SpudFiles

this is not a political discussion this is a potato gun discussion forum.

markieclarkie wrote:this is not a political discussion this is a potato gun discussion forum.

Actually it is the Non-Spudgun Related Discussion forum. However, I too would rather not see the place turn into a political free-for-all.... there's plenty other places on the net to take that stuff.

The other issue is that with all the already privately owned guns in America, you'd have one hard time getting all owners to get themselves legally registered.

Actually US guns are registered upon purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer(federal form 4473).Exceptions being illegally produced/sold firearms, old guns no one bothered to register(just about every gun owner has something along these lines, usually an old shotgun or what not), or the occasional heirloom built prior to 1899.

In an ideal world, you would make it as hard as possible for nutcases to get guns, however, unless there are rigorous enough checks, which would need to be repeated every few years, it's going to be very hard to minimise such people from acquiring firearms through legal suppliers.

I looked up some stats.As of 1990's(yes I know its old but this was the last time they did an in depth study,I doubt its changed much) the use of legally bought firearms by criminals was only 7%.There is really no reason for a criminal to buy a legal gun when illegal ones are so easily available. America doesn't have the police force available to search every town for illegal firearms.It could work in an environment like the UK.America is too wide open for that kind of restrictions.So the only real hope is to properly educate the populous in firearms usage and safety.In my opinion the NRA has done a good job in educating children about firearms safety.Now if schools would adopt firearm safety (not just saying they are "evil") we might have a chance on stopping unnecessary school shootings.

Education starts at home, my father taught me as a child of only 4-5 yrs. that guns were not toys.They are tools meant for killing and nothing else,they are darn good at what they do. Proper respect for life and the weapon should always be in my foremost thoughts when carrying.THAT is what children need to be taught.Teach that and that all life is precious.When we do those things we will stop more shootings than any law could.

Well said GoatHunter. Starman is right tho' about this being non-spud related... That poses the question... Are Spudguns allowed on U.S. Campuses? :-p

Now this, I see, has become a rather heated and passionate debate in the Spudfiles forums.
Firstly, as I read this thread, I felt that SPG, Davidvaini and Ragnarok have the right ideas.
Giving everyone "responsible" a firearm for "protection" in my opinion, is just poorly thought out and illogical. This whole attitude of using potentially lethal force as a form of self protection is the basis behind the US constitutional right to posess firearms, and if you look at the statistics, the gun deaths in the USA dwarf that of countries with lesser gun availability or anti-gun laws, shocking.
This is also to do with, as Ragnarok mentioned, the general view towards guns as a good thing.
I believe that this "fight fire with fire" approach is just ludicrous. Wanna know how to make a potential university shootout worse? Give everyone (with a permit of course) in a crowded, panic-stricken hall a handgun.

goathunter wrote:I can not stress it enough, a gun is a tool, guns are not the evil. Men will always find ways to cause harm, taking away the means(in this case firearms) will only cause more destructive means to be thought up.

A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.

Secondly, when the issue of drunkness/intoxication comes up (as it has several times in this thread) it has often received a response along the lines of "People aren't drunk in class/during the day" or "even if a drunk was getting trigger happy they sure as hell wouldnt get to far if their classmates were armed." the posters of these responses have missed the point of the argument.
When refined to simple terms, $h|t happens. If, at a party, everyone was getting trolleyed, and were also carrying handguns, an accident is clearly waiting to happen. This does not mean that they would
plan a shootout for the next day, or that night, but they might be just waving it around stupidly and it could go off.

The point about foraigners not fully understanding what it is like to live in a gun-loving society could quite possibly be true (I cannot of course, speak for every country), but that does not mean that the opinions of people from other countries can be dismissed. People from France, Australia or the UK can still have very learned views on this matter, and quite easily more informed than some citizens of the US.

P.S.
Let's all, as civilised members of the community, and in many cases, adults, try to keep the emotional outbursts to a minimum

_________________
/_/ /_

A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.

I disagree, a weapon is defined by its use. A pistol used to bang a nail into wood is a tool. A pencil used to stab someone is a weapon. By definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use to harm someone.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:

A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.

I disagree, a weapon is defined by its use. A pistol used to bang a nail into wood is a tool. A pencil used to stab someone is a weapon. By definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use to harm someone.

I WAS going to type a lot of shite regarding the contents of uberlads comments. I shall refrain from such a post. I will however make this statement
uht54r tu7 677

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:

A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.

I disagree, a weapon is defined by its use. A pistol used to bang a nail into wood is a tool. A pencil used to stab someone is a weapon. By definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use to harm someone.

True, anything can become a weapon if used in the wrong manner, as I tried to imply in my post ("a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner"), but a gun is still a device designed to kill, and I think this should not be taken lightly. When you own, or carry a gun, you are pretty much saying
"I am prepared to harm somebody else."

____________
/_/ /_

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:

A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.

I disagree, a weapon is defined by its use. A pistol used to bang a nail into wood is a tool. A pencil used to stab someone is a weapon. By definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use to harm someone.

Ah, but to get into semantics, surely we have to look at the design remit of these things? So what is a gun designed to do? Some clearly are designed for target shooting, others clearly for hunting, and others clearly for defense. A single shot target pistol for instance is pretty useless as a concealed carry defensive weapon, a snub-nosed .38 on the other hand isn't much use in a biathlon. Hammers on the other hand are designed to push nails into wood.

So I'd say, that the primary use of an object is defined by its design.

uberlad wrote:

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:

A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.

I disagree, a weapon is defined by its use. A pistol used to bang a nail into wood is a tool. A pencil used to stab someone is a weapon. By definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use to harm someone.

True, anything can become a weapon if used in the wrong manner, as I tried to imply in my post ("a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner"), but a gun is still a device designed to kill, and I think this should not be taken lightly. When you own, or carry a gun, you are pretty much saying
"I am prepared to harm somebody else."

____________
/_/ /_

Not exactly. If I carry a gun, what I'm really saying is, "I'm prepared to hurt someone else, lest harm come to me first."

Exactly. When I am carrying any of my guns, I am ready to shoot the person who wants to do me harm. I can however make the conscience decision to aim not to take like but to stop that person in his tracks.

BigGrib wrote:I can however make the conscience decision to aim not to take like but to stop that person in his tracks.

Not as much as TV pretends.

Unfortunately, the common theories of "shooting them in the leg" or such like can still be lethal. If you shoot someone, no matter how you do it, you have to accept there is no way to completely avoid the risks:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... FleshWound

So I'd say, that the primary use of an object is defined by its design.

There's no denying that some features in guns are optimised for better destruction of live flesh (hollowpoint bullets etc.) but I insist that nothing is a weapon before its used to hurt someone.

When you own, or carry a gun, you are pretty much saying "I am prepared to harm somebody else."

That's unfair. I never purchased any of my guns with the express intention of harming anybody. If I had a gun for self defense, it would be saying "I have a means to harm somebody else, and will do so if my own life is threatened." - Can you not say the same of your fists?

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:There's no denying that some features in guns are optimised for better destruction of live flesh (hollowpoint bullets etc.) but I insist that nothing is a weapon before its used to hurt someone.

And I'd insist that there are some things which are designed to be used as a weapon, that is their primary purpose, and in this category I'd put some guns, some swords, some knives etc. I wouldn't put a hammer in that category as it's primary purpose and design remit isn't for use as a weapon.

I'd love to see you with chatting to a police officer about your minigun.

JSR "But officer it's not a weapon, I bought it because if I put a drill bit in here, I can make holes in wood."

Officer Plod "You're nicked son."

If I shot someone, I'd expect to be arrested in the same way that I would arrested if I bashed someone's head in with a hammer. I don't see how the nature of the tool used to commit the action is more relevant than the tool itself.