Are owning a gun a bad thing?

Post Reply New Topic

and what happened to the Branch Davidians again? Oh yea, they got burnt alive by the government.

If soldiers, police, whatever can have guns, I should be able too.

The world is full of all sorts of dangers and much of them come from useful instruments like the misuse of of cars, ladders, floor polish bathtubs and all sorts of electrical appliances. Guns are somewhat different in that it is in their use, not their misuse that dangers lay. Guns are designed to be dangerous and the more dangerous they are the better the design. Having a gun would have done the injured congresswoman no good at all in the latest incident as there was no perception she was in danger. The shooter was captured by a tackle, not by a gun. Over and over again it has been proclaimed that the police are incompetent in their use of guns. No one legally is permitted to drive a very dangerous car without training and testing. And still the injuries and deaths in car use are horrifying. There are no requirements for competence in the use of the gun by gun owners although the only use of a gun is to injure or kill or threaten in such a way as to cause rather than prevent violence. People who feel the need for a gun are obviously driven by fear and different people react to fear in different ways. Macho teen aged males, frightened hysterical women, psychotic or neurotic people of all sorts and well trained and competent marksmen are placed in the same category insofar as gun possession is concerned. Perhaps this needs some reconsideration.

First of all sand you dont live in this country,
I have a family member, that is completely metally ill. would i trust them with a gun? they wouldnt know how to work it! they are too wacked out to even know to x y and z. let alone get a gun and shoot a specific target. nonsence

The only requirements that are needed are if you are a adult, with no felony.

That wasn't an AD, Cheney meant to shoot but wasn't paying enough attention. I had thought that by mentioning my guns "riding around with me" and using the phrase "legally licensed carrier" that it was clear that I was referring to legal concealed carry of a handgun, not a hunting accident.

Also, have you actually read the articles posted on VPC? If I were to try and point out all the technical mistakes, misleading omissions and outright falsifications they publish, I'd be here for days. Just look at the fear mongering visible in the titles of their articles, "voting from the rooftops", "pocket rockets", "medium caliber sniper rifles" etc. Never mind that no one in the states has ever actually been murdered with a .50 caliber rifle (to pick just one oft demonized rifle), they're big and scary looking so the anti gun lobby has latched onto them like they did with military style semi automatics in the early 90's as the thin end of the wedge for gun control. Also never mind that a 5 foot plus long 30 lb rifle isn't exactly suitable for the vast majority of crimes, the anti gun people have never let common sense get in the way of their agenda before.

So you know better than I do why I happen to like and use guns?

There are also dumbasses out there that pack Desert Eagles as well when they could've gotten the job done more easily with a smaller caliber pistol such as a .45 ACP. Desert Eagles have ridiculous recoil, have a lot of weight, and its big size means it'll be outlined by the wrinkles of your shirt more conspicuously. Same with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. It'll lower the suspension on the rear wheels of your car more so than a lighter sniper rifle.

I didn't say .50 cal sniper rifles have never been used in crimes, but that there are more practical sniper rifles out there for criminal usage. The point isn't that .50 cal sniper rifles have never been used, but that they shouldn't be the biggest concern when it comes to guns since they aren't the most practical. I know if I was a crook I'd rather use a .338 Lapua or a .308 Winchester than a .50 cal.

@ Sand: You're suggesting the need to own a gun is driven by irrational fear. It's more of a backup plan for when the SHTF for most gun owners than a first resort.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 10 Jan 2011, 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Right. And living in the USA is therefore the prime consideration for thinking correctly about gun use. I get your drift. And you are delighted with the status quo since you live in a country where the minimum qualifications for possession and use of an extremely dangerous instrument and no second thoughts are even remotely possible. That's why you feel totally secure in the knowledge that no irrational person can ever put you in danger. Good luck.

So you know better than I do why I happen to like and use guns?[/quote

Why no. I assume you find a gun more dramatic and useful than a can opener when you when making a tuna salad.

I do think this is the best country in the world. can you carry a gun where you are?
what a bunch of BS. you can live in your pussy-assed where ever the f**k you live, but me and my kind? WE like to arm ourselves

In order to do what?

Because our fathers said so

@Dox 47

I make no distinction between an AD and an ND when it comes to licensed gun owner. If you are trained in its operation, and if you own it you should be, you need to be in control of your weapon at all times. If someone is in your way and you fire, thats pretty bloody negligent in my book. Any ND is culpable.

Here is another perfect example that fits your definition:

“No charges filed against man when gun went off at Jacksonville business, killing woman,” jacksonville.com, October 22, 2009.
and another
“Single gunshot killed Deerfield woman,” The Miami Herald,” March 24, 2008.

Last edited by 91 on 11 Jan 2011, 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Maybe your father. Not mine. How many people did your father kill?

Machine guns are not useful for crime because they designed for Suppressive Fire. One person fires an automatic weapon to force the opposing unit of men to slow r halt their advance and to force them to take cover. The automatic weapon is not designed to shoot individual persons.
While the opposing unit is taking cover, another man or group of men then moves to outflank and kill the unit that is taking cover. The movies make it look like you can commit crime with machine guns. Even if legal, they are expensive, heavy, and tend to deplete their ammunition rapidly.
Crime is best committed with a pistol.

Canada has less crime, because it has less people. I have gone hunting in Manitoba and I was allowed to bring a rifle and shotgun into Canada after declaring it. I met many Canadians that own guns in rural Manitoba.

Guns are silly machinery, they won't protect you from criminals nor governments. Criminals have their own guns and can use them better. Governments have tanks. Be happy taking your advanced own-food-shooting devices with you everywhere. Other countries happen to have more useful measures of what makes a good country.

@Ten Faces

You are discounting the fact that smaller weapons, with automatic fire capability can be used for rapid room clearances and establishing firepower domination. While I personally prefer semi-automatic fire in almost all circumstances, the Uzi was not designed to suppress an enemy in the field.

Last edited by 91 on 11 Jan 2011, 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.