VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:56:53 01/04/03 Sat
Author: fatfingers
Subject: Re: Interesting Theory,Tom
In reply to: Mark 's message, "Re: Interesting Theory,Tom" on 22:11:59 12/18/02 Wed

>
>Yes guns are not addictive. But there is a definite
>black market demand for them. Wanna police glock? I
>bet you could get one in a couple of days.

They are desired/wanted, they are not physiologically necessary.

>>
>> - alcohol and other drugs have medical purposes,
>>curative and palliative. Guns have only one purpose -
>>death.
>
>Not quite. How many people who have bought a gun have
>killed people with it? Guns are used in industry,
>conservation, and should be allowed in self defense.
>Are you saying when some people are killed with guns,
>it isn't justified? Should have the British stopped
>producing .303 rifles in 1939? Shouldn't you be
>allowed to shoot an armed intruder, when the police
>are not and could not possibly be there?

Not quite? What other use does a gun have? It produces death, nothing else. I say nothing about the justification or otherwise of gun deaths. And what do the British have to do with anything?

>>
>> - alcohol and other drugs are very easily
>>made/grown/distilled by amateurs, making them hard to
>>police. Guns are very difficult to produce, and
>>therefore are more practical to prohibit.
>
>Some are, some aren't. You have to have some kind of
>inconspicuous set up most of the time. Guns are not
>that difficult to make. Good quality ones are. Which
>means factory made or high quality ones will have a
>demand on the black market.

Guns are quite difficult to make, compared to refining amphetamines or growing pot.

>>
>> - crimes are committed with drugs are victimless.
>>Crimes committed with weapons have to have victims,
>>otherwise the point of having a gun is gone. That is,
>>if you aren't going to kill or maim (or threaten to do
>>either), then why have a gun?
>
>Yes and no. Drunk driving can be victimless or
>tantamount to manslaughter. Owning an illegal weapon
>doesn't hurt anyone. Robbing a bank and shooting and
>killing police wearing armoured vests certainly does
>use a firearm. Banning alcohol won't stop drunk
>driving, and banning guns won't stop crimes commited
>with guns.

No, but it will reduce the amount of crimes committed with guns, and reduce the number of fatalities. The rest of your paragraph makes little sense.

>
>Why have a gun?
>
>Needed for work

Why? Farmers might need one for feral dogs, or to dispatch wounded horses or cattle. What do you do?

>
>sport

Fair enough. How about keeping all sporting guns at the police station or the clubhouse, separate from the ammo?

>
>self defense

Practically useless (see below).

>
>That is,
>>if you aren't going to kill or maim (or threaten to do
>>either), then why have a gun?
>
>
>the same could be said for a nation having a standing
>army (well, who are you going to invade)

I would say, let us have no standing army.

>or person
>learning a martial art, (whose arm are you going to
>break?)

Martial arts have physical and mental benefits completely separate from their defensive capabilities.

>but this, like owning a gun, is for the most
>part untrue, and like owning a gun, is used for self
>protection

In the long run, that is a bankrupt argument, since the arms race simply escalates, and the putative attacker now does so in a way to negate your firearm ownership. You upgrade your defense, then the attacker upgrades his attack. Where does this end, at tactical nukes?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.