PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

Hempy 23rd Dec 2014 02:10

Yeah, coz a motor vehicle is designed with stopping power in mind....

God that is such an illogical argument. Guns are designed for one purpose...to fire projectiles.

A car is designed for transportation, a gun is designed to put holes in things.

A car can be used as a weapon...so can a pair of stockings or a toothbrush.

A gun IS a weapon...if you can't see the difference there then you are off in fairy land :ugh:

galaxy flyer 23rd Dec 2014 02:11

Mrs. Lanza having guns I have no problem with; her arming her wacko son, I got a big problem with. By the way, the State of CT had no problem with her having guns, either.

So, your solution is to punish every citizen regardless of their record, the character by putting them under the suspicion that they might use that inanimate object wrongly. Why don't we just lock everyone up "for their own good"? Orwellian.

Hempy, it's only a weapon to kill IF its bearer uses it as such. Can't you see that?

GF

John Hill 23rd Dec 2014 02:16

Bah humbug! A weapon is a weapon, or an 'arm' if you like. Something that is made to be carried and used to inflict death on someone.

Why are 'arms' only guns to the 2nd Amendment zealots but cars are 'arms' on this particular topic?

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 02:26


Guns are designed for one purpose...to fire projectiles
Yes, many I know shoot paper targets with them. Did you see today in Scottland I believe, a vehicle killed something like 6 innocents. Quite deadly even if it was an accident.

A knife is can be deadly as well, as evidenced by the horrible events in your country Hempy. Looks like murders with knives is on the rise down under. Hmmm, something that doesn't fire a projectile is misused and people die.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

obgraham 23rd Dec 2014 05:07


Why are 'arms' only guns to the 2nd Amendment zealots but cars are 'arms' on this particular topic?
uuhhhh.....because we're trying to make a point, John, which you indeed just did.

Krystal n chips 23rd Dec 2014 05:28

" it's only a weapon to kill if its bearer uses it as such "

Now there's a revelation !......and there was I thinking guns were purely for some form of ornamental effect or even a fashion accessory.

A weapon only has one purpose does it not ?

Meanwhile, back in the UK......

BBC News - Essex Police takes 220 guns from suspected domestic abusers

Be nice if other forces followed this development.

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 07:39


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8794120)
Mrs. Lanza having guns I have no problem with; her arming her wacko son, I got a big problem with. By the way, the State of CT had no problem with her having guns, either.

Having identified the problem what would your solution be?

Hempy 23rd Dec 2014 11:30

GF, am I correct in interpreting your post as an assertion that a gun is only a "weapon" if that is the intention of the user?

Oxford Dictionary defines Weapon as;

NOUN
1: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage:
nuclear weapons
also, more to your liking;


1.1: A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest:
resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armoury"
So yes, by the second definition, a gun (or a car..) can be USED as a weapon.

But I stand by my assertion that a gun IS a weapon, regardless.

Unless you are seriously suggesting Samuel Colt et.al. were only interested in putting holes in pieces of paper?

Or that Oxford Dictionaries don't know the English language?

p.s WC yes. A kitchen knife was used as a weapon, not sold as one. Your point?

Flying Lawyer 23rd Dec 2014 12:33

Comparing guns with cars, pointing out the obvious fact that guns are inanimate objects, arguing about the meaning of words etc will achieve nothing except going around in circles - which the numerous threads on this topic have invariably done.


What specific changes do those who so vociferously disapprove of current US gun legislation propose should be made?

rgbrock1 23rd Dec 2014 12:39

WC wrote:


The US census data for the latest census shows 282 million hunting days a year.
Huh? I'm confused. I thought there were 365 days in a year? 282 million hunting days per year. Preposterous. :}:E

Hempy 23rd Dec 2014 13:25

FL, would not it have been more appropriate to make that comment when the original comparison was made? Or did the fact that the original comparison was made by someone with a similar 'stance' as yourself colour your comprehension at the time?

Honestly now, you have a profession to uphold..

Flying Lawyer 23rd Dec 2014 13:36

Hempy

If I understood your question I'd try to answer it.

Who made the original comparison?
What do you mean by my 'stance'?

BTW, I don't need you or anyone else to tell me to answer honestly.

Hempy 23rd Dec 2014 13:45

I'll use smaller sentences.

Who made it? You tell me, you're the one implying that you've read it in several threads. Seems your memory seems to be worklng ok in that regard?

Btw, I only wrote those series of posts to state that comparing guns to cars is an illogical, stupid argument. It seems we are in full agreement :ok:

Mr Chips 23rd Dec 2014 14:08

Hempy, on case you have totally missed the point, many times we have seen calls for all guns to she banned or restricted because individuals use them for criminal purpose, I.e murder. By comparison then, if a car is used to kill people should not the same logic follow?

SFFP, how many times can you be told, Mrs Lanza chose to have guns in her house. Why should that situation be covered by a law that would affect other people? You can't legislate against stupid. Mrs Lanza made that choice, the blame is hers, nobody else's.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 14:21


Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8794687)
Hempy, on case you have totally missed the point, many times we have seen calls for all guns to she banned or restricted because individuals use them for criminal purpose, I.e murder. By comparison then, if a car is used to kill people should not the same logic follow?

Err it already does. Where've you been living for the last 50 years?

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 14:26

What a ridiculous notion

Originally Posted by Mr Chips (Post 8794687)

SFFP, how many times can you be told, Mrs Lanza chose to have guns in her house. Why should that situation be covered by a law that would affect other people? You can't legislate against stupid. Mrs Lanza made that choice, the blame is hers, nobody else's.


Think Driving Speed Limits and why do we have them, clucking bell Governments all around the world legislate to try and prevent 'stoooopid' in almost every single walk of life, why do you struggle so with that :confused:

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 14:28


Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer (Post 8794568)
Comparing guns with cars, pointing out the obvious fact that guns are inanimate objects, arguing about the meaning of words etc will achieve nothing except going around in circles - which the numerous threads on this topic have invariably done.


What specific changes do those who so vociferously disapprove of current US gun legislation propose should be made?


Define the problem and then the discussion could take place, but if the opening gambit is **** off you nosey foreign twonk then not much of a discussion is going to happen IMHO.

Flying Lawyer 23rd Dec 2014 14:42

Surely it's for those who say there is a problem to define it?


I was simply wondering what specific changes those who believe there is a problem propose.

galaxy flyer 23rd Dec 2014 15:00

The problem isn't the the guns, the problem is the people, irresponsible, dependent on others, refusing to learn, acting as victims when they have created their own tragedies. Buying a gun does not confer magic smarts, just like buying a plane doesn't make one a pilot.

Ending the "War on Drugs" would go a long ways to ending many of the US homicides; stopping with the idea we can solve all of society's problems with a law and replace that with charging people to be accountable in the sense of oersonal responsibility. We drastically reduced smoking by making it uncool; not by outlawing it. I'd bet no nation on earth has more gun control laws than the US, despite the 2nd amendment. Guns are as much a part of our culture as "no guns" is a part the UK culture.

It's a fact of life here.

GF

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 15:22


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8794744)
Buying a gun does not confer magic smarts, just like buying a plane doesn't make one a pilot.

Then why not address that very point. Anyone can buy a car but you can't drive without training and a test of competency, why not apply the same to gun ownership.

Guns are as much a part of our culture as "no guns" is a part the UK culture.

It's a fact of life here.

GF

Absolutey 100% in agreement with that second statement and always have been :ok:

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 16:45


Think Driving Speed Limits
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Even once?

Don't worry, I'm prepared either way you reply.

rgbrock1 23rd Dec 2014 16:50

WC wrote:


Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Even once?
I personally have never once in my entire driving career (40 years), exceeded a speed limit. :ok:

re: my comment above.

http://www.az9report.org/wp/wp-conte...Pinocchio3.jpg

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 17:11

40 years of driving, man you're OLD!

Do they let you drive now that you're at the rest home?

con-pilot 23rd Dec 2014 17:23


40 years of driving, man you're OLD!

:{




.........................................

dazdaz1 23rd Dec 2014 17:29

West Coast......... "40 years of driving, man you're OLD!" That's not a very nice thing to post. Rules of the www never diss another, treat all with respect.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 17:31


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8794842)
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Even once?

Don't worry, I'm prepared either way you reply.

Many people don't simply because the speed limit exists.

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 17:35

Daz

You need to know the gentle razzing RG and I give each other. It's called banter.

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 17:46


Many people don't simply because the speed limit exists.
That's a legitimate answer. I am just as compliant with my weapons but some here would take them because of the potential to use them improperly or because others have used them improperly.

I don't know if you've expressed an opinion on weapons, so this isn't aimed at you. Imagine having your license and vehicle taken because your vehicle has the ability to exceed the speed limit if used improperly or because another vehicle has exceeded the speed limit improperly.

Judge each case on it's own merits.

Checkboard 23rd Dec 2014 17:52

The difference is that personal vehicles provide a huge service in transport.

Knives are an essential item in the household kitchen.

For these reasons we (society) tries to minimise their misuse, without actually banning the item.

Guns provide no service to society or the individual which honestly justifies their possession by the general public.

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 17:59


Originally Posted by Checkboard (Post 8794922)
Guns provide no service to society or the individual which honestly justifies their possession by the general public.


The same could be said of many individual choices, not quite sure what societal benefit is drawn from the set of golf clubs that gather dust in my garage post my knee replacement.


In a society that has historically owned guns, like the US, owning guns is not the issue, its the gun owners that are the issue.


The question is how do you decide who is fit to own and who is unfit to own?

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 18:00

Sustenance hunters might disagree. Target shooter might disagree. Police and security guards might disagree. Those who have legitimate security threats against them such as those who transport large sums of cash might disagree with you. Those are just some of the ones that come to mind.

If not abused, they pose no threat to lawful citizens.

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 18:03


The question is how do you decide who is fit to own and who is unfit to own
You and I don't decide it, the law determines it. We're awash in gun laws for lawful ownership.

The question is, how is society going to police it to those who don't abide by the law?

rgbrock1 23rd Dec 2014 18:06

WC:

Old? I give ya old, you young whipper-snapper. Come over here to the right coast and I'll beat you with my cane and throw my walker at ya.

Daz.

Yes, it's called banter. See, West Coast (the young whipper-snapper) was a US Jar-ine, commonly referred to as a Marine. I was not. I was better than that and was dutifully employed as a US Army infantryman, whose motto shall forevermore be: "Follow Me." (Not to mention my time as a Ranger, whose motto shall forevermore be "Rangers Lead The Way.")

Therefore WC & Co., during his time as said Jar-ine, found themselves always following us real men around. Something the Jar-ines are very good at: following.

:E:}:E:}

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 18:14

Some are just not prepared for Jet Blast.

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 18:38


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8794938)
You and I don't decide it, the law determines it. We're awash in gun laws for lawful ownership.

The question is, how is society going to police it to those who don't abide by the law?


Have a look at this list and would you consider it needs an addition or two?


Who Cannot Have a Gun in America? - U.S. Government Info/Resources

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 18:41

Do you honestly think that's the extent of the gun laws in the US?

There are thousands of them. Start looking at the state level and you'll be amazed.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 18:49


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8794912)

Judge each case on it's own merits.

But that's exactly the problem. You can't do that because of the 2nd Amendment. Everyone, with very few exceptions, may bear arms.


Imagine having your license and vehicle taken because your vehicle has the ability to exceed the speed limit if used improperly or because another vehicle has exceeded the speed limit improperly.
That would provide me with a hardship, losing your guns wouldn't cause you a hardship. However, I don't condone the banning of guns.

The reason my car isn't taken from me is because a lot has been done to minimise improper use of vehicles and to limit speeding etc. education, training, legislation. Because of that people who do break the law or do something dangerous are no longer allowed to drive or are otherwise punished.

As Galaxy Fkyer noted it is the people not the guns yet you are happy to allow a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 19:05


That would provide me with a hardship, losing your guns wouldn't cause you a hardship. However, I don't condone the banning of guns.
Me personally, no. But that's not something I have to worry about as it's a constitutional right as you've mentioned. Others, yes it would be a great hardship. You might not recognize it as such but someone who hunts for dinner might disagree. I know folks who supplement thier meager income by hunting and then trade the meat and furs. They would tell you you're wrong. Also, even in countries where gun laws are over the top, they haven't outright banned weapons.


Everyone, with very few exceptions, may bear arms.
Which is the way it should be. Thete are actually a fair number of exceptions though.


The reason my car isn't taken from me is because a lot has been done to minimise improper use of vehicles and to limit speeding etc. education, training, legislation
Mate, the same exists of legal ownership of weapons. I've been through weapons training in the US Marine Corps, I've been through hunter safety courses mandated by the state I am subject to the laws of the state of California along with federal govt laws.


Because of that people who do break the law or do something dangerous are no longer allowed to drive or are otherwise punished.
Again, just the same for weapons ownership.

All of that hasn't stopped vehicles being used as weapons, see what's happening in France over the past number of days.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 19:18


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8795028)
Me personally, no. But that's not something I have to worry about as it's a constitutional right as you've mentioned. Others, yes it would be a great hardship. You might not recognize it as such but someone who hunts for dinner might disagree. I know folks who supplement thier meager income by hunting and then trade the meat and furs. They would tell you you're wrong. Also, even in countries where gun laws are over the top, they haven't outright banned weapons.

Of course, if you need a gun then it would be a hardship. Not all gun owners need them though. The constitution allows unfettered ownership, for no reason.


Mate, the same exists of legal ownership of weapons. I've been through weapons training in the US Marine Corps, I've been through hunter safety courses mandated by the state I am subject to the laws of the state of California along with federal govt laws.
Yes, but you'd still be allowed to own a weapon if you hadn't been in the USMC. Do you advocate similar training for everyone who wants to own a gun?


Again, just the same for weapons ownership.
It isn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have the number of illegally held guns that you do. Nor would you have the number of gang related shootings.

rgbrock1 23rd Dec 2014 19:20

Chesty Morgan wrote:


The constitution allows unfettered ownership, for no reason.
For no reason? Absolutely incorrect assertion.

http://rlv.zcache.com/thomas_jeffers..._8byvr_512.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.