Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

Recommended Videos

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
Von Strimmer said:
But every gun is manufactured to kill something.
Nope. Certain guns are made solely for hitting targets.

Could you tell me what other things you use a gun for apart from killing or self defence?
Target shooting/competitive shooting, reenacting, collecting, restoring (some people just like building/fixing guns), and decoration all come to mind.

Does it not make sense that if the general public didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need a gun?
Nope. Not even if we begin with the incorrect premise that guns exist solely to kill things. For instance, I know someone who keeps a loaded shotgun on her wall at all times, in case a bear ever gets into the house. She's not the least bit concerned with defending herself from other people, it's the local wildlife that she's worried about.

Setting aside bears, though, a gun is also useful in an attack by another human, even if that person is not carrying a gun. Not everyone is strong enough to defend themselves in a fight, so having a gun can be extremely useful, and perhaps even necessary, even if your opponent is using something other than a gun.

Also owning 70 guns is stupid, if that guy gets robbed and his guns get stolen then thats 70 weapons distributed amongst criminals to use, and I dont think they will be using them as a tool.
You assume that the guns are all in working order, that they are all of a type that can be effectively used by criminals (I don't think black powder rifles are high on a criminal's "must get" list), that he stores them in such a way that they could be stolen, AND that he is responsible for taking into account the actions of criminals when deciding what to do with his time and money.

However I will always think guns are a liability to the general public and have no reason to be owned by any member of the public (excluding police and farmers).
Earlier you stated that if the general public don't have guns, then you don't need a gun. Now you say police can have guns. Why would police need guns, if the general public doesn't have them? And if the police might need them, doesn't that mean other people might as well?
 

Cornflower Blue

New member
Mar 10, 2012
1
0
0
farson135 said:
BiscuitTrouser said:
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.
You said gun. Gun is a general term for an entire class of tool. You said gun and left it at that. You are changing the goalposts. Gun is a very general word for an entire class of tools.

BTW here on a topic where we are talking about firearms that may be obvious but if you ever come out to my farm you will have to be a little more specific (a lot of construction is going on out there). BUT you still did not make any distinction. You gave a general term and left it at that. You would not go into my garage and say ?hand me the hammer? because I would look at you like you were an idiot.
Knock it off, it was obvious what he meant by guns. Why is anyone bothering to argue with your sperging?