In a gun-free/defense free society this is all that would happen...

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What good is it if its unloaded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, according to some here, guns are ONLY for deterrent value, and aren't bought to kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have completely reversed the meaning of some responses here. I am not going to reread all the posts, but I do not remember anyone saying that guns are only for deterrent value. What I and some others said, in response to a statement that guns are only for killing things, is that guns can be used for sport and for self-defense, and that part of the self-defense value of a gun is its deterrent value. And that every rational gun owner hopes that if he has to use a gun for self-defense, the deterrent value will suffice.

[ QUOTE ]
I think gun right supporters should just come out admit they like their guns as lethal as possible (it's probably not a very big concession for some) - and may shed light on why they disapprove of some gun controls.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gun is a tool, and competent workmen use the right tool for the job. Actually, guns "as lethal as possible" are more appropriate for recreational purposes. You don't want a cannon for self defense, you want something safe and manageable.

On the other hand, we must acknowledge the wisdom of the quote from the movie North Dallas Forty:

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Bob: Where's your gun, Elliott?


Phil Elliott: Freud says that guns are an extension of your dick, Jo Bob.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is apparently more in line with your thinking. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

And we all know that bigger is better.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think gun right supporters should just come out admit they like their guns as lethal as possible (it's probably not a very big concession for some) - and may shed light on why they disapprove of some gun controls.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gun is a tool, and competent workmen use the right tool for the job. Actually, guns "as lethal as possible" are more appropriate for recreational purposes. You don't want a cannon for self defense, you want something safe and manageable.

On the other hand, we must acknowledge the wisdom of the quote from the movie North Dallas Forty:

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Bob: Where's your gun, Elliott?


Phil Elliott: Freud says that guns are an extension of your dick, Jo Bob.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is apparently more in line with your thinking. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

And we all know that bigger is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

That quote from North Dallas Forty sounds about right to me. I can't help but think gender plays a role in the animosity toward gun control. I don't doubt that, for many, 'gun control = feminize'. I'm sure we could draw a myriad of other connections between gender and the politics of firearms.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt that, for many, 'gun control = feminize'. I'm sure we could draw a myriad of other connections between gender and the politics of firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that means that anti-gun advocates are a bunch of girly-men, I agree. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't help but think gender plays a role in the animosity toward gun control.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the way that partisans spin language to put negative connotations on the positions of their opponents. (The classic example being the abortion issue, where both sides think of themselves as being "Pro" something, and think of the other side being "Anti" something.)

I have a natural right to bear arms, and that right is affirmed in, not granted by, the Bill of Rights. If I object to someone trying to infringe on my rights, I am displaying "animosity toward gun control"? Obviously, anyone displaying animosity toward controls must be antisocial and irrational, right? Animosity is bad, so anyone displaying animosity must be wrong-headed and not thinking clearly, right?

Sorry, wrong. Standing up for my right to bear arms is no different than standing up for my right to free speech. Standing up for my rights is not macho posturing, it is not a pissing contest, it is not fear of emasculation, it is not antisocial. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]

I love the way that partisans spin language to put negative connotations on the positions of their opponents. (The classic example being the abortion issue, where both sides think of themselves as being "Pro" something, and think of the other side being "Anti" something.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since I don't favor most gun control, I don't think we're really opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a natural right to bear arms, and that right is affirmed in, not granted by, the Bill of Rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Not particularly cogent to our discussion, but okay.

[ QUOTE ]
If I object to someone trying to infringe on my rights, I am displaying "animosity toward gun control"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of, I would say. I think gun owners display more than just 'objection', though - I think there's alot of emotion involved.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, anyone displaying animosity toward controls must be antisocial and irrational, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I display animosity all the time! I don't think I'm very anti-social; I might be irrational, but I don't see it being a product of my animosity towards things, and vice versa.

[ QUOTE ]
Animosity is bad, so anyone displaying animosity must be wrong-headed and not thinking clearly, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had animosity toward Saddaam Hussein or neo-nazis, this would seem right-headed and you would be thinking clearly, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, don't patronize me! You're not really sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
Standing up for my right to bear arms is no different than standing up for my right to free speech. Standing up for my rights is not macho posturing, it is not a pissing contest, it is not fear of emasculation, it is not antisocial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I'll agree it isn't anti-social; as for the rest, I'm not so sure. Is it possible that the language you use (I'm standing up) indicates some measure of bravado and masculine posturing? I'd say it might.

Regardless, I think it's likely some of the anti-gun control crowd is fueled by gender concerns - call it 'anxious masculinity'.

[andyfox]

"does ANYONE realistically think that we could create a gun-free society"

Maybe not. But maybe . . . There was a time when nobody realistically thought we could have a slave-free society. Or we could put a man on the moon. Different things, I know, than gun ownership, but still . . .