Interest - Guns

Originally created by Will Alvein
5 years ago.

on 3 Roots

11 Comments

timtoborne
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
timtoborne 19 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic ENTP 512 186C
When I say I like guns, I mean those 1 handed pistols.
Drake
7

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Was this really necessary? A 50 character-post just to qualify your 'like' of guns? Stop. Please. Few care anymore about your various qualities; if you really need people to know that you "like 1 handed pistols", put it on your userpage. Don't clog up the 'Community' page; it's just annoying, and achieves nothing.
timtoborne
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
timtoborne 19 United States MelancholicPhlegmatic ENTP 512 186C
No, but didn't you say that you'd given up, and that you'd chalk me up as "a lost cause". Please stop YOUR posting upon mine. Can't you see that reacting to something that was not meant for a reaction is merely creating these idiotic arguments? Just leave me alone, No amount of your bitching will change the fact that I do not care if you tell me to stop. Pardon my language.
poisen
6

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I find that quite hilarious. You demand not to be subjected to others opinions and yet you force your opinions on others with your useless, inane spamming. Can you not get the hint?
This is like, the second or third time that people have asked you to stop. Regardless of your mental illnesses/diseases/what-have-you, it is, in all honesty, in your best intentions to stop.
That doesn't mean you have to stop posting, but you really just need to stop and listen to other people. If there is a thread, try and contribute to it, rather than make your own (Where in most cases, people are annoyed at this fact) and clog up the community page.
HayRoss
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
HayRoss 21 Mongolia SanguineMelancholic ISTP 41C
Ahh... the internet. Where everyone's opinions are well respected.
idea bulb
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Here is a question for you all. Do you believe that villainous people will listen to a law banning weapons? Laws and rules will more often then not only be followed by good people, but not evil or villainous people. We are only human. Believing that we can overcome that is not only foolhardy but it dangerous for yourself and others and here is another question for you. Is it possible to forget technological progress? I'l leave you to decide for yourselves.
Perturbed Crow
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
If guns are banned (and you may note they're banned in other first-world countries outside of your oh-so-lovely U.S. of A.), then it will still be harder for criminals to get guns. If gun sale is lawful, then it's much easier for criminals to walk in and buy an instrument of murder. Furthermore, if someone is found with a gun, they can be arrested immediately, and people will know they're breaking the law. My policy is that guns are just too dangerous to let into the hands of the common people. And before you talk about the right to bear arms and fighting against an oppressive government, I'm sorry, but the peashooters they sell in gun shops are not going to do you any good against military carbines, machine guns, tanks, and soldiers with real military experience. They're more trouble than they're worth.
idea bulb
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
First of all, you also live in the US so that complaint is not valid and furthermore, how do you expect the police to find the gun? Do you expect the police to pat you down and search your home each month? I am sorry but that would be a clear invasion of privacy and I do not want that to happen. Also if you complain about that is going to the extreme, how else would the police be able to find the gun? It is only possible to catch a lawbreaker during or after the fact and with people having guns, it is more likely to be during the crime instead of after it is committed.
SavageWolf
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
SavageWolf 22 United Kingdom CholericMelancholic INTP 666 402C
Let me just hit you with some statistics, 'kay.

In 2005, homocides caused by a firearm in the US: ∞ 11,346 ∞, which is (36*10^-6)% of the population, or 36μ%, if you prefer.
In 2005, homocides caused by a firearm in Scotland: ∞ 8 ∞, which is (1.5*10^-6)% of the population, or 1.5μ%, if you prefer.

I'm no statistical guy, but I'd say that blows your argument, which relies on questions but no answers, right out the water. Now stop the needless childish philosophy, you give real philosophers a bad name. Don't let me point out your fallacies, because god help me I will.
Ribbit
1

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Ribbit 26 Germany MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 1127C
There was a real long and well rounded discussion thread about this: ∞ Fig Hunter ∞ . It covered nearly all views and a lot of people there stated your opinion better than you. It is now quite boring and meaningless to stirr up the same discussion again.
david s
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
david s 24 United States MelancholicCholeric ISFJ 621 1192C
Guns... so much hatred. I like guns, but I can understand the hatred.

Guns are weapons. There's no doubt about that. Guns have only one real purpose, and it'd difficult to use them for anything else. Guns are meant to kill or injure a living thing from a distance. Guns, just like swords, have only one true purpose(Though guns, unlike swords, can be used in hunting instead of just war... it's harder with a sword.) and their purpose is to take life.

Life is the most precious thing, arguably the only thing, someone has. When you take someone or something's life, you're effectively taking all it has, all but it's soul, if you believe in souls. None of your valuables in life matter if you lose your life. All life ends, true, but that doesn't "justify" taking a life. What is death? No one really knows... it could be better than life, it could be worse. It shouldn't be the choice of someone who has a gun whether you cross that line, should it? It could be better, it could be worse, but senseless killing doesn't get anyone anywhere.

But guns aren't about senseless killing. A gun is an object, as neutral as death itself. A gun does not choose to harm someone or help someone, but a person does. A gun is not an object of hatred or malice, but rather, a tool that can be used by a person, and a person can be good or evil.

Guns do kill, and killing can be seen as wrong, but in a way, in some cases, killing isn't always so wrong.

Death is a natural part of life; the end of life, and arguably the most important part. It shouldn't be someone's choice to end the life of another, but death touches all in some way or another. Is it right to let a weak animal live on in agony? Is it right to let the sick animals spread diseases? No. So that means we kill them, right? No. What? Nope. Predators do that... but here's the thing: There's nowhere left that the predators really exist, unfortunately. Humans who feared death killed the predators who they feared. Now we're all that's left, so humans have to be hunters, to some extent.

There is no reason, however, that humans should kill for sport. I am appalled to see people brag about killing the healthiest deer and letting the weak ones live. 20 years later they complain about how there are no good deer left.(Gee, I wonder why...) But we can be better predators. Unlike animals who prey on other animals, with guns we have the ability to kill animals with less pain. Again, there is no reason for us to hunt so that we can kill, nor is there a reason to hunt to cause pain. Guns were invented to reduce the pain of death.(I can't imagine a much more painful death than being mauled by animals or bleeding to death after being ripped open with a sword, but guns can be less painful. Not always, but they can be.)

But why guns? Why not bows for hunting, and get rid or guns entirely? Well, there's the human aspect.

You might say that there's no justifiable reason to kill a person, and to an extent, I agree. However, that later interferes with itself. If a person is about to kill another person, do you let it happen? Do you let the person doing wrong do wrong because it's not right for you to kill him first? I mean, you'll certainly try to stop him/her without killing him/her if you can, but if you can't, although others may not agree with this, I do think that in some cases it is necessary to stop them with any means necessary.(Note that unnecessary force is never necessary. If you can stop someone without killing them, that is what you do, but you can't always stop them.) Less-lethal things such as pepper spray and tasers are only effective to about 20 feet, and neither are 100% effective. I think that in some extreme cases, lethal force is necessary, though these cases are rare.(Examples would be when someone is trying to kill or maim an innocent, or if someone is attempting to take their liberties though vulgar actions i.e. kidnapping or rape.)

So only police should have guns? Alright, then what happens if the police are busy? What if they're too far away? What if the police officer is the one committing the act? That's a bit of a drag. I don't, however, think guns should be unrestricted. I think that people should register their guns, and I think that there should be a limit to what kinds of guns a person should have.(No one will ever have a need for a machinegun except in war, and even then...) I think that people should also have to, at the very least, take a test to get a permit to get guns.(At least you could prevent some complete nuts from getting guns, or make it harder for them.)

But why guns? Why not bows or swords? Back in the 1800's, Samuel Colt made many gun designs. In the latter half of the century, Colt revolvers became practical, lethal and easily loaded. What name was applied to them? Equalizer. No matter how strong, how weak, what race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation you were, everyone can use a gun, and everyone can die by a gun.

From that moment on, no one was more powerful or weaker than anyone else, people became equals. With swords and bows, you need both practice and strength, meaning that one who devotes his life to killing and injuring has unlimited power over the weak. Effectively, that meant that a jock could live his whole life dominating the weak without working for it. Someone who is born with stronger genetics would dominate over those who were weaker. Guns changed that.

Guns can also be used by the jocks and tyrants, but for the first time, the weak and oppressed have a fighting chance. In Libya, people were being oppressed under Gaddafi. The people rose up, and although they lacked the firepower of their oppressors, with aid they eventually overcame their oppressor.(If they failed, more would have taken their place. Those who are oppressed don't simply give up when things get worse, they try harder. It would have been bloodier though.)

Should they have killed Gaddafi then? No. Not the way they did. It was right to stop him but to execute *anyone* seems unnecessary. He was no threat, and killing him was wrong. Once he was ousted from power, he couldn't harm anyone. Killing him was wrong.

So no war then? Yes and no. I've never seen a point in having a war for resources, I think it's stupid to kill people for material wealth or land. That being said however, there is one thing worth fighting and dying for, and that... that's life. I believe it was right for the Libyan people to rise up against Gaddafi for killing them, and I believe it was right for NATO forces to aid them against their oppressor. I believe a war in the defense of people is a war worth fighting, but it can't be right on both side. A defensive war is understandable, but to be defensive, someone else must be attacking, and for someone to be attacking, something is amiss.

I'm not going to say that the US is just here either. In fact, in the last 125 years, the only war I can think of that we had any business in was the Libyan Civil war, and perhaps, if you want to argue it, WWII. Other than that, our hands are soaked in the blood of innocents, and we attempt to dry said hands with cash.

I don't think it's right to kill people. I don't think it's right at all, but I don't think it's right to let someone do it to someone else, and if you can protect someone who is innocent from someone who is trying to cause harm, I feel that the person who is trying to cause harm is the one who should have their life taken, if(And only if.) a life must be taken.

I'm not saying I want anyone to agree with me on this, I'm sure many people won't. I understand that you have your reasons, and I understand those reasons. This is my perspective, and I don't want you to agree with me, but if you're reading this, I simply want you to understand why I believe what I do. You can disagree with it, and I'm fine with that. You're entitled to your ideas, but this is why I am what I am.