U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-08-2014, 08:06 PM
 
3,147 posts, read 2,942,704 times
Reputation: 1858

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl View Post
Bingo! Good, sensible post.
Any post that says in is unreasonable for any private citizen to own a semi-automatic rifle is anything but sensible.

If you have a loaded gun nearby during a heated argument, it doesn't matter much if it is a semi-auto rifle, a revolver, or a single shot break-barrel shotgun.

 
Old 11-08-2014, 11:24 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,123,607 times
Reputation: 5742
Quote:
=censusdata;37103720]I support the right of reasonable people to own reasonable guns. No person not in police or millitary needs a semi automatic rifle. I also think it's responsible to chose not to own a gun, if you do to keep them securely locked away. Too many people have been killed because a loaded gun was nearby during a heated argument. In my TV market there are probably 5 husband / wife murder suicides each year.
Just who is qualified to define the "need" to own a legal firearm? Personally, I don't see any "need" for anyone to own a lot a things, but that is an opinion only.

Ok, there some husband/wife murder/suicides, that has always existed and always will happen. But how many semi-automatic owners don't commit such crimes? So by the same token, how many firearm owners save the lives of their spouses because one is handy???

And what makes you say that only military and police need to have such weapons? In fact, and one can bet it will get worse, are men in the military who are radical Muslim's using their semi-autos to commit mass-murder of fellow soldiers. See what happened at Ft. Hood...

The "keep them securely locked away" argument is just ludicrous. What good is a gun going to do in a need situation if it cannot be accessed? One's best bet is to instruct their children from a very early age on gun safety, as I did my own and do now with my grandchildren, to prevent accidents. And as it is, a child is more likely to drown in a swimming pool than being killed by a firearm in the hands of a legal gun-owner.

But you are correct in that if someone choses not to own a firearm, then that is their freedom of choice. But don't encroach on mine to do otherwise.

I think many anti-gun people (and I am not necessarily saying you are), have a very warped idea of what the second amendment was intended to be. It wasn't hunting, it was about an armed citizenry being able to protect itself from the potential abuse of a centralized government being able to gain tyrannical powers.

As it reads, "necessary for the security of a free state." And that did not mean the national guard (which didn't exist in any case).

Just out of curiosity, where are you from?
 
Old 11-09-2014, 10:11 AM
 
5,721 posts, read 4,628,322 times
Reputation: 4323
Isn't the anti-gun crowd the same group of people that want to make millions of illegal immigrants legal? lol what else needs said? They are also the same people that voted for you know who. It all adds up.
 
Old 11-09-2014, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Paris
1,706 posts, read 2,051,195 times
Reputation: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
Isn't the anti-gun crowd the same group of people that want to make millions of illegal immigrants legal? lol what else needs said? They are also the same people that voted for you know who. It all adds up.
You sound like a reasonable, thought-provoking individual!
 
Old 11-09-2014, 02:00 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,676,130 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by ram2 View Post
Airplanes kill - quite a few killed on 9/11.
How many people have access to a plane? And how many have access to guns?
 
Old 11-09-2014, 02:04 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,676,130 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62 View Post
The most important thing you typed was "guns are tools". All tools can be misused and certainly guns are. Just because they were designed with a goal in mind does not mean that goal is their only appropriate use.

My father used a chain saw to prep building for new roof extensions. I doubt the lumber industry had that in mind when they developed the chainsaw, but it was a very good use for it.

Knives were indeed designed to kill. Their primary purpose and development has been to the goal of self defense and warfare. Modern weaponry has diminished that role, but has not eliminated it. Watch Rambo if you doubt the modern knife design is appropriate for killing.

Cars are, of course, not designed for killing; but they do an extremely good job of it. There are cases every year where the car is intentionally used to kill or injure people. There were two reports this week of cars being used in terrorist attacks against people by being driven intentionally into crowds. Many more are misused as shrapnel in the manufacture of car bombs.

Guns are extremely useful for recreational purposes other than hunting and killing. Target shooting, marksmanship competitions, plinking, Skeet and Trap shooting, etc. Most police will affirm that killing is the last choice when using a gun to combat criminals. The presence of the gun and the ability to use it is often sufficient to deter the escalation of violence. The desire of most (if not almost all) gun owners is to never kill anyone with it. Only those with military intent or criminals with abuse in mind actually have premeditated intent to kill someone.
Are you trying to argue that the purpose of the gun isn't to kill?



Guns were designed to kill. Recreational purposes appeared after projectile weapons were first created, and they were first created for warfare. Just because it happens to have non-lethal uses doesn't mean its primary lethal purpose can be ignored. That's like trying to say tanks are good for a daily commute.
 
Old 11-09-2014, 03:42 PM
 
12,698 posts, read 10,518,901 times
Reputation: 17606
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
Are you trying to argue that the purpose of the gun isn't to kill?



Guns were designed to kill. Recreational purposes appeared after projectile weapons were first created, and they were first created for warfare. Just because it happens to have non-lethal uses doesn't mean its primary lethal purpose can be ignored. That's like trying to say tanks are good for a daily commute.
Isn't it safe to say that most weapons were designed to kill, though? Sharp objects like swords and knives were also designed to kill.
 
Old 11-09-2014, 07:11 PM
 
3,147 posts, read 2,942,704 times
Reputation: 1858
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
Are you trying to argue that the purpose of the gun isn't to kill?



Guns were designed to kill. Recreational purposes appeared after projectile weapons were first created, and they were first created for warfare. Just because it happens to have non-lethal uses doesn't mean its primary lethal purpose can be ignored. That's like trying to say tanks are good for a daily commute.
Just because they were created for warfare does not negate the fact that they have other uses and are not made solely for killing, or that they can't be used for anything other than killing.

It is nothing like saying a tank is "good for a daily commute"... nobody does their daily commute in a tank, nobody, and there are absolutely zero tanks made exclusively for daily commutes. Millions of people shoot recreational, and there are many guns made specifically for target shooting.


If you think that this is a reasonable analogy, you only hurt your own argument.
 
Old 11-10-2014, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,400,713 times
Reputation: 2896
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
Isn't the anti-gun crowd the same group of people that want to make millions of illegal immigrants legal? lol what else needs said? They are also the same people that voted for you know who. It all adds up.
This is something the god of the modern Republican Party already did: A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants : NPR

No one else in modern US history "made millions of illegal immigrants legal" to the extent that Ronald Reagan did.

People are so misinformed and blindly loyal to their party to the detriment of all reason that they'll believe literally anything
 
Old 11-10-2014, 12:20 PM
 
13,275 posts, read 17,799,782 times
Reputation: 19943
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
Well, let me know when someone kills 20 people in a movie theater with a stiletto heel Or a hammer, or a knife...

The fact is, a gun can kill many people much easier than other "tools".
As usual - no answer to my question. What is legally an assault rifle in the US. BTW - a teenager outshot an AR15 with a single shot. Not only outshot but hit the targets:>)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top