Too many guns in the wrong hands

[z1ggy]

well, that's a dumb statement.

If you want to get technical, the job of a firearm is simply to create a high energy impact in some object at a distance. Whether that object is a deer, a human, or a paper target is up to the user. Whether that living thing is meant to die, is generally also up to the user, too.

Generally speaking, the original intent of the very first early firearms was probably to kill/impede enemies. However, I'm guessing 99.99% of all firearms purchased by civilians in our current times are used for legal hunting of game, or target practice. Sure some people carry for "self defense", but the job they are accomplishing is not killing.

 

[olds]

I always laughed when I see people sarcastically (or seriously) mention something like this. As someone who doesn't drink alcohol, a ban would cause nothing but good for me (less drunk people around me = awesome). Having said that, if you see how irritated some people get when someone even mentioned about taking away their guns, we're going to have 100x more people 100x more upset if their alcohol is threatened to be taken away

"The right to bear arms may be worth a discussion, but questioning the right to get drunk? That's a deal breaker right there!"

The world is messed up, I tell you.

Alcohol isn't protected by a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Pulsar]

1:00am. Gee, wonder if he was drunk.

Drunk, armed, and a Napoleon complex is a recipe for disaster.

Damn, you're right. It sure is a good thing no one ever gets drunk and drives. That might kill someone. Clearly it's guns that are the problem.

 

[zinfamous]

If you want to get technical, the job of a firearm is simply to create a high energy impact in some object at a distance. Whether that object is a deer, a human, or a paper target is up to the user. Whether that living thing is meant to die, is generally also up to the user, too.

Generally speaking, the original intent of the very first early firearms was probably to kill/impede enemies. However, I'm guessing 99.99% of all firearms purchased by civilians in our current times are used for legal hunting of game, or target practice. Sure some people carry for "self defense", but the job they are accomplishing is not killing.

I don't know man: I hear all the time here from the castle folks and other types of self-described responsible gun owners that you only ever shoot to kill; it's the only way to be sure. "You point that gun at me, you better be using it!"

I am not saying that is wrong, by the way.

Point being--even in the case of self defense (let's not bother arguing that a Gun that isn't designed to be an effective weapon--wild animal or human animal really is the same thing here--isn't much of a gun), if it isn't effective at killing then it isn't much of a gun.

And, in general: if guns were no longer effective at killing humans, and primarily humans, I submit that they would no longer be made.

 

[z1ggy]

I don't know man: I hear all the time here from the castle folks and other types of self-described responsible gun owners that you only ever shoot to kill; it's the only way to be sure. "You point that gun at me, you better be using it!"

I am not saying that is wrong, by the way.

Point being--even in the case of self defense (let's not bother arguing that a Gun that isn't designed to be an effective weapon--wild animal or human animal really is the same thing here--isn't much of a gun), if it isn't effective at killing then it isn't much of a gun.

And, in general: if guns were no longer effective at killing humans, and primarily humans, I submit that they would no longer be made.

Pretty much agree with that. Although, we'd probably change the ammunition as opposed to the firearm. As far as I know, nothing in the past... oh I don't know, ~175 years has been able to shoot little pieces of metal faster/more effective than a gun. It's just a shrunken down version of a cannon and that whole design worked pretty well for many years. We just changed how the projectile functioned.

 

[Phoenix86]

Alcohol isn't protected by a Constitutional Amendment.

Section 2 of the 21st basically allows the states to continue prohibition if they want.

 

[z1ggy]

1:00am. Gee, wonder if he was drunk.

Drunk, armed, and a Napoleon complex is a recipe for disaster.

Also, is it just me or did Where's Waldo just go to jail....

 

[MrColin]

More evidence that smoking bans don't work.

 

[cronos]

Alcohol isn't protected by a Constitutional Amendment.

I wasn't implying that. Just saying that the complaints and whines we will hear if there's a hypothetical 'alcohol ban' (or even a discussion about it) would have been an order of magnitude more than a hypothetical 'weapon ban'.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

They should all be in my hands

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Guns need to be banned in the USA. OUTRIGHT BAN.

There is no correlation between not having guns and not being killed by guns and having guns and being killed by guns.

Ban firearms in the USA! Get people out of jail for smoking pot and replace them with people carrying guns.