Gun Proliferation Debate

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 12/25/2011 8:02am

Well as you said earlier I answered those in a previous post.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

You still refuse to define level.

Did he carry it around. I do not carry my guns anywhere except to the gun range. So, your point is ambiguous. I have a higher caliber gun based on conversations with LEOS, military, and gun enthusiasts.

I do like how you'd question his sanity instead of asking. Then you immediately assume the negative. That's on you.

I don't see the rationale in any one outside of LEOS and military owning certain weapons. Then again, I have heard very good arguments as to why. Some are rational some are not. I fired a fully auto AK-47. If someone said fun to shoot, I'd be fine as well and it would have nothing to do with sanity.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Define level.

Guns have multiple uses wars, hunting, protection, murder, feeding your family, feeding your community......
See what I did there?

Now, replace "guns" with "knives." Yes, I am tailoring my argument to fit my point, just like you.

Oh and I am all for gun laws and restrictions. Bans? Yes, in a very specific circumstance and type of gun. Removal all together? Nope.

**Auszi** · Posted On: 12/25/2011 8:11am

I remember, but since I don't have a reference, I am not sure if the measures you talked about are in place or not and to what extent. That is why I was asking you to expand on them.

You're obviously an analytical person, and I am trying to get a clearer picture of the situation.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 12/25/2011 12:05pm

Originally Posted by Ded Morose

I am not refusing, I am not sure what you mean, I thought I had explained how I thought they were different. Like different classes (Levels) of hazardous chemicals, some being more hazardous than others.

I would assume the negative, but I wouldn't just think it, I would actually ask. Gun's are not part of our culture here, we may have an unreasoning fear but I am not sure. The guy who had the gun in America's rationale was 'I need it for protection from other people with guns.'

The questioning the sanity was not a good comment, because it implies that if you have a gun then you must be insane and I don't honestly believe that's the case but it would be shock to me at least to find out a friend was carrying a gun here.

Careful you don't go off on a ad hominem argument. It is a good thing that is not what I am solely basing my argument on. My experience and knowledge of guns is very limited.

But this is funny, because guess what cartridges he had loaded? Hollow points, that kicked like a mule. But whether this was what he always had in the gun, I don't know.

Thinking about it, with guns, the respect with which you need to treat them, so you don't seriously injure yourself or someone is greater than yes, a knife. The margin of error smaller. Most people can handle that responsibility but there are obviously people that can't trusted whether by conscious thought or by stupidity.

Gun's are designed for a limited scope of tasks one of the major tasks is killing, if you have a good reason for wanting to use one then argue for that but how many good reasons are there realistically? But if you need one because you need to protect yourself from the other guy that has one, that doesn't make sense to me.

As i said before I am willing to remove something from society, with exceptions, which I don't see as a necessity and believe the negatives out way the positives.

Do I think someone is a bad person for owning a gun no but I am assuming that the people here aren't the types I am concerned about.

Funnily enough the argument for gun ownership that was swaying me was protection from the government. With all the bad press The American government has been getting whether deservedly or not, I could see how having an armed populace would make a government think twice about taking certain against it's people.

C'mon you know that's a red herring.

So then we should ban weapons based on their designed function?? I would argue that my Katana is usefull for MA practice, however the U.K. Would argue it is a killing machine by design. The problem with assigning a specific use to any tool is that said use will very based on perspective. What I see the use of any certain item may vary from yours. And why should I be penalized for the actions of others??

**ChenPengFi** · Posted On: 12/25/2011 12:41pm

The sheer number of firearms in private hands, in the US, would make any attempt at banning ludicrous.
That is in part where the adage "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." comes from.

**Auszi** · Posted On: 12/26/2011 7:22am

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

The sheer number of firearms in private hands, in the US, would make any attempt at banning ludicrous.
That is in part where the adage "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." comes from.

Well this is why I want to try and get down off my idealistic high horse and hear some of the opinions of gun owners about their thoughts on the current environment, what they think, what they would change etc. The chances of me changing their opinion are pretty slim but they might change mine.

**Scrapper** · Posted On: 12/27/2011 8:48am

Federally recognized carry permits.

Stringent (not "expensive") competency requirements.

Robust enforcement of existing laws.

**indy007** · Posted On: 12/27/2011 6:03pm

Originally Posted by Scrapper

Federally recognized carry permits.

Stringent (not "expensive") competency requirements.

Robust enforcement of existing laws.

Add a removal of "gun free zones" to that.

**money** · Posted On: 12/28/2011 10:35am

Originally Posted by theTRASHman

The reason why the anti-gunners routinely fail to convince me, and a great many others, that we need to have our rights curtailed "for our own good" is that every time they try to argue against firearms, their lack of knowledge on the subject is painfully obvious.

I am an anti-gunner that educated himself to be able to better debate the issue. In doing so, I became pro gun-rights. Go figure.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

I am not foolish. There is no way in hell myself or anyone that owns guns, who I know, could stop a purposely US military operation.

Of course a civilian militia could not stand toe-to-toe with the US military, but I think both Iraq and Afghanistan have shown how hard it is for a significantly superior military to deal with an insurgent agressor, especially if the insurgents have the support of the population.

**indy007** · Posted On: 12/28/2011 11:16am

Originally Posted by christmas cash

Of course a civilian militia could not stand toe-to-toe with the US military, but I think both Iraq and Afghanistan have shown how hard it is for a significantly superior military to deal with an insurgent agressor, especially if the insurgents have the support of the population.

Not to mention the fact that there are 2.5x more gun owners in the US than the entire population of Iraq... and we all know how easy it was to pacify that country...