Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
You'd need to be a wholly different person to understand
Let's talk about guns. . . . . .
- Thread starter injinji
- Start date
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I've lost friends to suicide and all I can say is how I've feel about them checking out early. It hurts. It hurts a lot. I wish they hadn't. I wish they had talked to somebody. If they had given me the chance, I would have been there for them and certainly tried to talk them out of it. Their decision was not about me, though.
It was their choice and I can't say what "valid option" even means. When a person is ready to do it, nothing can stop them. One friend's suicide went horribly wrong and it would have been better if he used a gun.
People own guns to kill other people. There are exceptions (hunting, sport shooting, collecting) but that's what hand guns are designed to do. I prefer that people use their killing machine on themselves instead of others. If they are thinking about suicide and don't want to then they should get that thing the hell away. But most gun owners are also cowards and think the thing will protect them. A lottery ticket is a better bet. So part of this equation is people not understanding risk and being cowards. There is also the faux macho buzz I see in gun owner's eyes when they show their gun off. They own something that is powerful and it makes them feel that way even though it's actually a sign of weakness.
What is not complicated is that the US loses 14,000 people/yr due to gun homicide and from my conversations with gun owners, they don't care. They object to rational gun regulations. Most fail to store those things in a safe manner. Most don't even practice enough with it so they can safely use it. They just want their killing machines. So, to gun owners, I don't care if they use that thing in the more common mode of use, which is suicide. It's a better way than others.
As a side note, I don't own a gun. I don't want to. I don't contemplate suicide. Knowing how people are, I have no doubt that every gun owner has thought about it briefly, if not more seriously. People have dark thoughts. They own a killing machine so of course they think about death when they hold that thing. Other people's, their own, deer, rabbits, heck, a sister in law of mine shot her dishwasher with one.
Last edited:
PadawanWarrior
Well-Known Member
zeddd
Well-Known Member
Try me, I’m good at understanding
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
It would be easier to explain it to you if you'd served in Vietnam
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
I don’t think anyone who wasn’t there could ever hope to understand something like that
. Or what was endured when it was over by those that served there .
Trickyticky
Well-Known Member
Ya cannot of taught ya first wife how to shoot if ya had already met her at the shooting place . She must of been able to aim an shoot already
19-Sean-86
Well-Known Member
Or if your from UK let's talk about knives 
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It isn't rational to have governments "regulate guns", since use of guns by government empowered people (read "government criminals") has resulted in more (FAR FAR more) deaths than use of guns by freelance non government criminals.
You then lay the blame of violent gun use on peaceful gun owners and "reason" (you don't actually reason) that regulating them is some kind of solution to a problem they had no part in creating. It's like making your healthy kids go on a diet because the kids across the street are obese.
You won't address that, nor will you address the circular reasoning you imply when you want guns to be used in a potentially offensive manner by government goons to prevent some people, peaceful gun owners who have guns for defensive purposes, from owning guns.
In other words, you want to use / threaten violence against non violent people in order to prevent violence. Fail.
Last edited:
topcat
Well-Known Member
Renfro
Well-Known Member
She was invited by her boss and my friend. So she didn't have any shooting background at all but she had a great time.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
That’s a fanciful bit but yer off on a few.The second amendment was so the government could draft them and their gun if they had one. If they didn't want to fight for their state or country, they would take their gun and give to someone who would. The second is about collective responsibility, not individual rights, that's just a by product. They were short on cash and guns back then, so it was a way get them to buy the guns the state could use.Socialism!
In the hunting-dependent colonies, firearms were as important as nails, axes, shovels, hammers. At the time, hunting was a major source of food, so many households had at least one. However, a militia is not a draft, and nothing supports the contention that drafting citizens with guns was the plan. Nor does your economic argument.
You are correct, though, about the purpose of the 2nd: it is about collective responsibility, not individual freedoms. The constitution is quite specific that the USA is to have no standing army, no professional military. The founders were committed to a citizen militia instead. A militia, according to the 2nd, must be well-regulated - that is, it must be trained in the use of arms in combat, small-and medium-unit movement and tactics, chain of commands, rules of engagement and so forth. It must be capable of taking the field and providing an adequate defense against whatever danger they face, and it must be capable of working effectively with other militias in the heat of battle. The closest the US has to such a force is the National Guard.
The militias we keep hearing from and about don’t fit the necessary description. They are ad-hoc collections of individuals who imagine themselves in a movie about freedom fighters, who may or may not have any actual military training, and are not part of any co-ordinated effort to provide defensive assistance except on their own whim. These militia actors don’t even know that they’ve been rendered moot by the National Defense Authorisation Act. The NDAA.
The news is full of the NDAA right now, as Congress moves overrule a Trump veto against it...but the NDAA is *WHY* we have a standing army, a permanent military, and not state militias. In Article 8 of the constitution, under powers of government, it says: “
”.
Plain enough, but that has come to mean that every two years, another NDAA come up to be voted on...and the survival of the mighty American war machine hangs in the balance. Without re-authorization, we disarm. We stand down. We demobilize.
In the face of that, I really have to wonder just how necessary that ‘well-regulated’ militia actually *IS* to the security of a free state these days....
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
That old guy in the vest came looked pissed the way he was stomping up to that guy.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Why knives? Let’s talk about how their gun laws work to limit gun crimes while still able to own a firearm.Or if your from UK let's talk about knives
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
I have 6 longbows
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
I have one lol. I’ve had it for 50 years and it was given to me by my uncle. Came in a wooden box with 6 arrows. Really cool bow!!! I shoot a Mathews Conquest, it’s hard to find a compound bow that works for me anymore as I’m a finger shooter. I do have a few Hoyt’s but I use them for carp
.