Replies to post #3932 on The Free Zone Board

[was Graywolf]

Meme - Gun control

I don't think they're so different as to justify the claim of inconvience.

Maybe it's easier where you live, but here in NJ, I've never been fingerprinted or had to either ask for permission or to wait six months to recieve that permission to buy a car. Yes, they ARE radically different.

The only difference that I see is that the sole intent of gun ownership is to shoot something or someone. While a car can injure or kill, the primary intent is transportation.

A gun is purchased most of the time for purposes of sport of for home defense - not for the purpose of killing someone.

SO people need to own guns to be self-reliant or to protect their families? I see, then you must think that by not owning a gun I'm not only dependent, but putting my family in jeopardy.

There is more to it than that, safety and use training should also be encouraged, but yes, in this day of increasingly bold and violent two legged preditors, I believe a family is safer if a properly cared for and responsibly utilized firearm is in the home. Moreover, I'd make the argument, that although I don't believe gun ownership should be mandatory (it is not for everyone), you - in your home with no gun - are safer because of the gun in mine. Not because I'd come over and protect you (although if I were your neighbor, I'd be willing to, but rather because the preditors don't know which homes on each street have guns and which do not, making us all a little safer.

[QuasimodoJones]

Meme, re: gun control

The only difference that I see is that the sole intent of gun ownership is to shoot something or someone. While a car can injure or kill, the primary intent is transportation.

A gun does not and cannot possess "intent"; only the person holding it can. The car does not and cannot posses "intent" either, only the driver can. For instance, you can use a car to commit vehicular homicide. However, that it NOT what its essential legal reason for being is. A gun's essential legal reason for being is self-defense. Like any object, it can be misused.

The issue comes down to: keeping the irresponsible drunks and idiots off the streets, and keeping the irresponsible and criminal types away from guns, while making them available to law-abiding citizens for their self-defense.

SO people need to own guns to be self-reliant or to protect their families? I see, then you must think that by not owning a gun I'm not only dependent, but putting my family in jeopardy.

Sad to say it, but yes, I do. By not owning a gun, you are necessarily dependent on the police for your immediate personal protection in time of assault. And, were you aware that the police ARE NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for your protection? It's true, believe it or not. As someone else has already pointed out, by not having a reliable firearm nearby in case of attack, your family is in greater jeopardy than it would be with one on the premises.

I guess it would take having someone try to kick your front door down to get at you and kill you (as has happened to me) to bring the reality of your situation "home".