To all the gun nuts out there.

[HDPM]

Obviously people have the right to own machine guns. What little case law there is on the 2d Amendment allows them IMO. And yes, many places people can own one, although you have to do the constitutionally suspect Class III paperwork and tax stamp. This isn't close to where the line is considering you can own one in free states right now, at least if they were manufactured before 1986. (The post-1986 law is constitutionally suspect BTW, and the 9th circuit had the commerce clause case on a personally manufactured machine gun.)

RPGs and rockets and such are probably not going to be protected by the courts. Well, perhaps not machine guns in today's anti-gun climate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But SUVs don't exist for the explicit purpose of killing things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do guns. I have several, and none were purchased for the explicit purpose of killing things.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't defending SUVs as being "safe", but come on, you wouldn't admit that guns are designed for AT LEAST severely wounding things? I'm wondering why you purchased your guns.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]

Neither do guns. I have several, and none were purchased for the explicit purpose of killing things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can this be true? I have a tough time believing most gun owners feel this way. In fact, it seems to me that gun owners are highly concerned with the lethality of their weaponry.

[ QUOTE ]
And to counter your cliche with another old cliche (updated), guns and SUVs don't kill people. People kill people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to counter this cliche with another cliche: Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Do you support legalized nuclear weapons? I assume not. Count me in favor of prohibiting some items that (by their very nature) may not cause death, but through some sort of human action/interaction/manipulation will cause death. I'm not referring to guns here, particularly. But the 'XYZ doesn't kill people, people kill people' argument doesn't hold water for me - and I suspect if we replaced 'XYZ' with a myriad of other items (other than guns), you might agree.

[etgryphon]

I see exactly three and only three legal reasons to own a gun:

1. Self Defense (saves lives and bodily injury)
2. Recreational Shooting (Hunting and Target)
3. Collection (make mad bank on Class III weapons)

So with the exception of 2 (if you consider shooting animals to be killing, i don't). Self Defense is meeting force with force so it is a zero sum game. Either the bad guys get hurt or you do. I'd rather not have the bad guys. And research shows that for every justifiable execution of a criminal (police and death penalty) prevents seven to eight more murders. So civilian justifiable homicide have at least that same effect. So by using simple math and logic, we now prove that the use of self defense SAVES lives if you look at the tally sheet.

-Gryph

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Neither do guns. I have several, and none were purchased for the explicit purpose of killing things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can this be true? I have a tough time believing most gun owners feel this way. In fact, it seems to me that gun owners are highly concerned with the lethality of their weaponry.


[/ QUOTE ]

How many gun owners do you know? How many responsible gun owners have you discussed this with?

I own guns for the purpose of recreation and self-defense. The latter can be accomplished through deterrence, which is preferable to any rational human being, which accurately describes the vast majority of gun owners.

[ QUOTE ]
And to counter this cliche with another cliche: Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Do you support legalized nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to point out that an escalating exchange of cliches was pointless. Including this one. Nuclear weapons have no value for recreational or self-defense purposes. As to where to draw the line, the line should be drawn by purpose and intent, not by arbitrary mechanical definitions. Civil War re-enactors own 19th century howitzers. Certainly an impractical weapon, but I see no valid reason to outlaw them.

[ QUOTE ]
But the 'XYZ doesn't kill people, people kill people' argument doesn't hold water for me - and I suspect if we replaced 'XYZ' with a myriad of other items (other than guns), you might agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I largely disagree. I think there are some things that are inherently dangerous (nukes, weapons of mass destruction, soccer moms on cell phones driving mini-vans, etc.) and should be illegal. Beyond that, I think that a capable adult should be able to own and use anything that does not infringe on the rights and safety of others.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear weapons have no value for recreational or self-defense purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be targeted against individual aggressors. An RPG can.

Nuclear weapons will almost always impact people other than the aggressor and the defender (except in hypothetical edge cases where an aggressor is in a vast, isolated area that he himself completely owns (of course if he's in this vast isolated area, how aggressive could he possibly be?)).

A baseball bat *can* be used against innocents, but it's not an inherent property of its use in defense that innocents will be affected.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
How many gun owners do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot.

[ QUOTE ]
How many responsible gun owners have you discussed this with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Discussed what with?

[ QUOTE ]
I own guns for the purpose of recreation and self-defense. The latter can be accomplished through deterrence, which is preferable to any rational human being, which accurately describes the vast majority of gun owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you own your gun for self-defense, yet you wouldn't kill with it? I assume one purpose that you had in mind when you bought the gun was (in a worst case scenario) killing with it; I doubt that you merely bought it for it's deterrent value, and that you wouldn't shoot and kill someone with it, if the need arose.

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear weapons have no value for recreational or self-defense purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't gun control advocates been making the same arguments in regards to guns?

[ QUOTE ]
As to where to draw the line, the line should be drawn by purpose and intent

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that gun control advocates don't approve of the intents and purposes of gun owners.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are some things that are inherently dangerous (nukes, weapons of mass destruction, soccer moms on cell phones driving mini-vans, etc.) and should be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think gun control advocates would like to put guns in that list, too. I'm sure much of what I'm saying is probably already obvious/known to you; yet I think the 'XYZ doesn't kill people, people kill people' cliche fails for the reasons you've mentioned - we don't want cell phones in the hands of drivers, or nukes in the hands of ordinary people; it's a rather meaningless cliche that has little normativity.

[Greg J]

Personally, I largely support gun control... but by using the term "gun nut" you just poison the well of what could otherwise be a constructive discussion on the issue of gun ownership and the nature of the second amendment. Like it or not, there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there. There are a lot of hunters and recreational target shooters that are absolutely anal about gun safty (and rightly so).

I think we would be safer if most guns were outlawed for several reasons. But I don't deny that many people can and do practice safe and sane gun ownership. It might be helpful, and take much of the vitriol out of the debate, if you were to recognize this.

[theweatherman]

Arn't AK 47 style weapons designed to go right through people? This would make the round a significant threat to others just as a nuke might impact others (by killing them) So saying that blasting criminals affects no one is false. Also we have a police force for a reason, they are responsible for taking care of criminals in our society, where as citizens are only charged with this task as a LAST resort (read this as almost never).

One of the biggest problems I see with large scale gun ownership is the fact that guns are allowed to saturate our society. Just by the fact that there is a large number of guns in the country makes it more likely that they will get lost or stolen and end up in the hands of a killer.

Or the flip side...

One of the biggest advantages I see with large scale gun ownership is the fact that guns are allowed to saturate our society. Just by the fact that there is a large number of guns in the country makes it more likely that actual criminals will be detered from crime.