guns can never be safe. neither can automobiles, motorcycles, or crossing the street. the thing is that are they safer than NOT having guns?
I can’t seem to find a flaw with your reasoning.
I agree with most of your provisions. Number 4 has some problems. I don’t mind enforcing hard labor on inmates. The reality is that that forced labor sometimes takes work away from, undercuts, legitimate private contractors. I was involved in a State Capital renovation that required that a certain percentage of the work had to be completed by the wood shops in the prison. I had to do all the drawings, layout, engineering etc that was then shipped off to the prisons so that their taxpayer funded machines could do the (at that point) easy stuff. Just another tax that goes unrecognized.
I believe that you do not understand the meaning of gun safety. Of course, guns are meant to kill their intended target, but they must be constructed and handled in a way that does not endanger the shooter or those not designated as targets. Gun safety operates on a premise that the operator is a rational human being and can distinguish between targets and innocent bystanders. Lunatics are not a part of the equation and are beyond the reach of good gun design or prudent operating procedures.
All guns should be handled and operated in a safe manner, and a gun owner who doesn’t embrace that notion is a moron.
While I agree the mentally ill NEED to be locked up safely...I am afraid of WHO will determine WHO is mental.
Cuz you all know we’d (FR) be labeled as such.
I’m afraid this is another slippery slope, a foot in the door...it could be the cynic in me, who knows.
Disagree. We do not have a clue how to do this. Most of our psychology bears a closer resemblance to witchcraft than science.
Life isn’t safe, no one gets out alive. Excellent point though. Lots of things in life are not safe, cannot reasonably be made safe. Heck the appeal of some sports is precisely this risk - think rock combing, parachuting, mountain biking, skiing, boarding, etc. Or consider machine shops, various chemical or industrial facilities... They cannot be rendered safe. Risks can be reduced through safe procedures and guidelines, but ultimately if you screw up, mishandle things, people get hurt or die. Same thing with the shooting sports and home defense. When you follow good practices, everyone is safe, except those who need to be threatened...
****A fully automatic weapon gives me a chance against a dozen of those who wish to take my rights away. ****
When “they” come for mine, the homemade concertina wire comes out and I hit them with a homemade flamethrowers. The Krispie Kritters can’t blame that on gun violence! ;-D
“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.
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.
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?)