Posted on 12/31/2012 5:26:33 PM PST by sagar
Happy new year! And my rant follows:
Guns will never be "safe", neither are they designed to be. They are designed to kill, safety switch notwithstanding. My right to own gun is so that I can kill those who dare to take away my rights. That kind of power gives me, a mere individual, the power to defend myself and those dear to me. The "bigger" the gun, the bigger protection I have against those who wish ill on me.
This might be controversial, but...
A fully automatic weapon gives me a chance against a dozen of those who wish to take my rights away.
A handful of grenades give me a chance against multiple hordes of those who wish to take my rights away. A grenade launcher gives me a chance against multiple of those groups that are far away.
A turret will give me a fighting chance against a small army of ill doers.
I just cannot think of how guns or other infantry weapons are bad. Those misusing the guns are bad, so why not tackle the source?
1. Lock up the violently mentally ill. These people need to be quarantined from society. This include those who could "snap" at any moment. They usually have long history, so nobody is asking for a witch hunt.
2. Do not parole those who have already murdered. They have demonstrated what they are capable of. Let them rot.
3. Implement a very strong psychological evaluation of children who are transforming into future murderers. The little monsters grow up to be murderers. Stop the growth. May be even correct them, if possible. True "correctional institutes" are required here.
4. Get rid of current "correctional institutes" and introduce life-time hard labor for all violent criminals. Let companies use the labor, so no need to outsource low-skilled manufacturing to communist china.
Perfect. Thank you.
“Guns are designed to kill.”
NO. HELL NO.
Please stop and examine your statement, repeated conveniently because it sounded good when you heard it.
Some guns are designed to fire a small, slow bullet toward a target. The small bullets would be inefficient at killing. They are slow, small, and without an expanding hollow point. They are NOT designed to kill, but to deliver an accurate bullet to a target.
I have had it with this ignorant and emotional parroting of anti-gun speech by fearful ninnies who will not or cannot engage the logic portion of their brains.
Is that clear???
Happy New Year to All
I have used firearms both recreationally and professionally most of my life. While I have never been to a Front Sight course, my son and daughter in law have and I recommend their programs highly. I believe in frequent and continuous training and practice.
Your problem may be a simple misunderstanding of my words. Of course, the operator is ultimately responsible, but a well designed firearm includes safety features to reduce the liklihood of accidental discharges when properly operated in a reasonable fashion. Design does count. I offer an example: the M-79. It was a fine weapon that made a big difference for American infantrymen, but it was an inherently unsafe design. The safety was inadequate and prone to being disengaged unintentionally. The field expedient solution of leaving the breech open was just as inadequate.
The author of the original rant is off on a wrong tack on safety IMO. Your advice is sound and I have been following it for years. Happy New Year to you as well.
***Guns are designed to kill.****
Sam Colt said in his patents that it was “A machine for throwing balls”.
I take two shoelaces and tie one end of each to a leather pouch. I now have a machine for throwing rocks, or a sling.
If some damn fool stands in front of where the rock lands I guess it could be said it is a weapon designed to kill.
***why the gun is civilization.***
We have digressed a long way from 150 years ago when gun manufactures were featured and won awards at major industrial exhibitions across Europe and America.
Automobile deaths are a direct result of automobile design. They are not “accidental” deaths, but the result of auto design features. An automobile that was designed not to kill would look and drive quite differently.
“They are designed to kill...”
Not necessarily. A skeet gun is not designed to kill, although it can. A target rifle or pistol is not designed to kill, although it can.
The philosophy behind the design of some military rifles and their cartridges was that they should wound rather than kill because killing an opponent took just one out of combat while wounding him took three or more out due to the number of people required to care for the wounded one.
My personal defense weapons are designed for defense. They can kill, but that is incidental to the defense effort. Here in Ohio (last I heard) we aren’t even allowed to shoot to kill. We’re only allowed to shoot to stop. Any “killing” is a side effect of the “stopping”.
That guns are only for killing is gun control propaganda that too many of us fall for.
Well said!
I sign on as a cosponsor to your remarks. Thanks.
Post 11 gives proper attribution...but my ISP failed.
I’m thinking if they kill their Grandmother with a hammer and they are not executed they need to be locked up until they die.
Of course, you goof!
I’m imagining a new law. Someone from the gov, of course, will make us take some stupid test prior to being able to purchase a gun.
And, regarding the dead Grandmother...the kid should be put to death for murder! El Pronto.
Used to have a County 'Workhouse' where I live. It was for men sentenced for a year or less.
It both kept them out of the State Penitentiary (hard time) and gave them a chance to learn a trade (as well as sober up --- many were stone alcoholics) and turn their lives around.
They had an auto body shop there where they fixed county cars. They had a wood working shop where they built furniture for county offices. They had a shop where they made signs for the county parks etc. and even had a farm where they raised their own food and enough left over to feed the county hospitals.
Some stupid idiot could go into that place after getting caught steeling a car or whatever and could learn how to fix them instead and make a living by doing so. The idea was to give them an alternative to what they were doing. It didn't work all the time, but it worked a lot.
Nothing like that left now.
I read a report on it once and they had a document from the guy who was the head of it back 100 years ago when they had the inmates making brooms complaining that the politicians were all over him for 'competing' with private broom makers.
In today's world, that can't happen. Today, high paid unionized government employees fix the county cars and make the county signs. The food and furniture all go to 'the lowest bidder" -- who happens to be connected politically. Maybe next, we'll have $100k a year SEIU broom makers on the government payroll. ;~((
Go to jail now, and all you get is free HBO and lots of free lessons on how to be a better criminal.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I think our divergence is that I believe all modern firearms will not fire if there is no finger on the trigger.
This is where the responsibility lies with the operator as proper finger discipline (off the trigger until pointed in and the decision to shoot is made) makes the idea of an external or internal safety that can keep you safe is a concept that will lead to failure.
No mechanical safety can be designed to account for failure to properly exercise the safety rules using the grey matter between your ears and a straight finger.
I was not considering older weapons that had inherent design flaws but would not likely be encountered by the casual public. Another one would be the revolver with no front on the trigger guard.
I guess my impulse to further press this is not you, now that I know your training, but any others who are interested but are not yet trained that might read our comments.
For them to leave our discussion thinking a mechanical device will make them safe is to set them up for a bad situation.
Hammers, Baseball Bats, Knives, Rocks.
TT
Nope.
Guns are perfectly safe. I have a few and not one has ever gone off by itself. Even the ones I keep loaded.
PEOPLE are not safe. That, of course, is why we need guns.
My guns are not designed to kill. They are designed to be used as a tool to keep others from killing me. They are designed to protect my family and my treasure.
They are designed to prevent others from taking my freedom. They are designed to help me stop my country from being turned into a third world dictatorship.
My guns have served most of these purposes and are ready to serve the rest and yet have killed no one.
It is a perspective thing. The difference between being a free man and a slave.
Slaves don't have guns.
This might be controversial, but...
Not to be controversial, but..... . that shouldn’t be. If you take my meaning correctly. In resistance to tyranny, there should no restrictions on what we can bear.
Spot on!
Well, not always, and not in every case. When it comes to handling multiple perpetrators, in the first case, you'd better be thinking "posse" than throwing artillery rounds and nuclear weapons around.
Let's stay within the toils of reality, shall we? For reference and some perspective on that point, metasearch up "Ferfal" and "Argentina", and read his blog articles about security and the experience of urban Argentines during the economic collapse of the country from about 2001 until "about" 2008, which is (I am guessing) about the time Ferfal left for the relative peace and safety of Belfast, Northern Ireland (no, really!). He had, after all, a family to protect, and Argentina was becoming a kind of New Wild West under the misrule of the left-wing Kirchner dictatorship, husband and wife. (Sound like anyone we know?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.