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.
Sounds good to me. But how does that work when the new official line of the NRA and gun fanatics everywhere is that we all have to carry guns to be safe from all the other people with guns?
The NRA does not advocate that everyone should carry guns. The NRA believes that anyone who legally wants to own a gun should be able to.
Oy. I didn't realize I was being required to discuss this. I always forget how authoritarian the gun fanatics are on this forum. Answer me NOW, dammit. I have spoken. And if you don't, I'll call you a liar, make fun of you and call you names, usually with complete impunity.
But since you demanded, yes, of course I taught my children how to be safe around guns. And yes, I asked parents of their friends if there were guns in the home. I even taught my children how to swim, even though no one else is likely to pick up a swimming pool and drown them with it from a distance
The only authoritative stance being pushed here is being done by the anti-gun dopes.
Again. Guns kill quickly, easily and from a distance. How is that compared to archery or knives?
Keep comparing apples to kumquats, elephants or the moon. It doesn't change the purpose of a gun. It wasn't invented for recreational swimming, or traveling long distances, or cutting bread. (Or, to acknowledge your reference to knives, killing someone close up on purpose.) It was invented with one purpose, and any other use, such as shooting clay pigeons, is simply practicing to kill. They're clay "pigeons," remember?
Giving to a child item whose sole intent is killing easily, quickly and from a distance, or allowing children to even come close, is a crime. And we should be worried about this trend, not defending the "object" and going into stupid argument mode about your precious guns and liberty and tyranny and blah, blah blah.
You've never been bow hunting, but I'm not shocked.
You're argument is that guns were designed to kill. So was the bow and arrow. In the right hands a bow is deadlier than a gun and doesn't make an evil bang.
The intent of the shooter outweighs the intent of any weapon.
Swimming pools are intended to kill? How are they like guns?
No but apparently swimming pools are more effective killing devices of children than guns are according to the stats.
By that measure guns are pretty inefficient designs, given your statement that they are intended to kill. For better efficiency we should make guns from swimming pools, they would be more efficient.
One additional point I'll comment on is Bows, you understand that it wasn't until early 20th century that a solo man launched projectile would achieve the same energy on target as the English/Welsh Longbow? With the correct heads it could punch through plate armor and kill the person in it, with one shot. It's actually debatable whether the AR-15 or M-16 could perform as effectively under those same conditions.
Meanwhile back to your position, look it's pretty simple, either you care about deaths, or you care about the means of death. If you care about deaths then you don't care about guns there are much much bigger fish to fry, if you care about means then you care about guns, but lets be intellectually honest and drop the arguments about the numbers of people dying, they're just a facile attempt to cover your belief that certain means of death are not acceptable.
Yes thousands. I have no problem with people who are irresponsible and cause harm to others being charged. It would be no different than someone running a light and hitting a kid in the crosswalk
Okie dokie, let's give Iran the ability to own nukes then, if irresponsible ownership of weapons isn't such a big deal. You can always punish them after they go off on a tangent and run a red light.
Okie dokie, let's give Iran the ability to own nukes then, if irresponsible ownership of weapons isn't such a big deal. You can always punish them after they go off on a tangent and run a red light.
And how are we going to stop Iran from owning nukes?
Okie dokie, let's give Iran the ability to own nukes then, if irresponsible ownership of weapons isn't such a big deal. You can always punish them after they go off on a tangent and run a red light.
Guns are not Nukes and last I heard Iran was a country. Neither of which are topics of this thread which is neither about nuclear weapons nor countries.
If you want to see irresponsible use of weapons you need look no further than countries, and their use over the recorded history of man. I'd much rather trust a person with a weapon than a country with a weapon. In the words of Nietszche
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the norm."
Of course you can. But only one of the many things that kills children is a weapon whose purpose is to kill.
Next specious argument?
a firearms purpose is not to kill, but to fire..and of story.
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.
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.
How are they like guns? 
