Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

[Pearwood]

Cutting down a tree

I'm now trying to think of a single situation where I'd consider a handgun a more suitable tool for that job than virtually anything else. Maybe with a machine gun but I doubt you can just walk into a shop and buy one of those.

I'm struggling to see the need to own more than 70 guns as well though, I guess everyone's entitled to their hobbies and I can see why people would want to collect them but they're obviously all functional otherwise there wouldn't have been any need to confiscate them in the first place. There's worrying about security, there's using them for hunting and then there's just turning yourself into Rambo.

About your comment about bows not being considered weapons - it is the same with archery really, fuck about while holding a drawn bow and that's the last time you'll ever set foot in that archery club. You can use them for sport but you've got to remember that you are holding something that's potentially lethal and treat it with respect. And on that note - surely you can understand why somebody who threatens to assassinate a world leader might be considered unsuitable for gun ownership? If the psychs say he's ok then I can't really argue with that but I'm not surprised at all he got them taken away.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Yes they were. I mean do honestly not know of the massive number of uses we have put the bow into? The bow is one of the most ubiquities designs in engineering.

How can you tell a gunsmith that he designs guns to be weapons when he has already told you otherwise?
What about a nail gun? By definition that is a gun. How exactly can you say that is a weapon? What about a flare gun? And on.

A chainsaw is a dangerous tool that must be respected. I would never consider the chainsaw I use for cutting wood as being a perpetual weapon. Why are guns so different?
Actually there are plenty of guns that are not designed to destroy a target. Less than lethal rounds would be rather poorly named if they destroyed the target.

I have seen more people cut themselves with knives than shoot themselves with guns. And I am not talking about little paper cuts here. I have had to drive more than a few people to the hospital because they were not paying attention. I am a certified RSO (Range Safety Officer) and I have NEVER had a person shot on my range. Which if more dangerous? In my mind anything is dangerous when you have idiots at the helm.

Accidental gun deaths are higher than accident knife deaths. Accidents with knives happen. But it is less serious than accidents with guns. And for the love of god stop being purposefullly obtuse.

We are NOT discussing nail guns. Or flare guns. Or non lethal guns. You can own those here in endland. We are discussing guns that shoot lead. At a target. To destroy it. Not glue guns. Not nail guns. Not flare guns. If we are discussing the dangers of mutated anthrax it is NOT relevant or clever to try and equate it to ecoli. They are both bacteria. But we are not talking about harmless ones. This discussion is about guns made to kill things. The guns that are carried to war (or were) and the guns/bows we use for shooting things. To hit them with fast high velocity things. If you wanna discuss flareguns find someone talking about them. Im not. I dont know why you think its a good point to be purposefully unaware of what the other person is talking about. Its just annoying.

To clarify. WE ARE DISCUSSING GUNS MADE TO SHOOT THINGS LIKE THE ONES MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. WITH LEAD. Good. We have that cleared up. All other guns are 100% fine as they WERE made for utility and target shooting (non lethal). This discussion is about the owner ship of this:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/no8comRHS.jpg

I think the entire crux of your arguement is based on this. So there isnt a lot more to address. So lets use another example. If we are talking about the ownership of trained attack dogs and you try and say "puppies arent dangerous" that is meaningless. Perhaps i should be clearer when i say "gun". But i dont think i have to be.

Experiment for you to test if im using "gun" correctly. Run into a bank and scream "I have a gun!". If youre interpretation is normal then the police have as much reason to believe you have this:

Spoiler

Instead of this

This leads me to believe it was blatently obvious i mean "lethal regular guns" over "traning/flare/non lethal guns".

A bow and a gun are perpetually weapons (see: real lethal guns with lead bullets) in the same way that a sword is perpetually a weapon (see: Not a butter knife)

 

[Pearwood]

snip

Well I'm a bit suspicious there isn't more to it than saying how easy it would be especially since there were "allegations of racial slurs". I get that some people like collecting, I was just saying it's a bit excessive. Thing with bows is as a weapon they're inferior, they're harder to use and slower to draw and aim so they're just never used outside of sport.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Number of accidental deaths with guns- 613 in 2007
Number of accidental deaths with knives- 111 in 2007

Neither are particularly relevant in a population of 300 MILLION.

Also guess what, more people cut themselves with knives (and seriously at that) than shoot themselves. Sorry but people do not shoot themselves everyday but many people cut themselves on a fairly regular basis.


You know what is annoying? When a person changes the goalposts halfway through the game. YOU said GUNS. Gun, is a VERY general term that means many many different things. You are ignoring that out of convenience. All the things I mentioned are guns and you made a general statement about guns.

You have to be because they are all guns. You are making a general statement about an entire class of tool. If you were correct then I could say that a ball peen hammer is made for hammering nails while a carpenters hammer is made for metal work. They are all hammers but they are tool for completely different jobs.
Now who is being obtuse. YOU made a general statement about guns. YOU said that ALL guns can do is destroy targets. Back off your statement because you are completely wrong. Gun is a general class of tool and I have proven that.

So a sword sitting in a museum is a weapon at all times. I see that it is useless talking to you. Auf Wiedersehen.

It seemed as if you were purposefully misunderstanding my use of the word gun against yours to make a point. Maybe i wasnt specific enough. But wasnt it rather obvious when i meant gun what kind of gun i meant? Like mainstream guns? I never claimed a nail gun cant be used for nails. Or is as dangerous as a real gun gun. But when i said gun i wasnt refering to it. Its a silly point that comes down entirely to semantics and misinterpreting what i said rather than what i obviously meant.

Hell ill even concede that a gun IS a general kind of tool. And not ALL guns are dangerous. I stand by the idea that my perception of gun is VERY common and thus it was strange for you not to take it as i meant it.

A sword in a museum is a weapon is a museum. It was built to be a weapon its a weapon. The weapon is probably in a weapons museum.

http://www.padutchcountry.com/members/american_military_edged_weaponry_museum.asp

By your definition this museum contains zero weapons. I find that rather amusing. Its a weapon museum. For old weapons.

When does a sword stop being a weapon? When i put it down? Every time it is released? When it is not striking? When it is GOING To be used for striking?

I apologise for being so... agressive in persuing that point. It was out of line. If you dont wish to continue discussion with me thats ok. Id like to though. And im sorry for being so indignant. We both had a different perception of what the word "gun" entailed. Id like to hear your arguements.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

The only sane reason I can think of to own this many weapons is being an antique collector that is wanting to start some sort of museum. As this is not the case, the man is either insane or has and addiction.

 

[Westaway]

As for your comment on how you didn't make the gun to kill people, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure if you're referring again to guns that have been made for something else (target shooting or other) or actual self defense guns. If you are referring to things such as pistols, I'm not sure how you can say that. I wouldn't like to know the gun I made killed someone, but it happens. I'm sure there are countless inventions that were turned into war machines, much to the dismay of their creator.

Look, a hammer can be used to kill people but that is not its intended purpose. This gun (below) is a Walther SSP and it is designed specifically for target shooting. In fact the entire pistol was designed because rule changes to the ISSF made their old model obsolete. No one in their right minds would use this gun for ANYTHING but target shooting-

Spoiler

You said that guns are made for killing people and yes SOME guns are made for killing people but in the past there were hammers made for killing people. There are many different kinds of firearms and all of them have their own specific purposes.

Okay, this is really starting to annoy me.
I understand what you're saying, I just spent a whole paragraph in my last post telling you I am not talking about guns that are NOT made for killing. I KNOW there are guns that made for other purposes besides killing. I am talking about PISTOLS and RIFLES, which are KILLING TOOLS.

 

[Wintermoot]

I get it that some people like guns but 70?! either he,s a rabbid lover of the second amendment or a really avid gun collector (I really hope the second one)

 

[templar1138a]

... No. One. Needs. Seventy. Guns. Period.

 

[BrionJames]

Just because somebody discusses something, it doesn't mean he/she was planning on doing it. I think some of our gun laws are just plain stupid and others need to be implimented. Mental health and common sense analysis tests should be applied in my opinion. I own a handgun and a small shotgun, both are for funsies. As an individual I like to go out and do some target shooting. No air guns and BB guns are not the same as the real thing. I also admire guns of all forms for their workmanship. It's the same as appreciating the craftsmanship of a sword or knife, only considering how many wars were fought with those weapons you'd think people would find them just as detestable as firearms. I find both to have a certain artistic quality to them and appreciate both for their form and function.

 

[orangeban]

Well, I've never been in favour of people owning guns, I think America's gun control laws are ridiculous and dangerous (though I think the damage they have caused has already been done and their repeal won't solve many of their problems). So I don't support the right of this man to own 70 guns within his own home.

However, I don't think he should have had them removed on the basis that he threatened the president, everyone threatens their leader, most of Scotland would have to be arrested for what was said during the Thatcher era I would guess. He should have them removed because he owned 70 guns.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

...Why would you even need that many guns? Either you're a collector of guns... or you have issues.

 

[Easton Dark]

You'd think 3 guns would be enough. You know, one for the morning, mid-day, and before you go to bed. 70 is expensive, and quite possibly dangerous if they are all in working condition.

Just keep ammunition away from him and it's like he owns 70 varying sized clubs, and those are really hard to assassinate people with.

 

[frizzlebyte]

murder closet...really? its bullshit and ignorant statements like that which give gun ownership bad press. a knife is a deadly weapon, but im sure your kitchen is stocked with an ample supply and you dont go calling it the murder drawer...

I will be calling it the murder drawer from now on. Its just too awesome...

But OT, if he's not deemed a threat (and honestly I doubt he really is), then he should be able to get his guns back. If he goes out and does something stupid or starts up with some serious stuff, yank 'em the heck away from him then.