assault weapon ban

[BUBBASAURUS_RAEP]

Odeon, if you don't like guns then don't have one! 

[RageBeoulve]

I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.

I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.

Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.

You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".

Or something more nuanced or complex.

Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?

See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.

Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:

Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.

Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?

And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.

I can see the point you want to make O-man. Good on you for sticking to your guns(HUEHUEHUEHE) But, check this out.

Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion.

I can't argue with that. Do you deny this though? So were bladed tools, pointy sticks, sharp rocks, big heavy rocks, big heavy sticks, knives, swords, cannons, atom splitting, etc.

I mean if you really think about it the majority of human invention was originally intended to be used to kill other humans.

[Scrapheap]

I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?

Well, I guess even a broken clock reads the right time twice per day.

You hit the nail on the head, it has nothing to do with accessibility of guns, rather the propensity of some groups to use them.

Americas gun violence problem is centered on gang violence and thousands of gang-banger wannabes.

[El-Presidente]

I do think that anyone CAN use guns in bad ways BUT I would be interested to see guns/household in Canada vs guns/household in America and see the correlation between school shootings and violent gun crimes such as murders and armed robberies involving guns. IF (As I suspect) the gun accessibility is similar, then we have to look at whether there is a huge difference (which I imagine there would be) and try to understand why?

Well, I guess even a broken clock reads the right time twice per day.

You hit the nail on the head, it has nothing to do with accessibility of guns, rather the propensity of some groups to use them.

Americas gun violence problem is centered on gang violence and thousands of gang-banger wannabes.

Useful data in this link. Do with it what you will. I take no responsibility for the ensuing drama. Scroll down for table.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

[Icequeen]

Alot of items were invented for self defense/or killing or to aid in the process making the enemy easier to find (kill them before they kill you).

The yoyo was one, the cavity magnetron another...and there are tons more.

The purpose of an item lies with the possessor. I can use a knife to kill, or I can use it to chop vegtables...it's a choice.

I'm not disturbed by person's choice of use as much as I'm disturbed about WHY they make that choice...or what drove them to it...and why? ...and how do we prevent or help people from getting to that point?

Joseph Stack did not crash his plane into a Austin, Texas IRS office on a suicide mission 3 yrs ago because he woke up one morning and saw his plane sitting outside and thought it sounded like a "good thing to do". Something drove him to make that choice.

[Scrapheap]

Useful data in this link. Do with it what you will. I take no responsibility for the ensuing drama. Scroll down for table.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

US is 1st in gun ownership rates but only 28th in firearm homicide rates.

Yes, it's not the guns that are a problem, rather gang violence.

[odeon]

Guns have only one purpose.

If the one purpose you refer to is killing people I dispute that assertion. Guns were initially developed for warfare and expanded to hunting use but various types of target shooting are the most common use by far in the USA, Switzerland and where otherwise legally owned. Some people have specialized collections like model 1900 Swiss Army Lugers or Pre 1920 Colt SAA revolvers.

Target shooting disciplines include Metallic Silohuette, Benchrest, IPSC, IDPA, Cowboy Action, Camp Perry, Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays.

The point being that should you ever visit the SF Bay Area and go to the range with me our purpose will not be to kill anyone.

You and TA can work out who gets to have an opinion between you.

Perhaps a better choice of words would be "developed for one purpose" but that's splitting hairs. I very much doubt someone would have come up with the construction if it hadn't been for warfare.

No it is not splitting hairs. You stated that guns have only one purpose and left unstated that the purpose is to kill people. The fact that people do practice disciplines like benchrest shooting, IDPA, IPSC, Silohuette shooting, informal target practice or hunting shows that to be wrong. Hell in your adopted home country the 9.3mm X 74R cartridge has been a popular moose hunting cartridge for decades and works very well for that purpose. How often are rifles like that used in bank robberies and assassinations in comparison odeon?

No idea, tbh.

You are right in that I made a poor job of qualifying my statement. I blame my wanting to write a dramatic post, but yes, you are right.

If my only purpose to having guns was to kill people than I have failed miserably at that purpose for the last 38 years.

There are plenty of other examples of technology developed for one purpose being adapted for other purposes. Target shooting of various types has long since become a dedicated recreational pursuit in and of itself.

Indeed, and I realise that. Again, I should have qualified my statement better. Sorry about that--it was certainly not my intent to insult you, especially when my real point had nothing to do with whatever purpose guns were designed for initially and what they can be used for today.

[odeon]

I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.

I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.

Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.

You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".

Or something more nuanced or complex.

Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?

See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.

Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:

Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.

Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?

And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.

For someone not having an opinion, you certainly have an opinion.

So what if they were created for the purpose of killing people. I don't give a damn what they were used for in the past, the point is a gun is an inanimate object that I should be allowed to have simply because it is an inanimate object.

You can consider your opinion valid, others may, but I don't.

Are you deliberately trying to avoid the issue? You are not discussing, explaining or otherwise trying to qualify your statement re whose opinions about are guns are valid and whose aren't, you are discussing your perceived right to have a gun. It's a different discussion. And I did not offer an opinion on gun control in the above post, but I do have one.

Now answer my questions.

[odeon]

Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion.

I can't argue with that. Do you deny this though? So were bladed tools, pointy sticks, sharp rocks, big heavy rocks, big heavy sticks, knives, swords, cannons, atom splitting, etc.

I mean if you really think about it the majority of human invention was originally intended to be used to kill other humans.

No, I don't deny it, but I would argue that some of the bladed tools were designed for other things. Humans have a terrible track record, but that's not the point I am trying to make.

[odeon]

Odeon, if you don't like guns then don't have one! 

Doesn't anyone understand the point I am trying to make?

I had the opportunity to try target shooting a couple of years ago. I think I even posted about it here. It was great fun and I can certainly see why so many people like it.

But that's not why I posted here, even though some of my less than brilliant argumentation in past posts have derailed some of that discussion. Maybe I'm just not communicating clearly, maybe people choose to ignore what I wrote, I don't know, but my liking or disliking guns has *nothing* to do with why I posted.

[TA]

I thought I was being clear. Hence the highlighting in bold red lettering. Hence the insult.

I'm going to try this one last time. I'll try to keep it simple.

Guns were created for a single purpose, which is killing people. The fact that they are now used for target practice, are collectibles, etc, does in no way invalidate that assertion. It's also beside the point because I am *not* offering an opinion on whether or not they should be banned.

You don't have to have fired a weapon to be able to formulate and hold a perfectly valid opinion regarding them. That opinion might be "everyone should be allowed to own one" or "for target shooting, they are fine" or "no, they should be kept beyond reach for people because of the school shootings".

Or something more nuanced or complex.

Do you think you should have conceived at least one baby to be allowed to have an opinion regarding the use of contraceptives? Do you think you need to have had sex to be allowed an opinion regarding sex outside marriage? Should you have smoked pot before being allowed an opinion regarding legalising it?

See how this works? The subject of guns is an easy one in that respect because the basic issue is not a complicated one. How easy should it be to get hold of a gun? The topic is controversial for Americans, though--you tend to get really defensive about them, throwing in concepts like personal freedoms, overthrowing corrupt governments, etc.

Let's finish this with a slightly more complex example:

Let's say a teen is killed at a school shooting. The offender is 18 but unlicensed so he bought the gun privately. The teen's mother is understandably upset and advocates stricter gun control, eliminating the loophole that allowed the 18-yo to buy the gun from a private individual.

Should the mother's opinion only count if she had fired a gun?

And again, I'm *not* offering an opinion on gun control here.

For someone not having an opinion, you certainly have an opinion.

So what if they were created for the purpose of killing people. I don't give a damn what they were used for in the past, the point is a gun is an inanimate object that I should be allowed to have simply because it is an inanimate object.

You can consider your opinion valid, others may, but I don't.

Are you deliberately trying to avoid the issue? You are not discussing, explaining or otherwise trying to qualify your statement re whose opinions about are guns are valid and whose aren't, you are discussing your perceived right to have a gun. It's a different discussion. And I did not offer an opinion on gun control in the above post, but I do have one.

Now answer my questions.

Maybe you are missing my point, if you have never bothered to fire a gun and your culture frowns on them, your opinion is not as valid as someone who has lived in a more gun-friendly culture and has actually bothered to fire a gun. A gun did not kill the mother's child, a violent sociopath did. Any inanimate object is morally neutral.


The point, is if your culture has thinks they are evil machines of death and it is a high crime to even look at one, you really cannot form a valid opinion.

[P7PSP]

Odeon, if you don't like guns then don't have one! 

Doesn't anyone understand the point I am trying to make?

I had the opportunity to try target shooting a couple of years ago. I think I even posted about it here. It was great fun and I can certainly see why so many people like it.

But that's not why I posted here, even though some of my less than brilliant argumentation in past posts have derailed some of that discussion. Maybe I'm just not communicating clearly, maybe people choose to ignore what I wrote, I don't know, but my liking or disliking guns has *nothing* to do with why I posted.

I get your point. A similar point is often made here in the US about voting in reference to complaining about govt. If you don't vote you can't complain according to that old saw. However the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution has no such qualification.

I agree with your point that owning guns, driving NASCAR tracks, playing FIFA football etc is not a prerequisite to having and expressing an opinion on those subjects.

[odeon]

Maybe you are missing my point, if you have never bothered to fire a gun and your culture frowns on them, your opinion is not as valid as someone who has lived in a more gun-friendly culture and has actually bothered to fire a gun. A gun did not kill the mother's child, a violent sociopath did. Any inanimate object is morally neutral.


The point, is if your culture has thinks they are evil machines of death and it is a high crime to even look at one, you really cannot form a valid opinion.

So it's about *culture* now? A friendly culture is a prerequisite so it's not enough to have fired a gun, you also require that the society is basically pro-gun?

Sorry, TA, but that is a bizarre at best. You so desperately need to protect your right to own a gun that you now basically want to rig the vote.

[TA]

Maybe you are missing my point, if you have never bothered to fire a gun and your culture frowns on them, your opinion is not as valid as someone who has lived in a more gun-friendly culture and has actually bothered to fire a gun. A gun did not kill the mother's child, a violent sociopath did. Any inanimate object is morally neutral.


The point, is if your culture has thinks they are evil machines of death and it is a high crime to even look at one, you really cannot form a valid opinion.

So it's about *culture* now? A friendly culture is a prerequisite so it's not enough to have fired a gun, you also require that the society is basically pro-gun?

Sorry, TA, but that is a bizarre at best. You so desperately need to protect your right to own a gun that you now basically want to rig the vote.

Ever heard of social norms? In your culture, it is the norm to despise guns because you are told to, here it is the opposite.

So it is only logical that your opinion is that guns are only made for killing while my opinion differs.

Maybe saying your opinion is invalid because you have never fired a gun was too black and white.

A more accurate statement is that *I* don't consider the opinions of people that come from places with ludicrously draconian gun control as valid as those of people from more gun friendly places.

[odeon]

In other words, you not only want to rig the vote in favour of what you support, you also think it's perfectly legit.