I need it for self defense . . . to kill the person trying to attack me.

I need it for hunting . . . to kill the game I plan to eat.

I need it for target practice . . . to better use it for the above.

And I wonder why. If anyone is carrying a gun that simple action makes it far more likely that the gun will be used.

But again, some hide behind the phrase "lawful use", as if that lawful use does not include killing.

funny that way. They are highly offended when you point out that guns (arms) are designed for the one specific purpose stated in the Second Amendment: a militia for security.

The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about hunting, self-defense, target shooting, or any of the other activities NRA/ILA/GOA apologists whine about. It is specifically written to ensure that a body of armed people are available to defend the nation. Our armed services fill that need many times over.

Guns are designed to kill, which is why they are so effective for that purpose. Any consumer item which is designed to be that dangerous must be regulated and subject to safety restrictions.

And I can use it to hold open the door.

It is sad to see these rationalizations offered as logic. But some people cannot admit that.

"well regulated" militia.

are very "well regulated."

And now that we have a standing army, we can dispose of the 2A.

None designed specifically for killing of course.

I'm really sick and tired of the gun freak crowd claiming shit like this:

Baseball bats kill people. Do you want to ban baseball?

You could strangle someone with shoestrings. Do you want to ban shoes?

People choke on pickles. Do you want to ban deli sandwiches?

The question is...........why?

I have numerous knives. While I know that I could kill people with them, I use them in woodworking. I do not carry them around as self-defense.

I also have a chain saw. I know how powerful the chain saw is, and it could be used to kill, but I do not carry it around to use for self defense.

I also have numerous chisels, all very sharp. I could definitely kill someone with them but again, I do not carry them around.

But guns are designed specifically to kill. Nothing else. And again, a multiple round magazine makes it even easier to shoot numerous rounds, thus making such a gun ideal for a shooter who intends on killing multiple people.

Now you can claim that the only killing that you intend to do would be in self defense, and if you make that argument I will understand, but killing is potentially involved. Gun carriers must in my view accept that, every time they carry a gun, they are carrying instruments designed solely to kill.

in the gun fetish cult of absolutists and apologists, and that they have lost their ability to reason objectively. Guns replaced bows and arrows, which replaced swords, which replaced clubs and rocks.

The darker side of man's nature is biased towards violence. Civil society and laws are aimed at curbing this dark nature. Liberal Democrats strive to curtail gun violence for these and other humane reasons.

And there seems to be a deliberate de-linking and avoidance between the professed aim of self defense and the possible result of that self defense.

Almost a cartoonish view of the word where everyone gets up and leaves at the end of the action and no real damage is done.

Perhaps all gun owners, as a requirement for issuance and renewal of a FOID card, should be required to tour the morgue on a yearly basis to view the victims of gun violence. That way they could see what a bullet does when it enters a body. It is not a nice image.

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person; it is damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.

(That was actually Bill Murray's quote)

A somewhat bizarre world view, in my opinion, based, as it partly is, on an apparently fundamental distrust of their own government. A government composed of fellow US citizens. And from my perspective, this distrust in government seems to spring from a Libertarian current of thought that somehow equates any government with repression and slavery.

Perhaps this plays well with the fantasy of the independent pioneer, or woodsman, hunting for food while building a log house while at the same time repelling invaders with the ever present handgun. A self-sufficient superman who needs no one and depends solely on his own strength.

I just love the quote.

If you notice the people who jump into threads to do the all-out NRA defense of everything gun related, they usually don't post on any other subjects. I won't question their motivation, but I think they are here for a reason, and not because they are liberal-minded Democrats.

First, let me state for the record that I do not like guns. I believe that our gun laws are way too weak, I do not allow guns in my home, and if I see someone 'open carrying' I immediately leave the area - whether that 'area' is a public space, a restaurant, grocery story, etc.

That said, there are folk (probably very few) who use guns (and bows and arrows) exclusively for target shooting. Note that there is even an Olympic event for target shooting. While not disagreeing with the basic point that guns are made to kill, there are at least a few gun owners would never want to use their guns for killing, only for shooting at paper targets.

is just training to kill, even if that is not the intent of the shooter. Proficiency with a lethal weapon is a part of all military and law enforcement training.

The "I only shoot at the range" argument still does not preclude the possible use of the weapon being stolen, or misused by another family member or friend. Contrary to the gun nut mantra, it is indeed the gun that ultimately kills, because that is its designed purpose.

individual owner, but to point out something so elemental that one would think it was not a point to be argued. And that is, guns are designed to kill people. Thus the title. And when I made that point in another thread a few gun rights people took exception to this self-evident point.

So in any legitimate discussion of the gun issue, the point must be made that these are portable weapons of destruction. And large magazines modify these portable weapons into weapons of more destructive capability.

So every time you carry a gun, you must be aware of the destructive capability of your personal self-defense weapon. You must admit to yourself that you are carrying a weapon that will easily permit you to kill people. A weapon that, by its presence in public, increases the possibility of a gun fatality. And if you cannot admit this, if you are so unaware of this, you probably are not a good candidate for carrying in the first place.

And even a target gun can kill. Remember the service member at the target range with a fellow service member with PTSD issues?

Or the young child who shot her instructor?

Was just pointing out that not all gun owners kill, or even want to kill things with guns.

And anyone who gives a gun to a child is just plain fu**ing nuts.

Stonepounder, if I'm thinking of the same incident, a nine-year-old girl was given a super compact stubby-barrel machine pistol to fire under the instructors supervision.

She was not generally familiar with guns and had never fired any machine gun before. She was a skinny kid, not strong like an adult man or woman (the kind of IDF (Israeli Defense Force) people that a micro-UZI machine pistol was designed for.)

She lost control of the machine gun, and the last few rounds in the burst hit the ibstructor in the head as he scrambled to try to help her regain control of the gun.

this tragic incident does not mean that nine-year-olds cannot be taught how to shoot firearms and that they should not be allowed to pick up, load, aim, and fire the guns themselves under direct and immediate supervision of a parent /coach.
But small heavy-recoiling machine gun would not be a suitable weapon for such a young and inexperienced person to shoot.

Just as we do not allow children to drink alcohol, smoke, drive cars, etc. I do not believe that children should be allowed access to firearms.

"...attempt to explain firearms are not designed to kill.

"...a firearm is designed specifically to kill. Nothing else. And a firearm with a high capacity magazine makes it much easier to kill..."

"...only firearms have as their sole purpose the facilitation of killing people and animals."

etc.

what do you mean by "regulating firearms"?

Guns are designed for the same purpose as a bow and arrow is designed, to propel a projectile over a distance to hit and put a hole in a specified (aimed at) target. This target could be paper, straw, a hill of sand, or a living thing. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person and their thinking that does it. Guns don't pull their own triggers; they don't walk into a bar and attack someone; they don't load their own ammunition; etc.

Some out there feed their families using their guns, bows and arrows, etc. Some out there use them for sport, as was mentioned - it is an olympic sport, among other types. I own and shoot guns and enjoy the heck out of making holes in paper targets. Yes I find multiple guns useful because there are different kinds of matches using different types of guns and rounds.

In many states there are a lot of gun control regulations along with some federal ones. The issue is we need to close the loopholes in those regulations, and enforce the ones we have. If a state is stupid enough to say guns belong in bars, I'm sorry for that and won't move to that state (might not even want to visit it!) alcohol and firearms, just like alcohol and driving a vehicle, do not go together.

Sadly blaming the tool doesn't solve the problem - we have to remedy the underlying reasons the guns are used violently. We need to enforce the regulations, and make sure they are followed. Blaming the tool takes the legal responsible sport shooter and punishes them. I agree the gun lobby nuts need to shut up and understand they are inflammatory - but again, they are the nuts, not the guns.

my post was addressed specifically to those gun enthusiasts who attempt to deny that guns are designed to kill. Yes target shooting is non-lethal, but that does not diminish my point.

A gun that won’t work if they steal one.

ALL guns should be computer chipped to only operate in legally designated areas, and able to be overridden by legal authority. All ammunition must be micro-stamped. All POLICE weapons should be fitted with iSight type cameras and audio. All guns should have a built in “find my gun” feature to disable and recover lost/stolen guns. It is way past time for a 700 year old technology to advance to the 21st century.

In addition:
Mandatory comprehensive background checks before guns are sold. Mandatory 6 month waiting period to purchase. All guns and ammunition should be required to be stored in/with approved gun safes or gun/trigger locks at home.
No minors under 16 should be allowed to own or carry/handle a gun.

Including:
* National buy back program of all civilian non chipped modern guns. (paid for by gun makers)
* $50K fine for possessing working non chipped modern guns.
* $50K reward for reporting owners of working non chipped modern guns.
* Antique guns cannot be loaded or used in public space.
* Mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership.

Help stop NRA-ISIS.

Not only great ideas, but workable and do not "infringe" on the sacred Second Amendment. Thanks for this.

Given it the primary reason it was created was to arm slave patrols, I would hope eventually the country could get together and do something about this racist relic of our past.

Would this extend to the police and military? Good luck ever getting them to go along with it. I've yet to see any police want the current "smart tech" guns to be issued to them. That said, I would love to have a personalized gun that only I and my family could use.

If the government is going to confiscate legally obtained property, then they (meaning the taxpayers) should pay for it.

When they act like it's the silliest thing they've ever heard to suggest their guns could possibly hurt ANYONE.

Like they squirt cherry syrup for snow cones.

And yes, this denialism is strange.

And they would explode very dramatically.

But I agree with you, the main purpose is to kill.

was used in a mass murder.

Or knives for that matter. There have been several stories in the last few years of crazies using knives to attack a large number of people. The results were something like "Thirty wounded, none dead, in knife attack", or "Fifteen injured, one dead in knife attack".

When murderers want headlines like "Fifty-three dead, eighty wounded", they use a gun. Or several guns.

using something for another purpose.

Guns are designed to facilitate killing. To make killing easier. And some gun enthusiasts seem to engage in verbal gymnastic to avoid this simple, evident point.

Suppose they had a smart vision chip which locked the trigger when they were aimed at a human (or a spell was cast on them by the wizards at Hogwarts if that works better for you.) They'd still be useful for target practice and hunting.

Suppose any would sell?

the purpose of a gun is to kill. A gun, like a bow, is designed for one purpose. And that is to kill. Target shooting, while generally non-lethal, is sublimated killing. It is killing thinly disguised as recreation/sport, but it is rooted in killing.

And a magical non-killing gun would not appeal to that majority of gun owners who are concerned with self defense or hunting because it would not fulfill either function.

All are clearly comparable to Guns, and should be banned since they sometimes cause death.

Gun Humper logic.

Reading deep into the back pages?

There *are* certain fire arms that are truly sporting and are ill-suited for use as offensive or defensive weapons against people --whether that be self-defense or murder.

But these truly sporting weapons make up a small and ever-shrinking percentage of all firearms that are sold today.

I think if you look in any gun store, or the local gun show, or if you peruse the gun magazines (periodicals) that you see on the bookshelves of stores today, you will see that nearly all of the guns being advertised or written about are weapons intended to shoot people ---or intended to be used in combat-simulating games where you shoot targets under the same conditions as you might shoot people on the battlefield or in urban gunfights on our streets.

I do not think it is intellectually honest to say that your AR-15 is simply a piece of sports equipment when the "sport" itself is intended to replicate mass homicide (perhaps justified per the laws of war or citizens' use of deadly force, but "homicide" just the same.)

Artillery cannon can be used in sporting games too. There ARE such sports as shooting competitions where canon users will fire non-bursting artillery shells at targets thousands of meters away and attempt to score hits closer to the bullseye than the other competitors can .

If hand grenades were legal and sold cheaply to any civilian who wanted some, I imagine that there would even be hand-grenade throwing competitions at local gun ranges. That does not mean hand grenades are sports equipment or would become such just because you buy them with that purpose in mind.

I agree with your observations. Firearms were invented to kill. No advertising campaigns can disguise this fact. Nor can we ignore the many virtual games that allow the player to "kill" mass quantities of people.

...told us, about a year ago, that he had a gun in every room of his house. When my husband asked him, “Even in the bathrooms?”, the answer was “Yes.”

He tried the “A gun is just a tool” line. Not being very confrontational, especially when I know I stand zero chance of changing someone’s mind, I decided to say nothing. What I wanted to ask him was, “A tool for what, precisely? A tool for styling hair? No. A tool for gardening? No. A tool for home repair? No. A tool for car repair? No. Etc, etc, etc.

Sad that the corporate media, with their fascination and preference for stories of violence, feed this fear.

It does seem obvious.

Look. I was an Army soldier. I know what the Constitution and 2nd Ammendment say. I swore to protect our country. Our leaders are not doing the same....and most have never served or seen the damage caused by assault rifles.

There must be an assault weapons ban. To protect police and first responders as well as civlians. The early Congress referred to a militia where the arms were single shot muskets and blackpowder weapons. U can keep your Colts, Glocks and Smith & Wessons for personal protection....but no pistol should fire more than 12 shots.

Hunting rifles and shotguns can be owned as they are now....BUT.....every single sale... every sale....commercial, gun show or private party/ family member to family member, etc....should be registered and allowed ONLY to a licensed gun owner that passes the criminal, mental health and training requirements.


Yes, ALL people wanting to possess and use a firearm should have to be licensed. What is more dangerous a car or a loaded gun? Of course cars can be a deadly weapon and require licensing. Why not guns?

Also restricting magazines to 15 shots for rifles is plenty. If u cannot hit a target or kill your hunting prey in less than 15 shots then your skill level SUCKS.


Most owners of AK-47s and AR-15's don't even know the ballistic science of what makes these assault weapons different with bullet spin, tumble, velocity and internal organ damage. When small children are shot at close range....they don't fall to the ground when hit by the tumbling projectile, they get blown apart. I know there are orhers like me who know i am right and who could support these ideas.

Licensing , limiting and banning certain weapons makes sense for a country whose past was forged in blood and violence but which does attempt to strive for peace. We are humans that relish conflct, but we can find a better way to live,protect our families and exist with our Constitutional rights in an America that respects all races, religions and those seeking a dream of peace and tolerance.

...and thank you for your service and perspective.

My post deals with some of the stated reasons for owning firearms. And it was intended to remind people of the primary and designed purpose of them.

I come from a family where hunting and eating what was hunted was a regular part of life, and as you said, if one cannot hit with one shot, skill is lacking. My father and uncles used either bolt action rifles or a bow.

And surveys show that most gun owners support limits such as you spoke of.

Some prefer to deflect from that.

No posts in a year.

It is currently active, courtesy of your response.

What do you think of my post?