Another Shooting in the U.S..

There is no point debating banning guns because its never going to happen. Obama has come up with a few fairly moderate common sense proposals such as forcing back ground checks for anyone trying to buy a gun and restrictions on high capacity semi automatic rifles like the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Its going to be a huge battle to get through congress. In reality though there is no reason for a normal member of the public to be able to purchase military spec rifles like the one used at Sandy Hook. They should be for military and police use only.

Americans illogical attachment to the second amendment amazes me. The constitution was written in a time when America largely a lawless country where a lot of people lived in very remote ares and couldn't rely on a police force for protection so they needed guns to protect themselves.

Times have changed and the laws should change to reflect that. Most Americans live in urban areas with well funded and heavily armed police forces.

Blay wrote: »

What bbs guns use rubber pellets? How could one use a bb gun to shoot clay pigeons or shoot F-Class rifle out to 1000yards?

So mark them with an infrared gun then you'll know they were hit. Do you seriously think guns aren't designed to inflict damage?

This comparison to cars or knives makes no sense.

Ush1 wrote: »

All the things you listed are to do with damaging and doesnt change the fact guns are designed to inflict injury, cars aren't. I could use a car to break a wall down but it wasn't designed for that.

I never argued a gun was not designed to do damage, in fact I would like it to do that as effectively and accurately as possible. The question of whether that damage is justified is entirely dependant on what it is aimed at wouldn't you say. All of the uses I identified are permitted by my state constitution.

If its designed to pierce paper targets, why not a bb gun with harmless rubber pellets?

Ask the Olympic committee perhaps, I'd say they know a bit more about ballistics than you.

MadYaker wrote: »

There is no point debating banning guns because its never going to happen. Obama has come up with a few fairly moderate common sense proposals such as forcing back ground checks for anyone trying to buy a gun and restrictions on high capacity semi automatic rifles like the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Its going to be a huge battle to get through congress. In reality though there is no reason for a normal member of the public to be able to purchase military spec rifles like the one used at Sandy Hook. They should be for military and police use only.

I've said this before, any gun I would buy had better be "military' spec if my life depended on it. Would you buy a car that wasn'r "road" spec?

The whole notion of military and civilian 'spec' guns is a nonsense. Now I fully support the ban on full auto, but to somehow argue for lesser 'spec' of gun for civilians makes no sense at all. If I can legally own a gun for self-defence why would you restrict the capabilities of that gun?

Americans illogical attachment to the second amendment amazes me. The constitution was written in a time when America largely a lawless country where a lot of people lived in very remote ares and couldn't rely on a police force for protection so they needed guns to protect themselves.

You know I could take you to places where there isn't a gas station, never mind a cop for 60 miles around within my State, how long do you think it takes for a cop to respond to a 911 there? 20% of Americans live in rural locations.

Times have changed and the laws should change to reflect that. Most Americans live in urban areas with well funded and heavily armed police forces.

And for the one in five Americans who don't live in urban areas?

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No one is denying you can use them for hunting, sport or self defence.

What's your point then?

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

My point was very simple, as I stated in my first post - why was the gun invented, figured it out yet?

Why does it matter, this is 21st century not the 10th

Overheal wrote: »

Why does it matter, this is 21st century not the 10th

*sigh* my initial response in this thread was to someone saying ban all knifes because they can kill. I simply stated a gun was invented to kill.

And how any one can argue with that is beyond me, but people did.

MadsL wrote: »

If your point concedes that there are legitimate uses for a gun for hunting, sport or self defence, then what does it matter? They could have been invented to shoot peas at milkmaids for all it matters.

Honestly, we have been discussing all of this in several threads for months now.

See above post.

I didn't reply to you initially, but you say fit to enlighten me your wisdom anyway. I don't care what u do with your gun/guns.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

*sigh* my initial response in this thread was to someone saying ban all knifes because they can kill. I simply stated a gun was invented to kill.

And how any one can argue with that is beyond me, but people did.

I don't recall anyone arguing with it? In your head maybe...care to post who disagreed?

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I asked why a gun was invented. What's the answer?

*Sigh*

I give up. Is it a riddle?

A fish, it's a fish isn't it.

Here's another one, what can a gun be used for apart from killing people - gosh that's a hard one, can't think of a thing.

MadsL wrote: »

*Sigh*

I give up. Is it a riddle?

A fish, it's a fish isn't it.

Here's another one, what can a gun be used for apart from killing people - gosh that's a hard one, can't think of a thing.

It's not hard.

I ask why gun invented!

You tell me what gun can be used for - I didn't ask you what u can use a gun for!

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

It's not hard.

I ask why gun invented!

You tell me what gun can be used for - I didn't ask you what u can use a gun for!

God, you are like one of those sticky things that you pick up whilst walking in the woods that you can never quite get off your trousers.

Do you just type words as they come into your head? Is there any point to your comments at all? A point you are trying to make perhaps?

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

There is no need to take offence just because you can't think of more useless information to share with me, that I never asked you too.

If you don't like what I have to say, it's very easy, even for you:

Simply do not respond to my gibberish.

You don't really 'get' debate do you?

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

What exactly are you debating....?

I responded to a guys comment with a fact, I wasn't debating anything.

With every response you have eluded the answer to that one "Simple" fact I stated - why was the gun invented.

What's to debate about the invention of the gun?

Nothing.

/thread

MadsL wrote: »

I never argued a gun was not designed to do damage, in fact I would like it to do that as effectively and accurately as possible. The question of whether that damage is justified is entirely dependant on what it is aimed at wouldn't you say. All of the uses I identified are permitted by my state constitution.


Ask the Olympic committee perhaps, I'd say they know a bit more about ballistics than you.



I've said this before, any gun I would buy had better be "military' spec if my life depended on it. Would you buy a car that wasn'r "road" spec?

The whole notion of military and civilian 'spec' guns is a nonsense. Now I fully support the ban on full auto, but to somehow argue for lesser 'spec' of gun for civilians makes no sense at all. If I can legally own a gun for self-defence why would you restrict the capabilities of that gun?


You know I could take you to places where there isn't a gas station, never mind a cop for 60 miles around within my State, how long do you think it takes for a cop to respond to a 911 there? 20% of Americans live in rural locations.



And for the one in five Americans who don't live in urban areas?

Obviously there are some Americans who don't live in places with well funded police forces but they are a very small minority and the numbers of people living like this is decreasing. Whether or not they need guns is debatable, but majority should rule. The fact that a tiny fraction of Americans live in remote areas where there are no poilce isn't reason enough to legalise guns for the entire nation and to endure all the horrific massacres that come with such high levels of gun ownership and the availability of weapons to anyone who wants them.