I work with a gun toting idiot.

[Thesemindz]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off sounding like a troll, I guess it's just the mentality I have and I think it is different here in Canada than in the U.S, but all I was trying to say is that I don't believe in guns and if my comment has offended anyone then I apologize, but it's my opinion

I assume you mean you don't believe that people should own or use guns, not that you don't actually believe in guns themselves, as they clearly exist. If that is indeed your belief, I feel you are welcome to it.

As long as you don't attempt to enforce your beliefs on others, I don't have any problem with it. You are welcome to feel however you wish about any number of issues.


-Rob

 

[Josh Oakley]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off sounding like a troll, I guess it's just the mentality I have and I think it is different here in Canada than in the U.S, but all I was trying to say is that I don't believe in guns and if my comment has offended anyone then I apologize, but it's my opinion

Opinion or no, what does that statement even mean?! It's not quite the same thing as saying "I don't believe in Vishnu"!

 

[Josh Oakley]

So are hammers, scissors, pliers, ladels, and all other tools.


-Rob

A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.

 

[mozzandherb]

I assume you mean you don't believe that people should own or use guns, not that you don't actually believe in guns themselves, as they clearly exist. If that is indeed your belief, I feel you are welcome to it.

As long as you don't attempt to enforce your beliefs on others, I don't have any problem with it. You are welcome to feel however you wish about any number of issues.


-Rob

I am not the type to enforce my beliefs on others, that would be hard for me to do.

Opinion or no, what does that statement even mean?! It's not quite the same thing as saying "I don't believe in Vishnu"!

It's not a statement, it's my opinion. And what it means is that I believe guns cause more problems than they solve. I believe that if guns were abolished from the world a lot less people would be murdered, but like I said this is just my opinion

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Guns are bad, so are bullets.

Yes, so I've heard you say in one form or another several times in several threads. In one notable case in direct denial of an entire post by Archangel, refuting not only the claims you made but several of the main ones that the anti gun nuts keep parroting.


Is this to be the most constructive kind of contribution you can make to these type of threads?

if so, perhaps you might consider posting to others instead.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.

So wasn't a hammer, or a shovel, or a hoe, or a rake. and they are tools. The logic does not hold.

 

[Drac]

I believe in guns, I better as I carry one on duty..I am not a "gun nut" like some of my fellow LEO's..I don't have a safe filled with them..I have 2 in the house and one is a shotgun police issue configuration, the ultimate home protection..

 

[jks9199]

I believe in guns, I better as I carry one on duty..I am not a "gun nut" like some of my fellow LEO's..I don't have a safe filled with them..I have 2 in the house and one is a shotgun police issue configuration, the ultimate home protection..

Nor am I. I have my issue sidearms, and I own an off duty gun. My wife brought a revolver into the "collection" when we got married.

Guns serve a purpose. And I support ownership and concealed carry -- with reasonable regulation. I disagree with the fervor of some of the gun rights organizations that see every law and every restriction as the start of some government plot to seize all the guns.

But, to bring this diversion back on target, the "featured idiot" that inspired this thread is a great example of WHY I favor a certain degree of regulation.

 

[mozzandherb]

Yes, so I've heard you say in one form or another several times in several threads. In one notable case in direct denial of an entire post by Archangel, refuting not only the claims you made but several of the main ones that the anti gun nuts keep parroting.


Is this to be the most constructive kind of contribution you can make to these type of threads?

if so, perhaps you might consider posting to others instead.

It seems that I am being ostricized by my anti-gun views, and this is quite possible, I just saw a sponsor on the top of this page on this site saying that "In a gun fight, those who train win". it was an add to train with guns.

So it looks as though I am on the other side of the fence in this debate. And if you read through my posts you will see that I contribute more than just sayin "guns are bad".

 

[Thesemindz]

A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.

A sword is a tool. It was designed to serve a specific purpose, and refined for that purpose over time.

You may not like the purpose it serves, or you may since you said you are "all for guns," but they are tools either way.

That's like saying, I don't like raking leaves, so I don't acknowledge rakes as tools.

A tool is "an entity used to interface between two or more domains that facilitates more effective action of one domain upon the other." -Wikipedia

If you don't consider a firearm a tool, even a tool of death and destruction, then what do you consider it?


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

Guns serve a purpose. And I support ownership and concealed carry -- with reasonable regulation. I disagree with the fervor of some of the gun rights organizations that see every law and every restriction as the start of some government plot to seize all the guns.

But, to bring this diversion back on target, the "featured idiot" that inspired this thread is a great example of WHY I favor a certain degree of regulation.

Except that regulation failed to keep this guy from at least bragging about, if not actually behaving, in a completely foolish and unsafe manner.

I'm against all forms of state oppression. Regulation only works on those people who are already responsible enough not to behave in this fashion anyway. Education will bring more people around, but fiat does nothing for those who will, and nothing for those who won't.


-Rob

 

[tellner]

mozzandherb, the fact that people are replying to you means that you're not being ostracized. What we're doing is something rather different. We're disagreeing with you, often with long posts containing many links and reams of information.

If you'd talked to me twenty years ago I would have agreed with almost everything you say. But the more I learned the less I could support my beliefs. So they changed. You'll find a lot of that in this debate. But it almost always goes one way. Plenty of people have gone from staunch opponents of firearms ownership to strong supporters. Almost nobody travels in the other direction.

Sure, there are people who say "What in the world do you have all those guns for?" And plenty listen to the paranoia-indicuing ravings of the NRA with a healthy dosing of skeptical disgust. When the Lodge is tyled a few will even say that mandatory education would be a good thing if it could be done without turning it into a backdoor ban; given what shows up in the Darwin Awards and the daily stories at Fark.com I'd settle for built-in breathalyzers. Mall Ninja are viewed with contempt by the vast majority of gun owners.

None of that changes the fact that we believe in the right of people to defend themselves with the most effective tools available for that purpose. Today that means firearms. A hundred years from now that might be phasers or the Possible Sword.

 

[Drac]

But, to bring this diversion back on target, the "featured idiot" that inspired this thread is a great example of WHY I favor a certain degree of regulation.

Agreed on both points...

 

[searcher]

A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.

I, and the NRA, do not agree with you. A gun is not a weapon UNTIL it is turned on a person. Guns have more than one use. They can be used to feed your family, for competition,........

A gun is not always a weapon. A hammer, scissors, ink pen, or car can all become a weapon, but arethey not also tools?

 

[mozzandherb]

mozzandherb, the fact that people are replying to you means that you're not being ostracized. What we're doing is something rather different. We're disagreeing with you, often with long posts containing many links and reams of information.

If you'd talked to me twenty years ago I would have agreed with almost everything you say. But the more I learned the less I could support my beliefs. So they changed. You'll find a lot of that in this debate. But it almost always goes one way. Plenty of people have gone from staunch opponents of firearms ownership to strong supporters. Almost nobody travels in the other direction.

Sure, there are people who say "What in the world do you have all those guns for?" And plenty listen to the paranoia-indicuing ravings of the NRA with a healthy dosing of skeptical disgust. When the Lodge is tyled a few will even say that mandatory education would be a good thing if it could be done without turning it into a backdoor ban; given what shows up in the Darwin Awards and the daily stories at Fark.com I'd settle for built-in breathalyzers. Mall Ninja are viewed with contempt by the vast majority of gun owners.

None of that changes the fact that we believe in the right of people to defend themselves with the most effective tools available for that purpose. Today that means firearms. A hundred years from now that might be phasers or the Possible Sword.

I completely agree with you, all I was saying that I was taking some heat in the fact that I wrote "I dont believe in guns", but I dont see why that what I wrote is so different to let's say this quote?

Do I believe in guns, our nation was built behind the use of guns, so of course I believe in guns.

I think that if I would have just simply agreed with the majoirty, I would not have been criticized. Can we just make believe that I said what Terrtyl965 said and then be let off the hook?

 

[Thesemindz]

I completely agree with you, all I was saying that I was taking some heat in the fact that I wrote "I dont believe in guns", but I dont see why that what I wrote is so different to let's say this quote?


I think that if I would have just simply agreed with the majoirty, I would not have been criticized. Can we just make believe that I said what Terrtyl965 said and then be let off the hook?

It isn't a matter of criticizing, at least not from me. It's a matter of discussion. Your original post was quite simple.

Guns are bad, so are bullets.

Now, if you feel that way, fine. I don't agree, but I wouldn't deny you your opinion. However, many who hold this opinion would be more than willing to deny me mine. In fact, many of them would turn to the very guns and bullets in which they don't believe, to take away my right and ability to defend myself and my family, from theft, violence, and state oppression.

As long as you don't fall into that category, I don't have any beef with you. Our discussion then would be purely academic, and only exist in the realm of persuasive argument. It is those who would seek to forceably disarm my family with whom I have a more realized issue.

Voting to use violence to oppress me is no different than pointing the gun at me yourself.

Calling the police to use violence to oppress me is no different than pointing the gun at me yourself.

As long as you aren't pointing a gun at me, we can talk.


-Rob

 

[Josh Oakley]

A sword is a tool. It was designed to serve a specific purpose, and refined for that purpose over time.

You may not like the purpose it serves, or you may since you said you are "all for guns," but they are tools either way.

That's like saying, I don't like raking leaves, so I don't acknowledge rakes as tools.

A tool is "an entity used to interface between two or more domains that facilitates more effective action of one domain upon the other." -Wikipedia

If you don't consider a firearm a tool, even a tool of death and destruction, then what do you consider it?


-Rob

I consider it a weapon.

However, I looked up the definition of "weapon" and got: a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

So I'm revamping my understanding. Any weapon is a tool. So you're right. In fact, my response was a knee-jerk reaction to people how tend to call knives, guns, etc. "tools" for the sole reason that they don't want to have to deal with people's reaction to the word "weapon.

Obviously, I was not responding to you but to what I thought you represented. I was sorely mistaken. Thank you, though, for giving me a better understanding on the concept of the word "tool".

 

[Josh Oakley]

I, and the NRA, do not agree with you. A gun is not a weapon UNTIL it is turned on a person. Guns have more than one use. They can be used to feed your family, for competition,........

A gun is not always a weapon. A hammer, scissors, ink pen, or car can all become a weapon, but arethey not also tools?

A weapon is a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

the deer you're killing is your adversary because he's trying not to become your dinner.

In a competition you are beating your adversary through destruction of paper.

I've yet to see a single use of a gun that would not make it a weapon, despite the NRA's creative redifinition of the word "weapon".

But you are right, a weapon is also a tool. and it has more than one use. It can put holes in things and be used as a blunt instrument.

 

[Thesemindz]

I consider it a weapon.

However, I looked up the definition of "weapon" and got: a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

So I'm revamping my understanding. Any weapon is a tool. So you're right. In fact, my response was a knee-jerk reaction to people how tend to call knives, guns, etc. "tools" for the sole reason that they don't want to have to deal with people's reaction to the word "weapon.

Obviously, I was not responding to you but to what I thought you represented. I was sorely mistaken. Thank you, though, for giving me a better understanding on the concept of the word "tool".

No problem. Now we're on the same page. I think that you are one who does not fetishize weapons. Neither do I. I see them as a means to an end. That end can be hunting, or sport, or self defense, but they exist to serve me, not I for them.


-Rob

 

[Archangel M]

I'm against all forms of state oppression. Regulation only works on those people who are already responsible enough not to behave in this fashion anyway. Education will bring more people around, but fiat does nothing for those who will, and nothing for those who won't.


-Rob

Im all for gun ownership (if you cant tell) BUT saying that there should be no government regulation is a bit far even for me. There are limits to the types of weapons and the type of people (criminals+crazies) allowed them in my worldview. The problem is that there are too many people (or a few loud voices) on either end of the spectrum IMO. Total bans on pistols, magazine capacity etc. is silly....allowing anybody to buy GPMG's is just as silly as I see things.