>> ^L0cky:
I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).
It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.
I took a look at the pdf, and while the charts are nice, they cover various date ranges and present their results in different formats, and I think you're misinterpreting them. What I did was use the search feature and look at the raw data. You can also search for non death injuries, but gun related non deadly injuries, accidental or intentional, doesn't even make the top 20, and it doesn't show anything below that.

>> ^L0cky:
In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.
You just said that your source doesn't show non death injuries, yet now you're claiming 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year. You claim to be getting your sources from the same place, but the data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2010 the average homicide by firearm is 12,807 deaths per year. If you add accidental deaths involving firearms the total comes to 21,146 which accounts for 9.6% of all accidental and intentional deaths (this does not include suicide, illness and disease related deaths).

>> ^L0cky:
Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.
We already have plenty of gun control laws. More laws are not going to stop someone that has no intention of obeying them. You obviously did not read the whole article I linked to as it points out that "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation.

>> ^L0cky:
I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.
No one said that you need to teach children to use guns to justify their existence. You were a kid once (or still are), and at a certain age didn't you do the opposite of everything your parents said? If there is going to be a gun in a house, even if they are told it's dangerous and not to be played with and you do your best to lock it up and keep it away from them, if they do get their hands on it wouldn't it be better that they knew how to properly handle it so they don't end up adding to the accidental death by firearm statistic? Cars are dangerous too, but we teach our kids how to be safe in and around cars (wear your seat belt, look both ways before crossing street, etc.), why are you so freaked out about teaching a kid gun safety?

Your philosophy that kids shouldn't be taught how to use guns because guns are bad is basically the same as abstinence only sex education, AKA teaching ignorance.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.
I said I own guns for many reasons, self defense being one of them. You still seem to be confused about why someone chooses to carry a gun for self defense. It looks to me based on what you've written is that you assume someone carries a gun only to protect themselves from other gun owners. As I already pointed out, only 10% of violent crimes involve the use of a gun. I carry to protect myself from 100% of crimes.

>> ^L0cky:
That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.
You can't pick out a small portion of a larger statistic to base your argument on, you need to take into account the whole picture. That's like saying 2001 was a slow year for terrorism, if you don't count the World Trade Center attacks.

>> ^L0cky:
This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns.
I don't know what more you expect, a crime was in progress, a lawfully armed citizen stopped it and it was reported to the police. What your asking isn't possible as the only way to know what would have happened in the other situations is to invent a time machine.

>> ^L0cky:
I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.
What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.
If guns don't reduce crime, then why do we give them to the police? Once more back to that article you didn't read:

"In 13 states citizens who wish to carry arms may do so, having met certain requirements. Consider Florida, which in 1987 enacted a concealed-carry law guaranteeing a gun permit to any resident who is at least 21, has no record of crime, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, and who has completed a firearms safety course. Florida's homicide rate fell following the enactment of this law, as did the rate in Oregon after the enactment of a similar law. Through June 1993, there had been 160,823 permits issued in Florida. Only 530, or 0.33 percent, of the applicants have been denied permits. This indicates that the law is serving the law abiding. Only l6 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been rescinded because of the commission, after issuance, of a crime involving a firearm."

>> ^L0cky:
You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?
Are you fucking serous? Why is a murder with a gun any worse than a knife, baseball bat or even bare hands? A murder is a murder no matter what tool is used to commit it. Other crimes besides murder would be better off without guns, but what part of 90% of violent crimes do not involve the use of a gun did you not understand? If you take away guns from everyone, you're only removing 10% of the tools used by violent criminals, and that doesn't guarantee that violent crime will drop by 10%? In reality you wouldn't be removing anything from criminals because "93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation. So you essentially want to take away every law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves with a gun without doing anything to stop criminals from committing crimes with guns.

>> ^L0cky:
Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.
From your source: "Provisional figures for the year ending June 2012 show that 5,507 firearm offences were recorded in England and Wales, an 18 per cent decrease on the previous year (6,694)." In 1997 when the ban was enacted only 2,648 crimes were reported involving guns. It looks like that ban has worked well.


>> ^L0cky:
I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with
The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.
Statisticslol
This is where you have misinterpreted the graphs. The vertical portion of that graph is in deaths per 100,000 population. If you dig up the raw numbers from the search engine this is what you'll find:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 13%
Accident by Firearm = 0.5%

>> ^jimnms:

You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC

I looked at a lot of sources, including CDC. They have a helpful compilation of their stats in the form of their CDC's 2007 chart book. It shows that firearm related deaths and poisoning are always less than motor vehicles; firearms are more likely to cause an early death; while death from poison is more likely to get you in middle age (possbily this includes long term effects of poisoning, ie working with hazardous materials when they were younger?).

It also doesn't show non death injuries; nor can the stats reflect the fact that every household has potential poisons while around half of households have firearms.

In absolute terms it's inarguable that there are a lot of gun related deaths and injury in the US (around 31,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries per year give or take). This doesn't change simply because there are other causes of death and injury.

Let me be clear, my argument is that non sport firearms don't add anything positive to society that justifies the resulting gun related injury, death and crime. The granting of firearm licenses for hunting and sport should require strict licensing that's based on a requirement of training and testing. Gun control laws should be purposefully strict.

>> ^jimnms:

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough.

I haven't objected to this. My objection is to the suggestion that a societal need to teach children how to use firearms can be used to justify their existence. It's circular logic; and I'd prefer not to live in a society where learning to use firearms is a requirement of safety.

>> ^jimnms:

how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns?


Like swords, they have nowhere near the same problem; and there isn't any good data about what they're used for. My guess would be they're mostly owned for sport, but like swords I don't know.

>> ^jimnms:

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun.

I'm not stating this, I'm questioning it. You yourself said you own them for self defense.

>> ^jimnms:

The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun

That has zero effect on the number violent crimes that DO involve the use of a gun.

>> ^jimnms:

up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year


This isn't a useful number unless you can show that those crimes would not have been prevented without guns; and would still have occurred without guns. I guess your point is that gun ownership reduces crime. I'm open to that - if it can be shown more clearly.

What is clear from comparing to other countries, particularly those with comparative gun ownership is that the lack of gun control in the US correlates to an increase in gun related death and injury by an order of magnitude. The problem isn't gun ownership in and of itself; it's gun ownership without lack of appropriate gun control laws.

>> ^jimnms:

You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes.

You're right, if guns suddenly vanished tomorrow there would still be crime and violence. However, it would be crime and violence without guns; and I think, that (of itself) is preferable. How could it not be?

>> ^jimnms:

The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]


Crime in the UK has reduced dramatically according to The Office for National Statistics between before then (1999/2001) and now, including firearm offences. In Australia assault is up, robbery is down and sexual assault is about the same according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. Homicides involving firearms have continued to decline to their lowest on record.

>> ^jimnms:
That "statistic" is flat out untrue, and it must have hurt pulling that out of your ass.

I pulled it from the same source you are correcting me with

The CDC - Injury in the United States: 2007 Chart Book, page 24.

Statisticslol

>> ^jimnms:

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not feel the need to own them for self defense, therefore supporting lenient gun control policies that contribute to a high rate of injury and death.

One can dream

>> ^Murgy:

>> ^deathcow:
You could kill with any of those items.
Not at 600+ rounds per minute, 200 meters away, you can't. Hell, and that's just the Uzi.

For those of you with your undies in a wad over the Uzi, I can assure you that if this guy legally purchased it, it is either not a fully automatic Uzi, or if it is fully automatic, he has gone through some serious background checks and paid some serious money for the permits to legally own it.

>> ^L0cky:
There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.
If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

OK, we can all stop right there. After that statement, you have shown how delusional you really are and anything you say can't be trusted. That "statistic" is flat out untrue, and it must have hurt pulling that out of your ass. Here are the death statistics for 25 year old US citizens from the CDC from 1999-2010:

Motor Vehicle Accident = 22%
Homicide by Firearm = 12%
Accident by Firearm = 0.4%

As I said in my other post, the pages can't be linked to, but you can use the search at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control and look it up yourself.

>> ^L0cky:
You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I agree, vehicles are beneficial to society, but they are also the leading cause of accidental death. Most of those deaths are caused by people improperly using their vehicles. You advocate taking guns away from all citizens, so in your perfect world only police and the military would have them. Would you also like to remove personal vehicle ownership for all citizens and only allow travel to be by government operated mass transit? It would certainly save a lot of lives.

Guns have played a beneficial role in modern society. Lots of free societies have come from its citizens taking up arms against their oppressive governments. You could argue that we no longer need guns in free societies, but you can also argue that without access to guns, what is to stop the government from becoming oppressive to its people again.

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.
The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.
You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC, unfortunately I can't link to them because they are generated by a search and the URLs generated are session specific. The statistics, as detailed as they are, don't state weather the child was educated in the use of firearms, but accidental firearms death in children is quite low. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2010 the leading cause of accidental deaths to children ages 1-4 is motor vehicle accidents (28.9%), poisoning is 8th (2.4%) and firearms is 12th (1.0%). Going up to the 5-9 age range MVA is still the leading cause of accidental death (46.7%), with poisoning still 8th (1.8%) and firearms still 12th (1.5%). You can look them up yourself at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control.

>> ^L0cky:
If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.
Having a gun in your home does not make it the most dangerous thing in the house, and the statistics I posted above back me up. There are plenty of things even in a gunless household that are lethal if a child gets its hands on it. I would argue that a gun is far safer because it can be unloaded and therefore be rendered harmless if a kid gets a hold of it. A bottle of drain cleaner, bug spray, bottle of medicine, etc. is always going to be dangerous if a child gets a hold of it. With those items, all you can do is lock them away in a safe place where a child can't get them until they are old enough to understand that they are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner would treat a gun the same as any other dangerous object in the home, by unloading it and/or locking it up until the child is old enough to be taught that it's dangerous and not something to play with.

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough. I was taught by my father as his father taught him, and I've never killed anyone on purpose or accident.

>> ^L0cky:
So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one...
I can't speak for every gun owner, but I have several reasons. I personally own four guns, two rifles and two pistols. It's a hobby, I like to shoot them, but I also own them for self defense. I also like archery and own a bow. A bow is also an instrument of war and designed for the taking of human life as well as hunting, just as a rifle, but how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns? I don't hunt, but I have friends that do, so there's another reason for you.

I also have gone through the steps to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I think of it as insurance. I have car insurance, but I don't intend to get in a wreck, and I also have home owners insurance though I don't intend for my home to get damaged or destroyed. I don't carry a gun intending to kill someone, but just like car and home insurance I have it just in case.

>> ^L0cky:
I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun. The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun, and up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year, most of which do not involve discharging the weapon.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired." [source]

>> ^L0cky:
I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them. You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes. The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]

>> ^deathcow:

You could kill with any of those items.


Not at 600+ rounds per minute, 200 meters away, you can't. Hell, and that's just the Uzi.

>> ^bmacs27:


Why does this guy need to justify his collection? Would you guys react differently if they were swords?


Again, 200 meters, 600+ rounds per minute.



Mates, go check out the gun deaths per capita in regions like the UK, Canada, or Australia. As convincing as many peoples arguments are against firearm regulation, and truly there have been some logical and justified points raised here, the statistics simply don't support it. Often by measures of times ten to twenty five reductions in homicide alone.

Forgive me for not having cited specific sources here, the only reputable statistics I seem able to find possess vast differences in time between countries being compared. I wouldn't want to seem as though I'm cherry picking facts, so I encourage you to research this for yourself.

>> ^bmacs27:
I still feel an attachment to the revolution, and if you think about, it wasn't that long ago. The minutemen weren't paranoid, they were prudent.

I understand the sentiment. Something along the lines of the principal that if the government prevents you from owning firearms, they are preventing you from overthrowing them. This can be interpreted as a form of oppression.

Maybe that's the real reason the US spends so much on it's military?

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^bmacs27:
Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.


Hence why I said most.


Which is what I figured, however, if you take a look at the noise in the numbers, Switzerland is within noise of Iceland, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Would you still call it most?

For every enthusiast per capita the US has like this guy, Switzerland has one with half as many guns. Does it really make a difference? Is Europe really that different?

Frankly, I come from the North East. I still feel an attachment to the revolution, and if you think about, it wasn't that long ago. The minutemen weren't paranoid, they were prudent. And they were packing cannon, the nuclear arms of their day. While I think it's worth carefully considering where lines are drawn, e.g. "small" arms, I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media. Sure they're dangerous. But so are lots of things. Accepting a dangerous world is the cost of living in a free society.

I'm sympathetic to the view that "well regulated militias" should probably keep large stores of arms away from their residences, and certainly children. However, we have no strong evidence this guy has kids around. I guess we can quibble about fire, however there is not particularly much in the way of ammunition present. Remember, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Personally, I suspect this guy is a gun salesman. That would explain the quantity of guns, and the relative lack of ammunition. Further, it would explain the youtube video that appears to be an advertisement for a gun cabinet. I don't begrudge this guy his vocation.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?

>> ^L0cky:

You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.

Like Switzerland, right?

>> ^L0cky:

That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?>> ^L0cky:

This idea of being a collector is providing no justification whatsoever.
In countries where guns are not freely available; people who like to collect things, collect something else. Like stamps, or Star Wars figures.
When the CIA turn up to investigate my nuclear bombs I'll just shrug and say "hey, I like nuclear bombs, so I collect them".
I don't doubt there are people who collect guns because they like them, and they're fun to shoot, and they like their history, and admire their design; the guy in this video is obviously one of them.
It doesn't justify a society with a proliferation of firearms.

>> ^colt45:

So those 82% are all owning guns for murder or war, then? Let's just take this absurd myopic view one step further: Rocks are dangerous weapons that need to be banned! They are readily available to children and highly dangerous!
>> ^L0cky:
Around 6% of US Americans hunt, yet around 34% own a gun; therefore around 82% of gun owners own a gun for something other than hunting. Bringing up hunting is just avoiding the issue.
Besides, I don't think that guy's UZI is for hunting rabbits.
Also, you don't need to teach children how to safely use firearms if they don't have access to firearms. Kinda like how you don't need to teach them how to safely use a particle accelerator, even though they too are dangerous.


Wow. That definitely made my top 10 list of "Really stupid things that I actually read on the internet".

Seriously, when was the last time a kid accidently threw a rock and blew his friends brains out? Accidently put a hole through their own foot / hand / leg?

Sure, they can be used as a close up blunt damage weapon. However, in order to actually kill someone with a rock, it would generally have to be pre-meditated (i.e. kill them when they're asleep, because if you try to kill someone with a rock when they're concious and healthy, it probably wont go well.)

I can think of countless stories over the years involving some idiot irrational gun owner going out and killing someone they knew nothing about, because they felt threatened. Lately, the one I remember is of Trayvon Martin. You know, the kid shot for eating skittles on a street he didn't live on.

But let's go ahead and get back to the point @spoco2 was making earlier. Rocks have existed since the beginning of time. They serve no purpose, they have no design, or goal. They're simply there.

Guns, on the other hand, were designed as an instrument of death. In no part of the gun design was someone thinking "AND it'll function as a paperweight!". It was just another step further in the direction of long ranged combat, specifically for ending the life of another human being.

That's not to say that everybody who does own a gun has it for the sole reason of killing someone, after all, people still collect swords, axes, fascinating weapons from throughout the ages.

But I can't honestly see the amount of collectors being too high.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

Why people collect them or own them does not matter. They can so they do. Your opinions on it also do not matter. Simple saying you do not like them is more than enough. Forcing your opinion on the matter just makes it more likely people will ignore you or blow you off as some self righteous ass. Just like most who will read this will do the same to me.


agreed