| Author |
|
Randy Lahey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: 23 July 2010 at 5:20pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"In this day and age" means that you don't need the guns for food.
From your posts in this thread and others, you don't believe in using guns for self defense. If you don't need your guns for food, or self defense, I don't see any other need for the guns. Is there a reason(s) I'm missing?
I am not commenting on you as a gun owner, however owning guns means there is a possibility that your guns could end up harming people. Perhaps your house is robbed and the guns stolen. Or you are hit by a bus, where do those guns end up then, they could end up causing trouble down the road. The only way to guarantee your guns don't harm anyone is to destroy them. Its a long shot that if you are a responsible gun owner and following the rules in Canada, that your guns would harm someone, but its still possible, just like its been pointed out in this thread, that someone shooting at a burglar may end up shooting a little girl across the street.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12736
|
| Posted: 23 July 2010 at 9:21pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
""In this day and age" means that you don't need the guns for food."
If I hunt, guns make it far easier, and are much more humane than stoning my prey to death. And if you want to start a separate thread on hunting, I'd be more than happy to debate you there. You'll find that I'm just as outspoken against anti-hunting activists as I am anti-gun-control nut-jobs.
Guns also make the sport of target shooting, or skeet shooting, much more doable than using, say, a soapy sponge.
A burglar who enters my home is going to have to do a hell of a lot of work to get away with functional firearms. Considering that the average house robbery takes something less than five minutes, even if they were coming in to my house specifically for my guns they won't be leaving with them. Hell, they could have hours to spend, but unless they're the guys from Ocean's Eleven, they'll be disappointed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 23 July 2010 at 11:32pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Wait a minute. You own guns, Al?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:10am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Good news:
Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. So even if someone thinks you should not be able to have a gun in your American house, you can.
You should, however, think about it. I am very comfortable with weapons, but I do not have any guns in my house, because I have children in my house, and I am more worried about something happening to them than I am about someone coming into my house with a gun when we are home.
I also have many friends who are cops, and they have guns and children in their homes. So far, so good, so I know you can have guns and children in your home without incident, and I am sure I could too, but while I appreciate my right to have guns in my home, I feel safer without them in my home.
If people think you should not have them, oh well. You can. Hopefully, you are being responsible, because you are responsible, and if your negligence causes something bad to happen, then you should be treated like the negligent criminal you would then have become.
What I do not understand is how someone thinks you should not be allowed to have a gun in your house because of the odd chance that a bullet might leave your house and kill some innocent bystander.
Terrible, but what about cars? Car accidents surely kill many more people than gun accidents. I can be driving down the road, doing nothing wrong, alone or with my family and be killed all of sudden by some idiot who swerves into my lane. Add drugs and alcohol to the equation and I do not understand how anybody worried about their own safety because of a gun in someone else's house ever leaves his own house. Seriously, cars kill people all the time. I can't believe anyone is allowed to use them, especially when everyone is allowed to use them.
People need to be held responsible for their actions. If you kill someone, either with a a gun or a car, accidentally or on purpose, then you should be facing some very serious penalties.
But if you can own either without incident, then you should be allowed to own either.
Some of you will think this is a crazy comparison. Why? because cars weren't meant to kill but guns were? So what. Guns weren't meant to kill innocent bystanders. Isn't that the issue? Surely you aren't worried about the intruder being killed, because that would not be an accident. The gun was designed to kill the target, because it was designed by someone trying to better kill the target.
But no, you are worried about the accident, and if you could take the guns out of the homes of good Americans, then apparently you would lessen accidents amongst good people. Or do you really think criminals would not have guns with stricter gun control? Of course they would.
So if it is the accidental deaths from guns you are so worried about, then you must be against cars, because we could save a ton of lives by going back to riding horses.
You might want there to be a difference, but there isn't. Even if there were no guns in the world, the amount of accidental gun deaths prevented would probably be nothing compared to those killed in auto accidents.
If I am wrong, if guns accidentally kill more people in America than cars do, then I will change my opinion, but I doubt it. The car accident death toll must be huge.
If it is, why aren't you arguing to go back to horses?
So to summarize, you can keep and bear arms in this great country, and some people don't like it. If you do it, then you should do so wisely, because you are responsible if you don't.
Last question, serious question, not an attack or insult, but why do Canadians and Australians even care about American constitutional rights or what we do? Is telling people to feel like you so important that you should go to another country to do it? I cannot imagine telling a Canadian or an Australian what they should allow or not allow in their country. Seriously, who the heck am I to tell people in Spain what to do? At least here I am supposed to have some say in what happens.
Edited by Ted Pugliese on 24 July 2010 at 12:14am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:24am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Question: What kind of person would break into Andy's house?
Answer: The same kind who break into other houses. Burglars.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:28am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Brad, no hard feelings, but in this case, I think it is your posts and concerns that seem most far fetched. I'm pretty sure I couldn't kill my neighbor with a gun fired from inside my house if I tried. I guess you are looking for a window and someone outside. Possible, but I think I would get the target instead.
It is your line of thought though that makes me wonder if you drive. If you are so worried bout stray bullets in a country that allows guns in the home, how do you ever drive knowing you may die at any time, with each passing car? Knowing it could be your last?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1687
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:32am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Ted Pugliese wrote:
| Or do you really think criminals would not have guns with stricter gun control? Of course they would. |
|
|
Here in Australia, gun crime has gone down due to a ban on guns. It's much harder for anyone to get a gun, and consequently when I get into an argument with some moron I'm far less worried about them pulling a piece out on me.
Ted Pugliese wrote:
| I cannot imagine telling a Canadian or an Australian what they should allow or not allow in their country. |
|
|
You personally may not, but your country's foreign policy consists largely on forcing American values onto other people. Several wars and countless incursions, regime changes and other shenanigans testify to this. This is why I think you'll find that many people outside the US are interested in what happens in the US, because ultimately, just like what happens inside China, India and to a certain extent the Russian Federation, it will impact economically and socially on everyone everywhere.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:33am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
And Al, seriously, I miss you on facebook, but are you a gun owning Canadian who thinks Americans shouldn't own guns?
I was kidding when I jumped into this (I don't think we need to arm ourselves against invading immigrants), and I haven't followed all of this thread, so I could be mistaken, but are you seriously a gun owning Canadian cursing at US Veterans who think they should be allowed to own guns in America?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:38am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
And Brad, I value human life AND liberty, and I value you and your family's, but I have no problem telling anyone anywhere that I value the lives of my wife and children more than I value theirs, yours, or MY OWN.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:43am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I also think murderers, attempted murderers, rapists, and child molesters should be put to death, so I guess I value their lives less than I value anybody else's.
Can I start a death penalty thread? Anybody care how this anti-death penalty Christian became a proponent of the death penalty?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 12:57am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
So if it is the accidental deaths from guns you are so worried about, then you must be against cars, because we could save a ton of lives by going back to riding horses.
---
Cars are for transportation. Even if you kill someone intentionally with a car, you're using the car incorrectly.
If you use a gun and it kills a person - even a person you don't intend to kill - you are using the gun properly. THAT is the point. Guns are FOR KILLING PEOPLE.
A fishing rod is for fishing. A pillow is for resting comfortably upon and sleeping. A butter knife is for smearing tasty peanut butter on hot toast. All those things can kill people, but it's not their primary purpose.
The AK-47 in the gun cabinet? The .22 hand gun in the nightstand? Those are tools for KILLING HUMAN BEINGS. Anyone who owns a gun like that is basically saying killing is good, killing is great, and they should be allowed to kill at their discretion. Your discretion may vary - you may say it's only okay if someone enters your home, or doesn't leave the porch, or runs over your dog and tries to drive away, whatever. But the point is, YOU WANT THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE.
Because otherwise, there's no use for a gun like the ones people seem to buy for "home protection."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 24 July 2010 at 1:08am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Brad, this is silly to me.
Are you ok with accidentally killing people with things not designed to kill them, and only against owning things that were designed to kill people? Seems to me that one who values life should be more concerned with people getting killed, period, then with simply owning a thing designed to kill people.
Seems to suggest that killing without a gun is ok. Is killing with a steak knife ok because it was designed to cut steak? Is killing with your bare hands ok because you are not using any kind of weapon at all?
If you were worried about limiting guns as a start to reducing all accidental deaths, then maybe, but in looking to only worry about those that result from a weapon that was design to kill seems really odd, especially when accidental gun deaths do come from using them improperly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
