assault weapon ban

[RageBeoulve]

You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.

Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?

Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.

And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.

So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".

TA that was beautiful. If you were a girl i'd date you.

[P7PSP]

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.

[El-Presidente]

Fires AK47 into the air in a celebratory manner.

[P7PSP]

Is that Machmoud bin Jovi?

[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.

[odeon]

You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.

Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?

Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.

And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.

So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".

You missed it again. I've highlighted what I'm saying. I guess the analogies went over your head.

[TA]

You are missing the point. It's about who's allowed to have an opinion. That's all. Not likelihood. Likelihood is something that can change. Admittedly, nukes are too expensive but a comparison could be made about Iran.

Depending on where you live, likelihood will change, too. In quite a few places around the globe, gun possession is quite unusual. Does that mean that only the ones who have access should be allowed an opinion?

Here's a Stephen King reference for your convenience: do you think Captain Trips should be allowed? Its only use is to kill. Think carefully.

And this goes both ways. You may never have fired a gun but you might want one to finally get rid of that annoying neighbour of yours.

So, you are advocating total gun eradication by saying their only purpose is to kill your annoying neighbor, no? You are missing my point, I should be able to possess anything I want and that no one has that right to tell me what I "need".

You missed it again. I've highlighted what I'm saying. I guess the analogies went over your head.

I think you are employing the age old conversation killer of insulting my intelligence because I disagree with your position. For that matter, I still stand by what I have been saying, anyone who has not fired a gun and is for gun control is a hypocrite, and hypocritical opinions are invalid.

You are obviously allowed to have an opinion, but that does not mean everyone has to consider it valid.

[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.

[P7PSP]

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?

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.

[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.

[Al Swearegen]

I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use

[TA]

I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use

Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said

[Al Swearegen]

I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use

Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said

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?

[P7PSP]

I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use

Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said

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?

Not related to that if you ever make it to the West Coast USA you and I will make a range trip together. You are cool to hang out with. 

[Al Swearegen]

I do not think that it is the number of guns per household or access to guns i necessarily the problem. i think it is the ideologies and culture around guns and gun use

Hip hop, Hollywood, nuff' said

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?

Not related to that if you ever make it to the West Coast USA you and I will make a range trip together. You are cool to hang out with. 

For sure mate