Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12-06-2008, 10:51 AM   #32
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,162
Thanks: 205
Thanked 431 Times in 248 Posts
Default Accurate description

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of Waiting View Post
jeffk,

Most of what you wrote I agree with. However the above paragraph gives me a bit of trouble.
ToW
ToW,

I chose my words very carefully. I discussed a gun's function, not the intent of it's owner. When a gun's trigger is pulled an explosive reaction propels a chunk of metal in a specifically targeted direction. If that chunk of metal hits living tissue it will damage it and possibly kill the living organism it hits. This is what guns were designed and created to do and they perform their function well.

If a policeman, soldier, or citizen (carrying or in their home) fire their weapon they are doing it to carry out the gun's function. They may not want to, it may be in self defense but pulling the trigger commits the gun to perform it's function. When a person aims a gun at a person and pulls the trigger they know what will happen, the target will be injured or killed. I doubt very much that anyone who commits to firing their gun would be happy if the gun failed to fire and the person who was assaulting them was able to continue to do so. Further, I believe (although I am happy to be corrected) that most people firing a weapon in self defense are told to target the torso because it is the largest target incidentally increasing the chance a vital organ will be damaged.

The intent of the people using guns, protection of the public, self defense, projection of sovereign power, are all justified in my opinion and in law but they don't change the function of a gun.

I am simply talking common sense here.

The gun should be respected and feared as the deadly weapon that it has been designed to be. How would it restrict my right to own such a weapon as a machine gun if restrictions were created for public shows that physically limited the the gun's recoil and only allowed loading a few rounds at a time? Serious buyers wanting a more complete demonstration could make arrangements for a private trial of the weapon. Do we really want 8 year olds firing a fully loaded unrestricted machine gun at a public show? The child's intention was to simply have some fun but the machine gun's function could have led to much greater tragedy. We are lucky that many others weren't hurt or killed.

Last edited by jeffk; 12-06-2008 at 12:17 PM.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.36205 seconds