[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

So here's one flaw with your argument, jet aircraft were invented by the Germans in WWII for the explicit purpose of establishing air superiority and taking out as many US bombers as possible. Almost all modern rocketry in the western world can trace it's origin directly to the V-2 rocket program established by Germany in WWII.

That's valid. It's a more reasonable comparison than an automobile, which was designed for transportation.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Should both jet aircraft and all modern space/satellite programs be 'tainted' as bad because their origins were as weapons of war? Why something was created should be irrelevant, how it is used should be how we judge it.

Indeed, but can you tell me what use guns serve outside of either killing something or using it to intimidate with the threat of killing? I'm not saying it's tainted. I'm saying people seem to be intellectually dishonest about what they're for. Guns are not a tool like a shovel. They do not have the potential to cause harm... that's pretty much the only thing they can do. It's the sole purpose of their design. You can dig with a shovel. You can drive a car. You can only shoot a gun at things.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The problem is you missed the point of the original argument. The argument wasn't about cars or guns. It was about being unbiased and about uniform standards. We like to be discriminatory, it's a survival instinct and it's in the DNA of all life. What we have to actively work at doing is trying to be as unbaised as we can. Treating firearms more harshly than other objects that also have the potential to cause harm is discriminatory. If you want to restrict something fine, set a uniform unbiased standard to measure harm and then restrict EVERYTHING that meets that standard.

That's valid. I agree with the core argument, but the analogy is weak sauce. I liked the space program comparison much better. War is the mother of invention and most of the things we enjoy today were in fact created, at least in part, to kill people. Even this thing I'm typing on right now owes it's roots to violent warfare.

I can't log onto the internet with a gun. It's only use is violence or the deterrence of violence with the threat of violence. That is the difference between guns and basically everything else. It's important and should be acknowledged by gun owners. The point I'm trying to make is that guns haven't really expanded in their use. They're used to kill people/animals or threaten to kill people with.. and for most people that's simply a means to protect yourself and your property from any number of potential threats.

They have no other use. It's an important use who's viability has expanded beyond the battlefield, but it's still not a car.

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The reality is the vast majority of all firearms are used perfectly legally and without harm to their fellow human beings and yet many people want to prohibit them for everyone based upon the bad actions of a minority just because they personally do not like them.

Again, I agree entirely with this. I support the 2nd amendment myself and I am a gun owner. I have never used my gun to kill anything, but one day I may have to in order to survive. That's the only reason I own it and have trained to use it, all while I pray I never have to use it on a living thing. I'm also thinking of getting a conceal and carry permit after this drunk weirdo freaked out on me at Quiktrip.

Now I know they can be used for Hunting, and I don't condemn that either. It is a violence and killing though. People use guns for it because guns are really awesome at killing things. I wish there were no guns in the world, but if the bad guys have guns so will I.