Gun Collecting: Is It Ever Innocent?

[westwall]

I've built my wife a huge wrap around deck, a gazebo and a chicken coop in the last year and a half. I've also killed poisonous snakes and put some food in the freezer. My hobbies are my business. What I collect is my business. Please keep your nose out of it.

Rude, rude, rude.

You know, if you don't want to discuss serious issues politely you could go use the obscenity insult parts of this forum. Why are you here? There is no need to reply rudely to me when that's against the rules here. I'm discussing issues in generalities and I don't care what you do or don't build. I wasn't talking to you at all.

There's no need either to neg rep me, which you did, given that's against the rules of this forum. Okay, I'm putting you on Ignore and reporting your post --- I take the rules of this forum seriously, unlike you.

Pot, meet kettle. When you equate gun collecting to pedophilia you have lost whatever credibility you may have had. That's beyond rude, that's passive aggressive asshole behavior.

 

[Ernie S.]

I've built my wife a huge wrap around deck, a gazebo and a chicken coop in the last year and a half. I've also killed poisonous snakes and put some food in the freezer. My hobbies are my business. What I collect is my business. Please keep your nose out of it.

Rude, rude, rude.

You know, if you don't want to discuss serious issues politely you could go use the obscenity insult parts of this forum. Why are you here? There is no need to reply rudely to me when that's against the rules here. I'm discussing issues in generalities and I don't care what you do or don't build. I wasn't talking to you at all.

There's no need either to neg rep me, which you did, given that's against the rules of this forum. Okay, I'm putting you on Ignore and reporting your post --- I take the rules of this forum seriously, unlike you.

I'll have a serious discussion with anyone I take seriously. I have not YET insulted you nor resorted to obscenity, but that time is approaching.
YOU question MY morality because I own scary black guns while Liberals like you advocate killing babies in the womb? I'm sorry lady I just can't take you seriously. I will have no more contact with you in the CDZ.

After reviewing the "guidelines" for the CDZ, I see that neg repping is prohibited. #1, I wasn't aware of that and #2 I rarely pay attention to what forum a post is in. I apologize for my oversight, but not for my sentiment.

That said, what my weapons are capable of is not the issue. What I do with that capability is.

 

[jtpr312]

I've heard the -- bad -- argument that what a lot of people call "gun nuts" are just...collectors. Hobbyists. I have a lot of hobbies, none of them involving guns, so that got me thinking.

There are tools, and collector's items, and materials stored up to have options. Having too much yarn or spices or books is having lots of options. Collector's items are mostly historical in the case of guns or anything else, I think --- dueling pistols or flintlocks would be a reasonable collector's item even for guns. But modern functional assault rifles? Calling them collector's items is phoney.

Aren't guns really just tools? They have a function, and if you buy them for tools, you should want to use them for their purpose, but if you use an assault rifle for its purpose, you'll be arrested by a SWAT team. I garden a lot and thinking about this I realized I have ten shovels. I never "collected" them -- I just acquired them at need throughout the years. And I use all of them, every year, for their actual purpose: the go-to pointed shovel for regular digging, the light grain shovel for snow and straw-mixed light manure and black compost, the little Sears shovel as a sort of large trowel for big pots, and so on through the list.

We have guns and I view them as tools, and so I don't expect to use many!! There's the 22 for foxes and dogs in with the livestock and a shotgun and a pistol for home defense. I'm not expecting to stand off an army, who would need more?? Well, a hunter might need a more powerful rifle, but I don't hunt. I accept packages of venison shot on or near our land, and very pleased to have it, too.

My point is that if people have more guns than they can actually USE, there is something very, very weird and suspicious about that. One wonders about their motivation, and their anger level. And whether they are fantasizing arming the neighborhood when the riots or the revolution starts. It's not an innocent hobby, buying lots and lots of guns and high-capacity magazines and ammo: it's basically about wishing and hoping to kill people. Right? Is there any other motivation besides wishing for the chance to kill lots of people?

You seem to be very ill-informed on firearms, their uses, the law, gun collecting and firearms sports in general. I do collect firearms, I collect modern military weapons. I own numberous pretend "assault rifles", (these being semi-automatic, military styled weapons that are not really "Assault rifles" but are labeled as such by the govt) and I also own two fully automatic weapons, one a real assault weapon, one a sub machine gun. I fire every one of my weapons pretty regularly, sometimes as much as 500-1000 rds on a Saturday afternoon in my backyard with friends and neighbors, and I live in a failry populated area of Southern Md and never have the regular Police come by let alone SWAT teams. As for the nonsense about wishing and hoping to kill someone, you couldn't be wronger if you tried. I know many, many, many firearms owners who own AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, semi auto, full auto and multiple firearms for some, and not one has ever said they wish to kill someone, and even those among us that have killed before in the military or as a Police Officer all agree that the last thing in the world they ever want to do is kill again. Unfortunately it's ill-informed, propoganda believing people like you that are fueling the government's anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-American, un-Constitutional anti-gun agenda. You know I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns, it was called Schindler's List, you should watch that sometme and realize THAT is what happens to a population that cannot protect itself from evil and corrupt men in power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've heard the -- bad -- argument that what a lot of people call "gun nuts" are just...collectors. Hobbyists. I have a lot of hobbies, none of them involving guns, so that got me thinking.

There are tools, and collector's items, and materials stored up to have options. Having too much yarn or spices or books is having lots of options. Collector's items are mostly historical in the case of guns or anything else, I think --- dueling pistols or flintlocks would be a reasonable collector's item even for guns. But modern functional assault rifles? Calling them collector's items is phoney.

Aren't guns really just tools? They have a function, and if you buy them for tools, you should want to use them for their purpose, but if you use an assault rifle for its purpose, you'll be arrested by a SWAT team. I garden a lot and thinking about this I realized I have ten shovels. I never "collected" them -- I just acquired them at need throughout the years. And I use all of them, every year, for their actual purpose: the go-to pointed shovel for regular digging, the light grain shovel for snow and straw-mixed light manure and black compost, the little Sears shovel as a sort of large trowel for big pots, and so on through the list.

We have guns and I view them as tools, and so I don't expect to use many!! There's the 22 for foxes and dogs in with the livestock and a shotgun and a pistol for home defense. I'm not expecting to stand off an army, who would need more?? Well, a hunter might need a more powerful rifle, but I don't hunt. I accept packages of venison shot on or near our land, and very pleased to have it, too.

My point is that if people have more guns than they can actually USE, there is something very, very weird and suspicious about that. One wonders about their motivation, and their anger level. And whether they are fantasizing arming the neighborhood when the riots or the revolution starts. It's not an innocent hobby, buying lots and lots of guns and high-capacity magazines and ammo: it's basically about wishing and hoping to kill people. Right? Is there any other motivation besides wishing for the chance to kill lots of people?

Is gun collecting ever innocent?

Given the fact that even felons are allowed to allowed to collect antique firearms I would say that it can be conclusively demonstrated that it is occasionally innocent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's an example of how hobbies are not always innocent.

Suppose you had a hobby of collecting bondage S&M equipment? You got your whips and your rattan canes and you've got the leatherhead zipper-mouth mask and handcuffs and footcuffs and ...so on.

So a date finds all this stuff organized neatly in a bondage safe and she .....well, for some reason she seems suspicious! I can't THINK why. And she leaves, and later when there is a rape killing in the area, you are visited by police, who have somehow found out about your interesting collection, and though you tell them it's just your COLLECTION, see, somehow they don't seem to believe you.

No, of course they don't. Because those are tools, too, and if you've got them, people assume you want to use them and may well use them, just as when you've got AR-15 rifles and lots of high-capacity magazines people assume you want to mow down as many civilians as possible.

Because that IS what these tools are for.

Sounds like an innocent hobby to me. No one I know who is into BDSM has ever committed a rape.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is a AR with a 30 round clip for if not to inflict as much damage as possible?

Sure you can use it for targets and blast the shit out of whatever you like for fun. But he isn't wrong about their design.

The AR is designed to essentially be as close to the military equivalent as is possible within civilian law. Like it or not, those guns were designed to kill people.

Sure. That's obvious and why I said this "hobby" isn't innocent. These AR-15s are designed to kill as many people as possible, people They aren't for hunting, they aren't for target practice, they are only for killing large numbers of people in one rampage mass murder.

Some hobby.

How many sword collectors have gone crazy and killed people?

 

[Cipher]

Before I begin I'd like to make a few things known:
1. I am not well versed in the subject of guns and their handling, so if I say something nonsensical about them I apologize.
2. I am inexperienced when it comes to discussions and debates.
3. I am rather tired so I apologize for mistakes in writing.

Anyway,

....
There are tools, and collector's items, and materials stored up to have options. Having too much yarn or spices or books is having lots of options. Collector's items are mostly historical in the case of guns or anything else, I think --- dueling pistols or flintlocks would be a reasonable collector's item even for guns. But modern functional assault rifles? Calling them collector's items is phoney.
....

I own a variety of knives, both those I use as tools in woodcraft, and those that were originally designed to pierce chainmail, find gaps in plate, and overall make another human have an unfavorable day. Do I collect these because they are weapons? No, I do not. I merely admire the craftsmanship, appearance, and, in some cases, historic and sentimental value.

Whether something is collectable or not is an area of opinion. Many of the things another might consider collectable I consider worthless or strange. There is no true 'phoney' category.

Aren't guns really just tools? They have a function, and if you buy them for tools, you should want to use them for their purpose, but if you use an assault rifle for its purpose, you'll be arrested by a SWAT team. I garden a lot and thinking about this I realized I have ten shovels. I never "collected" them -- I just acquired them at need throughout the years. And I use all of them, every year, for their actual purpose: the go-to pointed shovel for regular digging, the light grain shovel for snow and straw-mixed light manure and black compost, the little Sears shovel as a sort of large trowel for big pots, and so on through the list.

There are those who would buy tools simply because they like the look of them, never intending to use them. An old friend of mine was notorious for this.

A side note: It is amazing how many tools one can end up with pursuing any hobby.

....
My point is that if people have more guns than they can actually USE, there is something very, very weird and suspicious about that. One wonders about their motivation, and their anger level. And whether they are fantasizing arming the neighborhood when the riots or the revolution starts. It's not an innocent hobby, buying lots and lots of guns and high-capacity magazines and ammo: it's basically about wishing and hoping to kill people. Right? Is there any other motivation besides wishing for the chance to kill lots of people?

I would like to own several guns. Among them are what you consider 'assault rifles'. I intend to use them as intended: firing a projectile at a target, exactly the same as my rather anachronistic longbow. That target in this case is merely a piece of paper. Does owning and wanting these weapons mean I want to kill people? No. I have no desire to so much as point a weapon of any kind towards another person, let alone use one against them. Are there people out there with fantasies such as those you mentioned and worse? In all probability, yes. Are they the majority, or even a significant amount? I don't believe so.

Here's an example of how hobbies are not always innocent.

Suppose you had a hobby of collecting bondage S&M equipment? You got your whips and your rattan canes and you've got the leatherhead zipper-mouth mask and handcuffs and footcuffs and ...so on.

So a date finds all this stuff organized neatly in a bondage safe and she .....well, for some reason she seems suspicious! I can't THINK why. And she leaves, and later when there is a rape killing in the area, you are visited by police, who have somehow found out about your interesting collection, and though you tell them it's just your COLLECTION, see, somehow they don't seem to believe you.

No, of course they don't. Because those are tools, too, and if you've got them, people assume you want to use them and may well use them, just as when you've got AR-15 rifles and lots of high-capacity magazines people assume you want to mow down as many civilians as possible.

Because that IS what these tools are for.

I'm afraid you lost me here. I don't see how a person's assumption of what someone will do has anything to do with what that someone will do.

....These AR-15s are designed to kill as many people as possible, people They aren't for hunting, they aren't for target practice, they are only for killing large numbers of people in one rampage mass murder.

Some hobby.

Also, I'm relatively sure no firearm has been designed specifically for "killing large numbers of people in one rampage mass murder." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, I'm not a gun historian.

No, those are wildly bad examples. There is nothing murderous or criminal or perverted about cars, so why shouldn't Leno have all the cars or yarn or books or horses he can collect? Teapots and stamps, too.

Perhaps not the best examples, but not wildly bad in either case.

The problem is when you collect evil things meant to hurt people: assault rifles, perversion toys, torture instruments.

You've lost me again. First, I do not believe there are any tools that are evil. It is those who use them who choose what acts are performed, good or bad. The use of firearms can save lives, several of our current medical technologies arose from torture devices (The '?Stretching Rack?' -> Traction, Oil from peppers -> primitive form of a numbing agent.)
Some people enjoy the use of 'perversion' toys on themselves. I don't believe this makes them or their partners evil.

You know -- or it may not be the sort of book you would read -- how 1930s classic English mysteries ALWAYS had country houses with weird collections of weapons on the wall? Usually foreign curvy dagger types from the Empire, or maces and battle axes from the Middle Ages of England itself.

Without exception, if the collection was described, a weapon from that wall was snatched up by the murderer and used to kill someone at some point during the house party. Point: collections like that are FOR killing people, and therefore are to be used for that.

Yet people are not dying because of the presence of those weapons. They die because there is a murderer amongst them. If the weapons were not there a chair would be used, or a fork, bowl, wrench, candlestick. Even should every conceivable object be secured in the house there is still the murderer. The human body is as much a weapon as a knife or gun, it merely lacks range.

In Joe Hill's wonderful "Heart-Shaped Box" his retired lead rock singer collects mass murderer memorabilia -- Seven Dwarfs drawn by John Wayne Gacy, the clown killer of little boys, and several others including a real snuff film. He gets into soooooooo much trouble because of those --- because basically, they are evil. And he's responsible for owning the evil.

Same deal with assault weapons.

Owning a snuff film? You've got me, I can't argue it's a bad thing to have. Memorabilia of a figure of some fame or infamy? Go ahead so long as it isn't needed for evidence somewhere. I admit, if I came across someone who had a few framed pieces of H.H.Holmes little hotel of nightmares, books on the man, alongside collections of other infamous figures I'd be a little disturbed, but that doesn't make the owner evil, nor the objects evil. Now if the owner wanted to emulate said figures or the memorabilia gained sentience we'd have a bit of a situation.

This argument, on the other hand, is AWFUL. Cars are not intended as murder weapons, so they are "innocent." They may kill people by accident, but that is definitely not their intended purpose. It IS the intended purpose of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.

You could, I suppose, bash somebody on the head with a large teapot and kill them; or strangle them with my best Japanese yarn. But that would not be what they are intended for and so the guilt would be purely yours, and no blame attaches to the collector of innocent objects.

But torture tools, S&M equipment, assault rifles and all that are intended to kill or hurt people: that's their natural function. So you can't just say, "Whoopie! I'm a collector, isn't it cool?" Because it's like collecting a lot of pit bulls or anything deliberately created to hurt people: it's wrong. It's immoral.

The main thing I disagree with here is the idea of any object being 'innocent' or not. They are objects, they do not think, they do not make choices, those who hold them do. Also the use of the word immoral. Unethical to you perhaps. Immoral? I don't believe any human knows a damn thing about morality, they merely have opinions.

Here's another example of a non-innocent collection that is a serious ethical issue.

The current New Yorker has one of their long articles on child pornography. They are asking, is it fair to charge people with a crime they haven't done yet?

So here's this movie star, he's got a lot of photos of little boys being raped on his computer. He was tracked from a Website for trading these photos. The police come in and take his computer, search his apartment, research his life, and find that he has never acted on this, he just ----------------------------- has a collection! Of photos of little boys being raped.

This is very like the moral dilemma of the assault rifles. Because he himself doesn't rape the little boys, he just...enjoys the photos. But SOMEBODY has to abuse the children so he gets his photos. No abuse, no photos. This is like people stealing your assault rifles to shoot up the school or movie theater or mall. You didn't do it, but you were the one indirectly guilty. Everybody in the country blames Adam Lanza's mother, after all.

If there were no assault rifles, all these AR-15 rampage mass murders wouldn't have happened. If there were no child pornography, all those children wouldn't have been raped.

So I'd say no, if the "collection" is not innocent, if it is involved inextricably with hurting and killing people, no one connected with it can be innocent. These are not the good guys who have pornography and assault rifle collections.

I do not see the connection between the theft of firearms and child pornography.

Who the country blames I don't care about. The one who committed the crime is responsible, regardless of where the weapon came from. Now if the mother convinced the bastard to do it then she is guilty as well.

I agree, good people do not have child pornography.

However, there are good people who own assault rifles. Is every owner good? No. Is the majority of owners? I can't say for sure, but I think we'd have far more crime if they weren't.

Here's another example of "collections" that are immoral --

Viscious dogs.

Some people breed and keep pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans -- these are dogs that have been bred for a very long time to be dangerous attack animals, like assault rifles are manufactured to assault.

Then these dogs get loose and savage young children and pregnant women and kill and maim them.

"Oh, it's not my fault!" yells the owner of these dangerous animals, but of course it IS his fault, and nowadays a lot of these dog owners go to jail after their dogs make kills.

Same deal with the assault weapons -- they get loose by the gun-owner's schizophrenic teen stealing them and using them to kill everyone in his family, like that minister's kid did the other day, or someone else stealing them to shoot people. Seems to me if people have assault weapons somebody uses to shoot lots of people, he should be held criminally liable for having cool weapons designed to shoot lots of people because it tempted this teen to steal them so he could be a cool people-killer too.

Can't say I approve of hostile dog collections. They, unlike firearms, think for themselves. An owner can guide them perhaps, but never fully control them. Dogs of any type are a potential danger even without a human being nearby. Guns are not much of a danger without an operator.

 

[Circe]

You seem to be very ill-informed on firearms, their uses, the law, gun collecting and firearms sports in general.

Boy, are you wrong.

I do collect firearms, I collect modern military weapons. I own numberous pretend "assault rifles", (these being semi-automatic, military styled weapons that are not really "Assault rifles" but are labeled as such by the govt) and I also own two fully automatic weapons, one a real assault weapon, one a sub machine gun. I fire every one of my weapons pretty regularly, sometimes as much as 500-1000 rds on a Saturday afternoon in my backyard with friends and neighbors, and I live in a failry populated area of Southern Md and never have the regular Police come by let alone SWAT teams. As for the nonsense about wishing and hoping to kill someone, you couldn't be wronger if you tried. I know many, many, many firearms owners who own AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, semi auto, full auto and multiple firearms for some, and not one has ever said they wish to kill someone, and even those among us that have killed before in the military or as a Police Officer all agree that the last thing in the world they ever want to do is kill again. Unfortunately it's ill-informed, propoganda believing people like you that are fueling the government's anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-American, un-Constitutional anti-gun agenda. You know I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns, it was called Schindler's List, you should watch that sometme and realize THAT is what happens to a population that cannot protect itself from evil and corrupt men in power.

I've figured it out: you guys are so VERY not the good guys. You think you are, but you are not. You personally, so far, are able to speak politely, for the nonce, but given that I have some 14 people who tried to participate on the Clean Debate forum on Ignore, and every single one of them was a gun nut, shows me that this is a very, very angry population, the guys who collect assault rifles, designed to kill lots of people at once.

I woke up last night and it all gelled in my mind at once; I'm amazed I didn't recognize it earlier. These are not good guys!! These are very angry men. And they are all armed with assault rifles. And most of them are quite unable to obey any rules, anywhere.

Very scary.

 

[Circe]

....
There are tools, and collector's items, and materials stored up to have options. Having too much yarn or spices or books is having lots of options. Collector's items are mostly historical in the case of guns or anything else, I think --- dueling pistols or flintlocks would be a reasonable collector's item even for guns. But modern functional assault rifles? Calling them collector's items is phoney.

Good, that makes sense. Omigod, you understand about OPTIONS!! I thought no one else understood that.

I own a variety of knives, both those I use as tools in woodcraft, and those that were originally designed to pierce chainmail, find gaps in plate, and overall make another human have an unfavorable day. Do I collect these because they are weapons? No, I do not. I merely admire the craftsmanship, appearance, and, in some cases, historic and sentimental value.

Yeah, of course you are right.

There are those who would buy tools simply because they like the look of them, never intending to use them. An old friend of mine was notorious for this.

A side note: It is amazing how many tools one can end up with pursuing any hobby.

Very true. I just bought some wonderful Dutch weeders, a small sort good for pots. Or so I told myself........ they were very expensive. But....very beautiful. And knitting needles....I have a whole five-foot stack of drawers just for them, since the 1960s.

I would like to own several guns. Among them are what you consider 'assault rifles'. I intend to use them as intended: firing a projectile at a target, exactly the same as my rather anachronistic longbow. That target in this case is merely a piece of paper. Does owning and wanting these weapons mean I want to kill people? No. I have no desire to so much as point a weapon of any kind towards another person, let alone use one against them. Are there people out there with fantasies such as those you mentioned and worse? In all probability, yes. Are they the majority, or even a significant amount? I don't believe so.

I believe you are not such a person; I feel I can tell just from your writing. I woke up last night realizing most men who collect these people killers are, however: that's why they are so incredibly angy when they post. They get assault rifles because they are angry. They, when they deteriorate mentally, or their sons, when maltreated, are the mass shooters.

Also, I'm relatively sure no firearm has been designed specifically for "killing large numbers of people in one rampage mass murder." Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, I'm not a gun historian.

I believe it is generally agreed that the whole point of the AR-15 types is that they are the closest possilbe copy of military weapons that are designed for mass killing. That's the whole point; that's why they are considered sexy and cool by the mass killer teenage crowd. The ones who play the first-person shooter games where ALL THEY DO is shoot such rifles on steroids and win even bigger ones depending on how many people they kill. I know because I was just looking at the ads for the new shooter games coming out. Very cool, very mass-murder-positive.

You've lost me again. First, I do not believe there are any tools that are evil. It is those who use them who choose what acts are performed, good or bad. The use of firearms can save lives, several of our current medical technologies arose from torture devices (The '?Stretching Rack?' -> Traction, Oil from peppers -> primitive form of a numbing agent.)
Some people enjoy the use of 'perversion' toys on themselves. I don't believe this makes them or their partners evil.

With respect, I suggest these are not good examples. Who could believe that torture devices somehow furthered medical progress? No one.

Yet people are not dying because of the presence of those weapons. They die because there is a murderer amongst them. If the weapons were not there a chair would be used, or a fork, bowl, wrench, candlestick. Even should every conceivable object be secured in the house there is still the murderer. The human body is as much a weapon as a knife or gun, it merely lacks range.

With the candlestick in the library......very well put. Yes, well, I wish that were all there was to it, but it's a good defense, at least of a time BEFORE young men competed to kill more small children than the last mass murderer did. Unluckily, that was then and this is now.

Owning a snuff film? You've got me, I can't argue it's a bad thing to have. Memorabilia of a figure of some fame or infamy? Go ahead so long as it isn't needed for evidence somewhere. I admit, if I came across someone who had a few framed pieces of H.H.Holmes little hotel of nightmares, books on the man, alongside collections of other infamous figures I'd be a little disturbed, but that doesn't make the owner evil, nor the objects evil. Now if the owner wanted to emulate said figures or the memorabilia gained sentience we'd have a bit of a situation.

It doesn't make the owner evil? Well, that was exactly the question that had to be decided in "The Heart-Shaped Box." You could work with that novel; I recommend it to you. I bet you'd love it.

The main thing I disagree with here is the idea of any object being 'innocent' or not. They are objects, they do not think, they do not make choices, those who hold them do. Also the use of the word immoral. Unethical to you perhaps. Immoral? I don't believe any human knows a damn thing about morality, they merely have opinions.

My opinion is that shooting 20 first-graders is a problem of immorality that needs to be dealt with. Quite a lot of people agree with me.

However, there are good people who own assault rifles. Is every owner good? No. Is the majority of owners? I can't say for sure, but I think we'd have far more crime if they weren't.

No, these are not good people. I've finally got it, and so do a lot of people: the Feb. 25 issue of the New Yorker came today with a cartoon showing a young nuclear family in a gun shop buying an assault rifle: "We're the GOOD GUYS," the young father says.

Ha, yeah, that's what he thinks. No, they aren't. And his kid will grow up to steal the gun and shoot up the school, or Dad will get fired and shoot up his workplace. People who own guns DESIGNED to kill lots of people are never the good guys: that's how that works. If they were good guys, they wouldn't want to kill lots of people.

Can't say I approve of hostile dog collections. They, unlike firearms, think for themselves. An owner can guide them perhaps, but never fully control them. Dogs of any type are a potential danger even without a human being nearby. Guns are not much of a danger without an operator.

I live in the country, and I don't keep dogs, but this place that's rented across from me, always has, somehow --- and always dangerous, bad dogs!! I don't know what they are thinking of, the different people who live there. One time I was getting the mail and a dog was loose and came at me from there, and the people started calling it with such a panicked tone that I realized that I was about to be attacked, they thought ----- I turned around in the middle of the road, didn't get the mail, and luckily the furious, barking dog turned back! Another time some of them were breeding Rottweilers and two got loose, STREAKED across the road, never had been there before, went straight down to the barn and killed a setting goose, cannot have taken a full minute, though it was a long way. How did they even know it was there? Amazing. I suppose they'd have killed anything available. I was pretty mad. I went over there (after they put up the dogs....), had words on the subject. Darn. I could tell more stories about vicious dogs, but there isn't as much dog fighting for gambling now as there used to be, so I am hoping some of this is dying out.


I like your thoughtful post, Cipher. I don't think you are a cipher. As you see, it gave me a lot to think about. I hope you keep posting on this forum.

 

[PaulS1950]

Circe,
You have some poor information. Military weapons are not designed to kill - they are designed to wound an enemy. If you kill an enemy on the battlefield you remove one person from the fight. If you wound an enemy combatant the it takes two others to assist him so you remove three combatants from the battlefield.

That is why the M-16 was designed with a 55 grain (very light) bullet (and the fact that a soldier can carry more rounds - which are needed because the weapons as issued are not very well targeted) is so when the enemy is hit -in the arm for example the bullet changes direction and follows the bone or travels between muscles until another harder object is hit and then it changes directions inside the body again. It will wound a combatant seriously even when the "kill" zone is missed completely.

The AR-15 is better designed for accuracy (or can be with optional parts) because they are used in competitions on the firing range. These competitions require serious training for the shooter and a gun that will shoot very small groups at long ranges - out to 300 meters. A gun that shoots a one inch group at 100 meters is no competitor in these matches. If you can shoot a one inch group at 300 meters then you are at least able to compete.

All guns can be used to take lives. That is true. The simple fact is that with over one million of the AR-15 type guns sold in the last year the mass murder rate was slightly lower than the 20 year average. (mass murder is defined as those shootings in which at least four people are killed. Neither the number of people killed have gone up nor the number of individuals committing the crimes have gone up.

People who are buying or have purchased these types of guns are not committing crimes with them. Many are doing so to shoot in competitions, some for hunting, some for recreational target shooting and others for their future collectability. (if they get banned their value will skyrocket) In the last 6 months the price of these weapons has doubled and in some instances tripled so it seems that they are an excellent investment.
I know lots of folks who own derivitives of the AR-15. None of them is likely to go out and commit mass murder with their guns. I feel perfectly safe when I am around my friends - whether they own one such gun or, as one does, five of them. We go to the range to shoot and give each other pointers on accuracy in shooting, reloading and other gun related topics. The AR-15 is less than an ideal gun for hunting because the bullets are so small that they will not reliably kill anything larger than a medium sized dog. They were designed to wound - not kill. That is why they are the choice to kill pests and not deer. In my state they cannot be used to hunt any "game" animal because they are recognized as having too little power but they are used in target competitions all over the world.

People have put you on ignore - not because they are mad or crazy - but because they tire of you relentlessly saying things like - the guns are evil and conceived to kill masses of people when they were not. The science of warfare dictates that the best weapon should wound as many as possible without causing death quickly. That is why hollow point bullets are outlawed in warfare by international treaty. A hollow point will cause so much damage that death is more consistently the result than with a full metal jacketed bullet.

You build an internal fear about the gun - then transfer that fear to the owners who have never committed a crime to justify your fear of the guns. None of my guns have ever gone mad and killed anyone. The guns that I have have not driven me mad and caused me to go on a killing spree - or even an "age rage" event. I have been around guns my whole life. My dad had guns, when I was old enough I started buying guns and I have two that I inherited from my dad. My kids were raised around guns and my grandkids too. We have never had a firearm related accident in the four generations. None of us has ever committed a crime with or without a gun - except for some minor traffic violations. (they didn't involve guns)

You have in some way decided that all those people who have AR-15s or variants are bad or crazy just because they own that one weapon. I have no idea of how you justify such a nonsensical notion. Perhaps you could explain you logic behind the condemnation of people's characters based on something they own?

 

[Bigfoot]

You seem to be very ill-informed on firearms, their uses, the law, gun collecting and firearms sports in general.

Boy, are you wrong.

I do collect firearms, I collect modern military weapons. I own numberous pretend "assault rifles", (these being semi-automatic, military styled weapons that are not really "Assault rifles" but are labeled as such by the govt) and I also own two fully automatic weapons, one a real assault weapon, one a sub machine gun. I fire every one of my weapons pretty regularly, sometimes as much as 500-1000 rds on a Saturday afternoon in my backyard with friends and neighbors, and I live in a failry populated area of Southern Md and never have the regular Police come by let alone SWAT teams. As for the nonsense about wishing and hoping to kill someone, you couldn't be wronger if you tried. I know many, many, many firearms owners who own AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, semi auto, full auto and multiple firearms for some, and not one has ever said they wish to kill someone, and even those among us that have killed before in the military or as a Police Officer all agree that the last thing in the world they ever want to do is kill again. Unfortunately it's ill-informed, propoganda believing people like you that are fueling the government's anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-American, un-Constitutional anti-gun agenda. You know I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns, it was called Schindler's List, you should watch that sometme and realize THAT is what happens to a population that cannot protect itself from evil and corrupt men in power.

I've figured it out: you guys are so VERY not the good guys. You think you are, but you are not. You personally, so far, are able to speak politely, for the nonce, but given that I have some 14 people who tried to participate on the Clean Debate forum on Ignore, and every single one of them was a gun nut, shows me that this is a very, very angry population, the guys who collect assault rifles, designed to kill lots of people at once.

I woke up last night and it all gelled in my mind at once; I'm amazed I didn't recognize it earlier. These are not good guys!! These are very angry men. And they are all armed with assault rifles. And most of them are quite unable to obey any rules, anywhere.

Very scary.

Not one of them is armed with an "assault rifle" without an expensive license or stamp. You do not even know what an assault rifle is. The good news is that the new gun control proposals are going to be submitted to the senate without the so called assault weapons ban.

Wall Street Journal:

Senate Democratic leaders expect a gun bill to move to the Senate floor that includes most of the proposals backed by President Barack Obama, with the notable exception of a ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons, a top aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said.

The bill would likely seek to limit the capacity of ammunition magazines; expand background checks to include sales at gun shows and other private transactions; and require better record keeping to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses. It would also try to curb gun sales in states with more relaxed gun laws to buyers in states with stricter laws.

But the strategy outline also reflects a growing sense within Democratic ranks that some of the president's most ambitious goals-particularly the call for new bans on certain types of military-style guns often described as assault weapons-may be unrealistic, the Reid aide said.

The goal is to get the bill to the Senate floor next month, at which point lawmakers could then seek to amend the legislation by adding a ban on certain semiautomatic weapons or other provisions, the aide said.

The details provide the first snapshot of how Senate Democrats plan to move forward on major gun legislation in coming weeks...

Even a watered down ban that would include only a few weapons is not likely to pass.

 

[westwall]

You seem to be very ill-informed on firearms, their uses, the law, gun collecting and firearms sports in general.

Boy, are you wrong.

I do collect firearms, I collect modern military weapons. I own numberous pretend "assault rifles", (these being semi-automatic, military styled weapons that are not really "Assault rifles" but are labeled as such by the govt) and I also own two fully automatic weapons, one a real assault weapon, one a sub machine gun. I fire every one of my weapons pretty regularly, sometimes as much as 500-1000 rds on a Saturday afternoon in my backyard with friends and neighbors, and I live in a failry populated area of Southern Md and never have the regular Police come by let alone SWAT teams. As for the nonsense about wishing and hoping to kill someone, you couldn't be wronger if you tried. I know many, many, many firearms owners who own AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, semi auto, full auto and multiple firearms for some, and not one has ever said they wish to kill someone, and even those among us that have killed before in the military or as a Police Officer all agree that the last thing in the world they ever want to do is kill again. Unfortunately it's ill-informed, propoganda believing people like you that are fueling the government's anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-American, un-Constitutional anti-gun agenda. You know I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns, it was called Schindler's List, you should watch that sometme and realize THAT is what happens to a population that cannot protect itself from evil and corrupt men in power.

I've figured it out: you guys are so VERY not the good guys. You think you are, but you are not. You personally, so far, are able to speak politely, for the nonce, but given that I have some 14 people who tried to participate on the Clean Debate forum on Ignore, and every single one of them was a gun nut, shows me that this is a very, very angry population, the guys who collect assault rifles, designed to kill lots of people at once.

I woke up last night and it all gelled in my mind at once; I'm amazed I didn't recognize it earlier. These are not good guys!! These are very angry men. And they are all armed with assault rifles. And most of them are quite unable to obey any rules, anywhere.

Very scary.

No, what's scary is you vote.

 

[jtpr312]

You seem to be very ill-informed on firearms, their uses, the law, gun collecting and firearms sports in general.

Boy, are you wrong.

I do collect firearms, I collect modern military weapons. I own numberous pretend "assault rifles", (these being semi-automatic, military styled weapons that are not really "Assault rifles" but are labeled as such by the govt) and I also own two fully automatic weapons, one a real assault weapon, one a sub machine gun. I fire every one of my weapons pretty regularly, sometimes as much as 500-1000 rds on a Saturday afternoon in my backyard with friends and neighbors, and I live in a failry populated area of Southern Md and never have the regular Police come by let alone SWAT teams. As for the nonsense about wishing and hoping to kill someone, you couldn't be wronger if you tried. I know many, many, many firearms owners who own AR's, AK's, Mini-14's, semi auto, full auto and multiple firearms for some, and not one has ever said they wish to kill someone, and even those among us that have killed before in the military or as a Police Officer all agree that the last thing in the world they ever want to do is kill again. Unfortunately it's ill-informed, propoganda believing people like you that are fueling the government's anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-American, un-Constitutional anti-gun agenda. You know I saw a movie once where only the Police and the Military had guns, it was called Schindler's List, you should watch that sometme and realize THAT is what happens to a population that cannot protect itself from evil and corrupt men in power.

I've figured it out: you guys are so VERY not the good guys. You think you are, but you are not. You personally, so far, are able to speak politely, for the nonce, but given that I have some 14 people who tried to participate on the Clean Debate forum on Ignore, and every single one of them was a gun nut, shows me that this is a very, very angry population, the guys who collect assault rifles, designed to kill lots of people at once.

I woke up last night and it all gelled in my mind at once; I'm amazed I didn't recognize it earlier. These are not good guys!! These are very angry men. And they are all armed with assault rifles. And most of them are quite unable to obey any rules, anywhere.

Very scary.

Really? Then you should have very little trouble provided me with numerous instances of legal firearms owners using their legally purchased high capacity, high powered "assault" rifles to commit murders. I'll wait. As for us being angry, my only question is if you are an Amercan who believes in the US Constitution and the principles and ideals that formed and built this nation, why the heck are you NOT angry at this un-American and
un-Constitutional abridgement of our rights?