Guns are for killing

Published on May 19, 2005 By Phoenixboi In Blogging

In one of my recent articles about prized possessions there are a few comments about people owning guns and how it is their prized posession.

In Australia, we have strict gun ownership laws. The average person doesnt own a gun here.

I mean why else would you own a gun unless you were going to kill something or someone?

Sure I can see people saying that it their right to own a gun, be it for collectors items or for personal protection, but surely the only reason you would own a gun is so that you could shoot it and kill.

Im glad we have the gun laws we have here. Im glad our government has taken a stand. There are too many crazy people out there and i wouldnt want them having a gun. it would be too easy to use and our crime rate would be much higher.

Sure there are sensible people out there who own guns. But it doesnt make sense to me that most keep their guns locked away hidden, with the amunition stored in a seperate place if they want to use it for self protection then it would take a bit of time to crank it all up to use. Does it make them feel more secure owning a gun? I would be more worried that there was one in the house let alone someone coming to shoot me.

But you know Im glad that in our society here in Australia this is a very rare occurence. The average joe doesnt have a gun and therefore is less likely to go out and use one.

Heck I havent even seen a gun up close let alone fired one.

I feel safe. I have no thoughts to use or own one.

Comments (Page 2)

drmiler

on May 20, 2005

Austrailias crime rate is "higher" now than it ever was before they took away the guns.

Is it to do with the guns though?

Yes, because the people's right to self-protection has been taken away.

Phoenixboi

on May 20, 2005

it's a different type of crime.

Yeah same here..

But please tell me how that is justification for a ban?

Where have I said that we should ban guns? All I have said is I dont see the point in owning one unless your going to kill something or shoot something.

I dont see any other practical uses for a gun.

Its like why have bombs unless your going to blow something up? I know in the reality of things there are wars and shit, but there are no other practical reasons for owning bombs unless your going to use them for blowing things up, right? So what else would you use a gun for unless your going to shoot something?

Again..Im not saying and havent said we should ban guns, im just stating that there really isnt any beneficial reasons for owning a gun (and point taken with Baker that they are useful with killing vermin and on farms and such) but apart from that why else would you use a gun, unless you were going to kill something or shoot something?

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

PB: If you consider urban Australia to be your "society", then you are right. Australia as a whole, though, isn't demostrative of your comments. As I said above, the last figure I saw was one in four Australian homes have firearms. The statement:

"I dont see any other practical uses for a gun. Maybe someone can enlighten me with this?"

is a slap in the face to me, given I took the time to post just that on your ignorant article and even replied in an article of my own.

You don't WANT to see any uses, because that would invalidate your opinion. You don't want to see the MILLIONS of Australian gun owners, because it invalidates your idea of your own "society".

Ignorance. Worse, self-imposed ignorance.

ParaTed2k

on May 20, 2005

In Australia, we have strict gun ownership laws. The average person doesnt own a gun here.

I'm glad we have the gun laws we have here.

Im glad our government has taken a stand.

I took these statments to mean that you support a ban on guns. If that's not what you meant, let me know where I messed up?

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

The point here is "guns are for killing". The people who have thoughtfully given their time to post have shown that there are other uses for guns, and that all killing is not murder.

The Olympic Biathalon is not murder, hunting is not murder, and Australia has millions of gun owners. That basically defeats the whole premise of a gunless Australia that doesn't need guns. They have a horrific record on species overpopulation and they are protected by guns 24/7, but then who needs guns, right? I mean, it isn't like someone could just make a pipe bomb if they couldn't get a gun.

So, the only way for pheonixboi to keep the comments coming in is to ignore the answers and just ask the same questions again and again. By now, though, anyone should be able to see that the question HAS been answered and the blogger has purposely ignored it.

drmiler

on May 20, 2005

I don't see any other practical uses for a gun.

So in your opinion shooting competitions are not practical?
You opened a can of worms with this thread. Gun control is a "very" touchy subject to a lot of Americans. And baker came up with a valid point. Do you consider the Olympics as non-practical?

Dynosoar

on May 20, 2005

PB,

One word - D E T E R A N C E

As in, the known, or perceived, possession of a weapon by a potential victim is a deterant to the agressor ( kinda why
the USSR didn't attack the USA during the cold war ).

It's why we have bombs, guns, fighter jets, etc......

Holden

on May 20, 2005

I agree with you... I think it is a foolish argument to state that gun laws are a violation of my personal freedom... If we could just agree on a better gun control law, then maybe gun violence would be down and no one would want or need to own a gun... but I am dreaming and I know that can never happen in America.

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

If I were going to be paranoid, I would say this is just an underhanded anti-hunting blog. Seeing his recent 'greenpeace' kick, I would imagine PB has fallen in line with the rest of the radical animal rights folks in believing that the best way to stop hunting is to legally prevent access to firearms and never letting anyone know that you aren't really worried about gun crime.

He outright ignors anyone who posts a use for a gun other than shooting people, and then capitalizes on anyone who talks about self-defense. I don't think ignoring species control and hunting is accidental. I could be making an ignorant assumption, though, akin to the idea that millions of Australians don't own guns, or that 'guns are for killing'...

MasonM

on May 20, 2005

Well, I'll put it like this. I have a nice scar on my face from an attempted robbery. The guy pulled a knife and slashed me in the face. It was obvious his intent was to injure or even kill me for whatever I had in my wallet.

The second I pulled my .357 from under my vest the attack was over and he was running for his life. I never even had to fire a shot.

So don't try and hand me that namby pamby BS that guns have no purpose. There is a good chance that I am alive today because I had one. You're living with your head stuck in the sand (or up someplace else) if you believe human predators don't exist.

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

I don't think posting a lot of "I'd be killed if it hadn't been for a gun", while no doubt true, is ever going to defeat PB's arguement. That's what he wants to hear, since that basically IS his argument. He wants to keep 'guns' and 'killing' in the same sentence.

What he DOESN'T want to hear, and ignores to a fault, are the many uses of guns that don't entail threats to human lives. He DOESN'T want to acknowledge that a large percentage, millions, of Australians own guns.

Giving him lots of 'Dirty Harry' situations just allows him to ignore the real retort; that guns are not just for killing people. Such uses are very rare comparitively. 'People' being the operative word here I think, as gun control is now a major front used by animal rights folks.

Phoenixboi

on May 20, 2005

Baker, I dont see the Olympics as being practical, it is a sport, not something that people make use of, it is entertainment not practicality.

In the society that I live in there is no use for a gun, I agree with you, that in the outback or in farming situations that guns may be of use, other than that I really dont see any practical, and by practical i mean of true human benefit, other than to kill.

I dont see the olympics as benefitting humanity in any way other than for sport or entertainment. Hunting I dont see as of any benefit, unless your out there hunting for food, and in the society that I live in well we do not need to do that anymore, hunting is just pure sport, for the pleasure of humans, it is not a necessity in most modern cultures, therefore to me it is not practical.

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

So...

*Phonixboi says his society doesn't use guns, doesn't need guns, and guns are just for killing.

*People tell Pheonixboi that millions in his society, some no doubt very nearby, have guns, list many uses for them besides murder, and point out that the vast majority of guns are used often around the world and never do harm.

*Pheonix boy says that those people in his country aren't in his society, says that those uses aren't really 'benefits', and that guns are only for killing... again.

Do you not see the flaws in your blind argument? If someone shows you that people within miles of you problably own guns, you just shift your definition of your "society". If someone shows you many different uses for guns that don't entail killing people, you just say those aren't 'beneficial' uses.

You get to decide what is beneficial? You can't even say that your society agrees on what is beneficial unless you narrowly define your society. You are making up your own reality. That's fine, but don't expect to impose your made-up reality on the rest of us.

So...

"Guns are for killing" is a false premis and not worthy of argument. People use guns, even in Australia, all the time. The vast majority of guns never kill people. To pretend 'guns are for killing' is either ignorant or dishonest, and you can't feign ignorance now.

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

"Society" isn't just people who agree with you. A quick google on Australian gun ownership and use would show you that the idea that 'guns are for killing' isn't some kind of Australian ethic.

You can laud the benefits of gun laws all day, and I'll support your right to your opinions. When you lie and pretend that the only use for a gun is to do harm I have to take issue, ESPECIALLY when you go further and pretend that your "society" agrees with you.

bakerstreet

on May 20, 2005

Again, there's no reason to address anything but PB's misguided idea that his society has deemed that guns are only for killing. He comes to that conclusion by ignoring a large percentage of his society, and by dismissing any other use besides killing, no matter how many people show him.

It's like me saying that my society believes that all Arabs are terrorists, and defending it by disqualifying anyone who doesn't believe such from my 'society'. Gun laws don't make a blanket statement that guns are evil, they just restrict their use. If Australia really felt the way PB characterizes, there'd be no private gun ownership at all. Oddly enough, there must be SOME legitimate use since millions are allowed to own them.

No matter how many uses you show PB, or how many Australians own guns, he'll never see it differently because he isn't basing his original premise on reality.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!