[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Faceman: A gun is a tool. But what for? Handguns, submachineguns, MGs or assault rifles are tools, tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently. Killing or hurting people however is by default illegal, so it's just logic to ban something if its sole purpose is something illegal. This is why we call them arms rather than tools.

I disagree with your assertion that guns are tools specifically designed for killing people most efficiently. There are PLENTY of other uses of guns - especially handguns and rifles.

I thoroughly enjoy target shooting with my guns - as do many Americans. And there are many types of professional competitions designed specifically for the shooting of targets. A good friend of mine has competed (and won) in several skeet shooting competitions. I've seen many competitions on TV for handguns. Everything from who can hit the most targets at the farthest distance to who can actually draw their weapon, shoot a number of targets, eject and reload a clip, and shoot some more targets.

While I don't participate on that level, I certainly enjoy going out in the country and blowing a bunch of holes in cans and bottles. I don't own guns for the purpose of "killing somebody more efficiently", I own guns because I like to shoot guns - pure and simple.

While I agree your argument has more merit regarding machine guns or para-military weapons, you seem to have either forgotten (or simply don't know) that these weapons ARE banned from the general populance already. There is no way for an ordinary private citizen to legally purchase an M16 or any other paramilitary weapons (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

Another thing....you invalidated Maelakin's argument about automobiles being used to kill people because you said that isn't the "primary purpose" of automobiles. OK, fair enough...but in your post refuting all the "common arguments" against gun control, you said this....

Originally posted by Faceman: You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports: And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes.

Now THERE'S a perfect example of comparing apples to orangutans if I ever saw one. Guns and nuclear reactors have absolutely ZILCH in common with each other. So don't criticise arguments of others when you have made an even more exaggerated comparison of your own.

As for the argument of home defense, I fervently disagree with you on this, because I have faced the possibility of an armed person breaking into my house. When I was in college, a fellow that was running from the police ended up coming down our driveway (we lived at the end of a dirt road at the time). When the man realized he had come to a dead end, he jumped out of his truck, pulled a rifle from behind the seat, and briefly looked towards the house (apparantly trying to decide if he should try to break in or not). Fortunately, he decided to simply run into the woods instead.

I was sitting in my bedroom watching the whole thing through my window. The only reason I wasn't completely terrified of this guy coming into the house was the fact that I knew my dad was in the living room watching him too, and had his pistol ready in case the guy did come towards the house. I assure you, he would never have made it to the front porch. I didn't have a gun in my room that night...but I did the night after - and I've had one in my room every night since then too.

If we HADN'T been gunowners and the guy HAD come into the house, my parents and I would have had NO OPTIONS, other than to become the hostages of a desparate man on the run from the police. You said earlier that "two guns equal one corpse". Again, you're wrong. It only takes ONE gun to equal one corpse. The question is "Which one do you want to be?". If you aren't the one with the gun, you're the other one.