Good or Bad and Why? Cuz I know we have a lot of gun lovers and a lot of gun haters and those who only have them for protection. But what do you feel on the matter of them?

wooo hoooo good wins lol personally i think that its a good idea to own firearms... i own about 10 i use them for hunting, target shooting, self/home defense, and a few i bought just as a collectable. this is a debate that can go on for ever as to wether guns are good or bad...

man that sucks some one else voted lol now its at 50% lol

is hitting your target !

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
wooo hoooo good wins lol personally i think that its a good idea to own firearms... i own about 10 i use them for hunting, target shooting, self/home defense, and a few i bought just as a collectable. this is a debate that can go on for ever as to wether guns are good or bad...


Very true......which is why I figured It would be a good post to start this forum off :asian:

I voted Good,

I just choose not to own one at this moment. :D

Guns as with any weapon are not the problem it is how and why they are used that is the problem. If the would be criminal did not have the use of a gun he/she would find another weapon to use.

Guns good.

Dip$h!ts bad.

I support the right of any law abiding citizen to own a firearm for self-defense.

I would ask the question, 'who else's responsibility is it to protect you and your family'?

"A sword is merely a tool in a killers hands"

Me like guns........:biggun: :bazook: :2pistols: :snipe2: :ak47: :snipe:

Originally posted by Seig
is hitting your target !



Amen!

I as long as criminals can get guns I'll have guns thats my motto!:2pistols:


:shotgun:

I vote Good. I have some firearms, I have had some since I was 17... Ive never had a gun accident or shot somone or used one to commit a crime...

Based on that, I have to say Guns dont make you commit crimes, Criminals USE guns to commit them.

Can't blame the tool, just the user...

The Bill of Rights guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms and I intend to do so. As long as criminals have firearms, so will I.

Guns are neither good nor bad, they are inanimate objects. Much like a knife is neither good nor bad. It depends on the intent and user. I use a knife every day to do my job, so in that it is good. Terrorists used very similar kives in order to facilitate the murder of 3000 human beings.

I use a gun to develop the skills needed to save a life. Either my own or others. In that it is good. However there are some people who misuse them.

Like drunk drivers can misuse automobiles to produce a large number of fatalities. Yet automobiles are often used to transport people to the hospital or to their daily chores.

It is all in intent.

Guns are tools, commonly abused and misused, but tools none the less.

Originally posted by yilisifu
The Bill of Rights guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms and I intend to do so. As long as criminals have firearms, so will I.

If your interested, there is a long discusion on the 2nd amendment to the US constitution here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=562

I am perfectly ok with owning guns, just as long as no one else does. :D

I don't hunt, or anything like that. I'm just that type of guy, one who can't kill anyone. Ironic because I'm one of the biggest meat eaters (mostly lean), but if I meet it, I don't want to eat it.

However, I love guns. I own about 4 of them... A Les Baer 1911, a Sig, a 12 gauge, and an AR-15.

Alot of good discussion here http://glocktalk.com/

Not just Glocks but EVERY type, model and make of firearm.

:asian:

Me like guns........

me likey too

:shotgun: :rockets: :machgunr: :enfo: :sig: :shooter: :armed:

Guns are responsible for murders just like how spoons are responsible for Rosie O'Donnel being fat.

:asian:

Philosophically, I think guns are for the weak. ooooo, am I going to catch it for that one! :eek:

In reality, however, I have a wife and son and I will do whatever it takes to preserve their lives and well-being......with impunity!

Therefore, although I do not own a firearm, I train with them as often as possible as I do with all objects that can be utilized for defense. In the course of my firearm training (instinctive, conventional and close range techniques) I have come to the conclusion that just about anyone could kill you with a gun, even accidentally! Where is the honor in that? Also, there is the remorse factor. Do you think that these wannabe gangsters shooting each other from their vehicles would be as stoic about taking life if they were more closely engaged with their victim? I can guarantee they would not be. Experiencing someone's life slipping through your hands changes you profoundly. Indeed, you either develop a deep distaste for it or go mad with the power of it. Talk with a veteran that's been engaged in CQC and taken someone's life....it leaves scars! The distance afforded you by a firearm can often buffer the profundity of such actions. That is what I mean by guns being tools of the weak.

:soapbox: :D :soapbox:

geoffrey

A firearm is a tool with a purpose the same as a screw driver or hammer.

Originally posted by lost_tortoise
Philosophically, I think guns are for the weak. ooooo, am I going to catch it for that one! :eek:

In reality, however, I have a wife and son and I will do whatever it takes to preserve their lives and well-being......with impunity!

Therefore, although I do not own a firearm, I train with them as often as possible as I do with all objects that can be utilized for defense. In the course of my firearm training (instinctive, conventional and close range techniques) I have come to the conclusion that just about anyone could kill you with a gun, even accidentally! Where is the honor in that? Also, there is the remorse factor. Do you think that these wannabe gangsters shooting each other from their vehicles would be as stoic about taking life if they were more closely engaged with their victim? I can guarantee they would not be. Experiencing someone's life slipping through your hands changes you profoundly. Indeed, you either develop a deep distaste for it or go mad with the power of it. Talk with a veteran that's been engaged in CQC and taken someone's life....it leaves scars! The distance afforded you by a firearm can often buffer the profundity of such actions. That is what I mean by guns being tools of the weak.

:soapbox: :D :soapbox:

geoffrey
Yeah, firearms are considered a "weak" weapon because it's not as physically demanding... Guns being "weak" isn't the problem. The criminals who use them have no sense of honor, and won't hesitate to kill you.

The difference between WAR and DEFENSE is very large. Some people develop such hard hearts that it doesn't matter who they kill. I'm sure you heard of the many people who all they wanted to do was to kill the krauts and kill the japs. However, with war, the thing that leaves scars is not due to just killing someone, but killing someone who hasn't really done anything wrong. War is where innocent people die, and yes, even soldiers are many times innocent in a way, just being used to solve political matters. I mean, it's two people just fighting for a cause and killing them because of the cause... Then there's the idea that your comrades are being slaughtered right in front of you. Compare a cop who has had to kill to save the life of an innocent man or a group of people, that would be more comparable on the street.

And you misunderstand the whole purpose of CCW. CCW is the last resort. When you do have to draw, you draw to shoot. You don't draw to frighten the enemy. And don't misunderstand the above comment. You don't draw and shoot right away, but when you have to resort to draw your weapon, your main objective isn't to frighten the opponent. It's to STOP the opponent. Stopping the opponent could mean just pointing the barrel at him (most of the time, they'll run) or to pull the trigger.

There is a saying, "Any fool can pull a trigger" , sorry guys but even though I personally like firearms, I don't like the fact that every idiot on the street has one. If all of you guys are such advocates for guns, then why study martial arts??? Why not just buy a gun, and if someone messes with you, just shoot the poor S.O.B??? The reason is, you can NEVER give someone their life back after you have taken it. Think about how many deaths are gun related. I didn't say murders, I said deaths, accidental, and intentional. A 5 year old kid blowing their head off because daddy didn't lock up his gun is in my opinion just as bad as the dad shooting the kid himself. If he didn't have the gun, his kid would still be alive. What about all the Drive-by's, there have been over 30 in my area of L.A in the last couple of months, MY COUSIN WAS ONE OF THE VICTIMS!!!!!! He had a wife and 2 kids.....sorry getting emotional, anyways what about them, how do they grow up without their father??? A bullet doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, between young and old, between innocent and guilty. Are you gun owners such excellent shots that you can guarantee that you'll never miss??? I don't think so!!!


Everyone thinks a gun will solve their problems, it doesn't solve them, it just makes them worse. Look at our military, one gun bigger than the next. Do any of you want to die because some jerk with a nuke, doesn't like our politics??? I don't know about any of you, but I've never met the president, I've never talked to him, and I'm not a member of his cabinet. I just want to live my life, as best as I can. I shouldn't have to die from something I had nothing to do with. I'm not saying that I don't support our troops, because I do support them. I'm just saying this whole war thing would be easier if Bush and Saddam just put their hands up like real men and fought it out. What about ALL of the hospitals and schools that are destroyed over there, is it any wonder they hate Americans??? If you blew up my school I'd hate you too. What about friendly fire??? How many casualties of war have "we" had because dumb asses didn't know the difference between our troops and theirs??? Maybe if they had to get up close and personal to "fight" their opponents they would have noticed the difference between us and them. Instead of shooting them from 100 yards away. I have to honest here I really don't care if ANY one replies to this post, because NONE of you are going to change my mind about this subject, I've lost more than any man should ever have to because of guns.

Sincerely,
KenpoDragon

Have not posted in awhile..

Well in my state, Minnesota, it has just been passed a bill for more open legallity to carry concealed hand guns... (Its now leagal) An interesting measure considering the very low vilent crime rate here. Things have change, and in the end it makes everything redundent and/or stupid.

First off, all the malls, and many places of business have installed signs, reading "No hand guns, or other weapons permited with in this building" Even at the Mall of America (In my home town). Seening those signs i think may scare turrists away. All my freinds, and fammy have been informed at their places of work, that the guns, and weapons are not permented. On top of that collage campuses, and government buildings have given the very same ban. So I now wonder what is the point? You can only have your gun out on the streets, or at your own home. Half the year it to cold for you to be at risk from any type of assult out side or even your home (Sounds dumb, but is true) It all seems pointless.

On top of that, the penalty for bring your gun into one of these offlimit areas, is a $25 fine. You have to pay more for a parking ticket.

I do not know how this is suppose to make people feel safer, when any one in a crowd could be armed to kill at range.

If you're carrying correctly, then there would be no problem. The reason you carry concealed is pretty obvious. You don't scare people, and if a criminal knew you had a gun, he would kill you before you would know he was there. You don't want people to know you're carrying. You don't carry to show off, you don't carry it so there would be a lump on your hip and people would ask about it. If you're doing it right, nobody would know.

"No guns" signs scaring tourists away? Hmmm... Okay, it might scare some people away. But unless there were metal detectors, I think that honest CCW carriers and criminals can just carry it inside anyway. The very same sign is even posted up at junior high/middle schools, doesn't seem to scare the students one bit.

But you do obey the law. If I was working at a post office, I wouldn't carry it inside.

Just carrying on the streets? The streets are where most of the incidents happen. You forgot that you can also leave your gun in the car and thus, making it easier to carry in permissible areas.

You want gun control? Move to California. Percentage wise in terms of population, California is very high up there in gun-related crimes, despite all the tight regulations and NO CCW compared with Arizona, Washington, or Florida.

I'll agree that guns are just tools, but you've never heard of someone killing 5 of their coworkers with a screwdriver, have you? Some tools should only be allowed to be handled by those who can use them responsibly.

You wouldn't teach martial arts to someone you thought was mentally unbalanced, would you? Why should it be so easy for unbalanced people to buy tools that can kill at range?

Originally posted by Zepp
I'll agree that guns are just tools, but you've never heard of someone killing 5 of their coworkers with a screwdriver, have you? Some tools should only be allowed to be handled by those who can use them responsibly.

You wouldn't teach martial arts to someone you thought was mentally unbalanced, would you? Why should it be so easy for unbalanced people to buy tools that can kill at range?
I agree, guns make things easier for both good and bad things, although a lot of the focus is on the bad things.

Most states if I remember require background checks. You can't buy guns over the internet (straight to home) and all that. However, before firearms, there were people who did kill multiple people just out of nowhere. Even in a culture where I would say was "more secure", instead of guns, there were swords and knives.

But guns won't do anything to their mental or emotional state. If they were in a state where they can shoot their coworkers, then they would probably go after them another way if guns were not around.

Originally posted by MartialArtist
But guns won't do anything to their mental or emotional state. If they were in a state where they can shoot their coworkers, then they would probably go after them another way if guns were not around.

But would that "other way" make it as easy for them to kill as many people in as short an amount of time, from as far away as it would be with many legal firearms?

I'm inclined not to think so.

And I don't think the backround checks in most states are adequate either. A backround check doesn't tell you much about the mental state of someone who's never been in an institution. I'm not sure there's a better alternative, but I think there are things worth trying.

What other constitutional rights do you propose giving up?

Well, time to open up a whole new door in this can of worms :D

There were some stats flying around cyber space not long ago. Don't know how accurate they were and I don't remember the exact numbers, but it does illustrate a good point in my opinon. It was somthing to the effect that in a certain year there were 100,000 physician related deaths. This means the Dr. prescribed the wrong meds, or the nurse mixed up the meds or there was an accident during surgury etc. In the same year there were 1400 gun related accidental deaths which meant that physicians were 9000 times more dangerous than hand guns.

What the public doesn't realize for example is that when a anti-gun group publishes stats such as 4000 people were killed with a handgun in such n such a year they are being both honest and dishonest at the same time. Usually they will include the a tradgedy involving a child. Now don't for one instant think I'm trivializing a child involved tradgedy. Far from it! One is to many! But these groups would lead everyone to think that all 4000 are these cases, they are not. A fraction are, the majority are police and law abiding citizens lawfully using a handgun in self defese. A little bad, alot good. But they try to put a negative spin on it to influence public opinon. And the media obliges them. Accidental shooting or some whack job going nuts...front page headline. Women defending herself successfully against would-be rapist....last page under the grocery coupons. Perhaps a bit of an exageration....but sometimes not far off.

And what about motor vehicles and drunk drivers? Drunks kill many times over more people than hand guns every year. True a car is not designed to injure someone...but getting behind the wheel impaired??? Is that not the same as firing of a gun in a crowded area? Whats the difference?

I'm just trying to throw some perspective on this issue. As a man who wears a badge and carries a gun on and off duty, I support the right of EVERY law abiding citizen of sound mind, and sound training to carry a weapon for lawful self defense. Can a firearm be misused? Of course it can. But so can a car. How many people try to run over, or run off the road someone thats pissed them off? Especially domestics. If firearms are outlawed, cars should be as well, and knives and screwdrivers, and chain saws and etc etc etc. All have been used in domestic disputes.

And a car will kill you much better than a little piece of lead!

Fact: States with CCW have lower crime rates than those that don't. Take a look at D.C. or Detroit or New York vs those that allow carry. Yes, there is still crime, but for example crime in Florida has dropped after CCW.

Remember, it is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. It is NOT in our charter to protect citizens. It is to enforce laws, keep the 'general' peace and protect public property. We are mainly reactionary due to sheer numbers. It is a privates citizens duty to protect their families and themselves.

Just a few thoughts. Let the games begin ;)

The reason I don't like guns is because it's JUST TOO EASY. I trained with pistols, rifles (M-14 and 16) and shotguns. Guns can be easy to use.

It should be a lot harder to kill some one, a lot more personal.

I don't oppose gun ownership, but I do oppose it being too easy. Ther should be strict controls on the sellers and manufacturers to keep guns out of criminal hands.

I have hunted and sport shooting is fun. But ownership, for me, is probably not wise. I never want to make killling too physically easy.

Originally posted by Chuck
The reason I don't like guns is because it's JUST TOO EASY. I trained with pistols, rifles (M-14 and 16) and shotguns. Guns can be easy to use.

It should be a lot harder to kill some one, a lot more personal.

I don't oppose gun ownership, but I do oppose it being too easy. Ther should be strict controls on the sellers and manufacturers to keep guns out of criminal hands.

I have hunted and sport shooting is fun. But ownership, for me, is probably not wise. I never want to make killling too physically easy.
Yeah, I agree it's easy. A bit too easy perhaps. This is both a good and a bad thing. I don't know about you, but if any one of my family members are in danger, and there's a guy breaking into my house, he'll have 00 buck aimed at his torso. If he tries to harm anyone, then I will shoot. I put the safety of others over my pride.

Bad thing is, you might hit a friendly.

Sometimes, shooting accurately IS hard, especially during urban combat where you either shoot on the run which is difficult, or when stationary while both you and the enemy have a place to duck for cover. Then there's the thing with civilians. Real life is not always like that, but the possiblity of hitting a friendly is there. If you miss, and you happen to have something like a 7.62mm FMJ or .50 cal, it might hit old Aunt Clara next door.

Originally posted by Wmarden
What other constitutional rights do you propose giving up?

As Robin Williams once said: "It's not the right to bear arms that I'm worried about, it's the right to bear artillery that scares me."

If that group of 18th century lawyers that we call our founding fathers had forseen a future where people with automatic and semi-automatic weapons can hold their own against the police, or where children with such weapons could wipe out half their classmates in a couple bursts, I promise you, the word responsible and the phrase within reason would be part of the second amendmant.

Is it too late to add them?

If you don't like it change it, but as it were the constitution is meant to protect the rights of citizens to own millitary type weapons.

I suppose one should require a special permit to speak in public or to make posts on the internet as hate speach is dangerous too. We should regulate speech so as to prevent harm. It would be better that only certain people be allowed the right to speak in public because only certain people deserve that right.


Did you know that alot of gun control laws have their origins in racism? Do you know why people railed against saturday night specials in the early days of the last century. Because they were guns owned by poor people, and often black people at that. Or immigrants or other "undesirables". In fact the original phrase is a "Saturday night special in ******TOWN" Yep, gun control is racist. You can be damn sure the Klan did not want to meet armed "Negroes" when they would go about their nightly rounds of cross burnings and lynchings.

I would probably never want to own a highpoint or lorcin, but by God if I was poor(er) I would do whatever I could to provide for the defense of my loved ones.

And that is just one of many reasons gun control is doomed to fail.

The other prime reason is that criminals don't give a flying rats ass about laws. You think some mugger is going to worry that he has no legal way to own the gun he uses to mug you. Do you think that an armed robber would concern himself with the legal ramifications of using a sawed off shotgun to kill the store clerk because she is a bull dyke or black or latin, or whatever his favorite race to hate is. DO you think a drug dealer will have problems smuggling in a few rocket launchers in with his 2 ton shipment of coke? Criminals break laws, gun laws are the least of their worries.

If gun laws work, why is it the places with the strictest laws have the highest murder rates? Criminals like unarmed victims. Criminals like to strike where victims are disarmed. Look at school shooting incidents, gun laws disarm law abiding gun users and scumbags take advantage. In Israel this would not happen, teachers are encouraged to carry. And there have been many incidents of Israeli citizens taking out scumbag terrorists before they can blow up innocent people. Hardly makes the news here when it happens, the liberals would not like it if people started taking a little personal responsibility for their own safety. I can think of at least one school shooting at a college here in the us that the national media refused to report on the positive actions of two armed citizens.

I better stop before I get overheated, but I feel quite strongly about this. I do hope I have not offended anybody, but I refuse to compromise my values. I respect those of differing views, good people can disagree.

Originally posted by Zepp
As Robin Williams once said: "It's not the right to bear arms that I'm worried about, it's the right to bear artillery that scares me."

If that group of 18th century lawyers that we call our founding fathers had forseen a future where people with automatic and semi-automatic weapons can hold their own against the police, or where children with such weapons could wipe out half their classmates in a couple bursts, I promise you, the word responsible and the phrase within reason would be part of the second amendmant.

Is it too late to add them?
I do go against full automatic weapons (full-auto SMGs and assault rifles) but I have nothing against semi-automatics or semi-automatic versions of rifles. Just because one inserts a magazine?

Wmarden,

I agree with you 100% :asian: People are responsible for their own safety. The Founding fathers realized this, that is why our Constitution reads the way it does. Once again, I support the right of every law abiding citizen to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense. My only stipulation would be that the have training with the weapon. That just makes sense.

I work with criminals, I can assure you that gun laws are not a very high consideration for the majority. And they like easy victims.

:asian:

Originally posted by A.R.K.



I work with criminals, I can assure you that gun laws are not a very high consideration for the majority. And they like easy victims.



I am going to work with criminals tommorow night, going to go out and serve warrants. I am a reserve deputy. Hoping to find a full time job in the field of working with criminals.

The police thing is what rekindled my interests in martial arts.

12 years in a maximum security county correctional facility. It is an education to listen to these individuals from the perspective of knowing their tactics. It give one a better realization of what it takes and what is needed to prevent becoming one of their victims.

It would be most interesting to have an anti-gunner sit down and speak with some of these individuals face to face. I think their perceptions would be dramatically altered. A firearm is a tool, no more, no less.

It is a fact that 35% of rape attempts are successful. It is a fact that if you allow the attacker to take you from crime scene # 1 to crime scene # 2 your chances of survival drop to almost zero. It is a fact that rape attempts on an armed and aware female are only 1% successful.

It is the weakest animal in the herd a predator goes for. Don't act weak!

:asian:

I should note that in the part of the constitution that maintains arms should not be imposed upon it also uses the world Regulated, and malita..

I found that for all sides to the gun issue the constitution can be fully interpreted to support all sides 100%

makes it a little interesting...

What i would like to actualy here, is ideas and ways to make sure that the so called "Bad guys" can't get guns, while the rest of us "Law abiding" can freely get them..

Regulated at the time meant functioning. And militia means all citizens(possibly just males) between the ages of roughly 15-60 according to decisions of the united states supreme court. The militia is not the national guard or reserves according to the SCOTUS.

I should note that in the part of the constitution that maintains arms should not be imposed upon it also uses the world Regulated, and malita..

It does not use the word "regulated" in the context of "regulating the right to keep and bear arms." It is used to explain why "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Because, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

edited for punctuation

Originally posted by Wmarden
I respect those of differing views, good people can disagree.

Hey, at least we agree on something. :asian:

I know I am opinionated. I get wood when I see an injustice to fight. I mean that it really gets under my skin when something ain't right. And I feel that denying people a means of defending themselves is wrong. Hence my strong opinions on the matter.

The way I see it, criminals ain't about to obey laws, so why punish good decent folk who try to exercise their rights. It is the people who are doing the good or the bad, not the guns. I could, in theory, kill more people without guns than with guns. But it won't happen because I ain't an evil prick. May be a prick somedays, but not evil.

Originally posted by Wmarden
I know I am opinionated. I get wood when I see an injustice to fight. I mean that it really gets under my skin when something ain't right. And I feel that denying people a means of defending themselves is wrong. Hence my strong opinions on the matter.

Your welcome to be as opinionated as you like. As for me, I've stated my opinion, and I don't feel like arguing political issues into perpetuity, especially since neither of us are going to convince the other one.

I will say this: if all gun owners in the US showed the common sense and reasoning ability that most of the pro-gun people on MT have shown, I'd care much less about gun control. :asian:

Ok, one more thing (can't resist): "Regulated" in the wording of the second amendmant also meant properly trained.

(Ok, done now. Really.)

all my guns are properly trained. They go in the litter box like they are supposed too.:D

Originally posted by Zepp


I will say this: if all gun owners in the US showed the common sense and reasoning ability that most of the pro-gun people on MT have shown, I'd care much less about gun control.
(Ok, done now. Really.)

And yet would you beleive I don't belong to the nra because I think they compromise too much. And if you want common sense and reasoning, read Ted Nugent's stuff. He is actually a pretty smart guy. Hey he kept off drug in rock and roll so he has gotta have some brain cells.

Originally posted by Wmarden
And yet would you beleive I don't belong to the nra because I think they compromise too much. And if you want common sense and reasoning, read Ted Nugent's stuff. He is actually a pretty smart guy. Hey he kept off drug in rock and roll so he has gotta have some brain cells.


Ted,Nugent also eat's his road kill and what he hunts. A real interesting story, here he is making millions and all his friends are helping him loose money. He actually had to go out and hunt to feed his wife and kids. He does Rant, and Rave and cen seem a little off the wall, yet, if you get by his approach and listen to what he has to say, you might find somethings of interest and to your liking.


(* I heard this story from Ted Nugent on a radio show and also on a TV show *)

Just an opinion :)



:asian:

I know that in this country, most people that do not have a criminal record and are of legal age can buy firearms. Many states do not prohibit open carry. Most states do require a CCW if you are going to carry concealed. For example, WV is a right to carry state. If I can prove that I have been trained in hand gun use, and have a clean backround, the state has to issue my CCW, for a fee. I carry a firearm on duty and off duty. I have to prove to two different governing bodies that I can use my firearm effectively every year. I have a CCW, which is good in a few different states. I had to prove to Sheriff that I had been properly trained in hand gun use. So, to legally carry a hand gun, I have had to prove several times that I can use it properly and accurately. That is for outside my home. If I want one for inside my home or am going to carry it out in the open, all Ihave to do is legally be able to buy one. Please note that I have stressed legally several times. How many drug dealers walk into a gun store and legally buy a gun? or gang bangers for that matter? it's not the legal guns that are the issue, it's the illegal ones. I really get annoyed by the anti-gun lobby. They seem to have a hard on for taking away legal guns. legal guns are a small percentage of the problem. It is illegal guns that are the real issue. How do you get them out of the hands of criminals? Once you can answer that question, reasonably, you can start solving the problems.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Originally posted by MartialArtist
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

It's called spin. It's the same thing the author of this article has done. It just goes to show you that you can't take political messages at face value. (Surprise, surprise! :eek: )

Hey i like guns and they are cool.

The way I look at it, if a guy robs a bank with a gun, why not make it illegal to rob a bank, rather than make it illegal to own a gun. Oh wait that didn't work either! People still rob banks and the people who didn't rob banks before still don't.

I think that this forum is full of confident people. That's a good thing and a definite trait that comes with training, but I think that blinds us to the mentality of why a hand gun was invented. Just like Ronnie VanZant said, "Handgun ain't good for nothin but killin a man." (Is my neck showin a little red. :D ) The idea of a handgun is one of a great equalizer. The little old lady can use it just as easily as the brute. The idea, whether it was realized or not, was to stop victimization. Its harder to realize the fear of a 85 year old woman who lives alone in a high crime area, when you are a strapping 220lb 25 yr old who is trained to defend himself. (Sorry for any generalizations, but extremes make the best impact).

This post is getting longer than I would have liked, but I think you guys hit a really active subject here in OH (Legislation for legal concealed carry is about to happen). My stance is that the constitution is pretty plain in its ability to state that it was meant to keep protection in the hands of its citizens (It even goes so far as to specifically mention guns). The wording is pretty clear and doesn't require any interpretation, even for the old English of the time. This is because our forefathers saw what can happen in a police state, like England at that time (and to some extent currently), where only the government has the power. In a sense democracy itself is maintained by garunteeing that the average citizen has at least an equal chance of defence of his person.

The scary part is that our society has lost any semblance of patience and has traded it in for speed and efficiency. This breeds rage; road rage, air rage, hospital rage. Guns make this rage lethal. Why do you think there are less violent gun crimes (per capita) in the sticks; because people aren't rushing and raging to get everything right now. This isn't a gun problem, its a mentality problem.

By the way, I feel great about posting on this thread, because it has been so thoughtfully debated on such a freindly level, unlike some other posts I have seen onsite. Great Thread!
;)

Thanks for the oportunity to vent.:soapbox:

My stance is that the constitution is pretty plain in its ability to state that it was meant to keep protection in the hands of its citizens (It even goes so far as to specifically mention guns).

Where does the Bill of Rights mentions guns? It states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms means any weapon be it guns, knives, swords, etc.

Originally posted by 928Porsche
My stance is that the constitution is pretty plain in its ability to state that it was meant to keep protection in the hands of its citizens (It even goes so far as to specifically mention guns).

Where does the Bill of Rights mentions guns? It states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms means any weapon be it guns, knives, swords, etc.

My fault, I should be more clear. :( You are correct, the US Constitution says "arms", it is in annotated OH state constitutional case law and in US constitutional case law that the direct subject of shotguns is brought up.

Upon reading these cases the general idea of maintaining a militia is constantly being whittled away one weapon at a time until all we will be able to carry is toothpicks, unless we are getting on a plane, then those are most likely cause for arrest like everything else that is pointy. I just got stopped on a business trip for having a metal pen with my company's name on it. Not that it wouldn't make a nice weapon in a bind. :duel:

I'm for some sort of control. Getting your hands on an anti-tank bazooka shouldn't be easy, nor mortars, RPGs, etc.

But handguns, semi-auto rifles, and some types of SMGs are adequate in protecting others.

well I voted good, but that doesn't adaquitly describe my view of guns.

Guns are quite obviously a tool and can't realy be catagorised as good or bad. It's the human that makes the gun and uses it, it is excluseive to our ability to imagine and engineer.

That being said I think it would be a little nicer if there were no guns outside of military hands, but that's virtualy imposable in this nation (I live in the US). We van't stop illegal imigrants rom crossing te boarder and most of them just walk across, we can't stop drugs from comming in, a few months ago we didn't even check in comming freighter ships.. Even if we could seal our boarders we would have to track down and destroy every weapon already in our boarders, and even if we did that how will we stop someone from manufacturing a weapon? It's realy quite unrealistic.. I do think wepaons should be tracked and registered basicly how cars are, not to inhibit the ability to own or operate one but for accountability. I do not see any reason why most people should be limited in the ownership of weapons, in this nation we are granted the right to move around freely pursue virtualy any career we want, and the average citizen is the basic building block of our government (we choose the leadership of our government either directly or indirectly) So why the heck would we be considered not responsable enough when it comes to firearms? Obviously there have to be some limits and also obviously it is an imperfect deffence against malevolant people wielding firearms but in most cases there is no reason to remove them from the hands of the honest.

As to the second ammendment, I think it's out of date.. An armed populace can not garuntee freedom. Excelent example being Iraq. Lots of people were and are armed there.. But they couldn't overthrow an opressive state. In todays world virtualy any nation could passify it's populace, armed or not because of the discrepency in power between military weapons and personal weapons. Guns wouldn't make a large diffrence if any diffrence.

Originally posted by Wmarden
Guns are neither good nor bad, they are inanimate objects. Much like a knife is neither good nor bad. It depends on the intent and user. I use a knife every day to do my job, so in that it is good. Terrorists used very similar kives in order to facilitate the murder of 3000 human beings.

I use a gun to develop the skills needed to save a life. Either my own or others. In that it is good. However there are some people who misuse them.

Like drunk drivers can misuse automobiles to produce a large number of fatalities. Yet automobiles are often used to transport people to the hospital or to their daily chores.

It is all in intent.

Very good. I agree for the most part. It's too bad we need them at all. But thats the world we live in. My wife owns a gun, I don't. My dad was a machine gunner in the Korean conflict and told us of stories where all he did was shoot and kill man after man after man. He never wanted to kill another as long as he lived so he didn't own a gun when he left the service. He kind of instilled that in me. But I would never say owning or not owning a gun is right or wrong. at least we have a choice.

I have heard in the past the argument that the founding fathers gave no thought to the "future of arms" when they wrote about the right to keep and bear arms... That may or may not be true, but as far as I am concerned, they clearly addressed the issue...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Note where it said "Our Posterity" They clearly meant for this document to be followed beyond their passing... When they said "provide for the common defense" (common being you or I) AND provided for us to "Keep and Bear Arms" I believe they meant for the COMMON MAN (or woman) to have access to the neccssary arms to "provide for the common defense", meaning we have access to weapons equal or greater than our enemies... be that internally (criminals, rebels or malcontents) or a foriegn aggressor.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, I cannot SPEAK 100% on this, because I have never seen the original, but it was and is my understanding that This Amendment is 2 separate sentances. 1 about a militia being neccessary, and One about bearing arms. I would say, if that were true, the period between the sentances makes them mutualy exclusive...

But again, dont quote me on the second one.

I voted good awhile ago.

I actually think that as an invention, they are bad. Too many people have been killed as a result of this invention.

But, since they have been invented and are available for "bad guys" I say it is good to own and learn how to use it.

I always tell people who ask why I carry a knife as a "weapon,"
"The knife isn't a weapon, it's a tool. I'm the weapon!"

I believe that this is true in the case of guns also.

It's a tool. Any positive or negative connotation is strictly in the mind of the beholder. For a martial artist to not avail himself, or herself, of a potentially lethal tool, especially one as common as a firearm, is naive and childish at best.

There's nothing wrong with guns - it's the bullets that hurt! ;)

I choice good. I've grown up with guns and so have people in my family. You have to respect a weapon before you can really appreciate it. However, there are always precautions that should be taken with any weapon. We keep all our weapons locked up when they are not being used, that is if we're not target practicing or using them for hunting. A few have also mentioned that many people get killed by guns. My response to that is more people die in car accidents each year than they do from guns and I don't see too many people in a big hurry to outlaw cars. It's not the gun's fault that an idiot was put behind it, they can only harm when someone pulls that trigger :asian:

Hard question kind of
they have good and bad as do martial arts
both are born of a need to harm yet can be used to help survive
i got to say the answer to good or bad is
yes they are good and bad just like humans
mainly good though

A gun is neither good or bad. Only the user and his/her intent defines the purpose.

Well said, Doc. It is only a tool, after all, and without a user it isn't all that useful.

Although this post has been around a while, this is the first time I have looked at it. I may have avoided it before because I am very 'anti-gun'. And I know that talking about my point of view on guns is even more futile than talking about religion or politics.

But, what did come to mind as I reviewed the first few posts is :

What a strange choice in adjectives!

Many have already said that guns are not good or bad ... yada yada yada ... but why not make the survey choices "Safe" and "Dangerous", or "Big" or "Small", or "Intelligent" or "Foolish". How might that change the discussion?

Some spiritual beliefs propose that we are all connected .. so, if you own a gun, I own a gun ... and that is enough for me.

I guess the same poll could be set up for cars.

Safe or Dangerous?

It depends whose "hands" it is in.

More people die from cars each year BTW ;-)

I love guns! :)

Although this post has been around a while, this is the first time I have looked at it. I may have avoided it before because I am very 'anti-gun'. And I know that talking about my point of view on guns is even more futile than talking about religion or politics.

But, what did come to mind as I reviewed the first few posts is :

What a strange choice in adjectives!

Many have already said that guns are not good or bad ... yada yada yada ... but why not make the survey choices "Safe" and "Dangerous", or "Big" or "Small", or "Intelligent" or "Foolish". How might that change the discussion?

Some spiritual beliefs propose that we are all connected .. so, if you own a gun, I own a gun ... and that is enough for me.
I don't consider any tool/technology as inherently 'good' or 'bad.' Nor do I consider myself a 'pro gun' or what ever person.

I do believe that I am a "Pro Responsibility/accountability" person regardless of the technology. In the case of firearms, they are here to stay and will improve in their development as all technology does.

I think that regulations that hold firearms owners accountable and teach them how to operate them responsibility is a must. I also don't think that is rediculous that the Gov can say that a private citizen can not own a Browning .50 cal machine gun. Come on, there is a point where 'civil liberties' and practicallity meet and you have to look at the reality over the 'principles.'

I didn't think "good" would win either. Was a little surprised. Guns are not bad or good. They hate no one. They don't kill people.
People are either good or bad. People hate. People kill. Guns are just one of many tools that can be used to do harm. They can also be a tool to teach your child how to be resposible. Hunting with your children can build bonds that never break. An Indiana town police officer tied his wife to the bed and beat her scull in with a hammer. Are hammers good or bad?

Guns are a good thing to have. I just like to shoot at paper targets to have fun.

An Indiana town police officer tied his wife to the bed and beat her scull in with a hammer. Are hammers good or bad?
I voted guns good
Hammers good
some people... bad

Hey, he had to tie her down to hit her with that thing? what too many doughnuts?

I recall a conversation on usenet long ago.

Poster A: I don't like guns, and that's my opinion.
Poster B: Why do I care about your opinion? You are unarmed.

Geez, is thread ever gonna die?

If the question had been: "Should private citizens be restricted from owning firearms;" or "Are firearms a viable method of self-defense;" or "Does the availability of firearms contribute to violent crime?" Then that would have been one thing (of course we know the answers to those questions too). But "are guns bad?" Puh-leez, guns are inanimate objects and are no more good or bad than knives, rocks, flower-pots, or dildos.

-end of rant-

Puh-leez, guns are inanimate objects and are no more good or bad than knives, rocks, flower-pots, or dildos.

-end of rant-

So true, I belive the worst part about guns is the lack of education when it comes to them. The general public has no idea about firearms and that is dangerous.

So true, I belive the worst part about guns is the lack of education when it comes to them. The general public has no idea about firearms and that is dangerous.
That is because the general public is loaded with idiots that believe everything that comes out of the mouths of people like Oprah Winfrey and Katie Couric.
If someone wants to know about firearms then go to the source, ask the NRA or GOA, not some television personality.

HKF

Yeah that is true, I dont own a gun but there are so many crackpots out there that want to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives. I dont have a problem with people owning them personally I dont care if someone owns them. I however, would not want some tv personality telling me what I should or should not do with my life, I unlike most of them live in the real world and dont need their advice on anything.

I unlike most of them live in the real world and dont need their advice on anything. Celeberties live in a real world with real trials and tribulations. Perhaps getting killed because a paparatzi ran your car off the road to get good "after the accident" pics isn't an issue for you, or you sunbathing topless won't show up on tabloid covers all ove, and perhaps no one will sue you because you seem like an easy target, and perhaps you can go to dinner and eat without being mobbed the whole time, and perhaps you don't have a couple people stalking you.

The real world you live in my not be the same one as the real world they live in; but let's not disparage a group of professions, nor discount the "reality" of their lives just because they are different from ours.

Based on what you and I do, soldiers working in Iraq wouldn't live in the "real world" either... theirs is worse.

Celebrities may be exposed to a lot of things, they are also over privileged in many ways. One thing does not offset the other, but when someone with absolutely no clue on an issue decides to stick his or her face in front of a camera and tell me how I should live my life simply because they are from Hollywood, without any regards to the trials and tribulations of middle class America, well I sort of have a problem with that. There are some guys out there that are worth listening to, obviously according to your political beliefs: Charlie Sheen, Shawn Penn, and Arnold are a few that come to mind I respect them for truly believing in their ideals, but it seems most are just pre-occupied with having a camera on their faces, and I for one am turned off by that. That is not to say that they dont have a voice, of course they do, but with respect to issues like this I just rather not hear what most of them have to say.

In any event, back to the topic, I dont want to own a gun, but I dont think that guns should be banned.

Agreed (excetping that I do want to, and in fact do, own several firearms ;) )

Guns are neither Good nor Bad. Although I did vote Good. Guns are not alive. They are no different than any other tool. They have more uses other than hunting and killing (self defense or otherwise). Sport, Competition, Collection are just some things I use my various shooting irons for. An inanimate object gains the hate of some people because it is thought to be easier to control than the guy who has it.

Good lord, it popped up again...

this thread is 2.5 years old, and as I stated in my other post on this thread (#76) the question the poll asks is dumb to begin with. Can a Mod just lock this and let it die?

If nobody posts in it, it will die. By your posting you brought it forward to the New Posts list.

-Michael

If nobody posts in it, it will die. By your posting you brought it forward to the New Posts list.

-Michael

What actually keeps happening is that new people vote in the poll, bringing the thread back to the top....

Paul

and reminding everyone that mass murderers like hitler, stalin and mao all agree. Gun control works.

This one time, in band camp....

Wait, thats another story.

Once I was hammering a nail. I squashed my thumb with the hammer. It was my conclusion it was the hammer's fault. Analogy to examin. :-)

My gun is my work tool (law enforcement) --so it is a tool I need to come home safely to my family each night. With gun ownership come's great reponsibility. Gunowner's should have proper training (hunter's safety/ concealed weapons safety courses etc..). to avoid those "accidental discharges" - which biols down to misuse and irresponsibility!

Please use your child safety locks and gun safes - Keep your kids safe!

In the U.S., in my humble opinion, I believe a citizen who is law abiding [no felonies or violent crimes] and is in possession of good mental hygiene [no mental issues that require medication] he/she ought to be allowed to carry concealed nationwide.

Sign up in my local hardware store:

If you own a gun, you are a citizen.
If not, you are a slave.

tsdclaflin:

Of course I like what you posted there and agree.
I just think it is obvious that it's a good thing when you look at the states that allow carry concealed, the crime rates in those states tend to drastically decrease and also that is fairly quickly. I just don't see any justification against it. It almost seems like the anti gun group would rather us all be victims and stand by while we get bent over.

Firearms are neither good nor bad. They are tools. As with all tools, you must follow the applicable safety rules or you increase the danger of harming yourself or someone else.

I disagree whole heartedly.
Firearms are good.
The rest is pretty obvious.

Next poll: Hammers - good or bad?

I have not found a tool I did not like. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

I've had jobs that have required several different "Tools"

Good.. I own 3 handguns and a couple of rifles.. Not sure if this was already mentioned but one of the main reasons that the US Mainland was not invaded during WW2 is because the enemy knew that a majority of Americans in the 1940's owned rifles or handguns. They knew Americans would join together and fight an invading enemy..

Good.. I own 3 handguns and a couple of rifles.. Not sure if this was already mentioned but one of the main reasons that the US Mainland was not invaded during WW2 is because the enemy knew that a majority of Americans in the 1940's owned rifles or handguns. They knew Americans would join together and fight an invading enemy..

Well The Japanese were in Alaska the islands.

There were those that wanted to attck San Fran instead of Hawai'i and get rid of a ship yard and also take the city. They were over ruled as being to far of supply lines with the complete Pacific Fleet intact.

Just curious what sources you have for the not attacking the mainland of the USA?

i think there good and plan on getting my ccw soon

Good.. I own 3 handguns and a couple of rifles.. Not sure if this was already mentioned but one of the main reasons that the US Mainland was not invaded during WW2 is because the enemy knew that a majority of Americans in the 1940's owned rifles or handguns. They knew Americans would join together and fight an invading enemy..

Or maybe because none of the Axis countries was set up to project force across the Atlantic/Pacific that way??? And the idea of Japan successfully establishing control and then maintaining a groundforce on the US mainland is laughable, and that has nothing to do with civilian arms.

Lamont

One could say that if there wasnt a tool in the first place then there would be less of a chance for an idiot to use it?

I personally dont like guns..and cant see any point in having one other then the whole 'well he has a gun so i need a gun to protect myself from his gun' idea which is a problem to late to correct.

Guns are neither good nor bad, they are inanimate objects. Much like a knife is neither good nor bad. It depends on the intent and user. I use a knife every day to do my job, so in that it is good. Terrorists used very similar kives in order to facilitate the murder of 3000 human beings.

I use a gun to develop the skills needed to save a life. Either my own or others. In that it is good. However there are some people who misuse them.

Like drunk drivers can misuse automobiles to produce a large number of fatalities. Yet automobiles are often used to transport people to the hospital or to their daily chores.

It is all in intent.

This person was squarely on target.

Anyone who would deride your gun as a "tool" could similarly label your katana, your wakizashi, your sai, your jo as "tools" and urge they be banned - for your own good of course.

Anyone contending that you should give up your right to use a firearm in self defense will next be legislating to close your dojo.

Personally, I like the fact that some thug with a smattering of training in MMA or whatever needs to be in fear that his intended prey will draw on him and blow his brains out. Tough world.

One could say that if there wasnt a tool in the first place then there would be less of a chance for an idiot to use it?

I personally dont like guns..and cant see any point in having one other then the whole 'well he has a gun so i need a gun to protect myself from his gun' idea which is a problem to late to correct.

Just as a different viewpoint here. Not knocking yours at all Odin (love the name by the way) but I have never thought of my gun ownership like this. I guess it is all in how close you are raised with them. Guns were always a part of my upbringing and always around the house, no mystery around them, no fasination with them really. It was never a thought to sneak a peak when the folks were not looking because all I had to do was ask and Dad (or Mom) would take me out shooting. It was never a matter of thinking I had to have them around to protect myself from somebody else with one. It was a matter of becoming more skilled at shooting them. I still look at my guns as a skill related item and activity, much the same as my Martial Arts. I shoot to better the last time I went out. If I put 10 rounds from my .270 in a spot you could cover with a dollar bill folded in half from 200 yards, I wanted to better that the next time I went out. I would hate to guess how many pounds of lead I have put down the barrel of my guns just for the shear joy of the bang, the recoil, the smell of burnt gunpowder, and watching a hole open up in my target downrange. One year I shot 12,500 rounds out of my .44 Mag; 15,000 out of my .357 Mag; 3250 out of my .270 Win; and a few thousand more out of the others I own, just for these reasons.

To protect myself? No, just for the fun! Some people like to sky-dive, some like to race (boats, cars, motorcycles, whatever), and some of us like to shoot.

Just as a different viewpoint here. Not knocking yours at all Odin (love the name by the way) but I have never thought of my gun ownership like this. I guess it is all in how close you are raised with them. Guns were always a part of my upbringing and always around the house, no mystery around them, no fasination with them really. It was never a thought to sneak a peak when the folks were not looking because all I had to do was ask and Dad (or Mom) would take me out shooting. It was never a matter of thinking I had to have them around to protect myself from somebody else with one. It was a matter of becoming more skilled at shooting them. I still look at my guns as a skill related item and activity, much the same as my Martial Arts. I shoot to better the last time I went out. If I put 10 rounds from my .270 in a spot you could cover with a dollar bill folded in half from 200 yards, I wanted to better that the next time I went out. I would hate to guess how many pounds of lead I have put down the barrel of my guns just for the shear joy of the bang, the recoil, the smell of burnt gunpowder, and watching a hole open up in my target downrange. One year I shot 12,500 rounds out of my .44 Mag; 15,000 out of my .357 Mag; 3250 out of my .270 Win; and a few thousand more out of the others I own, just for these reasons.

To protect myself? No, just for the fun! Some people like to sky-dive, some like to race (boats, cars, motorcycles, whatever), and some of us like to shoot.

I respect your view point, I just live in a country where having a gun is a serious offense, so I'venever been around them alot...and the ones I were around where in the hands of idoits.

I respect your view point, I just live in a country where having a gun is a serious offense, so I'venever been around them alot...and the ones I were around where in the hands of idoits.

You might be interested in reading some of the discussions here regarding "gun control" to get a handle on a different perspective. Often when people live in an area where something is highly regulated, they can't imagine what it would be like if there wasn't that regulation. Someone from Europe might have a hard time visualizing what it might be like if everyone could carry a gun; yet one only has to look at civilized areas where gun carry is allowed to see that life is fairly normal and safe, and that there isn't mayham in the streets because of relaxed regulations. Similarly, it might be very difficult for Americans to visualize what it would be like if there were no drinking age (here you have to be 21 to drink alcahol). It only takes an observation of places like in Europe to see that not only is there not this huge drinking problem among youths when regulation is relaxed, but that incidences of alcaholism and alcahol related deaths are actually lower in places where there is no minimum drinking age.

So it is good to look at different perspectives to really see the end results with stuff like this...

:)

I live in America, there is not a shooting range near here cause we don't need one. If you see an old fridge or old cars parked in a field you can go shot at them this is called a shooting range here.

...shoot back!

guns are like martial arts.tools used by people.also you need to practice to make them effective

Personally I can’t imagine not being allowed to own and carry a gun. I grew up on a ranch and I was shooting long before I could drive. I was raised with a lot of respect for guns and the importance of gun safety. I think that guns can be a very good thing, but like anything else they can be abused and without proper safety they can be very dangerous to everyone. Far more people die from automobile accidents every year than are injured by firearms.

http://www.theoclawyer.com/guns-dui.html (http://www.theoclawyer.com/guns-dui.html)
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3247_0_2_0_C/ (http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3247_0_2_0_C/)

Are guns good or bad?
According to my Zen teacher, they would be neither... they would just be guns.

Now my philosophical stance is that I do not belive in committing violent acts. I am a practitioner of nonviolence (not to be confused with pacifism) who belives that as a matter of design there is still no answer to this question.

One could say that guns were designed to kill. Thus they are bad.
One could say guns were designed to protect. Thus they are good.

I own a glock.
Glocks were designed for one thing. Protection or killing--its your decision to make, not mine.

Personally I fall more towards the killing end and dont especially like the sense of power that comes with carry of a weapon, but I still own one and while I do not support CCW laws, I have a CCW.

Have I made myself a walking contradiction yet?
Or is this the sound of one hand clapping?

Guns are neither good or bad, they are just tools that one can do good or bad with.

Fortunately, there are more good people than bad people. :)

I voted GOOD, i have multiple firearms, for different applications, 1st, Pistols Colt Anaconda 44mag. 4'' barrel, & Springfield Armory Model #1911 45, these weapons are for personal protection when i go out and when i go hiking in the mountains.
2nd. Shotguns, Mossberg 20ga pump short barrel w/ pistol grips, this firearm is for Home defense.
3rd. Rifle, Springfield Armory Model # M1A ( Civilian version of the M14 ) i purchased this rifle for the main reason of strengthening our U.S. Constitution, if the "Well Regulated (Regulated meaning trained ) Militia" ever needs formed to take back our Government, I must have a weapon that can reach out and touch the Tyrants men, and a 7.62 x 51 round can sure do that.
God Bless Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our founding Fathers for giving us such a great gift and responsibility in the Bill Of Rights.

God Bless Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our founding Fathers for giving us such a great gift and responsibility in the Bill Of Rights.

No.Mr. Jefferson and the other Founders would surely disagree.

God Bless Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our founding Fathers for giving us such a great gift and responsibility in the Bill Of Rights.

They would probably say that "they" didn't give us the "gift" it is a natural right.

Lamont

I've voted that guns are bad, but that is because anything that can end a life (human or animal) with the tiniest of effort has to be bad. For the same reason I would vote that most weapons are bad. It appears that most people are voting about gun control and the right to carry a gun rather than wether guns are a good or bad invention.

As for gun control my answer is a little hypocritical and complicated! I would say that if I were in the US I would certainly own a gun and argue for my right to own one. It's not a case of wether guns are good or bad it's about recognising that guns exist and criminals own and use them. If I were to move to the USA I would buy one very quickly and also look forward to practicisng in a shooting range.

My answer is hypocritical because I live in the UK but I am content with the gun control in my country. If people were to campaign for UK citizens to own guns I would campaign against it. I feel that in the UK gun ownership would just increase accidental deaths, suicides and would have a detrimental impact on society because that is not a part of our current generations culture.

So in summary, I feel that one could never honestly call any weapon designed for killing or maiming another human being good but I understand and would advocate the need and desire to own one if you are living in a culture where gun ownership rights have long been established.

I voted GOOD!!! Just the fact that I can vote good is a pretty good reason for me to vote that way. If it were not for my guns and those of other good, law abiding, gun owners, we would not have these rights. We would be enslaved by the ones we have elected to office. I need my guns to protect the rights of the liberals to complain about my ownership of a firearm.

If you don't like my guns, then move to China, the UK, or some other screwed up country. Yes, it is MO that if you can't own a firearm, then your country is screwed up.

If you don't like my guns, then move to China, the UK, or some other screwed up country. Yes, it is MO that if you can't own a firearm, then your country is screwed up.

Ouch! That was pretty harsh! I could suggest that a country that denies healthcare to the poor and uninsured, or still has the death penalty, or allows the teaching of creationism as fact in some schools as pretty screwed up but I better not or you might shoot me!

Please realise that no country is perfect and most governments are screwed up in some way. Your statement is a bit pot calling the kettle black.

I've voted that guns are bad, but that is because anything that can end a life (human or animal) with the tiniest of effort has to be bad. For the same reason I would vote that most weapons are bad.

WTF??? So what about cars? rocks? claw-hammers? kitchen knives? crickett bats?

Your post is one of the most idiotic I've ever seen on this forum.

WTF??? So what about cars? rocks? claw-hammers? kitchen knives? crickett bats?

Your post is one of the most idiotic I've ever seen on this forum.

Well Captain Clever.... cars are an invention that are designed primarily for transport, rocks aren't an invention, claw hammers are designed for building and DIY, kitchen knives were invented for cooking and cricket bats are designed for playing Cricket. Although all of the various objects you have mentioned can be used for killing, none of them were invented with that in mind. I do not think that it takes a genius to understand that the point I was making in my original post is that anything that is designed for killing and ending life can not ethically and morally be classified as good. That belief has nothing to do whatsoever with gun control

If you got down of that high horse for one second and read my post properly you would have noted that I was not arguing against your precious right to carry firearms, in fact, if you were able to read, you would see that I was saying the exact oposite. Just because something may be necessary does not mean it is good or wholesome.

Your post is one of the most rude and ignorant I've ever seen on this forum.

...Although all of the various objects you have mentioned can be used for killing, none of them were invented with that in mind. I do not think that it takes a genius to understand that the point I was making in my original post is that anything that is designed for killing and ending life can not ethically and morally be classified as good. That belief has nothing to do whatsoever with gun control
If that is the point you were trying to make, you did a poor job. (Besides, that's your opinion and making such definitive statements leaves you wide open for criticism.)

you said:
I've voted that guns are bad, but that is because anything that can end a life (human or animal) with the tiniest of effort has to be bad. All the things I mentioned before, while not purpose designed weapons, can end a life. According to you, that makes them "bad."

Then you said:
For the same reason I would vote that most weapons are bad. Weapons are designed to end life (or, depending on your point of view, to save a life by ending someone else's). Are there some weapons (items designed to "end life") that aren't bad? Which ones don't fall into the "most weapons" category?
You're contradicting yourself

Apparently, you're saying that the taking of any life is bad? Even if said action allows an innocent person to stay alive?


If you got down of that high horse for one second and read my post properly you would have noted that I was not arguing against your precious right to carry firearms, If you had posted something that was coherent, it might have helped. And when did I say anything about my right to own firearms? I'm not going to waste my time arguing that one with you.

Your post is one of the most rude and ignorant I've ever seen on this forum.
I might be willing to concede on the "rude" part but I think you've got the "ignorant" part all to yourself.


I'm done with this thread...

Ah the good old sentence by sentence deconstruction of an original post! The realm of the straw man forumer designed with nothing else in mind than to manipulate and twist words out of the context in which they were originally written. I have re read my original post in full and I believe is very clear to any with a brain cell what I was saying. Maybe I was expecting a little much of you. Regardless of what your perception of my post it did not warrant such an insulting and extreme reaction as the one you gave.

Feel free to disagree with any of my posts but just because a persons views are not the same as yours does not make those views "idiotic". I pity people who live their lives with such black and white thinking as they must spend such a great deal of time experiencing extreme frustration that the world does run by their own rules and is in fact populated by many different people with different views, standards and behaviours than their own.

I'm glad you have done with this thread. Perhaps you should take yourself down to the firing range and shoot away some of that frustration.

Ah the good old sentence by sentence deconstruction of an original post! The realm of the straw man forumer designed with nothing else in mind than to manipulate and twist words out of the context in which they were originally written. I have re read my original post in full and I believe is very clear to any with a brain cell what I was saying. Maybe I was expecting a little much of you. Regardless of what your perception of my post it did not warrant such an insulting and extreme reaction as the one you gave.

Feel free to disagree with any of my posts but just because a persons views are not the same as yours does not make those views "idiotic". I pity people who live their lives with such black and white thinking as they must spend such a great deal of time experiencing extreme frustration that the world does run by their own rules and is in fact populated by many different people with different views, standards and behaviours than their own.

I'm glad you have done with this thread. Perhaps you should take yourself down to the firing range and shoot away some of that frustration. Actually, the notion that a gun is 'designed' for a purpose, and therefore retains some semblance of it's designers intent is a bit of anthropomorphism.....a logical fallacy in and of itself. It's based on the notion that an inanimate object can pick up a moral polarity by the intent of it's maker......it's simply ludicrious.

'Guns are designed to kill' the hopolophobe says......actually, no they are not....they are designed to accept a projectile of a certain caliber and propel it out of the end of the barrel....killing is an ACTION not a DESIGN! Only the human mind can will can kill with a gun.....devoid of a human hand and the will that controls it, a gun is a ROCK!

The idea of 'inherent badness' is, again, that fallacious anthropomorphism I mentioned earlier.....that the gun supernaturally picks up a will from it's maker. A gun is an animate object, a tool........designed to do what? It's ONLY ability is to do whatever the hand that wields it makes it do.....for good or ill.....it does not, LIKE THE RING OF SAURON, retain evil intent from it's maker! Though I suspect many hopolophobes imagine such.....that this inanimate object is embewed with some malevolent force!

Is a gun a weapon? Only in the hands that intend to use it as such....the designers intent is irrelavent once it leaves HIS hands. Is a baseball bat a sporting device or a weapon? It's a silly question, as the DECIDER of what it is, is the person holding it RIGHT NOW!

Guns as with any weapon are not the problem it is how and why they are used that is the problem. If the would be criminal did not have the use of a gun he/she would find another weapon to use.

Yep.

I think we need stronger fun control.

Is my fist bad? Is my foot bad? Ok, it does smell.

Are knives bad?

How about clubs?

How about cars (more killed with cars than guns.)

Or how about swimming pools. More people drowned in swimming pools than die by accident with guns.

In fact, Japan as more suicides, over 30,000, WITHOUT GUNS, than die by murder, commit suicide, or accident each year here WITH guns!

Guns give the weak a chance to fight the strong. Something many a liberal or even some martial artist don't see.

No gun's are not bad. They are equalizers. They level the playing field. It makes the weak on par with the strong.

God made our souls equal. Col. Colt made us equal.

Deaf

Okay, sorry. I called it "fun control" cuz that's really what it is.

I am principally opposed to delegating any IMAGINED (and I cannot stress that part enough) power to uncle sam, no matter how much people think he needs it.

I voted good. Did anyone see the Simpsons where Homer opens his beer with his gun? I do that all the time.

I voted good because I feel that they are necessary to protect ourselves and families and also to maintain our freedom. The so-called good natured intent of the antis to lessen the violence is a fallacy because it has been proven in countries like Australia and Great Britain that when the law-abiding citizen has no gun and the criminal does the outcome is an increase in the violence not a decrease. =/