The purpose of a gun

[Individual]

agreed.

True - - there will always be a black market for the things that government prohibits the use and possession of.

Even gun-grabber Joe Biden acknowledged that someone who wants a gun will get one - - legally or illegally.. But they WILL get the gun.

"During my 12 and a half years as a member [ of Congress], I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control." - Senator Joe Biden

We part company here. Some shootings are lawful when an intruder forces entry into a person's home (re: Castle Doctrine ) even in cases when the intruder is unarmed.

"after conviction of a crime" Self defense should not be a crime.

 

[Nickyjo]

Snipped out of the Active Shooter thread to not muck it up:











I have no choice but to harm or kill someone if a gun is in my hand? There is no other reason to have it, @Citizen?

Of course not. But too many people have had a gun in their hand to do damage to other people. That’s why comparable societies impose controls on guns. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

 

[RF667799]

Of course not. But too many people have had a gun in their hand to do damage to other people. That’s why comparable societies impose controls on guns. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

There was a guy from Uruguay earlier, touting the extreme gun control of his country compared to our ridiculously lax gun laws.

Guess which country suffers in a comparison of homicide rate?

 

[Rucker61]

Of course not. But too many people have had a gun in their hand to do damage to other people. That’s why comparable societies impose controls on guns. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Why is it so difficult to grasp that what those other countries did would be unconstitutional in the US?

 

[Nickyjo]

There was a guy from Uruguay earlier, touting the extreme gun control of his country compared to our ridiculously lax gun laws.

Guess which country suffers in a comparison of homicide rate?

And your point is? That Uruguay is comparable to the US? How about our European cousins for comparison?

 

[Rucker61]

And your point is? That Uruguay is comparable to the US? How about our European cousins for comparison?

You mean the ones that confiscated all of those hundreds of thousands of guns?

Why isn't Uruguay part of your conversation? They seem to have very strict laws, the very laws you want for the US.

 

[RF667799]

And your point is? That Uruguay is comparable to the US? How about our European cousins for comparison?

Why are Europeans our cousins, and Uruguayans are beneath consideration? No seat at the Thanksgiving table for them?

My point is that cherry picking can be fun, especially when someone is desperate to get you to focus on the cherries they picked.

But do go ahead and tell us how in Uruguay the gun laws don't matter, because something else is a larger factor.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

According to your logic, the only reason to have a fork in your hand is because you're eating.

You don't really need a fork, you can eat with your hands.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

It's a simple question, all it requires is a yes or no answer.

If a person is aiming the projectile in their gun at another person, are they using their gun in the way the manufacturer designed it?

While a fork is designed for eating, is it ok for someone to stick it in your eye?

 

[driverall]

Snipped out of the Active Shooter thread to not muck it up:











I have no choice but to harm or kill someone if a gun is in my hand? There is no other reason to have it, @Citizen?

I can believe that if I was still in the Army but now ii have one because all the bad guys that want to hurt you have one

 

[Nickyjo]

You mean the ones that confiscated all of those hundreds of thousands of guns?

Why isn't Uruguay part of your conversation? They seem to have very strict laws, the very laws you want for the US.

In general, in speaking of the US, people make comparisons with other developed democracies. Our European cousins have fewer guns in circulation, fewer gun deaths.

 

[trixare4kids]

In general, in speaking of the US, people make comparisons with other developed democracies. Our European cousins have fewer guns in circulation, fewer gun deaths.

Fewer protected rights you mean. Granting rights are considered a privilege outside of this country. We won our Independence from gun grabbing England for this very reason. The people have the right to rule themselves. If we were still under tyrannical rule, you'd have your wish.
We aren't about to go back to a government telling us we can't own guns.
Read your Constitution if you seriously don't understand this.

 

[Nickyjo]

Fewer protected rights you mean. Granting rights are considered a privilege outside of this country.
Read your Constitution if you seriously don't understand this.

I like to think of it as more protection, not fewer rights. Of course one could say that the right of school children and teachers not to have to fear a crazed shooter is important as well.

 

[trixare4kids]

I like to think of it as more protection, not fewer rights. Of course one could say that the right of school children and teachers not to have to fear a crazed shooter is important as well.

I don't think you've thought much about protected rights at all.

 

[RF667799]

In general, in speaking of the US, people make comparisons with other developed democracies. Our European cousins have fewer guns in circulation, fewer gun deaths.

The Uruguayan I was talking to seemed to think his country was the cat's ass, at least so far as their very stringent gun laws. But you're saying that he and his countrymen are something below "developed democracies" on the evolutionary scale?

How is it they have the sort of gun laws you pine for?

 

[Nickyjo]

I don't think you've thought much about protected rights at all.

Nor have you thought about public safety. Hard for me to think about protected rights when I see a friend in a wheel chair or the grieving families in Maine.

 

[RF667799]

Nor have you thought about public safety. Hard for me to think about protected rights when I see a friend in a wheel chair or the grieving families in Maine.

You admit yours is an emotional stance, that doesn't consider the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of others.

I bet that changes when you suspect your own interests are at stake.

 

[Lursa]

There are other means of protection. Having guns didn’t protect anyone from mass shooters. Especially when they are spraying bullets from an AR style weapon. I soppose that people who own those firearms think that a gang of 12 or 13 people are going to raid their homes one day so they better be prepared

That wasnt the conversation, dont move the goal posts. It was about the design and purpose of guns.

So please address that aspect of the post directly before starting to propose something I never implied (that there arent other means of protection.) There were questions I asked.

And if you cannot, if the "design and purpose" of guns arent your actual argument to practically address gun violence, please be honest and stop presenting it. Or...as requested, support it.

 

[CharisRose]

Nice decorative creations!

 

[Citizen]

Lots of guns in jail.

What does jail have to do with anything

 

[Citizen]

So the people that don't do that are using them incorrectly? Are you sure that's the message you want to send?

If they are not harming and killing, they are not using it

 

[Josie]

What does jail have to do with anything

You said guns murder people.

 

[Citizen]

Hunting is killing game animals, not killing people.

Self defense is about preventing harm.

Take Kyle Rittenhouse for example. Three progressives tried to murder him when he prevented the left from destroying local businesses. He prevented those three progressives from inflicting any harm on him.



We're not serfs and you aren't our lord. We do not have to justify that we need a weapon before we are allowed to have it.



So in the last Olympic biathlon, how many people were harmed or killed by the participants?

How many people were harmed or killed by the gold medal winners?



That is incorrect. Most mass murderers choose to use handguns.



We're not serfs and you aren't our lord. We do not have to justify that we need a weapon before we are allowed to have it.



Irrelevant. We're not serfs and you aren't our lord. We'll use whatever form of protection we choose.

And the police don't seem to agree with your claim in any case. They seem to think that guns are needed for protection.

I never said anything about people. I said the purpose is to harm and kill

 

[Citizen]

You think people use rifles (including ARs) to kill more people than those that use their hands and feet as weapons?

Those are the facts

 

[Citizen]

You think ARs are automatic weapons?

My mistake. A semi auto