality is framed. The problem really is that when you allow a person to own a weapon for self defense (as opposed to sport or hunting), there comes with that an automatic implication that it also allows the owner of the weapon to kill another person under certain circumstances. I don't think it's something we necessarily feel to such an extent in places where guns are more tightly controlled. And it seems a logical step from that, that the more relaxed the rules on gun ownership, the greater the sense of entitlement to end another person's life. I appreciate this is a generalisation and certainly doesn't apply to all gun owners, but I would say that at least the majority must have bought a gun feeling like they would be prepared to use it. So if the rules around when it is and isn't acceptable to kill a person are ambiguous and open to interpretation (as they have to be if they are going to be at all applicable to real life situations) then you are always opening up the possibility that a number of people will make a poor judgement call on whether or not it is necessary/justifiable to shoot someone.

Lapses of judgement rarely have more serious consequences than those which occur where guns are involved.

 

[BobK]

Lapses of judgement rarely have more serious consequences than those which occur where guns are involved.

Aside from corporate boardrooms and government centers, of course.

As long as the bad guys have weapons I'm all in favor of the good guys having the same or better. And there will always be bad guys with weapons.

Unfortunately, mistakes will be made. Yes this is regrettable and we should do what we can to minimize is. But this isn't reason enough to take all the weapons away from the good guys.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Indeed, let's just conclude a bit 'too lethal' in general and in anyone's hands, so i prefer not be around them unless it's absolutely necessary (general crisis/ doomsday situations which hopefully will never occur).

I will never understand that amount of fear from a inanimate object.

 

[phonyk]

As long as the bad guys have weapons I'm all in favor of the good guys having the same or better. And there will always be bad guys with weapons.

Unfortunately, mistakes will be made. Yes this is regrettable and we should do what we can to minimize is. But this isn't reason enough to take all the weapons away from the good guys.

See this I think is part of the problem. We're not talking about a Die Hard film here, we're talking about real life. There are no bad guys or good guys, just guys going through their lives and doing the things that make sense to them. The guy who killed someone in a cinema because he was texting and throwing popcorn was an ex police officer - one of the good guys. Human beings don't fall into such neat and easy categories; you can't say that someone, anyone, will categorically never make a mistake with their gun and end up killing someone. The difference between bad and good is simply a matter of clarity of judgement, and humans have proven countless times that they make mistakes. And of course, pretty much every gun which ends up in the hands of a de facto bad guy, will be in circulation in the first place because it was bought legitimately by a 'good guy'. If you accept that guns are a necessary part of society, then you have to accept that it's inevitable that infrastructure which causes guns to fall into the hands of people who would use them to attack society.

Don't get me wrong, 'm generally in favour of gun ownership, but I don't like simplistic black and white arguments about good and evil, because they're grounded in fiction, and you're talking about decisions which take place in real life. Of course when you ask the question whether or not guns should be legal, you have to look at where the country is currently. In the US, if you scrapped the second amendment and abolished all legal gun ownership, it would be an absolute catastrophe - there are already millions of guns in circulation so all you would do is take them out of the hands of honest people, whereas the massive number which are in circulation illegally would remain. If you were designing a new country however, sim-city style, and deciding whether or not guns should be legal, I would probably sit on the side of non-ownership.

 

[Imari]

See this I think is part of the problem. We're not talking about a Die Hard film here, we're talking about real life. There are no bad guys or good guys, just guys going through their lives and doing the things that make sense to them. The guy who killed someone in a cinema because he was texting and throwing popcorn was an ex police officer - one of the good guys. Human beings don't fall into such neat and easy categories; you can't say that someone, anyone, will categorically never make a mistake with their gun and end up killing someone. The difference between bad and good is simply a matter of clarity of judgement, and humans have proven countless times that they make mistakes. And of course, pretty much every gun which ends up in the hands of a de facto bad guy, will be in circulation in the first place because it was bought legitimately by a 'good guy'. If you accept that guns are a necessary part of society, then you have to accept that it's inevitable that infrastructure which causes guns to fall into the hands of people who would use them to attack society.

Don't get me wrong, 'm generally in favour of gun ownership, but I don't like simplistic black and white arguments about good and evil, because they're grounded in fiction, and you're talking about decisions which take place in real life. Of course when you ask the question whether or not guns should be legal, you have to look at where the country is currently. In the US, if you scrapped the second amendment and abolished all legal gun ownership, it would be an absolute catastrophe - there are already millions of guns in circulation so all you would do is take them out of the hands of honest people, whereas the massive number which are in circulation illegally would remain. If you were designing a new country however, sim-city style, and deciding whether or not guns should be legal, I would probably sit on the side of non-ownership.

Would it be helpful if instead of using the terms good and bad, we talked about people who use guns correctly and people who misuse them?

 

[phonyk]

No, because the point is that in a lot of cases they are one and the same. Or at the very least, that those who misuse guns are able to access guns because they were initially purchased by people who use them correctly.

 

[Imari]

No, because the point is that in a lot of cases they are one and the same. Or at the very least, that those who misuse guns are able to access guns because they were initially purchased by people who use them correctly.

Do you think that with no legal gun purchasers, illegal gun owners would be unable to access guns?

 

[phonyk]

No. I think they would find it a lot harder to get hold of a gun though. I don't think that's a particular fanciful assumption. And it still doesn't address the fact that people who own guns legally, and who may have proven to be responsible gun owners for many years, may suddenly misuse their gun in a moment of strong emotion.

 

[Zenith]

There are over 2000 posts in this thread. Hundreds of them address the questions that have been raised in the past couple of pages.

 

[Imari]

And it still doesn't address the fact that people who own guns legally, and who may have proven to be responsible gun owners for many years, may suddenly misuse their gun in a moment of strong emotion.

But that's true of so many objects that it's not funny. The first one that springs to mind is cars. Both a car and a gun are potentially extremely deadly weapons when misused. What's the difference?

 

[phonyk]

But that's true of so many objects that it's not funny. The first one that springs to mind is cars. Both a car and a gun are potentially extremely deadly weapons when misused. What's the difference?

I wish I had the time right now to give you a proper response, even though I suspect I'd be going over point already discussed at length in the thread. But I guess it can be boiled down to this - while a car can surely be a deadly weapon when misused, a gun can also be a deadly weapon when used correctly. Purchasing a car does not come with the implicit permission to use it as a deadly weapon under certain, somewhat ambiguous circumstances. A gun does. When you buy a gun for self/home defense, you are also buying the right to make a judgement call over whether or not it is ok to kill another person. And of course a gun is a far more efficient means of killing another person. Hence why soldiers are armed with guns, not with hammers or cars or any of the other things which are often compared with guns.

But as I point out above, I don't have a major issue with ownership. When I go to the States next month I'm looking forward to visiting a shooting range, and I've also fired bows and used pellet rifles for sport here in the UK. I just think that mass gun ownership is ethically problematic, and I can see that there is scope for a sort of bleeding effect whereby the right to end another person's life becomes something which is central to a person's worldview.

 

[Imari]

When you buy a gun for self/home defense, you are also buying the right to make a judgement call over whether or not it is ok to kill another person.

Frankly, if you're in a self-defense situation in which you would use a gun if you had it, you're making that judgement call regardless. And you'll use whatever tools are to hand.

A person that would make the wrong choice with a gun will also make the wrong choice with a knife, a baseball bat or a chair. If someone invades my house and I think I'm in serious physical danger, even if I'm wrong, I'm still going to use whatever's to hand to attempt to disable and/or kill the intruder. Is the intruder safer from a person with a gun compared to a person with a baseball bat? Iffy. They've still got someone coming at them with intent to kill, and that's pretty :censored:ing dangerous regardless of what they're armed with.

I don't see anything about owning a gun that entitles you to decisions that you wouldn't make anyway, in the sort of situations where you'd use a gun. It's simply an additional tool to use if you decide that force is necessary.

 

[phonyk]

Maybe, although I'd say I'd be a lot more hesitant to confront an intruder if I had to physically fight with them (even armed with whatever was to hand) than if I would point a gun at them and shoot them from across the room. How prevalent is the intruder scenario in the US? I can't say it's ever struck me as something which happens frequently enough here to justify having any kind of weapon to hand, but I don't know if it might be different where you are. Cynically I could suggest that a thriving home defense industry would have an interest in stirring up fear over just such a scenario, but that's by the by.

But yeah, for the most part I agree with you - it makes sense where there is a genuine danger of home intrusion where you or your family could be physically harmed, that you would own a weapon exclusively for use in that situation. Personally if I lived in a place where I could own a gun, I probably would do for that exact reason. But it would still be something I'd find quite uncomfortable, and I would never want to lose my inherent fear of guns, let it leads to me reflexively wanting to use the gun in situations other than that above. But definitely I have much less of an issue with owning a gun for home defense than I do with people carrying concealed handguns in public. For the simple reason that you encounter so many different situations outside of your home, over which you have no control, where in a moment of extreme emotion it would be entirely possible to reach for the gun and use it before I had time to consider the consequences.

Edit - apologies, you're in Melbourne not the US. Same question applies though I guess.

 

[Imari]

Home invasion is common enough in Australia, as is people getting beaten to death in drunken fist fights. Gun law is very strict here, probably equivalent to the UK roughly from what little I know.

Frankly, all the criminals here are armed anyway. I'd definitely support guns for home defense over here, and I'm of two minds on carry-type laws. I think ultimately it wouldn't be any worse than non-carry, but I strongly suspect that if you suddenly introduced firearms to a population that wasn't used to people carrying potentially lethal retaliation you'd see the (probably justified) homicide rate spike for a few years until the street brawlers got their act together and/or died out.

I'm not sure if it would be worth that spike, although hopefully the people you're losing are the street fighters and rapists.

 

[mister dog]

I will never understand that amount of fear from a inanimate object.

An inanimate object that is designed to kill.

 

[BobK]

See this I think is part of the problem. We're not talking about a Die Hard film here, we're talking about real life. There are no bad guys or good guys, just guys going through their lives and doing the things that make sense to them. The guy who killed someone in a cinema because he was texting and throwing popcorn was an ex police officer - one of the good guys. Human beings don't fall into such neat and easy categories; you can't say that someone, anyone, will categorically never make a mistake with their gun and end up killing someone. The difference between bad and good is simply a matter of clarity of judgement, and humans have proven countless times that they make mistakes. And of course, pretty much every gun which ends up in the hands of a de facto bad guy, will be in circulation in the first place because it was bought legitimately by a 'good guy'. If you accept that guns are a necessary part of society, then you have to accept that it's inevitable that infrastructure which causes guns to fall into the hands of people who would use them to attack society.

When I mention "good guys/bad guys" I'm talking about the guy who has a knife or gun in your face saying "your money or your life", not people throwing popcorn in a movie theater. The latter is what I was referring to when I said "Unfortunately, mistakes will be made". I'm not saying mistakes are okay; the ex-cop will likely be facing serious charges, and rightly so.

Maybe, although I'd say I'd be a lot more hesitant to confront an intruder if I had to physically fight with them (even armed with whatever was to hand) than if I would point a gun at them and shoot them from across the room.

That's precisely why I would prefer to have a gun available to me.

 

[Zenith]

An inanimate object that is designed to kill.

Just because you checked out of a thread the last time you tried to make this point doesn't mean you can use it again and it will be any less wrong.

 

[mister dog]

Just because you checked out of a thread the last time you tried to make this point doesn't mean you can use it again and it will be any less wrong.

Qué? Ok then; explain to me how guns are not designed to kill?

Or do you just feel like handing out another blow below the belt, regarding what I said in the popcorn thread?..

 

[Zenith]

Qué? Ok then; explain to me how guns are not designed to kill?

Or do you just feel like handing out another blow below the belt, regarding what I said in the popcorn thread?..

EDIT: My mistake. Third Reign made this point, not you. I apologize. I would still suggest you read that part of the thread to answer your question.

Short answer: A gun is as much designed to kill an automobile. Both can, both have, but neither are "designed to kill."

 

[mister dog]

EDIT: My mistake. Third Reign made this point, not you. I apologize. I would still suggest you read that part of the thread to answer your question.

Short answer: A gun is as much designed to kill an automobile. Both can, both have, but neither are "designed to kill."

No problem
Don't agree though, cars are designed to drive; guns are designed to kill or wound there is no way this can be denied.

 

[Lellep]

EDIT: My mistake. Third Reign made this point, not you. I apologize. I would still suggest you read that part of the thread to answer your question.

Short answer: A gun is as much designed to kill an automobile. Both can, both have, but neither are "designed to kill."

Please tell what guns were designed for, if not to kill ...

 

[Danoff]

Please tell what guns were designed for, if not to kill ...

Put holes in stuff.

 

[Zenith]

Please tell what guns were designed for, if not to kill ...

No problem
Don't agree though, cars are designed to drive; guns are designed to kill or wound there is no way this can be denied.

Start here.

Scroll down. Comprehend.

 

[mister dog]

Start here.

Scroll down. Comprehend.

You're absolutely right; Third Reign already explained it clearly enough so no need for me to repeat it again

 

[Exorcet]

guns are designed to kill or wound there is no way this can be denied.

I've never wielded a gun for this purpose or seen anyone personally use a gun for this purpose in the entirety of my life.

 

[Zenith]

You're absolutely right; Third Reign already explained it clearly enough so no need for me to repeat it again

My goal is not to convince you, my goal is to learn and to test my opinions. If my opinions are illogical I retract and reform them. That's your responsibility to yourself to be a critical thinker. If you're incapable of accepting that your views can be illogical then you might want to consider not posting since obviously the only person you need to discuss things with is yourself.

We get dozens of young users who are unwilling to listen, only wanting to speak and hear their opinions from other people. They don't tend to last long.