Posted by: Kiddo April 9, 2013
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Kiddo you are getting stuck in the definition of offense and defense here. Basically in your definition all weapons are for defensive purpose. That is fine you are free to believe that if that suits your love for guns.
Au contraire, it's you who is stuck in any kind of definition. Gun is for killing purpose, knife is for other purposes as well...definitionist, I might say? I am happy to drop the definition and purpose argument.
Let's examine what the gun does shall we? The gun is made so that bullets can be shot into things, animals or human beings at the choice of the gun holder. So essentially the purpose of the gun is to shoot bullets. Whether or not the gun holder shoots is a different thing but that is what the gun is made to do. Do you disagree with that?
I don't disagree with that at all. You are right, knife will have other purpose; although I could very easily claim that a gun can be used as recreational tool in shooting range; primary purpose is to inflict damage. It's is that part I have the problem is, inflicting damage is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when the damage is inflicted on a bad person.
According to your definition of defense, every one should be able to carry a gun to defend himself. Who are you to decide who can carry and who cannot in that case? Let's move on to weapons of mass destruction. Why isn't every country in the world allowed to carry nuclear weapons? These nuclear weapons are also for defensive purpose according to your definition. Oh wait we can forget that atom bomb was used twice in the history already to kill millions of people but I am sure they did it for defensive purpose.
What are we arguing about here? Right for the nation to carry nuclear war heads, right of a person to bear arms OR that guns should be banned? Even if I shift the focus of the argument to what you are talking about here, I have to agree that nukes can also be taken as defensive tools. In fact, it actually makes the point even more stronger. Why do you think we have less war than we used to have. If it were not for Iran and N. Korea's nuclear possibilities, they would have been invaded way back..for good or for bad. Those two atom bombs you talk about, they killed over 200K Japanese. Now, tell me how many people died in WW2? over 60 Million. A point can be made, that dropping of those two bombs changed the course of a major war which was taking a toll on the humankind (Sure I am not considering Germany (Hitler) and European conflict here, but those two bombs did change the course of the war). 200K sacrifice to stop overbleeding of 60M+ people. Sure, I am just arguing your case here, but don't present a hollow case to support another theory.
Sarcasm aside, although guns can be used as defensive weapon, most murders happen by the use of guns. Even is one person is defending with a gun, the offending person is also most weilding a gun as an offensive gesture. The world would be better place if we left the guns in the hands of the police and army who are answerable to their superiors in the government, than let any psychotic tom, dick and harry run amuck with their gun at every possible whimsical moment that life is known to offer far more too often than less.
What you are talking about is fantasy. Policy like you are preaching is what is making this whole thing a big mess. Do you realize the countries who have strict drugs prohibition policy are losing the war on drugs, and those who have decriminalized drugs are doing much better. Gun control laws in Mexico has turned its head and has been an utter failure. You have 300 million guns in US, when you ban, are you going to go, search each house and cease those guns? You just violated 3 major Constitutional ammendments my friend. This is never going to happen, even if you cease the new guns, there are just too many old guns to control.
People who want to carry guns, do it because it makes them feel powerful. It's because they want to be able to pull out their gun at any kind of situation in which they imagine themselves threatened. It's the weak people who feel a need to carry a gun, or else a criminal who wants to use the gun to make personal gains at someone else's expense.
Do you own a gun? If not, how can you say that about people who carry guns? Let's not assume my friend.
Either ways, it's better for government to take guns away from the hands of civilians. Just like US is currently being the world government by trying to take nukes away from all tom, dick and harry states of the world.
Read the para in dark green.
Last edited: 09-Apr-13 06:25 PM