Discussion: The Second Amendment

[The Senator]

And again... guns were created as a device to murder people and other living things... cars and pools were not designed with those functions, and as a result, I find the comparison to be irrelevant.

 

[SuBe]

Fireworks were orginally designed to kill people, should we ban those too?

So were knives. Ban them?

 

[The Senator]

You act as if I want all guns banned. Obviously, that's conservative extremism spinning the reality of the situation out of control to make a point which is irrelevant to my claims.

Conservatives use nonsensical arguments like "well ___ and ____ kill people, should we ban them?"

Well, no, because they weren't designed SOLELY to kill things. Guns were designed and continue to exist as devices for murder. You can use knives for non-violent purposes. You can use fireworks for non-violent purposes. Tell me, what non-violent purposes to guns serve?

None. Unless you want to have one on display, in which case, if all you're going to do is look at a gun, why not buy a poster of one to put on your wall instead?

That is why firearms need to be regulated in this country. They are violent, and they contribute to more murders in this country than any other lethal device. We need to ensure that guns cannot make it into the wrong hands, either through making the application process far more rigorous or banning certain types of ammunition and models from hitting the market.

 

[SuBe]

And if someone wants to kill you, they have a gun, and guns are banned so you don't have one, what do you do? Just die? No self defense? No trying to stay alive?

What if that person was threatening your loved ones? Do you just let them die? Or do you try to protect them?

 

[Paradoxium]

Apparently deterrence and self-defense is not a utility in of itself.

 

[Addendum]

Sube, Jman never said "ban guns" so you're making an argument over something he has never said.

 

[SuBe]

Sube, Jman never said "ban guns" so you're making an argument over something he has never said.

I know he didn't say that. But, others did. I just wanted to know his response to the situtation.

 

[Addendum]

How about asking clarification from this mysterious group called "others". Jman has made his position known in several posts in this thread.

 

[SuBe]

How about asking clarification from this mysterious group called "others". Jman has made his position known in several posts in this thread.

How about a quick search through the thread, there are plenty of posts refering to Banning either all guns, or ammunition. Both will take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and only in the hands of law breakers and the Government.

 

[Addendum]

So why not address those posters to seek clarification from them, instead of a person who hasn't said "ban all guns" or "ban ammunition"

 

[Spidey-Bat]

And again... guns were created as a device to murder people and other living things... cars and pools were not designed with those functions, and as a result, I find the comparison to be irrelevant.

Don't argue the purpose for their original creation. A lot of things were created for things we don't use them for.

Most people who own guns do not own one waiting for the chance to kill someone. They own it for self-defense. Not everyone has the luxury of living in a safe, upscale neighborhood. I live in the Bronx and I can see why people would want to protect themselves here.

Conservatives use nonsensical arguments like "well ___ and ____ kill people, should we ban them?"

Well, no, because they weren't designed SOLELY to kill things. Guns were designed and continue to exist as devices for murder. You can use knives for non-violent purposes. You can use fireworks for non-violent purposes. Tell me, what non-violent purposes to guns serve?

But if liberals are saying "ban guns b/c they kill", then why shouldn't we be banning cars and pools? Even if they were intended for other purposes, they're killing more than guns. The problem you have is the intent of guns. If that's the case, let's ban all weapons simply b/c they were designed to kill.

 

[SuBe]

So why not address those posters to seek clarification from them, instead of a person who hasn't said "ban all guns" or "ban ammunition"

Because I'm asking Jman. He is the one that can have a articulated conversation about the issue. He is someone who's opinion has more weight with me. Is that ok?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

And if someone wants to kill you, they have a gun, and guns are banned so you don't have one, what do you do? Just die? No self defense? No trying to stay alive?

What if that person was threatening your loved ones? Do you just let them die? Or do you try to protect them?

You call the police so they can find your dead body 45 minutes later.

 

[SuBe]

You call the police so they can find your dead body 45 minutes later.

I will put that in the Crank file.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I will put that in the Crank file.

I am honored

 

[The Senator]

Don't argue the purpose for their original creation. A lot of things were created for things we don't use them for.

Most people who own guns do not own one waiting for the chance to kill someone. They own it for self-defense. Not everyone has the luxury of living in a safe, upscale neighborhood. I live in the Bronx and I can see why people would want to protect themselves here.

But if you own a gun for self-defense, doesn't that ultimately mean that the intent behind owning that gun is to kill any intruders which enter your home?

But if liberals are saying "ban guns b/c they kill", then why shouldn't we be banning cars and pools? Even if they were intended for other purposes, they're killing more than guns. The problem you have is the intent of guns. If that's the case, let's ban all weapons simply b/c they were designed to kill.

But again, you are arguing a moot point. Guns were designed solely to inflict harm. Pools and cars were not. The function of a gun is to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. There is the possibility of an accidental death from practically any device. But the fact of the matter is, guns are weapons and death or severe injury are expected to be the final outcome from gun use. Therefore, it makes more sense to ban guns than pools or cars, considering the latter two examples were not designed to inflict harm.

 

[The Senator]

And if someone wants to kill you, they have a gun, and guns are banned so you don't have one, what do you do? Just die? No self defense? No trying to stay alive?

What if that person was threatening your loved ones? Do you just let them die? Or do you try to protect them?

I do not have a conceal/ carry permit as it is, even with guns being legal, so I really don't see the point of this question other than to stir the pot in an effort to milk an emotional reaction from me to further your point.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

But if you own a gun for self-defense, doesn't that ultimately mean that the intent behind owning that gun is to kill any intruders which enter your home?

No. Pointing the gun at them can be enough to make them leave. You could even just shoot in their direction to scare them off.

As I said, not everyone owns a gun with the intent of using it to kill someone someday.

But again, you are arguing a moot point. Guns were designed solely to inflict harm. Pools and cars were not. The function of a gun is to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. There is the possibility of an accidental death from practically any device. But the fact of the matter is, guns are weapons and death or severe injury are expected to be the final outcome from gun use. Therefore, it makes more sense to ban guns than pools or cars, considering the latter two examples were not designed to inflict harm.

But they do kill. So why don't you want those banned if more people are dying from them per year? If you banned guns, you're going to cause MORE deaths. Why? Because you never hear about the stories of people scaring off intruders with their guns without firing.

You just keep harping on the fact that guns were made to kill. You're ignoring the fact that a lot of gun owners don't own them for that sole reason. But I guess you'd rather put people at risk by taking away an effective form of self-defense because of a few nuts.

 

[Bill]

You act as if I want all guns banned. Obviously, that's conservative extremism spinning the reality of the situation out of control to make a point which is irrelevant to my claims.

Conservatives use nonsensical arguments like "well ___ and ____ kill people, should we ban them?"

Well, no, because they weren't designed SOLELY to kill things. Guns were designed and continue to exist as devices for murder. You can use knives for non-violent purposes. You can use fireworks for non-violent purposes. Tell me, what non-violent purposes to guns serve?

Plinking and general target shooting for enjoyment and competition.

That is why firearms need to be regulated in this country. They are violent, and they contribute to more murders in this country than any other lethal device. We need to ensure that guns cannot make it into the wrong hands, either through making the application process far more rigorous or banning certain types of ammunition and models from hitting the market.

No, they are regulated because people are violent. A gun has no emotions or motives toward violence whatsoever. It will not perform any function at all unless someone uses it.

The only goal that banning guns or "certain types of ammunition" will serve is keeping them out of the hands of those who are willing to obey the law. Criminals don't move through the same channels. They don't get licenses. They don't need background checks. There is a black market that enables them to own guns quite easily and efficiently without all the messy paperwork that the legal gun owner must endure for what is supposed to be a right.

 

[The Senator]

Right... criminals don't get licenses or do things legally... that's why the Virginia Tech killer purchased his guns and ammunition through legal vendors...

 

[hippie_hunter]

Cars and pools weren't invented for the sole intention of murdering people, though, so I don't really see how anyone can make the comparison...

Guns aren't solely used to murder people though. Like cars they have several purposes such as collecting, recreation, hunting, etc.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Right... criminals don't get licenses or do things legally... that's why the Virginia Tech killer purchased his guns and ammunition through legal vendors...

If the vendor followed proper procedure and did a better background check, that guy would have never gotten a gun in the first place.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

If the vendor followed proper procedure and did a better background check, that guy would have never gotten a gun in the first place.

And Seung-Hui Cho is the exception, not the rule. The number of criminals who obtain guns legally is infinitesimal.

If someone should be punished, it's the vendor; not everyone who has obtained their gun legally.

 

[Bill]

Gun bans are working out so well for the British.

 

[SuBe]

I do not have a conceal/ carry permit as it is, even with guns being legal, so I really don't see the point of this question other than to stir the pot in an effort to milk an emotional reaction from me to further your point.

That's fine, you don't carry a weapon. I'm just asking you, do you want to be able to protect yourself incase you are threatened? Or do you allow them to harm you and your family?