I'm saying that they are not unique. They may be greater, more powerful, but a gun I would use for skeet shooting is not fundamentally different than a bow, than a knife, than a rapier. Yet you allow these things around you. Is it just the destructive power of this particular weapon and not that it is a weapon in general? That is fine, I guess. However, you made it sound like you take issue with the fact that it is a WEAPON used for KILLING and that was your main gripe with not being able to sleep with it around. I find your fear irrational, but not less than my fear of bleach or drain cleaner.
1) You can marvel at engineering without owning an operable gun. 2) You can keep guns for historical purposes and make them inoperable. 3) There are other games and weaponry that can improve hand-eye coordination. 4) A chef's knife couldn't maim someone from feet away unless you are an incredibly skilled knife thrower or beat very high odds. 5) Making it inoperable while I was there would be a fine compromise.
There are also roughly 80 million gun owners in the US. How many crossbow owners are there? How many crossbow-related deaths are there in a year?
They also aren't the same class of weapon. They can't be concealed, they are often harder to operate, and as you point out, they are much less popular. There is extreme gun control in Japan, but the population didn't go out and buy a ton of crossbows.
I do see that. It still doesn't negate those killed by guns. Ladders are necessary. Guns aren't.
But we keep coming up with legitimate and good uses for guns and you keep scoffing at them saying they kill people. So if people killed is the only disqualifier you should hate everything. Your logic is boiling down to I think guns should be banned because I've singled them out for my hatred.
I'm saying that they are not unique. They may begreater, morepowerful, but a gun I would use for skeet shooting is not fundamentally different than a bow, than a knife, than a rapier. Yet you allow these things around you. Is it just the destructive power of this particular weapon and not that it is a weapon in general? That is fine, I guess. However, you made it sound like you take issue with the fact that it is a WEAPON used for KILLING and that was your main gripe with not being able to sleep with it around. I find your fear irrational, but not less than my fear of bleach or drain cleaner.
They are unique in their effectiveness at close and far range, the amount of damage possible for an untrained user, etc.
I do see that. It still doesn't negate those killed by guns. Ladders are necessary. Guns aren't.
But we keep coming with legitimate and good uses for guns and you keep scoffing at them saying they kill people. So if people killed is the only disqualifier you should hate everything. Your logic is boiling down to I guns should be banned because I've singled them out for my hatred.
What is legitimate about a game? There are tons of games. How is skeet shooting legitimate, necessary purpose for a gun? Hunting I could see, but again, if you can't get it in one shot - then don't fucking hunt. I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting. @Gedavids, I was describing guns.
I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting.
I think you mean bolt action, in which case those are pretty much standard for hunters: silent loading, low caliber (depends; I know California boar hunters use .22 rifles), easy safety (remove the bolt).
the amount of damage possible for an untrained user
Gun safes negate the possibility of a toddler or a similar untrained person getting control of a firearm. You should also store your firearms unloaded and keep the ammunition separate.
I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting.
I think you mean bolt action, in which case those are pretty much standard for hunters: silent loading, low caliber (depends; I know California boar hunters use .22 rifles), easy safety (remove the bolt).
They are unique in their effectiveness at close and far range, the amount of damage possible for an untrained user, etc.
So it is the amount of damage possible and not the fact that it is an object for killing. This still does not explain why you won't stay in a house with a gun in it. What do you think would happen? Many of my friends parents were hunters and I was over at their houses all the time. The guns did not pick the lock and jump out of the cabinet while I was there. Nothing happened, because they were responsible, nice people.
I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting.
No, you get no compromises. Your logic is flawed. I refuse to give people like you who give into irrational fear an inch on guns. Today, it's assualt rifles and high capacity magazines, then it's handguns, then hunting rifles, then shotguns, and then when there are no more guns it'll be knives. There's always one more "evil" for people like you.
the amount of damage possible for an untrained user
Gun safes negate the possibility of a toddler or a similar untrained person getting control of a firearm. You should also store your firearms unloaded and keep the ammunition separate.
Um, the owner of the safe may be an untrained user. Both trianed and untrained, legal and illegal gun users can and do kill and injure others.
the amount of damage possible for an untrained user
Gun safes negate the possibility of a toddler or a similar untrained person getting control of a firearm. You should also store your firearms unloaded and keep the ammunition separate.
Except for the .45 ACP, that goes under the pillow with a clip of hollowpoints. Robber breaks in, Mozambique drill.
I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting.
No, you get no compromises. Your logic is flawed. I refuse to give people like you who give into irrational fear an inch on guns. Today, it's assualt rifles and high capacity magazines, then it's handguns, then hunting rifles, then shotguns, and then when there are no more guns it'll be knives. There's always one more "evil" for people like you.
Did I say that effective gun control would end crime? No, I didn't. It will limit and end gun related deaths and crime. Of course knife crime and other violent crime is still possible, but it is a lot easier to defend oneself against a knife than a gun. A knife is not nearly as effective at range, and it is a lot harder to use a knife in a crime of passion. From my perspective you have yet to show why guns are necessary and useful in the hands of common citizens other than hunting (which I agree with you on and am willing to compromise about) and games (which are not necessary and there are other toys available for such games).
From my perspective you have yet to show why guns are necessary and useful other than hunting (which I agree with you on and am willing to compromise about) and games (which are not necessary and there are other toys available for such games).
From my perspective you have yet to show why guns are necessary and useful other than hunting (which I agree with you on and am willing to compromise about) and games (which are not necessary and there are other toys available for such games).
What if someone breaks into my apartment?
Get teh fuck out of there! If you can't get out, then grab a phone and call the police as you hide. If they find you, then stay calm, let them take what they want, and file a police report later.
Get teh fuck out of there! If you can't get out, then grab a phone and call the police as you hide. If they find you, then stay calm, let them take what they want, and file a police report later.
So roll over and submit to my attacker. That's about the answer I was expecting.
4) A chef's knife couldn't maim someone from feet away unless you are an incredibly skilled knife thrower or beat very high odds.
It's easier than you think - I'm only an average thrower if you feel like being charitable with your descriptions, and I've taken a rabbit going at full run with a throwing blade. A human size target, with a chef's knife? I'm obviously not going to test it, but I'm pretty sure I could hit well enough to at least maim 8 times out of Ten. Hell, my sister, who has thrown a knife not more than twice in her life, has a good chance of hitting a person sized target well enough to cause considerable harm.
Also, I suggest taking up knife throwing. It's fun, and a cheap hobby to participate in.
I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting.
No, you get no compromises.
My apologies, but I must agree. There can be No compromise on gun control. Accept a reasonable level of control with mostly freedom for the gun owners, or ban them all. Your compromise is meaningless - given a good rifle and the correct ammunition, I have the proven ability to hit a man sized target with deadly force out to 2500 yards from a cold bore. It doesn't matter that I only have one shot, because I only need one at a time, and I can always reload. If you're willing to compromise despite this, then it makes your entire argument into a pointless farce. There is no "I'm willing to eliminate all guns but a very specific sort" - it is an all or none proposition from the position you argue.
Both trianed and untrained, legal and illegal gun users can and do kill and injure others.
As has been said before, Trained and insufficiently trained drivers kill and injure others with far greater frequency. It's also far easier for someone to obtain a car - you don't even need a license, background check or waiting period - and far easier for an under-trained, over confident person to kill or injure others with a car than a firearm. So unless you're lobbying to get rid of cars first, then you are essentially arguing from a position where human life is meaningless. What a Firearm was designed to do isn't relevant, what you do with it is. Pens are designed to write, but that is irrelevant to the fact that one lodged in someone's clavicular notch is probably going to kill them without prompt medical assistance, and if you lodge one in someone's head, then it's unlikely that medical attention will help them at all.
Of course knife crime and other violent crime is still possible, but it is a lot easier to defend oneself against a knife than a gun. A knife is not nearly as effective at range, and it is a lot harder to use a knife in a crime of passion.
About the only statement in this that is even vaguely correct is that Knife crime and other violent crime are still possible, though it ignores the fact that as the UK proves, in a nearly firearm free environment, they simply become more common of an implement used in violent crime.
It's actually quite hard to defend yourself against a knife. You can't control a knife someone else is holding nearly as easily, and just about any attempt to do so without very serious training in almost guaranteed to get you seriously injured, and even then, it can get very dicey - Pardon me to again speak from experience, but I'm a very well trained martial artist, and the last time a knife was pulled on me, even though I survived, and by any standard won the fight, I still have a 3 1/2 inch scar on my hip from where I was stabbed for my trouble. Also, for the sake of completeness, It's hard to armor yourself against a knife - Armor that will stop a bullet won't stop a knife - in fact, given the level of strength available to an average person, you can put a knife through a car door.
As for a knife being harder to use in a crime of passion, you know that's horseshit. A crime of passion is most commonly performed with an object that is close to hand and easiest to obtain and far, far more crimes of passion are committed with either a knife or more commonly, a blunt object. On top of that, only about a quarter of the people in the US own guns - Unless you're suggesting that gun owners are more prone to crimes of passion, then the numbers simply don't add up to support that argument.
Get teh fuck out of there! If you can't get out, then grab a phone and call the police as you hide. If they find you, then stay calm, let them take what they want, and file a police report later.
So roll over and submit to my attacker. That's about the answer I was expecting.
Why, you want to kill someone over some TV? Moreover, in those situations the owners of the gun are more likely to be injured by their own gun.
Um, the owner of the safe may be an untrained user. Both trianed and untrained, legal and illegal gun users can and do kill and injure others.
Most people who would own a gun safe are trained users. If the issue is one of training, that is easily rectified. I believe that most pistol permits require you to pass a course, right? In any event, for your fear to hold true, a significant majority of gun owners would need to be dangerously untrained, and that is simply not the case.
Um, the owner of the safe may be an untrained user. Both trianed and untrained, legal and illegal gun users can and do kill and injure others.
Most people who would own a gun safe are trained users. If the issue is one of training, that is easily rectified. I believe that most pistol permits require you to pass a course, right? In any event, for your fear to hold true, a significant majority of gun owners would need to be dangerously untrained, and that is simply not the case.
Really, where are you getting this data? Just because someone can use a gun "safely" (though I think there is rarely such a thing) doesn't mean they will nor does it mean their guns won't end up in the hands of someone that won't. Even with training, there are tons of gun deaths. Training and current laws simply aren't enough. Also, just because someone can legal get a gun doesn't mean I want them having them (or anyone really).
Comments
2) You can keep guns for historical purposes and make them inoperable.
3) There are other games and weaponry that can improve hand-eye coordination.
4) A chef's knife couldn't maim someone from feet away unless you are an incredibly skilled knife thrower or beat very high odds.
5) Making it inoperable while I was there would be a fine compromise.
Hunting I could see, but again, if you can't get it in one shot - then don't fucking hunt. I would be willing to compromise on single shot rifles for hunting.
@Gedavids, I was describing guns.
From my perspective you have yet to show why guns are necessary and useful in the hands of common citizens other than hunting (which I agree with you on and am willing to compromise about) and games (which are not necessary and there are other toys available for such games).
Hell, my sister, who has thrown a knife not more than twice in her life, has a good chance of hitting a person sized target well enough to cause considerable harm.
Also, I suggest taking up knife throwing. It's fun, and a cheap hobby to participate in. My apologies, but I must agree. There can be No compromise on gun control. Accept a reasonable level of control with mostly freedom for the gun owners, or ban them all. Your compromise is meaningless - given a good rifle and the correct ammunition, I have the proven ability to hit a man sized target with deadly force out to 2500 yards from a cold bore. It doesn't matter that I only have one shot, because I only need one at a time, and I can always reload. If you're willing to compromise despite this, then it makes your entire argument into a pointless farce. There is no "I'm willing to eliminate all guns but a very specific sort" - it is an all or none proposition from the position you argue. As has been said before, Trained and insufficiently trained drivers kill and injure others with far greater frequency. It's also far easier for someone to obtain a car - you don't even need a license, background check or waiting period - and far easier for an under-trained, over confident person to kill or injure others with a car than a firearm.
So unless you're lobbying to get rid of cars first, then you are essentially arguing from a position where human life is meaningless. What a Firearm was designed to do isn't relevant, what you do with it is.
Pens are designed to write, but that is irrelevant to the fact that one lodged in someone's clavicular notch is probably going to kill them without prompt medical assistance, and if you lodge one in someone's head, then it's unlikely that medical attention will help them at all. About the only statement in this that is even vaguely correct is that Knife crime and other violent crime are still possible, though it ignores the fact that as the UK proves, in a nearly firearm free environment, they simply become more common of an implement used in violent crime.
It's actually quite hard to defend yourself against a knife. You can't control a knife someone else is holding nearly as easily, and just about any attempt to do so without very serious training in almost guaranteed to get you seriously injured, and even then, it can get very dicey - Pardon me to again speak from experience, but I'm a very well trained martial artist, and the last time a knife was pulled on me, even though I survived, and by any standard won the fight, I still have a 3 1/2 inch scar on my hip from where I was stabbed for my trouble. Also, for the sake of completeness, It's hard to armor yourself against a knife - Armor that will stop a bullet won't stop a knife - in fact, given the level of strength available to an average person, you can put a knife through a car door.
As for a knife being harder to use in a crime of passion, you know that's horseshit. A crime of passion is most commonly performed with an object that is close to hand and easiest to obtain and far, far more crimes of passion are committed with either a knife or more commonly, a blunt object. On top of that, only about a quarter of the people in the US own guns - Unless you're suggesting that gun owners are more prone to crimes of passion, then the numbers simply don't add up to support that argument.