Gun controlFollow

I'm aware of that. I choose not to discuss it because it is defeatist to my point.

Oh, I quit. We pretty much agree on the situation anyway, I think. We just misundestood one another. I think.

It's possible to make sense and look like a moron.

Guns are designed to kill. They can be used for other purposes, but their primary purpose is harm.

Cars, fertilizer etc have a useful, benign purpose which (on balance of risk) have the potential to use harm but are allowed because of their peaceful usefulness for the greater good.

I own firearms. I use them to kill fluffy things I want to eat.

I have had to prove my competence and ability to keep them secure.

Normal folks don't allow children to play with rat poison, cars, power stations or narcotics.

Your point?

We had the correct answer very early in the thread. Let's not pretend it's any more complex than that.

I'm not specifically mentioning Uzi's or other military grade weapons. What of the civilian class guns, such as an AR-15(which is similar to a AK-47, but without an automatic setting, and a few other things) They are not as few and far between as you may have been led to believe. Yes, they are still dangerous, and you obviously still need to be careful while using them.



I also specifically said that children should not be allowed to play with these more dangerous guns.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 6:14pm by Timelordwho

If any old Joe could go to the gun club, get a license, and fire any weapon of his choosing without the hassle of owning said gun, there would be a lot more recreational shooting than there actually is today. A lot of would be competition shooters don't own guns themselves because of the legal hassle in addition to the cost and maintenance factors.

Still, taking away the right to own a gun under any circumstances is against one of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, and though some may argue the original purpose for declaring such a right may be antiquated, rights are rights, and most people don't like giving them up to satisfy the whims of others. When you consider the number of people who safely own and operate guns every year for recreational purposes against the number of guns misused to harm others, you might be more than a little surprised at how they stack up.

I'm sure there are gun clubs that do this, but most gun clubs operate ranges that aren't monitored 24/7 or self-contained. For example, in my podunk town, there is a gun range operated by a club 30 miles away. They maintain the range and require memberships / licenses, but once you're a member, you can go there any time you want on your own schedule (between dawn and dusk) with your own weapons and fire at any number of range targets. This freedom is part of the relaxing nature of shooting at a range. It's a freedom that most people who enjoy it would fight hard to keep.

Furthermore, when you're shooting rifle rounds or even some higher velocity pistols, having others around you can actually be distracting and more dangerous. I generally don't like shooting my friend's rifle or his 357 mag when there are others at the range. We stick to the 9mm mostly.

Edited, Oct 27th 2008 5:24pm by BrownDuck

I'm just imagining a country club except, instead of playing golf, they shoot semi- and automatic weapons.



A business, yes. That's different from having these guns laying around your home. (Or even locked up in a bio-locked safe.)

A best fit line is much more accurate than the curve drawn.

1. Marginally at best

2. Still leaves your argument in tatters if a 'right' without justification has to stand up against rationale

That's just a law to make it so all Englishmen go to Hell (for not honoring the Sabbath) so that one day England could rise and control the world with the power of Lucifer on their side!

If you leave USA out of the equation, the proportionality is almost linear, with Switzerland having the highest percent household with guns.

You choose to ignore Switzerland in the plot and go dead on to the US because it proves your point. Where as if you where to plot an actual best fit the rise would be less noticeable, and much closer to linear.

I think that the point largely being missed here is that the weapon in question is not a street legal weapon. The point of "banning" it is moot. This was at a gun show, not in someone's home.

The parents of the child brought him to the gun show. They gave their permission for the child to use the weapon. They took responsibility for that choice and have to suffer the consequences of that choice.

The death of the child is no more or less tragic than when a child dies on a roller coaster, or while riding in a car. In those cases as well, the parent(s) placed the child in a situation which they knew had an outside chance of being harmful to the child and rolled craps. It's tragic, but I think pursuing a line of reasoning that we should outlaw anything that might be dangerous is a bad one.