Gun Control and Liberals? Help me here...

[PleaseBlitz]

:laugh:

Why do people always bring up car-related deaths in the gun-control debate???

Um, a LOT more people operate a LOT more cars a LOT more often than guns. Plus, cars are really useful, most would say necessary.

So please, that arguement is ridiculous.

Carry on.

[Baculus]

:laugh:

Why do people always bring up car-related deaths in the gun-control debate???

Um, a LOT more people operate a LOT more cars a LOT more often than guns. Plus, cars are really useful, most would say necessary.

So please, that arguement is ridiculous.

Carry on.

No it isn't. Certain types of cars are completely unnecessary, but result in many deaths due to criminal abuse of the vehicle. Do you NEED a sportscar? No. Do you need that large truck which is probably tailgating me and weaving in and out of traffic? Probably not.

There are lots of stuff that we have which we do not need.

And firearms are very much needed by certain folks, and not just sporting shooters.

Cars are much more likely to kill you then somebody with a firearm.

[PleaseBlitz]

No it isn't. Certain types of cars are completely unnecessary, but result in many deaths due to criminal abuse of the vehicle. Do you NEED a sportscar? No. Do you need that large truck which is probably tailgating me and weaving in and out of traffic? Probably not.

Ok, but CARS in general are necessary for society today to function. GUNS in general are not necessary.

There are lots of stuff that we have which we do not need.

True.

And firearms are very much needed by certain folks, and not just sporting shooters.

Who?

Sporting shooters, by definition, do not NEED guns.

Cars are much more likely to kill you then somebody with a firearm.

No ****, read my post again. Then tell me how many people operate cars EVERY DAY and how many people operate guns EVERY DAY.

[Baculus]

No ****, read my post again. Then tell me how many people operate cars EVERY DAY and how many people operate guns EVERY DAY.

You see a lot of folks in law enforcement and security who carry firearms, same thing with the military, etc. Whether you believe it or not, for some folks, firearms and the possession of such weapons is part of their job.

But first, let me ask you this: Are we basing upon this subject upon what we need? Is that it? Is that how we now define what we may not may, or may not use, possess, etc.? Aren't we entering a very nebulous subject, when we start asking if what we "need" and should have?

And there are many people that don't have to driver cars - they can use public transportation - but they choose to drive instead. And drive dangerously, mind you - I see that EVERY day when I commute from one site location to another.

[The 12th Commandment]

What we NEED is food, water and shelter. The rest is all fluff. You can choose your fluff but you can't choose mine. Guns are insurance against it.

I don't mean that to sound as antagonistic as it might sound but there you have it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You see a lot of folks in law enforcement and security who carry firearms, same thing with the military, etc. Whether you believe it or not, for some folks, firearms and the possession of such weapons is part of their job.

But first, let me ask you this: Are we basing upon this subject upon what we need? Is that it? Is that how we now define what we may not may, or may not use, possess, etc.? Aren't we entering a very nebulous subject, when we start asking if what we "need" and should have?

And there are many people that don't have to driver cars - they can use public transportation - but they choose to drive instead. And drive dangerously, mind you - I see that EVERY day when I commute from one site location to another.

I don't want to speak for PB, but I think he's comparing the guns being USED (not left in their holsters) vs people using their cars...ie, starting them up and driving somewhere.

IMO, a fat donut chomping cop who's pulling speeders over isn't "using" his gun on a daily basis...

[Spaceman Spiff]

What we NEED is food, water and shelter. The rest is all fluff. You can choose your fluff but you can't choose mine. Guns are insurance against it.

I don't mean that to sound as antagonistic as it might sound but there you have it.

Yeah, but I need to kill my food with something

[Baculus]

I don't want to speak for PB, but I think he's comparing the guns being USED (not left in their holsters) vs people using their cars...ie, starting them up and driving somewhere.

IMO, a fat donut chomping cop who's pulling speeders over isn't "using" his gun on a daily basis...

That much is true, but isn't a realistic comparision, since firearms aren't always discharged, or discharged in a crime: That is the entire issue. Firearms are often inert in nature, until they are actually discharged. A cop may holster his firearm his entire career and never "use" it, but that does not mean it is part of his job, and when he chooses to discharge it.

Why don't we then compare the number of legal firearms that aren't used in a violent crime compared to the ones that are used by criminals? That is a more realistic comparision.

[DixieFlatline]

IMO, a fat donut chomping cop who's pulling speeders over isn't "using" his gun on a daily basis...

If you are caring a loaded weapon around, you are using it. In general, its going to be safe with the safety on, but any self respecting gun owner treats a loaded weapon the same regardless of whether its in a holster, gun rack, or in your hands.

[Spaceman Spiff]

If you are caring a loaded weapon around, you are using it. In general, its going to be safe with the safety on, but any self respecting gun owner treats a loaded weapon the same regardless of whether its in a holster, gun rack, or in your hands.

I've grown up around guns. My dad is a Virginia state skeet shooting champion. I go hunting often, I know my way around most guns.

Gun safety is crucial and anyone with a gun should treat it like it's loaded whether it is or not. However, this does not mean it's being "used"....it's just being safe with a gun. As you should be.

A gun is an inanimate object. If you sit it on a table in an empty room, it's not going to do anything on its own. If you're carrying it around in its holster with the safety on, it's not being used, much in the way a car in a parking lot is not being used...or the cell phone thats in my pocket right now is not being used...

[The 12th Commandment]

Yeah, but I need to kill my food with something

I dooo have about a dozen quail in my fweezer wight now that are going to taste awwwwful good tomowow. :mmm:

[Baculus]

I've grown up around guns. My dad is a Virginia state skeet shooting champion. I go hunting often, I know my way around most guns.

Gun safety is crucial and anyone with a gun should treat it like it's loaded whether it is or not. However, this does not mean it's being "used"....it's just being safe with a gun. As you should be.

A gun is an inanimate object. If you sit it on a table in an empty room, it's not going to do anything on its own. If you're carrying it around in its holster with the safety on, it's not being used, much in the way a car in a parking lot is not being used...or the cell phone thats in my pocket right now is not being used...

The issue, though, is the manner in which they are used when discharged. And that cuts to the heart of the matter...And, also, part of my argument has always been a counter to those that say "Do you need firearms?" Well, do you need certain vehicles? (This in more particular pertains to debates about certain firearms, such as the mis-labled "assault weapons.")

Freedom is a double-edged sword.

And, the fact is that we still *need* firearms, for both self-defense as well as national defense, above and beyond the previous argument.

[DixieFlatline]

A gun is an inanimate object. If you sit it on a table in an empty room, it's not going to do anything on its own. If you're carrying it around in its holster with the safety on, it's not being used, much in the way a car in a parking lot is not being used...or the cell phone thats in my pocket right now is not being used...

Your analogy to a parked car is close, but not quite a true comparison. I'm not a handgun expert, but I do have one and I do know that many handguns do not have a safety. So it is possible, however unlikely, that it could go off if the right cirumstances happen. In general, I do agree with you that its pretty safe but nothing is going to make that parked car start moving without someone behind the wheel.

[The 12th Commandment]

Your analogy to a parked car is close, but not quite a true comparison. I'm not a handgun expert, but I do have one and I do know that many handguns do not have a safety. So it is possible, however unlikely, that it could go off if the right cirumstances happen. In general, I do agree with you that its pretty safe but nothing is going to make that parked car start moving without someone behind the wheel.

My buddy had his neighbors car roll through his fence last weekend. Slipped out of gear. That was a case of negligence by the owner same as an unsafe gun being in a situation where it could go off and hurt someone. There really is not a great deal of difference in responsibility between a car and a gun.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Your analogy to a parked car is close, but not quite a true comparison. I'm not a handgun expert, but I do have one and I do know that many handguns do not have a safety. So it is possible, however unlikely, that it could go off if the right cirumstances happen. In general, I do agree with you that its pretty safe but nothing is going to make that parked car start moving without someone behind the wheel.

I...don't know of any handguns that do not have a safety. Granted, I'm more versed in shotguns...

The only reason I can think of a gun not having a safety is for shooting competitions in which a target could be released and if the safety happened to be on the contestant would be docked. People that are intense about competing in shooting actually have their safeties removed for that very reason. Hell, even my Red Ryder BB gun has a safety on it.

The issue, though, is the manner in which they are used when discharged. And that cuts to the heart of the matter...And, also, part of my argument has always been a counter to those that say "Do you need firearms?" Well, do you need certain vehicles? (This in more particular pertains to debates about certain firearms, such as the mis-labled "assault weapons.")

Freedom is a double-edged sword.

And, the fact is that we still *need* firearms, for both self-defense as well as national defense, above and beyond the previous argument.

My argument is that people are going to get guns no matter how strict the laws are. You'll have your law abiding citizens who'll wait 30 days to get theirs and you'll have the criminals who get theirs on the black market.

Again, comparing it to prohibition, the war on drugs...if people want 'em, laws aren't gonna stop them.

The matter in which they're discharged is an interesting argument, and I'd like to see the stats. However I'm willing to bet the guys out on the range shooting high volume rounds greatly outweigh the one or two shots that killed someone.

I know people who sell guns (legally) and make a good bit of money doing it. They have more guns than they could possibly want/need but it's their livelihood for some, supplemental income for others. Some collect them like I'd collect baseball cards or fanatical golfers have different sets of clubs.

I don't necessarily understand it myself, nor do I expect a lot of people to as well.

[DixieFlatline]

I...don't know of any handguns that do not have a safety. Granted, I'm more versed in shotguns...

I probably should have been more clear. Many handguns do not have the manual safety that you're used to with shotguns. Instead its an internal mechanism that hopefully keeps it from going off if jostled or dropped.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I probably should have been more clear. Many handguns do not have the manual safety that you're used to with shotguns. Instead its an internal mechanism that hopefully keeps it from going off if jostled or dropped.

Ahhh, okay.

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I shot a handgun. I don't know much about them at all.

[Seabee1973]

. Hell, even my Red Ryder BB gun has a safety on it.

.

youll shoot your eye out :laugh:

[Spaceman Spiff]

youll shoot your eye out :laugh:

Not before I'm done terrorizing squirrels and whatever other small woodland creatures cross my path :laugh:

[Seabee1973]

I know revolvers dont have safeties as far as i know but your 9mill and 45 both do plus a few others ive seen or held had safeties

[cjcdaman]

No it isn't. Certain types of cars are completely unnecessary, but result in many deaths due to criminal abuse of the vehicle. Do you NEED a sportscar? No. Do you need that large truck which is probably tailgating me and weaving in and out of traffic? Probably not.

I cant believe I missed out on this thread. But skimming through, I did manage to read this nonsense by Baculus. I imagine I'm reading it out of context. Still, this part of his post is just ridiculous! It's my right to own a sportscar. It's my right to own a large truck to run your pansy leftist ass off the road. And it's my right to own a gun(when the correct steps are taken for that legality) to protect myself.

[cjcdaman]

the SOLE purpose of guns is to cause harm. And therein lies the inherent difference.

I disagree, and I am not "into" guns. A lot of guns are used for hunting and I'm sorry if that causes "harm" to the deer out there, but there would be a ****load of deer running around if there wasn't a "season" to kill the ****s.

[stevenaa]

so if my 9mm won't help me, that's why i need assault rifles

I have an assault rifle. I killed two deer with it, legally during hunting season. Is there a reason my rights should be infringed upon?

I love it how some will cry about the current administration trying to cut into our liberties while the same people attempt to do the same thing. (not aimed at you specifically, PP. Just a general observation)

Guns are not bad, evil or particularly dangerous. They provide a means for food for some. I can eat deer meat which is healthier then market purchased beef, for much less cost. It also provides enjoyment and entertainment for others. Just because you don't understand or agree with this, doesn't give you the right to infringe on my rights.

And what a strange bump. 11 months after the last post, and the bumper continues on like it was yesterday.

[Baculus]

I cant believe I missed out on this thread. But skimming through, I did manage to read this nonsense by Baculus. I imagine I'm reading it out of context. Still, this part of his post is just ridiculous! It's my right to own a sportscar. It's my right to own a large truck to run your pansy leftist ass off the road. And it's my right to own a gun(when the correct steps are taken for that legality) to protect myself.

Yes, you are reading it out of context.

You probably didn't read my earlier post, which was from months ago. This is my counter-argument to those who ask if you "need" firearms, and in particular, "assault rifles." My entire point is that we don't NEED certain things, such as sportscars, but it is our right to have one, since it's about responsible use.

It's my feeling that isn't my right to infringe upon someone's car ownership, nor is it their right to infringe on my (responsible) ownership of firearms.

[cjcdaman]

Yes, you are reading it out of context.

You probably didn't read my earlier post, which was from months ago. This is my counter-argument to those who ask if you "need" firearms, and in particular, "assault rifles." My entire point is that we don't NEED certain things, such as sportscars, but it is our right to have one, since it's about responsible use.

It's my feeling that isn't my right to infringe upon someone's car ownership, nor is it their right to infringe on my (responsible) ownership of firearms.

Then, I apologize for my post. You're still a lefty.