Thread: Gun Regulation.
View Single Post
Old 08-17-2007, 12:57 PM   #42 (permalink)
nuttyjoe
Council Member
 
nuttyjoe's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,403
Points: 7,384, Level: 57
Points: 7,384, Level: 57 Points: 7,384, Level: 57 Points: 7,384, Level: 57
Level up: 17%, 166 Points needed
Level up: 17% Level up: 17% Level up: 17%
Activity: 16%
Activity: 16% Activity: 16% Activity: 16%
nuttyjoe is online now
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57 View Post
hk,

Much of what you say is true. But if differs from area to area. In my part of the world, guns still very much ARE a a basic tool. We use them to hunt for food. And some people, such as range riders who work alone in remote areas, really do need them for protection against such beasts as grizzly bears.

And carefull with the "designed to kill" argument. A firearm is desinged to launch a projectile at a high velocity and relative accuracy into a target.
Saying all guns are designed for combat (to kill people) is like saying there's no difference between a broadsword and a steak knife. Yes, you CAN kill somebody with a steak knife.. just like you CAN kill somebody with a hunting rifle.
But a hunting rifle ain't a selective-fire infrantry weapon. There IS a difference.

Design has nothing to do with it. It's the intent of the person behind the weapon.

And yes, we have a proffessional police force. And yes, that's really nice. But even the best police force in the world has a response time. And in many cases (such as a 95-pound woman being attacked by a 350-pound would be rapist/murderer) it's all gonna be over long before the police get there.
I'd rather that 95-pound woman at least have the choice to be packing a .357 -- provided she has the proper training.
Again, I will agree. I like your addition at the end of the proper training. That has always been one of my caveats of any firearm legislation.