Gun Laws

Champion wrote:

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Why love a gun? It is a destructive tool, a symbol of how dumb and idiotic humans can be. Because it makes you safe? The nuclear bombs in Japan made the USA safer by ending the war, but i dont think that makes you love them...it is a sad necessity. Sure i have shooting games, but they are games. They are a conveyor of rage and anger for me, to which i avoid applying in the real world.

Have you ever even shot a gun? It also can be used as a form of entertainment. I love going to the shooting range and popping off a couple hundred rounds.

That is indeed the only usefulness for it with a slight positive outcome. Then again, you wouldnt have to own one to do that.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:

Champion wrote:

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Why love a gun? It is a destructive tool, a symbol of how dumb and idiotic humans can be. Because it makes you safe? The nuclear bombs in Japan made the USA safer by ending the war, but i dont think that makes you love them...it is a sad necessity. Sure i have shooting games, but they are games. They are a conveyor of rage and anger for me, to which i avoid applying in the real world.

Have you ever even shot a gun? It also can be used as a form of entertainment. I love going to the shooting range and popping off a couple hundred rounds.

That is indeed the only usefulness for it with a slight positive outcome. Then again, you wouldnt have to own one to do that.

Yeah but its not the same as using your own. When you own a gun its like a pet, you take care of it and polish and clean it and make sure every action is smooth. Plus guns are fascinating. You should read history on gun makers and gun development. My favorite is the story of Samuel Colt. I actually read his biography.

Does not hide or justify the fact that their necessity is a lamentful situation.

the ability to defend ones self is never lame.

it is lame. because it shows a rational being capable of conscious decisions cant be above his animality, thus making him nothing more than an animal with a disproportionate advantage.

so if someone attacked you or your family you would not defend yourself?
Why would you attack someone's ability to fight back?

If you are going to pick one question to answer, answer the second one...

You are not grasping the context in wich im speaking. Go read my things again. Perhaps they are a bit too theoretical for your taste, but thats where my mind dwelves.

Yes, I will agree, In theory Guns suck, we should not need them... There that's out of the way. Thing is, i like to live in a place called reality or, as a favorite radio talk show host likes to call it, literal-ville.



Euphorians like to live in Theoretical-ville. Now Theoretical-ville may be a nice place to visit but if you try to live there you may end up starving to death, being subjugated by a someone that is better armed or flat out killed by things that do not fit into the 'paradigm' that is accepted by the Euphorians .

You are categorizing my thoughts, with those alien names to my mind. What i think has no name, nor would any other persons mind be categorized under it. I do not believe in categorization as is taken by humans, because it is unnefficient and really only helps to limit the mind and progress instead of aiding it. That aside, a world without guns is indeed very theoretical, but i again think you are taking what i say to an extreme. I am speaking of an ideal, not singular events or singular possibilities. The fact remains that human violence is terribly unnecessary in the numbers we have today, and there is a lot more to blame than simple human nature. A rational mind should not be guided towards violent solutions, ever. Yet there it is. Wich is in itself a perplexing puzzle and a depressing image.

You live in real world? There is a poet, from Portugal, called Fernando Pessoa, he addresses this in one of his poem, the state of mind in wich one chooses to live. It is a beautiful poem, one of my favourites. A metaphor involving a woman from the countryside who works all day, and him, a city educated and literated poet, aware of the world. He speaks of the irony that her happiness in her isolated world is better than his sadness of living in awareness of the world around him.

no not the real world reality. I think there is a difference. and i may be taking things to extreme but i am used to debating Nihil in here.

Common sense should be more... common. absolutely. unfortunately, in reality, it is not. Violence should not be necessary. absolutely. unfortunately many times it is because someone is hell bent on hurting someone OR lots of someones and, many times, violence is the only way to stop them.

Maybe if these crazy people couldn't walk down to a gun show and purchase them, there wouldn't be a problem?

After all, less than one percent of gun related incidents are actual incidents of self defense.

First, Bowling for columbine was so skewed and dishonest Moore should have offered an apology for releasing it.

how many guns used in crimes were obtained legally? So we start enforcing the laws on the books we could probably get a bit of a handle on things.

I will not even delve into the 'armed houses are safer' area. unless you do...

Ptolemy wrote:First, Bowling for columbine was so skewed and dishonest Moore should have offered an apology for releasing it. He is like the Borat of documentaries.

how many guns used in crimes were obtained legally? So we start enforcing the laws on the books we could probably get a bit of a handle on things.

I will not even delve into the 'armed houses are safer' area. unless you do...

Love it when i quote instead of edit

I do think that you need to show proper mental awareness first. Something from a psychiatrist saying you don't have anything seriously wrong(like mental delusions or sociopathic tendencies).

Aardvark wrote:I do think that you need to show proper mental awareness first. Something from a psychiatrist saying you don't have anything seriously wrong(like mental delusions or sociopathic tendencies).

Well that will rule out all the people that cannot afford to get this report from a shrink.

Yes just like those that are over 50 and can't afford an eye exam can't drive. If that was a requirement people wouldn't need guns because fewer people would pose a serious threat.

That assumes that only people that follow the law would have guns and that everyone that carries a gun is a threat. The criminal will always find a way to get a gun. They are, after all... criminals. they are breaking the law what is a firearms violation on top of it. If we enforce the laws on the books. Things would get better. Then of course our prisons would have to be expanded to facilitate all the extra guests that would be in residence.

Someone that obtains and carries a firearm legally is not generally a threat. there are always exceptions to the rule but, that is why they are called exceptions.

The only guns laws are:
1. You must have no felony offenses.
2. You must have a gun licence.
3. You are not allowed to conceal a weapon in private without a permit.
4. You may not own automatic guns without special authorization.
5. A gun may only be used in a firing range, in a hunting ground, or in self-defense.

It leaves room for abuse.

That is a very SIMPLIFIED list of firearm regulations. There are also laws that outline the legal sales, storage and transportation of firearms. The law determines the penalties when you are caught with an illegal firearm or when that firearm is used in the commission of a crime. The Enforcement of those laws are lax and every time there is a gun crime, there are calls for more regulation. Unnecessary, enforce the laws on the books.

None of those laws PREVENT the crime, just punish it. Making sure people are certifiably sane before they are handed a gun would prevent some of this.

you will not PREVENT a crime. Laws do not prevent crime and if you think they do you are mistaken. Punishment may act as a deterrent but that will not prevent crime either.

If you took every gun off the market there would still be violent crime. there would stull be guns. the Criminal element are crafty. A couple of examples.

Talkin'boutFreedom wrote:Personally I'd like some tomahawks

RAAAAWR TOMAHAWKS!!!

If guns become harder to get then even blackmarket supplies die down, and while those MacGuyver guns may work for a shot or two, they don't do automatic and don't have easily reloaded clips.

Ptolemy wrote:First, Bowling for columbine was so skewed and dishonest Moore should have offered an apology for releasing it.

how many guns used in crimes were obtained legally? So we start enforcing the laws on the books we could probably get a bit of a handle on things.

I will not even delve into the 'armed houses are safer' area. unless you do...

Then why is Michael Moore a member of the NRA and actually own guns? You should watch it first, you know.

in 2008 something like 80% of the gun-murders in philly were done by stolen guns. A kid or 'thug' can get a .22 pistol and full-clip for 20$ in philly. My family all owns legal guns, registered and in safes. My brother recently got an ar-15 and i just got a 1909 argentine mauser. We have enough guns and ammo for the zombie apocalypse and then an alien invasion. Not every family is this way, but its better safe then sorry, and its better to not get stuck in a gun fight with no gun. Especially in this dark age.

To get rid of guns wont stop murders. People will use anything to kill someone. A gun is actually somewhat more humane then some of the alternitives. For example getting run over by a car and getting your guts squished out. Getting your face beatin in with a hammer. Getting stabbed repeatingly, getting jumped by a bunch of people, getting raped, being poisoned, prolonged choking... I do believe the american people are in love with guns and violence. Our youth is exposed to violence at such a young age. Its literally brain washing our youth. Our people are so disconnected from the actual realitys of war, and i think thats why we need to uncensor the information givin to the american people and to the world