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.
I am still tired of being called a pro gun (or just gun) nut by our Liberal friends here on CD that would rather hide behind a "Gun Free Zone" sign and think that it will protect them from some sicko with a gun. So I have a simple question to ask:
If a driver (drunk or sober) hits a family with his/her car, we (rightfully) blame the driver.
When a bomb blows up in Boston or Turkey or in??? We blame the bomber.
When someone kills someone with a gun, WHY THE HELL DO WE BLAME THE GUN?
The way you posed this is not entirely accurate.
Access to certain items carry with them certain implied uses.
A car is used for transportation but, as a secondary consequence, a lot of people are killed by cars. As such, the car acts like a weapon.
However, the car doesn't have the intended use of a true weapon most of the time.
Guns (and bombs for the most part), have an implied intended use to harm people.
Additionally, I don't entirely agree we blame the driver or the bomber.
We know cars, because of the presence of human error, have an inherent risk associated with their use. That's one reason why driverless cars with more accurate accident detection are being developed.
As for bombs, they mostly have to be homemade and constructed under society's radar for the kind of use your example provided. You can't just go into a store and ask for a suicide bomb vest. That's because there is an implied use for a bomb by the very nature of the device.
The same goes for guns. There is no real dual use to a gun. It's designed to kill. It doesn't have a dual use such as a knife. As such there are inherent questions and dangers that arise from a gun's purchase and possession. Guns are highly susceptible to abuse at the hands of human "error" so, like eventually phasing out human driven cars, why not do something similarly with guns?
The standard reason people claim to need guns is for protection. I wonder if that excuse is entirely sincere.
One way to find out is to ask gun rights defenders if they were provided an alternative weapon that could protect them as well as any gun but without killing their target, would they replace their deadly weapons with this new protective device? Often the answer is a resounding no.
I'm not to guns with a clear, practical purpose like hunting. I don't see any reason for private citizens to own automatic weapons or other excessive firearms.
.
Well "I" own guns not to hunt, except perhaps in an emergency, but to defend myself and my family and those whom I am responsible for from criminals and the barbaric thugs that infest our nation.
I own guns to protect MY country, the country MY ancestors, discovered, conquered and died for - my guns are to protect MY lands and MY country from enemies foreign AND domestic, including illegal government operations and actions, if if should ever become necessary.
To do that I, as a law abiding, lawful American citizen and upstanding member of society - not only have the RIGHT, but the need and necessity to have weapons capable of meeting criminal AND military action - but it is a REQUIREMENT under the 2nd Amendment.
What do you think a militia is? It is the People, independent of the Government, who form to stop illegal forces against enemies, foreign OR domestic INCLUDING the government if necessary. And to empower a well regulated militia - the RIGHT of the People to bear arms - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - in any way.
Oh well, arguing with anti gun people is like slamming one's head into the wall over and over. You guys won't get it until you are on your knees in front of an open grave.
Republicans are so much under the control of the NRA that they are afraid to even mention the thought of better background checks cause they may lose that special money that comes they way every election if they bow down to the NRA.
Ah, the "R" word. Only took 6 posts before it reared it's scary head
BTW, I am not a "R" but I do belong to the NRA. I do not support their legislative PAC, too many (most) politicians are owned by PACs, but that is another thread.
OK, let's stop issuing driver's licenses, and selling cars, because they may be in an accident or drive drunk.
No, but we do have multi million dollars "don't drink and drive campaigns', teen driving programs at schools that focus in drunk driving, police checkpoints, strict dui laws, laws that put liability on a business that sells alcohol to minors etc etc. I can privately sell a gun to Ted Bundy jr, I don't have to declare Jack because it's my private property does that make any sense to you.
We have issue with psycopaths and crazy people who carry guns, not the guns itself. We're fine the police carrying guns because they went through training program and stuff. Buying a gun is almost like buying pair of new shoes in this country!
OP, people like you won't learn a lesson and care until a family member of yours get shot to death at a school building.. So sad that pro-gun people exist
Every kid at age 6 should go through the same training program as the Police!!!!!!
After all, as a nation it would behoove us all if when turning 18 and the government allows you to have a gun and mommy cannot say NO.
The right of the people.... CLUE: the word person has no age!!!!
No, but we do have multi million dollars "don't drink and drive campaigns', teen driving programs at schools that focus in drunk driving, police checkpoints, strict dui laws, laws that put liability on a business that sells alcohol to minors etc etc. I can privately sell a gun to Ted Bundy jr, I don't have to declare Jack because it's my private property for that make any sense to you.
Yes - but Ted Bundy didn't use guns to kill his victims. He strangled them - maybe because they didn't HAVE guns to protect themselves. ONE girl with a gun could have stopped that.
AND - so far as I know none of the recent multi person shootings at schools have used guns purchased either via private parties or at gun shows -most were either stolen from relatives, or purchased legally. But anti gun folks don't seem to "get" it or choose to ignore it.
I own guns to protect MY country, the country MY ancestors, discovered, conquered and died for - my guns are to protect MY lands and MY country from enemies foreign AND domestic, including illegal government operations and actions, if if should ever become necessary.
To do that I, as a law abiding, lawful American citizen and upstanding member of society - not only have the RIGHT, but the need and necessity to have weapons capable of meeting criminal AND military action - but it is a REQUIREMENT under the 2nd Amendment.
What do you think a militia is? It is the People, independent of the Government, who form to stop illegal forces against enemies, foreign OR domestic INCLUDING the government if necessary. And to empower a well regulated militia - the RIGHT of the People to bear arms - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - in any way.
The government has fighter jets and assault helicopters. And nuclear weapons. And RPGs. In short, their firepower is superior to that of any citizen. There's no way you or anyone else will be able to overcome this if it's ever an issue.
Yes, you should have a right to own a gun for personal and family protection, and to hunt. That's it. Automatic weapons with armor-piercing ammo aren't used for those purposes. Arguing otherwise makes you seem paranoid, fanatical, and unreasonable.
BTW, the 2nd amendment also includes the words "well regulated", which means we can have laws regulating firearms. That's all I'm asking for.
I'm not opposed to guns with a clear, practical purpose like hunting. I don't see any reason for private citizens to own automatic weapons or other excessive firearms.
I know guns themselves don't kill people, but they do make it easier for people to kill people. I'm not in favor criminalizing guns for all citizens, but restrictions for persons with mental health issues and/or violent criminal history seems reasonable. This is all most of us are arguing for: sensible regulation; not an outright ban.
With over 90% of murders using illegally guns obtained thru theft, deception, or borrowed, how do see adding more to the already 36 gun laws in the books? Already you have rampant illegal activity but your first inclination is to double down and add more gun laws. You know only law abiding citizens follow laws so why pursue this futile mindset? The problem with regulation is that guns are already regulatedby but the criminals don't follow the laws.
Why not advocate for 20 year mandatory prison sentences for a single gun used in any crime? Why give armed robbers 2 year prison sentences? Wait. Building more prisons isn't popular. You tap people on the wrist for current gun violations and then wonder why illegal gun activity in the big cities is out of control.
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.
