Arashikage Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Okay, this is to follow up my topic over on the lounge. But I shall pose a new question. Do you support the second amendment of the United States Constitution? Personally, I believe that you can use anything for a wide variety of things, not just the one thing it was designed for, and guns are no exception. Like the man from the article I linked on the lounge, he shot out a window to reach in and save three children from drowning in an icy river. Nobody was shot, nobody was injured, he thought quickly and the window couldn't have been broken by just hitting it, ever try to smash a car window with your fist? You can, but it's hard, and it hurts. I think that it's a good thing when the media covers the stories that show good resourceful men using firearms to help people, and not just focus on the homicidal lunatics that shoot up general stores. Such media creates an excuse for certain politicians to take away this right. Now, the second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms, and this means we get to carry firearms with us. Now, I'm not saying that you can get a shotgun, strap it to your back, and walk down streets with it, but I would rather fend off an AK47 with a handgun than fend off a handgun with nothing. You need the proper training to be able to carry a concealed weapon, I believe that if you are going to have a gun, you need to know how it works, and if you don't know how it works, you have no business owning it. I support gun control, but not gun restriction. You should be able to own most guns that are out there, but not without the proper license and training certificates stating you know how they work and you passed the safety tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Morally neutral. As good or evil as the moral compass/ mental maturity of the person using it. I sympathize with gun control advocates, yet often criminals don't by guns legally, thus making law abiding types more exposed. Also airline terrorism would be elminated if airlines had a policy of arming all the passengers! :troll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I support the Constitution, so yes. Guns aren't good or evil. They're just objects, it's people that determine whether or not they're used for good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarita Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Do you support the second amendment of the United States Constitution? This phrasing is problematic, but I'm sure someone will tell you why much more eloquently than I could. As for my opinion, I'm definitely in favor of regulation, but not outright banning, for the reason TCPeppyTC said, criminals will get them whether they're legal or not, leaving law abiding citizens exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Firearms have been a slippery slope when it comes to daily life, although I side with them almost always; everything has the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands, and firearms are no exception; conversely, everything can also produce favorable results in the -right- hands. Any regulations or rules pertaining to the limiting of firearm access only harms law-abiding civilians who wish to protect themselves; criminals don't follow laws, hence their label as criminals. "Gun-free zones" are also idiotic; you're basically saying come in and rob me. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 This phrasing is problematic, but I'm sure someone will tell you why much more eloquently than I could. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's a loaded, misguiding question that implies that if you support gun control you're some sort of anti-patriotic Commie bastard who wants to piss on flags, would it? As far as the question asked in the topic, I don't give a shit either way. I understand the appeal in shooting things for fun, but if I want to do that I'll just go out and paintball some shit. Criminals gonna crime either way, they'll just shank you for your money if they can't get guns. So yeah, second amendment doesn't mean dick to me. Now, answering the question in the topic's title, are guns good or bad? Obviously, the main "pro" argument is that they're just tools and can be used for good, while the main "anti" argument is that they're tools created mainly for the purposes of taking life. In that area, I think the anti crowd has the stronger argument. Sure, any tool can be used to take a life. I'd hate to take a hammer to the head, for example. But they aren't designed for that very purpose like guns are, so they're inherently less bad than a gun is, if we're trying to rate them. Still, as I said above, criminals gonna crime. Guns make it easier for them, but they also help fight crime, so they're still just as good or bad as the person who uses them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos_Leader Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I'll put it to you this way: In general, the more dangerous a piece of equipment is, the more rigorous the potential operator's training needs to be in order to legally operate it. Example: you generally wouldn't let someone drive your car if they haven't passed their driver's test and have a valid license, right? A car is a complex, quite dangerous machine that has the potential to be used for evil just as easily as good. We have regulations in place to help minimize irresponsible use of automobiles, and there doesn't seem to bee huge nation-wide bellyaching over it. Similar situation with firearms: they're inherently dangerous, and any sensible person wouldn't want them to carry that weapon if they are not trained in its use, responsible, nor have valid documentation to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Depends. I do believe that one has the right to buy a small firearm (pistols) for self-defense, but I don't think there's any way of justifying the need to go further than that. Also, there has to be a complete registry for every gun buyer (including mental health) and the only buy/sell should be strictly in the vincity authorized shops. I believe that complete disarming of the population might be troublesome, because the most affected will be the ones who want to buy one for noble causes. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns and/or kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 If you're going to have a gun, you better be properly trained and regulated to use one. Some asshat with an armful of weapons that thinks that playing Call of Duty gives you all the knowledge you need to transform into a sharpshooting badass should not be allowed those weapons. No, I do not trust anyone who has not had some form of police or military training with a gun. If I walk into a bar and every guy there has a pistol strapped to their thigh, I would walk the fuck out. There is absolutely no guarentee that if you were suddenly forced to use the gun you have that you would use it correctly on the right people; hell, even those WITH proper training make mistakes. Hence the existence of the term "friendly fire". If you're going to have a gun, you better have training and a reason to own one. Living in a notoriously deadly neighborhood, maybe. Maybe you're a hunter. Maybe you're one of the park rangers here in Canada that fought for years to be allowed guns because of the threat of gang violence frequently taking place in the parks. Okay, I can understand the want or even the need for guns here (even though in the years since the rangers have been allowed guns, not a single shot has been fired). Some shmuck that thinks LOL GUNS R KOOL because of something he saw on TV, no, he should NOT be allowed a gun because there is really no reason for him to own one. People keep mentioning that guns are tools that can be used for things OTHER than killing. Please, tell me what those are. So some ex-cop (who I have no problem with owning a gun considering that, being a COP AND EVERYTHING, he obviously knows how to use it) shoots out a window to save a kid in a freak accident. Take into consideration the "freak accident" part. This is not the normal use for a gun. It's like owning exotic, dangerous pets. In most places, you can't have a tiger, or a lion, or a primate, or a crocodile. Why? Because, though you may think you have them all under control, there is still a high probability of one day something going wrong and the chimpanzee you've owned for fourteen years suddenly and inexplicably rips your friend's face off. This isn't entirely different from having a gun (not for any specific reason) and thinking you're all fine and dandy with it, thinking you've succesfully hidden it away in its holster, only to get the call that your three year old son somehow found it and shot himself by accident. "Boo hoo it's not guns, it's the PEOPLE with guns!" Well, yeah, it is. Guns, like you say, have no conscience. They're just there. People, however, time and again prove themselves to be insanely goddamned stupid creatures that probably should not be entrusted with any sort of device, tool or animal meant or easily able to kill or grievously injure someone else. Very few people who advocate the usage of these weapons have real need to, it seems, and instead just think they're cool (if you're not going to use the gun anyways, just buy replicas...?). To decry those who have their hesitations over a WEAPON (yes, that's what a gun is, despite "other uses") being more readily available than goddamned healthcare as being "Un-American" paints a pretty pathetic picture of what it means to be American. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Like Mr Wes said, Guns are just objects, so the whole dilemma falls, again, into "Humans - good or evil?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 For the record, I would like to touch on the hypocritical argument of "guns being tools" coming from those who actively look for "pro-gun news". If you think guns are nonfeeling objects who completely rely on the person using them, why the HELL are you bitching about there being so much "anti-gun" news? "Man shoots six people at office New Year's party" is not "anti-gun" news, just like "man saves child and happens to use a gun doing it" is not "pro-gun" news, by the logic that guns are simply tools. Again, just like "man killed in car crash" is not "anti-car news" such as "man survives car crash" is not "pro-car" news. For a hunk of metal with no feelings that gives no fuck, you are sure putting a lot of effort into protecting the poor widdle guns who you continually claim aren't so bad for some reason. Protip: the lack of "pro-gun" news is not censorship by the evil America-hating commie libbie hippy nazi gays, it's simply the natural lack of news supporting the casual usage of tools whose primary purpose is killing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 just a fun little addition to make to anyone who wants to flog the "what if there's government tyranny" horse: your AR-15 is not going to save you if the government decides to go all psycho crazy fascist. if the government wanted to kill you, you would never see it coming. neither you nor widespread availability of firearms in general would be of any help to any revolting party in the event of a rebellion. case in point: Libya. the Libyan rebels were highly ineffective at anything other than quickly overrunning undefended territory and then just as quickly running the fuck away when the enemy came calling, for months on end, even though they had weapons captured from Qaddafi's troops or smuggled in from outside the country. why? because the rebels had no idea what they were doing with them. more specifically, they had no idea how to function as military units in combat with other military units. knowing how to fire an AK-47 doesn't teach you how to stay calm and employ tactics in combat when someone else is also firing an AK-47 while pointing it at you. it took the Libyan rebels six months and who knows how many people killed and maimed to figure that out, and they had the benefit of NATO air support and outside powers rushing in to provide training and equipment. eventually they learned to function as a military force--and only once they were able to take on Qaddafi's forces in the field were they able to take the rest of the country. if you wanted to take part in an armed insurrection in the United States, unless the soldiers did it for you--negating the whole argument in the first place--you would have to learn how to wage war, while waging war, against a military far more sophisticated, experienced, better-trained, and better-equipped than that of Muammar Qaddafi. and if you think US troops would never actually open fire on their own fellow citizens, well, lol to you, naive child. so, yes, the "defense against government tyranny" aspect of the Second Amendment is sorely outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I'd also like to bring up something else... but I would rather fend off an AK47 with a handgun than fend off a handgun with nothing. Let's be honest here. When in the actual fuck would most of us here EVER end up in this situation? Possible? Maybe. But EXCEEDINGLY rare. I dunno, I live in one of the most notoriously grungy neighborhoods in Canada (which is Canada, granted, but I have a hard time believing that our firearm regulation isn't contributing to our overall lower crime rates), but I've never felt particularily threatened being that I don't involve myself in the world in which most of this crime actually takes place; that being, the gangs and drugs. Putting oneself into that situation would heighten the chances of finding yourself on the opposite end of an AK47, but for an average person? And if someone with an AK47 really wants to kill you, and they get the jump on you, whether or not you have a handgun you are still probably fucked (and personally, I think I'd have an easier time surviving by hiding my ass instead of trying to be the hero by launching into a public gunfight). There's also the inane assumption that you'd have time to think and react with a handgun even if you did find yourself in that situation. If some crazyass busts in and starts shooting the place up I severely doubt almost anyone would be able to react properly on the spur of the moment. Police might be able to, because they're introduced to the situation with the knowledge of what's already happening...and even then it isn't easy. Having a gun doesn't make you John McClane, and you don't live in an action movie anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 and if you think US troops would never actually open fire on their own fellow citizens, well, lol to you, naive child. Um... You do know they do a complete inspection of the solider before enlisting, right? So, not impossible, but won't likely happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Um... You do know they do a complete inspection of the solider before enlisting, right? So, not impossible, but won't likely happen. I believe he's referring to this weird dystopian future everyone keeps using to defend the right to firearms, in which the people of America attempt to overthrow the government because of reasons. What he's saying is that even if you did have guns, it wouldn't matter because the average citizen, gun or not, has no idea how to organize and react in a way that would make them even a slightly competant enemy to those who have been trained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Um... You do know they do a complete inspection of the solider before enlisting, right? So, not impossible, but won't likely happen. completely irrelevant. lrn 2 history and yes, National Guardsmen count as soldiers. besides which, it is a perniciously naive view to think that American soldiers would refuse orders to open fire on armed insurrectionists in the United States. walking into a crowd of innocent people and letting rip, sure, but against the very people for which the Second Amendment is claimed necessary? how about no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCPeppyTc Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Hmmm... While guns indeed are amoral tools, and depend on the people who use them they still arent great. Like they just make a murderous person have an easier time of it. More gun control may not be a bad thing after all.... Just kidding about whole " arm all the passengers deal." Speaking of Libya ( issue I have touched too much on already) I am sort of happy for the rebels, but am not entirely convinced that it will be a better,safer place, now that old Moammar's met his reward. Instead of a Totalitarian, secular dictatorship, Libya is a post apocalyptic country run by Islamic fundamentalists with plenty of guns. <gulp!> sorry non sequiter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Hmmm... While guns indeed are amoral tools, and depend on the people who use them they still arent great... Speaking of Libya ( issue I have touched too much on already) I am sort of happy for the rebels, but am not entirely convinced that it will be a better,safer place, now that old Moammar's met his reward. Instead of a Totalitarian, secular dictatorship, Libya is a post apocalyptic country run by Islamic fundamentalists with plenty of guns. <gulp!> sorry non sequiter... I like to think of them as inmoral tools that can go moral; case reversed of hammers and knives. I really hope and think they'll become the African Kuwait or UAE, but that's another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 It's late and I'm tired so I'll respond to most of this tomorrow, but I'll field this one tonight. People keep mentioning that guns are tools that can be used for things OTHER than killing. Please, tell me what those are. There was a story a while ago where a man was mauled by a bear. Twice. He stopped the second mauling by shooting the bear in the head with his 12 gauge (I can't remember the load, but I imagine it was slugs as shotgun pellets tend to just make bears angrier, and this is also not the focal point of the story). The bear, however, had torn off a large portion of his thigh, so he had to use his weapon as a crutch to maneuver as he could not walk unassisted by it. He would periodically fire three shots rapidly into the air because, as you may or may not know, three shots in rapid succession is an international distress signal that basically says, "I need serious fucking help NOW!" On one of his volleys into the air, a man and his son on a camping trip heard the shots, knew what they meant, and they went out and managed to find him, and got him to some medical care. They managed to save his life, and miraculously, the leg. Without his shotgun, the bear would of either killed him, or if it didn't, the fact that he couldn't get down the mountain and signal for help would have, as he was so weak from blood loss he couldn't even shout. Another one was something my dad did. When he was in his late teens, he found a dog who was in bad shape, and he nursed him back to health and trained him to track and chase deer. However, a problem with that is often times deer hounds will chase the deer across roads and get hit by vehicles, so he carried a .22 loaded with snake shot, and if the dog chased something across the road, or even crossed without him going as well, he'd shoot it in the haunch with the .22. This may sound a bit cruel, but snake shot out of a .22 couldn't penetrate Jumper's (the dog's name being Jumper, btw) skin, and just stung a bit. After a short while that dog wouldn't cross roads for any reason. If a deer ran across the road, he'd stop, and come back. My dad loved that dog. The dog was later shot and killed by a cop for no reason other than he wanted to. A more fun one, also involving a .22, is that my grandfather uses a .22 with some type of shot, I can't remember, to knock carpenter bees (http://en.wikipedia....i/Carpenter_bee) off of his two-story log cabin that he built himself. Interestingly enough, whatever shot he uses has so little power, it won't even penetrate the bee's body, but instead stuns them and knocks them out of the air (That's right, he shoots the little bastards out of the air with it). He then steps on them to kill them. This man also trims his trees with a 12 gauge shotgun. I've watched him do it. Some people, in times of desperation, use large caliber rifles or shotguns to "fish" with, as firing the weapon into the water creates a shockwave powerful enough to stun/kill the fish, allowing easy collection as they float to the surface. The same effect can also be had with explosives and waterproof fuses, but it's generally easier and more cost efficient (as the people who do this don't have a lot of money usually) to get cartridges than it is explosives and waterproof fuses. Yet one more, they make an attachment for most sporting shotguns to aid in rock and mountain climbing. Basically, you load a blank shell into the chamber, and load a bolt down the barrel of the shotgun. Attached to this bolt is a rope, with the rope attached to a special spool underneath the barrel of the shotgun. You then fire the bolt into a suitable surface and if all goes well (there's numerous variables to take into account), it will embed in deep enough to support your weight, so you secure the other end of the rope to something suitable, and can cross ravines and the like. Oh, and ever heard of door breaching? One method of doing it is using a special breaching shot in a shotgun to damage either the hinges, or the bolt enough for one to open the door regardless of whether it's locked or not, not counting a bar across the back of the door. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Story #1: Neat, but again not a typical use for a gun, and he was a hunter which I don't have a problem with to begin with Story #2: Was "train your fucking dog" too hard to figure out? The rest of your post caused me to think with a banjo soundtrack the entire time; all these supposed uses for guns seem way more dangerous and needlessly excessive for something that could be accomplished with the tools that were intended to be used for that in the first place. I could see the fishing thing (again, hunting, which I've said I have no problem with) but I actually thought that method was illegal. As far as shooting doors off goes, I also assume that'd be best handled by some manner of demolitions expert. A gun is not a knife. You can use knives for lots of everyday tasks like chopping food and opening parcels, that kind of thing. Except for the handful of people that for some reason have figured blasting the shit out of bees and trees to be superior methods of extermination/trimming, there isn't really much in the way of "everyday uses" that a gun could have. The bear example and the cop-shooting-windows examples are again, not every day, and both men in those instances knew what they were doing in the first place. edit: the mountain climbing thing also sounds needlessly dangerous; you yourself said that there are "numerous variables to consider". One of which I assume to be AVALANCHES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Green Fox Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Guns don't kill people, the people with the guns kill people. Or so the old saying goes. I'm mixed on this issue. I think they're good for protection, but on the other hand people have breaking points and gun related crimes could easily go up if they're availible to everyone. However statistics show that where there are less gun laws there are less crimes, so who knows. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 ...link? I keep finding this list as "safest countries in the world". You'll notice none of them are America, and most of them have stricter firearms regulation. This is likely not the only contributing factor to this status but it definitely does not hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 ...link? I keep finding this list as "safest countries in the world". You'll notice none of them are America, and most of them have stricter firearms regulation. This is likely not the only contributing factor to this status but it definitely does not hurt. I tink there's more to consider to that list other than firearm status. I bet America would be listed somewhere close to the top 25. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Story #1: Neat, but again not a typical use for a gun, and he was a hunter which I don't have a problem with to begin with Two things. One, I fail to see how firing three rounds in rapid succession, which, as I said, is an international distress signal, is not typical use for a gun, considering only a firearm can discharge cartridges, unless you wanted to hold the cartridges and had a special hammer that mimics a firing pin and hit the primers really fast. However, doing so would likely blow your fingers off, as there is a lot of pressure to be had from igniting the powder inside a cartridge, and that is why the chamber of a firearm is typically much thicker than the rest of the barrel, and then tapers down. Unless you mean it's not typical in that it doesn't get used that way every day, in which case I'd have to point out that outside of a combat zone, firearms don't typically see daily use ever. Also, whether or not you are hunting, firearms are recommended to have if your are going to be out in the woods because wildlife might be dangerous, you can potentially use it to acquire food if need be, and once again, it can be used as a signaling device. Two, I find it odd you have no issues with hunters when they are only private owners of firearms (or bows and crossbows) that use them to kill animals. Only difference between a hunter and someone like myself is that I shoot at paper, metal, and clay targets, not flesh and blood. Story #2: Was "train your fucking dog" too hard to figure out? Was it so hard to figure out that I said the .22 was the training process, not something used as punishment when the training process failed? It was quite effective because, as I said, after a short while that dog would not cross the road unaccompanied, no way, no how. The rest of your post caused me to think with a banjo soundtrack the entire time; all these supposed uses for guns seem way more dangerous and needlessly excessive for something that could be accomplished with the tools that were intended to be used for that in the first place. I could see the fishing thing (again, hunting, which I've said I have no problem with) but I actually thought that method was illegal. Actually not dangerous at all. Shooting bees with a low power .22 round, so low it won't penetrate the carapace on said bee, offers no real danger at all. Only alternatives would be for my grandfather, not the youngest and most spry man in the world, to be a couple stories off the ground on a ladder attempting to chase the bees around with a fly swatter. Not really effective. Poison might work, key word being might, but it also has the downside of killing things besides the bees and would need to be applied, which once again has someone on a ladder, and .22 ammo is cheap, poison usually isn't. The tree trimming also isn't dangerous as the alternative would once again be a ladder, and the proximity to the branch could significantly increase the danger. Or he could hire a tree trimming service but that would be expensive as he has a lot of trees, where as you can get a box of 100 12 gauge shells for less than $20. Only danger from those two scenarios is the danger from using any mechanical device, and that's mechanical failure. Not sure if you're counting the rock climbing thing in this, but the only danger is the same danger you have with any rock/mountain climbing equipment, and that's it doesn't secure well enough. Well, there is also the chance some idiot could shoot himself in the foot with the thing, but that's someone being a dumbass. And let me rephrase what I said earlier, it's actually usually recommended to have a firearm when going into any wilderness away from civilization, not just woods and forests, as wildlife can be dangerous, signaling aid, acquiring food if necessary, and with the mountain/rock climbing, it can allow the crossing of ravines and what not. And yes, the fishing method is technically illegal, hence why I said it's done in desperation by people with no money (some people do it just for the schadenfreude, but that falls under being a dumbass). Those people did it because if they didn't, they'd go hungry. Remember the saying, "If it's stupid, and it works, it's not stupid." It applies here as the firearms got the jobs done, safely, and easily. As far as shooting doors off goes, I also assume that'd be best handled by some manner of demolitions expert. Not really, there's nothing explosive about the shot, it just has a particular ballistic capability that makes it quite effective in damaging hinges/bolts enough for one to open the doors. Typically it only sees military/police use, and then it's just a guy issued a shotgun and the shot, and when the need arises he shoots key points on the door, and lets the rest of the team enter and clear, as the breaching shot is less than optimum for anti-personnel, though I imagine it could get the job done if need be. And while it is typically uses by military/police, it isn't exclusive to them as the shot can be purchased by civilians, and while highly unlikely, the need for it can arise. A gun is not a knife. You can use knives for lots of everyday tasks like chopping food and opening parcels, that kind of thing. Except for the handful of people that for some reason have figured blasting the shit out of bees and trees to be superior methods of extermination/trimming, there isn't really much in the way of "everyday uses" that a gun could have. The bear example and the cop-shooting-windows examples are again, not every day, and both men in those instances knew what they were doing in the first place. Well a knife is more versatile in that a blade is a much less complex tool with a variety of uses, depending on the strength and shape of it. In a given day, I can use a knife: as a screwdriver, as a hammer, as a wire trimmer, as a prying tool, to cut a variety of things (from paper to string), to remove excess plastic from things injection molded, to clean sweat mud out of the seams of electronics, to pop pimples, to clean under nails, to trim nails, as a tooth pick, to remove ingrown hairs, to remove scabs, to remove dead skin, to scratch an itch, and other things. Not going to attempt to say you can use guns daily, because as I said before, short of a combat zone, there's no reason to use one daily. However, how many tools do you have at your house that aren't used daily? Hell, how many at your house that haven't been used, perioud? We have plenty of the latter here because they'd be pretty damned handy to have when the need arises. And I have a question. I can understand the thought that a cop might be more knowledgeable about firearms, despite the majority we've met not knowing their asshole from an ejection port, to the point that my dad had to once pull his shotgun out of a cop's hands and unload it for him because the guy chambered a shell and couldn't figure out how to unload it himself, where as I know how to safely check, unload, and decock every firearm we have, which brings me to my question. As I said before, the only real difference between hunters and general firearm owners is that hunters shoot animals, where as general owners typically shoot inanimate objects. What is it that suddenly makes hunters more qualified in firearms and firearm safety? I'm honestly curious what makes you think that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I tink there's more to consider to that list other than firearm status. I bet America would be listed somewhere close to the top 25. This may be true. However looking at violent crime rates in America and especially anything involving guns compared to other countries where stricter gun control laws are not only the norm but approved by the vast majority of the population you'd be hard pressed to say that said stricter laws don't have much of an effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts