Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

Ah, if that is indeed what he meant, then yes, that clears things up. That kind of moral standpoint, of course can be ethically justifiable.

To confirm, was that what you meant? If not, please elaborate upon this.

 

What about those of us who have guns for both?

 

Well what of them? I didn't make comment about it, just saying that there's a difference. Tell me what answer you want me give you on this.

 

So, I have a split personality?

You said there was a "world of difference" in the 2 types of people,"those who own guns for hunting, those who own guns for protection" I was pointing out some of us own guns for both reasons.

 

I didn't mean the person holding the gun, but the intention for the gun itself. There is a difference between the intention for a "hunting" gun and a "self-defense" gun, and most probably a difference in thought process upon using either gun.

 

Basically, I don't hunt, wouldn't hunt, I support people's right to hunt, though I think unless they eat what they kill they're idiots.

 

Though process depending on the situation obviously, an animal you have time, you need skill, you must surprise it, and you are the top of the food chain, it's all a game anyways. Self defense you normally need to make a split second decision

The gun itself wouldn't really make any difference except on you're holding it

 

I agree with you on this. To kill an animal in the name of sport and not even give the respect of the animal to actually eat is is abhorrent to me. It's just cruelty and selfishness.

 

Shooting as a sport is awesome though with targets

 

I've never tried it to be honest with you, I've never had the opportunity to. But I'd only ever do something like Clay Pigeon shooting where you shoot at a moulded piece of clay, I could never bring myself to shoot a living thing.
Thinking about it I've always wanted to try archery too.

 

Honeyfugle

Regarding hunting.

Gun sellers and promoters often do this.

There is still a large number of hunters in the US (although the numbers are declining ‘dramatically’ according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service down 1.5 million between 1996 - 2006).

So in gun issue arguments pro-gunners try to recruit them to there side again using scare tactics (seemingly there preferred method) by trying to claim that any gun control however mild is about taking away all guns (including those for hunting). In the same way they claim that measures aimed at tackle urban gun crime is really an attack on all gun owners.

It is clever but completely disingenuous, a misdirection.

The thing is that hunting with shotguns and rifles still goes on even in the UK (often cited as a complete ban, with some 1.3 million legally held shotguns in 2000).

The thing is that many like me have nothing against law abiding citizens owning a gun.

What I would say is that pro-gunners only seem to bring up hunting when they are seeking extra support virtually all other times it is ignored in favour of fear mongering about government repression and more often crime.

*

 

I first wrote that over three years ago (although the idea came a lot earlier) and it still seems to stand - none of the pro-gunners have refuted it and most just ignore it.

Time and again in this and every other thread on the issue I see the same self centred blindness, me, me, me, my rights, my gun, on my own, and seemingly to hell with the community they live in. And if through apathy or even the blocking of measures that might help, their society does not improve or even gets worse they don’t seem to care but instead just use the very problems they are contributing to, to try and sell more guns.

 

LOLZ, my brain just exploded

 

You are a fool.


The best thing to be while amongst sheep, is to be a wolf in sheeps clothing.


This is Grade 1 Education, otherwise known as common sence.

 

First - Just because someone has differing views to your own does not mean they’re a fool, it’s just that you think they hold foolish views. They is a difference one can get someone banned the other can bring about an interesting discussion.

*

Second - people are not sheep or wolves they’re human beings and I myself like the company of other humans (although if you are a lonely welsh hill farmer sheep might become attractive).

But groups can hold in common prejudicial or incorrect views and it interesting that these are often referred to a being ‘common sense’ which just means what is commonly thought to be true. Therefore a person saying this is saying they are going along with the group think, strangely enough many call people ‘sheep’ because they claim they don’t question the group think but go along with it.

*

Third – your statements seems to imply that you think that it is just ‘common sense’ to be the most aggressive and violent person in any group (a wolf among sheep). And that you also thing that everyone else is potential wanting to attack you (although they look like a sheep they could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing).

This seemingly fretful stance is part of the mentality that I’ve often commented in connection with pro-gunners.

 

ONLY if your views are different than Balbus's, otherwise it is fine to call us "morons,idiots, feeble, weak minded".Plus it helps if you're not American, too.

 

Yes Cad, of course Cad, whatever you say Cad…now do you have any legitimate and relevant comment on the gun issue.

 

Balbus in what cases do you support gun ownership?

 

If people are law abiding.