Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 15, 2019, 06:14:17 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Orphan Crippler, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Gun Ownership/Rights? (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Gun Ownership/Rights?  (Read 13579 times)
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« on: May 25, 2004, 11:43:17 am »

I support any gun being legal as long as it has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Otherwise, I don't believe that a weapon should be legally available to the general public if it has no legitimate use other than to kill people. Note that this covers the entire spectrum from Sherman Tanks, nuclear bombs, AK-47s, Uzis, etc....if you believe in an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms I'd think you'd have to say that everything must be legal, up to and including tanks and nuclear bombs. Otherwise you are admitting that it is ok to ban some weapons, but not others...so then where do you draw the line? I say if the gun has no legitimate purpose at all other than to kill people, it shouldn't be legal.

Obviously there is some degree of disagreement as to whether or not a gun has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, but for most weapons old fashioned common sense should do the job...would anyone in their right mind use this gun to deer hunt, for example? Obviously a fully automatic machine gun is completely useless for hunting.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2004, 11:45:52 am »

Also, before anyone says anything, I have hunted personally before, and live in a very rural area where hunting is HUGE. I'm not some big-city elitist. Smiley
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2004, 11:53:16 am »

Agreed, Wildcard, I strongly support guns being legal if they have a legitimate use for something other than killing people. I fully recognize the importance of guns and the need for people to defend themselves. I just think that you have to draw the line somewhere, obviously, and that seems to be the most logical place to draw the line.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2004, 11:14:14 pm »

No, ...but any gun that is good for hunting is plenty good for self-defense too, usually. Certainly allowances should be made for guns which are particularly good for defense but not for hunting or sporting...but these should be more difficult to obtain.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2004, 10:21:19 am »

Not less important, but the only guns that are really good for defense but not for hunting are also probably going to be used a lot by criminals too (handguns come to mind here).

If you want a gun to defend your home, a shotgun works quite well, and is much easier than a handgun to shoot accurately. If you need defense on the street, I can see the need for a handgun, but it shouldn't be easy to obtain a handgun because they are obviously going to be used a lot by criminals, probably moreso than in defense.

Basically my position is that we need to look at each gun objectively, and ask what its purpose is. Rather than blanket laws that apply to all guns we would be better off judging each on its own merits.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2004, 10:09:18 am »

CarlHayden--

Your ad hominem attacks aside, I own several shotguns and are quite adept at firing them accurately. Maybe that's why I have a bias in favor of them...I didn't realize they were so hard for everyone else to handle. I personally find them a lot easier to fire accurately than a handgun...longer barrel, easier to aim. Maybe that's just me though.

A good deer rifle, such as a 30/30 or 30 aught 6 would be more accurate than a shotgun, true, though at close range it would hardly matter that much. The shotgun of course deliberately disperses the shot over a wider area, which therefore gives you a greater chance of hitting your target but also a greater chance of collateral damage, too.

I'd appreciate we keep the name calling out of this. Don't make assumptions about me based on my statements with no other proof to back them up. I'll extend you the same courtesy. I'm not anti-miltary or anti-prosecuting people for gun crimes, for example.

I strongly support punishing people who commit crimes, too. I know that people kill people...but guns make it a lot easier to do that.

My point is, where do we draw the line? I'm all for having a gun for self-defense. I just feel that if you want a handgun, which has no legitimate use really other than for self-defense, you should have to provide a reason for it.

Personally, if I needed defense on the street against robbers or such, I'd take a knife over a gun any day. Even more accurate, and simpler and easier to use (important considerations when time is of the essence), and just as deadly. The only advantage the gun has is the fact that you can shoot someone from a distance. At close range, though, a good long knife is going to be a much more effective weapon.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2004, 01:07:12 pm »

I admitted it increases collateral damage. I stated that clearly in my last post. I realize this is a drawback. The closer the range, though, the less the collateral damage would be, as the pattern doesn't have time to spread far apart yet.

A knife is just as effective as a gun at close range, perhaps more so. Now if someone has a gun pointed at you from a distance, yes, you need a gun too...most robbers or other street assailants, however, are going to be right up close to you I'd think, within knife range. I'm not Italian, no.

I do believe in self-defense, but I don't think it's too much to ask someone to at least state why they specifically need, say, a handgun, when something else might be just fine. Handguns are concealable...that's their main advantage, but they are both less powerful and overall less accurate (yes, I realize the shotgun patterns...).

I'm not saying it should be difficult to get a permit necessarily, but I do feel that anyone who wants a handgun should have to apply for a permit, yes.

Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines