Bonanza wrote: ↑March 9, 2018, 11:16 am
Tamada,
I have admitted that I don't 'NEED a gun, but you still haven't told me why I SHOULDN'T have one if I want.
Hey Bonanza,
I still can't get my head around people wanting something that they don't really need. Maybe that's why most double-car garages attached to most family homes in the US are full and the cars stay out on the driveway, because the garage is full of stuff that they bought but didn't really need?
Anyway, if you want one, you can have one and I am not about taking that away. It's those that have them just because the ink stains that have dried upon some line says they can... but they don't hunt, don't shoot varmints and don't live in the 'hood....or near a school.
I hope that you are not implying that because someone likes guns he is likely to want to shoot someone?
Actually, that thought had never, ever crossed my mind. It is funny that you brought it up though. But I can see your reasoning there; I mean if you have one, and a situation develops, why not use it? It would be silly to fork out 500 bucks on a Glock and get a concealed carry and then be too sh!t scared to use it when things went pear-shaped. Might as well leave it in the garage with the other junk.
If NEED becomes a criteria for possession of something then it would be a poor world, and not everyone's definition of NEED is the same. (eg. he Taliban don't see the NEED for women to go to school, so they ban it).
The point of reference always has to be something extreme and far away and EASY like the Taliban... despite there not being much evidence of them massing on the US mainland yet. Why don't we try for some parallels (a lot) nearer home like Canada and Mexico? I mean what do they ban that Americans don't? Not a trick question; just a case of know your neighbors, no?
I don't see the NEED for anyone to have a horse - but I don't try to ban horses.
That's a variation on the old NLA chestnut that cars kill people, ban cars 'argument'. 3 out of 10, must try harder.
On average 300 people in the UK die each year in water sport accidents - should we ban swimming/canoeing/sailing because people don't NEED to engage in those activities?
Steady on there, you are denigrating the nation that has the single greatest navy and marine history EVER. Just because some have accidents or can't swim well is no need to be serving it up as (yet another) deflection.
Yes, your navy is bigger and better than any in the known universe right now but I am talking about HISTORY and one-time global hegemony. Right now, you chaps are still in high school... and that's a very dangerous place to be!
There are always plenty of people ready to ban what they don't understand, and plenty ready to define what other people NEED.
But it's not about banning all responsible gun ownership is it? It's about making sure that mil-spec weaponry isn't available to anyone who aint in the armed forces, national guard, police or militia, be they reasonable sorts like yourself and Lonely Star or raving loonies like the kids with knives in London running around stabbing hundreds of innocent people every day. Beat you to that one!
Strangely, most of those people I have met who wish to ban guns are also against the death penalty!
[
Redacted to remove racist comments.]
"Ninety-five percent of all known executions were carried out in only six countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Pakistan and Iraq."
Interesting fellow club members there, eh?
