I didn’t promise anything and I think this topic is relevant to this thread. Disagree? Get a mod on your side, or pit me.
And there’s no need to take everything personally. I’m not out to get you, I’m just raising what I believe is a valid and neglected point. Respond to the arguments or just ignore them if you want, let’s leave the “get out and take your B-52s with you” stuff alone. It doesn’t get us anywhere.
Yeah, I disagree, but not enough to pit you or mod you. It’s common enough to hijack threads, it’s just a hassle for those of us who open a thread for the OP and find chili recipes instead…
I really don’t take it personally, it’s just that I don’t want to be drawn into an argument I’m not interested in. Sorry you took my “Good bye” as a “get out” - I might say that you are taking things too personally. My good bye was meant to convey that I was leaving the argument; the B-52’s was poorly conveyed, and I see how you’d interpret my good bye as a get out.
That’s not what I meant, just how it came out. (I tried to make a funny… “arms” in the sense of the third definition you posted, “which a man takes in his hand” and seeing you carrying a B-52 under your arm… uh, never mind, humor has never been my strong point.
In sum, I agree to disagree, as stated, and I don’t want to go on forever with it, so I’ll ignore your posts on that subject in this thread.
See ya somewhere else.
I’ve been avoiding posting to this thread, but it was asked where the line should be drawn. Here’s what I think.
A firearm has to be pointed at a target, either intentionally or unintentionally. The projectile hits, or it doesn’t. A hand grenade, mortar, explosive shell, rocket, nuclear weapon, etc. just needs to be close. So I would draw the line between firearms, which have to be pointed at a specific target, and “area” weapons, which can maim or kill even if the projectile (bomb, whatever) does not hit the target directly.
Wow, that is a very sensible way to put into words exactly why I draw the line where I do.
Thanks, Johnny. (I hope I can call you that.)
I get what you mean, Johnny, but you’re still talking about “fire-arms” rather than just plain old “arms”. See what I mean about the possibility of confusion?
This is my last post on this issue, as we don’t seem to be getting anywhere with this particular topic. Have a good one, all.
The question was where to “draw the line”. This is where *I]/i] draw the line. No confusion.
Good distinction. The almost-ban on full-auto weapons even seems to be in line with that thinking.
Snake
Again, how does an “individualistic culture” produce a similar crime rate and rate of violence but vastly greater lethality?
Better aim?
Of what? Cricket balls?
Americans don’t hold any current Olympic shooting records which makes me wonder if they are better shots than anybody else given the number of gun owners in the US.
I’ll concede that they would beat the crap out of England in cricket though.
By no means am I arguing that Americans are neccesarily better or worse shots than any other people, but olympic shooting sports are hardly representive of what your typical recreational shooter does. Olympic shooting is a bizarre science, with little ‘practical’ application.
When the Olympics start holding 3-gun matches, then we’ll see. 
Well, I was being facetious as I supposed you were. I figured I could counter by refuting that they were better shots or suggesting Americans are just more frail or that the health care is not up to scratch. Hang on… there might be something in that too. 
Obviously the Brits get +1 to Constitution, and the associated hit point bonus. Hence, fewer fatalities!
Please go back and read post #96 in this thread. Although I was a bit tongue in cheek when I wrote it, it is serious. America has a permissive culture. Our kids are spoiled, our sexual compass is among the highest (I know, there are higher), and our movie industry is exploitive and damaging to our national psyche, especially where violence is concerned. What other nation could make a movie “The Texas Chainsaw massacre” and STILL have video stores renting it out? Why do people watch this stuff?
There is a part of our population that is quite disturbed. In large part the legal gun owners are quite sane and stable, but we got kooks among gun owners, too. But they were kooks first; guns did not corrupt them.
Our movies glorify guns, glorify murder and murderers. They make a big thing about those who can shoot an unarmed human being at point blank range without so much as a blink. No emotion. The movies glorify this.
I would prefer that our country would not be so liberal and permissive. This is different than promoting freedom, where rights come with responsibilities.
We have Freedom in America. Most of us realize that freedom is not free, that there is a price to pay for freedom, and many of us do so willingly. Some of those born since WW II have come to think that freedom IS free, and in fact that it is owed them. They think their rights have no responsibilities, and that they can do whatever they want without regard for anyone else. This alone can account for a higher murder rate in the US. Life has become cheap, “others” have become unworthy, insignificant, if they get in the way of your goals.
I think the freedom to own and carry a gun is an important freedom for a freedom-loving people. The responsibility that goes along with it is a heavy one. I wish that at least we required as much training for gun use as we do for auto drivers. Responsible gun owners, like catsix have gotten this training on their own. The NRA started out as an eduational organization, providing training in firearms safety and proficiency until 1968, when the current governmental assaults on guns began. They still do training, but have diverted much of their actions into preserving gun freedom, as their members desire.
Too much Americans are taught, raised to be irresponsible. School now vs. school when I was growing up is a very different place. Even our legal practice has shifted focus to “how can I get away with what I did?” (OJ Simpson as a prime example).
With freedom comes responsibility. We, as a nation, are producing too many irresponsible people. This is how our culture has evolved, unfortunately.
And it reflects the gun supporters’ claim:
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
When I was a kid, my neighbourhood was so poor…
(How poor was it?)
It was so poor, nobody could afford guns. If you wanted to kill somebody you had to take the bullet out of the case, pour the gunpowder on the ground, bang two rocks together to make a spark to ignite it, then go to your victim and insert the bullet manually. And then finish off with a brick to the back of the skull.
Yep. There is a difference between horseshoes (playing the game or using a gun) and hand granades.
Hey, I propose we take the argument from Guns are for Cowards?, Gun + Fear = Freedom? and What weapons are banned under the Assault Weapons ban? and tie them all together in this new thread:
What relationships exist between crime and firearm ownership? Should we do something?
If you feel that OP title better describes what you’re trying to say here, come on down.
Snakespirit
So where do you guys keep your duck gun?
What weapons are banned under the Assault Weapons ban?
NONE!
At least none any more…
HOORAY!
Another one* bites the dust.
*Useless legal imposition on honest citizens.