Carrying Firearms

What is right? Is there right? Are you right?

Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by zenithSmil3 on Sun May 31, 2009 4:03 am
([msg=24661]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

shinigmai wrote:I was slightly disappointed to not read anything about hunting. Lots of people across the world use guns to hunt. Take away guns and you take away hunting.

Another thing that lots of people do with guns is target practice. Just like hunting, many people across the world enjoy shooting guns at a gun range. There is a certain enjoyable feeling that comes with this.

My point is, there are other reasons for owning a gun other than crime and self-defense.


That tis because for target practice, there can be regulations to not allow you to take a gun out. It was mainly talking about privately owned guns, in your house.

Just because you take away guns, does not mean no target practice. I'm not too sure about hunting because its not such a big thing in my country. My country does not allow guns but target practice is still there.
Meh.
User avatar
zenithSmil3
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by fiftysixer on Sun May 31, 2009 3:25 pm
([msg=24677]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

The important thing to remember is that the bad guys will ALWAYS have firearms. No amount of legislation will get rid of all the guns on the street. And people need to be allowed to take action if their life is in danger.

The second amendment does allow us the right to bear arms, but there has to be a limit somehow - would you be comfortable knowing your neighbor had a large arsenal stashed in his house?

IMHO, people should have the right to own firearms, but within reason - no one needs assault weapons or .50 cal rifles. Maybe a couple .22 rifles, or shotguns for hunting. If it's for self-defense, a handgun is definitely better, you don't want to go shooting around inside with a bulky weapon anyway. And there should definitely be a limit on the amount of guns one can have.

Anyone who owns a weapon should have to go through skills evaluation and psychiatric testing - that would cut down on a LOT of incidents. And people need to get through their heads that firearms are not toys...

</2 cents>
Image
Big fan of Image
fiftysixer
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by aNewHobby4me on Sun May 31, 2009 3:51 pm
([msg=24681]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

Charlieace wrote:if we were allowed to carry firearms, shooting would increase because we had the resources to shoot.


Are you saying having a gun in one's possession somehow compels them to use it?

USMC General vs. NPR Reporter

One of the best quips of all time, this is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female reporter and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

-----------------------------------------------

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Semper Fi!


Here, let me throw some statistics at you. Only 1.2 percent of all deaths in 2002 were by firearms (NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police).

Now the only age groups that had a significant percentage was the 15-24 and the 25-34 groups. Yet, even in those groups more people died from automobile accidents than firearms. So if you want to save lives, take motor vehicles out of the hands of people in these age groups.

I am sure that Clara Harris' husband would agree.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by zenithSmil3 on Sun May 31, 2009 11:20 pm
([msg=24700]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

aNewHobby4me wrote:Now the only age groups that had a significant percentage was the 15-24 and the 25-34 groups. Yet, even in those groups more people died from automobile accidents than firearms. So if you want to save lives, take motor vehicles out of the hands of people in these age groups.


Hence, we should outlaw automobiles! ;)
Meh.
User avatar
zenithSmil3
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by aNewHobby4me on Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:37 am
([msg=24709]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

zenithSmil3 wrote:Hence, we should outlaw automobiles! ;)


Yes, we could do that. Or......

Why not teach firearm safety in school, right along with the driver's education classes? In fact, make both classes mandatory and required for graduation. Might just save a lot of lives that way. Not that it would ever happen in the real world though.
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by zenithSmil3 on Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:43 am
([msg=24710]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

Just because you know firearm safety doesn't mean you abide by it?
Meh.
User avatar
zenithSmil3
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 8:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by aNewHobby4me on Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:53 am
([msg=24711]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

zenithSmil3 wrote:Just because you know firearm safety doesn't mean you abide by it?


Of course not, no more so than knowing the proper way to drive a motor vehicle automatically makes one a safe driver. But at what time is ignorance better than knowledge?
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by Finarfin Palantir on Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:41 am
([msg=24741]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

Well I might just throw another spanner in the wheel here, I mean sure you can go to a practice range, hire a gun and it stays there, which would really just make practice ranges a big target for criminals, but I've got an entirely new point on the subject of keeping guns in your house, not for target practive or hunting, but what about family heirlooms?

We have about 6 guns that was left by my grandfather, he lived on the farm where the need for a firearm would often arise, mostly to protect livestock.

Now in our country, you need a license to buy, keep or carry a gun, to obtain this license you need to pass a number of tests AND you need to have a wall mounted safe installed in your house where the gun must remain until you need to use it.

There are seperate licenses which are must harder to come by, in order for anyone to carry a gun in public.

What's your take on that process?
Finarfin Palantir
New User
New User
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:53 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by Charlieace on Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:20 pm
([msg=24784]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

I will admit guns have done us some good. Without guns we would not be at the top of the food chain, because animals would have almost definatley overrun us by now.

What I do not understand is why we need such advanced weapons.

Do we really need a weapon that can fire at automatic capabilities? Do we need a handgun that can rip your head off? Do we need a rifle that can shoot over a mile? Do we really need these weapons?

I understand the need to feel superior and safe, but a simple handgun, 12 gauge, or .22 are fine. Uzi's are out of the question and completely unnecessary. If a burglar pops into your house, he'll stop at the barrel of a Uzi or .308, and he'll stop at the barrel of a little ol' .22 Ruger.

Don't even get me started about guns and war...
GET ME OUT OF AMERICA! MOVE ME TO IRELAND! IT LOOKS COOL THERE!

"In a world where stupidity has become the normal, it is better to be strange."

The Internet is my classroom.

Silence is the enemy.
Charlieace
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Carrying Firearms

Post by aNewHobby4me on Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:26 am
([msg=24807]see Re: Carrying Firearms[/msg])

Charlieace wrote:I will admit guns have done us some good. Without guns we would not be at the top of the food chain, because animals would have almost definatley overrun us by now.


I find this statement...disturbing. Surely you haven't forgotten the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch that kept the fierce creatures at bay until firearms were invented? Part of the Sacred Arsenal that brother Maynard carried?
"To understand recursion you must first understand recursion."
aNewHobby4me
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests