Reply to Re: My opinion on the school shootings in the US
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
A tank is a vehicle, and as such a person could have it. If they started to buy tank ammunition, then they'd get in trouble.
I personally don't see the point in buying and owning a tank, unless you own a military museum.
Tanks are the kinds of weapons that shouldn't be built in the first place. Let alone allow people to own them under any circumstance.
We need a gun for: A) Hunting, when my dad actually follows that dream to fruition. We like to eat free range and organic and like to be self-sufficient. Hunting is an extension of that. I could learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow, but that requires more strength and great accuracy. If I miss the right spot, the animal suffers and might run away to die elsewhere. I lose not only an arrow, but a meal. If I have a gun and I'm well versed in gun safety and how to aim and use it, then I can kill the animal and lessen its suffering.
You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.
B) Because if nobody owned a gun, then criminals who use guns would obtain them illegally.
Yes, but they'd be likely caught before they get their hands on guns. They'd also be stopped if they were spotted with a gun. Plus, they'd have to be extremely determined if they wanted to get one. And a small crime such as robbing the local market or breaking into someone's house isn't gonna have them determined enough to actually go through the trouble.
C) And this is my only conjecture, but C), it is my constitutional right to own a firearm. While I'm not actively seeking out a bunch of guns to buy and hang on my wall, I want to own a gun for hunting and protection from whatever dangers there are out there. The hunting gun would be used only for hunting, the protection gun would only be used as a deterrent unless I was in absolute danger. (Example, if a rabid animal is attacking me, I can use the gun to end its suffering and to protect myself. If a non-rabid animal is attacking me, the sound of the gun firing could scare it off, and if that doesn't work, killing it to protect myself and any others.)
The problem is, you don't want to own a gun for those reasons. You want to own a gun because it's "cool". Whether you admit it or not, I'm not concerned with. It's the truth.
That is exactly my point. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it.
But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.
Man, you sure are an absolute person, aren't you? "If people can't have guns, they shouldn't have fists either cause those can kill too". Gimme a break! Don't be ridiculous. You gotta draw the line somewhere. You gotta look if the object is actually more practical than it is harmful. And that is not the case with guns. The practicality of guns and the American gun law is not worth the harm they cause.
I personally don't see the point in buying and owning a tank, unless you own a military museum.
Tanks are the kinds of weapons that shouldn't be built in the first place. Let alone allow people to own them under any circumstance.
We need a gun for: A) Hunting, when my dad actually follows that dream to fruition. We like to eat free range and organic and like to be self-sufficient. Hunting is an extension of that. I could learn how to hunt with a bow and arrow, but that requires more strength and great accuracy. If I miss the right spot, the animal suffers and might run away to die elsewhere. I lose not only an arrow, but a meal. If I have a gun and I'm well versed in gun safety and how to aim and use it, then I can kill the animal and lessen its suffering.
You should have to get a hunter's permission or something, get the guns from the police and then when you're finished with the hunting, return the guns back. And yes, I do agree that the police should have guns. Now if we would just get decent cops, but that's another debate altogether.
B) Because if nobody owned a gun, then criminals who use guns would obtain them illegally.
Yes, but they'd be likely caught before they get their hands on guns. They'd also be stopped if they were spotted with a gun. Plus, they'd have to be extremely determined if they wanted to get one. And a small crime such as robbing the local market or breaking into someone's house isn't gonna have them determined enough to actually go through the trouble.
C) And this is my only conjecture, but C), it is my constitutional right to own a firearm. While I'm not actively seeking out a bunch of guns to buy and hang on my wall, I want to own a gun for hunting and protection from whatever dangers there are out there. The hunting gun would be used only for hunting, the protection gun would only be used as a deterrent unless I was in absolute danger. (Example, if a rabid animal is attacking me, I can use the gun to end its suffering and to protect myself. If a non-rabid animal is attacking me, the sound of the gun firing could scare it off, and if that doesn't work, killing it to protect myself and any others.)
The problem is, you don't want to own a gun for those reasons. You want to own a gun because it's "cool". Whether you admit it or not, I'm not concerned with. It's the truth.
That is exactly my point. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it.
But hands, like any other object that can kill, is a tool, and inherently not able to kill on their own. It is the force behind them, the person who owns those hands, that can kill.
Man, you sure are an absolute person, aren't you? "If people can't have guns, they shouldn't have fists either cause those can kill too". Gimme a break! Don't be ridiculous. You gotta draw the line somewhere. You gotta look if the object is actually more practical than it is harmful. And that is not the case with guns. The practicality of guns and the American gun law is not worth the harm they cause.
