open carry - Market Basket, Plymouth NH

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Guns are no more dangerous than anything else, the gun does not commit a shooting, the person does. The hammer did not bludgeon the person to death, the person holding the hammer did. Age old argument some will never get or admit. Carry on...

DEJ, I honestly get that argument, and there is validity to it to some extent. I just think it can be carried too far.

Should shoulder fired missiles be legal? After all, the missile doesn't fire itself, the person aiming it at the plane does. To me it's just common sense that a pocket knife is more dangerous than a piece of cardboard, a butcher knife is more dangerous than a pocket knife, a handgun is more dangerous than a butcher knife, and a shoulder fired missile is more dangerous than a handgun. For some reason some people that support gun rights steadfastly refuse to say that a handgun (or shotgun or rifle) is a potentially dangerous piece of equipment. I agree that the person operates the gun, no argument from me about that. Just looking for perspective.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

DEJ, I honestly get that argument, and there is validity to it to some extent. I just think it can be carried too far.

Should shoulder fired missiles be legal? After all, the missile doesn't fire itself, the person aiming it at the plane does. To me it's just common sense that a pocket knife is more dangerous than a piece of cardboard, a butcher knife is more dangerous than a pocket knife, a handgun is more dangerous than a butcher knife, and a shoulder fired missile is more dangerous than a handgun. For some reason some people that support gun rights steadfastly refuse to say that a handgun (or shotgun or rifle) is a potentially dangerous piece of equipment. I agree that the person operates the gun, no argument from me about that. Just looking for perspective.

A handgun or shotgun or rifle is as much a potentially dangerous piece of equipment as a hammer, baseball bat, etc... It does not matter what the implement is, it is the person using said implement that inflicts harm. Can firearms inflict damage to more people quicker than a baseball bat, of course they can, no argument here. I think you get that and thanks for your comment.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

DEJ, I honestly get that argument, and there is validity to it to some extent. I just think it can be carried too far.

Should shoulder fired missiles be legal? After all, the missile doesn't fire itself, the person aiming it at the plane does. To me it's just common sense that a pocket knife is more dangerous than a piece of cardboard, a butcher knife is more dangerous than a pocket knife, a handgun is more dangerous than a butcher knife, and a shoulder fired missile is more dangerous than a handgun. For some reason some people that support gun rights steadfastly refuse to say that a handgun (or shotgun or rifle) is a potentially dangerous piece of equipment. I agree that the person operates the gun, no argument from me about that. Just looking for perspective.

Some valid and useful comments for all.

So let me reply be saying firearms ARE dangerous and by intentional design, AND most gun owners want them that way. Otherwise we would buy non-firing replicas.

Sure guns can and ARE used for pure recreation and I see no reason to justify why I enjoy shooting magnum handguns and high power rifles, its my fun, just like any buying a Tesla and bragging about its acceleration or someone buying a powerboat over a sailboat.

Like all things there is a use issue and concern, and there should be as well as accountability. But with few exceptions very modest regulation and restrictions.

As for your comments about shoulder fired missiles, well I dont recall any constitutional amendment specifically being written and passed by our government to ensure a personal right to such, and no writings by the founding fathers to promote such. They dont serve much use as personal protection unless you are in fact in a militia fighting back against a rogue government or military, but I suppose some could argue it. I probably would not support it.

As a country how gun control ever got so high on the list of concerns as to every result in the level of restriction we have is totally dumbfounding.

We cant provide food, water, homes, medical treatment, mental health care, and so many other necessary things to our citizens, and yet we can squander politicians time and taxpayers dollars on gin control! Its SHAMEFUL.

When we get the basic necessities right I'll try to be more open minded about whats next of the list. Until then I will remain totally discussed by the constant and ongoing failures of our politicians. For the most part, they are a corrupt and clueless bunch who should be replaced by computers that follow strict rules of law and the constitution.