Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[Viola]

Heroin should be legal.

-Viola

 

[carebear]

So if it's okay to take something deadly and make it recreational, why isn't heroin legal?

All right, I'm not being sarky here. Just interested in logic traps.

The illogic is equating the fact that guns can be deadly with that being their only function.

Lots of things are deadly, when either misused or used illegally.

A handgun being able to cause death is only an issue if it causes the unlawful death of someone through negligence or criminal action. If it is used in a justifiable defensive situation and the attacker dies, that is not a legal (or moral to my mind) "negative". It is the intention of the user that matters.

If it is only ever used in lawful defense (which studies tell us will most often not even involve firing, much less a death or injury) or hunting, or target shooting or collecting and sitting on the shelf, there is no harm to it.

Similarly, heroin is, at root, a drug used to alleviate pain. It is only when it is misused that it becomes a problem for the user. Who then can cause other problems due to their initial misuse. Again, the negative effect solely depends on the user, not the drug.

Heroin and handguns and alcohol and automobiles are, in and of themselves, inanimate objects with no inherent moral value. To choose out only the (potential) negative uses and ignore the positives is neither logical nor just.

As far as it goes, being mostly a libertarian, I'd legalize drugs and then make sure their misusers are held accountable for their actions. But that's an explicitly political thread topic right there.

 

[Senator Jack]

C'mon, let's be realistic. The airplane was invented to fly people around, the car to move them around the ground, and the gun was invented to put little bits of metal into a body (human or animal) thus relieving them of blood and other humors. That is, to kill them. Yes, a baseball bat can be a weapon, but that's secondary to its main purpose as an object of recreation. Conversely, the recreational use of guns is secondary to their main function.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Heroin should be legal.

-Viola

It is. It's use is strictly regulated, though.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Viola]

C'mon, let's be realistic. The airplane was invented to fly people around, the car to move them around the ground, and the gun was invented to put little bits of metal into a body (human or animal) thus relieving them of blood and other humors. That is, to kill them. Yes, a baseball bat can be a weapon, but that's secondary to its main purpose as an object of recreation. Conversely, the recreational use of guns is secondary to their main function.

But why shouldn't I be able to kill somebody who is trying to kill/hurt/rob me? I won't play like I care about hunting, I don't. But I do care about my own safety and that of my family and home.

-Viola

 

[JazzBaby]

I agree. I was a bit afraid that this would get too political, but my curiosity made me ask.
To be quite honest, I had always leaned toward the anti-gun side of the issue in my more liberal "hippy" days. But in light of history, I see the wisdom in allowing the freedom to bear arms which was written into our constitution.
Here's an option that I should have included in my poll in hindsight.
If you live in a country in which gun ownership is restricted or completely illegal, would you own a gun if the laws against gun ownership were repealed? Or would you own a gun if you became a citizen of a country that did permit their ownership?

Good question. If gun ownership was legal here I wouldn't own one, because I feel it would be very unnecessary. Then again, if everyone had one I think it would make me nervous and I might feel I need one...

But it depends on what country you live in. I've never lived in the US and have no idea what it's like to live there, so it's difficult for me to determine whether or not I would own a gun if I was to become an American citizen. The same goes for any country that permits ownership. It would depend on how 'safe' I felt living there, to put it in a simplified way. I hope that makes sense!

 

[carebear]

C'mon, let's be realistic. The airplane was invented to fly people around, the car to move them around the ground, and the gun was invented to put little bits of metal into a body (human or animal) thus relieving them of blood and other humors. That is, to kill them. Yes, a baseball bat can be a weapon, but that's secondary to its main purpose as an object of recreation. Conversely, the recreational use of guns is secondary to their main function.

Bingo, but not precise enough.

Handguns are designed for defensive use. They trade killing power for convenience of carry. Thus to use them as I, John and millions of other people do is exactly what they are designed for and is perfectly safe and moral. They provide a practical way for a person to exert power beyond their physical limitations, which is why they are "equalizers" for the less physically able. In fact, studies show that the presentation of a handgun stops most attempted assaults, firing is not even necessary. When shooting does happen only about 1 in 4 people shot with a handgun die. They aren't very good at killing, statistically. In any event, the intent of defensive use is to stop the attack, not kill the attacker.

When you talk about "designed to kill" you're talking about rifles and, to an extent, shotguns. They are far more lethal than handguns, which is why they are the primary hunting tools used and are issued to the military and police (for use when they know there is trouble they cannot avoid). It's also why criminals use them when concealment isn't an issue.

Now, the fact that those traits of handguns (size and concealability) that make them such good tools for defensive use by the law-abiding also make them convenient for criminals is as "secondary" as the fact they are fun to target shoot and hunt with. They are not being used as "designed".

So again, it is solely the intent of the user that determines the morality of an action, not the tool used.

For precision sake, it's important to not just say "guns" any more than you would say "hats". Sure they all share the same basic traits, but there are a multitude of different characteristics and designed uses of each. There are many different kinds of guns, some spectacularly unsuited for shooting people or animals. They are however fantastic at putting small pieces of metal into things very far away.

 

[Senator Jack]

But why shouldn't I be able to kill somebody who is trying to kill/hurt/rob me?

No one's saying you can't. I was just pointing out that the gun was invented to kill; the recreational use is secondary.

 

[carebear]

It is. It's use is strictly regulated, though.

Cheers,
Tom

How's that working out for us?

I'm talking "legal", as in "massively deregulated", as in prove you're 21 and buy it OTC like booze.

But, again, that's a whole nother thread and explicitly political.

 

[Viola]

No one's saying you can't. I was just pointing out that the gun was invented to kill; the recreational use is secondary.

Okay, I can agree with that.

I would point out that while they're designed to kill, they do in fact make defense (even non-lethal defense) much easier. The pre-gun days were much more about raw physical strength, and there's nothing particular better about getting beat to death.

-Viola

 

[carebear]

No one's saying you can't. I was just pointing out that the gun was invented to kill; the recreational use is secondary.

Very good point Jack.

Which is why hunting and target shooting aren't mentioned in the Constitution. For good or ill and interpret it however you want (that's a discussion for a different place than the Lounge), they were talking about the primary purposes of arms, use against other people.

The fact that there's so many other things you can do with guns than (potentially) cause death is just a bonus.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Very good point Jack.

Which is why hunting and target shooting aren't mentioned in the Constitution. For good or ill and interpret it however you want (that's a discussion for a different place than the Lounge), they were talking about the primary purposes of arms, use against other people.

The fact that there's so many other things you can do with guns than (potentially) cause death is just a bonus.

I appreciate the fact that we were given that right, the right to defend ourselves if need be. I hope I never have to use a gun in that way.

 

[carebear]

Ditto.

If all I ever use my firearms for is recreation (which is likely) then I will certainly not be disappointed.

I like living in a place where decent people can own and choose to carry weapons, I'd hate to live in a place where they had to.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Ditto.

If all I ever use my firearms for is recreation (which is likely) then I will certainly not be disappointed.

I like living in a place where decent people can own and choose to carry weapons, I'd hate to live in a place where they had to.

Yes, I think the vast majority of legal gun owners in this country are responsible enough to feel the same way.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Senator Jack is correct: the primary purpose of firearms is to kill. Period. Of course, that means to kill animals (hunting) as well as people. If someone pulls out a gun and shoots someone, they haven't misused the gun. It was used for it's intended purpose, though the purpose may have been an illegal one. And John is may be somewhat correct in his assertion that handguns are primarily a defensive weapon, but that's in a combat situation. In the civilian world they become an offensive weapon. Some thug drawing a 9mm on someone to rob them isn't using the gun defensively.

I highly doubt that the fact that there are so many guns in the hands of civilians has ever been a deterent to the US being invaded. I would say that the actual deterents have been our military (including our militia, the Guard) and perhaps more importantly, the sheer logistical nightmare such an invasion would be. There's no country that can mount such an invasion.

I personally find it sad that our society still has such ills that many people carry weapons to prey on other people, while others carry them because they feel the need for them for self-defense. I think that the prevalence of guns in our country for those two purposes is primarily a symptom of much greater ills. Such a situation does not speak well to how civilized we humans actually are.

As for the secondary uses such as target shooting, as someone who was pleased when I did well when qualifying on the .38 and the M-16 I can understand that attraction. It's a skill that many enjoy practicing. Unfortunately, the constant use of guns in their primary purpose is the real problem.

But, no, there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. Since it's out, though, I sometimes think it would be an interesting social experiment to go ahead and interprete "the right to bear arms" as liberally as possible and allow anyone who wants to do so to carry a weapon either openly or concealed. Who knows? It might usher in a new age of courtesy!

As for the poll, there wasn't a selection for doesn't own one, doesn't hate them. (Edit: Looks like the poll has been modified to just show numbers. Never mind.)

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Lincsong]

Reminds me of the episode of All in the Family where Archie goes on television to give his editorial against gun control.

'I know how to stop all these hijackings. Arm all your passenger.' lol

But, it's a true statement. That's why I wear cowboy boots when I fly and try to sit on an aisle seat. At least I'll have a good chance to defend myself. Now let's not get too political here.fftopic: The topic was simple; "Do you own a handgun?" a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Lincsong]

So if it's okay to take something deadly and make it recreational, why isn't heroin legal?

All right, I'm not being sarky here. Just interested in logic traps.

Simple, I can drive around all day in my F-150 with my .357 sitting loaded next to me and not kill anyone nor do any damage to myself, my truck or others. The same can't be said about some junkie shooting filth into his veins all day.

 

[Senator Jack]

Ah, but let's just say I want to possess 500 kilos of heroin because I simply want to admire it. I adore it's powdery beauty - even think it art in a way. i don't want to shoot it or sell it. I just want to collect it. I'm unsure if that would hold water with the police.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

As for the poll, there wasn't a selection for doesn't own one, doesn't hate them. (Edit: Looks like the poll has been modified to just show numbers. Never mind.)

Cheers,
Tom

Yes, hindsight is golden. In retrospect I should have added a few more options, but it was late,...and my curiosity gets the best of me. It's a cat thing.
But the results so far seem to indicate that about 3/4s of us do in fact own a gun as it is our right to do so. That was the gist of my question.

 

[John in Covina]

So if it's okay to take something deadly and make it recreational, why isn't heroin legal?

All right, I'm not being sarky here. Just interested in logic traps.

**********
Heroin was legal, but as an addictive drug became a controlled substance after it was demonstrated to be more of a detriment to the user than other pain killers.