Why do people get body kits for cars to make their honda look like a ferrari? Because it looks better to them.

You don't use cars to kill people. Cars, or at least luxury ones, are not tools.

Implying that cars haven't been used as murder weapons. Get out.

I'm not saying they haven't been used as murder weapons. You can use a banana as a murder weapon if you'd like. What I'm saying is that guns are [i]specifically designed[/i] to destroy or kill things, whether it be humans, animals, and so on. A gun is a tool, and thus should be treated as such. Most don't put "body kits" on their tools to change their appearance, no matter which tool it is.

A gun is a much more personal tool than a wrench. And people do personalize their tools by adding grip-tape and rubberized handles to them to make them better for them. Besides, cars kill more people in the US than guns do.

How is it more personal? Unless you live in a warzone, you probably shouldn't be using that much, aside from sports, in which case, the weapon is no more personal than a baseball bat or hockey stick. Grip tape and rubberized handles serve to make a tool more comfortable or easier to use, not to make it "look cool." The benefits derived from attaching a shell are minimal. Cars are beside the point now. I'm just commenting on how there seems to be some sort of a cultural focused around having pride in one's weapons or eagerness to show them off the the public. Once again, I see weapons as a solemn, heavy affair not meant to be paraded around.

You know nothing about sports. Athletes take great care of their baseball bats, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks, etc.

[quote]How is it more personal? Unless you live in a warzone, you probably shouldn't be using that much, aside from sports, in which case, the weapon is no more personal than a baseball bat or hockey stick.[/quote]You're just showing your ignorance of what this weapon is. It's not an AR-15. It's no different than taking a stock .22 rifle and adding a shell to make it more comfortable to shoot. It has no functions of an AR-15, it's not a "military rifle". [quote]Grip tape and rubberized handles serve to make a tool more comfortable or easier to use, not to make it "look cool." The benefits derived from attaching a shell are minimal.[/quote]Then you don't know what customizing a firearm does. Paint and such does make it look better to you, but adding attachments or a shell is all about making it more comfortable to shoot for you while also making it look good. [quote]The benefits derived from attaching a shell are minimal.[/quote]It adds a better grip and makes it more ergonomic than a ranch style .22. [quote]Cars are beside the point now.[/quote]You give up on that? Way to stick to your [i]guns[/i]. [quote]I'm just commenting on how there seems to be some sort of a cultural focused around having pride in one's weapons or eagerness to show them off the the public. Once again, I see weapons as a solemn, heavy affair not meant to be paraded around.[/quote]Because people who love firearms like showing other people their firearms. It is taking pride in it. There are forums dedicated to just talking about people's firearms and how they could improve them. It's no different from people who modify their cars and want to show them off. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean that they can't take pride in their personal property.

You're twisting my words. 1. I never said that it was an AR-15 or had any of its functions. I'm arguing that there's no point in cosmetically altering your weapon. 2. I agree that some benefits can be derived from a shell. I do not agree that the weapon needs to "look good." It is a weapon, not a toy. 3. See above point about shells/attachments. 4. When did I ever even imply that I "gave up?" Cars are not [i]designed[/i] as weapons. Like I said earlier, a banana can be used to kill someone, so your point about cars is nil. 5. I understand if people would like to show each other their firearms, I am fine with that. I am not fine with the treatment of firearms as toys to be shown to the public. Guns are not cars. While cars may be used to do damage, it is not their intended purpose to do so. If the father wanted to show his child with a rifle to his friends, I have no problem with that, he's (hopefully) teaching his child gun safety early on. Instead, he decided to show it to the much-uncomfortable public, not expecting controversy or trouble.

[quote]1. I never said that it was an AR-15 or had any of its functions. I'm arguing that there's no point in cosmetically altering your weapon.[/quote]Which I said was false and proved that wrong. Way to cherry pick arguments. [quote]2. I agree that some benefits can be derived from a shell. I do not agree that the weapon needs to "look good." It is a weapon, not a toy.[/quote]So my weapon shouldn't look the way I want it to? It should look like a pile of shit? I guess people shouldn't get fancy wraps and engravings in their swords because it shouldn't look good. [quote]3. See above point about shells/attachments.[/quote]Which I already refuted two posts before, but continue to cherry pick. [quote]4. When did I ever even imply that I "gave up?" Cars are not designed as weapons. Like I said earlier, a banana can be used to kill someone, so your point about cars is nil.[/quote] Bananas don't kill more people than guns every year like cars do. [quote]5. I understand if people would like to show each other their firearms, I am fine with that. I am not fine with the treatment of firearms as toys to be shown to the public. Guns are not cars. While cars may be used to do damage, it is not their intended purpose to do so. If the father wanted to show his child with a rifle to his friends, I have no problem with that, he's (hopefully) teaching his child gun safety early on. Instead, he decided to show it to the much-uncomfortable public, not expecting controversy or trouble.[/quote]Implying that people who love guns must think they're toys. Get out with your stupid arguments like that. Not every firearm is intended to kill people either. You ever hear of trap shooting? They use special shotguns made for shooting clay pigeons, they're not made or intended to be used to kill people. .22 caliber long rifles aren't made to kill people either, they're made for varmint hunting and plinking. [quote]If the father wanted to show his child with a rifle to his friends, I have no problem with that, he's (hopefully) teaching his child gun safety early on. Instead, he decided to show it to the much-uncomfortable public, not expecting controversy or trouble.[/quote]So I'm not allowed to show pictures of my rifles on facebook or another social media site because it may make other people uncomfortable? Wow you're so righteous, teach me how to be politically correct so I don't make anyone feel awkward by expressing my love for something.

I'm trying to be polite here. I'd like to have an educated debate, but this is beginning to degrade into a flame war. My entire point about this controversy is that [i]guns cause controversy[/i]. Both of us have proven this with our argument here. I am not saying what the father did is wrong or should be disallowed; I am saying it was a stupid move. He should have expected issues from posting the images publicly, yet he continued, and this is the result.

[quote]My entire point about this controversy is that guns cause controversy. Both of us have proven this with our argument here.[/quote]So what if they cause controversy? So does homosexuality, but you're not suggesting that homosexuals keep it quiet in public so as to not make people uncomfortable are you? [quote]He should have expected issues from posting the images publicly, yet he continued, and this is the result.[/quote] He should have expected that people were going to get their panties in a wad and try to call the police and tell them that he's an irresponsible parent?

[quote]He should have expected that people were going to get their panties in a wad and try to call the police and tell them that he's an irresponsible parent?[/quote]Considering that a guy was nearly shot by police for carrying a camera with a monopod to his college (which people though was an AK-47), I would say it's fairly obvious that the public absolutely freaks out about guns and it should have been expected.

[quote]Considering that a guy was nearly shot by police for carrying a camera with a monopod to his college (which people though was an AK-47), I would say it's fairly obvious that the public absolutely freaks out about guns and it should have been expected.[/quote]That case isn't relevant because the kid wasn't walking around in public with the rifle. Try again.

Cars kill people all the time, intentionally and unintentionally.

Cars are not [i]designed[/i] to kill people, guns are.

No they are not, guns serve many different functions. Many guns are made for hunting, sport shooting (skeet), BB guns, etc. A gun is a tool, like a knife or ax, that is deadly if used for evil but harmless in capable, responsible hands. With crazy people out there, I would rather have myself and others armed than one individual who illegally obtained a gun commit a crime.

I'm perfectly fine with guns, or at least small ones like revolvers. However, I am not fine with them being used and displayed so openly and so often.

Why? I think there should be more open carry. Guns are not scary. I don't own any guns but I don't think it is fair legal gun owners are seen as criminals or crazy people.

While you may not see guns as scary, much of the general public does. It would be near-impossible to change that.