Guns

[Redefeatbush04]

I'm extremely anti-guns, and it is perhaps the issue in which I am the furthest from the Republican position. I don't see why any average person in there right mind needs a gun. Some argue self-defense. Why not stun-guns?

I hate how so much of the Republican agenda is killing court cases in HMO problems, environmental lawsuits, and the attempted bill to restrict gun lawsuits. Thank goodness the bill collapsed today.

I see your point. Criminals are going to get the guns anyway, so to defend against those guns citizens should have the right to a stun gun/tranqulizer gun.  However it is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The average person doesn't need a gun. However many people do. Some, particularly in alaska and the rocky mountains hunt to provide themselves with food. It is considered entertaining and serves a usefull purpose. Others need guns for different reasons. The logic is "would you attack someone knowing that they don't have a gun, or not knowing whether or not they have a gun." Yes the stun gun idea makes more sense, however it would never work in our society, a society with 10X the number of murders as nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan have.

[Redefeatbush04]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

[Redefeatbush04]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

[Redefeatbush04]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

[Redefeatbush04]

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

Someone bigger and/or stronger than me - equipped with a gun, knife, baseball bat, pipe, other melee, or even nothing at all - who wishes me harm. In case you haven't noticed, criminals prefer to prey on the weak - they either do so by preying on those of lesser power than they or by ganging up on their victims. A knife, or any melee weapon, is not likely to be an effective defense against such an opponent - what's to stop them from grabbing your wrist, thus preventing you from striking. Further, proficiency with melee weapons is not as easy to achieve as with a gun - takes a lot more training, which the average citizen may not have.

To put this in context, let me give you an example. A 120 lb. woman is walking home, a 200 lb. man confronts her and intends to rape then kill her. She has a knife. Do you really like her chances? Now look at the same situation, but the woman has a gun. How have her chances changed?

EDIT: To further prove my point

This is why I don't debate you Dibble

Yes guns are probablly better for self-defense against a 300 pound guy. I don't see why you need an assault weapon to do it but I get your point. I still don't think guns are "good". If we lived in a highly civilized world we wouldn't need them.....outside of hunting (which i have absolutely no problem with if you use the animal for food/ect.). It makes sense to me why firearms are necessary for a society in todays world - I'll never argue that they aren't - however murder is never good - and guns are built for the sole purpose of killing (whether self defense, anger, aggression, or greed).

Statistics show that among the developed world the US has one of the highest murder rates. Dibble - this is what fuels gun control advocates. If you can PROVE to them the reason that the US has a higher murder rate than Candada, australia, japan, and most of europe they would most likely back down on their rabid desire to control + regulate firearms. Those statistics have always bothered me. Why is the "greatest nation" less civilized.

 

[Redefeatbush04]

The biggest mistake that they made in that courtroom:

most states have laws that the guns in courtrooms can have only 1 bullet in them. Apparently georgia isn't one of those states.