Pro-gun vs No-gun America

[soulflower]

They can but that is not what they are designed for as you posit.

A race car is still a car

A butcher knife is still a knife

A target gun is still a gun

It's almost poetic

[SemiAuto]

A race car is still a car

A butcher knife is still a knife

A target gun is still a gun

It's almost poetic

Yet all three can be used as weapons... or not.

[soulflower]

Yet all three can be used as weapons... or not.

From watching Prison reality shows, I've learned that theoretically, nearly anything can be used as a weapon.

The difference is how effective each object is at getting the job done.

Guns are more effective than most objects because they're specifically made to be weapons

[SemiAuto]

From watching Prison reality shows, I've learned that theoretically, nearly anything can be used as a weapon.

The difference is how effective each object is at getting the job done.

Guns are more effective than most objects because they're specifically made to be weapons

Yet you insist on only assigning motives to guns.

[soulflower]

Yet you insist on only assigning motives to guns.

Not exactly. Guns are inanimate objects.

You could argue that I'm assigning motives to people who manufacture guns. I'm pretty sure that they are aware that they're making weapons.

In contrast, a crowbar manufacturer's intent isn't to build crowbars to be used as weapons.

[SemiAuto]

Not exactly. Guns are inanimate objects.

You could argue that I'm assigning motives to people who manufacture guns. I'm pretty sure that they are aware that they're making weapons.

In contrast, a crowbar manufacturer's intent isn't to build crowbars to be used as weapons.

Do you think the manufacturers of crowbars are unaware that they can be used as weapons?

[soulflower]

Do you think the manufacturers of hammers are unaware that they can be used as weapons?

As I said earlier, almost anything 'can be' used as a weapon

Hammers aren't marketed as weapons

Hypotehtically, there may be some people who by guns to use as doorstoppers but the vast majority of gun buyers intend to buy guns to use as a weapon

[SemiAuto]

As I said earlier, almost anything 'can be' used as a weapon

Hammers aren't marketed as weapons

Hypotehtically, there may be some people who by guns to use as doorstoppers but the vast majority of gun buyers intend to buy guns to use as a weapon

That is not the point. Hammers may not be marketed as weapons but they are used as weapons. It really does matter whose hands it is in.

[slapshot]

Hammers aren't marketed as weapons

I wonder, when Boeing built it's 767-223ER -N334AA, if they thought it could be used to bring down a tall skyscraper building?

Man, and here I thought these planes were built for transportation purposes? Wrong again!

I keep learning so many good things from gun owners.

[soulflower]

That is not the point. Hammers may not be marketed as weapons but they are used as weapons. It really does matter whose hands it is in.

A hammer can be used 'as a weapon'

Guns are weapons and have very little practical use outside of violent applications...

[slapshot]

That is not the point. Hammers may not be marketed as weapons but they are used as weapons. It really does matter whose hands it is in.

Life is about probabilities. Everything in life, every action and reaction can be reduced to a probability. That's fact.

The most probably use of a hammer is to drive a nail. The most probable use for a gun is to shoot something( a target, a animal, or a person).

[SemiAuto]

A hammer can be used 'as a weapon'

Guns are weapons and have very little practical use outside of violent applications...

...except the applications already shown that are not violent.

Competitive target shooting is not violent.

Hunting, for practical reasons, is not violent to other people (outside of the PETA people).

Even if you buy a weapon for self defense the point is not to be violent but to defend yourself from violence.

If someone is out to harm you and the closest thing nearby is a hammer, guess what? It becomes a weapon.

The idea that guns are only about violence is bunk. It entirely matters on what the person holding it is doing.

[rgh]

There needs to be some sense brought to this debate. I am a gun owner. I am a member of the NRA but only because at one point I got a free membership. With that said this isn't an all or nothing debate. There shouldn't and won't be a United States without any private gun ownership. Conversely, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have ZERO regulation on gun ownership.

I agree with stricter background checks, think that the magazine ban is useless but if it passes I'm not going to lose sleep, don't agree with the assault weapons ban and I think there is a way to add some sort of mental health check without violating HIPPA regulations. Do i believe that having every teacher carry a weapon is smart? No. Do I believe that concealed carry is the answer for everything? No, but I believe that people should have that option. With that said I also say that if you are given the right to carry, you can't shoot someone because they are in your face arguing with you or stealing your car (without a weapon) or running away after stealing property (again without threatening you with a weapon). A life should always be more valuable than property, even a criminal life. You should only be allowed to shoot when there is a reasonable threat to you or immediate family members life (i.e. someone attacking your significant other/kids, has a weapon while burglarizing you or carjacking you).

I get that this topic is intense for many folks. With that said, people on both sides need to realize that there are millions of responsible gun owners who will never turn their weapon on any human. Additionally just because someone chooses not to own a weapon doesn't make them weak or foolish or a slave to the state, they just don't want to own a weapon. I just wish we could all realize there can be a well thought out, nuanced approach to gun ownership and control in this country. It doesn't need to be an all or nothing approach nor does it need to be said that only 'they' own guns or 'they' are going to take all of our guns.

One of the more reasonable threads I have read. I too am a gun owner. I don't think banning any type of gun will prevent many crimes. I think the right to carry should be allowed yet I probably wouldn't in most instances. Now if I was going to Baltimore I might be more inclined to carry then if I was going to the grocery store in my home town.

I also think every gun should be registered and the registered owner should be criminally liable if their gun is used in a crime. I think all purchases should require a background check. I think gun owners should be accountable for the whereabouts of their guns and if they are stolen I think they should be required to immediatley report it. I think the menatally ill should not be allowed to have guns in the house they live in either.

In the end owning guns is both a right and a tremendous responsibility. If you are not able to meet that responsibility then you should lose the right to own one. However if you are a responsible owner I see no reason why you should not be allowed to own whatever type of gun you choose.

While this is only my opinion on the topic I think my post as well as the one I quoted show that reasonable people should be able to sit down and come up with a consensus on how to regulate guns in this country. Of course our elected leaders and the special interest groups who control them are often neither reasonable nor able to sit down and come up with a consensus on anything.

[SemiAuto]

Life is about probabilities. Everything in life, every action and reaction can be reduced to a probability. That's fact.

The most probably use of a hammer is to drive a nail. The most probable use for a gun is to shoot something( a target, a animal, or a person).

Yet the irony here is that blunt objects are used more often to kill people than rifles.

With millions of guns out there, very few of them are used to kill people. The fact is that most people are not using them for violence. So obviously the idea that violence is all they are used for doesn't pass the reality test.

[regularguy]

I'm a gun-owner (a shotgun and a classic Army-issued Colt pistol), and I have no problem at all with intensive background checks for all purchasers, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and other rational measures aimed at minimizing future mass-murders.

I suspect there are a lot of gun owners like me who think the NRA is controlled by irrational extremists.

[soulflower]

...except the applications already shown that are not violent.

Competitive target shooting is not violent.

Hunting, for practical reasons, is not violent to other people (outside of the PETA people).

Even if you buy a weapon for self defense the point is not to be violent but to defend yourself from violence.

If someone is out to harm you and the closest thing nearby is a hammer, guess what? It becomes a weapon.

The idea that guns are only about violence is bunk. It entirely matters on what the person holding it is doing.

Guns, nunchucks, crossbows, swords, brass-knuckles, RPGs etc are all weapons and manufactured to be used as such. It doesn't matter if the owner intends to use them for sport or for something other than what they're intended for.

[soulflower]

Yet the irony here is that blunt objects are used more often to kill people than rifles.

With millions of guns out there, very few of them are used to kill people. The fact is that most people are not using them for violence. So obviously the idea that violence is all they are used for doesn't pass the reality test.

So you're saying as a gun owner, that you would never intend to use your weapon for violence(including self-defense)?

[SemiAuto]

I'm a gun-owner (a shotgun and a classic Army-issued Colt pistol), and I have no problem at all with intensive background checks for all purchasers, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and other rational measures aimed at minimizing future mass-murders.

I suspect there are a lot of gun owners like me who think the NRA is controlled by irrational extremists.

Yet the two methods you list are highly unlikely to stop a determined mass murderer.

[regularguy]

Yet the two methods you list are highly unlikely to stop a determined mass murderer.

Background checks impede ineligible people from buying guns. A ban on high-capacity magazines slows down the shooter's rampage. Both make sense to me.

[SemiAuto]

So you're saying as a gun owner, that you would never intend to use your weapon for violence(including self-defense)?

Yes. Even self defense is not an intent on committing violence. It is a defense against violence. The best outcome is to never have it come to that. I feel the same way about my hammer.

With millions of guns out there I'd wager that most people who own them don't intend on violence either. If they are then they're pretty bad at it.