Seriously, why are Libs against guns and their owners?

[KJ10]

I read your entire post there Bud. And my only real thought was, "sweet, he made his own silencer". I like that. Remember tho you and I live the most dangerous states for gun related deaths or whatever..."thumbsup"


I don't care what liberals think about my scary guns. Just Like I don't want to sit down and watch "The View" with them. And kiss a picture of Hillary each night before bed. You know?

I work for a company that manufactures silencers. I've probably made over a hundred of them. Some of the current design is my own, though.

I don't feel like I'm in danger but, maybe because I train often and carry daily.

The only reason I care what they think is, I want to know how to combat their arguments. That's difficult because you can't argue with facts and effectively change emotions. It seems like almost all of the lib/prog arguments for "gun control" are based on fear.

 

[RANOVRU]

Yeah, ok. :ror:

When have you ever seen a firearm used for anything other than what it was intended for? Paperweights and doorstops not withstanding...

Ummm....sport shooting? Or is shooting at other inanimate objects (targets) still considered "killing and maiming"?


I also personally don't consider hunting "killing and maiming" in the sense you are referring. I call it grocery shopping.


When you say the intended purpose is "killing and maiming", the overwhelming immediate thought for "programmed society" is mass shootings or violence towards humans. That is the "misinformation" bit I was referring to.


If you research the history of firearms objectively through reliable resources you'll find that the original "intent" of the gun is somewhat blurry. It is much like the knife, which you implied above was not intended to do harm towards others. The first "knives" known actually predate human fossils, we're talking 3+ million years ago. Who knows what they were being used for, but I feel pretty confident it wasn't to primarily just chop greens in the kitchen.



And that comes back to "it matters not the intended use of the tool". Tools don't have intent, people do. Many tools can be used for purposes that they were not "intended" to be. The end user of said tool is responsible for its use 110% of the time, regardless of what the tool was designed to do.

 

[dezfan]

Nope - 0 debt after College. I'm tight as in I don't like to spend money, comes with my line of business. :ror:

You're going to play hell being a gun owner then. :ror:

Guns are like boats, but way more fun and useful.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Ummm....sport shooting? Or is shooting at other inanimate objects (targets) still considered "killing and maiming"?

You're still doing damage to whatever happens to be in front of the business end. Obviously you can't kill a paper target, or any other inanimate thing you're aiming at.

I know, context matters, but still, locked, loaded, aimed, and fired, the results are going to be more or less the same. You going to do damage to something. Firearms have purely destructive properties, as is by design.

I also personally don't consider hunting "killing and maiming" in the sense you are referring. I call it grocery shopping.

So if you didn't kill the animal, how did you get your "groceries"? Did you wave your gun around at it menacingly until it willingly gave up some meat?

If you research the history of firearms objectively through reliable resources you'll find that the original "intent" of the gun is somewhat blurry. It is much like the knife, which you implied above was not intended to do harm towards others. The first "knives" known actually predate human fossils, we're talking 3+ million years ago. Who knows what they were being used for, but I feel pretty confident it wasn't to primarily just chop greens in the kitchen.

It's not blurry at all. It was an instrument of war. The Chinese figured out gunpowder, and that they could do more than start fires with it. It's a well known turning point in warfare that rendered the then modern armor obsolete. Terracotta and leather didn't stand a chance against ballistics.

You can do a lot of things with a knife beyond killing and skinning animals (or enemies).

And that comes back to "it matters not the intended use of the tool". Tools don't have intent, people do. Many tools can be used for purposes that they were not "intended" to be. The end user of said tool is responsible for its use 110% of the time, regardless of what the tool was designed to do.

Tools absolutely do have an intended use. You don't buy a screw driver to pound in nails. You don't buy a lawn mower to reroof your house. You don't buy a firearm to stir your spaghetti. Could you do all of those things with all of those tools? Probably, but that isn't what the designers were thinking of when they created them and they won't always be very efficient outside of their intended use.

Tools don't randomly appear without any forethought from their human designers. They have reasons for their existence.

 

[RANOVRU]

Not only did you miss the points I was trying to make you conceded to say that you could probably re-roof a house with a lawnmower.


I don't even know what to say to that....

 

[mikemcE]

Libs can't and won't ever "control guns or their owners" that is the single issue. A liberal is driven by being a great , caring, giver of others wealth. Guns challenge that as liberals have learned they can only stop a bullet once.


Hang up and Drive

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Not only did you miss the points I was trying to make you conceded to say that you could probably re-roof a house with a lawnmower.


I don't even know what to say to that....

Your point was that guns aren't just about killing and maiming. I agree, but as I said, context is important. If you get hung up on me saying kill or main, then you too have missed the point.

The lawnmower bit was a joke. It'd be interesting to see someone try though... :ror:

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Libs can't and won't ever "control guns or their owners" that is the single issue. A liberal is driven by being a great , caring, giver of others wealth. Guns challenge that as liberals have learned they can only stop a bullet once.


Hang up and Drive

Just keep painting with those broad brushes...

 

[NoobCrawler]

The only reason I care what they think is, I want to know how to combat their arguments. That's difficult because you can't argue with facts and effectively change emotions. It seems like almost all of the lib/prog arguments for "gun control" are based on fear.

It's without a doubt a fear by the ignorant. There's a reason we rarely hear a story where a gun was used to save a life or stop a crime. Take that OK dude who killed those three burglars with an AR. No breaking news on that ordeal. But a cop kills someone? Media can't stop talking about it. Mass shooting? Hours on end. People let their emotions rule over facts. I mean, I get it...but it's just stupid to purposely blind yourself to reality.

I'll try to keep this short...I've been having an Instagram discussion on blacks being shot by cops. I basically said that even though I didn't agree with all the recent shootings, in most I could understand why the cop felt it necessary. They argued that unarmed people should never be shot. I brought up Michael Brown and how he was a danger even though he was unarmed. The conversation ended when she brought "hands up don't shoot" into it...