The Political Gun Thread
Posted: 09 Jan 2009, 5:35pm
Let's go crazy.
Having laws about not being able to hunt, say, on maintained hiking trails has probably prevented one or two accidental deaths.BostonBeaneater wrote:Shoot first, make lame laws that don't do anything later.
Accidental deaths only prove that true gun lovers, who never make mistakes, shouldn't have any restrictions placed on them.Flex wrote:Having laws about not being able to hunt, say, on maintained hiking trails has probably prevented one or two accidental deaths.BostonBeaneater wrote:Shoot first, make lame laws that don't do anything later.
The lame laws prevent absolutely nothing but appease the anti's. Gun's don't kill people,people kill people and unfortunately if a gun is used in that hideous crime the law abiding gun owners feel the wrath. Our mandatory gun registration in Canada is a waste of money and a prime example of a LAME law.BostonBeaneater wrote:Shoot first, make lame laws that don't do anything later.
Guns within reason is an oxymoron. I don't think home defense is a good enough reason to have a gun. They're for killing and maiming, that's all. Murder's still murder if it happens on your property.Bankrobber wrote:I don't mind guns within reason, such as: handguns for home defense, rifles or shotguns for hunting, or even all for target shooting.
So you'd never kill in order to defend yourself or your family/friends?Silent Majority wrote:Guns within reason is an oxymoron. I don't think home defense is a good enough reason to have a gun. They're for killing and maiming, that's all. Murder's still murder if it happens on your property.
If the interloper is armed with a gun, no, it isn't enough. Remember that scene in Indiana Jones where he shoots the guy with the scimitars? Guns are popular because they are more effective as you admit.Silent Majority wrote:In a heartbeat. I'd rip the throat out of anyone who came at me or mine. But guns make it all too easy. It's a death instrument and that's all. If you're able-bodied, a baseball bat or other blunt object is enough to put the interloper down.
Sorry, but that's just a slippery slope fallacy. You'd have to demonstrate that that would be the norm in an armed society before that could even be a relevant argument.It's a self-perpetuating culture of fear where if one person/group has guns, then the other has to, to defend. In the end, everyone has guns and you end up blowing some poor shaky homeless fucker away because he came to close to your armoured, metal barred, fenced up front garden.
If wishes were fishes, I'd have a seafood restaurant. We have to deal with the inheritance given to us. If the USA were to outlaw guns and confiscate all the registered firearms, what do you think would happen?And it's no excuse that "The bad guys have guns, so why can't we?" If you, the good guys, didn't live in a system where you can get guns so easily then so would the thieves and murderers.
The human hands are not a Instrument of Death (or any other Harvey Keitel film); there's countless fun things you can do with them . I suppose this is a case of Idealism versus Reality. I would hope that if someone broke into a Stranger's house, then the stranger would handle the situation in a way that minimalizes the human damage. Whereas if I found someone in my house, I'd decapitate them and live with the consequences. Joking aside, if I were forced to take a human life it would haunt me forever, but that wouldn't stop me from protecting myself. I don't think this is hypocrisy, but it might smell like that.eumaas wrote:If the interloper is armed with a gun, no, it isn't enough. Remember that scene in Indiana Jones where he shoots the guy with the scimitars? Guns are popular because they are more effective as you admit.
Answer me this: would you rather you yourself be armed with only a baseball bat or a knife while your attacker has a shotgun or a .45?
...
You also just admitted that murder on your property is OK so long as one uses one type of death instrument and not another.
Not the norm, but in certain extreme examples of urban centers in an armed society, like East LA or parts of Detroit the arms race continues. And that way M.A.D.ness lies.eumaas wrote:Sorry, but that's just a slippery slope fallacy. You'd have to demonstrate that that would be the norm in an armed society before that could even be a relevant argument.It's a self-perpetuating culture of fear where if one person/group has guns, then the other has to, to defend. In the end, everyone has guns and you end up blowing some poor shaky homeless fucker away because he came to close to your armoured, metal barred, fenced up front garden.
"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns." You have to admit that it's not much of an inheritance, a flawed system that you've found yourself in.eumaas wrote:If wishes were fishes, I'd have a seafood restaurant. We have to deal with the inheritance given to us. If the USA were to outlaw guns and confiscate all the registered firearms, what do you think would happen?And it's no excuse that "The bad guys have guns, so why can't we?" If you, the good guys, didn't live in a system where you can get guns so easily then so would the thieves and murderers.