The Political Gun Thread

[Flex]

Let's go crazy.

[Rat Patrol]

This model is by far the most accurate shot for getting the neighbors' kids to stop smoking in the driveway.

[BostonBeaneater]

Shoot first, make lame laws that don't do anything later.

[Flex]

Shoot first, make lame laws that don't do anything later.

Having laws about not being able to hunt, say, on maintained hiking trails has probably prevented one or two accidental deaths.

[Bankrobber]

I grew up in rural Oklahoma, so I've been around guns for quite some time. I can shoot but don't personally own one. I have about 50 things in queue to buy that are the same price as guns and most of those are guitars. I don't mind guns within reason, such as: handguns for home defense, rifles or shotguns for hunting, or even all for target shooting. I think no one except the military should have access to automatic weapons (automatic models made semi-auto are fine though), or anything that could cause great damage (armor piercing, high explosive, dum-dum, etc).

[Dr. Medulla]

Shoot first, make lame laws that don't do anything later.

Having laws about not being able to hunt, say, on maintained hiking trails has probably prevented one or two accidental deaths.

Accidental deaths only prove that true gun lovers, who never make mistakes, shouldn't have any restrictions placed on them.

[eumaas]

With the advent of the Multiple Kill Vehicle, we're all just slaves anyway.

[snafu1963]

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.

[Silent Majority]

I don't mind guns within reason, such as: handguns for home defense, rifles or shotguns for hunting, or even all for target shooting.

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.

I'm all for hunting though. I'm worried about human beings, animals are nowhere near as important. I feel like those who concentrate on animal welfare do so at the expense of people. What I mean is, time dedicated to improving animal's lives would be better spent improving the welfare of our species.

[eumaas]

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.

So you'd never kill in order to defend yourself or your family/friends?

[Silent Majority]

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. 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.

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.

[eumaas]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

EDIT: You also just admitted that murder on your property is OK so long as one uses one type of death instrument and not another.

[Silent Majority]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

[Joe Public]

I always thought Chris Rock had a pretty good point with his 'bullets should be really expensive' theory.
Guns are just part of the Schizoid American character...we'll never do away with them. We can't. Depressing violence is part of our society. Like inevitable road accidents, firearms deaths are part the price we pay in human sacrifice in tribute to our 'great' American society. You buy the ticket, you take the trip, so to speak.
I abhor violence, but have thoroughly enjoyed guns every time I've been around them. I've loved 'em since I was a kid. Yet I have no desire to really own one. Maybe I will someday, but I can't think of a worthwhile reason why. I've always thought in the theoretical 'self-defense' scenario that everyone likes to bring up ('Drug-crazed lunatic bursts in your front door'), I'd hope I'd have the stones to tear the fucker apart with my bare hands, Or with the help of something sharp and pointy (A surprising amount of things around the house). In a situation as violating as that, I think the sheer unhinged violence of manually dispatching your attacker would be immensely satisfying.
Although for suicide purposes, it's hard to beat a gun. Unless you're a REALLY awful shot, or it's a REALLY weak gun. I mean if you want it over-NOW- and don't wanna worry about the mess you're leaving behind, or worry about it being painful in that final moment, it's hard to beat reducing your entire brain to jello in a millisecond and shoving it out the back of your skull...

[Heston]

I've never held a gun or seen anyone use a gun and I want to keep it that way. I see them as dangerous penis extensions.