Guns

[Beeker1972]

Slick Willy did his 2 terms ... Hillary is going to try in 2016, but I think the people are getting tired of the Nanny States of America ...

...as is what happens when you preside over a bubble economy. You seem to have not been paying attention for the last... decade.

 

[LeMansAid]

So, is there a line to be drawn? We have:

No

Yes

No

Fair?

Better watch out Danoff, they might kick you out of the Freedom & Liberty Club with that kind of commie attitude.

I do appreciate the idealism, but it reminds me of when political correctness stops a certain demographic getting the help they need. ie. Because ideally we don't what to have to say "Aboriginals have problems with booze", or "the poor make bad nutritional choices" or some such, but sometimes you have to hurt to help. It could be that typecasting despite the possibly inherent humiliation or outrage, could be bring about the best results. In the guns situation, a few people might need to miss out on their dream weapon for the greater good. Not necessarily for the physical machinations, but maybe moreso for the ongoing attitude. Just standing atop a mountain shouting a slogan that doesn't consider reality but only ideals, will leave oneself open to blindness to what is actually going on.

Pretty sure that you are smart guys though, and have respect for you all. I might be finding it difficult to reconcile with the thought processes due be being born into a country that has a distinctly alternate prevailing attitude. Sometimes it seriously looks like utter madness to me, and I don't mean to be offensive with that. Viva la difference eh?

 

[Kent]

Gun crime in the US has gone down for many years now.
Liberal demand for outlawing guns has gone up while media attention to gun crimes has gone up.

A corrupt UN organization? Haha! Good one! I'm sure you know a lot about corrupted organizations. They prolly all are; at the very moment they are based outside United States, or not controlled by them, right? 💡

Seriously, the UN will put the Sudan on the human rights council.

 

[Famine]

So, is there a line to be drawn? We have:

Fair?

Not if you read the answers given. All of which were on the line of:

Plutonium: Yes, so long as you can prevent it from breaching the rights of other people (proper containment, for example), since it causes harm simply by existing - through radioactive decay - which guns, incidentally, don't.
Nuclear weapons: In general no, as you cannot use one in any fashion that does not breach the rights of other people.

I'd note that the latter condition excludes people who are simply interested in and wish to collect nuclear weapons with no intent to use them - again, so long as they use proper containment to prevent harm from coming to other people it shouldn't be considered that much of a problem.


Oddly, that's also the prevailing mindset of the planet - only it draws the line at "signatory governments", not at "private individuals".

 

[Imari]

Oddly, the plutonium/atomic weapons example was only an example of the extreme end of the scale. Anyone who considers there to be reason to own atomic weapons will be OK with just about anything, so there's little discussion to be had there.

I was interested in whether people who considered atomic weapons unsuitable for private ownership would elaborate on where they would draw the line. I stated my position, the current generation of powerful handheld weapons (is there a better terms for weapons that can be used by a single person without mounting them on something?) are pushing the line into "unnecessarily powerful" territory.

Oddly then, I was painted as a fear-monger trying to take away people's guns. Go figure.


The ownership as a collector thing is a diversionary tactic, I'm afraid. There's reason to own pretty much everything in a disabled form as a collector and pretty much no rational reason to disallow it. The discussion is only somewhat interesting if you're owning functional versions of weapons with intention to use them in the right situation. I assumed people would see that, but I'm stating it explicitly now.

 

[Famine]

Oddly, the plutonium/atomic weapons example was only an example of the extreme end of the scale. Anyone who considers there to be reason to own atomic weapons will be OK with just about anything, so there's little discussion to be had there.

There's clearly a reason, or our governments wouldn't own them.

Admittedly yours doesn't (though it did allow other governments to test theirs in their territory - making Australia the only independent nation other than Japan to be nuked by other countries), but mine does.

I was interested in whether people who considered atomic weapons unsuitable for private ownership would elaborate on where they would draw the line. I stated my position, the current generation of powerful handheld weapons (is there a better terms for weapons that can be used by a single person without mounting them on something?) are pushing the line into "unnecessarily powerful" territory.

I can't really say that anything that is not inherently harmful should be prohibited from private ownership - and that even things that are inherently harmful shouldn't either so long as appropriate safety precautions are taken. After all, we permit private companies exactly that with nuclear fuel, nuclear waste and chemical and biological agents.

I might not be especially fond of the fact my next door neighbour has a phial of anthrax, but then I'm not especially fond of the fact that I live within the destructive blast radius of a major, privately-owned petrochemical site* - and that radius includes a nuclear power station (and something much, much worse).

The ownership as a collector thing is a diversionary tactic, I'm afraid. There's reason to own pretty much everything in a disabled form as a collector and pretty much no rational reason to disallow it. The discussion is only somewhat interesting if you're owning functional versions of weapons with intention to use them in the right situation. I assumed people would see that, but I'm stating it explicitly now.

There are all sorts of reasons for owning things and, frankly, it's no-one else's business what your reasons are. All we should be concerned about is whether it's possible to possess the item without causing rights violations. If it's not, we should be concerned about whether it's possible to possess the item with appropriate safety measures without causing rights violations and include those safety measures in licensing for that item. This may make it cost-prohibitive for almost all private citizens in the case of nuclear, chemical or biological items, but then that's the case already - this man "owns" most of the uranium in Australia, for example.

*This is a conservative estimate - and the reason that people who work there live about ten miles further away from it than I do.

 

[Imari]

There's clearly a reason, or our governments wouldn't own them.

And what is the purpose of those? To blow up cities and other large installations. Seems like something a private individual could reasonably use.

I can't really say that anything that is not inherently harmful should be prohibited from private ownership - and that even things that are inherently harmful shouldn't either so long as appropriate safety precautions are taken. After all, we permit private companies exactly that with nuclear fuel, nuclear waste and chemical and biological agents.

Certainly, and you could probably own those privately if you could take the same safety precautions as the appropriate companies.

I might not be especially fond of the fact my next door neighbour has a phial of anthrax, but then I'm not especially fond of the fact that I live within the destructive blast radius of a major, privately-owned petrochemical site* - and that radius includes a nuclear power station (and something much, much worse).

Both of these things have positive and negative attributes. The petrochemical site may blow up taking you, the nuclear power station and most of Britain with it. On the other hand, it produces useful chemicals.

The next door neighbour may drop his anthrax into your mailbox. On the other hand, he may be happy to sit there holding his vial of anthrax.

The anthrax scenario doesn't sound like a terribly good tradeoff to me. If he's a researcher or something and conceivably something of value might be produced then cool, or whatever else positive you can think of that might offset the inherent risk. But just for random dude to have it because he wants some to put on his mantlepiece...nah.

There are all sorts of reasons for owning things and, frankly, it's no-one else's business what your reasons are. All we should be concerned about is whether it's possible to possess the item without causing rights violations. If it's not, we should be concerned about whether it's possible to possess the item with appropriate safety measures without causing rights violations and include those safety measures in licensing for that item.

I think it's totally relevant what the reasons are, as it allows a value judgement of the potential benefits versus the potential harm. And there's a major difference in having a disabled weapon as a museum piece to having an active weapon as a personal defense.

But fine, if you want to play it that way. At what point do you have to start including "safety measures"? Handguns? Automatic weapons? Explosives? Tanks?

Pretty much every weapon that's not innately toxic can be owned without violating anyone's rights, just don't touch it. But that's a trivial argument, as I keep pointing out. There's no contest there, if a weapon isn't being used it's not dangerous. But if it's not being used, then it can also be subjected to severe safety restrictions or deweaponised without damaging it's functionality for the owner.

But if you assume that the point is to put the weapon to use as a weapon, the non-trivial situation, then what? How much power is acceptable for a functional weapon in the hands of a private citizen?

 

[Exorcet]

Better watch out Danoff, they might kick you out of the Freedom & Liberty Club with that kind of commie attitude.

We agree completely.

So my only concern with publicly available nuclear weapons would be regulations determining how they are handled and issued.

If you want an atomic weapon, you need at least the ability to use it without violating the rights of the innocent.

Danoff went beyond ownership to use. You obviously can't use a nuclear weapon when there are people within miles of you. You can can't use one when there are people within with the radius of the Earth of you because the radiation is going to travel.

Maybe you could detonate them in space. There's probably a way to safely regulate nuclear weapon use, which like all other things can serve the purpose of either research or entertainment, but I couldn't sit here right now and work out a complete set of detailed rules. The short version is what Danoff wrote.

In the guns situation, a few people might need to miss out on their dream weapon for the greater good.

What is the greater good? The criminal that wasn't concerned with law in the first place now needs to break one more law? If you're proposing that guns need to go, you also need to get rid of the guns. If they weren't already in the US, that would be a lot simpler. It would also help if they weren't anywhere else. Once they're banned in the US, all the more reason to have them shipped here for illegal use.

The problem is the person wanting to use the gun to commit a crime.

Pretty sure that you are smart guys though, and have respect for you all. I might be finding it difficult to reconcile with the thought processes due be being born into a country that has a distinctly alternate prevailing attitude. Sometimes it seriously looks like utter madness to me, and I don't mean to be offensive with that. Viva la difference eh?

For what it's worth, I was brought up with "guns are bad". My stance isn't a cultural one, its goes against what other people around me thought. Even today I'd probably find it harder to find gun supporters in the US than opponents if I just asked people around me. It came up at work actually and I was the only one who didn't default to saying guns must go.

Oddly, the plutonium/atomic weapons example was only an example of the extreme end of the scale. Anyone who considers there to be reason to own atomic weapons will be OK with just about anything, so there's little discussion to be had there.

There are two reasons for ownership that apply to everything. They are research and entertainment. Nuclear weapons serve a purpose beyond this and are necessary at the current time since they're probably the best nuclear weapon deterrent. We usually let the military handle them though.

All that matters, no matter what the item in question, is that people's rights are not infringed. Why should I be concerned if a nuclear weapon owner wanted to detonate a warhead in the Andromeda central black hole where no one would even notice?

You brought up before the idea that only harm could be done past a certain point of destructive power. I don't think any human weapons can reach that point. One that destroyed the universe would, but even in that case it would need to be triggered.

I was interested in whether people who considered atomic weapons unsuitable for private ownership would elaborate on where they would draw the line. I stated my position, the current generation of powerful handheld weapons (is there a better terms for weapons that can be used by a single person without mounting them on something?) are pushing the line into "unnecessarily powerful" territory.

They might be unnecessarily powerful, but that doesn't mean people can't own them.

The ownership as a collector thing is a diversionary tactic, I'm afraid. There's reason to own pretty much everything in a disabled form as a collector and pretty much no rational reason to disallow it. The discussion is only somewhat interesting if you're owning functional versions of weapons with intention to use them in the right situation. I assumed people would see that, but I'm stating it explicitly now.

Everything I said applies to working weapons. Working or not the same logic applies. By right situation, do you mean self defense? That's difficult with some weapons.

And what is the purpose of those? To blow up cities and other large installations. Seems like something a private individual could reasonably use.

Deterrence, or any use requiring nuclear levels of force (asteroid moving?)

The anthrax scenario doesn't sound like a terribly good tradeoff to me.

There doesn't have to be a tradeoff.

But just for random dude to have it because he wants some to put on his mantlepiece...

This is fine as long as his mantle place is practically indestructible.

But fine, if you want to play it that way. At what point do you have to start including "safety measures"? Handguns? Automatic weapons? Explosives? Tanks?

I can't answer that here conclusively here. Guns already have safety measures though. It depends on the weapon and its capabilities. A gun won't blow a up a city by use, nor does it make a good terror target for someone to raid and use once or twice. A hypothetical personal nuke is the opposite. It must be incapable of detonating in a city at the very least.

Though you're arguing that you might want to nuke a city/nation right (although nuclear weapons aren't limited to this)? The only situation where this might make sense is if a large nuclear force is trying to attack you. Owning a nuclear warhead is fine, but it doesn't mean you can use it as if it were a gun. It's not a gun.

Pretty much every weapon that's not innately toxic can be owned without violating anyone's rights, just don't touch it. But that's a trivial argument, as I keep pointing out. There's no contest there, if a weapon isn't being used it's not dangerous.[/quote]
It can be dangerous without being used. An armed collector piece atomic weapons is just as capable as destroying a city as any other warhead.

But if you assume that the point is to put the weapon to use as a weapon, the non-trivial situation, then what? How much power is acceptable for a functional weapon in the hands of a private citizen?

Any amount so long as others rights aren't violated. This doesn't mean that if we could shrink nuclear missiles to fit into gun magazine, that you could pull one out and shoot someone breaking into your house with it. Not to mention what the acquisition process might be like. There are going to be very different rules for use for very different weapons.

 

[Famine]

And what is the purpose of those? To blow up cities and other large installations. Seems like something a private individual could reasonably use.

Doesn't seem like a reasonable thing for a government to use either - blowing up a city?

Remember what a government is supposed to be - and be for. It's a body for protecting the rights of its citizens through might. I can't immediately think of any situation that blowing up a city - full of civilians - would facilitate the protection of rights. Even their use in WW2 to minimise casualties on both sides that a conventional war would have cost is questionable, though they have saved lives since too, by showing the world the brutal horror of nuclear weapons.

Certainly, and you could probably own those privately if you could take the same safety precautions as the appropriate companies.

Which is as it should be. Though I've not checked into the legality of owning nuclear, biological or chemical agents recently, it would surprise me greatly to find out that a well-resourced private citizen could own them even with the appropriate safeguards.

Both of these things have positive and negative attributes. The petrochemical site may blow up taking you, the nuclear power station and most of Britain with it. On the other hand, it produces useful chemicals.

As could I if private citizens could own them.

The next door neighbour may drop his anthrax into your mailbox. On the other hand, he may be happy to sit there holding his vial of anthrax.

The anthrax scenario doesn't sound like a terribly good tradeoff to me. If he's a researcher or something and conceivably something of value might be produced then cool, or whatever else positive you can think of that might offset the inherent risk. But just for random dude to have it because he wants some to put on his mantlepiece...nah.

The net result is the same for me whether he's a collector or researcher. In the case of a safety failure the net result is the same for me whether he's either of those or a terrorist.

I think it's totally relevant what the reasons are, as it allows a value judgement of the potential benefits versus the potential harm.

Then we should look forward to being asked "Why?" for every purchase we make of any kind. Why do you want a Porsche instead of a Volkswagen? Why do you want this knife? Why do you want full sugar Coke not Coke Zero?

It's no-one's business what someone wants something - anything - for. It only becomes our business when they use it and someone else's rights are violated in the process.

And there's a major difference in having a disabled weapon as a museum piece to having an active weapon as a personal defense.

For almost the entire lifespan of the weapon - and indeed through several lifespans of its owners and the entire lifespan of the weapon in the majority of cases - there is no functional difference whatsoever.

The number of guns in the hands of private citizens that are ever fired at a non-range target is vanishingly small - if every gun homicide* in the USA was committed by a different firearm (it's not) and no more firearms were allowed into circulation, each gun would kill once in twenty seven thousand years.

But fine, if you want to play it that way. At what point do you have to start including "safety measures"? Handguns? Automatic weapons? Explosives? Tanks?

The line is where Danoff drew it - at the point it becomes impractical to use the weapon in a situation to neutralise a single threat without violating others' rights. You'd be amazed at the level of power you can get to before this, situation dependent, becomes an issue.

Remember, if the government can own one, there's no reason it should prevent you from owning one. The government's job is to protect your rights from those who would threaten it - and the best frontline for this is you.

Pretty much every weapon that's not innately toxic can be owned without violating anyone's rights, just don't touch it. But that's a trivial argument, as I keep pointing out. There's no contest there, if a weapon isn't being used it's not dangerous.

Actually it's far from trivial. I mean, it's the entire point ignored by the "guns are dangerous" lobby.

And, quite often, by the Daily Mail who refer to cars by their maximum rated speed because, as we all know, it's irresponsible to make a 200mph car much more than it is to drive at 40mph in a Hyundai i10 past a school while there's kids crossing the road.

But if it's not being used, then it can also be subjected to severe safety restrictions or deweaponised without damaging it's functionality for the owner.

That ignores the fact that weapons can be used responsibly in a fashion that is not dangerous to anyone (and also that weapons can be used responsibly in a fashion that kills and injures - see below).

It's akin to "yes you CAN have this Ferrari, but you must take the engine out". Daily Mail again.

But if you assume that the point is to put the weapon to use as a weapon, the non-trivial situation, then what? How much power is acceptable for a functional weapon in the hands of a private citizen?

The line is where Danoff drew it - at the point it becomes impractical to use the weapon in a situation to neutralise a single threat without violating others' rights. You'd be amazed at the level of power you can get to before this, situation dependent, becomes an issue.

Remember, if the government can own one, there's no reason it should prevent you from owning one. The government's job is to protect your rights from those who would threaten it - and the best frontline for this is you.

There is no merit to possessing a nuclear weapon for defence of rights - whether private citizen, corporation or government - unless it's aimed skywards. There's no merit to possessing any kind of chemical or biological agent for defence of rights. But that doesn't mean there's no reason to possess them - and if someone possessing them never violates anyone's rights with them, what business is it of yours?


*I've omitted wounding, not for any deliberate reason but because it's not quite so easy to find. It'd drag the number down to about five thousand years, assuming every incident was a different firearm, which it isn't.

 

[GTsail]

There is no merit to possessing a nuclear weapon for defence of rights - whether private citizen, corporation or government - unless it's aimed skywards.

What if the intention was to use the nuclear weapon skywards?

Against invading aliens or asteroids?

Couldn't Bruce Willis own a nuclear weapon just in case there was an Armageddon situation?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Famine]

What if the intention was to use the nuclear weapon skywards?

Against invading aliens or asteroids?

Couldn't Bruce Willis own a nuclear weapon just in case there was an Armageddon situation?

Yep.

 

[Danoff]

I think private citizens in the US should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, and those people could live in Manhattan or Los Angeles. But the nuke needs to be kept someplace consistent with the rights of everyone else. The nuke should be kept away from humans, on land owned or contracted by the person owning it - enough that detonation wouldn't harm anyone, in a safe facility, or otherwise in a configuration where its detonation would not inadvertently destroy innocent people or property.

The safety measures, space, and all other requirements would render private ownership almost impossible and would make it benign if someone did actually want to own one. The point is this, you can't own a nuke and take it into a city. There are no safety precautions or training or methods of use that would keep intact the rights of all of the innocent people in the city.

You can, however, own a firearm in a city because there are safety precautions, training, and methods of use that keep innocent people protected.

 

[GTsail]

***The safety measures, space, and all other requirements would render private ownership almost impossible and would make it benign if someone did actually want to own one. The point is this, you can't own a nuke and take it into a city. There are no safety precautions or training or methods of use that would keep intact the rights of all of the innocent people in the city.

I don't think that this is a distinction that can be made. Why does Bruce Willis need to take any particular location precautions? If he doesn't have any intention of using the weapon in the city? And if his storage of the weapon causes no harm to others?

Why can't he store his property (the nuclear weapon) wherever he wants as long as it doesn't impact anyone else?

Does someone with a gun need to keep it in an area so that no one comes within the firing range of the bullets from the gun?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Exorcet]

You can stand in the range of the a gun and be in no danger. It needs to be aimed at you, with nothing between you and it. You would need to bury a nuclear weapon under tons of mass for a similar effect, and even then you might not be safe.

Even with no intent of use something can be dangerous. You can't really store a nuclear weapon out in the open on your front lawn because you're going to make it trivially easy to kill everyone around you through accident, or creating an easy opportunity for terrorists or some other malcontent entities.

 

[Famine]

Depends on the device. Most modern ones - North Korea or not - are completely inert without the firing trigger. In fact to comply with international laws on nuclear weapons, they have to be incapable of detonating without a trigger and can even survive a bullet being put directly into the core itself - even "gun-type fission" devices, which shoot a bullet of uranium at a second subcritical uranium mass.

I wouldn't want to be smashing one with an axe for too long - remember, even though it almost certainly won't detonate, there's still radioactive material in there - but relatively speaking a nuclear warhead is safer than owning a cat.

 

[FoolKiller]

I stated my position, the current generation of powerful handheld weapons (is there a better terms for weapons that can be used by a single person without mounting them on something?) are pushing the line into "unnecessarily powerful" territory.

And then you ignored where I pointed out that it was an incorrect statement, and somehow translated it as:

Oddly then, I was painted as a fear-monger trying to take away people's guns.

 

[Imari]

And then you ignored where I pointed out that it was an incorrect statement.

It's an opinion, for crying out loud, how can it be incorrect?

 

[FoolKiller]

It's an opinion, for crying out loud, how can it be incorrect?

So, it's in the same ballpark as, "I don't like sushi?" Or is it like saying, "I believe Santa Claus is real?"

I presented the actual facts of the situation, that we have had limits placed on the guns we can own. An opinion can be wrong. You thinking handheld weapons in general are too much, opinion based on nothing but your opinion. You thinking that current weapons are becoming too powerful, is based on a change in available handheld weapons that did not happen.

At a time I could just get an RPG or flamethrower at a local army surplus store, pay cash, and walk out. Today I can't even get a weapon with automatic fire, and what I can get requires a background check, and possibly a waiting period.

Is the statement, "the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line," suddenly more correct if you add "I strongly suspect," at the beginning of it? I pointed out your suspicion was incorrect.l

If you would like to show me what guns we can have today that are closer to the too much for reason line than previously, I would be happy to discuss it.

 

[Imari]

So, it's in the same ballpark as, "I don't like sushi?" Or is it like saying, "I believe Santa Claus is real?"

I presented the actual facts of the situation, that we have had limits placed on the guns we can own. An opinion can be wrong. You thinking handheld weapons in general are too much, opinion based on nothing but your opinion. You thinking that current weapons are becoming too powerful, is based on a change in available handheld weapons that did not happen.

At a time I could just get an RPG or flamethrower at a local army surplus store, pay cash, and walk out. Today I can't even get a weapon with automatic fire, and what I can get requires a background check, and possibly a waiting period.

Is the statement, "the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line," suddenly more correct if you add "I strongly suspect," at the beginning of it? I pointed out your suspicion was incorrect.l

If you would like to show me what guns we can have today that are closer to the too much for reason line than previously, I would be happy to discuss it.

You know what, no. You can go **** yourself, because I don't think for a moment that there's rational discussion to be had with you. I presented my opinion clearly as such, and you're still trying to pull it down as unfactual. You're comparing it all to laws in your area, when I don't live in your area and made no reference to American gun laws. I made no reference to the time period over which I was speaking, but you still claim that no major changes have been made in gun technology. Sure. Whatever.

Go circle jerk with your gun club buddies. I was hoping for a rational discussion but I'm not going to get one from you so now that I've had my little rant I'm done with your ****. I'm probably going to get infracted for this, but what the hell. First time for everything.


Be warned everyone, thou shalt not hold an opinion in opposition to Foolkiller in this thread. I thought it was the Guns thread, not the "Pro-Guns but only in America" thread.

 

[LeMansAid]

For what it's worth, I was brought up with "guns are bad". My stance isn't a cultural one, its goes against what other people around me thought. Even today I'd probably find it harder to find gun supporters in the US than opponents if I just asked people around me. It came up at work actually and I was the only one who didn't default to saying guns must go.

This has encouraged me think from a new viewpoint actually.

Turns out that the environments that you and I were raised in may still be completely different. There was never any question of good or bad for me, never any question of: to gun or not to gun. There was effectively non-existence of guns, and also ample opportunity to be totally indifferent towards them. The idea that Americans would be somewhat forced to make a for or against choice, makes it an automatically vastly different environment. Though I'm not for a moment suggesting that there aren't Americans who can be, and are indifferent towards guns.

All up, it seems to generate quite a charged atmosphere. An atmosphere that encourages extreme views perhaps? And maybe one where indifference is easily mistaken for the opposite extreme, by either extreme?

 

[Danoff]

I don't think that this is a distinction that can be made. Why does Bruce Willis need to take any particular location precautions? If he doesn't have any intention of using the weapon in the city? And if his storage of the weapon causes no harm to others? Why can't he store his property (the nuclear weapon) wherever he wants as long as it doesn't impact anyone else?

It'd be about like storing your gun by loading it and aiming it at your neighbor's head... if you have no intention of pulling the trigger right? You need to be not directly threatening the lives of the people around you - especially not indiscriminately, and especially not intentionally. You can make a distinction about how something inherently dangerous and uncontrolled can be transported, stored, secured, who can handle it, what kind of training they have, etc. etc. if its presence or configuration would directly threaten the lives of the people around it - especially indiscriminately.

Does someone with a gun need to keep it in an area so that no one comes within the firing range of the bullets from the gun?

They definitely need to avoid configuring/storing/locating that gun such that it will kill their neighbor if anything goes wrong.

Bottom line, the hoops needed to jump through to make nuclear weapons conform to the safety of innocent people would result in, if not a total lack of civilian ownership, as close to that as would not be noticed.

 

[FoolKiller]

You know what, no. You can go **** yourself, because I don't think for a moment that there's rational discussion to be had with you. I presented my opinion clearly as such, and you're still trying to pull it down as unfactual. You're comparing it all to laws in your area, when I don't live in your area and made no reference to American gun laws. I made no reference to the time period over which I was speaking, but you still claim that no major changes have been made in gun technology. Sure. Whatever.

Go circle jerk with your gun club buddies. I was hoping for a rational discussion but I'm not going to get one from you so now that I've had my little rant I'm done with your ****. I'm probably going to get infracted for this, but what the hell. First time for everything.


Be warned everyone, thou shalt not hold an opinion in opposition to Foolkiller in this thread. I thought it was the Guns thread, not the "Pro-Guns but only in America" thread.

If I misunderstood your point you could have explained that. But this works.

By the way, debating opinions is allowed. No warning required, particularly when it comes to me. A quick glance at my post history will show its a common trait with me.

 

[Exorcet]

This has encouraged me think from a new viewpoint actually.

Turns out that the environments that you and I were raised in may still be completely different. There was never any question of good or bad for me, never any question of: to gun or not to gun. There was effectively non-existence of guns, and also ample opportunity to be totally indifferent towards them. The idea that Americans would be somewhat forced to make a for or against choice, makes it an automatically vastly different environment. Though I'm not for a moment suggesting that there aren't Americans who can be, and are indifferent towards guns.

All up, it seems to generate quite a charged atmosphere. An atmosphere that encourages extreme views perhaps? And maybe one where indifference is easily mistaken for the opposite extreme, by either extreme?

Well that's an interesting way of looking at it. It's probably true in some groups; if you're not with us then you're against us. Though my point in bringing up how I was raised to look at guns was more to try and point out that the US is anything but uniform in its stance towards guns. I was trying to do this earlier when mister dog was talking about his ideas of the American and European mindsets on guns.

I don't know if I would say that my anti gun stance was extreme. The thing was, although it was easy enough to hear news and stories where guns caused problems, and that I'm pretty sure that most people thought tight gun control or banning of guns was good including myself, it was actually impossible to see a gun in my area unless there was a police officer around. Not to mention that it wasn't particularly shocking to anyone when I did start to go shooting at the nearest range.

It makes me wonder what I would have said if I had never changed my mind, but then this just makes me think about when and how I changed my mind. It was a process without any clear breakpoints.

 

[Swagger897]

What if the intention was to use the nuclear weapon skywards?

Against invading aliens or asteroids?

Couldn't Bruce Willis own a nuclear weapon just in case there was an Armageddon situation?

Respectfully,
GTsail

I always thought that would be a good idea after learning my history as a kid but then that idea faded when I learned space was a vacuum...

 

[RC45]

I have nothing against people hunting deers or collecting firearms that are well protected under cabinets made for that purpose. That being said, no, Canada does not allow citizens to get handguns for their own personal defense. And lastly, just wow. Little boy got a shotgun when he was 13? A tool that can kill when he was 13, while it's impossible to drink before 18 or drive before 16?

Yes, that's very irresponsible.

OR should I tell you : "Wow, you are so cool! You are my hero!"

Based on your response I am guessing this little show of 2nd Amendment freedoms will cause you to actually suffer heart failure... my daughter enjoying her Christmas present when she was **gasp** -- 12 years old.

@mister dog You've been arguing with people here for how long and you think machine guns are legal for your Average Joe to buy here?

Inspirational. I'm going to go argue with my friend who's an electrical engineer how microchips will eventually lead to the rise of Skynet. I wouldn't do this normally because I know nothing about microchips, but you've inspired me.

The whole "give up your rights for the greater good" argument is something that's covered in this book called "1984," you should read it.

Short answer is no. Liberty is the greater good. People spend a lot of effort trying to secure it, those who would give it up for personal security deserve neither.

It's almost as if human rights are good things...

Liberty is the greater good.

That is all that needs to be said.

Well put.

 

[fredyellowone]

Liberty is the greater good.

That is all that needs to be said.

Well put.

One thing is sure, you made me laugh a lot.

A video of your daughter shooting gun, the title of it, the stars and stripes at the beginning. You're clearly loving guns... a lot.

 

[RC45]

One thing is sure, you made me laugh a lot.

A video of your daughter shooting gun, the title of it, the stars and stipes at the beginning. You're clearly loving guns... a lot.

Guns have nothing to with it. Freedom and the ultimate acknowledgement of the individual as superior to the state is what 'it' is about.

I immigrated TO the United States in 1994 so that I could live and raise a family under the protection of the greatest document ever penned by man - the United States Constitution.

Liberty is the greater good.

 

[fredyellowone]

Guns have nothing to with it. Freedom and the ultimate acknowledgement of the individual as superior to the state is what 'it' is about.

I immigrated TO the United States in 1994 so that I could live and raise a family under the protection of the greatest document ever penned by man - the United States Constitution.

Liberty is the greater good.

I bet you are the kind to be involved in those funky border patrols that are yelling at the illegal immigrants. To each their own, I guess.

By the way, if it's not about "guns", why your video is featuring your daughter shooting with one? You could have made a video about liberty and freedoms without that kind of stuff, obviously.

As for the greatest document ever penned by man : Magna Carta say hello.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well that's an interesting way of looking at it. It's probably true in some groups; if you're not with us then you're against us. Though my point in bringing up how I was raised to look at guns was more to try and point out that the US is anything but uniform in its stance towards guns. I was trying to do this earlier when mister dog was talking about his ideas of the American and European mindsets on guns.

I don't know if I would say that my anti gun stance was extreme. The thing was, although it was easy enough to hear news and stories where guns caused problems, and that I'm pretty sure that most people thought tight gun control or banning of guns was good including myself, it was actually impossible to see a gun in my area unless there was a police officer around. Not to mention that it wasn't particularly shocking to anyone when I did start to go shooting at the nearest range.

It makes me wonder what I would have said if I had never changed my mind, but then this just makes me think about when and how I changed my mind. It was a process without any clear breakpoints.

I never doubted that there would be varied opinion. I suppose my main point would be that you guys to a large extent can't escape having an opinion though, and many people struggle to have balanced views on things far less crucial, let alone this topic. So you'll most likely tend to feel the need to go one way or the other. Within that context I can certainly see why many Americans would see Australia as an anti-guns country, because our laws give that impression. But I think the reality is that most of us are just not interested at all. I'm quite sure that the farmers in my family would have had guns while I was growing up, but I doubt that they were any source of pride or a catalyst for a political statement for them. Their guns would have merely served a purpose in their line of work, and I feel like they would not have owned them if it was not for their line of work.

I'd barely considered guns in any way before reading in this thread. That's an option I doubt would be available to the majority of Americans. I feel it's a very important distinction when looking across the globe at each others' countries. For us to understand that it's somewhat a very real and inescapable question in America, and for Americans to understand that for us and others like us there is often the total absence of the question: to gun or not to gun.

 

[RC45]

I bet you are the kind to be involved in those funky border patrols that are yelling at the illegal immigrants. To each their own, I guess.

If I was, as a LEGAL immigrant I would actully be quite entitled to do just that - yell at ILLEGALS.

What does Canada do to folks that enter Canada ILLEGALLY?

By the way, if it's not about "guns", why your video is featuring your daughter shooting with one? You could have made a video about liberty and freedoms without that kind of stuff, obviously.

Take the trouble to eread and (if you can) understand the United States Constitution. Note that it is a document of restrictions on the state while reserving for the individual the inate protections.

Freedom of speech, religion, protection, safety, property ownership, commerce, franchise, residence and limited government.

The video I posted show cases a number of those.

As for the greatest document ever penned by man : Magna Carta say hello.

Not really - while a great effort it really did little to restrict the power of the state in the end and almost a thousand years of oppression of the individual after the acceptance of the Magna Carta proves this - the United States Constitition on the other hand actually spawned a continuously succesful free state wherein the rights of the individual (for now) still reign supreme 240 years later.

I could have emigrated to anywhere on the planet - I chose the USA.