• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

The Great Gun Debate

Dogfish Head

Well-Known Member
Staff member
TEA is my HERO
Apr 8, 2012
1,101
391
Huntsville, AL
Country
United States United States
Why such a big house? Couldn't you live in a nice mobile home? Why vacation in Mexico, surely there is a state park or a mall nearby you could go to instead?

You are completely going off track (guilty of doing it here as well). The fact remains the same, that guns were created with the purpose of killing. Houses, vacations, cars and all that other stuff being dragged in is not equal in discussions.
 

Wi-Golfer

Golfer on hiatus.
Supporting Member
Jul 25, 2007
8,147
1,474
Madison, Wi
Country
United States United States
You are completely going off track (guilty of doing it here as well). The fact remains the same, that guns were created with the purpose of killing. Houses, vacations, cars and all that other stuff being dragged in is not equal in discussions.


Not really, he questioned why I wanted or needed an AR opposed to some other gun, so my response is the house, car vacation bit...we want them for no other reason than because we do. Why does anyone need a 2400 sq ft house unless they have 10 kids? It's because either himself or his wife wanted it, which is as good as a reason as I will ever need.
 

Dogfish Head

Well-Known Member
Staff member
TEA is my HERO
Apr 8, 2012
1,101
391
Huntsville, AL
Country
United States United States
Not really, he questioned why I wanted or needed an AR opposed to some other gun, so my response is the house, car vacation bit...we want them for no other reason than because we do. Why does anyone need a 2400 sq ft house unless they have 10 kids? It's because either himself or his wife wanted it, which is as good as a reason as I will ever need.

He asked why you chose an Ar-15 over a shotgun, handgun or a non tactical rifle such as a .30-06 bolt action rifle. You went on to talk about things not related to guns at all. It's also not respecting the subject matter, which is guns were built to kill. The attempted comparison to extra room in your home and extra bullets to kill is quite a stretch.
 
OP
eclark53520

eclark53520

DB Member Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
Dec 24, 2007
17,521
7,590
South Central Wisconsin
Country
United States United States
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #844
He asked why you chose an Ar-15 over a shotgun, handgun or a non tactical rifle such as a .30-06 bolt action rifle. You went on to talk about things not related to guns at all. It's also not respecting the subject matter, which is guns were built to kill. The attempted comparison to extra room in your home and extra bullets to kill is quite a stretch.
The subject of this thread isn't guns were built to kill. Never was.

The fact is that this country was never about need, freedom isn't about need, nothing is about need. So asking us why we need these rifles is a ridiculous question. Exactly as ridiculous as me asking you why you need anything you own. Regardless of what was designed to do hundreds of years ago. Just about every object in this world has been repurposed from its original intended use at some point. Guns were intended to kill, now they're main use for the vast majority of civilians is recreational.
 

nututhugame

Winter Sucks!
Supporting Member
Dec 29, 2008
4,939
1,351
Southeast Wisconsin
Country
United States United States
He asked why you chose an Ar-15 over a shotgun, handgun or a non tactical rifle such as a .30-06 bolt action rifle. You went on to talk about things not related to guns at all. It's also not respecting the subject matter, which is guns were built to kill. The attempted comparison to extra room in your home and extra bullets to kill is quite a stretch.
I think the comparisons he was making was more of a reply to the "need" aspect of said question. That being the case, one could draw a parallel to any situation where the need for extra is in question.

AR-15 is an arbitrary term in this discussion, or at least to some of us it is. If Sandy Hook had been a case of the killer spraying buckshot into the classroom then you'd be able to go through this thread and replace the terms "assault weapon" and "AR15" with "shotgun". Just as much or more damage could be done by a person who had the experience with shotguns. Reloading cant take that long. Point being, who gives a rat's ass why he chooses what gun he chooses?
 

Dogfish Head

Well-Known Member
Staff member
TEA is my HERO
Apr 8, 2012
1,101
391
Huntsville, AL
Country
United States United States
The subject of this thread isn't guns were built to kill. Never was.

The Great Gun Debate. Which my response fits in. Guns whole purpose was to kill. That is their only purpose. You can't live in a gun. You can't cook with a gun. You can claim to have fun with a gun without killing something sure, but it's purpose is to kill.

The fact is that this country was never about need, freedom isn't about need, nothing is about need. So asking us why we need these rifles is a ridiculous question. Exactly as ridiculous as me asking you why you need anything you own. Regardless of what was designed to do hundreds of years ago. Just about every object in this world has been repurposed from its original intended use at some point. Guns were intended to kill, now they're main use for the vast majority of civilians is recreational.

Sorry, I enjoy shooting a gun as much as anyone else but if they vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. You don't need a 30 round clip and an AR-15 to farm animals. Its usefulness is strictly to kill efficiently.
 

Wi-Golfer

Golfer on hiatus.
Supporting Member
Jul 25, 2007
8,147
1,474
Madison, Wi
Country
United States United States
The Great Gun Debate. Which my response fits in. Guns whole purpose was to kill. That is their only purpose. You can't live in a gun. You can't cook with a gun. You can claim to have fun with a gun without killing something sure, but it's purpose is to kill.


The ability to kill is not their only purpose, oftentimes just someone knowing you have one or seeing you pull it out is enough to stop a situation from escalating. Why does the USA have nuclear warheads other than it's a deterent towards others not to attack us?

The purpose of my guns, some of which I have nowed for 17+ yrs is to do nothing but put holes in paper. Sure they could be used for other pirposes but in my household that is their main objective. And it's funny because none of mine have ever gotten out of my safe and went on a killing spree.
 

Dogfish Head

Well-Known Member
Staff member
TEA is my HERO
Apr 8, 2012
1,101
391
Huntsville, AL
Country
United States United States
The ability to kill is not their only purpose, oftentimes just someone knowing you have one or seeing you pull it out is enough to stop a situation from escalating. Why does the USA have nuclear warheads other than it's a deterent towards others not to attack us?

Nuclear weapons are a product of a useful resource in this world that provides energy to hundreds of millions of people world wide.

Guns are a product of a need for more violence or as you put it, as a need to prevent violence with violence. Either way, violence is the sole purpose of guns in this world and why they were created.

The purpose of my guns, some of which I have nowed for 17+ yrs is to do nothing but put holes in paper. Sure they could be used for other pirposes but in my household that is their main objective. And it's funny because none of mine have ever gotten out of my safe and went on a killing spree.

Which is my point. You can't prove a usefulness to society for guns that does not involve violence. Guns were created and used because they are more efficient at killing.

It's one of the only inanimate objects in the world that you can't justify needing today. Especially when you take into consideration what it provides to this world, which is simply, violence.
 

VtDivot

SLIGHTERED
Supporting Member
Apr 16, 2005
7,154
32
I know nothing about guns, so I was just inquiring about the weapon itself and what it would be used for. Wi owning one because it is cool is his constitutional right I agree. The question remains whether or not laws will be passed to amend those rights slightly to not include these weapons.
 

VtDivot

SLIGHTERED
Supporting Member
Apr 16, 2005
7,154
32
And if I could do it again I would have bought a larger house. We finished the basement which brings the sqft up but I'd still like more room for my woodshop which takes up about 1/3 of my basement
 
OP
eclark53520

eclark53520

DB Member Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
Dec 24, 2007
17,521
7,590
South Central Wisconsin
Country
United States United States
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #851
The Great Gun Debate. Which my response fits in. Guns whole purpose was to kill. That is their only purpose. You can't live in a gun. You can't cook with a gun. You can claim to have fun with a gun without killing something sure, but it's purpose is to kill.



Sorry, I enjoy shooting a gun as much as anyone else but if they vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. You don't need a 30 round clip and an AR-15 to farm animals. Its usefulness is strictly to kill efficiently.
The problem is you have a very narrow mind when it comes to guns. You refuse to accept that guns are used for anything other than what you say they were designed to do. Do you have documentation that the original purpose of a gunpowder propelled shoulder fired weapon was to kill people? I'm honestly asking, I don't know.
 

Wi-Golfer

Golfer on hiatus.
Supporting Member
Jul 25, 2007
8,147
1,474
Madison, Wi
Country
United States United States
You don't need a 30 round clip and an AR-15 to farm animals. Its usefulness is strictly to kill efficiently.

So is your issue with the AR-15 or the amount of rds the magazine holds? Like has been discussed over and over it's just a rifle like thousands of other rifles, just has scary looking attachments on it which for the most part don't do a damn thing except help make it look "scary". Everyone wants to pigeonhole this one sort of rifle as somehow being evil and capable of inflicting massive damage and carnage when the facts have been show that in the USA alone more people are killed with the barehands and feet of people vs any form of rifle. And yes I can easily post the numbers, have seen the charts and it's not even close.
 

BigJim13

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Aug 13, 2006
11,840
3,154
So is your issue with the AR-15 or the amount of rds the magazine holds? Like has been discussed over and over it's just a rifle like thousands of other rifles, just has scary looking attachments on it which for the most part don't do a damn thing except help make it look "scary". Everyone wants to pigeonhole this one sort of rifle as somehow being evil and capable of inflicting massive damage and carnage when the facts have been show that in the USA alone more people are killed with the barehands and feet of people vs any form of rifle. And yes I can easily post the numbers, have seen the charts and it's not even close.
I don't think anybody is trying to pigeon hole the gun. It's pretty clear that that weapon with a 30 shot magazine is capable of inflicting quite a lot of damage.
 

Wi-Golfer

Golfer on hiatus.
Supporting Member
Jul 25, 2007
8,147
1,474
Madison, Wi
Country
United States United States
I don't think anybody is trying to pigeon hole the gun. It's pretty clear that that weapon with a 30 shot magazine is capable of inflicting quite a lot of damage.
So you would be fine with leaving the gun alone and limiting the mag capacity to 5-10 rds then?
 
OP
eclark53520

eclark53520

DB Member Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
Dec 24, 2007
17,521
7,590
South Central Wisconsin
Country
United States United States
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #855
I don't think anybody is trying to pigeon hole the gun. It's pretty clear that that weapon with a 30 shot magazine is capable of inflicting quite a lot of damage.
Running a car into a crowd of people is capable of inflicting a lot of damage.

I know, I know....cars aren't designed to kill...in the grand scheme does it matter? The end product is still dead people at the hands of a deranged criminal. The means is really irrelevant(except for people with hoplophobia), unless you somehow regard the lives of someone killed with a gun as worth more than those killed by a car. Which I'm sure you would agree isn't the case.

The point is, nobody is arguing that in the wrong hands guns aren't dangerous. Guns are dangerous, just like a lot of other things in this world. Falling back on 'guns are designed to kill'(which is still just an assumption as far as I'm concerned) is a sad excuse for not having a legitimate argument against this fact. I say this because if we changed the original designed purpose of a gun, it wouldn't change anything. We would still be in this same situation.
 

🔥 Latest posts

Top