A better name for a gun

reserved

How about defender? Not a great name, but it implies the only use for the gun is to defend yourself, never to commit violent acts against others, or be involved with accidental deaths and suicide. Everyone should have the right to carry a defender to protect themselves!

Guns are also the single greatest mean of violence in our world's history. They have killed families, they have murdered innocents. They have toppled legitimate governments to impose dictatorship.

The British tried to stop India's plea for freedom with guns. So did the KKK against the civil rights movement. There is a reason why criminals are feared: they use guns.

It's a weapon. A weapon can always do harm, both against good and bad people. There is nothing instrinsicly good about it. Gun controls have been practiced also by very democratic societies, and other tyrants have never enforced Gun control on their people. There is no correlation that Tyrant = Gun control, except in the mind of the NRA and it's adherents.

I'm breaking out my liberal violin right now to compliment this sad song.

Then why is it one of the first things that all oppressive regimes do, is take away firearms from their citizens?

A gun is a tool. I don't mind people incompetent in handling one themselves, not having one, just don't throw your morals on me. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, that will always be true. I've had a gun since age eight, never killed anyone, never had a desire to (though I wouldn't hesitate to kill with prejudice if they broke into my home, a choice criminals make everyday in the US). Try enforcing the gun laws currently on the books if you don't like gun violence. Liberals seem to create a problem so they can sell their cure.

Oh and the subjects of the world just need to look to the US, to see that no self-proclaimed tyrants have found a home here.

Sounds like a better name for a condom!

It is also inaccurate as it leaves out hunting, varmint control and target shooting. The peace and love crowd will of course say for crimes and aggression, to which I will point out that those young girls killed recently, were killed without firearms. Evil will always find a way. Remember the movie "Braveheart" (sure liberties were taken in it's filming)? One thing that was accurate, the English wouldn't allow the Scots to own swords. That is the world the bleating hearts would subject one to.

how about "protection"... gives the "did you bring protection" a whole new meaning.

Guns didn't do that, people did. And actually guns reduce all three of those.

1. Killed families. This is very easy for the father to do with his bare hands, its possible for any family member to do with a knife. A weapon allows a mother to protect her children from a violent father. A gun allows a child to protect their mother or father from an assailant, be he family or stranger.

Thats the dumbest thing I have heard from you since the last time you posted something (I believe the last one was antisemetic sentiments); If you use weapons such as sword an bow, its easier to take away freedom. Guns greatly improve the chances of a resistance.

Really? a gun allowed individuals to hold of lynch mobs. Unarmed, there is nothing you can to protect your family against a mob... even armed with a knife, there is practically nothing you can do. But armed with a gun you can stop a mob and save yourself and your family.

Also, YOU DARE call out the KKK after your antisemitic comments in other threads? That is some high grade hypocrisy. (the last of which was https://forums.joeuser.com/376818/page/2/#2562718 specifically:

The claim: the "average conservative" is just a weak minded sheep bleeding their faith in their misguided belief that Israel isn't that evil. (the insinuation is that israel is obviously evil, and anyone who actually thinks realizes that).

Actually, no. They are feared because they commits crimes. The scariest of which are "rape" and "murder", less scary are "theft", "kidnapping", "mugging", and "assault". None of those requires a gun, all of those can be stopped with a gun.

It can also harm both the strong and the weak. Without a weapon, the weak cannot harm the strong, the unskilled (in martial arts) cannot harm the skilled. The weapon takes away that gap. An old woman in her home facing a mugger, a young girl being raped in an alley, a family facing a lynch mob; the gun gives them a chance.

Anyways. all of this is really besides the point, this is a thread for pro guns individual to discuss names. Not to discuss the merits of guns (which there are plenty of other topics exactly for that), so unless you have something related to the topic to add (aka, positive name suggestions), please leave. You know what, I think I will just kick you out instead. And before you cry censorship, its not based on disagreeing with me on gun control, but the antisemetic comments (see middle of this post, near the KKK part) I have been seeing from you, combined with fact you are spoiling a perfectly amicable discussion by like minded individuals with your inappropriate rant. (you don't go to a gay marriage to rant about homosexuality, you don't go to a funeral to rant about god)

I will have you know that as I was taught to value open mindedness above all else, I open mindedly listen to anyone, no matter how bigoted (even bigoted towards me and my "kind") their claims are, but that doesn't mean listening to them indefinitely when they fail to provide even the most basic of logical reasoning or proof for their claims. You had your chance, and your constants baseless antisemitism combined with utterly insane and logicless remarks has been more then enough. I am lessened by even talking to someone so bigoted and closed minded as an equal.

I don't use the blacklist feature lightly (and I have rarely used it at all), but I want to actually come up with results out of this discussion, not spiral into a flamewar about whether guns are good or evil.

If someone think I am being too harsh here and that I should let him back in, please let me know.

EDIT: How about some shorthand? like Prot (short for protection) or freedef (freedom defender). Those cannot be confused, the listener/reader will immediately realize that it is a word s/he is unfamiliar with and might look it up / ask you.

I like Defender - but in conjunction with that - Equalizer.  I am not equal to Stone Cold Steve Austin one on one in a fight, but a gun at 20 paces makes us about equal.

How about "multi-purpose security tool" (not one word I know, but read on). This would be good for handguns, but personally I'm not so comfortable with a one size fits all name for an item that has such a wide, diverse range of uses from dire to personal enjoyment.

OT: Tal, your article, your rules, but I would implore you to reconsider banning anyone. The member in question and I hardly ever are in agreement, but at least for now in the US, everyone has the right to an opinion. I think how many times I've gone off on a tangent myself. You correctly put the comments back on topic, I don't believe Cikomyr would have pushed the issue beyond that. There are some blogs with a much wider topic base that do block conservative voices. Just my 2 cents.

Seconded.  Cikomyr has strong and liberal opinions.  But he is not a blind robot following a mantra, and when engaged is quite logical and reasonable.

Certainly we disagree on issues of left vs right. But I would not ban someone simply for that. If you look at the middle of that post (its easy to miss, its a huge wall of text) I had gone in depth into another issue, specifically, his stipulation that guns are "tools of the KKK's opression" which I found pretty ironic considering he has just made an offhanded antisemitic statements in another thread.

When I was going through how his statements in this thread amount to trolling I recalled that he has just made an antisemetic comment in another thread (and I somewhat recall that not being the first time); I looked it up quickly, linked it, and done what I always do when I face bigotry... listen to it with an open mind and fairly judge its merits; as always, I found the bigot to be full of it.

The fact that I think he is being an illogical liberal (although he doesn't just chant their mantras as you said, and isn't perfectly in line with the liberals on every issue), anyways, this would not be a reason for me to blacklist anyone. It is frustrating to debate them, but I wouldn't block them from speaking. I would likewise blacklist a conservative who agrees with me on all issues if he makes antisemitic comments.

Trolling/Flaming (this thread is clearly titled "better name for a gun" not "lets debate whether guns are evil or not") would prompt me to ask someone to zip it or at most temporarily shush them if they persist. Antisemitism is the big issue here and the actual reason for the ban.

To that I will suggest this: Isn't it better to call someone out on it then let it hide in the shadows? I had a feeling that is what plucked your last nerve. You'll have to trust that others here are in tune subtle (and not so subtle) word usage on a broad spectrum of issues. Even the non-Jewish members here are perceptive enough to spot it, and we take note. Now, perhaps he knew what was he implied, maybe not. You called him on it, that's how to do it, but now you need to engage when ever it occurs, if just to find out why. And, if Cikomyr was oblivious to what he implied, he should have the chance to say so. Banning stops the dialog, and really that is why we all come here, maybe not to change minds, but voice opinion. I'd only use banning for spam, but I have a thick skin, besides that's something socialist like to do, not my style. Like I said, it's up to you, I'm not trying to stir anything up.

BTW Chuck called him on a perception in another thread, different issue just as disturbing IMO. I'm not so sure I buy the response, it needs further probing.

alright, you make a very good point; unbanned. Lets see if he actually has a good response to that or not.

He doesn't want to report to you. You are just a bully who likes to hear echos of your own voice.

https://forums.joeuser.com/377720

All things quiet on the political front. Remember that thread? No wonder no one comes here to post divergent point of views. You don't tolerate dissent. You throw insults like they are candy to anyone not thinking the same as you. You come here claiming that "Guns are such a great justice-maker", I tell you "They are just a toll, to be used also for bad things", and you FUCKING BAN ME?

You come to this forum to hear other people like you. You don't tolerate people that might have a different point of view, and you do your best to discredit them by calling them by every single possible name, going from "socialists" all the way to "antisemitist", passing through "liberal".

If what you want is just obediant echos of your own thoughts, telling you how great you are, and how clever your posts are, then ban me again, because I won't compromise nor quiet my opinions to satisfy your ego, nor will I let you insult me again.

Yhea.. about the whole "Tyrants use gun laws to enforce authority"

Yhea.. Kinda works, I think. I mean, Hitler set in place so many gun laws to restrict an..

oh, wait, he didn't. He actually liberalised guns in his country after the Weimer Republic.

Anyway, probably a fluke. We all know that countries like France is such a Tyranny, eh? Or Brasil. Or Finland. or Mexico. Gosh, I did not knew that New-Zealand was a dictatorship. Or Finland. Or the U.K.

Point is, while you are right, many oppressive government have tried to disarm their population to better oppress them, but others don't. I have tried to find any reliable indication that Gadaffi actually done so in his country, and I cannot find anything related to that. Hell, Saddam Hussein didn't restricted gun ownership under his rule, yet he didn't really felt treathened by it.

You claimed that "People kill people". You are right. But you claim that "Gun topples tyrants", and I say you are wrong. "Liberators topple tyrants". Or "People topples tyranny". Not guns.

Why should an argument be used to absolve the gun's bad points but cannot be used the same way around? Ultimately, what determine the fate of people isn't what they use, but what they do. A thief killer with a huge knife will still kill you.

There is nothing inherently good about guns. They are merely a tool, and should not be glorified past the skill you have while using it. They are no symbol (except in Mozambique, where it's on the national flag). Seriously, ask yourself that question, you'd like to have a gun on your country's flag?

I believe your words are making assumptions your ass can't cash. But that's not for me to decide anyone reading can decide for themselves their personal right or wrong. Nobody has a lock on what some else might think.

If you desire let the government to control everything for you and your country, you my friend are a socialist. (just saying)

Tal seems to believe you have a problem with antisemitism. I urged him to let you respond. I do not believe you have addressed his concerns adequately, just continue your anti-gun tirade, but that's up to you. If you feel this is not the proper forum you could PM him and converse privately. If someone thought I had those tendencies, I know I'd have something to say about it. But that's me.

Liberal...It's funny how many "liberals" hate that term. Sorry it's an accurate description. I'm proud to be a conservative, and you may address me as such any day of the week.

Tolerance, I believe you're mistaken about the level shown here. Until here, I've never seen you booted from an article (and after deliberation Tal reconsidered). I've never seen anyone intimidate anyone into leaving that didn't want to go. If you can't defend your position and want to quit playing and take your ball home, that's your choice, but the guilt trip don't fly here.  As I have stated there are articles that I or other conservatives can't comment on, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. That said, it is the article's owner job to moderate as they see fit. Most all are very lenient.

There is no rule saying if you have nothing to contribute to the article, that you have to make a comment. Tal made it pretty clear that this was not to be a debate on pro/anti-firearms. So I guess he was within his rights to boot us both. I personally don't comment on the religious threads, and usually leave if they turn in that direction, as I have nothing to add and no real interest to begin with. Somehow I don't think they'll miss me. Give it a try if you feel so inclined.

No, that's a totalitarist. Socialism is an economic belief, not an organisational structure of society that would be akin to democracy, feodalism, etc..

Granted, many socialist sociery have derived into dictatorships, but not all. And socialism isn't the single credo of dictatorships.

I have replied to his tirade in the proper thread. One he cannot lock me out of if the arguments aren't to his liking.

It's not the term, it's how you use it. For people like you and on this forum, you put "liberal" label on anything that is wrong about politics, calling these "liberal" values. The same thing happens in my society about any right-wing idea, going as far to say that "capitalism" is a taboo word in our political culture.

But it isn't. By YOUR definition of liberal, I don't want to be called that, since it's an insult of morality. By the real Liberal's definition of liberal, I don't see anything wrong with that. The way you depict liberals, they are dictator-lovers who can't wait to sign USA's surrender to Iran.

Right. It was simply a thread inviting people to say how great and mighty and just guns are. That's nut. It's a freaking tool, nor good nor evil. I ain't saying that Gun are the Evil.

First, you're trying to make it as if Tal said that all tyrants use gun laws.  His quote is ambiguous BUT he does not say all.

I'll take one of those countries that you listed: the U.K.  Now, before I go any further I will pose some questions.  You constantly state that guns are neither good or bad then you say this 'You claimed that "People kill people". You are right. But you claim that "Gun topples tyrants", and I say you are wrong. "Liberators topple tyrants". Or "People topples tyranny". Not guns.Why should an argument be used to absolve the gun's bad points but cannot be used the same way around? Ultimately, what determine the fate of people isn't what they use, but what they do. A thief killer with a huge knife will still kill you.'

Do you really feel that guns are neither good or bad?  If you do feel that they are neither good or bad then why do you feel the need to persuade some one the counter point (example here some feels guns are good and you're trying to persuade the counter side)? 

Now, if guns are neither bad nor good then why ban them?  You brought up the point of banning guns by listing off those countries so what is the point in banning guns?

Onto the U.K.  I will be getting my information from: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/sta_index.htm

The total number of firearm offenses doubled from 1998/99 to 2009: 5,209 to 9865.  I will note for 2009 that the number is down from the previous years.  Knife crime has increased as well. Just looking at 2007 and 2006 as examples: 258 to 219.

Should we ban knives or have knife control?  In the U.S., I have heard that areas that have a higher concentration of NRA membership that gun crimes are statistically lower.  I don't have time to build my case for this.  My point is that the NRA teaches people gun safety and persuades people from gun crimes. 

Does that mean that no NRA member uses their firearms in a crime? No.

Do gun controls/bans keep individuals who shouldn't have guns from getting guns? No.  It does make it more difficult usually.

Because if this was an argument about banning guns from a country, and saying how it'd be safer if we totally restricted gun access from the people, I'd be arguing against them. I strive for the balance, and in an environnement such as Joe User, I come out as a freaking totalitarian apparently.

I ain't argumenting for banning gun. But having more restriction around them. Like, you know, proper handling certification and training if you want to buy one. Registration of the gun itself so it's ballistic imprint can be traced back to the owner. There is too  many guns on the black market right now, it'd be a nice thing to see where they come from and be able to arrest the people at the source.

We do it for cars, after all. If you get your car stolen, you report it so it can be brought back to you if we ever find it. If you sell it to a pawnshop, well, you still have to declare to have sold it for you to stop being responsible for its use. Doing the same for guns would go a long way toward protecting honest citizen, both gun-owners and non-gun owners.

Also, it would increase the safety of policemen who have to do intervention in homes (good to know if you have to expect a gun).

I don't agree with everything that is written in Tal's article.  The thing that I don't agree with is non-gun related. 

Even if this issue offended me, I don't need to debate it.  I am very confident in who I am.  I have done research on what I know/believe.  With the combination of the two I don't need to constantly to debate with someone every opportunity to show them how right I am and how wrong they are.

No Totalitarianism is when the government decides to control your life. Socialists ask there government to control their lives. Big difference.

I saw that after my response here, so I'll let you both work it out. I've said all I'm going to say about it.

I agree with your points here.  The people who are going to go through the process of getting their guns register are probably the same people who have gone through the training or are they the ones doing the crimes.

Criminals that use guns usual have a stolen gun or a black market gun so they don't go through with registration.  Gun restrictions usually don't affect the criminal element.  As you can see with the UK and most other countries that have strict gun control.  The criminal elements don't really care and they're going to get guns.

You are right that we need to go to the black market and get to the source.  The black market will always be there.

Finally, the Old West through history we can see it was safer than most major U.S cities at the same time that had ban on guns.  The Old West had for the most part had lose gun laws.  Essentially, nearly everyone had a gun and so if you were going to start something you were taking a chance that you were going to die or get injured.  If you were carrying a gun back then you mostly likely had some training with it.  The way that movies portray the Old West is generally inaccurate.

I like the name Colonel Colt used for one of his weapons. "The Peacemaker" and when a bad person uses it we call it "The Liberal".

For the crooks too!  While this is solely an American phenomenom, statistics show that in communities where gun laws are less strict, so are home invasions, burglaries and robberies.  In fact, all forms of violent crimes are lower.  Perhaps because the bad guys think you DO have a gun makes the difference.