SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (40730)11/11/2005 5:58:15 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
I guess there is a reason for putting holes in "targets". But I don't think that is the argument for gun ownership.

That is a minor argument for gun ownership. But I don't think the legal right to own something requires or should require an argument. The burden of proof should be heavily on the banners. The default position should be liberty not central control.

Putting holes in targets is called "practice".

Often it is practice. Other times it is just fun for its own sake. Either way your right that it isn't the central issue. It isn't their "primary purpose", but it is a purpose. Its lack of primacy makes it no less real. (Responding to the idea that guns "only exist to put holes in people")

Getting back to the origin of this discussion. -
roughwheelers.com
is not sophistry. Guns are tools that people can use for good or ill. It is people that decide to kill people with them or act recklessly with them. A gun in the hands of a a maniac, or a reckless idiot, or a criminal causes more danger to the people around him, but the posesion of a gun by a sober, rational law abiding individual often makes the people around him safer as does the deterent effect of the fact that a potential crime victem may be armed.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext