Outright handgun bans out...

[Magic Man]

You have the right to give up & just take whatever severe abuse some perp heaps upon you. I prefer to take responsibility for & precautions against what can happen in the real world. Avoiding violence is plan "A". But I also have a plan "B".

I have a plan B, too. It's called knowing how to defend myself. The problem is that you assume your plan B is the only one out there. It isn't, and it's not necessarily even the best plan B out there. Nice try, though.

 

[McBell]

Sure. The practical difference is there's no reason for the child to own a gun. Just like there's no practical reason for a child to own a knife or sword or drugs.

Interesting opinion.
My child (age 14) owns two guns.
Both of them given to her by her great grandfather before he passed away.

 

[McBell]

I have a plan B, too. It's called knowing how to defend myself.

The "armadillo"?

The problem is that you assume your plan B is the only one out there.

Baseless allegation.

 

[Magic Man]

Interesting opinion.
My child (age 14) owns two guns.
Both of them given to her by her great grandfather before he passed away.

And your child is 14. The child we were talking about is 8. That's a huge difference.

 

[Magic Man]

The "armadillo"?

Nope.

Baseless allegation.

No, not considering that's what he and others have been doing the whole thread. He was doing it in the comment on which I quoted him, which is why I said it in response to that. If he didn't assume a gun was the only possible plan B, then he wouldn't make the argument he was making. The fact is there are plenty of plan B's that don't require you to just let people do whatever they want to you, so using the "Plan B" argument doesn't really work to support owning guns.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sure. The practical difference is there's no reason for the child to own a gun.

That is not a practical difference.

Just like there's no practical reason for a child to own a knife or sword or drugs.

Interesting... I've owned knives and swords my whole life... true to no real purpose, other than that I've always enjoy collecting bladed weapons though...

Nope, I just pay attention to the world.

What, about your general perception of the world, leads you to believe you can relatively accurately estimate the usage of guns by their owners?

 

[jml03]

Interesting opinion.
My child (age 14) owns two guns.
Both of them given to her by her great grandfather before he passed away.

My son is 4 and has a bb gun - which he hasn't shot it yet. My daughter is 14 and has owned her own rifle since she was 12. My nephew, which is 21 has owned his own 410 since he was like 8. It's not like they keep them on a rack in their rooms. They are safely locked up but they can use them when they have supervision. My nephews all have knives - pocket knives. We live in the country and these kids grow up a little more like the old ways - they have respect for knives and guns and bows. They do know what happens when u misuse them. That's what is wrong with some children, parents protect them from EVERYTHING! Going to ride a bike - make sure u wear ur helmet and pads; going to walk outside - make sure u put ur shoes n socks on; oh theres a feather on the ground - don't touch it cuz it contains all kinds of diseases -----please! Ridiculous.

 

[McBell]

No, not considering that's what he and others have been doing the whole thread.

Really?
Please tell me the post number where someone stated or even implied that the ONLY POSSIBLE plan b is to have a firearm.

If he didn't assume a gun was the only possible plan B, then he wouldn't make the argument he was making.

What a load of out and out bull ****.
He merely stated that he has a plan b.

He did not even hint that the ONLY POSSIBLE plan b is to have a gun.

The fact is there are plenty of plan B's that don't require you to just let people do whatever they want to you, so using the "Plan B" argument doesn't really work to support owning guns.

Really?
And why not, EXACTLY?
Or it is your claim that under no possible circumstances can a gun be in the consideration for a plan b?

 

[McBell]

My son is 4 and has a bb gun - which he hasn't shot it yet. My daughter is 14 and has owned her own rifle since she was 12. My nephew, which is 21 has owned his own 410 since he was like 8. It's not like they keep them on a rack in their rooms. They are safely locked up but they can use them when they have supervision. My nephews all have knives - pocket knives. We live in the country and these kids grow up a little more like the old ways - they have respect for knives and guns and bows. They do know what happens when u misuse them. That's what is wrong with some children, parents protect them from EVERYTHING! Going to ride a bike - make sure u wear ur helmet and pads; going to walk outside - make sure u put ur shoes n socks on; oh theres a feather on the ground - don't touch it cuz it contains all kinds of diseases -----please! Ridiculous.

I agree.

 

[Magic Man]

That is not a practical difference.

The problem is that this is this hard for you to understand.

Interesting... I've owned knives and swords my whole life... true to no real purpose, other than that I've always enjoy collecting bladed weapons though...

Cool. So, in fact, this odd mindset of yours about children and guns seems to come from how your parents raised you.

What, about your general perception of the world, leads you to believe you can relatively accurately estimate the usage of guns by their owners?

The fact that guns don't get used that much, while there are always people driving their cars all the time, and I know that most people in most places drive to and from work around 5 days a week, along with driving many other places.

 

[Mister Emu]

The problem is that this is this hard for you to understand.

Not quite. I am not the one who is having difficulty here. You've already agreed that an 8 year old can be taught safe and responsible gun usage. However, you've made a distinction that it is not acceptable for one to own the item they will use.

I asked for a practical reason to differentiate, in law, between ownership by adult and usage by child, and both ownership and usage by child if the usage is equal, to single out ownership. Your response lacked such a difference, it showed a complete misunderstanding of the word "practical" itself.

To further explain why I asked for this, my philosophy is very much along the lines of: "You do not need a reason for something to be legal. You need a reason to make it illegal". That is, "there is no reason(read: that I can think of) for x" is a wholly unimpressive argument when talking about liberty, at least to me and those who think like me.

Lastly, if you can show a reason for rejecting the child's ownership of the gun, while accepting the same actions taking place regardless of the child owning the gun(the training of proper, safe, and responsible usage of said gun), I will explain how and why ownership can be beneficial.

Cool. So, in fact, this odd mindset of yours about children and guns seems to come from how your parents raised you.

It is not my mindset on this that is odd But yes, I was raised in a way that allowed me ownership of possibly dangerous items so long as I exhibited responsibility in doing so.

The fact that guns don't get used that much

How, as I asked several times, do you determine this?

while there are always people driving their cars all the time, and I know that most people in most places drive to and from work around 5 days a week, along with driving many other places

I did not ask how you determine car usage. Cars, being relatively large objects all around, are somewhat easy to notice.

 

[Magic Man]

You've already agreed that an 8 year old can be taught safe and responsible gun usage.

Have I? I'll agree that you can teach it to them, but I don't agree that they will understand safe and responsible gun usage until they're older.

To further explain why I asked for this, my philosophy is very much along the lines of: "You do not need a reason for something to be legal. You need a reason to make it illegal". That is, "there is no reason(read: that I can think of) for x" is a wholly unimpressive argument when talking about liberty, at least to me and those who think like me.

First, I didn't realize we were arguing about whether or not it should be legal for an 8-year-old to own a gun. But should it also be legal for an 8-year-old to own drugs, too? If not, why not?

It is not my mindset on this that is odd But yes, I was raised in a way that allowed me ownership of possibly dangerous items so long as I exhibited responsibility in doing so.

No, I'd say it's yours.

How, as I asked several times, do you determine this?

By observing the fact that they aren't used much, at least when compared to something like cars.

I did not ask how you determine car usage. Cars, being relatively large objects all around, are somewhat easy to notice.

Wait, so you think the difference in size makes it easier to tell?

 

[Mister Emu]

Have I?

Sure, an 8-year-old can be taught safe and responsible gun usage.

Post 465

First, I didn't realize we were arguing about whether or not it should be legal for an 8-year-old to own a gun. But should it also be legal for an 8-year-old to own drugs, too? If not, why not?

It started a little bit ago when one of the brits(I think) took exception to the fact that an 8 year old got a handgun as a present, which I defended as nothing wrong... and you responded

What do you mean by drugs? As in the medicine they take for when they are sick?

If so I have no problem if they are owned in name by the child(in fact I believe they technically are) but held in stewardship(just as the gun hypothetically is) by the parent, who insures the medicine is used as directed in a responsible manner.

No, I'd say it's yours.

Of course you would, you already did

That said, if we are speaking of odd in a sense of deviating from the norm, and the general American mindset, I'd have to disagree. I think you'd find that large percentage of the population has no problem with a son or daughter owning a gun in name, as long the parents are responsible custodians.

By observing the fact that they aren't used much, at least when compared to something like cars.

I'm at the verge of giving up on you understanding the question... How do you observe who is a gun owner and how much they use their guns. Can you tell which men and women walking down the street are carrying for instance?

Wait, so you think the difference in size makes it easier to tell?

Do you think the size of an item has no bearing on it's visibility in use? Of course it does. It is easier to notice a jumbo jet in use than a pair of headphones.

 

[Magic Man]

Post 465

Ah, yes, that's why I specified. I was wondering whether you misunderstood something I had previously said. Yes, they can be taught that, but that doesn't mean they understand it enough at 8 to own their own gun.

It started a little bit ago when one of the brits(I think) took exception to the fact that an 8 year old got a handgun as a present, which I defended as nothing wrong... and you responded

Right, which is why I didn't think it had to do with whether or not it should be legal.

What do you mean by drugs? As in the medicine they take for when they are sick?

I mean illegal drugs like pot or crack.

That said, if we are speaking of odd in a sense of deviating from the norm, and the general American mindset, I'd have to disagree. I think you'd find that large percentage of the population has no problem with a son or daughter owning a gun in name, as long the parents are responsible custodians.

I have my doubts about that, although that is at the heart of what brought this up in the first place. Even if that's not the case, it's seen as the case by people from many other countries. That's part of their problem with this; that we don't mind 8-year-olds owning guns. It's a weird concept that isn't quite right.

I'm at the verge of giving up on you understanding the question... How do you observe who is a gun owner and how much they use their guns. Can you tell which men and women walking down the street are carrying for instance?

Ah, I see. You're including carrying a gun on you as usage. That's part of the problem.

Do you think the size of an item has no bearing on it's visibility in use? Of course it does. It is easier to notice a jumbo jet in use than a pair of headphones.

I think if someone's using a gun where I am, I'll notice it. But then again, I don't consider having a gun on me as using it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Ah, yes, that's why I specified. I was wondering whether you misunderstood something I had previously said. Yes, they can be taught that, but that doesn't mean they understand it enough at 8 to own their own gun.

Well then you believe they can't be taught it... to be taught something you have to have the capacity to understand it... I can act like I'm teaching my dog to speak chinese, but since he doesn't understand it, it is not actually teaching him anything.

Right, which is why I didn't think it had to do with whether or not it should be legal.

My apologies, it was an assumption, that since we have been discussing gun ownership in a legal as well as useful sense, it was the same in this situation.

I mean illegal drugs like pot or crack.

No. There is no such thing, that I know of, as responsible, and hopefully never legal as well, use of crack. And pot's harmful side-effects mean that its legality(which I support), should be legally limited to adults, just as alcohol is.

I have my doubts about that, although that is at the heart of what brought this up in the first place. Even if that's not the case, it's seen as the case by people from many other countries. That's part of their problem with this; that we don't mind 8-year-olds owning guns. It's a weird concept that isn't quite right.

Many of them have weird ideas about gun ownership in general anyways... it they see it as weird that we teach responsible usage and ownership of dangerous and relatively common items to our child... well I find that weird.

Ah, I see. You're including carrying a gun on you as usage. That's part of the problem.

No it is not. Carrying a gun can be usage. The tea-party rallies where people brought guns are an obvious example, those guns were in use as a symbol of protest.

Guns don't need to be fired to be used In fact is altogether better when they are not.

 

[Magic Man]

Well then you believe they can't be taught it... to be taught something you have to have the capacity to understand it... I can act like I'm teaching my dog to speak chinese, but since he doesn't understand it, it is not actually teaching him anything.

Or, more accurately, I don't think they can grasp it fully as an 8-year-old, but then I don't think an 8-year-old can fully grasp a lot of concepts that you can and should teach them.

No. There is no such thing, that I know of, as responsible, and hopefully never legal as well, use of crack. And pot's harmful side-effects mean that its legality(which I support), should be legally limited to adults, just as alcohol is.

But despite guns' harmful side effects, it's OK for children to own them?

No it is not. Carrying a gun can be usage. The tea-party rallies where people brought guns are an obvious example, those guns were in use as a symbol of protest.

No, I assure you, your use of the word in that way was part of the problem with our communication here. So, when I get my car towed somewhere, is that usage?

Guns don't need to be fired to be used In fact is altogether better when they are not.

That's true. You could use them as a hammer, but that would just be weird.

 

[Mister Emu]

Or, more accurately, I don't think they can grasp it fully as an 8-year-old, but then I don't think an 8-year-old can fully grasp a lot of concepts that you can and should teach them.

Ok... I'll think on this...

But despite guns' harmful side effects, it's OK for children to own them?

Responsible gun usage has no harmful side effects.

No, I assure you, your use of the word in that way was part of the problem with our communication here. So, when I get my car towed somewhere, is that usage?

I said it can be, not that it always is. No, I would not say your car is in use while being towed. However, if you were say hiding behind it while being shot at, I would, regardless of the fact that it is not being driven.

Are you saying the guns at the tea party rallies/protest were not in use?

That's true. You could use them as a hammer, but that would just be weird.

You can use it as a deterrent too... Like Kathryn did, by just showing it she protected herself from potential harm, and never fired it.

 

[Magic Man]

Responsible gun usage has no harmful side effects.

Interesting. I guess guns aren't dangerous then, huh?

I said it can be, not that it always is. No, I would not say your car is in use while being towed. However, if you were say hiding behind it while being shot at, I would, regardless of the fact that it is not being driven.

OK, I think we need to specify. I can use a gun for a doorstop, but that's not really using the gun, unless we're being dishonest. Obviously, we're talking about using each thing for its intended purpose.

Are you saying the guns at the tea party rallies/protest were not in use?

It depends. Some of them were being brandished. I'd say those were in use. Others were just on the person. I wouldn't say they were in use.

You can use it as a deterrent too... Like Kathryn did, by just showing it she protected herself from potential harm, and never fired it.

That's true. So, then there's no need for ammunition, right?

 

[Mister Emu]

Interesting. I guess guns aren't dangerous then, huh?

I never said that...

OK, I think we need to specify. I can use a gun for a doorstop, but that's not really using the gun, unless we're being dishonest. Obviously, we're talking about using each thing for its intended purpose.

Fair enough... what do you think a gun's intended purpose is?

That's true. So, then there's no need for ammunition, right?

Merely brandishing does not always work, so there is a need for ammunition. You have to be able to back up your threat if it is to have any meaning.

 

[Magic Man]

I never said that...

But they're not dangerous when in the hands of a responsible owner?

Fair enough... what do you think a gun's intended purpose is?

Generally to shoot things, usually living things.

Merely brandishing does not always work, so there is a need for ammunition. You have to be able to back up your threat if it is to have any meaning.

Then there was no need to bring up the idea of just showing it to someone as a deterrent.