To those who own guns. What's the attraction?

[irishScott]

Well again I would raise the question of countries where guns are not common. What about these same people in those countries.

I fail to see your point. If you're already out-gunned bare-handed, what about if the assailant(s) has a knife or baseball bat or crowbar? Which is safer? To shoot said assailant at a distance or try to channel Bruce Lee?

 

[shortylickens]

I realize that this is sensitive ground and I don't mean to start a flame war, though perhaps one is inevitable for a topic like this. Anyway I'd seriously like to know, no politics, no agenda, no slant intended. As someone who has grown up in a household that is gunless and has no interest in them I'm curious. What is the attraction for you?

Whenever someone says that, they are totally trolling.
And I salute you sir, for being one of the very best trolls ATOT has seen.

As for me, I keep guns to counter my tiny penis. Which doesnt get erect as much as I'd like.

 

[Locut0s]

I fail to see your point. If you're already out-gunned bare-handed, what about if the assailant(s) has a knife or baseball bat or crowbar? Which is safer? To shoot said assailant at a distance try to channel Bruce Lee?

My point was simply that the same situation that you mention could easily arise in another country which has strict gun laws. For example a pregnant women vs a bad guy etc.. However most of these countries are not clamouring to open up their gun laws and most of the people in these countries are not asking their governments to either. These are countries with fully democratic governments just like ours so if the population wanted to in large enough percentages they would change their gun laws.

 

[zinfamous]

You tell me what handgun was widely used in the 18th century.

Or used at all.

lolwow

 

[spidey07]

Wait, I get it now. I mean revolver, not handgun.

Sorry, don't know my gun lingo.

Carry on.

It's OK. The invention of the cartridge (self contained flint/powder/bullet, aka a modern "bullet") is what you were thinking of which is what really transformed everything.

 

[olds]

lolwow

He's French. Last name, Dumbass. First name, Hugh.

 

[spp]

I find 2 statements that are almost always true:

1. there will be people who do not (or cannot) understand certain things
2. those are the same people who do not want those things to exist

 

[JulesMaximus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handguns

"The first pistols were made as early as the 15th century, but their creator is unknown.[5] By the 18th century, the term came to be used often to refer to handheld firearms"

"In the 17th century, the flintlock, which strikes a flint against steel, appeared."

Weren't those mostly used as dueling pistols or on ships though? I don't think people by and large carried guns like that and they weren't all that practical either because you only had one shot and they were not very reliable. It wasn't really until the 1800s when the pistol became more of weapon that the common man could afford.

 

[irishScott]

My point was simply that the same situation that you mention could easily arise in another country which has strict gun laws. For example a pregnant women vs a bad guy etc.. However most of these countries are not clamouring to open up their gun laws and most of the people in these countries are not asking their governments to either. These are countries with fully democratic governments just like ours so if the population wanted to in large enough percentages they would change their gun laws.

Well I'd say they've grown up in a culture where guns are demonized. Gun control advocates tend to be extremely un-exposed and ignorant about guns, with no first-hand experience. This lack of experience tends to produce a fear of guns. Simply put, they fear what they don't understand.

Personally I think the countries that practice gun prohibition are in some of the best positions possible if they would take advantage of the situation. With a relatively clean slate they could enact strict, extensive licensing that would make guns and ammo only available to good citizens for the purposes of self-defense and unavailable to bad guys. But unfortunately the culture of gun-fear prevents such reasonable measures.

 

[nick1985]

Weren't those mostly used as dueling pistols or on ships though? I don't think people by and large carried guns like that and they weren't all that practical either because you only had one shot and they were not very reliable. It wasn't really until the 1800s when the pistol became more of weapon that the common man could afford.

Flintlock pistols were used as self-defense weapons and for duelling, and as a military arm. Their effective range was short, and they were frequently used as an adjunct to a sword or cutlass. Pistols were usually smoothbore although some rifled pistols were produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

It's OK. The invention of the cartridge (self contained flint/powder/bullet, aka a modern "bullet") is what you were thinking of which is what really transformed everything.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

When they wrote the 2nd amendment you couldn't do a drive-by with the weapons they had.

If it was written now I think it may have been a little different.

 

[nick1985]

When they wrote the 1st amendment you couldn't use the internet, radio, or TV.

If it was writting now I think it may have been a little different

ftfy

In all seriousness, you are dead wrong. The entire premise of the 2nd amendment is exactly the same today as it was back then.

 

[Locut0s]

Well I'd say they've grown up in a culture where guns are demonized. Gun control advocates tend to be extremely un-exposed and ignorant about guns, with no first-hand experience. This lack of experience tends to produce a fear of guns. Simply put, they fear what they don't understand.

Personally I think the countries that practice gun prohibition are in some of the best positions possible if they would take advantage of the situation. With a relatively clean slate they could enact strict, extensive licensing that would make guns and ammo only available to good citizens for the purposes of self-defense and unavailable to bad guys. But unfortunately the culture of gun-fear prevents such reasonable measures.

Certainly all of this is true. My point was that these countries are also not overrun with people beating up pregnant women or people in wheel chairs etc.. which was the argument I was talking about. At least no more than anywhere else. I have no illusions about the fact that eliminating guns doesn't eliminate crime. Certainly bad people will always find a way to do their crimes and kill people. However I'm not sold on the idea that opening up a society to very free gun ownership does the opposite either, that is lower crime rates.

 

[shortylickens]

Switzerland had guns.
Poland did not.
End debate.




GOOD NIGHT ATOT!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Flintlock pistols were used as self-defense weapons and for duelling, and as a military arm. Their effective range was short, and they were frequently used as an adjunct to a sword or cutlass. Pistols were usually smoothbore although some rifled pistols were produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock

They still weren't common with the lower class in society. Mostly only the rich and powerful owned such weapons.

Even in colonial America a poor family would probably only own one long gun for hunting or putting down a lame dog, killing a slave, or disposing of a suspected witch.

 

[spp]

Certainly all of this is true. My point was that these countries are also not overrun with people beating up pregnant women or people in wheel chairs etc.. which was the argument I was talking about. At least no more than anywhere else. I have no illusions about the fact that eliminating guns doesn't eliminate crime. Certainly bad people will always find a way to do their crimes and kill people. However I'm not sold on the idea that opening up a society to very free gun ownership does the opposite either, that is lower crime rates.

you sir have a very good understanding of the situation. People will always find ways to hurt each other, and gun is erroneously picked as the problem. There will not be a solution as long as people carry bad intentions, and I don't see that being solved as this is the way that we're created.

 

[Locut0s]

Switzerland had guns.
Poland did not.
End debate.




GOOD NIGHT ATOT!

SPEG?? What's he trying to say? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Solid Phase Epitaxial Growth

How could you!

 

[Locut0s]

you sir have a very good understanding of the situation. People will always find ways to hurt each other, and gun is erroneously picked as the problem. There will not be a solution as long as people carry bad intentions, and I don't see that being solved as this is the way that we're created.

Yes but I'm on the side of strict gun laws. :awe:

 

[spidey07]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

When they wrote the 2nd amendment you couldn't do a drive-by with the weapons they had.

If it was written now I think it may have been a little different.

Honestly, and I know I won't convince you, Nick has provided much of the founding fathers reasoning for putting the right to keep and bear arms as the 2nd amendment. Americans hold our natural rights very close to our hearts and minds like free speech, press, religion, arms, search and seizure, etc. It is a great offense to us to impede upon them.

What you see as a "drive by" means I can shoot the drive by back and as such he/they won't risk their life by doing a drive by. This is a fundamental difference between legal gun owners and those that oppose such ownership.

Here in the states people view firearm ownership as sacred, it is the great equalizer as mentioned. Law abiding gun owners want NOTHING TO DO WITH committing a felony or other crime, as they can and will lose their right to defend themselves and this nation.

 

[spp]

Yes but I'm on the side of strict gun laws. :awe:

If the laws actually curtail criminals' access to guns, I'm all for it.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Honestly, and I know I won't convince you, Nick has provided much of the founding fathers reasoning for putting the right to keep and bear arms as the 2nd amendment. Americans hold our natural rights very close to our hearts and minds like free speech, press, religion, arms, search and seizure, etc. It is a great offense to us to impede upon them.

What you see as a "drive by" means I can shoot the drive by back and as such he/they won't risk their life by doing a drive by. This is a fundamental difference between legal gun owners and those that oppose such ownership.

Here in the states people view firearm ownership as sacred, it is the great equalizer as mentioned. Law abiding gun owners want NOTHING TO DO WITH committing a felony or other crime, as they can and will lose their right to defend themselves and this nation.

I don't think your 'natural rights' are what you think they are.

Freedom of speach? Press? LOL.

Go say 'fuck' on a network tv station, see what happends.

FCC, un unelected body, will send you a nice bill.

That's not freedom of press, or speech.

 

[Locut0s]

If the laws actually curtail criminals' access to guns, I'm all for it.

They do.

 

[irishScott]

I don't think your 'natural rights' are what you think they are.

Freedom of speach? Press? LOL.

Go say 'fuck' on a network tv station, see what happends.

FCC, un unelected body, will send you a nice bill.

That's not freedom of press, or speech.

By that logic we'd need anarchy to fit your apparent definition of "freedom". Try again.

Oh and for talking about freedom of the press/media, you're an Aussie right? Sucks, your government won't even let you play Left4Dead 2 uncensored. Apparently your government thinks the gory killing of virtual zombies to be dangerous to the public welfare or something.

 

[spidey07]

I don't think your 'natural rights' are what you think they are.

Freedom of speach? Press? LOL.

Go say 'fuck' on a network tv station, see what happends.

FCC, un unelected body, will send you a nice bill.

That's not freedom of press, or speech.

Now this right here is what you call a Quality Troll. It's got substance, some resemblance of truth but just enough deflection to steer the topic and get some bites.

I'll bite, and spit the bait back.

FCC owns the frequency, just as the aussie regulatory commission does (I don't know the name but you modeled it after ours just like the rest of the world did. I deal with networking shit all over the world and build it, I KNOW communications). Otherwise nothing would work or talk.

But nothing prevents me or fines me from freedom of speech or press. I can print or speak anything I like as long as it's not received over the air frequencies without an agreement between sender and receiver.

So as a proud American, with my natural rights, I say to you FUCK OFF and come and take them.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Now this right here is what you call a Quality Troll. It's got substance, some resemblance of truth but just enough deflection to steer the topic and get some bites.

I'll bite, and spit the bait back.

FCC owns the frequency, just as the aussie regulatory commission does (I don't know the name but you modeled it after ours just like the rest of the world did. I deal with networking shit all over the world and build it, I KNOW communications). Otherwise nothing would work or talk.

But nothing prevents me or fines me from freedom of speech or press. I can print or speak anything I like as long as it's not received over the air frequencies without an agreement between sender and receiver.

So as a proud American, with my natural rights, I say to you FUCK OFF and come and take them.

Meh.

You can swear on our network tv and radio stations without the government sending us a fine.