Any Pro-Gun Liberals?

[Zephyr]

Any gun, except perhaps a squirt gun, can kill people.
Hunting rifles and shotguns are decidedly not designed to kill people, though they'd certainly make a better job of it than most military, "assault" weaponry, which tend to inflict clean, through-and-through wounds.

Before anybody says anything about "armor-piercing" rounds, let me add that pretty much anything that comes out of a rifle will bust through level 1 armor. Possibly even thicker armor if it comes out of a hunting rifle.

 

[Valjean]

Before anybody says anything about "armor-piercing" rounds, let me add that pretty much anything that comes out of a rifle will bust through level 1 armor. Possibly even thicker armor if it comes out of a hunting rifle.

It's not the rifle, its the round and the velocity. The more jacketed and faster the bullet, the more penetrating, but they're also inefficient at depositing their energy into their target. They poke a clean hole.
Hunting ammo's usually designed to mushroom and deposit all its energy into the target.

If I had a choice, and I knew the round had the velocity to pierce my armour, I'd opt to be shot with fully jacketed or armour piercing, ie: military, round any day.

 

[painted wolf]

That's why the .22 is such a spooky pistol. Just enough power to get in you... then it just makes a mess as it can't get out.

Anyway, I would just like to restate my personal opinion on guns again.

I think they should be treated like we treat cars. You need training, a license and registration and regular inspection of the gun. You can get points on your license for mistreating or being careless with your gun and if you have enough infractions, you get a suspension or loose it all together.

I think rather than banning any particular weapon, you should make owners more responsible for their use and care. Sellers should be held to higher standards and buyers need to prove to be responsible before ownership.
A gun should never be an impulse buy.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

This is Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They are currently in their school canteen, and are about to embark on a massacre, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 23 others, before committing suicide. They bought the two guns from Walmart. I can assure you, neither of the guns they were holding were designed for shooting rabbits.

I would prefer you actually do some honest research instead of posting this type of fear mongering nonsense.
None of the fire arms used in Columbine were purchased at Wal-mart.

And I need much more than your 'assurance'.
Especially since the vast majority of your post is nothing more than you parroting fear mongering ignorance.
oh yeah...
You forgot to present a gun that was not" designed killing people."

 

[McBell]

Bowling For Columbine says that they bought the guns from Walmart, but that's not a very good source, especially considering the director of that "documentary".

Anyway, what difference does it make? Maybe the guns where owned by Eric's parents. Maybe Dylan's neighbour had one.

I don't understand how that's relevant. Maybe I should have read the thread.

But if you need a reference...

Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine (2002).

Right here is your problem.
Stop listening to Micheal Moore and actually do some honest research.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm liberal and we are pro guns. Although I think any type of machine gun should be outlawed.

I'd prefer we were a gun-less nation but it's too late now.

 

[J Bryson]

Here's what scares me: An America in which only neocons have guns.

 

[Buttercup]

Here's what scares me: An America in which only neocons have guns.

LOL! Too true! That's why I had to chime in.

 

[Nepenthe]

Bowling For Columbine says that they bought the guns from Walmart, but that's not a very good source, especially considering the director of that "documentary".

I don't believe Moore ever claims in Bowling' that the guns were purchased at WalMart- the bullets were bought there though, and Moore does take two Columbine victims with the bullets still lodged in their bodies to confront WalMart management about the store's weapons policy.

Not to defend or condemn Moore, but Bowling' was never intended as a documentary but satire, and he doesn't claim WalMart sold the guns to Klebold and Harris.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I don't have a gun card, so I don't have any guns. But my dad had a gun store, and now we've got tons of guns and we don't know what to do with them. My mom might have a gun card. (is it a FOID card? It's something that lets you have guns. I know there was a foid card, but I don't know if that was the one that said you can have guns) anyway, there are some guns that my dad said were mine, but they cannot legally be mine, because I don't have the card. Maybe someday I'll get one of those cards though. I don't think they should take away everyone's guns. That's mean. I don't think I'm a liberal though. I hate all government.

 

[McBell]

(is it a FOID card? It's something that lets you have guns. I know there was a foid card, but I don't know if that was the one that said you can have guns)

Yes.
Here is a link to apply:

Illinois State Police Application

 

[Inky]

Response to OP:

I may be a pro-gun liberal depending on how you define "pro-gun" (and "liberal" I guess, but that's a surer thing). I think gun ownership should be legal, but legislation and enforcement for registration should be ramped up. Guns should be for recreation, hunting or self-defense in your own home, and I don't think it should be legal to carry them around in places where none of these activities make sense, like a coffee shop or busy street. Technically you could use a gun for self-defense in a coffee shop, but that's just a way to recklessly endanger innocent bystanders.

I've had fun shooting a rifle at cans in the country, and I think any reasonable gun law would allow for that kind of thing. But the idea that we should be allowed to carry guns everywhere for self-defense is a little silly in my opinion. Where do you draw the line? Should we be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes to shoot potential hijackers? (I know no one's suggesting that, just showing that there are places where guns could theoretically be very useful where they still shouldn't be allowed in.)

 

[Valjean]

If a good number of the plane's passengers were carrying guns, inky, I doubt if anyone would try to hijack it! :angel2:

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah, but I wouldn't want to fly on it... decompression is a spooky thing!

wa:do

 

[DarkSun]

Right here is your problem.
Stop listening to Micheal Moore and actually do some honest research.

I did, and I can't find any reference to where they got the guns.

But I can find more than one reference about how the guns used in the Columbine Massacre did kill people. And regardless of their original owner's intentions (whoever they were), the guns were still used as a weapon to kill.

That's a bit more relevant to this thread than: "Were the guns from Walmart or not?"

 

[DarkSun]

And I need much more than your 'assurance'.

Are you suggesting that people use TEC-DC9 pistols when they're off hunting deer?

What about a 995 carbine?

Especially since the vast majority of your post is nothing more than you parroting fear mongering ignorance.
oh yeah...
You forgot to present a gun that was not" designed killing people."

There is no such gun that is not designed for killing.

And could you please invalidate the need for fear before calling my post "ignorant"? Because I can't seem to see the basis behind your statement.

Last I checked, machine guns and the armed forces are rarely dispatched against animals. That is a fact, not fear-mongering-ignorance.

 

[DarkSun]

That's why the .22 is such a spooky pistol. Just enough power to get in you... then it just makes a mess as it can't get out.

Anyway, I would just like to restate my personal opinion on guns again.

I think they should be treated like we treat cars. You need training, a license and registration and regular inspection of the gun. You can get points on your license for mistreating or being careless with your gun and if you have enough infractions, you get a suspension or loose it all together.

I think rather than banning any particular weapon, you should make owners more responsible for their use and care. Sellers should be held to higher standards and buyers need to prove to be responsible before ownership.
A gun should never be an impulse buy.

wa:do

Define careless. . . Some people might find justify the use of a gun in different ways. A lot of people would say that shooting a rapist with a gun is justified. Others would say that guns should only be used for hunting. Then there's the sick few who would shoot the faces off of girl scouts... how many points should be deducted for that?

What about using the gun for self-defense? Allowing guns for self-protection against people with guns is illogical, because if no one had a gun, then no one would have to defend themselves against others with guns. That much is obvious.

EDIT:

Yes, I was exaggerating.

 

[McBell]

There is no such gun that is not designed for killing.

That is exactly my point.

And could you please invalidate the need for fear before calling my post "ignorant"? Because I can't seem to see the basis behind your statement.

Last I checked, machine guns and the armed forces are rarely dispatched against animals. That is a fact, not fear-mongering-ignorance.

The fact is that neither weapon was purchased at Wal-mart.
That is your fear mongering, giving the impression that kids can purchase said weapon when they cannot.

Thus my statement stands.

 

[painted wolf]

Define careless. . . Some people might find justify the use of a gun in different ways. A lot of people would say that shooting a rapist with a gun is justified. Others would say that guns should only be used for hunting. Then there's the sick few who would shoot the faces off of girl scouts... how many points should be deducted for that?

Careless would be not keeping the gun secure, maintained and leaving it loaded. IMHO.
Naturally using a gun in a crime would get you to loose your license for good.
Unfortunately we can't predict psychotic behavior 100%... but I hardly think if the collumbine kids had to go through training, registration, waiting periods and such, then the attack would have happened. At least not to the degree that it did.

What about using the gun for self-defense? Allowing guns for self-protection against people with guns is illogical, because if no one had a gun, then no one would have to defend themselves against others with guns. That much is obvious.

That much is silly. You will never rid the USA of guns, making them illegal only makes them underground. You would still worry about gun crime because criminals don't care about illegal guns. (most guns used in crime are illegal anyway).
What we need is better and stricter management of guns that we already have and that are produced in the future. There will never be an gunless utopia in the world.

We need workable solutions, not daydreams or finger wagging.

wa:do

ps. even the wiki article on Collumbine will tell you where the kids actually got the guns and from whom.

 

[DarkSun]

That is exactly my point.


The fact is that neither weapon was purchased at Wal-mart.
That is your fear mongering, giving the impression that kids can purchase said weapon when they cannot.

Thus my statement stands.

Yes. Yes it does.

Well, I'm sorry for quoting Bowling for Columbine. I probably shouldn't have.

But the rest of my statements stand.