Why yes owning a gun can be fun. It does however carry its responsibilities as would a fast car require good driving. Gun ownership carries big punishments for misuse though. Ranges with the least safety gear are in the middle of nowhere many miles from houses because liability for bullets hitting houses and people is just about impossible (thus no lawsuits). The ranges close to houses are indoors or designed with rules, berms, and overhead metal blockers to avoid having this happen. Not the mention the security cameras put up at my local pistol range to catch who was shooting the structure's pillars. Keep the laws against manslaughter up as well, that's a great incentive as well. For misuse against one's self, I've even seen a guy in school with a shot foot he did to himself. That's painful and just about everyone in my gym class heard about it.
Still, to reply to your questions. I do refuse to be robbed of the TV or the $60. Will he attempt to kill me? Maybe, especially if he is already armed. I don't have to shoot back right away, I could run, disarm him, throw heavy things at him, or tell him to run because I threaten him with lethal self-defense. Others may not view getting their lives in the way of their property wise all the time, but it is their own value scale to defend property and self. I would be mad at a shopkeeper for shooting a child stealing a toy out of a store (assuming no one in the store was threatened by this boy) because no one's body was even threatened with even a stab. I mean, taking out the boy's life may be a huge unseen cost that is unjustified since he threatened no one.
Now getting in the way of a theft may result in a murder attempt, but being serious for self-defense may also result in no crime. That's a gamble for the gunowner or knifeowner or the strong armed. Thus, the question may be "is $60 worth your life and body to defend?" And honestly, self-defense trainers suggest you do give the $60 because of this danger. For an LCD TV in the house? Maybe he pulls a gun or knife when told to drop the TV, or maybe he runs. End results may mean an escaped thief, the homeowner killed, or the thief who attempted to hurt the homeowner is killed, or the TV is out of the house.
So stricter gun laws and control then? Telling people what rifle they can no longer sell is backed up by government force. Two consenting parties, both legal to buy and sell a gun in the present system, can no longer do the same. Maybe you meant the mentally ill shouldn't get them, but these people may not have killed or aren't aggressive. ADHD, aspergers, autism, depression come to mind as common illnesses, yet are they actually violent or have been violent?
Oh, but now I reached a topic I am on the fence about, still thinking of: Should felons and all of the mentally ill be able to legally buy and sell firearms? I'll think about it. Maybe there should be liability on gun shops for selling weapons to known bad guys and aggressive mentally ill instead. Which brings forward vouchers (people who can say "I trust this felon enough that I will pay massive damages if he screws up") and pretty much the same ban against felons. Ah who knows what better system there is for this gun buying and selling, maybe they really should just be allowed to sell as they wish because it is only the felon who's the bad guy for aggressive violence.
And finally with your judgement for the rifle's design or purpose or danger. It's still a subjective thing. Humans judge what is to fulfilled by making a tool (its designed to do...), and another human may judge that tool's purpose according to his wants. How dangerous something is depends on a person's judgement and evaluation of risk-vs-reward and how he feels about the risk (injury) or reward (some purpose). I see people not wear seatbelts, and I know they might go through the windshield in a crash, but they may see the risk as being so small that it's worth the comfort of being without the belt. Dangerous to have these weapons? It depends because the gun is inactive, its safety depends on its use and how the user follows safe gun handling. Telling others about a gun collection may also be dangerous by increasing the risk for home invasion (or it may decrease the risk! Unknown effect).
But really, if you meant that the rifle is dangerous against victims (or an aggressor) then of course it is. Same with two or more thugs ambushing a person with or without any weapons. Same with chemistry making a truck bomb for killing (somehow, the Mid-East still has these occur despite what the army tries). The assault rifle may be viewed as an improvement over a normal hunting rifle for its looks, target shooting, or hunting, and that is like how a faster car may be viewed as an improvement for its looks, speed, and bragging. Both can be viewed as an improved way to carry out a purpose a human desires. Both can also be seen as more dangerous, though I do not support banning either. The violence of taking away another's property (rifles) for the purpose of a gun ban or law or control instead of a real violent crime is offensive to me.
That's about enough from me though, I think my practice at debating is enough. I have now thought up quite the question over if felon should have a gun bought (do we really know his future?), and it interests me enough to investigate it.
Edit: Akiyama holds it as a truth that design and purpose is in fact subjective. I am bored of restating that. Also, one may state seatbelt laws are around to prevent this "dangerous" activity of not wearing one while driving. Frankly, I am only interested in persuading people to use a seatbelt for their own safety, but you might get yelled at for pointing a rifle at others on a rifle range since that concerns others' safety (and you could be reported for it).
Last edited by Akiyama; 25th December 2012 at 1:31 AM.
As I adventured into math and ideas, that old desire for fan fiction came back.
This review took at least an hour to write, by the way.