4 ms·

Your comparison is a red herring. Cars are useful and beneficial devices that enhance our lives. Guns are weapons intended to kill. They have zero utility to p

Your comparison is a red herring. Cars are useful and beneficial devices that enhance our lives. Guns are weapons intended to kill. They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. That leaves recreational hunting as the sole activity for which one could justifiably claim gun ownership as a necessity. You don't need a hand cannon or a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt deer. Seriously, fuck guns.

CamperBob2 14y ago
They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone? Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. Good thinking there, Tex.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Now now. Anyone named Tex would probably not hold such wrong-headed beliefs about guns :)
- gradstudent 14y ago
  > These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone? Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Two points: 1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you. 2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped Fine, that's a valid opinion. There's a process for that: work for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, please stop the passive-aggressive end runs around the Constitution. Your favorite part of the Bill of Rights may be next. 1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you. (Shrug) If you say so. History, including very modern history, suggests otherwise. 2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move. No. You move.
b6 14y ago
Cars and guns are both tools. Cars are tools for transportation. Guns are tools to help save your own life or the lives of others. Every day, both kinds of tools are used as intended to do good, and also used to do harm.
hachiya 14y ago
I'll give your posturing some thought when I see the arguments for banning alcohol. Around 1,500 murders a year are alcohol-fueled. Add in drunk driving, and it's even stronger. Nobody needs alcohol. Live by those principles and maybe people will give your cars/utility argument a second thought.
Taylorious 14y ago
Why do you want to rely on others for protection? You don't have to search very hard to find stories of peoples houses being broken into, they get assaulted, women raped, etc. I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don't need an AR-15 to do that, but I think I should be able to own a shotgun. Furthermore, not everyone lives in an area where the police actually give a shit. There are plenty of bad areas in major cities where you are basically on your own (Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.).
- monochromatic 14y ago
  AR-15s actually make excellent home defense weapons. 30 rounds on tap, very effective ballistics. And people don't realize it, but 5.56 typically has less overpenetration issues than buckshot.
- gradstudent 14y ago
  > Why do you want to rely on others for protection? You don't have to search very hard to find stories of peoples houses being broken into, they get assaulted, women raped, etc. I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don't need an AR-15 to do that, but I think I should be able to own a shotgun. Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Focus on fixing that, not protecting your right to bear arms!
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Just for the sake of argument, where is that not true? Are you aware that a Swedish prime minister was gunned down in the street (Olof Palme)? And in Norway, a mass murderer has just been sentenced to 21 years for gunning down 77 people. I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim. The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
monochromatic 14y ago
> Guns are weapons intended to kill. Mine must not be working right then. Do you think I could get a refund? Seriously though, what does it mean or matter to say that an inanimate object is "intended" to do anything? And there are all kinds of legitimate uses. Target practice/sporting uses, hunting (as you mention), self defense, defense against tyranny...

CamperBob2 14y ago

They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone? Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. Good thinking there, Tex.

monochromatic 14y ago
Now now. Anyone named Tex would probably not hold such wrong-headed beliefs about guns :)
gradstudent 14y ago
> These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone? Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Two points: 1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you. 2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped Fine, that's a valid opinion. There's a process for that: work for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, please stop the passive-aggressive end runs around the Constitution. Your favorite part of the Bill of Rights may be next. 1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you. (Shrug) If you say so. History, including very modern history, suggests otherwise. 2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move. No. You move.

b6 14y ago

Cars and guns are both tools. Cars are tools for transportation. Guns are tools to help save your own life or the lives of others. Every day, both kinds of tools are used as intended to do good, and also used to do harm.

hachiya 14y ago

I'll give your posturing some thought when I see the arguments for banning alcohol. Around 1,500 murders a year are alcohol-fueled. Add in drunk driving, and it's even stronger. Nobody needs alcohol. Live by those principles and maybe people will give your cars/utility argument a second thought.

Taylorious 14y ago

Why do you want to rely on others for protection? You don't have to search very hard to find stories of peoples houses being broken into, they get assaulted, women raped, etc. I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don't need an AR-15 to do that, but I think I should be able to own a shotgun. Furthermore, not everyone lives in an area where the police actually give a shit. There are plenty of bad areas in major cities where you are basically on your own (Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.).

monochromatic 14y ago
AR-15s actually make excellent home defense weapons. 30 rounds on tap, very effective ballistics. And people don't realize it, but 5.56 typically has less overpenetration issues than buckshot.
gradstudent 14y ago
> Why do you want to rely on others for protection? You don't have to search very hard to find stories of peoples houses being broken into, they get assaulted, women raped, etc. I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don't need an AR-15 to do that, but I think I should be able to own a shotgun. Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Focus on fixing that, not protecting your right to bear arms!
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Just for the sake of argument, where is that not true? Are you aware that a Swedish prime minister was gunned down in the street (Olof Palme)? And in Norway, a mass murderer has just been sentenced to 21 years for gunning down 77 people. I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim. The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.

monochromatic 14y ago

> Guns are weapons intended to kill. Mine must not be working right then. Do you think I could get a refund? Seriously though, what does it mean or matter to say that an inanimate object is "intended" to do anything? And there are all kinds of legitimate uses. Target practice/sporting uses, hunting (as you mention), self defense, defense against tyranny...