M-E-D The Poet said:
1. In as much as wooden swords are the equivalent of that and we don't allow people running around with katanas and zweihanders in the public space yes.
Most places allow the transport of such weapons under the same or similar restrictions as the transport of firearms. For example, to use your exact analogy, here in Texas it is perfectly legal thanks to my concealed carry license to own and carry my Glock 30 in most public spaces unless
explicitly banned (I cannot carry on the University of Texas Campus for example). I can also carry a short knife easily capable of delivering a fatal wound. By contrast, I cannot openly carry my Mossburg 500 nor can I openly carry the Rapier I won in a fencing tournament.
M-E-D The Poet said:
7. How about storing your gun in a gunsafe in the town where you go to hunt? I mean sure it will be a menial task but no much more than going into a store to buy drinks whilst you're out there.
What does that actually resolve? The population you're targeting tends to be safer with weapons than most and neither they nor their firearms tend to be involved in violent crime.
M-E-D The Poet said:
1 that does not mean guns were designed to kill/harm and denying that will not make it go away
The fundamental mechanical concept of the firearm is not restricted simply to the purpose of killing or harming living things. Even when that concept is put to the specific task of being used in a firearm, there are plenty of
common uses that do not involve using that weapon to harm or injure.
M-E-D The Poet said:
3 Or a non-american having talked to thousands of non-Americans in his life all of the same belief?
That's why the word general consensus is there.
A claim of general consensus without any actual evidence of the existence of such a consensus is hardly a compelling argument. Most of the arguments used to assert guns are tools of evil are based upon base ignorance or nothing more than emotional appeals - a tactic unlikely to sway the opinion of someone opposed.
M-E-D The Poet said:
4 Arming your entire population is what lead to this in the first place, now before you turn ace attorney on me and scream OBJECTION! I will have to point you to Europe where gun-crime is down and there is no real cry for the government to fully legalize gun ownership (whilst they do try to get marijuana legalized).
There are nations that are
more heavily armed that simultaneously have
fewer legal standards to uphold when it comes to the use of deadly force that somehow manage to achieve a lower murder rate in general. Yemen, for example is both more heavily armed and lacking any notable official restriction against the use of a firearm and yet their murder rate is lower.
The problem then is that blaming guns, while certainly a factor that helps make murder
easier seems to fail to explain the abnormally high incidence rate in the US.
M-E-D The Poet said:
But until a proper study is done the comparison to the rest of the comparable western world will have to do and that comparison says "No sir taking guns away from the common folk will not mean that gun crime will be heavier than it already was"
That study isn't actually possible in the large scale necessary to demonstrate anything conclusively. Various examples from around the world have demonstrated that, in general, crime tends to rise when firearms are outlawed, but that is hardly a compelling argument. In order to actually do the study it is necessary to test the theory and in this case would require disarming a significant portion of the population and "waiting to see" what happens.
The conditions required for the test would be more impossible to meet than simply disarming
everyone in the first place which is, itself, a daunting task.
M-E-D The Poet said:
Would you rather pit your father or grandfather against a vicious assailant equally wielding a gun with a weapon that takes precision and facing struggle in being disarmed or would you prefer him to hold if he can a shotgun that will probably scare the assailant off anyway?
I'd prefer them to exercise what judgement they can muster in that situation. Asking me to theorize is all but impossible given I know
nothing of the situation.
M-E-D The Poet said:
7 so you think the guy in flat B on the 6th floor in New York City(I'm not familiar with individual state laws on gun-ownership but I have to find something to compare it to) has all the same reason for having a rifle in his flat as the guys who live in whatever mountain/forest surrounded town you can think off ?
If that man is able to use that weapon responsibly, then yes. He doesn't need a
reason to own a rifle any more than you need a
reason to own a keyboard. Hell, in asking the man in New York to use it responsibly, I'm asking infinitely more than I'd ever ask of you as condition to use a keyboard.
jovack22 said:
Here lies the problem. You're treating this weapon as something of beauty. The "right to bear arms" is so deeply rooted in your mind for some reason that you will never see any other point of view.
I know you aren't directing that at me, but I'll respond anyhow. The reason I (and likely others) take issue is that there has not been any compelling argument as to why my right ought to be suddenly rescinded. Because I
might commit a crime? Because, through negligence, someone
might get hurt or killed with one of my weapons? Out of the number of legal firearms owned, the incidence rate of bad things happening is
tiny and if you're worrying about the potential for tragedy, why start with guns when there are a dozen other things more likely to result in hearbreak?
That's the problem.
jovack22 said:
Now, of course the argument can be made that responsible people will make sure nothing bad ever happens. However you're ignoring that fact that this still leaves open a liability... a small chance, but in a country of 300mil, even a small percentage is too much.
Your argument is predicated upon the notion that it is possible to
eliminate risk. Even starting with firearms, even with the best possible effort, it isn't possible to
eliminate the risk. It isn't even possible to greatly
mitigate that risk anytime soon.
jovack22 said:
Why do you need this gun? I suppose art, nature, science, literature just have anything to keep you occupied with your time?
I own four guns. I shall list for you the reasons why I purchased them:
Glock 30 (.45 ACP) - Purchased as a concealed carry weapon. Also used recreationally, largely to ensure I maintain proficiency.
Bursa Thunder (.380 auto) - Purchased as a concealed carry weapon for situations where my significantly bulker glock is hard to conceal.
Sig Sauer SP 2022 (9mm) - Purchased because 9mm is far cheaper than either .380 auto. It is almost exclusively a recreational device.
Mossburg 500 (12 Guage) - Purchased as a home defense weapon. It is both more powerful and more intimidating and the abundance of types of frangible ammunition (ammunition designed to fragment, which unfortunately reduces stopping power but also dramatically reduces the chances of penetrating a wall or a person).
jovack22 said:
Let me add... it's true not all places are lucky enough to have low crime. I don't think there's anything wrong with being allowed to keep some sort of firearm for self-defence. But no one needs military grade weapons to defend themselves.
What do you define as military grade? To put another way, my Sig Sauer SP 2022 is essentially a polymer framed version of the P226 - a widely used military sidearm. In terms of performance it is equivalent to the widely issued Beretta M92 (The current side arm for most of the US Military) and it is currently the standard issue weapon for French police. My Mossburg 500 is equivalent in performance to any of a number of models of Remington 870 shotguns and either see wide use in law enforcement. My glock widely used by professional security organizations and other models of glock are widely used by militaries across Europe.
jovack22 said:
If you need an M4 carbine, you have bigger problems.
People often point to the M4 and other AR derived weapons but what about weapons like the Mini-14? It fires the
same round, is also capable of delivering accurate fire out to several hundred meters and yet this weapon is almost never mentioned as a thing that ought be banned.
