Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

OK, no, he doesn't need all those guns.

No, they shouldn't have had them taken away from him because free speech and innocent until proven guilty, that's why.

Just because someone doesn't NEED something does NOT mean they should be taken away. I think the long speech in Demolition Man really summed this matter up nicely.

You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

Awwww. If it was 21 guns, I could have trolled everyone with some Green Day. D'oh well.

Anyways, that's a heck of a collection.

Exocet:
I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

<reads thread title>

Actually, I have no reason to believe this thread was ever not about 70 guns.

lacktheknack:

Exocet:
I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

<reads thread title>

Actually, I have no reason to believe this thread was ever not about 70 guns.

So, a man having a hobby takes discussion priority over mentioning something out loud?

Still seeing a problem in priorities here. Thinking there is a problem with owning 70 guns is like thinking there is a problem with owing 70 video games. Their both legal, and can both be hobbies. Who are we to judge?

On the other hand, he mentions something out loud, and he is detained for 30 days... yeah, a hobby is much more discussion worthy!

farson135:
Cutting down a tree

I'm now trying to think of a single situation where I'd consider a handgun a more suitable tool for that job than virtually anything else. Maybe with a machine gun but I doubt you can just walk into a shop and buy one of those.

I'm struggling to see the need to own more than 70 guns as well though, I guess everyone's entitled to their hobbies and I can see why people would want to collect them but they're obviously all functional otherwise there wouldn't have been any need to confiscate them in the first place. There's worrying about security, there's using them for hunting and then there's just turning yourself into Rambo.

About your comment about bows not being considered weapons - it is the same with archery really, fuck about while holding a drawn bow and that's the last time you'll ever set foot in that archery club. You can use them for sport but you've got to remember that you are holding something that's potentially lethal and treat it with respect. And on that note - surely you can understand why somebody who threatens to assassinate a world leader might be considered unsuitable for gun ownership? If the psychs say he's ok then I can't really argue with that but I'm not surprised at all he got them taken away.

BiscuitTrouser:
Because a gun and a bow were not designed for utility.

Yes they were. I mean do honestly not know of the massive number of uses we have put the bow into? The bow is one of the most ubiquities designs in engineering.

They were designed as weapons.

How can you tell a gunsmith that he designs guns to be weapons when he has already told you otherwise?

They are weapons. It is their function. Their one function. To actively be used as or practiced as weapons.

What about a nail gun? By definition that is a gun. How exactly can you say that is a weapon? What about a flare gun? And on.

But i think youre disrespecting a dangerous tool if you dont act as if what youre holding in your hand is a weapon. Id never treat my gun as anything else other than a weapon. Or my bow. They are dangerous. I could very easily take lives with them if i was careless and inconsiderate to their abilities. They are fantastic weapons with that said. Awesome to practice with. But not the same at all as a tool of utility. They are both tools. But the purpose of said tools is massively different.

A chainsaw is a dangerous tool that must be respected. I would never consider the chainsaw I use for cutting wood as being a perpetual weapon. Why are guns so different?

One demands you treat it carefully because its made to be dangerous. It was designed with the purpose of doing something dangerous. To destroy something effictively. Be it a target or a person.

Actually there are plenty of guns that are not designed to destroy a target. Less than lethal rounds would be rather poorly named if they destroyed the target.

Im FOR owning guns. I just think the attitude of "This is no more dangerous than a household applience" is fucking stupid. No one with that inability to understand the responsibility of owning a weapon (see: killing tool) should own one. It isnt the same as popping down to the shop and buying a regular household knife. Or a tissue box. Or a tooth pick. Its got more weight to it than that.

I have seen more people cut themselves with knives than shoot themselves with guns. And I am not talking about little paper cuts here. I have had to drive more than a few people to the hospital because they were not paying attention. I am a certified RSO (Range Safety Officer) and I have NEVER had a person shot on my range. Which if more dangerous? In my mind anything is dangerous when you have idiots at the helm.

Pearwood:
I'm now trying to think of a single situation where I'd consider a handgun a more suitable tool for that job than virtually anything else. Maybe with a machine gun but I doubt you can just walk into a shop and buy one of those.

They designed a specific kind of gun to do the job. Keep in mind that all a gun is is a tool that fires a projectile using explosive force. Think of all the possibilities that definition holds.

I'm struggling to see the need to own more than 70 guns as well though, I guess everyone's entitled to their hobbies and I can see why people would want to collect them but they're obviously all functional otherwise there wouldn't have been any need to confiscate them in the first place. There's worrying about security, there's using them for hunting and then there's just turning yourself into Rambo.

Let me ask you something, what kinds of guns does he own? If his entire collection was like this would you care?-

Some people like guns. Some people have lots of needs. I am a hunter of both small and large game, I am a distance competitive rifle shooter, I am a competitive 3-gun shooter, I am a CHL holder, I am a shooting instructor, I am a survival instructor, and on. How many guns do you think I need? Keep in mind that different guns have VERY different uses.

About your comment about bows not being considered weapons - it is the same with archery really, fuck about while holding a drawn bow and that's the last time you'll ever set foot in that archery club. You can use them for sport but you've got to remember that you are holding something that's potentially lethal and treat it with respect.

I have never heard a person say a bow is perpetually a weapon.

And on that note - surely you can understand why somebody who threatens to assassinate a world leader might be considered unsuitable for gun ownership? If the psychs say he's ok then I can't really argue with that but I'm not surprised at all he got them taken away.

According to the article he didn't. He said how easy it would be to kill the president and considering how crappy the Secret Service is he isn't wrong.

farson135:

Yes they were. I mean do honestly not know of the massive number of uses we have put the bow into? The bow is one of the most ubiquities designs in engineering.

How can you tell a gunsmith that he designs guns to be weapons when he has already told you otherwise?
What about a nail gun? By definition that is a gun. How exactly can you say that is a weapon? What about a flare gun? And on.

A chainsaw is a dangerous tool that must be respected. I would never consider the chainsaw I use for cutting wood as being a perpetual weapon. Why are guns so different?
Actually there are plenty of guns that are not designed to destroy a target. Less than lethal rounds would be rather poorly named if they destroyed the target.

I have seen more people cut themselves with knives than shoot themselves with guns. And I am not talking about little paper cuts here. I have had to drive more than a few people to the hospital because they were not paying attention. I am a certified RSO (Range Safety Officer) and I have NEVER had a person shot on my range. Which if more dangerous? In my mind anything is dangerous when you have idiots at the helm.

Accidental gun deaths are higher than accident knife deaths. Accidents with knives happen. But it is less serious than accidents with guns. And for the love of god stop being purposefullly obtuse.

We are NOT discussing nail guns. Or flare guns. Or non lethal guns. You can own those here in endland. We are discussing guns that shoot lead. At a target. To destroy it. Not glue guns. Not nail guns. Not flare guns. If we are discussing the dangers of mutated anthrax it is NOT relevant or clever to try and equate it to ecoli. They are both bacteria. But we are not talking about harmless ones. This discussion is about guns made to kill things. The guns that are carried to war (or were) and the guns/bows we use for shooting things. To hit them with fast high velocity things. If you wanna discuss flareguns find someone talking about them. Im not. I dont know why you think its a good point to be purposefully unaware of what the other person is talking about. Its just annoying.

To clarify. WE ARE DISCUSSING GUNS MADE TO SHOOT THINGS LIKE THE ONES MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. WITH LEAD. Good. We have that cleared up. All other guns are 100% fine as they WERE made for utility and target shooting (non lethal). This discussion is about the owner ship of this:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/no8comRHS.jpg

I think the entire crux of your arguement is based on this. So there isnt a lot more to address. So lets use another example. If we are talking about the ownership of trained attack dogs and you try and say "puppies arent dangerous" that is meaningless. Perhaps i should be clearer when i say "gun". But i dont think i have to be.

Experiment for you to test if im using "gun" correctly. Run into a bank and scream "I have a gun!". If youre interpretation is normal then the police have as much reason to believe you have this:

This leads me to believe it was blatently obvious i mean "lethal regular guns" over "traning/flare/non lethal guns".

A bow and a gun are perpetually weapons (see: real lethal guns with lead bullets) in the same way that a sword is perpetually a weapon (see: Not a butter knife)

farson135:
snip

Well I'm a bit suspicious there isn't more to it than saying how easy it would be especially since there were "allegations of racial slurs". I get that some people like collecting, I was just saying it's a bit excessive. Thing with bows is as a weapon they're inferior, they're harder to use and slower to draw and aim so they're just never used outside of sport.

BiscuitTrouser:
Accidental gun deaths are higher than accident knife deaths. Accidents with knives happen. But it is less serious than accidents with guns. And for the love of god stop being purposefullly obtuse.

Number of accidental deaths with guns- 613 in 2007
Number of accidental deaths with knives- 111 in 2007

Neither are particularly relevant in a population of 300 MILLION.

Also guess what, more people cut themselves with knives (and seriously at that) than shoot themselves. Sorry but people do not shoot themselves everyday but many people cut themselves on a fairly regular basis.

We are NOT discussing nail guns. Or flare guns. Or non lethal guns. You can own those here in endland. We are discussing guns that shoot lead. At a target. To destroy it. Not glue guns. Not nail guns. Not flare guns. If we are discussing the dangers of mutated anthrax it is NOT relevant or clever to try and equate it to ecoli. They are both bacteria. But we are not talking about harmless ones. This discussion is about guns made to kill things. The guns that are carried to war (or were) and the guns/bows we use for shooting things. To hit them with fast high velocity things. If you wanna discuss flareguns find someone talking about them. Im not. I dont know why you think its a good point to be purposefully unaware of what the other person is talking about. Its just annoying.

You know what is annoying? When a person changes the goalposts halfway through the game. YOU said GUNS. Gun, is a VERY general term that means many many different things. You are ignoring that out of convenience. All the things I mentioned are guns and you made a general statement about guns.

I think the entire crux of your arguement is based on this. So there isnt a lot more to address. So lets use another example. If we are talking about the ownership of trained attack dogs and you try and say "puppies arent dangerous" that is meaningless. Perhaps i should be clearer when i say "gun". But i dont think i have to be.

You have to be because they are all guns. You are making a general statement about an entire class of tool. If you were correct then I could say that a ball peen hammer is made for hammering nails while a carpenters hammer is made for metal work. They are all hammers but they are tool for completely different jobs.

Experiment for you to test if im using "gun" correctly. Run into a bank and scream "I have a gun!". If youre interpretation is normal then the police have as much reason to believe you have this:

Now who is being obtuse. YOU made a general statement about guns. YOU said that ALL guns can do is destroy targets. Back off your statement because you are completely wrong. Gun is a general class of tool and I have proven that.

A bow and a gun is perpetually a weapon (see: real lethal guns with lead bullets) in the same way that a sword is perpetually a weapon (see: Not a butter knife)

So a sword sitting in a museum is a weapon at all times. I see that it is useless talking to you. Auf Wiedersehen.

Pearwood:
Well I'm a bit suspicious there isn't more to it than saying how easy it would be

It probably has more to do with his position and some busybody at work.

especially since there were "allegations of racial slurs".

Yeah, but we do not really know what that means either. My Grandfather still uses the term Negro because that is what he grew up with. A lot of people would consider that a racial slur but there really isn't any harm in it.

I get that some people like collecting, I was just saying it's a bit excessive.

Once again, depending on how involved you are in the gun community and what you do 70 guns can be what you need to cover all of your bases. Hell, a friend of mine owns a ranch and he keeps about 30 different guns for his ranch hands to use both for work and play. We really do not know this guy's situation.

Thing with bows is as a weapon they're inferior, they're harder to use and slower to draw and aim so they're just never used outside of sport.

You obviously have never seen a nationally ranked bow-woman go to work. I have to say that she could go to a 3-gun match and beat most of the competitors with just her bow. That includes the clay shooting (I gained a new level of respect for her art when I saw her shooting clays out of the air with a composite bow).

farson135:

Number of accidental deaths with guns- 613 in 2007
Number of accidental deaths with knives- 111 in 2007

Neither are particularly relevant in a population of 300 MILLION.

Also guess what, more people cut themselves with knives (and seriously at that) than shoot themselves. Sorry but people do not shoot themselves everyday but many people cut themselves on a fairly regular basis.

You know what is annoying? When a person changes the goalposts halfway through the game. YOU said GUNS. Gun, is a VERY general term that means many many different things. You are ignoring that out of convenience. All the things I mentioned are guns and you made a general statement about guns.

You have to be because they are all guns. You are making a general statement about an entire class of tool. If you were correct then I could say that a ball peen hammer is made for hammering nails while a carpenters hammer is made for metal work. They are all hammers but they are tool for completely different jobs.
Now who is being obtuse. YOU made a general statement about guns. YOU said that ALL guns can do is destroy targets. Back off your statement because you are completely wrong. Gun is a general class of tool and I have proven that.

So a sword sitting in a museum is a weapon at all times. I see that it is useless talking to you. Auf Wiedersehen.

It seemed as if you were purposefully misunderstanding my use of the word gun against yours to make a point. Maybe i wasnt specific enough. But wasnt it rather obvious when i meant gun what kind of gun i meant? Like mainstream guns? I never claimed a nail gun cant be used for nails. Or is as dangerous as a real gun gun. But when i said gun i wasnt refering to it. Its a silly point that comes down entirely to semantics and misinterpreting what i said rather than what i obviously meant.

Hell ill even concede that a gun IS a general kind of tool. And not ALL guns are dangerous. I stand by the idea that my perception of gun is VERY common and thus it was strange for you not to take it as i meant it.

A sword in a museum is a weapon is a museum. It was built to be a weapon its a weapon. The weapon is probably in a weapons museum.

http://www.padutchcountry.com/members/american_military_edged_weaponry_museum.asp

By your definition this museum contains zero weapons. I find that rather amusing. Its a weapon museum. For old weapons.

When does a sword stop being a weapon? When i put it down? Every time it is released? When it is not striking? When it is GOING To be used for striking?

I apologise for being so... agressive in persuing that point. It was out of line. If you dont wish to continue discussion with me thats ok. Id like to though. And im sorry for being so indignant. We both had a different perception of what the word "gun" entailed. Id like to hear your arguements.

The only sane reason I can think of to own this many weapons is being an antique collector that is wanting to start some sort of museum. As this is not the case, the man is either insane or has and addiction.

farson135:

Westaway:
As for your comment on how you didn't make the gun to kill people, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure if you're referring again to guns that have been made for something else (target shooting or other) or actual self defense guns. If you are referring to things such as pistols, I'm not sure how you can say that. I wouldn't like to know the gun I made killed someone, but it happens. I'm sure there are countless inventions that were turned into war machines, much to the dismay of their creator.

Look, a hammer can be used to kill people but that is not its intended purpose. This gun (below) is a Walther SSP and it is designed specifically for target shooting. In fact the entire pistol was designed because rule changes to the ISSF made their old model obsolete. No one in their right minds would use this gun for ANYTHING but target shooting-

You said that guns are made for killing people and yes SOME guns are made for killing people but in the past there were hammers made for killing people. There are many different kinds of firearms and all of them have their own specific purposes.

Okay, this is really starting to annoy me.
I understand what you're saying, I just spent a whole paragraph in my last post telling you I am not talking about guns that are NOT made for killing. I KNOW there are guns that made for other purposes besides killing. I am talking about PISTOLS and RIFLES, which are KILLING TOOLS.

I get it that some people like guns but 70?! either he,s a rabbid lover of the second amendment or a really avid gun collector (I really hope the second one)

... No. One. Needs. Seventy. Guns. Period.

image

Daystar Clarion:

Phasmal:
Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

Several murder closets, with a steady incremental progression from 'No nonsense' all the way up to 'I need to commit a war crime and break several codes of the Geneva Convention'.

I do not always laugh at Daystar posts... but when I do, I laugh hard.

Stay thirsty my friend!

OT: 70 guns seems a little excessive, I'm more concerned about his biologically mutated anthrax... for duck hunting.

Just because somebody discusses something, it doesn't mean he/she was planning on doing it. I think some of our gun laws are just plain stupid and others need to be implimented. Mental health and common sense analysis tests should be applied in my opinion. I own a handgun and a small shotgun, both are for funsies. As an individual I like to go out and do some target shooting. No air guns and BB guns are not the same as the real thing. I also admire guns of all forms for their workmanship. It's the same as appreciating the craftsmanship of a sword or knife, only considering how many wars were fought with those weapons you'd think people would find them just as detestable as firearms. I find both to have a certain artistic quality to them and appreciate both for their form and function.

Well, I've never been in favour of people owning guns, I think America's gun control laws are ridiculous and dangerous (though I think the damage they have caused has already been done and their repeal won't solve many of their problems). So I don't support the right of this man to own 70 guns within his own home.

However, I don't think he should have had them removed on the basis that he threatened the president, everyone threatens their leader, most of Scotland would have to be arrested for what was said during the Thatcher era I would guess. He should have them removed because he owned 70 guns.

...Why would you even need that many guns? Either you're a collector of guns... or you have issues.

You'd think 3 guns would be enough. You know, one for the morning, mid-day, and before you go to bed. 70 is expensive, and quite possibly dangerous if they are all in working condition.

Just keep ammunition away from him and it's like he owns 70 varying sized clubs, and those are really hard to assassinate people with.

farson135:
Sorry but I am a certified gunsmith and my guns are designed for target shooting and no more.

I suppose the intentions behind this statement depend on one's definition of a "target".

BiscuitTrouser:

It seemed as if you were purposefully misunderstanding my use of the word gun against yours to make a point. Maybe i wasnt specific enough. But wasnt it rather obvious when i meant gun what kind of gun i meant? Like mainstream guns? I never claimed a nail gun cant be used for nails. Or is as dangerous as a real gun gun. But when i said gun i wasnt refering to it. Its a silly point that comes down entirely to semantics and misinterpreting what i said rather than what i obviously meant.

You said gun. Gun is a general term for an entire class of tool. You said gun and left it at that. You are changing the goalposts. Gun is a very general word for an entire class of tools.

BTW here on a topic where we are talking about firearms that may be obvious but if you ever come out to my farm you will have to be a little more specific (a lot of construction is going on out there). BUT you still did not make any distinction. You gave a general term and left it at that. You would not go into my garage and say "hand me the hammer" because I would look at you like you were an idiot.

A sword in a museum is a weapon is a museum. It was built to be a weapon its a weapon. The weapon is probably in a weapons museum.

http://www.padutchcountry.com/members/american_military_edged_weaponry_museum.asp

By your definition this museum contains zero weapons. I find that rather amusing. Its a weapon museum. For old weapons.

It is a weapons museum which means that it holds things that were at one time weapons. However that does not mean that everything in its class of tool is a weapon.

Westaway:
I understand what you're saying, I just spent a whole paragraph in my last post telling you I am not talking about guns that are NOT made for killing. I KNOW there are guns that made for other purposes besides killing. I am talking about PISTOLS and RIFLES, which are KILLING TOOLS.

No, they are not. They are just tools. You are trying to add a distinction that may not even exist. Many of my guns were bought or built specifically for target shooting. You cannot call them killing tools if they are not going to be used for killing. Are you going to say that my camp knife (a Ka-Bar) is a killing tool because it is dubbed as a "fighting knife"?

Wushu Panda:
murder closet...really? its bullshit and ignorant statements like that which give gun ownership bad press. a knife is a deadly weapon, but im sure your kitchen is stocked with an ample supply and you dont go calling it the murder drawer...

I will be calling it the murder drawer from now on. Its just too awesome...

But OT, if he's not deemed a threat (and honestly I doubt he really is), then he should be able to get his guns back. If he goes out and does something stupid or starts up with some serious stuff, yank 'em the heck away from him then.

hell give him his guns back. He isnt going to do anything. after all he owns 70 fucking guns, his name is in a data bank somewhere.

also saying how easy it would be to kill a president
=/=
saying he IS going to kill the president.

Also this is only news because the anti-gun crowd will make a fit over it, even though a decision that said he was harmless came to be the conclusion.

Hell if it wasn't this, im sure it would be another round of how George Zimmerman was a KKK member itching to kill black people. *rolls eyes*

Westaway:

I understand what you're saying, I just spent a whole paragraph in my last post telling you I am not talking about guns that are NOT made for killing. I KNOW there are guns that made for other purposes besides killing. I am talking about PISTOLS and RIFLES, which are KILLING TOOLS.

Sit down, because I am about to blow your mind!

That is a Mosin-Nagant M91/30. Its sole purpose in life was to be placed in the hands of a conscript so that he could shoot/stab a Nazi. Yes, I said stab!

I own one(three actually). Now, here's the kicker; it is no longer a weapon of war. I have replaced the original barrel with a 7 lbs heavy barrel made from surplus machine gun barrel, had a proper scope base added to it(RSI, not one of the POS ones that fit onto the sight base), replaced and inlet the stock, swapped the bolt handle and added a scope.

The result (and I wish I had a camera XD) is a 15lbs(!) rifle, that when first born into this world knew only bloodlust as its life, who's only practical purpose is to sit on a bench and shoot paper targets.

My rifle is the very incarnation of the argument, "A firearm is merely a tool, and does only what its user intends."

farson135:

You obviously have never seen a nationally ranked bow-woman go to work. I have to say that she could go to a 3-gun match and beat most of the competitors with just her bow. That includes the clay shooting (I gained a new level of respect for her art when I saw her shooting clays out of the air with a composite bow).

I have to see that at least once in my life...I'm sorry, that just sounds amazing!

Phasmal:
Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

I can easily see myself having at least 10 if I ever had the money and storage space...

In terms of sheer uniqueness/fascinating firing mechanisms, the Luger and the Steyr Mannlicher M1894. Then we have the H&K G3, because that's just a sexy gun right there. For historical virtue, there are the obvious Kar 98k and SMLE. If I could get my hands on one, a Gyrojet pistol and carbine. And then there are the guns I've had the fun of shooting IRL, like the M1911, and a S&W .357 magnum revolver. I'd certainly get something along those lines as well.

Sadly, number 10 on that list is impossible, the H&K G11. God knows how I would get ammunition even if I could get my hands on one.

So there we go, 10 guns right there, with what I would call entirely reasonable reasons for wanting them. The tricky part would be getting a Luger or Steyr I could take down to the range for regular usage. Some people just find firearms fascinating and fun to shoot.

As for the whole "discussing how easy it would be to assassinate somebody", I do that with my friends all the time...but it's really really stupid to talk about that kind of stuff in the airport.

For all those wondering where's he keeps his guns. It's not a Murder Cabinet, it's a....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vob-w_kjYc

=)

Lilani:

senordesol:

Lilani:
What I don't get is why some people insist on saying "POTUS" when "President" or the person's name will usually suffice, and seems much less like the name of some dangerous experimental drug.

Meh, it's an international audience so President of the United States is clearer. I could have said Obama, but I didn't. I don't think it's terribly taxing to glean the meaning.

Yeah, I understand. It's just one of those acronyms I hate. That, and GOTY. Seriously, that doesn't sound like "Game of the Year." That sounds like some weird goat fetish.

That is offensive and bigoted!

Nothing wrong with a goat fetish.

OT: There's no correlation between having a gun and using that gun to soot someone and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one.

Frozen Donkey Wheel2:
I want to point out a couple of things:

1. He can still only hold 2 at a time, so the fact that he has 70 is a little unsettling, but it doesn't actually make him 70 times more dangerous then the average gun owner. Probably.

Most of the guns were collectibles. Assuming you keep good care of them, and especially depending on the model, guns are a rather good investment. Hell, Mosins were $75 bucks a few years ago and I'll be able to resell one of the two I bought for quite a bit over $100 bucks within the next couple years

Grey Day for Elcia:
OT: There's no correlation between having a gun and using that gun to soot someone and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one.

Now now, there are plenty of flavors of authoritarian asshat that favor banning guns. It's certainly not limited to the communists.

BiscuitTrouser:
A bow and a gun are perpetually weapons (see: real lethal guns with lead bullets) in the same way that a sword is perpetually a weapon (see: Not a butter knife)

Technically speaking butter knives aren't knives. They're a form of spatula.

theparsonski:

Daystar Clarion:
If everybody has guns...

Then nobody has...

I don't think that quote translated well...

Doesn't work.

"You have a Glock and I have an RPG, therefore neither of us is armed..."

RPG's aren't guns though D: They are rockets

farson135:

It is a weapons museum which means that it holds things that were at one time weapons. However that does not mean that everything in its class of tool is a weapon.

Im glad we got semantics out of the way. Now heres the question. A knife in a museum is still a cutting tool. A weapon in a museum is still a fighting tool. It is named after what it was intended to do. Its primary function. Ill grant that some of the guns you craft are NOT weapons. But this museum is full of weapons. And if it isnt at what point does it stop being a "weapon"

Which out of these is a weapon:

1. A gun held by a soldier for use in war
2. A gun momentarily put down that MIGHT never be used again in a battlefield
3. A gun taken home from a war and kept that might one day be used again to fend of an intruder
4. A gun in a museum that has a 1/1000 chance of being used again

When does it stop being a weapon? When i put it down? When it is not being actively USED as a weapon? When its chances of being utilised again are low? Does a gun transition from weapon to "thing" the second i release it? Why so much transition?

Phasmal:
Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

Many people collect guns here in the states.

Do you need that many guns? No, just like you don't really need that stamp collection, he doesn't need that sports collection, and I don't need my hat collection.

But a man with a single gun is only as deadly as one.

Less so, because guns are heavy, and carrying a thousand at once isn't going to let a person be very mobile.

BiscuitTrouser:
Snip

This debate comes down how to one defines a weapon, and objects in general.

Does an object have attributes only with or always even without the intent of the user.

Is a hammer an object used to hit in nails and remove nails if I am using it to defend myself from attack, or is a glock a weapon as I use it to beat in a nail? Sure, somethings and better and worse at some things or others, the glock is better at hurting and the hammer better at construction, but the clever mind can find all kinds of uses for any object put in front of them.

Is the form of the intent and use within the object itself, as under the writing of Plato, or is the potential to do anything in the hands of the user, as under Aristotle?

I am under the school of thought that the user and their intent makes the object a weapon, a tool, or anything at all.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked