# Guns >:D



## Darkwing (Jul 2, 2009)

Do you own a gun? If so what kind? What kinds of bullets do you use and what targets do you shoot?


I own an air rifle with a 4 x 16 scope, a springload rifle, and an airsoft rifle.

For the Air rifle and springload I use .177 cal. 4.5 mm round platinum bbs.

For the airsoft, well, I don't got any ammo for it and it is basicly for show.


I shoot at basic tin and metal targets and soda cans.

Sometimes I shoot a branch off a tree for the hell of it.


----------



## Iron-Wolf (Jul 2, 2009)

While I own many firearms, being a gun collector and all. The one I have a license to carry is a Sig Sauer P226 9mm pistol, I usually use standard hollow point 9mm bullets, but I also have a few clips of polymer tipped rounds. My next pistol purchase is probably going to be an H&K USP .45.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 2, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Do you own a gun? If so what kind? What kinds of bullets do you use and what targets do you shoot?
> 
> 
> I own an air rifle with a 4 x 16 scope, a springload rifle, and an airsoft rifle.
> ...



First off, airsoft guns use the 6mm BBs, not air rifles.  An air rifle can be anywhere from .177 caliber and up.  And I do mean up.  Like here:

http://www.glbarnes.com/

... where, if you have the dough and the patience (it's a 3 year wait, normally), you can get a pre-charged pneumatic air rifle up to .68 caliber.  Though he does make them as small as .25 caliber.  However, at present, he unfortunately isn't taking any new orders (ledger is CLOSED)...

As for my guns?  I have an EA-15 in .223, a Winchester Model 61 (M61) in .22 short, long and long rifle (rimfire, interchangeable), a Smith & Wesson Highway patrolman (Pre-28) in .357 magnum, a Savage 1907 Pocket Pistol in .32 ACP, a JC Higgins Model 20 (2.75" 12 gage), a Beeman P1 Magnum in .177, and a Beeman/Webley Tempest, also in .177 caliber.  Unfortunately, I cannot find my Daisy Model 188......... oh, I also have a Crosman Model 600 (.177) and a Walther PPKs CO2 (.177 steel BB).  And this airsoft pistol I can't offhand remember the make/model of (too much of a bother to dig it up and look).

As for targets?  Well, haven't shot much in a long while, but I used to shoot High-Power Matches with the EA-15, have hunted both cans and live game with the P1 and Tempest, so far only paper with the M61, Highway Patrolman and Savage 1907.  Oh, and both the M-188 and PPKs were used as my slug/snail guns, for late-night backyard forays.  M-188 worked perfect for that (PPKs made the neighbor's dog bark), and also took out a whole pile of grasshoppers, during one summer infestation on my uncle's ten acres... put out about 12,500 or so rounds over that time, about 2.5 (5000 round) cartons worth of Crosman Copperhead BBs.  Also killed a rat with that pistol, once (it had hopped into the chicken-feed barrel, and couldn't get out).


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 2, 2009)

lol


----------



## Kaamos (Jul 2, 2009)

I own a minigun, her name is "Sasha."

She weighs one hundred fifty kilograms and fires two hundred dollar, custom-tooled cartridges at ten thousand rounds per minute. 

It costs four hundred thousand dollars to fire this weapon... _for twelve seconds.


HAHA YOU AND YOUR BABY WEAPONS!
_


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Jul 2, 2009)

I only own some airsoft heh. Them being enough costly in canada >.>


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 2, 2009)

Oh, almost forgot... I have three different phasers, but they only make noise and fire light, so I don't think they'd count.  I also have a pair of modified Laser Tag Starlytes, but I haven't played with them for quite a few years...


----------



## Tatsuyoujo (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm gonna get a gun one day...soon.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 2, 2009)

Yep.  A Crosman Storm XT break barrel air rifle.  I have 4.5mm pointed and flat-nosed pellets for it.  Umm, I shoot at whatever cans I have.

My other gun is a Crosman 760 Pumpmaster with scope.  It fires 4.5mm BB's and pellets.


----------



## Wulf (Jul 2, 2009)

I don't own a firearm, but I guess I want one. Something stylish. Like a magnum. I love magnums. One might go so far as to say that I do indeed have a magnum fetish of sorts. But I won't go that far. No. I won't go that far.


----------



## Seas (Jul 2, 2009)

I have two airsoft guns , I go to games mostly with my friends. Very fun!


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 2, 2009)

If it's not a Desert Eagle I don't care.


----------



## Kanye East (Jul 2, 2009)

^^^^ well go out and buy one OH WAI..   (lets not go down that path, its a joke)

I have a single shot 12g, two .22 long rifles, and a cool but not rare M.95 with the original bayonet.

My next gun will prolly be a handgun, or a AK because there is one at the second hand store for only 'bout $200. Although I'm sure the ammo for the AK will be much money and not too worth while other then for shits and giggles.

The handgun will most likely be a 9mm hi-point. Cheap and dependable, but nothing great/cool at all.

I shoot paper targets, or trees in the country at meh friends house.


----------



## Thatch (Jul 2, 2009)

I have a cannon in my pants.


----------



## â„¢-Daley Leungsangnam475-â„¢ (Jul 2, 2009)

I don't own a gun ... and I don't want to ... I hate them


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jul 2, 2009)

I plan on getting a Benelli assault shotgun whenever I have the money to. You know, for home defense.


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Jul 2, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> I own a minigun, her name is "Sasha."
> 
> She weighs one hundred fifty kilograms and fires two hundred dollar, custom-tooled cartridges at ten thousand rounds per minute.
> 
> ...


best comment

also, you americans and your guns, I don't get it


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 2, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> I own a minigun, her name is "Sasha."
> 
> She weighs one hundred fifty kilograms and fires two hundred dollar, custom-tooled cartridges at ten thousand rounds per minute.
> 
> ...



i just read that with a russian accent... am i spending to much time online...?

anyway, guns are awesome! i hate the killing but if used in proper sports for me they stand for a maximum of force and precision^^


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 2, 2009)

I own every weapon BUT guns, I swear. Knives, swords, daggers, bats, a taser...


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 2, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> I own every weapon BUT guns, I swear. Knives, swords, daggers, bats, a taser...



you forgot your lightsaber and your ulaks!


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Jul 2, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> i just read that with a russian accent... am i spending to much time online...?


no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY5qJHZCz2I&feature=fvst


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 2, 2009)

Cheesewulf said:


> no
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY5qJHZCz2I&feature=fvst



yeah i know that video, thats why i asked^^


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 2, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> you forgot your lightsaber and your ulaks!


Sorry, not into sci-fi >.>


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Jul 2, 2009)

I have a type 2 TNG phaser...

Apart from that, I really don't like guns after my dad almost got killed in crossfire between paramilitaries.


----------



## Wolfsmate (Jul 2, 2009)

Glock 27, .40cal, hyrdashock hollow point and RBCD Performance Plus ammo


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 2, 2009)

Director of a Rifle club and coach of the in-house rifle team.  Certified safety instructor, coach, and club-level liaison with several provincial rifle associations and three of Canada's six national pro-firearms organizations.  Former competitor on the pro-am (semi-pro?) lower-lakes Skeet league.  Informal intra-club competitor in LSBA "Hunter Class", Olympic 3P shooting and ISU 300m fullbore shooting.  Occasional IPSC and PPC shooter, with a bit of SASS shooting thrown in.  Pistol for fun, rifle for score.

Of rifles, pistols and shotguns, you could say I have more than a few.


----------



## Henk86 (Jul 2, 2009)

Guns used to be legal in the UK, but not anymore. Otherwise I'd own a few.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 2, 2009)

Henk86 said:


> Guns used to be legal in the UK, but not anymore. Otherwise I'd own a few.



Aw man that sucks, I guess that is why we take advantage of the second amendment here in the U.S. 

God I feel so lucky right now, with my guns beside me, where the government can't take my firearms.



Roose Hurro said:


> First off, airsoft guns use the 6mm BBs, not air rifles.  An air rifle can be anywhere from .177 caliber and up.  And I do mean up.



I don't know how guns work where you live but I am pretty sure that it is an Air rifle, and I am definitely sure I am using 6 mm bbs for it.



Cheesewulf said:


> best comment
> 
> also, you americans and your guns, I don't get it



Guns are fun, the Old fashioned American way 

You can't understand it, just embrace it like any other American.



Irreverent said:


> Director of a Rifle club and coach of the in-house rifle team.  Certified safety instructor, coach, and club-level liaison with several provincial rifle associations and three of Canada's six national pro-firearms organizations.  Former competitor on the pro-am (semi-pro?) lower-lakes Skeet league.  Informal intra-club competitor in LSBA "Hunter Class", Olympic 3P shooting and ISU 300m fullbore shooting.  Occasional IPSC and PPC shooter, with a bit of SASS shooting thrown in.  Pistol for fun, rifle for score.
> 
> Of rifles, pistols and shotguns, you could say I have more than a few.



Wow, you must really like guns xD



Kaamos said:


> I own a minigun, her name is "Sasha."
> 
> She weighs one hundred fifty kilograms and fires two hundred dollar, custom-tooled cartridges at ten thousand rounds per minute.
> 
> ...



Christ dude, that is a lot, you must be seriously rich...

Or seriously crazy, I mean, at that rate you will be poor in months, especially in today's economy.

I bet that thing is useful in terms of deforestation. (Rambo Reference  )
*
*_EDIT: I merged your five posts. Don't do that again or I'll get pissed. -C_


----------



## Zanzer (Jul 2, 2009)

Holy mother of god 5 posts in a row
It's Called muti quoting

You get a sticker for being special

and Guns are bad :V


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 2, 2009)

Zanzer said:


> Guns are bad :V



Down here in the U.S. they are the opposite 

And Holy crap you are right, I did make 5 posts in a row


----------



## Shino (Jul 2, 2009)

On duty I'm required to carry our standard-issue Sig p220, but off duty I usually carry my PK380. Everybody complains that .38 isn't powerful enough, but with my accuracy and the ACP ammo, if I hit you, you're going down. Period.

My prefrence for larger weapons is the M4 (yeah, I'm so original), and in the rare instance when I can get my hands on it, the FN P90, but I usually only get to see _that_ once in a blue moon. And a Barrett light 50 for the distance targets.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 2, 2009)

Shino said:


> On duty I'm required to carry our standard-issue Sig p220



My favourite DA/SA; in stainless, mine wears Mepro trition sites too.  Although, I change between the walnut grips and the Crimson-Trace laser grips every other cleaning.  Can't make up my mind.

/sigfanboi


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Jul 2, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> I don't know how guns work where you live but I am pretty sure that it is an Air rifle, and I am definitely sure I am using 6 mm bbs for it.


 
Erm, air gun and airsoft all work the same in every country -.- Airsoft Use 6mm BB, while air gun use 4.5mm bb or pellet


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 2, 2009)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> Erm, air gun and airsoft all work the same in every country -.- Airsoft Use 6mm BB, while air gun use 4.5mm bb or pellet



Actually, there are .24 cal (and .35 and .50 too) airguns.  Typically of the PNP type, made by Dragon, Fiocchi, RWS, ShinSun and other European vendors.  I think Dianna makes .24 call springers; Model 48 comes to mind.

I had a 9mm Fiocchi that would duplicate 9x19mm hand-loads; 155gr at 820fps from memory, 4 shots to a tank; charged off a scuba tank.


----------



## Henk86 (Jul 2, 2009)

The only first hand experiance I've had with guns was when I was in Las Vegas, I went to this shooting range on tropicana drive. I fried off a Glock 22, MP5 and a 44 magnum, like the one Clint Eastwood had in Dirty Harry. It was a fun experiance to shoot at targets, but alas we don't have such things in the UK anymore.


----------



## Corto (Jul 2, 2009)

I once went hunting and killed some fluffy white bunnies with a Franchi SPAS-12. And I was drunk at the time. It was great fun.


----------



## Thatch (Jul 2, 2009)

Corto said:


> I once went hunting and killed some fluffy white bunnies with a Franchi SPAS-12. And I was drunk at the time. It was great fun.



Damn, the best think I did while drunk was cutting down trees with a chainsaw. I envy you.


----------



## X (Jul 2, 2009)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> Erm, air gun and airsoft all work the same in every country -.- Airsoft Use 6mm BB, while air gun use 4.5mm bb or pellet



they have 8mm airsoft too, but its too expensive for my tastes.
________________________________________________________

as for me, i have a no name .22 revolver 6 shot with a broken hammer spring.
and some no name (more like unknown name though) bolt action shotgun that has been hiding in my dads closet since he was 17, its still in the leather bag that he had it in when he was a kid.

along with a .177 bb pistol and daisy rifle, and a .177 break action pellet rifle that can break 1,000 fps.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Jul 2, 2009)

X said:


> they have 8mm airsoft too, but its too expensive for my tastes.


 
I know that, but those are not so common, their fps and range is low. They are often for shell ejecting gas pistol.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 2, 2009)

WolvesSoulZ said:


> I know that, but those are not so common, their fps and range is low.



This is true, my airsoft goes 250 feet per second.

All it does is just put a small dent on my tin targets 

And my airsoft is $42, boy did I feel like I got scammed.

But it doesn't matter, it is automatic, and it looks pretty badass so I have it there just for show.



WolvesSoulZ said:


> air gun use 4.5mm bb or pellet



I just found my ammo canister and it turns out that I was using .177 cal. 4.5mm BBs for my air rifle.

My mistake, I thought I was using 6 mm bbs for it xD


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Jul 2, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> This is true, my airsoft goes 250 feet per second.
> 
> All it does is just put a small dent on my tin targets
> 
> ...



Erm my airsoft shoot at 400 fps with .20g

The thing in my previous post was about 8mm airsoft gun


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Jul 2, 2009)

I curently own an air rifle in .177, 1000 fps.     I dont recolect the make. I've only fired it at paper and tree's.  Ben wanting to take her varmint hunting, but I've got strict rules that i have to eat what i kill. Any little fuzzy criters that dont taste gamey?  The asult rife I would like to get in the near future is an AR-15. I got to try out my friends, I've loved that gun since!


----------



## moonchylde (Jul 2, 2009)

Don't own one at the moment, but a family friend is leaving me one of his in his will... a 1928 Thompson 44. full-auto. It's got the drum, the straight clip, and a violin case to carry it in. 

Is it wrong to wish someone would hurry up and die already?


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 2, 2009)

Largentum_Wolf said:


> I curently own an air rifle in .177, 1000 fps.



Nice, my air rifle is a .177 that goes 750 fps

But wow, 1000 fps? How much was your rifle?


----------



## X (Jul 2, 2009)

moonchylde said:


> Is it wrong to wish someone would hurry up and die already?



for that gun its not.


----------



## slydude851 (Jul 2, 2009)

I have an AK-47 at my house

:O 

*runs to house and changes hiding spot* ok the cops wont find out now!


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 2, 2009)

slydude851 said:


> I have an AK-47 at my house
> 
> :O
> 
> *runs to house and changes hiding spot* ok the cops wont find out now!


Is your dad a terrorist or something? Because otherwise I don't believe that.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Jul 2, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> Is your dad a terrorist or something? Because otherwise I don't believe that.



Don't forget, all muslims have AK47's! Even if they're NOT terrorists! 

It's for use against jews :V


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 2, 2009)

Ishnuvalok said:


> Don't forget, all muslims have AK47's! Even if they're NOT terrorists!
> 
> It's for use against jews :V


That's what Fox News told me! Are you implying they may be wrong? D:


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 2, 2009)

Only a 30.06 and a 12 gauge shotgun.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 2, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> Is your dad a terrorist or something? Because otherwise I don't believe that.



You don't have to be a terrorist to own an AK-47 xD

A lot of people I know own AK's, but I live in Pennsylvania (A lot of Gun nuts here xD)


----------



## Wreth (Jul 2, 2009)

Guns are bad Coz killing is bad. Unless it's a case of survival of course


----------



## Canon (Jul 2, 2009)

I've got a 20ga Browning, a 12ga Remington, and a 306 rifle. ^^


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 2, 2009)

szopaw said:


> I have a cannon in my pants.



But do you have ammo for it...?




â„¢-Daley Leungsangnam475-â„¢ said:


> I don't own a gun ... and I don't want to ... I hate them



Why?  They're inanimate objects...




Cheesewulf said:


> also, you americans and your guns, I don't get it



Go buy yourself a gun, go out and shoot it, and find out...




ramsay_baggins said:


> I have a type 2 TNG phaser...
> 
> Apart from that, I really don't like guns after *my dad almost got killed in crossfire between paramilitaries*.



Wouldn't it make more sense if you didn't like paramilitaries...?




Irreverent said:


> Director of a Rifle club and coach of the in-house rifle team.  Certified safety instructor, coach, and club-level liaison with several provincial rifle associations and three of Canada's six national pro-firearms organizations.  Former competitor on the pro-am (semi-pro?) lower-lakes Skeet league.  Informal intra-club competitor in LSBA "Hunter Class", Olympic 3P shooting and ISU 300m fullbore shooting.  Occasional IPSC and PPC shooter, with a bit of SASS shooting thrown in.  Pistol for fun, rifle for score.
> 
> *Of rifles, pistols and shotguns, you could say I have more than a few.*



I would hope so... all of those activities require the proper gear.  I've been looking at SASS and CAS a bit, and am looking to purchase one of these, already tweeked and tuned for competition (with three spare cylinders, for a little "Pale Rider" fun):

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46342&d=1241138895




Henk86 said:


> Guns used to be legal in the UK, but not anymore. Otherwise I'd own a few.



Feel free to move over here, if you wish...




Darkwing said:


> I don't know how guns work where you live but I am pretty sure that it is an Air rifle, and I am definitely sure I am using 6 mm bbs for it.



*** You said you had 6mm BBs for your air rifle, but had no airsoft ammo... the 6mm BBs (plastic) are airsoft ammo.  That's what I was commenting on... (steel BBs are 4.5mm, same as .177 caliber lead pellets) ***




Zanzer said:


> ... and Guns are bad :V



Guns are inanimate objects, neither good nor bad... only people are good or bad.




Shino said:


> On duty I'm required to carry our standard-issue Sig p220, but off duty I usually carry my PK380. *Everybody complains that .38 isn't powerful enough*, but with my accuracy and the ACP ammo, if I hit you, you're going down. Period.
> 
> My prefrence for larger weapons is the M4 (yeah, I'm so original), and in the rare instance when I can get my hands on it, the FN P90, but I usually only get to see _that_ once in a blue moon. And a Barrett light 50 for the distance targets.



It's plenty... a .22 rimfire is plenty, if you know what you're doing.  I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a P90, either...




Irreverent said:


> My favourite DA/SA; in stainless, mine wears Mepro trition sites too.  Although, I change between the walnut grips and the Crimson-Trace laser grips every other cleaning.  *Can't make up my mind.*
> 
> /sigfanboi



Buy another P220 to match the one you have, and put the CT grips on it...




Darkwing said:


> I just found my ammo canister and it turns out that I was using .177 cal. 4.5mm BBs for my air rifle.
> 
> My mistake, I thought I was using 6 mm bbs for it xD



Ahhh... then disreguard my previous reply......... ***




moonchylde said:


> Don't own one at the moment, but a family friend is leaving me one of his in his will... *a 1928 Thompson .45 ACP full-auto*. It's got the drum, the straight clip, and a violin case to carry it in.
> 
> Is it wrong to wish someone would hurry up and die already?



Nice...


----------



## whoadamn (Jul 2, 2009)

I fired a .308 round via airsoft pellet to the primer... if that counts.


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Jul 3, 2009)

DarkWing:"But wow, 1000 fps? How much was your rifle?"[/QUOTE]

I originaly saw it for 80$ at a Meijers, I ended up ordering online for 120$. Cabella's has one thats 1200/1400. I can't remember exactly, but i do know it was quite abit better than mine!   The best kind are break barrel, single pump!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 3, 2009)

I used to own a nice .22 air rifle, i used to use .22 pointed lead pellets with it. I used to set up tin cans and anything else i could find as targets. I used pointed pellets becaused rounded, or flat tipped used to ricochet like a bitch and often come back at me.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 3, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I used pointed pellets becaused rounded, or flat tipped used to ricochet like a bitch and often come back at me.



This is so true.

My brother was shooting at a styrofoam bear using round BBs, he shot the bear in the ass and the bullet ricochet off and hit the window, which, suprisingly, didn't crack or break.


----------



## Wulf (Jul 3, 2009)

szopaw said:


> I have a cannon in my pants.


A shame it only fires blanks.


----------



## D Void (Jul 3, 2009)

I often go shooting down a range with a .22 No. 8 rifle or 5.56 L98 rifle.
But me and a few friends are setting up an airsoft team so I will be the 
owner of a G36 and Sig Sauer P226 airsoft wepons.


----------



## Thatch (Jul 3, 2009)

Wulf said:


> A shame it only fires blanks.



I wouldn't know, it's only an exhibit for now.


----------



## Wulf (Jul 3, 2009)

szopaw said:


> I have a cannon in my pants.





Wulf said:


> A shame it only fires blanks.





szopaw said:


> I wouldn't know, it's only an exhibit for now.


You fail at cadence.


----------



## Thatch (Jul 3, 2009)

Wulf said:


> You fail at cadence.



I hate poetry, give me a hint next time.

Besides, it can be an aab ccb :V


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 3, 2009)

D Void said:


> I often go shooting down a range with a .22 No. 8.



Carried a SMLE No.8 back in the day in cadets, learned to shoot with one too.  Don't see to many of them around these parts any more.



Roose Hurro said:


> Buy another P220 to match the one you have, and put the CT grips on it....



Yeah, if only it was that easy.  An AR in .260Rem is probably next on the list, soooo many choices.


----------



## alaskawolf (Jul 4, 2009)

im thinking about picking up another gun one of these days, just have other things to spend my money on like bills and cars


----------



## Wulf (Jul 4, 2009)

szopaw said:


> I hate poetry, give me a hint next time.
> 
> Besides, it can be an aab ccb :V


Could have been. Not anymore. How I shall lament.


----------



## DjSielwolf (Jul 4, 2009)

I'v fired one weapon.. a m14-sniper my grandfather owns now they call it a MK29 CQB.. its basicly a m14 body with a 10 round clip and bipod and scope.

my airsoft gear is a lil weird how ever i get around..

M4-S1
(addons- 3 45 round mag's red dot site, forgrip, goosebeak flash hider, crane style butt guard)

side arm- cyma desert eagle
(add ons- none)

gear- vest (3 mag pouches, drag handle, radio stitched into my shoulder plate, and a water pack) knee/elbow pads, boonie hat, size 14' black leather tactical boots, and woodland camo BDU.

thats about it for that ^,.,^ oh, my rank in my squad of 10 is CSM(comanding srg major) highest for my age.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 4, 2009)

All I have is some shitty .22 and a 12  Remington 870 (for home defense of course.) I plan on beefing up this pitifully small arsenal with a few rifles soon(tm). Luckily my grandmother has also promised to give me her 9mm as well, so that will be sweet. Hopefully I can go to some gun shows and get them so I don't have to deal with all the bullshit this state has with its gun laws, but I am not quite sure that would work but I'll just feel it out.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 4, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> All I have is some shitty .22 and a 12  Remington 870 (for home defense of course.) I plan on beefing up this pitifully small arsenal with a few rifles soon(tm). Luckily my grandmother has also promised to give me her 9mm as well, so that will be sweet. *Hopefully I can go to some gun shows and get them so I don't have to deal with all the bullshit this state has with its gun laws*, but I am not quite sure that would work but I'll just feel it out.



Hate to tell you this, but going to a gunshow won't give you free-reign to break the law.  Whatever gun laws your state has, they will still need to be followed, at gunshop or gunshow.  Unless, of course, you like dealing with the police and prison-time...

Sucks, and also blows, but that's how the system works, until the people rise up to change it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 4, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> All I have is some shitty .22 and a 12  Remington 870 (for home defense of course.) I plan on beefing up this *pitifully small arsenal *with a few rifles soon(tm). Luckily my grandmother has also promised to give me her 9mm as well, so that will be sweet.



The fact that you consider what seems to be a reasonable collection of firearms as a "pitifully small arsenal" makes me wonder what you want to do with if when you get it up to a level that ISN'T "pitiful" - what are you intending to do, invade a small South American country on your own?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 4, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense if you didn't like paramilitaries...?



Roose, I'm _really _scratching my head to understand exactly what you mean by this response to a description of living in the 'live-fire' sectarian violence of the Northern Ireland "Troubles" - care to elaborate?


----------



## FluffyFloofFloof (Jul 4, 2009)

I don't own a gun but I do have my restricted and unrestricted Canadian Firearms license. I've been wanting to join a shooting range for awhile now but haven't really had the funds to do so.



Irreverent said:


> Carried a SMLE No.8 back in the day in cadets, learned to shoot with one too. Don't see to many of them around these parts any more.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if only it was that easy.  An AR in .260Rem is probably next on the list, soooo many choices.



Gasp, someone from Ontario who is into guns  Are you a member of the CGN?


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 4, 2009)

Vaporshi said:


> I don't own a gun but I do have my restricted and unrestricted Canadian Firearms license. I've been wanting to join a shooting range for awhile now but haven't really had the funds to do so.



Conveniently, I run a Rifle Range in Ontario.....we should talk.



> Gasp, someone from Ontario who is into guns  Are you a member of the CGN?



Heh....ya, you might say that.  Considering its my homepage in my profile link.   Been with CGN for about 7 years now.  CGS too.  There's at least 4 other CGN's here, but the other three keep a very low profile.  My current avatar was drawn by the same person that did the CGN Beaver.

PM's inbound.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 4, 2009)

Everything roose hurr posts makes me lol. xD


----------



## Hackfox (Jul 4, 2009)

I own: 
AMD-65
.22 S&W Pistol (W/ Hollow point rounds)
Glock 9mm
Mac10 Silenced
12 Gauge shotgun
And a few high caliber rifles my granddad left me.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 4, 2009)

Just airsoft guns...see my scraps page on my FA page. I have not photographed the MP5 yet so that is not there in the scraps folder.


----------



## DJ BassLion (Jul 4, 2009)

since proper awesome firearms are illegal in the uk ive got a gas operated 8 shot pistol. apart from that ive got an un-healthy interest in weapons tech.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 4, 2009)

ramsay_baggins said:


> I have a type 2 TNG phaser...
> 
> Apart from that, I really don't like guns after *my dad almost got killed in crossfire between paramilitaries*.





Mayfurr said:


> Roose, I'm _really _scratching my head to understand exactly what you mean by this response to a description of living in the 'live-fire' sectarian violence of the Northern Ireland "Troubles" - care to elaborate?



First off, Mayfurr, you are not ramsay_baggins.  Second off, re-read the above repeated quote, especially the highlighted part.  If the *actions* of the paramilitaries nearly killed her dad, why does she express a dislike for guns, but not for paramilitaries?  Guns are only the tools paramilitaries use to conduct their violence... remove the paramilitaries (you know, the violent people?), and the tools of their violence no longer matter.  The guns they used won't continue the fight, once they themselves (the violent people) have been dealt with.  If you don't get that... if I have to explain something so freaking clear and simple... then I can only feel sorry for you.  If it will help, I can send you cookies... you'll have to provide the milk, though, if you want fresh.........




NewfDraggie said:


> Everything roose hurr posts makes me lol. xD



Thanks, Newf, that makes me feel appreciated...




DJ BassLion said:


> since proper awesome firearms are illegal in the uk ive got a gas operated 8 shot pistol. apart from that ive got an un-healthy interest in weapons tech.



I wouldn't call it unhealthy... the history and technology of firearms is a facinating study.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 4, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> First off, Mayfurr, you are not ramsay_baggins.



And you would be right. Yes, I am not ramsay_baggins. How astute of you to notice.
I was not aware you were conducting a PRIVATE discussion in a PUBLIC forum. /sarcasm



Roose Hurro said:


> Second off, re-read the above repeated quote, especially the highlighted part.  If the *actions* of the paramilitaries nearly killed her dad, why does she express a dislike for guns, but not for paramilitaries?



Well geez, I would have thought it was self-evident that she didn't like the paramilitaries either, but apparently you need things spelled out to you because of your obsessive fixation with the defence of guns.



Roose Hurro said:


> Guns are only the tools paramilitaries use to conduct their violence... remove the paramilitaries (you know, the violent people?), and the tools of their violence no longer matter.  The guns they used won't continue the fight, once they themselves (the violent people) have been dealt with.



Except that it's precisely the fact that these bastards were armed that makes them so difficult to deal with. We're not talking about your average US gun "weekend warrior" enthusiasts, these (the ones on BOTH sides) were *terrorists*, the sort of people whose actions caused the British Army to patrol the streets of Belfast et al.

You are aware that it was American groups like NORAID that were actively FUNDING Irish Republican paramilitary groups during "The Troubles"? You know, giving them money to buy weapons that, if nothing else, prolonged the whole goddamn conflict? Do you see anything wrong with this?

Are you seriously suggesting "Love the gun / pipe bomb, hate the terrorist?"



Roose Hurro said:


> If you don't get that... if I have to explain something so freaking clear and simple... then I can only feel sorry for you.



Oh, I understand precisely what you mean now that you've explained it *properly* - I just see that it's the ready availability of guns that made it easier for the paramilitaries to cause carnage and havoc in the first place. Without their Armalites and pipe bombs, Irish republican and loyalist paramilitaries would have simply been just a bunch of thugs that could have been handled by police...


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Jul 4, 2009)

I don't own any guns nor do I ever plan on it.

Huge waste of money.


----------



## Kanye East (Jul 4, 2009)

Bathos said:


> I don't own any guns nor do I ever plan on it.
> 
> Huge waste of money.



So is a fursuit/mustang/50" TV/xbox 360 ect. You could make a argument about practically anything being a "huge waste of money" other then food and shelter. 

If shooting is not your hobby, then yes it would be a waste to you.


----------



## Curagnaste (Jul 4, 2009)

just paintball guns. But I do have a medival assassination blade.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 5, 2009)

Curagnaste said:


> just paintball guns.



Tippmann A5 egrip......FTW!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 5, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> And you would be right. Yes, I am not ramsay_baggins. How astute of you to notice.
> I was not aware you were conducting a PRIVATE discussion in a PUBLIC forum. /sarcasm



No, not private, but it is rather rude to answer for another person.  Though you'll note, I did give your comment a response, so your sarcasm is wasted.




Mayfurr said:


> Well geez, *I would have thought it was self-evident* that she didn't like the paramilitaries either, but apparently you need things spelled out to you because of your obsessive fixation with the defence of guns.



Then why didn't she specify the paramilitary answer, instead of saying she didn't like guns.  After all, she did bring up the paramilitary as being the ones who threatened her father's life... but then she first mentions she doesn't like guns?  That is a separate issue, unrelated to the facts she provided afterwards.  Other than the fact that her use of the term "crossfire" points out they were firing guns, their chosen tool.  Still, a tool without a hand to wield it is harmless.  So, I questioned why she brought up two different, unrelated points, focused around her father and his obvious good luck at surviving such an act of violence on the part of the paramilitary forces.  Does this make things clear?  I'm not defending anything but logic.




Mayfurr said:


> Except that it's precisely the fact that these bastards were armed that makes them so difficult to deal with. We're not talking about your average US gun "weekend warrior" enthusiasts, these (the ones on BOTH sides) were *terrorists*, the sort of people whose actions caused the British Army to patrol the streets of Belfast et al.



No, it's the fact the political/social climate allowed these terrorists to thrive...




Mayfurr said:


> You are aware that it was American groups like NORAID that were actively FUNDING Irish Republican paramilitary groups during "The Troubles"? You know, giving them money to buy weapons that, if nothing else, prolonged the whole goddamn conflict? Do you see anything wrong with this?



Yes, I'm aware of many things.  I don't condone terrorism or the support of terrorist acts, but then, I'm not the one at fault here, am I?  I'm not the one who authorized the funding... I had no hand in any of it, personal or otherwise.




Mayfurr said:


> Are you seriously suggesting "Love the gun / pipe bomb, hate the terrorist?"



No, I'm "suggesting" that the gun/pipe bomb does not cause terrorism... people do.  It's a person problem, a socio-political attitude fabricated in the mind of people.  Since guns and pipe bombs don't have minds.  Or socio-political attitudes or issues.  Fight the core issue, not the window dressing, Mayfurr.  That's how you correctly deal with such problems.  No, it isn't easy, but then, nothing truly worthwhile is ever easy, is it?  If it doesn't take blood, sweat and tears, then there isn't much value in it.  Eliminate the terrorist where the terrorist lives, in the heart and mind, soul and spirit of humankind.




Mayfurr said:


> Oh, I understand precisely what you mean now that you've explained it *properly* - I just see that it's the ready availability of guns that made it easier for the paramilitaries to cause carnage and havoc in the first place. Without their Armalites and pipe bombs, Irish republican and loyalist paramilitaries would have simply been just a bunch of thugs that could have been handled by police...



No, you haven't seen anything.  What makes it easy is not dealing with the human element of those paramilitaries... thinking that, if only we remove the tools, the violence will stop.  No, it won't.  You have to deal with the people involved, change them, in a fundamental way, so they no longer see violence as a solution to their problems.  No, I can say without doubt, you don't understand at all.  Because you keep spouting weasel words, and understand nothing.  Had the violence never had reason to start, there would be no paramilitaries to be disarmed, and no need for police.  No violence, no war.  No hate, no war.  Understand?  If not, I will simply continue in my sorrow for your blindness...




Bathos said:


> I don't own any guns nor do I ever plan on it.
> 
> *Huge waste of money.*



http://www.armchairgunshow.com/confessions.htm

Actually, gun collecting can be a good investment:

http://www.guncollectorsclub.com/browning.htm

http://www.neaca.com/InvestmentGuns.html

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part3/gunside4.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/RockIsland/GunAuction/prweb2207054.htm

http://www.cgca.com/InventationJoin.htm

http://www.handgunclub.com/artman/publish/article_124.cfm


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Jul 5, 2009)

Eh


----------



## Neek0 (Jul 5, 2009)

I have a .22 colt, thats about all I know about it, it was my grandfathers he was going to teach me to shoot it and stuff when i got older, but he passed away before then, so Iv never shot it and know nothing about it other than its name.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 5, 2009)

Neek0 said:


> I have a .22 colt, thats about all I know about it, it was my grandfathers he was going to teach me to shoot it and stuff when i got older, but he passed away before then, so Iv never shot it and know nothing about it other than its name.



Hmmm... from the sound, most likely a Colt Woodsman.  If of a rarer variation, it could be quite valuable.  I've seen them in the low four figures, depending on the exact varient, and, of course, on condition.  But I'm not an expert on Woodsman's.  You might want to visit a reputable gunshop, and find out what it's worth.  Though, being your grandfather's gun, it may have more sentimental value to you... a family heirloom.  Any details, I might be able to provide some further, more accurate info.  Detailed pictures would certainly help...


----------



## Jack (Jul 5, 2009)

I own a few.

(ww2 weapons)
M1 grand.
Japanese bolt action rifle w bayonet.
german officers luger.
thomson sub machinegun! - I love that gun!

regular.
average deer rifle. 30 cal.
plane ol shotgun.
44 magnum revolver.
desert eagle 50 cal.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 6, 2009)

Roose, I think your problem with guns is...

... that you're thinking far too SMALL in restricting yourself to guns where the shells are measured in grams, not kilos. .45 cal? Try 45mm, or even 4.5"... REAL guns are the ones where you need a power turret to train 'em, and a _ship _to mount 'em on 

The most intriguing use for a gun that I've read about is Project HARP, where rockets fired from a modified 16" naval gun were well on the way of getting into orbit Jules Verne-style...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 6, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, I'm "suggesting" that the gun/pipe bomb does not cause terrorism... people do.  It's a person problem, a socio-political attitude fabricated in the mind of people.  Since guns and pipe bombs don't have minds.  Or socio-political attitudes or issues.  Fight the core issue, not the window dressing, Mayfurr.  That's how you correctly deal with such problems.  No, it isn't easy, but then, nothing truly worthwhile is ever easy, is it?  If it doesn't take blood, sweat and tears, then there isn't much value in it.  Eliminate the terrorist where the terrorist lives, in the heart and mind, soul and spirit of humankind. [...] You have to deal with the people involved, change them, in a fundamental way, so they no longer see violence as a solution to their problems.



Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with you that the underlying causes of terrorism need to be addressed - but I also believe that *not *addressing the issue of gun availability AS WELL is fundamentally stupid. I agree that weapons without paramilitaries are harmless, but you seem to be blind to the corollary that paramilitaries without weapons are also harmless - it's the combination of BOTH, like the combination of a young inexperienced driver with a bottle of whisky, that is the problem. Can't you see that weapons EMPOWER these groups to do their crimes?

Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't go after paramilitary / terrorist arms dumps of the likes of al-Qaeda? Or that all the Irish Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries should be allowed to *keep *their weapons?



Roose Hurro said:


> No, I can say without doubt, you don't understand at all.  Because you keep spouting weasel words, and understand nothing.



Of course to you, "understanding" means "blindly agreeing with everything I say." I _understand_ you clear enough - I just don't *agree* with you.


----------



## Lukar (Jul 6, 2009)

Ooh, a gun would certainly be useful so I can shoot a certain backstabbing son of a bitch that lives near me.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 6, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Roose, I think your problem with guns is...
> 
> ... *that you're thinking far too SMALL in restricting yourself to guns where the shells are measured in grams, not kilos.* .45 cal? Try 45mm, or even 4.5"... REAL guns are the ones where you need a power turret to train 'em, and a _ship _to mount 'em on
> 
> The most intriguing use for a gun that I've read about is Project HARP, where rockets fired from a modified 16" naval gun were well on the way of getting into orbit Jules Verne-style...



Problem with those big guns?  They cost boo coo bucks, and their shells equally so, in comparison to the small stuff.  The good, old .22 rimfire will always be my favorite.  Cheap, quiet, space and weight efficient... and very useful out in the field.  Though your mentioning of Project HARP does bring a smile.  And a bit of drool...




Mayfurr said:


> Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with you that the underlying causes of terrorism need to be addressed - but I also believe that *not *addressing the issue of gun availability AS WELL is fundamentally stupid. I agree that weapons without paramilitaries are harmless, but you seem to be blind to the corollary that paramilitaries without weapons are also harmless - it's the combination of BOTH, like the combination of a young inexperienced driver with a bottle of whisky, that is the problem. Can't you see that weapons EMPOWER these groups to do their crimes?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't go after paramilitary / terrorist arms dumps of the likes of al-Qaeda? Or that all the Irish Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries should be allowed to *keep *their weapons?



Mayfurr, sooo glad you brought this up!

I simply see people who ignore the human side, who seem set to blame just the gun side of the issue.  What you say is true:  It's a two-pronged issue.  Do you remember my UN thread, the one that got wiped, along with two weeks of forum material?  While weapons do empower, that is also a two-pronged issue.  Guns can also empower the weak.  Guns make everyone equal, irreguardless of wealth or status.  They can protect, they can harm.  My problem is, too many people here and elsewhere see only the harm.  My belief has always been that the best way to disarm the violent is to lock the violent up.  In other words, don't ban the gun.  Hunt down those who sell and use guns illegally, while leaving the law-abiding with the freedom to choose their own means of empowerment.  Unfortunately, I see too much room for abuse, as I believe I suggested in the UN thread.  We know who the terrorists are... we know where their weapons come from.  You see, weapons have to come from somewhere.  Guns do not grow on trees, they must be manufactered... and sold... by means of human hands.  So, even the availability of *illegal* weapons are, at the core, a human issue.

What does this mean?

This means we have to deal with both the terrorist and the *illegal* arms merchants, with equal vigor.  Leave the civilian side of the arms market out of it.  Let people keep their right to empowerment, while making sure those who illegally sell and use arms are the ONLY ones harmed.

And isn't it more important that the violence stops?  Whether or not the soldiers keep their arms?  If you deal only with the weapons, then more weapons are aquired, even if they are simply sticks and stones, and the violence continues.  Create peace amongst the people, and the weapons become moot.  Two birds, one stone.  "Let the soldier lay down his arms, without a fight..."




Mayfurr said:


> Of course to you, "understanding" means "blindly agreeing with everything I say." I _understand_ you clear enough - I just don't *agree* with you.



Okay, perhaps I over-emphasized just "a tad"... point made, I'm sorry.  Feel free to disagree in future.  Makes for a good discussion, no?




Lukar said:


> Ooh, a gun would certainly be useful so I can shoot a certain backstabbing son of a bitch that lives near me.



Rabid weasels in his underwear drawer would be better...


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jul 6, 2009)

It'd be nice but what would I do with it? I'd rather get a gun attached to my car that shoots suction darts with flags reading "IDIOT!", "MORON!" "LEARN TO DRIVE!" and "TURN SIGNAL YOU JACKASS!"


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 6, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Though your mentioning of Project HARP does bring a smile.  And a bit of drool...



How about good ol' "Atomic Annie"?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 6, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> How about good ol' "Atomic Annie"?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HF3Jr5w9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnV9hJ_2As&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkiDaSLKib0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNGi3mcb7qs&feature=related

Then again, we can't forget this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkgfrS9FanU&feature=related


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

This argument that guns don't kill, people kill; this makes as much sense as glasses don't see, eyes see.

For those of you that don't understand that, eyes see but glasses help; people kill, guns help.

Putting a gun in somebody's hands instantly allows them to do a whole lot that they're either unable to do, afraid to do, or otherwise; firearms are not to be trusted with the general public for that very reason; putting a firearm into the hands of a pussy can make him a killer; putting a firearm in the hands of a killer makes him a better killer; putting a firearm in the hands of normal people will only make them laugh like hicks as they shoot paper targets, or possibly living ones out of sport. If you have no reason to own a real firearm you can always rent one at a range, or purchase a firearm but at least without ammo; you can always get paintball or airsoft too if you want to have REAL fun with your guns, instead of the excitement as a side-effect of the power you hold in your hands and that alone.



Mayfurr said:


> How about good ol' "Atomic Annie"?


What about the Davy Crockett?


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This argument that guns don't kill, people kill; this makes as much sense as glasses don't see, eyes see.
> 
> For those of you that don't understand that, eyes see but glasses help; people kill, guns help.



And forks and spoons help make people fat.  Man, the educational system in Canada has tanked. Sigh.



> putting a firearm in the hands of normal people will only make them laugh like hicks as they shoot paper targets, or possibly living ones out of sport.



16 years of Liberal social engineering certainly is having its effect in Canada.  Sigh.

We get that you don't like guns Newf.  But others do enjoy the sport, the competition and the collecting.  Nobody is demanding you take up the hobby, how about you drop the drama and stop demanding we turn ours in?  Its just trolling, and not very good trolling at that.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> And forks and spoons help make people fat.  Man, the educational system in Canada has tanked. Sigh.


Yes because those help so much more than using your hands on burgers, drinks, and fries. You're wrong, it was bad back when you were in school; it's a lot better now. Besides, school doesn't teach about guns so your point is un-related.


> 16 years of Liberal social engineering certainly is having its effect in Canada.  Sigh.
> 
> We get that you don't like guns Newf.  But others do enjoy the sport, the competition and the collecting.  Nobody is demanding you take up the hobby, how about you drop the drama and stop demanding we turn ours in?  Its just trolling, and not very good trolling at that.


I think for myself, thank you very much; it's only a sport due to the rush of having power in your hands, sure it's fun but there's no need to take it off the range if it is indeed just a sport. If it's just a sport then there's no reason to disagree with what I said, but clearly it isn't just that; it's a power complex to boot.


----------



## Hir (Jul 6, 2009)

Guns don't appeal to me, I can't see myself ever wanting one.


----------



## Lukar (Jul 6, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Rabid weasels in *her* underwear drawer would be better...



Fix'd. x3 And that probably would be better, lol.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes because those help so much more than using your hands on burgers, drinks, and fries.



.....speechless.



> Besides, school doesn't teach about guns so your point is un-related.



School may not teach you about guns directly (actually, some do) but it does teach you about factual history...and then makes it an elective. :roll:



> I think for myself, thank you very much; it's only a sport due to the rush of having power in your hands, sure it's fun but there's no need to take it off the range if it is indeed just a sport. If it's just a sport then there's no reason to disagree with what I said, but clearly it isn't just that; it's a power complex to boot.



ITT: Newf psychoanalyzes 10's of thousands of competitive sport shooters, collectors and firearms aficionados and deems them to be suffering from malignant narcissism.  The irony is not lost.

Hell, at least Freud was smart enough to realize that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.  Can't say I've ever experienced a "rush of power" while shooting.  Relief, satisfaction, joy, and occasionally jubilation...but never a power rush.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

> School may not teach you about guns directly (actually, some do) but it does teach you about factual history...and then makes it an elective.


Relevance to what I'm talking about?


> ...speechless.


You honestly think that people wouldn't be fat because of utensils, and that people killed by firearms wouldn't be killed if the person didn't have a gun? If so that makes a lot of sense....


> ITT: Newf psychoanalyzes 10's of thousands of competitive sport shooters, collectors and firearms aficionados and deems them to be suffering from malignant narcissism. The irony is not lost.
> 
> Hell, at least Freud was smart enough to realize that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Can't say I've ever experienced a "rush of power" while shooting. Relief, satisfaction, joy, and occasionally jubilation...but never a power rush.


So you admit it's not just a sport, that people need to take their sport home with them in their household, or out on the street in their pocket? Cool.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What about the Davy Crockett?



I'm not sure I'm _entirely_ comfortable with the effective radiation / blast of the warhead being roughly the same as the range of the launcher...


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Relevance to what I'm talking about?



It was satire, and a play on "those who wont learn history, are damned to repeat it."  To whit, we used to learn to question things in school, now school teaches students to accept the party line.  Now go back to your televisor and chant "BB BB BB" a few hundred times.



> You honestly think that people wouldn't be fat because of utensils, and that people killed by firearms wouldn't be killed if the person didn't have a gun? If so that makes a lot of sense....



I don't think that spoons, forks, plates, tables or chairs make people obese, anymore than I think any other inanimate object can harm someone without human intervention.  Appears the other thing being taught in school is to blame the alcohol, not the drunk etc.  There's no personal accountability anymore.  "I come from a broken home."  "The gun made me kill, the panties made me rape." etc.



> So you admit it's not just a sport, that people need to take their sport home with them in their household, or out on the street in their pocket? Cool.



Your rebuttals are become more and more nonsensical, I suspect you're growing bored.  Shooting is sport, at the local, regional, state, national, pan-national and global levels.  That you disagree with this is your choice, but in now way detracts from our enjoyment of the pastime.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 6, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Shooting is sport, at the local, regional, state, national, pan-national and global levels. That you disagree with this is your choice, but in now way detracts from our enjoyment of the pastime.


 
I agree.

The gun is only as dangerous as the person who is using it.

Newf, I respect your opinion on guns, considering most of the time guns are used in a negative fashion, but there are those very few gun owners, like me and Irreverent, who only shoot for sport, and never would plan to use a gun to harm another living being.

EDIT: Sorry to jump into the debate like this, but this is starting to get interesting to the point where I had to


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

> It was satire, and a play on "those who wont learn history, are damned to repeat it." To whit, we used to learn to question things in school, now school teaches students to accept the party line. Now go back to your televisor and chant "BB BB BB" a few hundred times.


What does this have to do with what I said, again I ask because this still doesn't link-up in the slightest; history does not repeat itself and in the past ten years alone we've developed more than in the past ten-thousand.


> I don't think that spoons, forks, plates, tables or chairs make people obese, anymore than I think any other inanimate object can harm someone without human intervention. Appears the other thing being taught in school is to blame the alcohol, not the drunk etc. There's no personal accountability anymore. "I come from a broken home." "The gun made me kill, the panties made me rape." etc.


Again, these arguments are not even in the same water as firearms, let alone the same boat. But people will say anything to justify what they like to do. Like I've said, shooting firearms at a range is fine, but you do not need to take the firearms home, or at least the ammunition home if you're in this purely for sport. If you think firearms don't kill you're a moron; guns have gone off accidentally plenty of times, and plenty of times crimes were committed with firearms by individuals that wouldn't of done it with any less of a weapon, if ammo was only given out at ranges (unless you had reason; see military, law enforcement, protect with cause (witness protection, farmers, etc)) and impossible to get otherwise, being mandatory for the rounds to be used at range and never taken off the range then it would be a lot better and the sport stays a sport.


> Your rebuttals are become more and more nonsensical, I suspect you're growing bored. Shooting is sport, at the local, regional, state, national, pan-national and global levels. That you disagree with this is your choice, but in now way detracts from our enjoyment of the pastime.


You're not reading it properly, or not at all; I'm not saying ban the sport, I'm saying make it impossible to bring the sport home.


Darkwing said:


> I agree.
> 
> The gun is only as dangerous as the person who is using it.
> 
> ...


Glasses (for seeing) only work if people use them.

But yes, read above to my replies to Irreverent; I'm not saying ban the sport, I'm saying ban the sport from being taken home. I don't see how that's a problem if it indeed is just a sport.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 6, 2009)

Hold it, I am a bit lost here.


What do you mean by, "banning the sport from being taken home"?

I just need a general idea of this before I say something stupid.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

If you read like I asked you'd understand I meant not allowing the ammo to be brought off ranges.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> If you read like I asked you'd understand I meant not allowing the ammo to be brought off ranges.


 
Oh, well yeah, I agree with that, it sounds pretty reasonable.

But I wouldn't agree to it at some point, because the nearest shooting range over here is an hour and a half drive, and I think that it would be a waste of time (and gas) to drive if all I wanted to do is shoot for 15, maybe 20 minutes.

But that is why I made my backyard my own personal shooting range 

But I bet up there in Canada there are plenty of nearby shooting ranges to shoot at, so why not?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

It's illegal to shoot in your backyard as it is; 400 meters from any residential I thought...though it's probably more.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's illegal to shoot in your backyard as it is; 400 meters from any residential I thought...though it's probably more.


 
Really?

Does it apply to the Pennsylvania State / U.S. law?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Really?
> 
> Does it apply to the Pennsylvania State / U.S. law?



I don't know but I didn't think that any place inside the US wasn't under this law... unless in a shooting range... anybody else have this information?


----------



## VengeanceZ (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm a peaceful man. Only owned a custom made bow and actually shot a crow from a high tree, I was like "wow" then it fell, lay there for a few minutes and flew off. I felt sorry, I was like 7 at that time. >_>


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I don't know but I didn't think that any place inside the US wasn't under this law... unless in a shooting range... anybody else have this information?



Well, I have been shooting like this for months and no one corrected me thus far...

And it was actually my parents who suggested that I make a shooting range in the backyard


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What does this have to do with what I said, again I ask because this still doesn't link-up in the slightest; history does not repeat itself



Its very simple Newf, you grew up and were educated in an anti-gun climate, by predominantly anti-gun, socialist teachers.  You share their institutional, biases and views on political correctness.  More than than gets complex, I'll leave it as pre-digested as I can.



> Like I've said, shooting firearms at a range is fine, but you do not need to take the firearms home, or at least the ammunition home if you're in this purely for sport.



At the level I shoot at, the ammunition is made at home, and so are the guns.  To tolerances that would make a German engineer blush. 



> If you think firearms don't kill you're a moron; guns have gone off accidentally plenty of times.



if you want to be pedantic, its the bullet and its high energy to soft-tissue that does the killing....not the gun.  You can bash someone in the head with a rock, or with the butt of a rifle, either way, its not the gun or rock that's doing the killing, is it?  Of course not.



> and plenty of times crimes were committed with firearms by individuals that wouldn't of done it with any less of a weapon, if ammo was only given out at ranges (unless you had reason; see military, law enforcement, protect with cause (witness protection, farmers, etc)) and impossible to get otherwise, being mandatory for the rounds to be used at range and never taken off the range then it would be a lot better and the sport stays a sport.



The good news is, people so grossly ignorant of firearms and firearms law don't get to make that decision anymore; at least here.  We spent well over $6billion Canadian on the last failed firearms fiasco (enough to end the spread of Aids in Africa with anti-virals) just to "save" fewer people than are killed by cars each year.  Its not going to happen again.



> I'm not saying ban the sport, I'm saying make it impossible to bring the sport home.



Since more people are killed by player on player Hockey violence annually then have ever been killed at gun ranges in Canada, perhaps by your convoluted logic, improvements in public safety could be made by forcing Hockey players to leave their equipment at the rink. :roll:  I'd leave source for that stat, but since there has never been an incident of gun violence at range or competition in Canada, there simply isnt any to study.



NewfDraggie said:


> It's illegal to shoot in your backyard as it is; 400 meters from any residential I thought...though it's probably more.



Its only illegal to shoot in your backyard if your county or municipality has a bi-law against the discharge of firearms.  In many places in Canada, plinking or target shooting off the back deck is completely legal.  I've done it; in full compliance with the law.  The "within 400 meters" thing is a hunting regulation in some provinces, it varies by jurisdiction.  I suspect Darkwing is in the US, so neither likely apply to him.

Which ties in nicely with the very first point in this reply.  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 6, 2009)

Irrelevant said:
			
		

> Its very simple Newf, you grew up and were educated in an anti-gun climate, by predominantly anti-gun, socialist teachers. You share their institutional, biases and views on political correctness. More than than gets complex, I'll leave it as pre-digested as I can.


No, but thanks for assuming and making an ass of yourself; I grew up in a very pro-gun climate, I was in the militia for one, as are several of my relatives. My grandfather owns a ton of firearms and even I owned a M1911 at one point. I grew up and realized what it was.

Not one of my teachers, ever, at any point (from Alberta to Newfoundland) was anti-gun or taught about firearms at all other than history (wwII and wwI stuff only). Again, you clearly know nothing of the Canadian school-board, but cool...


> At the level I shoot at, the ammunition is made at home, and so are the guns. To tolerances that would make a German engineer blush.


I think people who make their own ammo are pretty dumb, let alone their own firearms; you can't do a better job than the professionals in this department. How much are you saving, honestly? And the level you shoot at doesn't matter, you're too good to use bought stuff? That's a pretty big load of crap there mate.

Either way, my point is still very valid and you've yet to refute this; all you've done is basically said guns control the better portion of your spare time, which makes a lot of what you say pretty biased, especially when you can't even agree people shouldn't be allowed to take their ammo (at least) home with them; what purpose does this serve, at all?


> Since more people are killed by player on player Hockey violence annually then have ever been killed at gun ranges in Canada, perhaps by your convoluted logic, improvements in public safety could be made by forcing Hockey players to leave their equipment at the rink. I'd leave source for that stat, but since there has never been an incident of gun violence at range or competition in Canada, there simply isnt any to study.


Did you just compare hockey equipment to firearms? You can not be this stupid. You're a fucking Canadian, or are you? No, you made a mistake; you must have made a mistake.


> The good news is, people so grossly ignorant of firearms and firearms law don't get to make that decision anymore; at least here. We spent well over $6billion Canadian on the last failed firearms fiasco (enough to end the spread of Aids in Africa with anti-virals) just to "save" fewer people than are killed by cars each year. Its not going to happen again.


What? OK, lol...again somebody brings up car accidents compared to firearm related deaths; I've already made -clear- points that they can't even be compared on other threads, but I'll do it again for the morons that can't wrap their heads around these basic facs; firearms assist in killing, this is what they're designed and created to do, sure -some- people use them for shooting at ranges but that's a pretty bad argument when they're able to be unarmed after being used at ranges (no ammo); cars are designed to make life better, everything from transporting of goods and people, to medical and firefighting; when firearms kill it's rarely an accident; when car crashes occur it's rarely on purpose; the amount of car owners verses the amount of gun owners is also another factor here.

tl;dr: cars have good and do little bad; guns have -no- good purpose and do lots of bad. 

Other than being fun for some people firearms are useless in the hands of civilians, at least operational (this means collectors can still collect) and those people that enjoy them for sport don't come before the greater good, if they think they do they're delusional.


----------



## thunder_lizard (Jul 7, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Really?
> 
> Does it apply to the Pennsylvania State / U.S. law?


 
State law CAN supercede Federal law, but not usurp/ undermine it; i.e. if the state regulations are more strict than the federal, then the state has the authority to ignore the fed in it's own matters...

As for myself, I've never hunted, mainly out of boredom/ and itch to keep moving..I am however a highly proficient rifleman, and my two favorie rifles are russian Nagants utilizing the venerable 7.62x54R cartridge; I also immensely enjoy shooting clays..Enthusiast?..Absolutely.....Obsessed?...Hardly


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Again, these arguments are not even in the same water as firearms, let alone the same boat. But people will say anything to justify what they like to do. Like I've said, shooting firearms at a range is fine, but you do not need to take the firearms home, or at least the ammunition home if you're in this purely for sport. If you think firearms don't kill you're a moron; *guns have gone off accidentally plenty of times*, and plenty of times crimes were committed with firearms by individuals that wouldn't of done it with any less of a weapon, if ammo was only given out at ranges (unless you had reason; see military, law enforcement, protect with cause (witness protection, farmers, etc)) and impossible to get otherwise, being mandatory for the rounds to be used at range and never taken off the range then it would be a lot better and the sport stays a sport.



Only when in the hands of a human being, Newf... and it's not an "accident", it's a *negligent discharge*.

I believe I've already mentioned how I give lie to your assertion... I've owned guns for the last 39 years, and have committed no criminal acts, not to mention never having an "accident".  It's the person, Newf, not the gun.  Certainly, if you put a gun in the hand of a criminally-minded PERSON, then that person will most likely abuse it, and commit crimes.  We already have laws to deal with that behavior, Newf... we just need to enforce them.  Firearms don't kill, Newf.  People do.  Firearms are inanimate objects, incapable of independent action.  To think otherwise is crazy talk.




NewfDraggie said:


> You're not reading it properly, or not at all; I'm not saying ban the sport, I'm saying make it impossible to bring the sport home.



If I can bring my baseball and bat home, then I should be able to bring my gun and ammo home.  After all, it's only a sport, isn't it, Newf?




NewfDraggie said:


> Glasses (for seeing) only work if people use them.



And you rail on us for comparing firearms deaths to automobile deaths... way to go, Newf!




NewfDraggie said:


> But yes, read above to my replies to Irreverent; I'm not saying ban the sport, I'm saying ban the sport from being taken home. I don't see how that's a problem *if it indeed is just a sport*.



If it is indeed just a sport, why should I *not* be able to bring my equipment home... all of it... just like I can with any other sport?

Irreverent, sorry for the bit of interruption... and thanks for your words of sanity.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The entire post


lol


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol



I rest my case...


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I rest my case...


Everything you said was wrong, I don't even need to waste my time trying to explain why because I've done it before time and time again; you're not part of the more intellectual evolved portion of our species; we're evolving and it's not physical per-se, but mental instead. Eisenstein and Tesla were leaps ahead of the evolution that's occurring, more and more people are popping up that are following a similar (though smaller) advance though the chain, these people are the musicians, the artists, the thinkers; you're not part of this group so your mind can't even comprehend the errors within' your post, even if they're pointed out for you and explained. Here, let me demonstrate.

inb4shitstorm

One: Plenty of people die from cancer, have you? No, well I guess those people are lying. Just because you haven't had a firearm discharge on its own accord does not mean it doesn't occur.

Two: Baseball bat isn't on the same level of firearm, sorry if you think baseball bats were invented for war but you've been taught wrong.

Three: The metaphor I used with the eyes and glasses is just that, a metaphor. I'm not comparing eyes and classes to people and firearms, I'm saying it's the same reasoning behind the argument; "guns don't kill, people kill"; "glasses don't see, eyes see."

Four: Unlike other sports you can't kill many people with ease, and the things included in other sports haven't been used in wars that tallied up millions of deaths; firearms are again, not on the same playing field as other sport items. Thinking they are is a sign that you're not developed, or at least part of the next step in evolutionary development of the mind rather than the body. Then again you're a religious man, lol.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

PHILOSOPHY

Guns are only as dangerous as the idiot holding them.  (Barring unusual circumstances.)

There is no good reason for a civilian to own a FULLY operational assault weapon (such as an AK47, or an MG3, or an Uzi - anything full-auto or burst-fire capable).  You do NOT need 600 rounds per minute cyclic fire.  You do NOT need 30-100 round magazines.  If you cannot kill or disable a threat within 10 shots with any weapon of any caliber in controlled accurate semi-automatic fire you do not deserve to own a gun.  Go get a baseball bat, fucktard.  You're less likely to hurt yourself. 

Also, at no point during hunting should you need to expend more than 5-10 rounds in a small period of time.  If it doesn't go down after 3 shots from your rifle you were in over your head or you just suck.  AK-47s and AR-15s are not necessary, are not suitable, and are not even the best weapon for hunting.  Get a nice Remington 700, dipshit.

Things like waiting periods and background checks are there for a reason.  Deal with it.  The safety of the general public trumps your desire to have that shiny .50 Super Overkill Megarevolver of Small-Penis-Compensation NOWWWWWWW.  What are you, 6 years old?

Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun.  The 2nd Amendment is great and all but some people are not fit to own and/or operate a firearm.  By some people I mean a lot of shamefully inept, fucking insane or simply bad people.

If you have children in your house PUT A FUCKING LOCK ON YOUR GUN AND PUT IT IN AS SECURE A LOCATION AS POSSIBLE. "Oh, but that lock will slow me down if an intruder breaks in!" Learn to unlock it faster, then.  Get a lock you can unlock quickly, and/or get a safe you can open quickly.  Children are fucking stupid when it comes to guns and if they find a loaded gun BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN.

If you buy a gun, you need to get your ass to a shooting range and PRACTICE safely operating it and firing it accurately.  Go to the range on a regular schedule.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

Tycho said:


> PHILOSOPHY
> 
> Guns are only as dangerous as the idiot holding them.  (Barring unusual circumstances.)
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I agree with this rant but I still think it's not enough, however it's not like it matters because it won't change anything...

Also an Uzi can reach much higher than 600RPM 
And Roose Hurr wants people to have the ability to own an M134; 2000, 4000, and 6000 Rounds Per Minute of 7.62 caliber tracer-laser death is not needed against anything less than moving at 200 Km/h in a helicopter 200+ meters in the sky at a kilometer from target.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Hmmm, I agree with this rant but I still think it's not enough, however it's not like it matters because it won't change anything...
> 
> Also an Uzi can reach much higher than 600RPM
> And Roose Hurr wants people to have the ability to own an M134; 2000, 4000, and 6000 Rounds Per Minute of 7.62 caliber tracer-laser death is not needed against anything less than moving at 200 Km/h in a helicopter 200+ meters in the sky at a kilometer from target.



Oh, I wouldn't mind using an M134 at a range of some sort, for shits and giggles.  Don't think anyone but the military should own one though.  When the 2nd Amendment was penned they could not begin to fathom the level of advancement and deadliness our lovely modern leadslinging machines could and would eventually reach.  Back then it made perfect sense for a household to have a MUSKET or a PISTOL.  Can't exactly mow down a sidewalk full of people with one man and a musket/pistol of the period.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

Oh yes, I love firing firearms and a M134 would be fun to shoot, but I keep it at the range and I have -no- problems with keeping it at the range in any way, shape or form.

Take the GAU-8 or GAU-12 for example, these guns...these Gatling guns could liquidate a straight line through a dense metropolis if they were hiding in the back of a van of some sort, which then parked somewhere for maximum damage and just opened up from inside the van in a straight mounted line. It'd be cool to see though... *Splat!*


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Oh yes, I love firing firearms and a M134 would be fun to shoot, but I keep it at the range and I have -no- problems with keeping it at the range in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Take the GAU-8 or GAU-12 for example, these guns...these Gatling guns could liquidate a straight line through a dense metropolis if they were hiding in the back of a van of some sort, which then parked somewhere for maximum damage and just opened up from inside the van in a straight mounted line. It'd be cool to see though... *Splat!*



That is what video games are for.  :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 7, 2009)

Tycho said:


> PHILOSOPHY
> 
> Guns are only as dangerous as the idiot holding them.  (Barring unusual circumstances.)
> 
> ...



I can't see anything in this post that I disagree with. <applauds>


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Everything you said was wrong, I don't even need to waste my time trying to explain why because I've done it before time and time again; you're not part of the more intellectual evolved portion of our species; we're evolving and it's not physical per-se, but mental instead. Eisenstein and Tesla were leaps ahead of the evolution that's occurring, more and more people are popping up that are following a similar (though smaller) advance though the chain, these people are the musicians, the artists, the thinkers; you're not part of this group so your mind can't even comprehend the errors within' your post, even if they're pointed out for you and explained. Here, let me demonstrate.



You actualy believe you're some slightly more evolved individual, how pretentious of you. Every post from you so far has given me the impression of a stuck up snob, maybe if you pressented your case with alittle more tact and a lot less "I'm smarter then you" statments I'd take you more seriosly, and this "I'm ex-malitia" thing you've got going on, your lack of professionalism leads me to believe thats not entirely true as well, proof on this matter would help, otherwise, what rot.

Gau 8 in the back of a van, you have no idea about the weapon systems size do you, It's ammo alone would fill the back up nevermind the full gun, it takes up a third of the aircraft it's attached to. The A-10 is practicaly built around it. And 5 tons of recoil, please.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> You actualy believe you're some slightly more evolved individual, how pretentious of you. Every post from you so far has given me the impression of a stuck up snob, maybe if you pressented your case with alittle more tact and a lot less "I'm smarter then you" statments I'd take you more seriosly, and this "I'm ex-malitia" thing you've got going on, your lack of professionalism leads me to believe thats not entirely true as well, proof on this matter would help, otherwise, what rot.
> 
> Gau 8 in the back of a van, you have no idea about the weapon systems size do you, It's ammo alone would fill the back up nevermind the full gun, it takes up a third of the aircraft it's attached to. The A-10 is practicaly built around it. And 5 tons of recoil, please.



newf will always come out of hiding when guns are mentioned. And he comes across as a stuck-up snob to me sometimes. When ever i read his posts i always get the feeling he is looking down on everyone, and that he is better than everyone else.

Anyway, 5 tons of recoil?, a van wouldn't be able to remain in one place. from the sounds of it you would need a fucking big van XD.

EDIT: imo guns are for wussies, we were born with a perfectly good set of arms and legs, use those. (In the violence sense)


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> newf will always come out of hiding when guns are mentioned. And he comes across as a stuck-up snob to me sometimes. When ever i read his posts i always get the feeling he is looking down on everyone, and that he is better than everyone else.
> 
> Anyway, 5 tons of recoil?, a van wouldn't be able to remain in one place. from the sounds of it you would need a fucking big van XD.
> 
> EDIT: imo guns are for wussies, we were born with a perfectly good set of arms and legs, *use those*. (In the violence sense)



But blood is so difficult to get out from under my fingernails...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But blood is so difficult to get out from under my fingernails...



It enhances the hell out of your "don't take no shit from anyone" cred though


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Anyway, 5 tons of recoil?, a van wouldn't be able to remain in one place. from the sounds of it you would need a fucking big van XD.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg

Going by the photo, yes you'd need a fucking ENORMOUS van just to *carry* it, let alone deal with the recoil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Recoil


> A persistent urban legend is that the recoil force of the Avenger matches that of the A-10's engines and as such the plane would slow down, stall, and subsequently crash if the gun were to be fired for long periods of time (some even claim that the aircraft would begin to fly backwards). However, the GAU-8/A product homepage states the recoil force as 10,000 pounds-force, or about 45 kN, which is less than the maximum combined output of the A-10 engines (82.6 kN).[7] Hence the recoil force of the gun is slightly more than half of the total thrust of the engines. While this is quite significant and can noticeably slow the aircraft, it is not sufficient to stop the aircraft.



But them the GAU-8 pales into insignificance when compared with the 16 in/50 cal Mark 7 "Fuck-off" guns of an _Iowa_-class *battleship*... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Jersey_Shoots.jpg


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But blood is so difficult to get out from under my fingernails...



Cut your fingernails, or wear gloves .



Mayfurr said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg
> 
> Going by the photo, yes you'd need a fucking ENORMOUS van just to *carry* it, let alone deal with the recoil...
> 
> ...



Thats definately a big boy. o.o I think if you fired that from a van it would send the van into next year.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Cut your fingernails, or wear gloves .



But... if I cut my fingernails that short, they'll be the ones bleeding.  And with gloves, I wouldn't be able to feel the gooey squish......... *


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> You actualy believe you're some slightly more evolved individual, how pretentious of you. Every post from you so far has given me the impression of a stuck up snob, maybe if you pressented your case with alittle more tact and a lot less "I'm smarter then you" statments I'd take you more seriosly, and this "I'm ex-malitia" thing you've got going on, your lack of professionalism leads me to believe thats not entirely true as well, proof on this matter would help, otherwise, what rot.



Thank you for assuming I said I was in this group, because at no point did I say that I was; but honestly it has to begin somewhere and the older generation have to be separated from the evolved at some point, though I'm not as evolved as some that are popping up, I am more-so than those from way-back, it has to begin somewhere and somebody has to say it. This is clearly visible, you can easily tell this is how we're evolving and it's not something the older generations should feel bad; I already foresee issues with the older generation either not believing this or being outraged by it when it's simple genetics; nothing they or anybody can do, or should do about it; the actual force of the recoil is about 45kN, which is a lot but not something that can push a van.

Lack of professionalism? Have you even read the posts in this thread, or just skimmed through what you wanted to read and nothing else? This is a furry forum board, I do not need to prove myself to anybody in this world, let alone somebody that's only been on this board for a short time and has several spelling errors in his post pointing out my professionalism. Nice job.


> Gau 8 in the back of a van, you have no idea about the weapon systems size do you, It's ammo alone would fill the back up nevermind the full gun, it takes up a third of the aircraft it's attached to. The A-10 is practicaly built around it. And 5 tons of recoil, please.


Actually I know quite a lot, its barrels can be shortened for one and no, the ammo isn't that large. The A-10 isn't that large at all. Also I mentioned the GAU-12, much smaller with smaller ammunition. But ok, go you for pointing out something very slightly flawed in a sarcastic comment. How about a M134 instead then, that will do just fine and it's actually very easy to do right now. The GAU-8 also doesn't have five tons of recoil unless it's firing on its maximum RPM for sustained period; says the guy who called me out on knowing little about the weapon system.


RandyDarkshade said:


> newf will always come out of hiding when guns are mentioned. And he comes across as a stuck-up snob to me sometimes. When ever i read his posts i always get the feeling he is looking down on everyone, and that he is better than everyone else.


Yes, I'm looking down on a few people in this forum, not everybody but I do look down at the retards; the morons in this group of users.
If you don't like that you can blow it out your ass; it's human nature for one, and morons have to be called out or else they never learn.


> Thats definately a big boy. o.o I think if you fired that from a van it would send the van into next year.


Recoil doesn't work like that; friction, wight, RPM, etc comes into play; the "van" could be something else, how about taking the wight of the weapon itself into play as well; the van was merely an example, which still works with the GAU-12 and the GAU-12 can do more damage faster to persons than the GAU-8 can.


----------



## KrystalsLover (Jul 7, 2009)

i own a PowerLINE 880 Multipump Air Rifle
I Use .177 (4.5 mm) flatnosed pellets


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

KrystalsLover said:


> i own a PowerLINE 880 Multipump Air Rifle
> I Use .177 (4.5 mm) flatnosed pellets



Yeah I owned a .117 air-rifle when I was a kid, my father also owned a .22 hornet (that was the round, can't remember the name of the gun) rifle, a 30-30 Winchester, .306 and a few others. It was a long time ago so I didn't know their models. Growing up I stripped the weapons and cleaned them with my dad all the time; my father taught me safety above all else, and when I was ten he got me a .117 air rifle, at first it was pretty crappy but eventually we modified it to be better and slapped on a scope; I could nail things with this much easier than any of my friends with their air-rifles. At about age twelve I got to fire the .22 hornet rounds and that became my rifle, then not long after I got to fire all the others. When we moved across Canada to Alberta we sold all the firearms or gave them away, while in Alberta I used to go to the local range every now and then and rent a few firearms and buy some ammo. I went to the Canadian Forces base, under militia not CF and I was there for a good year, a little less to be honest and I participated in a lot of shooting there because that was my fascination. I love firearms, I love weapons; I'm a weponologist of sorts (though not really, of course); they had a large assortment of weapons ranging from the Remington 700 and M24 variant, to AKM's, 74's and 101's; there was a lot of firearms at this base because it did happen to be one of the larger ones in Canada.

After an incident where somebody at a range was firing a handgun, and upon ejecting the mag (empty) did a chamber check (looked empty, even to me from a short distance), he snapped the slide forward and the thing blew up in his hand. It wasn't empty. The slide, or well pieces of it went into his face, me and two others knew first-aid so we did what we could until the ambulance arrived and took him away. I'm unsure if I saved his life or not.
After this incident I changed slightly, I still love firearms but this guy clearly didn't have the proper training or did something wrong, if not then it was the firearms fault; I might love firearms but I don't think civilians, at least the general amount of them should own firearms. He might of lived only because he was at a range at the time, if he was in the woods he would be dead without a chance, this is why I think range-shooting is still fine for the general public because it has the same dangers as Parkour or rock-climbing; people don't take those home into their homes or do it alone in the extremes.

There Roose; and example of a dangerous sport that isn't taken home or taken out into the streets; rock climbing.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Recoil doesn't work like that; friction, wight, RPM, etc comes into play; the "van" could be something else, how about taking the wight of the weapon itself into play as well; the van was merely an example, which still works with the GAU-12 and the GAU-12 can do more damage faster to persons than the GAU-8 can.



It was a joke >.>. Jesus you take so much stuff seriously includeing jokes. Damage to perons?, the size of those guns would obliterate buildings and cars let alone do "damage" to persons.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It was a joke >.>. Jesus you take so much stuff seriously includeing jokes. Damage to perons?, the size of those guns would obliterate buildings and cars let alone do "damage" to persons.



It didn't seem like a joke, and it was a pretty valid point to be honest. It is five metric tons of recoil on maximum RPMs for sustained amount; that actually slows down the A-10 while it's in flight for a split second. But yeah, my original point of putting the GAU-8 or GAU-12 in a car and spraying the streets was a joke; I'd never assume anybody would have the funds to do this along with the mentality. :\


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It didn't seem like a joke, and it was a pretty valid point to be honest. It is five metric tons of recoil on maximum RPMs for sustained amount; that actually slows down the A-10 while it's in flight for a split second. But yeah, my original point of putting the GAU-8 or GAU-12 in a car and spraying the streets was a joke; I'd never assume anybody would have the funds to do this along with the mentality. :\



Lol, I don't even think milti millionairs could by one. and even if someone could buy one what the heck would they do with it? 

A flatbed truck could always be used xD


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Lol, I don't even think milti millionairs could by one. and even if someone could buy one what the heck would they do with it?
> 
> A flatbed truck could always be used xD



Well yeah, that's what I meant; you can't buy one no matter how much money you have, however Roose thinks you should be allowed if you can indeed afford it. Never mind the gun cost itself, the ammo for a twenty second burst is in the hundreds of thousand dollar range.
Well it'd have to be enclosed to be incognito until it fires and it's too late.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> EDIT: imo guns are for wussies, we were born with a perfectly good set of arms and legs, use those. (In the violence sense)



FALCON PUNCH


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

Tycho said:


> FALCON PUNCH



What?, guns = lazy. All ya gotta do is point, aim, pull a trigger, not much effort required. 

I love guns, i just think they are for lazy people. Including me.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> What?, guns = lazy. All ya gotta do is point, aim, pull a trigger, not much effort required.
> 
> I love guns, i just think they are for lazy people. Including me.



Jack be nimble
Jack be quick
Jack see mugger
Jack give kick
Jack show quickness
Jack show skill
Jack learn bullet
Quicker still


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 7, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Jack be nimble
> Jack be quick
> Jack see mugger
> Jack give kick
> ...



You just backed up my point. gun = quick, easy, simple.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Thats definately a big boy. o.o I think if you fired that from a van it would send the van into next year.



That's about the point where a gun ceases to be a weapon and becomes a _propulsion system_ instead... 

(And if you think that's a fun idea, you'll LOVE the old Project Orion nuclear rocket design - a.k.a. "Ol' Boom-Boom" - which proposed firing and exploding *nukes* behind the ship to ride the shockwave!)


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> That's about the point where a gun ceases to be a weapon and becomes a _propulsion system_ instead...
> 
> (And if you think that's a fun idea, you'll LOVE the old Project Orion nuclear rocket design - a.k.a. "Ol' Boom-Boom" - which proposed firing and exploding *nukes* behind the ship to ride the shockwave!)



Oh god, that, what a grand idea that was. Hehehe...

Anyways, here's a question for most of you, why the big push to get firearms out of civilian hands? It's not going to stop criminals from getting them anyway, this would be like trying to make tabacco in all it's forms illegal. The wrong people will always find a way to get what they want, guns are easy to get illegaly and you can't control that. Taking them away from normal people may save the lives of some idiots, and the smarter people that happen to be around them but it won't stop a criminal from perferating you for your wallet.

As mentioned guns are not for everyone, but there are people who do have the mind set to handle them properly, most these days don't though, and finding out who does is a better solution then getting rid of them completely. You can see the outrage already at the idea, so why not find an alternative solution, one that also would cost considerably less. Proper training, psyche tests and of course background checks (which are already done) before a person gets ANY firearms would almost compleaty remove the things you complian about. Normaly I'm all about freedom, but firearms need control, a lot of it, but banning them all together won't work to solve the problem. If anything they'd be even more of a problem, illegal items are actualy more sought after then legal ones. It would cost less simply because firearms are now part of the economy, you remove them and a huge chunk of taxes go with them, this is in the US of course. Other contries tend not to have that big of a problem unless they have some form of active war or skirmish, and that realy can't be helped this way. Canada (yay ) has less of a problem but could still do with this system, although for us it might be more costly.

It's common knowledge that making something illegal draws more buyers for that product, so it may actualy make the problem WAY worse.

And to Newf directly, sarcasm doesn't come across in text very well, and we both know people that would think it's possible to do what you said for real, think about it, how am I supposed to know your not one of em? Anyways, just a little correction for you, the recoil is per round fired, so 5 tons per round times however many rounds you fire at, and you get the idea. The guns also powered by the aircrafts engines, you'd need to rig it to a hydrolic pump powered by the vans engine. So yeah the Gau-12 is a better choice, but why bother when you get a more efficient result from several well placed blocks of C-4 or Semtex? Besides it's a more exciting thing to watch stuff explode then fly down the street on an Avenger powered sled.

Oh and before I forget, I do partialy agree with you Newf, but your method for both your arguments and for fixing the problem just doesn't work to well. All it does is piss people off, though personaly I find it very entertaining.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

> why the big push to get firearms out of civilian hands? It's not going to stop criminals from getting them anyway


Actually it does; note Australia: in 1996 they banned firearms or at least a certain type, for the upcoming years the firearm related deaths spiked and then dropped significantly to their lowest numbers ever, ever and are steadily declining even today. In the UK they recently banned handguns recently and the firearms related violence spiked, already it's dropping significantly.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/C/3/A/{C3A74873-6AC7-4B88-83B1-DE1AA423EB6C}cfi054.pdf
http://www.guninformation.org/


> Anyways, just a little correction for you, the recoil is per round fired, so 5 tons per round times however many rounds you fire at, and you get the idea.


No, it's not. 30mm fire doesn't give five metric tons of recoil, it's impossible. Equal and opposite force, newtons law.
In fact it's not even five metric tons in sustained max-rpm fire, that's a slight exaggeration.


> It's common knowledge that making something illegal draws more buyers for that product, so it may actualy make the problem WAY worse.


This is also false, there would be more people smoking cannabis if it were legal.
And in countries where firearms require just a license and aren't even illegal (Canada) most people don't own one.


> The guns also powered by the aircrafts engines


The engines give the aircraft power, the gun works as long as it has power; the engines don't spin and operate the gun directly, they only supply the energy; you could power the GAU-8 or GAU-12 from a normal cars engine too, or a generator.


> why bother when you get a more efficient result from several well placed blocks of C-4 or Semtex?


Both of these are plastic explosive, they're for demolition and not killing; there's no shrapnel and only a big boom. You'll hurt ears and cause internal issues for anybody close enough, but the safe distance is quite short compared to other things.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually it does; note Australia: in 1996 they banned firearms or at least a certain type, for the upcoming years the firearm related deaths spiked and then dropped significantly to their lowest numbers ever, ever and are steadily declining even today. In the UK they recently banned handguns recently and the firearms related violence spiked, already it's dropping significantly.



Did you also know that someone gets shot in New York every 5 hours, someone gets stabbed in London every 30 minutes? Also the case of how seriously Virgin, Utah take the 2nd ammendment to hand springs to mind:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95090&page=1


----------



## X (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually it does; note Australia: in 1996 they banned firearms or at least a certain type, for the upcoming years the firearm related deaths spiked and then dropped significantly to their lowest numbers ever, ever and are steadily declining even today. In the UK they recently banned handguns recently and the firearms related violence spiked, already it's dropping significantly.
> 
> http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx
> http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/C/3/A/%7BC3A74873-6AC7-4B88-83B1-DE1AA423EB6C%7Dcfi054.pdf
> http://www.guninformation.org/



well, in the US anyway, gangs get most of their guns through black markets and smuggling operations, civilian, self defense shootings, and individual crimes (robberies and such) will drop, but organized crime and gang shootings will stay pretty much the same.



NewfDraggie said:


> Both of these are plastic explosive, they're for demolition and not killing; there's no shrapnel and only a big boom. You'll hurt ears and cause internal issues for anybody close enough, but the safe distance is quite short compared to other things.



put some c4 in a crowded swimming pool, and it will pretty much liquefy anyone inside. but like you said, it wont do much in a crowded street (unless you embed nails in it or fill it up with steel balls)


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

X said:


> well, in the US anyway, gangs get most of their guns through black markets and smuggling operations, civilian, self defense shootings, and individual crimes (robberies and such) will drop, but organized crime and gang shootings will stay pretty much the same.



Mmm it might, but it will decrease more than likely if ammo is harder to get and people aren't putting up defense with firearms trying to be the hero only to be shot simply can't because they'll cooperate like everybody else and the gangs leave. Now, if they're killing people that don't put up a defense do you think those defending with guns even have a chance in most situations? I don't think so, so it has the chance of saving plenty of lives... though in the US this would be a bad thing to implement due to their history of having the firearms. Even though I think it would make the country better it won't, at least not right away and during the "right away" time period there will be a lot of deaths that are unneeded.


----------



## X (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Mmm it might, but it will decrease more than likely if ammo is harder to get and people aren't putting up defense with firearms trying to be the hero only to be shot simply can't because they'll cooperate like everybody else and the gangs leave. Now, if they're killing people that don't put up a defense do you think those defending with guns even have a chance in most situations? I don't think so, so it has the chance of saving plenty of lives... though in the US this would be a bad thing to implement due to their history of having the firearms. Even though I think it would make the country better it won't, at least not right away and during the "right away" time period there will be a lot of deaths that are unneeded.



just adding that thought in there; its mainly based on the things that happened during the famous prohibition of alcohol in 1919-1933. the consumption of alcohol slowed down, but it shifted from legally obtained liquor to home brewed and imported (smuggled) kinds.

so if it followed the same path, you'd see home made firearms more often than smuggled things. but your right about the lack of ammo thing, we would probably have people killing people with arrows or melee weapons, since both can be made easily and cheaply.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

Newf, put a block of plastic explosive inside a small building like a house, the blast won't be what kills, it's whats left of the building as it flies through the air, and also note how I state "well placed". Oh and C-4 and Semtex are DIFFERENT KINDS of plastic explosive, I was simply giving you the freedom of choice, nice assumption that I didn't know that though.

Using Canibis as an example doesn't work with me, it's got too many other uses for it to realy count, hell, both my parrents use it for medical reasons. You don't seem to get what I'm saying, this is about human nature, you make something illegal and people gravitate toward it. You say something simmilar yourself, guns give people a feeling of power, a rush of sorts. So does having anything illegal, there are people who steal just for the rush, and I knew several people who did drugs just because they where illegal, just for the thrill of what might happen if they got caught.

As for the recoil from the Gau-8 it's roughly 4.5 metric tons to be precise, the engines of the plane output 8.48 metric tons of thrust, so it's perfectly possible. And as for the power, I never said the gun was attached to the engines in any way, it's hydrolicly powered, using the engines to power the pump, in turn the engine DOES power the gun. You would have figured this out if you looked at my post properly, especialy when I mention fitting a hydrolic pump into the van. Oh and Wikipedia is bullshit, so don't try it. Here http://www.gdatp.com/products/Gun_Systems/GAU-8A/GAU-8A.htm Do the conversion yourself for the recoil force. I'll have a very hardy laugh if you discredit the company site.

Oh and about the drop in deaths, Australia is an Island, they only have so many people. I'm kidding, but seriosly the only reason there's less deaths is because the guns are not in the hands of people with no common sense, like I mentioned, not everyone has the right mind set for it. Very few people these days have the right stuff to handle a firearm. The same results would have happened should they have used my method, only some people would still have guns, but only the RIGHT people. Australia is one place I'd want a gun anyways, one of the ONLY places I'd want one. Not for people, but for dangerous wildlife. Firearms can be a bad thing, but only because the people using them either have ill intentions or aren't using them correctly.

And as for lack of ammo, thats what reloads are for, take the old casings and slap a new primer, charge and round in em, there you go, more ammo. And making shells and bullets from scratch isn't hard, my father did it in the 70's, all it takes is a mould and a proper metal working oven, something you can make actualy. I did this up at my camp/trailer park, we used a custom made fire place and a mould my father made to make a steel sword. If people want it, they'll find a way to get it.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

> Newf, put a block of plastic explosive inside a small building like a house, the blast won't be what kills, it's whats left of the building as it flies through the air, and also note how I state "well placed". Oh and C-4 and Semtex are DIFFERENT KINDS of plastic explosive, I was simply giving you the freedom of choice, nice assumption that I didn't know that though.


There's other plastic explosives that are better~
And no, both are quite stable and are designed to destroy critical points without blowing it all to hell. You could pack enough in to do something like that but there's other explosives or bobs that would be better and easier to get. Though honestly argueing over this is silly and neither of us are right.

And I gave two examples, not just the cannabis one (whch your counter about it doesn't really make much sense but ok..), I also said "And in countries where firearms require just a license and aren't even illegal (Canada) most people don't own one."

And the engines aren't directly connected to the gun itself, the alternator powers the craft and the same power goes to the gun as well. :\


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And the engines aren't directly connected to the gun itself, the alternator powers the craft and the same power goes to the gun as well. :\



Thats basicaly what I said, the engines aren't connected at all, but they power the damn thing through the planes hydrolics, what part of my post are you not understanding?

I know there are better ones, but I'm not going to list every type of plastic explosive out there. The explosion from plastic explosive is a quick BOOM, but it's only directional if you actualy turn it into a shaped charge, left as is it can create a massive pressure wave that'll destroy just about anything short of a concreat building, but note how I said well placed, you know, like on a supporting wall or inside a building with alot of glass, meaning the boom actualy does something. I know how the stuff works, I've used a crude form of Semtex before, hence why I mentioned it.

My argument about your compairison of canibis to other illegal things, the possibilities for use of the substance, such as textiles, mean the increase in use wouldn't necessarily be as a drug, the people doing it now would still do it, but you'd have people using it as an alternetive for other materials as well.

Your second says it's legal for people to own handguns but they don't anyways, that hardly proves your point. You essentialy said nothing with that exept that it's legal so people aren't as interested.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

What else would power the gun in that case? There's no reason to mention it; the only thing powering the craft if the engines, what else could possibly power the weapon systems. But yeah, you're right. :3

Lets say the drug use then.

Oh, ok well lets compare it to something: 

Canada requires a license (note, it's not banned it just takes some work to get the weapons legally) and not many people own them.

United States doesn't really require much and a lot of people own them.

So basically if you made it actually illegal less people would indeed own them, not more as you say. It doesn't make sense that making something illegal makes that something used/owned more. :\


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Canada requires a license (note, it's not banned it just takes some work to get the weapons legally) and not many people own them.
> 
> United States doesn't really require much and a lot of people own them.
> 
> So basically if you made it actually illegal less people would indeed own them, not more as you say. It doesn't make sense that making something illegal makes that something used/owned more. :\



In both cases we're also talking about culture, not just laws and regulations. In Canada we don't have the same obsession with some right to bare arms, the second amendment (Which I think is bunk these days). This is why so many people have them in the US, it's more about having it because it's a right and not for any real purpose, those are the people I've been talking about, the ones that shouldn't have them. Having one and never actualy shooting it at a proper range, even a proper one you built in your back yard, is stupid and irresponsible. Having anything just to HAVE it is a sign of ZERO common sense, if it serves a purpose then it's Ok.

Getting back to your point. I'm going from life experience, things I've observed, not anything off the internet, except for the A-10 stuff but thats for odviuos reasons. I've observed it so many times, a person has a legal alternitive but they still go for the illegal choice, simply because it's more of a thrill. It may only partialy apply here but it still does. I live in Canada and I don't own a gun, but I might get one for a reason. Otherwise I'm firearm free. I also have a brain upstairs, and would treat the weapon with the proper respect.

It all comes down to a persons personality and how much common sense they have. You've fired gun before and may have a hell of alot more common sense, meanwhile the guy in the shooting booth next to you has none what so ever and fails to use the hammer let down on his P226, holsters it and it blows a small to large chunk off his foot. It's not the guns fault he didn't use the safety features the manufacturer built into the gun, he just didn't have the common sense and/or knowledge to use them, never mind not unloading the gun in the first place.

I thought about it a bit, you do make good points but there is one thing I dissagree with, guns aren't harmless on there own. They are harmless, but only if placed there with the correct care, guns won't go off on there own without human intervention. The guy you mentioned with the exploding handgun, more then likely it was a manufacturing defect or some third party addons he did to it, either way it wouldn't just go boom on it's own. The only other thing is stress fractures from high grain loads or age, both of which are still his fault. If it's defective it's the factories fault, only humans can take the blame for these things. Saying otherwise is like saying it's the mcchickens fault your fat, not yours for eating it. Another comparison is a video game, blaming it for your loss even though it kept repeating "Not enough energy, constuct additional pylons." Anything that happens can be traced back to human error, in anything. It could even be a defect in the ammo, and that is still human error. Blaming the object and not the person who built, operated, or modified it is foolish, and border line childish, a peice of hardware is only as good as the person makes it.

Here of course is the problem, you say people are being born smarter and smarter, that's doesn't seem to be the case, more and more I'm seeing younger generations with no common sense what so ever, they have no idea about a lot of things I do, and I had to teach myself a lot of things because no one else would do it properly (Except my parents). The newer generations only have the potential for higher intelegence, but our society lacks the actual cappacity to handle the masses, so only a few select individuals actualy learn anything substantial, and are also only instilled with some form of common sense. A majority of drivers on the roads also seem to have the same problem, but thats just because it's way to damn easy to get a licence.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

I've heard plenty of stories of firearms discharging on their own accord, with nobody near them. So no, they're still harmful on their own it's just unlikely. They're made by humans, and you yourself just said that it could be a factory error, that it's a humans fault; but all firearms are made by humans, that's a silly counter-argument because in that case only the ones NOT made by us (they don't exist) are safe.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I've heard plenty of stories of firearms discharging on their own accord, with nobody near them. So no, they're still harmful on their own it's just unlikely. They're made by humans, and you yourself just said that it could be a factory error, that it's a humans fault; but all firearms are made by humans, that's a silly counter-argument because in that case only the ones NOT made by us (they don't exist) are safe.



Bad ammo, faulty parts or anything of the sort is the reason, all of which can be traced back to the people who made those parts, nothing happens for no reason, a human had a hand in it somewhere. The likely hood of a faulty part getting past quality control is minimal, and the guns themselves are not at fault if it does. Oh and an empty gun is safe too, thats how they should be left when unattended, so it's still a human error, this whole safe guns don't exist is pretty dumb, they do, but only because the human using it is a very safety concious person. Like I keep saying it's only harmfull if the person using it doesn't know how to make it safe, and keep it that way. All guns should be empty if left unattended, thats actualy a rule at all gun ranges. An empty gun is safe. A clean, well built gun with the safety on and the hammer down is safe. A badly handled gun is whats harmfull. The reason people blame the device and not themselves is it's easier then admitting someone was at fault, it's human nature that we don't like being wrong in some way.

Saying they are dangerous no matter what is like saying a ladder shouldn't be used because there is a minimal chance a factory defect could make it collapse and kill you. It all boils down to this, "shit happens" meaning things will go wrong, people will get hurt and nothing is ever made perfecty 100% of the time.

I don't see your so called contradiction when I say guns are safe in the hands of people who know what they are doing. There is no counter-argument there. Do you think that at any moment while shooting a gun it might blow up, if so thats a very irrational fear, unless it's a gun made in a 3rd world country using sub standard parts of course. That however means you dumb enought to actualy use it. So far you don't seem stupid, just stuborn ;p.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

Which is the point and the problem still remains; if all firearms had a human hand intervening with them, which they do, then doesn't that make this argument pointless? If all weapons that go off accidentally were at fault with a human, and all firearms pass through human hands which can fault any at any time, then doesn't that click with you that it's the firearms still have safety issues even in the hands of the most professional? Granted you can minimize dangers with many things, but it's still there only it's now minimized.


> I don't see your so called contradiction when I say guns are safe in the hands of people who know what they are doing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY


> Saying they are dangerous no matter what is like saying a ladder shouldn't be used because there is a minimal chance a factory defect could make it collapse and kill you.


Well that's why people that only need to use ladders use them; which again is my point where people that need to use firearms should be the only ones using them, if the public wish to use them then it's fine as well, they should just take it to a range and the ammo shouldn't come off said range.

There's no issue at all that I see: 
You want to collect? Go ahead.
You want to shoot? Go ahead.
You need a firearm for protection? You need a valid reason (witness protection, security, etc).
You want to take loaded guns around with you, or store loaded guns (or even unloaded guns with the ammo at home next to them) at home for no real valid reason, there's your problem.


----------



## Seas (Jul 7, 2009)

The more oppressive a government is, the more harsh the gun conrtol laws are.
Freedom = Right to bear arms | Oppression = Denied rights to bear arms.

Just though I'd put the simple truth between all these walls of text.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

We are saying almost the same thing here, with the exception of where the blame should go when the gun goes off.

Your so called expert in that video is one of the idiots I'm talking about, it's laughable. Why was his gun loaded in the first place, he's a fool, and doesn't deserve the right to have a firearm. He probably got fired for that as well. This video only proves my point that guns are unsafe in the hands of people with little common sense. This guy demonstraits the lack of common sense I've been talking about. He's in a classroom, teaching others proper safety yet he has a loaded gun. There is no logical reason it should be loaded and he failed to check it properly beforehand, he's an idiot.

Just because someone has a badge or is part of a government autherized training program doesn't mean they actualy know what they're doing. It's a scary thought, but it's the truth, why do you think so many bad drivers get a license, some instructors that have no clue themselves.

As for who should get them, all I've done is agree with that, I don't see where you get I'm saying otherwise. All I've said is the people who actualy use them should get them, those who own one for the sake of owning one are morons.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

Seastalker said:


> The more oppressive a government is, the more harsh the gun conrtol laws are.
> Freedom = Right to bear arms | Oppression = Denied rights to bear arms.
> 
> Just though I'd put the simple truth between all these walls of text.



Thats not true, you can be free without having a firearm, and you can be oppressed even though you have one. The second amendment is bunk now, it's not like the red coats are going to invade and you need a weapon to defend your home land.

Only those who use them for recreation should have them, either target shooting or collecting, those who have no use for them shouldn't have them simply because they serve no real purpose. It's like owning a fancy new sports car and not actualy driving it. It's not worth anything at that moment and you're not going to collect more, so whats the point?

Oh and I just rewatched the video, and he didn't actualy hurt himself, it was fake, nice attempt though.


----------



## X (Jul 7, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> Thats not true, you can be free without having a firearm, and you can be oppressed even though you have one. The second amendment is bunk now, it's not like the red coats are going to invade and you need a weapon to defend your home land.



people break into houses and steal stuff all the time, if im home, i want something to defend myself with. and a knife, baseball bat or crowbar is not going to cut it if he is armed.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

X said:


> people break into houses and steal stuff all the time, if im home, i want something to defend myself with. and a knife, baseball bat or crowbar is not going to cut it if he is armed.



That constitutes a purpose, you know that right? Not to be an ass but that falls under a reason for owning one. But those who own them for this need to be properly trained to handle them safely as well.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

Seastalker said:


> The more oppressive a government is, the more harsh the gun conrtol laws are.
> Freedom = Right to bear arms | Oppression = Denied rights to bear arms.
> 
> Just though I'd put the simple truth between all these walls of text.



I'm pretty sure there's much, much more things to freedom and oppression than that. There's plenty of things you can't do that would be above owning firearms on the scale for "oppression". But nice try. It's not as if you need them in any way or anything to live, though this can't be said about some people who think firearms come above human life.


X said:


> people break into houses and steal stuff all the time, if im home, i want something to defend myself with. and a knife, baseball bat or crowbar is not going to cut it if he is armed.


If he is armed you have no chance anyway.
Bang, you're dead. Go you, if you didn't fight him he might of let you live.
If he's going to kill you more than likely you'll be dead before you heard the shot. Hell, he could knife you to death in public or in your bed and a firearm won't stop that. They're not magic.


> Oh and I just rewatched the video, and he didn't actualy hurt himself, it was fake, nice attempt though.


Says you or comments on the video? (youtube comments lol). He actually shot himself in the foot you know; it was not fake.


> This video only proves my point that guns are unsafe in the hands of people with little common sense.


So we're in agreement then? No firearms for civilians without purpose.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

X said:


> people break into houses and steal stuff all the time, if im home, i want something to defend myself with. and a knife, baseball bat or crowbar is not going to cut it if he is armed.



Generally they want your electronics and jewelry, not your life.

Also, using lethal force (a gun) in defense of property doesn't fly in most courtrooms.  Dunno what they'd say about a taser or something like that.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

Chances are if someone comes into your home with a gun to steal things, they're going to hold you at gun point, and a gun doesn't make them invincible. Now if they want to kill you, then either way it's still 50-50 they'll succed if you're trained in self defence. There are ways of dealing with firearms that don't involve other firearms.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 7, 2009)

One more thing: even if the son of a bitch is waving a gun in your face, shooting him when he momentarily turns his back to you or is otherwise not practically in a nose to nose staring contest with you equals you in trouble.  It's stupid (that little part of the law), frankly.


----------



## X (Jul 7, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Generally they want your electronics and jewelry, not your life.
> 
> Also, using lethal force (a gun) in defense of property doesn't fly in most courtrooms.  Dunno what they'd say about a taser or something like that.



not sure of the complete law here in fl. but im pretty sure that if its self defense, or defense of property (like if someone breaks in your house.) it usually passes courts here.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> So we're in agreement then? No firearms for civilians without purpose.



Basicaly yeah, we are in agreement, we where from the start. However my point about firearms not being dangerous on there own still stands.

If he actualy shot himself and reacted like that I'm amazed at his resiliance, but he's still a dumb ass. His actualy "checking" the gun beforehand is what leads me to believe its fake.

My only real problem with your posts is the way you word them, sometimes coming across as condescending makes you out to be a lot more of an ass then you actualy are. I started out thinking you where just another blind fool, now I just see you're alittle on the stuborn side, lol.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 7, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> Chances are if someone comes into your home with a gun to steal things, they're going to hold you at gun point, and a gun doesn't make them invincible. Now if they want to kill you, then either way it's still 50-50 they'll succed if you're trained in self defence. There are ways of dealing with firearms that don't involve other firearms.



50/50? lolwat? No, it's more like you have a 1% chance of success unless he fumbles. He's not going to let YOU point a gun at him while you're talking. He'll just shoot you the moment he sees a hint of a weapon. I know I would.


> not sure of the complete law here in fl. but im pretty sure that if its self defense, or defense of property (like if someone breaks in your house.) it usually passes courts here.


Depends on location and laws, but it's murder here, and I agree with that.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 7, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> 50/50? lolwat? No, it's more like you have a 1% chance of success unless he fumbles. He's not going to let YOU point a gun at him while you're talking. He'll just shoot you the moment he sees a hint of a weapon. I know I would.



I'm not saying you talk to him, I'm saying you shoot his ass as soon as he comes into view. If HE'S not expecting it you win, If your not expecting him HE wins. 50-50. But the same can be said for a good set of martial arts skills, I can break an arm in less then half a second, quit a bit shorter then his reaction speed should I get the drop on him, if he sees me first though I'm dead instead. 50-50. I'm no professional but I know what to do should the oppertunity come up, like you said, guns aren't magical things that make you invincible. Even though more then likely I'd be killed anyways, if he wants to kill me I do my best to fuck up his arm, it's better to try then die without action, if all he wants is my material things, let him have em, I can always buy more.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

Lets just stop this right here, I can think of many situations where I could survive and you could think of many where I'd have no chance, and frankly I argree with that half the time, maybe more. Basicaly this debate would be pointless.


----------



## Firepyro (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> Lets just stop this right here, I can think of many situations where I could survive and you could think of many where I'd have no chance, and frankly I argree with that half the time, maybe more. Basicaly this debate would be pointless.


just look at bear gryllus!


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

sandstalker said:


> just look at bear gryllus!



LOL


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> *_snip_*
> 
> There Roose; *an* example of a dangerous sport that isn't taken home or taken out into the streets; rock climbing.



Ahhh... but the rock climber gets to take ALL their equipment home.  It would be a bit too difficult, and awkward, for them to move the *mountain* into their garage...




Mayfurr said:


> That's about the point where a gun ceases to be a weapon and becomes a _propulsion system_ instead...
> 
> (And if you think that's a fun idea, *you'll LOVE the old Project Orion nuclear rocket design* - a.k.a. "Ol' Boom-Boom" - which proposed firing and exploding *nukes* behind the ship to ride the shockwave!)



Shoot, beat me to it, Mayfurr...!




DemonKnight said:


> Oh god, that, what a grand idea that was. Hehehe...
> 
> Anyways, here's a question for most of you, why the big push to get firearms out of civilian hands? It's not going to stop criminals from getting them anyway, this would be like trying to make tabacco in all it's forms illegal. The wrong people will always find a way to get what they want, guns are easy to get illegaly and you can't control that. Taking them away from normal people may save the lives of some idiots, and the smarter people that happen to be around them but it won't stop a criminal from perferating you for your wallet.
> 
> ...



You know, it's funny how many people say we should make dangerous "recreational" drugs legal, and that we should do this to end the Drug War that presently fuels so much crime, yet, if you bring up guns in the same context, they turn around and take the opposite view... go fig.




NewfDraggie said:


> This is also false, there would be more people smoking cannabis if it were legal.



And if cannabis was legal, more people would be driving stoned...




NewfDraggie said:


> Both of these are plastic explosive, *they're for demolition and not killing*; there's no shrapnel and only a big boom. You'll hurt ears and cause internal issues for anybody close enough, but the safe distance is quite short compared to other things.



Newf, Newf, Newf... explosives were originally "designed" for killing.  Blow up... demolish a building with people still in it, and you could kill over three thousand people with one shot.  Remember 9/11...?  Though that was done with two jet aircraft, the concept is the same.  Rig an office-tower building, wait for it to fill up, then blow it.........

You have obviously never dealt with explosives.




NewfDraggie said:


> I've heard plenty of stories of* firearms discharging on their own accord*, with nobody near them. So no, they're still harmful on their own it's just unlikely. They're made by humans, and you yourself just said that it could be a factory error, that it's a humans fault; but all firearms are made by humans, that's a silly counter-argument because in that case only the ones NOT made by us (they don't exist) are safe.



No firearm discharges of its own accord.  A human being had to load it, first.  And I suspect the guns you've heard stories about were not as they came from the factory... in other words, they were messed with.  Most likely target guns with hair-triggers, where a single bump could set them off.  Not the gun's fault... never the gun's fault!




NewfDraggie said:


> Which is the point and the problem still remains; if all firearms had a human hand intervening with them, which they do, then doesn't that make this argument pointless? If all weapons that go off accidentally were at fault with a human, and all firearms pass through human hands which can fault any at any time, then doesn't that click with you that it's the firearms still have safety issues even in the hands of the most professional? Granted you can minimize dangers with many things, but it's still there only it's now minimized.



No, Newf... if the human hand makes a gun unsafe, then it is the hand at fault, not the gun.  Always the hand...




Seastalker said:


> The more oppressive a government is, the more harsh the gun conrtol laws are.
> Freedom = Right to bear arms | Oppression = Denied rights to bear arms.
> 
> *Just though I'd put the simple truth between all these walls of text.*



With Newf, you're pretty much wasting your time... he won't accept the truth.




DemonKnight said:


> We are saying almost the same thing here, with the exception of where the blame should go when the gun goes off.
> 
> Your so called expert in that video is one of the idiots I'm talking about, it's laughable. Why was his gun loaded in the first place, he's a fool, and doesn't deserve the right to have a firearm. He probably got fired for that as well. This video only proves my point that guns are unsafe in the hands of people with little common sense. This guy demonstraits the lack of common sense I've been talking about. He's in a classroom, teaching others proper safety yet he has a loaded gun. There is no logical reason it should be loaded and he failed to check it properly beforehand, he's an idiot.
> 
> ...



Correct... when demonstrating a firearm, unless it is on a range, conducted with proper safety protocols, no ammo should be in the gun or anywhere within the room.  Never.  The guy in that video was.. actually, still is a moron...




DemonKnight said:


> Thats not true, you can be free without having a firearm, and you can be oppressed even though you have one. *The second amendment is bunk now*, it's not like the red coats are going to invade and you need a weapon to defend your home land.
> 
> Only those who use them for recreation should have them, either target shooting or collecting, those who have no use for them shouldn't have them simply because they serve no real purpose. It's like owning a fancy new sports car and not actualy driving it. It's not worth anything at that moment and you're not going to collect more, so whats the point?
> 
> Oh and I just rewatched the video, and he didn't actualy hurt himself, it was fake, nice attempt though.



No, it's not, DK... remember, the Constitution (along with the 2nd Amendment) was written AFTER we defeated the Redcoats.  And yes, we do still need to defend our homeland... and our homes.  As long as crime and war exists, as long as Governments oppress their people, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will remain necessary.  This means the Right will always be needed, to guarantee Freedom.  A gun will always serve a REAL purpose...




DemonKnight said:


> That constitutes a purpose, you know that right? Not to be an ass but that falls under a reason for owning one. *But those who own them for this need to be properly trained to handle them safely as well.*



And in my state, in order to buy a gun, you need to pass safety certification... which I have done.  Not sure if this is a state or federal ordinance...




NewfDraggie said:


> If he is armed you have no chance anyway.
> Bang, you're dead. Go you, if you didn't fight him he might of let you live.
> If he's going to kill you more than likely you'll be dead before you heard the shot. Hell, he could knife you to death in public or in your bed and a firearm won't stop that.



Bullshit, Newf...


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> the entire post


lolfail. 

The difference between you and modern humans is the same between neanderthals and the first homo sapien's.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

That part of the constitustion was because they where still a threat, name one county that'll actualy invade America. No one will, because it's suicide for any country to do so. There is no threat of invasion, no one is dumb enought to try that now adays. Guns also don't combat terrorism, a gun can't stop suicide bombers in the middle of a crowded street.

I LIKE guns, and I think most people just need to learn proper respect for them, but untill I no longer see most youth in my area spewing shit like "I'ma blast you with my Deagle 50" and shit like that I don't think everyone has what it takes to own one. My problem isn't those that have them AND the respect for them that goes with being a good owner of ANYTHING, it's the ones that DON'T have any common sense, home defence is considered a good purpose, it only MAY save your life, but it's worth it. I don't however agree with everyone and there mother having one just because of the second amendment. If everyone learned the proper respect and practiced it at a range, then I think everyone could have a fire arm, minus the fucking crazies, but weeding them out is a simple test. If your not smart enough to know how to handle a gun, you don't have one.

Oh and taking firearms in a different context is because DRUGS can't kill every mother fucker in the room with an equal number of trigger pulls.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lolfail.
> 
> The difference between you and modern humans is the same between neanderthals and the first homo sapien's.



This is what I've been talking about, stop putting people down and they'll take you more seriosly.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> This is what I've been talking about, stop putting people down and they'll take you more seriosly.



You haven't been on this forum long enough to know Roose Hurr, he's not worth any real response. Did you even read what he said?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> That part of the constitustion was because they where still a threat, name one county that'll actualy invade America. No one will, because it's suicide for any country to do so. There is no threat of invasion, no one is dumb enought to try that now adays. Guns also don't combat terrorism, a gun can't stop suicide bombers in the middle of a crowded street.



No, that part of the Constitution is The Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified.  Study history, read the words of the Founding Fathers, if you want to understand why the Second Amendment was included with all the others:

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_ff.htm

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://www.americaremembers.com/Products/FF2ATP/FF2ATP.asp

http://ppfc.org/quotes.htm

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.html

http://www.go-patriots.com/2nd Amendment.htm

This should do you for a bit...




DemonKnight said:


> I LIKE guns, and I think most people just need to learn proper respect for them, but untill I no longer see most youth in my area spewing shit like "I'ma blast you with my Deagle 50" and shit like that I don't think everyone has what it takes to own one. My problem isn't those that have them AND the respect for them that goes with being a good owner of ANYTHING, it's the ones that DON'T have any common sense, home defence is considered a good purpose, it only MAY save your life, but it's worth it. I don't however agree with everyone and there mother having one just because of the second amendment. If everyone learned the proper respect and practiced it at a range, then I think everyone could have a fire arm, minus the fucking crazies, but weeding them out is a simple test. If your not smart enough to know how to handle a gun, you don't have one.



It's a matter of freedom of choice, DK...




DemonKnight said:


> Oh and taking firearms in a different context is because DRUGS can't kill every mother fucker in the room with an equal number of trigger pulls.



But the doped up druggie CAN...


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You haven't been on this forum long enough to know Roose Hurr, he's not worth any real response. Did you even read what he said?



Yes I've read it, but I only take it as another person holding on to the outdated values of yesteryear, he's not lesser then me, he just has a different opinion. Yes I see it as flawed, but I won't insult anyone for something like that, if he insulted my intelligence then maybe I might show him what kind of insults come from someone who knows how to... how should I put it... make my text more colorfull. However if he insulted you before over your opinion then maybe it's justified, I won't look back to find out who might have started what. But I'd suggest being the better man and not insulting others for any reason, then you can laugh at thier pitifull attempts to do so to you, Like I do.

I never hold anything against anyone, whats done is done, if it doesn't hurt me physicaly it's not worth a counter attack. Same goes for my opinions of people, take for example yourself. I thought you where a compleat asshole at first, now I see your just alittle on the stuborn side, and so far you've shown me your not overly stuborn. If you cut back on insults maybe you'll get better results from people.

This may be the internet and all, but it's not compleatly annonomous on here, people form opinions at a first glance, most aren't like me, who study people first before desiding who's worth giving a chance. Besides, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

I probably sound like a wierd version of DR. Phil Hahahaha... Just read it again with his voice in your head. XP


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> I probably sound like a wierd version of DR. Phil Hahahaha... *Just read it again with his voice in your head.* XP



I'd rather not...  >.<


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I'd rather not...  >.<



LOL, you have a sense of humor I hope, and like I said, I don't think any less of you because of differing opinions.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

Oh and before anyone asks, I think DR. Phil is a retard, he's one of the only exceptions to my "don't hate no one" rule, but I also find him entertaining.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 8, 2009)

Wasn't there an episode of Dr. Phil where there was a teenage furry and his mother on stage, and the good doctor was explaining how it was an illness?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 8, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Did you also know that someone gets shot in New York every 5 hours, someone gets stabbed in London every 30 minutes?



I bet the person in New York and the person in London are getting darned sick of getting shot / stabbed on a regular basis by now...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I bet the person in New York and the person in London are getting darned sick of getting shot / stabbed on a regular basis by now...



Ba dum bum!


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Wasn't there an episode of Dr. Phil where there was a teenage furry and his mother on stage, and the good doctor was explaining how it was an illness?



OMG, you can't be serious, he's no longer just funny, now he's a riot.


Freedom of choice my ass, it's just being used as a crutch for people who don't have the cognative skills to rightfully own a gun, I don't condone taking the guns away from those who deserve the right, or should I say privilege, but sadly a large portion of people today do NOT HAVE the mind set to own a firearm. IF and WHEN I see some proof of people learning and practicing proper firearm use, then I'll reconsider my opinion. Till then I believe screening the fools out is the only option.

Oh and I read your little history lesson, doesn't impress me, I did learn about that time period, and forgive me if I didn't memorize EVERY detail about ANOTHER country. If your worried about the damn government, OVER THROW THEM ALREADY! They're already corrupt and controling, so why don't you just fight back already? You don't want to thats why, you'd rather have you guns and not do anything. Sitting on your ass preaching about how the govornment is oppresive, and yet not practicing the rights you seem to hold so dear. If it was up to me, both the Canadian and American governments would be rebuilt, not as anything else, but how they where intended, a REAL free country and not a corrupted version like they are now. If the rights of the people are so dear to you why don't you fix the damn problem already? It's in the constitution, yet here you are, bitching and taking no action.

Firearms as a feedom and not something thats controled simply by making sure people know how to use them is foolish, I've never said take them all away, and I've never said NO ONE should have them, but they aren't something EVERYONE should have. You can still have your "Right to bear arms" and have it regulated, this only means the people who aren't going to kill themselves or someone else for no reason will have this right, I don't see your problem with that. If it saves lives it's a good thing, or do you preffer people dieing because some idiot left the safety off?

PS. If it was up to me, everone would have the apprortiate training to own one, then there would actualy be a real freedom of choice on if you wanted one or not. NO ONE would be untrained in the proper use, unless they are criminaly insane or otherwise to unstaible to be trusted, and even you should understand that they SHOULDN'T have a gun anyways.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> If your worried about the damn government, OVER THROW THEM ALREADY! They're already corrupt and controling, so why don't you just fight back already? You don't want to thats why, you'd rather have you guns and not do anything. Sitting on your ass preaching about how the govornment is oppresive, and yet not practicing the rights you seem to hold so dear.



That's the bit that really annoys me about the "guns protect me from my government" argument... like where was the patriotic fervour from the gun-totin' patriots when the US government was pushing through wholesale government surveillance / wiretapping etc of citizens with the PATRIOT Act? Where was the "Don't do it or you'll have a revolution on your hands?"

Now if I wanted to be especially devious about pushing through something potentially nasty in the US, I'd make a big song-and-dance about pushing some provocative gun-control laws into place... then once the pro-gun fraternity were suitably distracted and frothing at the mouth, quietly slip what I really wanted to do in the back door, then make a big show of cancelling my moths-to-a-candle "wolf-bait" gun control laws


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> *Freedom of choice my ass*, it's just being used as a crutch for people who don't have the cognative skills to rightfully own a gun, I don't condone taking the guns away from those who deserve the right, or should I say privilege, but sadly a large portion of people today do NOT HAVE the mind set to own a firearm. IF and WHEN I see some proof of people learning and practicing proper firearm use, then I'll reconsider my opinion. Till then I believe screening the fools out is the only option.



Stop right there, DK...

Our rights give us the freedom to choose.  Without freedom of choice, we have no rights... we have other people telling us what we can and cannot choose.  *Everyone* deserves equal rights.  Only if they abuse those rights, and cause harm to others, does the law have not only the authority, but the duty to remove such people from society, so that they can no longer abuse, again.  Unfortunately, due to PC crap and the incessant "Baaa"ing of the sheep, our freedom to choose has been taken from us.  Rights also belong to the individual, not only to groups.  After all, groups are made up of individuals, and so long as we cause no harm to others within the group, then our individual rights remain intact.  Unfortunately, the sheep keep "Baaa"ing away, till the bark of the sheepdog is drowned out.  This is why, as you say, a good many people today don't have the mindset... because they were not given the choice, and therefor only know what they have been told to believe.  Such as Newf, here.  He heard the bleating of the sheep, and listened.  Silenced his bark, if you will.  Yes, as you have noted, today we have a sad lack of education in firearms usage.  PROPER firearms usage.  However, the materials and places for education exist, and must be used by anyone interested in learning proper firearms usage.

You see, in order to achieve the IF and WHEN you speak of, we must first stop the demonization of firearms.  We must respect the individual person's freedom to choose.  And we need to re-institute firearms education in our schools, as well as in our homes.  Knowledge is power, knowledge is control.  Teach, and the mindset will take care of itself...




DemonKnight said:


> *Oh and I read your little history lesson*, doesn't impress me, I did learn about that time period, and forgive me if I didn't memorize EVERY detail about ANOTHER country. If your worried about the damn government, OVER THROW THEM ALREADY! They're already corrupt and controling, so why don't you just fight back already? You don't want to thats why, you'd rather have you guns and not do anything. Sitting on your ass preaching about how the govornment is oppresive, and yet not practicing the rights you seem to hold so dear. If it was up to me, both the Canadian and American governments would be rebuilt, not as anything else, but how they where intended, a REAL free country and not a corrupted version like they are now. If the rights of the people are so dear to you why don't you fix the damn problem already? It's in the constitution, yet here you are, bitching and taking no action.



Oh, you did?  You read this?:



> *"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."* (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal to Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] )



Or this?:



> *"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."* (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]; Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, [Memorial Edition] Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)



Or this?:



> *â€œLaws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.â€* (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)



Are you sure you read the right material?  Those three quotes above came straight from the pen of the man who wrote the Document under discussion...




DemonKnight said:


> *Firearms as a feedom and not something thats controled simply by making sure people know how to use them is foolish*, I've never said take them all away, and I've never said NO ONE should have them, but they aren't something EVERYONE should have. You can still have your "Right to bear arms" and have it regulated, this only means the people who aren't going to kill themselves or someone else for no reason will have this right, I don't see your problem with that. If it saves lives it's a good thing, or do you preffer people dieing because some idiot left the safety off?



Re-read the quotes above, and go re-read the material, several times, if you must.  More:



> *â€œWe established however some, although not all, its [self-government] important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armedâ€¦â€* (Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors)





> *"The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of â€˜No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of armsâ€™ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."* (Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.)





> *"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."* (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])





> *"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."* (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)





> *"A free people ought...to be armed...."* (George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790)





> *"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."* (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)





> *"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."* (Albert Gallatin at the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)





> *"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."* (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])





> *"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...." *(Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in The Federalist. 29)





> *"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"* (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)





> *"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."* (Richard Henry Lee, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975])
> 
> *"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."* (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer [1788] at 169)





> *"...to disarm the people ? that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."* (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
> 
> *"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."* (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)





> *"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them...."* (I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])





> *"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "* (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888])



All this, from just the first link...




DemonKnight said:


> PS. If it was up to me, everone would have the apprortiate training to own one, then there would actualy be a real freedom of choice on if you wanted one or not. NO ONE would be untrained in the proper use, unless they are criminaly insane or otherwise to unstaible to be trusted, and even you should understand that they SHOULDN'T have a gun anyways.



Well, you see, DK, this used to be the case, but then the sheep started "Baaa"ing, and, with the sheep having grown so in numbers, and the sheepdogs so few, no one was able to hear the sheepdogs bark anymore...

So, we have the situation we have today.  Children used to be taught how to use firearms, used to even bring them to school, so they could hunt on the way home.  But, the sheep bleated, and now guns are banned in schools... and sick perps now have clear shooting grounds.  Used to be the criminally insane and unstable were kept locked up in institutions, but the sheep went "Baaa!"... and the dangerous and incompetent were let go on the streets, while the institutions were closed and torn down.  And yes, I have read of incompetent people the law won't touch, like the man who kidnapped a seven year old boy, and cut off his genitals (the boy survived).  This sicko was returned to the streets, without punishment, because he was deemed "too incompetent to stand trial."  If it were up to me, I would rebuild the institutions.  And yes, I would institute firearms training in our schools, so every child not educated at home by their parents would still be able to learn how to properly and safely handle guns.




Mayfurr said:


> That's the bit that really annoys me about the "guns protect me from my government" argument... *like where was the patriotic fervour from the gun-totin' patriots when the US government was pushing through wholesale government surveillance / wiretapping etc of citizens with the PATRIOT Act?* Where was the "Don't do it or you'll have a revolution on your hands?"
> 
> Now if I wanted to be especially devious about pushing through something potentially nasty in the US, I'd make a big song-and-dance about pushing some provocative gun-control laws into place... then once the pro-gun fraternity were suitably distracted and frothing at the mouth, quietly slip what I really wanted to do in the back door, then make a big show of cancelling my moths-to-a-candle "wolf-bait" gun control laws



Repeat after me, Mayfurr:  "Baaa!"  Until the People learn to pull the wool away from their eyes... until they learn to bark like a sheepdog... the line *"Don't do it or you'll have a revolution on your hands?"* will never be heard.

As for your second paragraph... too late, it's been done before.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

You ever think that the only reason it HASN'T happened yet is everyone thinks like you, that if they try to start something no one will listen? This is the problem I see time and again, people don't do shit because they think no one will listen to them. There are A LOT of people like you out there, if you pulled together you could pull it off, hell, I'd be there to back you up.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No, but thanks for assuming and making an ass of yourself; I grew up in a very pro-gun climate, I was in the militia for one, as are several of my relatives.



It was a generalization about generational difference; you just happened to respond to it.



> I owned a M1911 at one point. I grew up and realized what it was.



If you ever (lawfully) owned a 1911 (aficionados typically drop the M) in Canada, then you would have an RPAL (including passing both Federal tests) and likely would have had an ATT too.  Your demonstrated knowledge of firearms, firearms law, general industry practice and various shooting disciplines would imply that you _probably_ didn't.



> I think people who make their own ammo are pretty dumb, let alone their own firearms; you can't do a better job than the professionals in this department.



You really have no idea what you are talking about.  If you think that competative shooters are buying ammo at Wallmart and winning medals, then you really have no understanding of the sport.  Handloaders can do a hugely better job than mass-produced ammunition, as the ammunition and loads are tailored individually to each gun, and even to each weather condition that day.  Shooting on a 0 degC day and a 35 degC day can totally change the shot-start pressure (by as much as 5-10K psi), influencing the external ballistics of the shot.  On really hot days, I keep my rounds on ice.....just like everyone else on the line.   Don't make the mistake of confusing a hunter that handloads for value with a semi-pro target shooter that handloads for accuracy.

The exception would be rimfire shooters, that must, by design buy factory ammo.  But there's a huge difference in accuracy between Lapua Master and EleyTenX than your basic box of bulk-packed wildcats.  A gopher at 50 yards in 100m, the vBull on a 3P target is 5mm.



> How much are you saving, honestly?



Precision hand loaded ammunition isn't about saving money, its about driving accuracy into the sub-MOA range at 600 meters to 1,200 meters and beyond.



> And the level you shoot at doesn't matter, you're too good to use bought stuff? That's a pretty big load of crap there mate.



When I'm talking to some of the world champion F/FTR-class full-bore shooters at Borden in the next few weeks, I'll be sure to mention they can win more metals if they shoot the store-bought stuff. :roll: If only it was that easy, eh?



> all you've done is basically said guns control the better portion of your spare time, which makes a lot of what you say pretty biased,



My opinion may indeed be biased, but its grounded in 20+ years of work in the mechanics of the sport, coaching and competition in the sport.



> you can't even agree people shouldn't be allowed to take their ammo (at least) home with them; what purpose does this serve, at all?



Why would I agree?  You've made no prima facia case.  Just some misinformed opinion thrown around as fact.  Hell Newf, its not even good trolling.



> Did you just compare hockey equipment to firearms? You can not be this stupid. You're a fucking Canadian, or are you? No, you made a mistake; you must have made a mistake.



But Newf, more people die at hockey arenas every year, then have EVER died at gun ranges.  And since we've been competing in shooting events since 1867, we've one more medals than at hockey too. Ya ain't gonna hear that on Coaches Corner now, are ya?  There are gun ranges that pre-date Confederation too (I belong to one), but there are no hockey teams that do.  What were you saying about being Canadian?  Hmm?



> firearms assist in killing, this is what they're designed and created to do,[ sure -some- people use them for shooting at ranges



This is _arguably_ a fact.  None of mine were created for killing, but then neither was the pencil on my desk.  Driven through your heart, the pencil kills just as well.



> but that's a pretty bad argument when they're able to be unarmed after being used at ranges (no ammo); cars are designed to make life better, everything from transporting of goods and people, to medical and firefighting; when firearms kill it's rarely an accident; when car crashes occur it's rarely on purpose; the amount of car owners verses the amount of gun owners is also another factor here.



And this is an opinion.  Goes back to my point about what they are teaching in school to-day.  Pitty you can't seem to differentiate between the two.



> l;dr: cars have good and do little bad; guns have -no- good purpose and do lots of bad.



Again, its your opinion.  And while your entitled to it, it in no way detracts from our enjoyment of the sport.



> Other than being fun for some people firearms are useless in the hands of civilians, at least operational (this means collectors can still collect) and those people that enjoy them for sport don't come before the greater good, if they think they do they're delusional.



Opinion stated as fact is dogma, Newf.  And while dogma might be appropriate for a furry dicussion board, IRL is serves no useful purpose.

I guess at the end of the day, while you think you know what you are talking about, you no longer annoy those of us that do know what we are talking about.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 8, 2009)

> If you ever (lawfully) owned a 1911 (aficionados typically drop the M) in Canada, then you would have an RPAL (including passing both Federal tests) and likely would have had an ATT too. Your demonstrated knowledge of firearms, firearms law, general industry practice and various shooting disciplines would imply that you probably didn't.


Uh-huh, well actually it was my grandfathers and he gave it to me before I gave it back, it was from WWII and I never used it, never had the ammo for it, but it was cool to own. When I moved I didn't want to take it with me because it was illegally owned, it wasn't registered with me or anybody for that matter. I did however own FAC and restricted FAC, it's expired now and I see no reason to renew it other than going out to shoot at a range, and I don't need it for that realistically.


> You really have no idea what you are talking about. If you think that competative shooters are buying ammo at Wallmart and winning medals, then you really have no understanding of the sport. Handloaders can do a hugely better job than mass-produced ammunition, as the ammunition and loads are tailored individually to each gun, and even to each weather condition that day. Shooting on a 0 degC day and a 35 degC day can totally change the shot-start pressure (by as much as 5-10K psi), influencing the external ballistics of the shot. On really hot days, I keep my rounds on ice.....just like everyone else on the line. Don't make the mistake of confusing a hunter that handloads for value with a semi-pro target shooter that handloads for accuracy.
> 
> The exception would be rimfire shooters, that must, by design buy factory ammo. But there's a huge difference in accuracy between Lapua Master and EleyTenX than your basic box of bulk-packed wildcats. A gopher at 50 yards in 100m, the vBull on a 3P target is 5mm.


Though true, it's still not needed; in most sports gaining an unfair advantage is considered cheating, though I do see your point; I've never made my own ammunition before though and store-bought was always accurate enough for me, I can adjust my aim and if there's a out of battery detonation I don't have to pay for my own injuries. Plenty of people make mistakes, and modifying a weapon and creating one from scratch is two different things; mods are fine, creating one for sport isn't giving you an advantage unless you own several expensive tools.


> My opinion may indeed be biased, but its grounded in 20+ years of work in the mechanics of the sport, coaching and competition in the sport.


Biased opinions don't stand for anything in my books, regardless of your experience; experience doesn't give you some magical ability to know more than somebody that's intelligent enough to see it all right away. Experience is only good so much.


> But Newf, more people die at hockey arenas every year, then have EVER died at gun ranges. And since we've been competing in shooting events since 1867, we've one more medals than at hockey too. Ya ain't gonna hear that on Coaches Corner now, are ya? There are gun ranges that pre-date Confederation too (I belong to one), but there are no hockey teams that do.


You're comparing a sport with full-body contact against a sport designed around weapons made to kill people. In fact, this isn't even about the sport it's about taking firearms home loaded and walking around with them; putting firearms in the hands of the drooling retards that make up 90%+ of the world.


> This is arguably a fact. None of mine were created for killing, but then neither was the pencil on my desk. Driven through your heart, the pencil kills just as well.


What was the very first firearm created for? I rest my case.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

Actualy Newf, custom loads are a safer bet then those found on store shelves. It all comes down to the number of people handling the round and the skill of those that do the work. If you have someone who knows what they are doing and has the proper loading tools a hand loaded cartridge is actualy very safe. This is becuase it's only ONE person making the rounds as apposed to several on a factory floor, the person has a better view of whats going into said cartridge. I still don't agree that those who have no purpose for it should have it but if someone is competitively shooting, then they do in fact need to be able to control the ammo they use. Ammo plays a HUGE role in the way a gun opperates, there are so many options available that you can't fit them into a store economicaly. The combinations of grain, projectile weight and even the coating on the rounds are so vast it just wouldn't work to actualy produce them all in a factory.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 8, 2009)

The only instance of a FN Five-seveN exploding was because somebody used custom ammunition, granted if you know what you're doing it's probably safer, but he clearly didn't and shouldn't have. ;3


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The only instance of a FN Five-seveN exploding was because somebody used custom ammunition, granted if you know what you're doing it's probably safer, but he clearly didn't and shouldn't have. ;3



Thats actualy my point, we can both agree people should learn to do things before they try it. I never heard about that though, a guy blew up a Five-seveN? DAMN, I would have kicked his ass for that.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 8, 2009)

He had most of his hand damaged in the process, he was using pre-discharged casing apparently from what I read in the report by FN.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Repeat after me, Mayfurr:  "Baaa!"



I refer you to the reply given by the defendant in "Arkell vs. Pressdram."


----------



## CrispSkittlez (Jul 8, 2009)

I have a hunting grade slingshot, it's brought much entertainment over the years.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

CrispSkittlez said:


> I have a hunting grade slingshot, it's brought much entertainment over the years.



Slingshots are bitchin, to bad mine broke


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> You ever think that the only reason it HASN'T happened yet is everyone thinks like you, that if they try to start something no one will listen? This is the problem I see time and again, people don't do shit because they think no one will listen to them. There are A LOT of people like you out there, if you pulled together you could pull it off, hell, I'd be there to back you up.



No, everyone doesn't think like me... I bark, most people nowadays go "Baaa!"  However, I still have the freedom to vote, to work within the system.  As soon as the system denies me my voice... as soon as it says I no longer have the freedom to bark... then and only then will I be forced to BITE.  And yes, we do pull together, through organizations like the NRA, and others who help to protect our rights, both 2nd Amendment and otherwise.  The Government is still afraid of the sheepdogs, and so long as they stay that way, we will have non-violent recourse.




Irreverent said:


> Opinion stated as fact is *dogma*, Newf.  And while dogma might be appropriate for a furry dicussion board, IRL is serves no useful purpose.
> 
> *I guess at the end of the day, while you think you know what you are talking about, you no longer annoy those of us that do know what we are talking about.*



He's still good for a chuckle though, Irreverent.  Give him credit for that, at least...

@Newf...  "Woof, woof!"




NewfDraggie said:


> Uh-huh, well actually it was my grandfathers and he gave it to me before I gave it back, it was from WWII and I never used it, never had the ammo for it, but it was cool to own. When I moved I didn't want to take it with me *because it was illegally owned*, it wasn't registered with me or anybody for that matter. I did however own FAC and restricted FAC, it's expired now and I see no reason to renew it other than going out to shoot at a range, and I don't need it for that realistically.



Newf... the only gun(s) you owned, you owned ILLEGALLY?  From here on out Newf, I do think you no longer have anything to say on the matter of firearms.




NewfDraggie said:


> Though true, it's still not needed; in most sports gaining an unfair advantage is considered cheating, though I do see your point; I've never made my own ammunition before though and store-bought was always accurate enough for me, I can adjust my aim and if there's a out of battery detonation I don't have to pay for my own injuries. Plenty of people make mistakes, and modifying a weapon and creating one from scratch is two different things; mods are fine, creating one for sport isn't giving you an advantage unless you own several expensive tools.



It's not an unfair advantage, Newf... it's the nature of the sport.  Of course, being a "former" criminal, and someone who "owned" an illegal gun he never used, I can't really expect you to know what you're talking about.




NewfDraggie said:


> Biased opinions don't stand for anything in my books, regardless of your experience; *experience doesn't give you some magical ability to know more than somebody that's intelligent enough to see it all right away*. Experience is only good so much.



With that bolded statement, Newf, you have just proved your arrogance...




NewfDraggie said:


> You're comparing a sport with full-body contact against a sport designed around weapons made to kill people. In fact, this isn't even about the sport it's about taking firearms home loaded and walking around with them; putting firearms in the hands of the drooling retards that make up 90%+ of the world.



And I brought up the sport of archery, Newf... another sport in which a weapon "made to kill" is now made to do something different.  Target guns are not "made to kill"... they are made to compete with.  This guy, for instance, makes very good bows:

http://www.howardhillshooters.com/hhbows/hhbows.html




NewfDraggie said:


> What was the very first firearm created for? I rest my case.



http://www.savetheguns.com/firearms_101.htm



> *The First Guns*
> 
> The first recorded recipes for making gunpowder came from China, as best we know.  It is known to have been first put together around the year 900 A.D..
> 
> ...



And just in case you spout off about the whole self defense/killing thing, again:



> *"How many people get killed by a gun?" *
> 
> Well, here is the truth of the matter. Guns don't kill anybody.  A firearm is simply a tool and just like any other household tool, it can be misused.
> 
> ...





> *"What do we have guns for?"*
> 
> Firearms were invented sometime before the 1320's.  Long before Christopher Columbus came to America.  When guns were invented, nearly everyone in the world thought the world was flat as a pancake.
> 
> ...






NewfDraggie said:


> The only instance of a FN Five-seveN exploding was because somebody used custom ammunition, granted if you know what you're doing it's probably safer, but he clearly didn't and shouldn't have. ;3



Most likely it was this guy:

http://consumerist.com/5008857/five+seven-gun-blows-up-in-owners-hand-manufacturer-indifferent

http://consumerist.com/tag/Five_sev...-in-owners-hand-because-he-used-reloaded-ammo

This is why gun manufactures state the use of factory loaded ammo, only...




Mayfurr said:


> I refer you to the reply given by the defendant in *"Arkell vs. Pressdram."*



Dare I say?... I Rest My Case... "Baaa, it is, then."


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The difference between you and modern humans is the same between neanderthals and the first homo sapien's.





NewfDraggie said:


> You haven't been on this forum long enough to know Roose Hurr, he's not worth any real response. Did you even read what he said?



Ya know, my 7th Grade Social Studies Teacher (One of the most coolest, maybe wisest people I ever met in my life.) told me that when someone starts losing a debate, they result to name-calling to mask the fact that their losing.

He also added to this that when someone starts name-calling in a debate that they instantaneously lose the debate, but I don't want this heated debate/discussion to end so early.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 8, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Ya know, my 7th Grade Social Studies Teacher (One of the most coolest, maybe wisest people I ever met in my life.) told me that when someone starts losing a debate, they result to name-calling to mask the fact that their losing.
> 
> He also added to this that when someone starts name-calling in a debate that they instantaneously lose the debate, *but I don't want this heated debate/discussion to end so early*.



Neither do I, since I've been having fun... but, sometimes, a discussion/debate reaches the point where it becomes pointless, especially when someone who rags on about the evils of guns and other crap, turns out to be a criminal, as well as so arrogant, he won't listen or even make sense with his arguments.  And ignores every fact presented, that shows his error and negative bias.  Yes, firearms have their negative side, but I've hit my thumb enough with hammers to *know* hammers have a negative side, but I still use them, when I need to nail wood.  Despite the risk.  I also realize that it doesn't matter what a thing is "made for"... if something's use ends in more death than another thing's use, it doesn't matter if the first something wasn't "made for" the "purpose" of killing... death is death.  And I could go on, but I won't.  Oh, by the way, Darkwing?  One little thing before I go?  Name-calling is one thing, mocking is another... I only mock when it's deserved.  So, Newf deserved the "Woof woof!"  Soon as he stops calling me "Roose Hurr"... soon as he starts speaking sense, and shows himself willing to openly debate an issue, fully informed, well, then, I won't need to bring out the mock.

However, we can still continue this discussion/debate without him, if needed...


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> However, we can still continue this discussion/debate without him, if needed...



No, no, I am not ignorant enough to kick a person out of a debate, no matter what non sense is blubbering out of his / her mouth. (I mean, my seventh grade social studies teacher would want me to, but I don't like leaving/kicking people out of things, I am a very open minded person.)

Honestly, I am neutral about guns (I am actually neutral about a lot of things.), I understand Newf's arguments, considering that most of the guns bought today are bought by people who are completely irresponsible/abusive/careless with them.

And I understand everyone else's pro-gun points, considering if someone actually took the time to learn to use a gun responsibly, unabusively and carefully, that he/she won't end up hurting his/her self or other people, and the fact that most gun accidents end up happening to people who are complete idiots with them, and that there are greater threats out there than just guns.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, everyone doesn't think like me... I bark, most people nowadays go "Baaa!"  However, I still have the freedom to vote, to work within the system.  As soon as the system denies me my voice... as soon as it says I no longer have the freedom to bark... then and only then will I be forced to BITE.  And yes, we do pull together, through organizations like the NRA, and others who help to protect our rights, both 2nd Amendment and otherwise.  The Government is still afraid of the sheepdogs, and so long as they stay that way, we will have non-violent recourse.



Thats my problem right there, a bark does nothing anymore, you should know that. The problem isn't the sheep, it's the sheepdogs have lost thier bite! You think if you had bitten back when they first tried to remove guns from the learning experience at schools they would have succeeded anyway? NO, they wouldn't have, and you know what, I wouldn't be sitting here telling you most people these days are NOT CAPPABLE of handling firearms right, why, because they would be learning at an early age how to properly treat and respect a weapon. You've already lost so many rights it's insane, why are you still sitting there? How are non-violent methods working? They're not, all the government does is find a so called "compromise" that gets them what they want anyways. My old high school has a range in the basement, it's bricked up but could still work, and I wish it did, maybe I'd hear less of this "DEAGLE 50" Shit.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 8, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> No, no, I am not ignorant enough to kick a person out of a debate, no matter what non sense is blubbering out of his / her mouth. (I mean, my seventh grade social studies teacher would want me to, but I don't like leaving/kicking people out of things, I am a very open minded person.)
> 
> Honestly, I am neutral about guns (I am actually neutral about a lot of things.), I understand Newf's arguments, considering that most of the guns bought today are bought by people who are completely irresponsible/abusive/careless with them.
> 
> And I understand everyone else's pro-gun points, considering if someone actually took the time to learn to use a gun responsibly, abusively and carefully, that he/she won't end up hurting his/her self or other people, and the fact that most gun accidents end up happening to people who are complete idiots with them, and that there are greater threats out there than just guns.



This right here is what I've been saying, just thought I'd point that out.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 8, 2009)

DemonKnight said:


> My old high school has a range in the basement, it's bricked up but could still work, and I wish it did.



Really?

High schools had shooting ranges?

Goddamn you old people, you (Used to.) get all of the cool shit.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Really?
> 
> High schools had shooting ranges?
> 
> Goddamn you old people, you (Used to.) get all of the cool shit.



I'm actualy not that old, I'm only 20 in fact, I just took the time to look at the past and see all it's flaws, and it's benefits. The problem I see is we're removing the good things, and leaving the bad. It's retarded, but as Roose says it's thanks to those that "Baaa", that I won't dissagree on.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Ya know, my 7th Grade Social Studies Teacher (One of the most coolest, maybe wisest people I ever met in my life.) told me that when someone starts losing a debate, they result to name-calling to mask the fact that their losing.
> 
> He also added to this that when someone starts name-calling in a debate that they instantaneously lose the debate, but I don't want this heated debate/discussion to end so early.



You're teacher is a moron; he's called names a lot and thus created an insta-win scenario for himself, this way he doesn't feel bad afterward.
Just because somebody speaks the truth about somebody doesn't make their argument any less correct than it is, if you think so then you're a moron. But nice try.



> Newf... the only gun(s) you owned, you owned ILLEGALLY? From here on out Newf, I do think you no longer have anything to say on the matter of firearms.


What's this have to do with anything, anything at all?

You know Roose, your entire posts...all of your posts and responses get this one thing from me, forever and always: lol; they're literally not worth my time to respond to seriously, seeing as there's no way in hell any of them are serious and you're simply the biggest moron I've ever met, or a cleaver troll.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're teacher is a moron; he's called names a lot and thus created an insta-win scenario for himself, this way he doesn't feel bad afterward.
> Just because somebody speaks the truth about somebody doesn't make their argument any less correct than it is, if you think so then you're a moron. But nice try.
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think you know about this Newf, but now your just creating a mock battle, this debate is starting to feel more and more pointless everytime you post. (Just being honest.)

This last post had nothing to do with the gun debate, just calling out people individually and calling them morons just to make yourself feel smarter and better.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> No, no, *I am not ignorant enough to kick a person out of a debate*, no matter what non sense is blubbering out of his / her mouth. (I mean, my seventh grade social studies teacher would want me to, but I don't like leaving/kicking people out of things, I am a very open minded person.)
> 
> Honestly, I am neutral about guns (I am actually neutral about a lot of things.), I understand Newf's arguments, considering that most of the guns bought today are bought by people who are completely irresponsible/abusive/careless with them.
> 
> And I understand everyone else's pro-gun points, considering if someone actually took the time to learn to use a gun responsibly, unabusively and carefully, that he/she won't end up hurting his/her self or other people, and the fact that most gun accidents end up happening to people who are complete idiots with them, and that there are greater threats out there than just guns.



Oh, no... I wouldn't kick anyone out of a debate, just that Newf may decide to not post, or to post nothing of value to the discussion.  I've always heard that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers.  Or, in Newf's case, no answers, more often than not.  But that's neither here nor there...

To me, a gun is just a tool... and interesting mechanical device.  As a kid, I delighted in taking machinery and mechanisms apart, even if I couldn't yet put them back together (in a workable condition).  And yes, Newf has some points, but when you point out his points don't actually make a point, he... well, you have most likely noticed what he does.

Thank you for understanding.  I agree... education is nowadays sorely lacking.




DemonKnight said:


> Thats my problem right there, a bark does nothing anymore, you should know that. The problem isn't the sheep, it's the sheepdogs have lost thier bite! You think if you had bitten back when they first tried to remove guns from the learning experience at schools they would have succeeded anyway? NO, they wouldn't have, and you know what, I wouldn't be sitting here telling you most people these days are NOT CAPPABLE of handling firearms right, why, because they would be learning at an early age how to properly treat and respect a weapon. You've already lost so many rights it's insane, why are you still sitting there? How are non-violent methods working? They're not, all the government does is find a so called "compromise" that gets them what they want anyways. My old high school has a range in the basement, it's bricked up but could still work, and I wish it did, maybe I'd hear less of this "DEAGLE 50" Shit.



Unfortunately, "the best laid plans of mice and men"... and all that.  Besides, all the biting back in the world won't do any good if the sheep have been numbed.  However, there will come a day when violence will overturn peaceful means.  Despite all the losses, anger hasn't yet reached critical mass.  Beat back the sheepdog one too many times, and bark becomes snarl, bite becomes a slash of teeth to the belly.




DemonKnight said:


> I'm actualy not that old, I'm only 20 in fact, I just took the time to look at the past and see all it's flaws, and it's benefits. *The problem I see is we're removing the good things, and leaving the bad.* It's retarded, but as Roose says it's thanks to those that "Baaa", that I won't dissagree on.



Indeed...




NewfDraggie said:


> *What's this have to do with anything, anything at all?*
> 
> You know Roose, your entire posts...all of your posts and responses get this one thing from me, forever and always: lol; they're literally not worth my time to respond to seriously, seeing as there's no way in hell any of them are serious and you're simply the biggest moron I've ever met, or a cleaver troll.



Simple, Newf...

Read your own posts, listen to the words.  Understand their meaning, as if they came from the point of view of someone you just met.  You rail on gunowners, you claim to be "righteous", to know what you know simply because you have the "intelligence" to grasp it... even though you then admit you know jack shit when it comes to experience.  And that you knowingly broke the law.........

......... but I know I'm wasting my breath, so all I'll say in conclusion is:  "Woof woof!"

Though I gotta ask:  "... *cleaver* troll"...?


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're teacher is a moron; he's called names a lot and thus created an insta-win scenario for himself, this way he doesn't feel bad afterward.
> Just because somebody speaks the truth about somebody doesn't make their argument any less correct than it is, if you think so then you're a moron. But nice try.



My teacher had this rule for a reason.

We are currently having a mature debate, in a mature debate, we, ourselves, must be mature, understanding, and neutral towards the other person's point, while proving and defending your point in the process.

Never in a debate should there be name-calling, and if one resorts to that than he/she is too immature in the first place to even be involved in the debate.

I understand your frustration in being defeated in a debate, but you shouldn't take it immaturely and call everyone but yourself a moron.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Defeated how? I don't think you've actually been reading, I called him a moron without him even arguing anything I said. He's just a moron; I can call him out on that without him "defeating" me, or even arguing against me. His arguments make no sense, he's biased, and clearly has twisted views on society. He actually believes death is the solution to all violent crime.

And when he did argue against me his arguments still make no sense, his comparisons are piss-poor at best, and his understanding is null.

Oh, and just a note: I consider a lot of people morons, though honestly they might not be all that stupid, just in one aspect. It's just my opinion, and if they don't like it they can ignore it because it honestly doesn't affect them in any way, unless they think highly of their self-image. I certainly don't think they need people to defend them, especially people that don't know them such as yourself. You're defending blindly, and that doesn't look good for either party.

You're defending the wrong person and again that statement your teacher made is still false, you haven't proven it correct other than a last-ditch effort at going "ninner ninner I win anyway"; you can't say that because somebody says black is black, and that he calls billy a retard means black must be white because he's insulting somebody.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're defending the wrong person



I am not defending anybody, I am just being honest and pointing out your flaws in this debate.

I am not pro gun, and I am not anti gun, I am totally neutral in this debate and I wish to be so.

Newf, I was just trying to politely ask you to stop calling people morons in the debate, if you continue with the name-calling your going to start derailing this thread and then the mods will end up having to lock it.

Newf, I admire how you stay strong to win the debate, and I learned a lot from your points towards guns, I just wanted to ask you to keep this debate mature, there is no need to bring out name-calling, this is not a mock battle, and if you keep going down this road it will turn out to be one, and it won't be pretty.

I understand how your getting frustrated towards me because I appear to be defending Hurro, but I am only telling the truth and expressing my opinion, I just want to be fair towards everybody in this debate, and you are not making this any easier by not cooperating with us.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 9, 2009)

I have a Winchester Model 109 semi-auto .22  in my room because I am allowed to. I love Texas, and the United States...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I bark, most people nowadays go "Baaa!"
> [...]
> "Baaa, it is, then."



Oh really? That's pretty arrogant of you. You may like to think you're a stalwart patriot, but you're coming across here as a gun-totin' Gollum defending his PRECIOUSSSSS! MY PRECIOUSSS GUNSESSSS! WE WANTS THEM! WE WANTS THEM FOREVER... MY PRECIOUSSSSS!

The only "Baa" I have to say to you is "Bah humbug", Mr Everyone-who-doesn't-pack-a-gun-is-a-sheep...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 9, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh really? That's pretty arrogant of you. You may like to think you're a stalwart patriot, but you're coming across here as a gun-totin' Gollum defending his PRECIOUSSSSS! MY PRECIOUSSS GUNSESSSS! WE WANTS THEM! WE WANTS THEM FOREVER... MY PRECIOUSSSSS!
> 
> The only "Baa" I have to say to you is "Bah humbug", Mr Everyone-who-doesn't-pack-a-gun-is-a-sheep...



Typically they are... But so are NRA lunatics and Militia members...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 9, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> I have a Winchester Model 109 semi-auto .22  in my room because I am allowed to. I love Texas, and the United States...



I have a Winchest Model 61, made in 1938, sittin' in my gun cabinet... shoots real nice.




Mayfurr said:


> Oh really? That's pretty arrogant of you. You may like to think you're a stalwart patriot, but you're coming across here as a gun-totin' Gollum defending his PRECIOUSSSSS! MY PRECIOUSSS GUNSESSSS! WE WANTS THEM! WE WANTS THEM FOREVER... MY PRECIOUSSSSS!
> 
> The only "Baa" I have to say to you is "Bah humbug", Mr Everyone-who-doesn't-pack-a-gun-is-a-sheep...



You're perfectly free to not "pack a gun"... just don't tell me I don't have the Right, or I will simply say "Baaa!" in response.  Remember what I said about freedom of choice?  Don't begrudge me my freedom... my RIGHT to choose, and I'll have no problem with you.  If that is arrogant to you, then so be it.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uh-huh, well actually it was my grandfathers and he gave it to me before I gave it back, it was from WWII and I never used it, never had the ammo for it, but it was cool to own. When I moved I didn't want to take it with me because it was illegally owned, it wasn't registered with me or anybody for that matter.



Newf, confession to a crime on this forum ain't good.  Be careful, an un-named forum member might turn ya in to the Cops. :razz:



> I did however own FAC and restricted FAC, it's expired now and I see no reason to renew it other than going out to shoot at a range, and I don't need it for that realistically.



FAC's ended in 1993 and were neither restricted or restricted under the form-301 (green form) system.  PALs, R/PAL and POL were the licenses introduced by Bill C68.  You're either older than you claim, or you had an RPAL and not a FAC; which furthers my point about you having only a little knowledge of the subject matter at hand.



> in most sports gaining an unfair advantage is considered cheating,



Making your own ammunition and making or heavily customizing factory guns is not gaining an unfair advantage in our sport.  Its the norm and accepted.  Doping (particularly beta-blockers) is illegal in the shooting sports, just like the use of stimulants and steroids in other sports.



> I can adjust my aim



You can adjust your aim all you want, but if the bullet isn't sub or MOA accurate due to trans-sonic upset, its all for naught.  A 55gr .223 will drive tacks at 600yards, but wont hit a flock of barns at 1,000.  A properly hand loaded .223 in 75gr with a decent ballistic co-efficient will stay hypersonic out to 1,000 yards.  This is one of the many reasons that competitive shooters hand load their ammo.  Factory ammo simply doesn't have the performance, even if it does have quality and consistency required.  Additionally, 6.5x284, .260Rem and .338Lapua aren't exactly the kind of thing you find at Wallmart.



> creating one for sport isn't giving you an advantage unless you own several expensive tools.



My lathe and mill work isnt up to .0005 accuracy, so I usually shop that kind of work out to a 'smith or a decent CAD/CAM jobber.  But yes, the typical competative shooter owns a workbench full of odd and expensive tools.



> Biased opinions don't stand for anything in my books, regardless of your experience; experience doesn't give you some magical ability to know more than somebody that's intelligent enough to see it all right away. Experience is only good so much.



Right.  So read up on flying a plane and off you go, eh?  Flight instructors are only for the stupid ones anyway.  Better yet, go join DCRA.  It aint gonna be me in the chair this year.



> What was the very first firearm created for? I rest my case.



The very firsts guns were created to assist with gathering food.  People gather food to take home and eat.  Thus they need guns and ammo at....home.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Irrelevant said:
			
		

> Newf, confession to a crime on this forum ain't good. Be careful, an un-named forum member might turn ya in to the Cops.


Do it. Go ahead and try, it's not like they can do anything. I smoke pot too. It's not a crime in my mind, to own a firearm without the ammo means I didn't really do anything with it now did I? The ammo is what I'm arguing against, I don't mind of people own firearms for collection or what-ever, have you been reading my points? :\ This was also before I changed my views on firearms, or rather had them changed.


> FAC's ended in 1993 and were neither restricted or restricted under the form-301 (green form) system. PALs, R/PAL and POL were the licenses introduced by Bill C68. You're either older than you claim, or you had an RPAL and not a FAC; which furthers my point about you having only a little knowledge of the subject matter at hand.


It's just what my family still calls the firearms license; old habits die-hard; my father called it that and so did I, but you're correct.


> Making your own ammunition and making or heavily customizing factory guns is not gaining an unfair advantage in our sport. Its the norm and accepted. Doping (particularly beta-blockers) is illegal in the shooting sports, just like the use of stimulants and steroids in other sports.


I didn't say it was, I just said most sports; racing for example won't allow you to use custom fuels without bumping up a class and racing against the bigger boys; why not use sabots in all ammo in the sport, or does that against the rules? Would make sense.


> You can adjust your aim all you want, but if the bullet isn't sub or MOA accurate due to trans-sonic upset, its all for naught. A 55gr .223 will drive tacks at 600yards, but wont hit a flock of barns at 1,000. A properly hand loaded .223 in 75gr with a decent ballistic co-efficient will stay hypersonic out to 1,000 yards. This is one of the many reasons that competitive shooters hand load their ammo.


Ok, that's cool...didn't know that. Maybe I'll have to try some of your custom ammo sometime.


> Right. So read up on flying a plane and off you go, eh?


Uhhh you need the training; what I'm saying is that training and teaching > experience entirely. You don't see many doctors who never went to med-school and are self taught or taught from experience. "Oh, that's what I needed to do to save him. Now I know."


> The very firsts guns were created to assist with gathering food


Roose already proved they were created for war, so no.


Darkwing said:


> I just wanted to ask you to keep this debate mature..


Fair enough.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This was also before I changed my views on firearms, or rather had them changed.



Whoa, wait a second, what made you change your views on firearms?

I am really eager to know.



NewfDraggie said:


> Fair enough.



There we go, now we can actually get somewhere in this debate now.



Irreverent said:


> Newf, confession to a crime on this forum ain't good. Be careful, an un-named forum member might turn ya in to the Cops. :razz:



Everyone has done something sometime in their life that they are not proud of, Irreverant, I bet that even you have done something during your life that was not entirely legal.



DemonKnight said:


> I'm actualy not that old, I'm only 20 in fact, I just took the time to look at the past and see all it's flaws, and it's benefits. The problem I see is we're removing the good things, and leaving the bad. It's retarded, but as Roose says it's thanks to those that "Baaa", that I won't dissagree on.



So your saying this whole "Anti-gun movement" in schools was a recent thing? I remember getting a 3 day out of school suspension in Elementary School just for drawing guns.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Whoa, wait a second, what made you change your views on firearms?
> 
> I am really eager to know.


Mommy Government gave him a spanking


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Actually I explained it earlier, to which Roose responded as it being 





Roose Hurro said:


> *snip*


 and nobody else even read it apparently.

Let me copy-pasta:


NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah I owned a .117 air-rifle when I was a kid, my father also owned a .22 hornet (that was the round, can't remember the name of the gun) rifle, a 30-30 Winchester, .306 and a few others. It was a long time ago so I didn't know their models. Growing up I stripped the weapons and cleaned them with my dad all the time; my father taught me safety above all else, and when I was ten he got me a .117 air rifle, at first it was pretty crappy but eventually we modified it to be better and slapped on a scope; I could nail things with this much easier than any of my friends with their air-rifles. At about age twelve I got to fire the .22 hornet rounds and that became my rifle, then not long after I got to fire all the others. When we moved across Canada to Alberta we sold all the firearms or gave them away, while in Alberta I used to go to the local range every now and then and rent a few firearms and buy some ammo. I went to the Canadian Forces base, under militia not CF and I was there for a good year, a little less to be honest and I participated in a lot of shooting there because that was my fascination. I love firearms, I love weapons; I'm a weponologist of sorts (though not really, of course); they had a large assortment of weapons ranging from the Remington 700 and M24 variant, to AKM's, 74's and 101's; there was a lot of firearms at this base because it did happen to be one of the larger ones in Canada.
> 
> After an incident where somebody at a range was firing a handgun, and upon ejecting the mag (empty) did a chamber check (looked empty, even to me from a short distance), he snapped the slide forward and the thing blew up in his hand. It wasn't empty. The slide, or well pieces of it went into his face, me and two others knew first-aid so we did what we could until the ambulance arrived and took him away. I'm unsure if I saved his life or not.
> After this incident I changed slightly, I still love firearms but this guy clearly didn't have the proper training or did something wrong, if not then it was the firearms fault; I might love firearms but I don't think civilians, at least the general amount of them should own firearms. He might of lived only because he was at a range at the time, if he was in the woods he would be dead without a chance, this is why I think range-shooting is still fine for the general public because it has the same dangers as Parkour or rock-climbing; people don't take those home into their homes or do it alone in the extremes.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> After an incident where somebody at a range was firing a handgun, and upon ejecting the mag (empty) did a chamber check (looked empty, even to me from a short distance), he snapped the slide forward and the thing blew up in his hand. It wasn't empty. The slide, or well pieces of it went into his face, me and two others knew first-aid so we did what we could until the ambulance arrived and took him away. I'm unsure if I saved his life or not.



I am very sorry that you had to be in the middle of such a traumatic incident, and I understand how you dislike guns after such an incident, but you sounded like you really loved guns, why won't you get out there and teach people proper gun safety, instead of posting on an online forum on how dangerous guns can be?

Also, an incident such as this very rarely happens, you have a much better chance at winning the lottery than this happening to you.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> I am very sorry that you had to be in the middle of such a traumatic incident, and I understand how you dislike guns after such an incident, but you sounded like you really loved guns, why won't you get out there and teach people proper gun safety, instead of posting on an online forum on how dangerous guns can be?
> 
> Also, an incident such as this very rarely happens, you have a much better chance at winning the lottery than this happening to you.


Perhaps, I still love firearms though. This didn't stop my love of them, I just think in the hands of the untrained or the unneeded they're pointless to have, at least with the ammo.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Perhaps, I still love firearms though. This didn't stop my love of them, I just think in the hands of the untrained or the unneeded they're pointless to have, at least with the ammo.



That is a very valid almost factual point, but like I said again, this incident is probably a sign for you to volunteer at a range and teach people how to properly handle a gun, teaching simply one person that can make a great difference.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> That is a very valid almost factual point, but like I said again, this incident is probably a sign for you to volunteer at a range and teach people how to properly handle a gun, teaching simply one person that can make a great difference.



Yeah... well I'm not that well trained, I'd have to become better than I am before I'd teach others. Wouldn't want to be responsible for causing injury, besides that and needing to get a new license plus not owning any firearms myself, or having the money to waste on ammo and renting them, or being qualified... well yeah I basically can't do it, but I could if I wanted to...

To be honest I'd rather join the military again, but currently I disagree with our military's actions. Also I don't really know anybody else that shoots at a range here, so I'd just show up someday and be like "yeah I wanna volunteer teaching people to shoot when I haven't practiced in about four years, oh and I also have no license to shoot...cool?"

:3 But I wouldn't mind shooting again at a range, maybe teach some friends the basics that need/want it.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah... well I'm not that well trained, I'd have to become better than I am before I'd teach others. Wouldn't want to be responsible for causing injury, besides that and needing to get a new license plus not owning any firearms myself, or having the money to waste on ammo and renting them, or being qualified... well yeah I basically can't do it, but I could if I wanted to...
> 
> To be honest I'd rather join the military again, but currently I disagree with our military's actions. Also I don't really know anybody else that shoots at a range here, so I'd just show up someday and be like "yeah I wanna volunteer teaching people to shoot when I haven't practiced in about four years, oh and I also have no license to shoot...cool?"



Oh man that sucks, but remember what I said, this really should be something you should set your mind to someday


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Oh man that sucks, but remember what I said, this really should be something you should set your mind to someday


I kinda like computers too though, gun's isn't my only fascination; I also like other types of weapons, like swords and such. But thanks. <3


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Don't begrudge me my freedom... my RIGHT to choose, and I'll have no problem with you.  If that is arrogant to you, then so be it.



It's your attitude that _whoever doesn't agree with you 100% is a *sheep*_ that comes across as arrogant, Mr I'm-better-than-you-'cause-I've-got-a-gun-and-a-Second-Amendment. Like I said before, I _understand _your arguments, I just *don't agree* with every single one of therm.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I kinda like computers too though, gun's isn't my only fascination



Seconded, other than guns, I am a total computer nerd xD



NewfDraggie said:


> I also like other types of weapons, like swords and such.



Oh God, my cousin has a room literally filled at the top with swords.



NewfDraggie said:


> But thanks. <3



No problem, I am just doing what I do best.


----------



## DemonKnight (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> So your saying this whole "Anti-gun movement" in schools was a recent thing? I remember getting a 3 day out of school suspension in Elementary School just for drawing guns.



No no, it's not recent, the range dates back to the cold war and alittle after that, but was closed down not because the "war" ended, but because ignorant people complained about guns in  general. I look to the past a lot to see where it's being repeated and what new mistakes we made along the way.


----------



## Sybe (Jul 9, 2009)

CaptainCool said:


> you forgot your lightsaber and your ulaks!




I collect knives and bladed articles, I'd love to get a set of ulaks.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm sorry but no; guns are not important in any way shape or form, especially in terms of education level. They should not, and are not taught in schools for a reason. Sorry, but those opinions are very-much backwards in the same sense that anti-homosexual laws is backwards.

It was taken out for a reason and is not part of the curriculum in Canada, the USA, (to my knowledge) all of Europe and I'd guess all or at least most of the world in fact. I don't know any school-board that has firearms in the curriculum.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'm sorry but no; guns are not important in any way shape or form, especially in terms of education level. They should not, and are not taught in schools for a reason.



But you gotta admit, it would be cool to have a shooting range to go to in your high school.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> But you gotta admit, it would be cool to have a shooting range to go to in your high school.


We all know how unstable some kids can be; if they feel like killing somebody for being bullied, or feel like killing themselves the can easilly turn the weapons against the instructors and then toward the school, or easily against themselves. I've seen statistics that show people are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than anything else, on this form I've seen posted by a user several pages that showed the level of suicides in relation to households with firearms. They are staggering compared to households without.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> We all know how unstable some kids can be; if they feel like killing somebody for being bullied, or feel like killing themselves the can easilly turn the weapons against the instructors and then toward the school, or easily against themselves.



Oh, well, depending on what I have experienced in my school district (So far...) you are factually right on this. But most of the kids I know in my school own firearms anyway, so, yeah, there is no stopping them anyway.

Then again, opening a shooting range in the school would simply encourage them, so that wouldn't be smart, and it would not end pretty, if you know what I mean.

Although, as strongly as I want a shooting range locally in my neighborhood, I would disagree overall on bringing out a shooting range in my school, because my school, is full of the worst people, wannabe gangsters, twitards, emos, mall goths, gutter whores, wannabe gutter whores, you name it, and you wouldn't want them to get their paws onto a gun, would you?




NewfDraggie said:


> I've seen statistics that show people are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than anything else



This is true.


----------



## frisse (Jul 9, 2009)

i owns tre air rifles one with a scope!


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> my school, is full of the worst people, wannabe gangsters, twitards, emos, mall goths, gutter whores, wannabe gutter whores, you name it, and you wouldn't want them to get their paws onto a gun, would you?


This is true for most schools anywhere in Canada or the USA.
For fuck sakes in my little sisters grade nine classroom three people were pregnant and several were addicted to hard drugs.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This is true for most schools anywhere in Canada or the USA.
> For fuck sakes in my little sisters grade nine classroom three people were pregnant and several were addicted to hard drugs.



In middle school I got laughed at for being a virgin and being abstinent.

I just shrugged, and walked off.

One girl asked me if I wanted to have Oral sex with her, I said "no", she and everyone else laughed at me, I walked off again.

Just because I wasn't doing the "cool" things I have been the outcast of the school since 2nd grade. I really don't care what people say to me anymore, because I know that they are gonna die from STDs before age 20 from having so much sex anyways.

It is depressing here Newf, just letting you know.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Roose already proved they were created for war, so no.



No, according to the ONE article I quoted, they were created for *hunting, war* and *self-defense*.  Since I am not a soldier fighting in a war, that means my guns (being non-military, anyway) were made for *hunting* and *self-defense*.  Don't just edit out the parts you don't like, Newf...




Darkwing said:


> Everyone has done something sometime in their life that they are not proud of, Irreverant, I bet that even you have done something during your life that was not entirely legal.



The problem is, Newf illegally possessed a firearm... when we're debating firearms.




Darkwing said:


> So your saying this whole "Anti-gun movement" in schools was a recent thing? I remember getting a 3 day out of school suspension in Elementary School just for drawing guns.



Tell me something, Darkwing... what year was it when you got that three-day suspension?  Yes, I've heard nowadays a kid can get in trouble not only for drawing a picture of a gun, but for pointing their finger and going "BANG!"  It's called the ZERO TOLERANCE rule.  And recent means in the last few decades...




Satan Q. Jones said:


> Mommy Government gave him a spanking



... and his butt is probably still red and sore.




NewfDraggie said:


> I kinda like computers too though, gun's isn't my only fascination; I also like other types of weapons, *like swords and such*. But thanks. <3



Enjoy:

http://www.angelswords.com/

http://www.angelsword.com/

*http://www.mineralmountain.com/index.htm*

*http://www.dervishknives.com/*

http://www.jayfisher.com/swords.htm

*http://www.seaox.com/nihonto/japanese_swords.html*

http://home.att.net/~hofhine/kensei.html

http://www.dbkcustomswords.com/

http://www.wle.com/store/w_custom.html

http://www.wolf-mountain.com/swordindex.html

http://www.samurai-sword-shop.com/custom-samurai-sword-38-ctg.htm

http://www.swordsofvalor.com/CustomGrips.html

http://www.wtknives.com/warrenthomasswords.html

*http://www.bugei.com/category_1.htm*

http://www.badgerblades.com/html/custom_work.html

http://www.kingofswords.com/Swords/Handmade-Swords.html

http://www.samuraisword.com/




Mayfurr said:


> It's your attitude that _whoever doesn't agree with you 100% is a *sheep*_ that comes across as arrogant, Mr I'm-better-than-you-'cause-I've-got-a-gun-and-a-Second-Amendment. Like I said before, I _understand _your arguments, I just *don't agree* with every single one of therm.



And you are perfectly within your rights to disagree.  But, if you insist that my rights are a privilage... if you insist that the Government (any Government) knows best... or that MY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE NOT EQUAL TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE, well, then, all I can hear is the echo of "Baaa!" in my ears.  This is what I mean, Mayfurr... people who insist I have to give up my individual rights for the good of society are simply SHEEP.  They also have no idea what is good for society.




Darkwing said:


> Oh God, my cousin has a room literally filled at the top with swords.



Then you should like all those links I provided above...




DemonKnight said:


> No no, it's not recent, the range dates back to the cold war and alittle after that, but was closed down not because the "war" ended, but because ignorant people complained about guns in  general. *I look to the past a lot to see where it's being repeated and what new mistakes we made along the way.*



Definitely not recent...

This is a good thing to do, DK... never stop doing it.




Sybe said:


> I collect knives and bladed articles, I'd love to get a set of ulaks.



Have fun with my links, then...




NewfDraggie said:


> I'm sorry but no; guns are not important in any way shape or form, especially in terms of education level. They should not, *and are not taught in schools for a reason*. Sorry, but those opinions are very-much backwards in the same sense that anti-homosexual laws is backwards.
> 
> It was taken out for a reason and is not part of the curriculum in Canada, the USA, (to my knowledge) all of Europe and I'd guess all or at least most of the world in fact. I don't know any school-board that has firearms in the curriculum.



Yes, they aren't taught due to the political/media climate presently overwhelming the world.  Remember, Newf, you yourself keep remarking how people today aren't "competent" enough to own guns... then you spout off this.  The very reason so many people don't know how to handle firearms is due to the lack of instruction, coupled with an ingrained phobia.  And what is this nonsense?  You go on about me comparing automobile deaths to accidental gun deaths... and then you have the gall to compare firearms education to anti-homosexual laws?  Who, exactly, is the backwards one, here...?

Guns are indeed very important, or the issues involved wouldn't be so heated.  And you don't know any school-board that has firearms in the cirriculum because you are too young, Newf... firearms disappeared from schools before your time.  And now we have a population so deluded, fear is all they know, when it comes to guns... fear and hate.  Bias.  Bigotry.  Make of it what you will, Newf...




Darkwing said:


> Oh, well, depending on what I have experienced in my school district (So far...) you are factually right on this. But most of the kids I know in my school own firearms anyway, so, yeah, there is no stopping them anyway.
> 
> Then again, opening a shooting range in the school would simply encourage them, so that wouldn't be smart, and it would not end pretty, if you know what I mean.
> 
> Although, as strongly as I want a shooting range locally in my neighborhood, I would disagree overall on bringing out a shooting range in my school, because my school, is full of the worst people, wannabe gangsters, twitards, emos, mall goths, gutter whores, wannabe gutter whores, you name it, and you wouldn't want them to get their paws onto a gun, would you?



http://media.www.dailyvidette.com/m...s.In.Schools.Receives.Criticism-3061062.shtml

As for the kids in your school, Darkwing?  Their behavior is not the fault of guns, but of their parents... and of a society in which punishing children for bad behavior is not only discouraged, but leaves parents open to arrest.  And the loss of their offspring to Government "care"...




frisse said:


> i owns tre air rifles one with a scope!



I started with a BB gun... airguns are a good way to get started in the shooting sports, and are useful and fun in their own right.




Darkwing said:


> In middle school I got laughed at for being a virgin and being abstinent.
> 
> I just shrugged, and walked off.
> 
> ...



Dang... I got teased for wearing glasses, and for doing my homework.  One guy in particular liked to call me Poindexter (look up "Felix the Cat", if you don't know the ref).  Also had a guy call me "Frog"... when puberty made my voice crack...

From this, I do have to agree with Newf about guns not being important... all this "stuff" is far more important.  Unfortunately, I can only see things getting worse, what with all the attitudes I see just on this forum, alone, when it comes to faith and morality.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tell me something, Darkwing... what year was it when you got that three-day suspension?  Yes, I've heard nowadays a kid can get in trouble not only for drawing a picture of a gun, but for pointing their finger and going "BANG!"  It's called the ZERO TOLERANCE rule.  And recent means in the last few decades...



I believe around 2006, maybe 2007, I am not sure.

The principal thought that I was planning a terrorist attack against the school, I mean, how can an Elementary Schooler successfully plan out a terrorist attack and let alone succeed in it?

There was another time in elementary school that I almost got sent to the office for drawing a knight during class.

But thankfully, now I am in High School, and away from that annoying bitch of a principal.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Dang... I got teased for wearing glasses, and for doing my homework.  One guy in particular liked to call me Poindexter (look up "Felix the Cat", if you don't know the ref).  Also had a guy call me "Frog"... when puberty made my voice crack...



Pfft... Lucky.

That was nothing compared to what I have to endure with all of the retards in my school


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 9, 2009)

Well, this thread blew up nicely... I too am a hunter/shooter, but I am always too exhausted to argue gun control.

So, I will answer the OP and the original question instead (yay! guns!): Flintlock .45 Hawken (1830-style Plains rifle) with roundball target loads FTW. The older style the gun is, the more fun it is to shoot IMO. Does anyone else like those?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

> The problem is, Newf illegally possessed a firearm... when we're debating firearms.


lol, makes no sense and has no connection to the topic at hand; go go hurr.


> Enjoy: +all those link-spams.


Uh... I think I can find information like that on my own, but thanks....?


> You go on about me comparing automobile deaths to accidental gun deaths... and then you have the gall to compare firearms education to anti-homosexual laws? Who, exactly, is the backwards one, here...?


I wasn't comparing deaths, I was comparing backward-laws; moving backwards instead of forwards; not moving toward the better. But nice try at twister, fail.


> Guns are indeed very important


Uhh... no more important than track-shoes, they're cooler and that's about all. But okay.
Important for military maybe, but that's not what I mean.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Pfft... Lucky.
> 
> Over the years, I had been called, retarted, Gay, Homosexual, Queer, and worse. (And everyone actually believed that and took it as a fact)
> 
> ...


 Relevancy?  Do you want us to cry for you?  Is that the point of this post?  It happens to a lot of people, deal with it.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Relevancy?  Do you want us to cry for you?  Is that the point of this post?  It happens to a lot of people, deal with it.


If you must know, I brought it up. Insult me, come on kid.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Relevancy?  Do you want us to cry for you?  Is that the point of this post?  It happens to a lot of people, deal with it.



Looking back at this post, I sound like some wannabe mall goth.


Thanks for pointing that out, I feel so stupid right now.

I edited the post so that it doesn't sound so emo anymore.

I apologize, I am a bit tired right now.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Looking back at this post, I sound like some wannabe mall goth.
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out, I feel so stupid right now.
> ...


Don't listen to him. It's not hurting anybody to give a little information on your past. It's not like you were dwindling in emo. Hell, mine was more emo than yours.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> If you must know, I brought it up. Insult me, come on kid.


 Why so offended? 



Darkwing said:


> Looking back at this post, I sound like some wannabe mall goth.
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out, I feel so stupid right now.
> ...


 ^He doesn't seem to be.   Nah, you don't have to thank me.  I did it in an asshole-ish way.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's not like you were dwindling in emo.



In a way, yes.

I mean, I have a positive reputation with all of the females in my school.

It is just that I had a very very negative reputation with the males in my school.

But then again, (Almost) all of the males in my school are closet gays, if you look very closely at their behavior.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 9, 2009)

Females are usually cooler than males anyway. :3


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Females are usually cooler than males anyway. :3



From what I learned they are.

Besides their usual cattiness they are much more tolerant and open than a lot of the males around here.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 10, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> *I believe around 2006, maybe 2007, I am not sure.*
> 
> The principal thought that I was planning a terrorist attack against the school, I mean, how can an Elementary Schooler successfully plan out a terrorist attack and let alone succeed in it?
> 
> ...



Yep... you missed the good ol' days by a looong way.  And your principal is a moron.  Hope things work out better for you, now that you've moved up.  You'll do better in life than any of the classmates you described... and a better life than your principal.




Darkwing said:


> Pfft... Lucky.
> 
> That was nothing compared to what I have to endure with all of the retards in my school



I guess I can consider myself blessed...




Undaunted said:


> Well, this thread blew up nicely... I too am a hunter/shooter, but I am always too exhausted to argue gun control.
> 
> So, I will answer the OP and the original question instead (yay! guns!): Flintlock .45 Hawken (1830-style Plains rifle) with roundball target loads FTW. The older style the gun is, the more fun it is to shoot IMO. *Does anyone else like those?*



Yes...

Vid of loading/shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSOo-zY0_lc

More shootin':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_XxHfIxEk&feature=related

Info on Cowboy Action Shooting (CAS):

http://www.ehow.com/search.aspx?s=cowboy+action+shooting&Options=0




NewfDraggie said:


> *snip*



"Woof woof!"

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)




Jashwa said:


> Why so offended?



Because he's Newf...


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 10, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Because he's Newf...


 He always does?  I've never noticed that.  Maybe I'm still too new.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 10, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> He always does?  I've never noticed that.  Maybe I'm still too new.



Towards people he thinks are morons... and that includes most people, from what I've been able to tell.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yep... you missed the good ol' days by a looong way.  And your principal is a moron.  Hope things work out better for you, now that you've moved up.  You'll do better in life than any of the classmates you described... and a better life than your principal.



Meh, I got a small taste of "The Good ol' days", remember the old 1990's Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon? Yeah, that was the shit.

And I know things will be better for me in High School, my brother just ended his freshman year, and he told me that High School was great. The teachers are very open-minded, friendly, and not loud. Heak, my brother had no homework the whole school year, it was only 2 days out of the whole year when he got homework.

Also,there will be students from 3 other schools transitioning to High School with me, so I will cross my fingers and hope their friendly.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I've seen statistics that show people are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than anything else


_Duh._
Nooses have a lower success rate, the Plath method (gas) requires preparation unless you want to kill everyone else, cutting takes too long, Drano hurts like fuck, and suicide bombing requires planning.

It's as simple to kill yourself with a gun as it is to kill anybody else--point and click. (Notice, by the way, that I said "simple" and not "easy".)



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Towards people he thinks are morons... and that includes most people, from what I've been able to tell.


It's one of life's great paradoxes:
The biggest idiots are the cockiest debaters.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Towards people he thinks are morons... and that includes most people, from what I've been able to tell.


Yeah pretty much. Though several idots dropped off this board and as you can notice there's only like two or three left that actually flaunt their ignorance.


Satan Q. Jones said:


> _Duh._
> Nooses have a lower success rate, the Plath method (gas) requires preparation unless you want to kill everyone else, cutting takes too long, Drano hurts like fuck, and suicide bombing requires planning.


Okay, thanks for agreeing with me. What about my other comment, that more suicides occur in households that have firearms?


> It's one of life's great paradoxes:
> The biggest idiots are the cockiest debaters.


Case in point; mirror. ;3


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah pretty much. Though several idots dropped off this board and as you can notice there's only like two or three left that actually flaunt their ignorance.


You should really be nicer to Crackers and Cyberfox. If it weren't for them, you'd be all by yourself in that group.



> Okay, thanks for agreeing with me. What about my other comment, that more suicides occur in households that have firearms?


It's also a "duh". Successful uicides occur more often where the chance of success is higher--and unless it's successful, it's just an _attempt_, now isn't it?
What you don't seem to understand, child, is that _obvious statements_ don't win debates.
You might as well cite the sky's blueness as proof of your case.

Anybody can throw out a truism. You, however, are incapable of convincing anybody through logic, so you fall back to those and name-calling whenever you're not reiterating the same fallacious argument.

Quite frankly, Newf, we already have AI programs sophisticated enough to render you obsolete. You should find a new gimmick.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

Uh-huh... you're one of those morons I'm talking about. If you notice I'm not trying to "win" anything, I'm stating facts about firearms.

In fact I've proven you wrong plenty of times on this forum and each time you act as if you already knew, or attempt to act as if you knew more about the subject than I did; every time it's quite humorous, I thank you for keeping the immaturity alive on this forum.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uh-huh... you're one of those morons I'm talking about. If you notice I'm not trying to "win" anything, I'm stating facts about firearms.


So you have no point to make whatsoever in any of these threads?
Wow, you're even more useless than I thought.



> In fact I've proven you wrong plenty of times on this forum


As much as you love pink, I really suggest you get your lenses tinted another color next time you get an eye exam.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

Your holier-than-thou attitude doesn't work here, most people here aren't stupid enough to fall for your tricks and realize you bullshit a lot. You are making no point at all and have done so on many occasions in many threads; I was stating a fact about firearms and you're simply going "duh" before injecting your unneeded opinion about me and solely me without anything at all to add to the topic or relating to the topic at hand.

And there's only been one time that I can recall on this board where you've proven me wrong; that was the nicotine in tomatoes, which was actually good information minus you attempting to smear it into my face unlike the several times I proved you wrong and didn't rub it in at all.

Also as a final note my eyesight is fine, you should of targeted something a little more viable than eye-sight, such as reading comprehension; eyesight is never an issue in online forum discussions, how would they be unable to read but able to write fine? Pfft, pathetic.


Now, to get back on-topic: I'm into paintball and airsoft, in fact I wish they'd lower the airsoft laws in Canada a little; there's a law stating that a certain percentage of the weapon has to be a clear plastic for civilian use, and it sucks big-time because I want 1:1 weight and size, which requires metal.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Now, to get back on-topic: I'm into paintball and airsoft, in fact I wish they'd lower the airsoft laws in Canada a little; there's a law stating that a certain percentage of the weapon has to be a clear plastic for civillian use, and it sucks bit-time because I want 1:1 weight and size, which requires metal.



That sucks, and I never knew that airsofts can use metal BBs.

So could I use metal BBs on my airsoft gun? Or do I have to buy a special airsoft gun that is specifically built to use metal BBs?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

No no, I meant metal frame and slide, as in metal parts not metal ammunition... it's airsoft for a reason, I wouldn't shoot metal projectiles at my friends. :3


----------



## Krevan (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Now, to get back on-topic: I'm into paintball and airsoft, in fact I wish they'd lower the airsoft laws in Canada a little; there's a law stating that a certain percentage of the weapon has to be a clear plastic for civilian use, and it sucks big-time because I want 1:1 weight and size, which requires metal.



Im into airsoft as well, I'm sorry to hear about that law you guys have about requiring clear plastic however I can see why for your safety. One of my favorite things about airsoft is how real you can make the gun look, infact sometimes you cant even tell unless you pick the thing up.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

Krevan said:


> Im into airsoft as well, I'm sorry to hear about that law you guys have about requiring clear plastic however I can see why for your safety. One of my favorite things about airsoft is how real you can make the gun look, infact sometimes you cant even tell unless you pick the thing up.



And even then some you can't even tell until you check the chamber. ;3


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Your holier-than-thou attitude doesn't work here, most people here aren't stupid enough to fall for your tricks and realize you bullshit a lot. You are making no point at all and have done so on many occasions in many threads; I was stating a fact about firearms and you're simply going "duh" before injecting your unneeded opinion about me and solely me without anything at all to add to the topic or relating to the topic at hand.
> 
> And there's only been one time that I can recall on this board where you've proven me wrong; that was the nicotine in tomatoes, which was actually good information minus you attempting to smear it into my face unlike the several times I proved you wrong and didn't rub it in at all.


Ooh! Have I struck a _nerve,_ then?



> Also as a final note my eyesight is fine, you should of targeted something a little more viable than eye-sight, such as reading comprehension; eyesight is never an issue in online forum discussions, how would they be unable to read but able to write fine? Pfft, pathetic.


Yeah, uh, not even the point.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/rose-coloured+glasses
Not the best choice of allusion even so, I admit, but I felt like doing something a bit more custom-tailored than the standard fare. I already know being called "arrogant" doesn't faze you, so...


----------



## Krevan (Jul 10, 2009)

Hahaha, very true, very true.


NewfDraggie said:


> And even then some you can't even tell until you check the chamber. ;3


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> recovery attempt


lol you didn't even say rose coloured, but nice try at recovery.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol you didn't even say rose coloured, but nice try at recovery.


Hey, Newf, check this out:





It is pink and a rose.
Your argument is invalid.

I could've also mentioned that "rosado" is Spanish for "pink" and that it is (as anybody with eyes can hopefully see) derived from "rosa", meaning "rose", but since you aren't the language-minded type, this information is posted merely for the amusement of anyone else reading this.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

lolfail.
You never mentioned rosado, you never mentioned rosa, you never mentioned rose; you said pink. Pink is my characters colour, both of them. If you mean something say what you mean instead of leaving back doors for escape routes when you're laughed at.
There's also white roses, yellow, the classic red, blue, black, etc etc... and this is all off-topic dribble you like to drag on, and on for no reason at all other than attempting to justify every word that you write.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lolfail.
> You never mentioned rosado, you never mentioned rosa, you never mentioned rose; you said pink. Pink is my characters colour, both of them. If you mean something say what you mean instead of leaving back doors for escape routes when you're laughed at.
> There's also white roses, yellow, the classic red, blue, black, etc etc... and this is all off-topic dribble you like to drag on, and on for no reason at all other than attempting to justify every word that you write.


I think I shall now throw a word at you that you won't understand without a thesaurus:
_Wordplay._


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah pretty much. Though several idots dropped off this board and as you can notice there's only like two or three left that actually flaunt their ignorance.


 Are you referring to me with this?  Just wondering..


Also, can't we all just get along?  *group hugs everyone*


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 10, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Are you referring to me with this?  Just wondering..
> 
> 
> Also, can't we all just get along?  *group hugs everyone*



Not with newf around Jashwa, he is the type of guy that will pick holes in what ever anyone says and twist everything untill he is right. he always has to have the last word which is why he can not drop a debate, and when everyone else leaves a debate he calls them "morons", No newf, we are not morons, we are just sick of listening to you, WE know when to drop it, you don't, you just keep pushing and pushing.

I am all for a debate, but newf always has to make himself look so much better than everyone else, he looks down at everyone like we are all trash compared to him. 

Anyway enough bitching, i have never had the opportunity to partake in paintballing or airsoft. I do wish i had my .22 air rifle back though, but i have nowhere to use one unfortunately.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

Randy, I don't even know who you are; you know nothing about me so don't pretend too and act like your first impressions are fact.

I also don't know you Jashwa, so no; I'm not referring to you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Randy, I don't even know who you are; you know nothing about me so don't pretend too and act like your first impressions are fact.
> 
> I also don't know you Jashwa, so no; I'm not referring to you.



I am going by how you portray yourself on here. It is not my fault how YOU portray yourself.


----------



## Azure (Jul 10, 2009)

Damn Newf, you're gettin owned all over this thread.  Tell me, what does it feel like to have the thickest skull on the internet?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I also don't know you Jashwa, so no; I'm not referring to you.


 That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 10, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Really?
> 
> High schools had shooting ranges?



Just about every high school in Canada, built before 1950 had one, and many still do; although only the western provinces are in use.  Most universities have ranges, and Union Station (Toronto's version of New Yorks massive rail hub) had until this year, a gun range right in the building.  It started in 1912.  The Toronto Mayor ordered is, and the University of Toronto Hart House range closed, but both matters are before the courts.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I am going by how you portray yourself on here. It is not my fault how YOU portray yourself.



You've probably read only a few posts by me, that's hardly enough to make -any- assumptions, but OK that speaks torrents about you right there. I've only called a few people morons too, and those people clearly deserve it, if you can't see why perhaps you're missing some posts from the past that shows this; this means you're missing information or are choosing to ignore blatant in-your-face information for arguments sake.

I'd also like to see these posts you're referring too, where I call everybody morons; I've actually only called a few people that are still active on this board morons, and not without just-cause (other people agreeing too, so I guess I'm not the only person who thought this). Only two people in this here thread, Roose being one and of course Ms. Perfect, though she's not so much a moron as annoying in her attempts to -really- twist things, unlike myself who you're accusing; oh I also called somebody's teacher a moron for his saying "you lose all arguments, regardless of your facts, the moment you insult somebody" because that's not how the real-world works, clearly; you can't change those facts just because the person relaying them insults somebody, boo-hoo. Black is, and will always be black and no matter how many people I insult that fact won't be changing.

You're also fueling this derailment in attempt to side with somebody for no reason at all, no reason I can see at least...maybe I'm missing something.

I don't know you, you certainly don't know me; don't pretend like you do regardless of how I respond to other people, unless of course you've read all the posts I've made and all the posts I've been responding to, then you can judge if what I say makes me: "the type of guy that will pick holes in what ever anyone says and twist everything untill he is right" or correct in my insults.

*Though you are right*, I should stop insulting people and somebody already requested I do this, and I obliged even ignoring people that continued to insult me; once I seen those people weren't getting the same request for maturity I thought it was unequal and decided to insult only one of them back, the one that deserved it however.


AzurePhoenix said:


> Damn Newf, you're gettin owned all over this thread.  Tell me, what does it feel like to have the thickest skull on the internet?


case-in-point; do you see what he's stating? I don't; he's attempting to troll and fuel derailment.
I'll be the one to tell him: *Keep a level of maturity in this topic, for once.* There.


> I am all for a debate, but newf always has to make himself look so much better than everyone else, he looks down at everyone like we are all trash compared to him.


No, just the very small number of people on this forum I actively call out for being stupid; they're just the ones that post a lot and continue to post the same crap regardless of the counters (and sources I link to back them up), so it looks like I'm saying it to a lot of people, but in reality it's just one or two.


> he always has to have the last word which is why he can not drop a debate


Actually no, I'm not keeping it going at all, (well I am right now...but I'm stopping) if I were to stop with this post most likely somebody will continue without me, with this very off-topic derailment regardless of my input (hopefully saying that will stop it instead, seeing as most people would at this point after being predicted).
I've attempted to put the topic back on track several times, but new people (like you) continue insisting it must fixate on myself, for what-ever stupid reason you can come up with; I'm not this important, at all; I'm nobody.


> Anyway enough bitching, i have never had the opportunity to partake in paintballing or airsoft. I do wish i had my .22 air rifle back though, but i have nowhere to use one unfortunately.


Agreed; when I was a child I actually always wanted a .22 air-rifle for some reason, never really did get one; I wanted to shoot shook-up cans of pop with it, odd no?
Paintballing I find is the most exhilarating, but airsoft has the better tactics and teamwork where as paintballs shinning moment is speed-ball, in my opinion at least.

Also water-guns, it is summer after all. ;3


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 10, 2009)

True, time to get said topic back on track. I have had a couple BB guns before, sold those though.....actually i can't remember what i did with one of them, one was just a cheap plastic piece of crap i bought out of boredum. It may have broke.......Oh no no, i remember, it got pinched by someone visiting my appartment. never did find out who.

I was still living with parents when i had my .22 air rifle, had a long enough back yard to use it in. but moving forced me to sell it as i couldn't use it where we moved too. I used to set all sorts of different targets up, empty soda cans, beer cans, old plastic buckets, bamboo canes, even blown light bulbs.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 10, 2009)

I should own a gun, but Uncle Sam does not agree with me on this.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

I always liked accuracy over power, though power was fun for the feel and sound of the force. Though scoped rifles were always my favorite, to see where the shots where hitting depending on gravity and wind, having to adjust until you can nail it dead-on every time. That's my favorite thing about firearms honestly. <3


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 10, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> I should own a gun, but Uncle Sam does not agree with me on this.


 To be fair, I'd have to agree.  I can picture you going on a homocidal rampage because someone did something stupid.


----------



## Azure (Jul 10, 2009)

No Newf, I didn't even read the latest batch of idiocy you've plopped out, I was referring to the incredibly lenghty exchange with Roose and Irreverent, in which you able demonstrated your true nature, that of a whiny idealistic fool, whose only counter argument consists of either a request for proof when it is displayed plainly in well written English, or the "My opinion is better because I say it is".


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No no, I meant metal frame and slide, as in metal parts not metal ammunition... it's airsoft for a reason, I wouldn't shoot metal projectiles at my friends. :3



Hmm... Weird, I never heard of a metal airsoft gun, I would assume that metal airsoft guns are legal here at PA, just hard to find.

Because all of the airsofts I saw at walmart had plastic parts (And yes, I do my gun shopping at Walmart, as suprising as it seems, my area doesn't have their own local store specially for guns.)


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 10, 2009)

http://airsoftglobal.com/ this has a lot of metal guns, they make them pretty much look and feel real but only being airsoft.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I wanted to shoot shook-up cans of pop with it



Whoa, that sounds like a cool idea for a target. Too bad my family rarely allows soda in the house, considering how soda makes me a bit...well...off...so to say :3


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Though scoped rifles were always my favorite



Oh my God I <3 scopes :twisted:


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 10, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Hmm... Weird, I never heard of a metal airsoft gun, I would assume that metal airsoft guns are legal here at PA, just hard to find.
> 
> Because all of the airsofts I saw at walmart had plastic parts (And yes, I do my gun shopping at Walmart, as suprising as it seems, my area doesn't have their own local store specially for guns.)


 They are.  I have a few friends that own them.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Just about every high school in Canada, built before 1950 had one, and many still do; although only the western provinces are in use. Most universities have ranges, and Union Station (Toronto's version of New Yorks massive rail hub) had until this year, a gun range right in the building. It started in 1912. The Toronto Mayor ordered is, and the University of Toronto Hart House range closed, but both matters are before the courts.



Did you ever shoot in any of the High School ranges?


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> http://airsoftglobal.com/ this has a lot of metal guns, they make them pretty much look and feel real but only being airsoft.



Wow, interesting link, but the price for some of these are outrageous, though.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 10, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> So could I use metal BBs on my airsoft gun? Or do I have to buy a special airsoft gun that is specifically built to use metal BBs?



No, you can't...

If your want to buy an air gun, either BB or pellet, try here:

http://www.pyramydair.com/

And for airsoft:

http://www.pyramidairsoft.com/




RandyDarkshade said:


> I am going by how you portray yourself on here. It is not my fault how YOU portray yourself.



Trust me, RD, you've nailed Newf on the head...

You can present as many facts as you wish that prove him wrong... like my presentation of many self-defense stories, not to mention the documented fact up to 2.5 *million* people defend themselves every year (compared to 1500 per year who accidentally shoot themselves)... yet Newf will continue to insist that guns are useless for self-defense, and that accidental shootings outweigh successful self-defense encounters.  Or whatever his subject of denial is at the time...




AzurePhoenix said:


> Damn Newf, you're gettin owned all over this thread.  *Tell me, what does it feel like to have the thickest skull on the internet?*



I'll second that question...




NewfDraggie said:


> Agreed; when I was a child I actually always wanted a .22 air-rifle for some reason, never really did get one; *I wanted to shoot shook-up cans of pop with it, odd no?* Paintballing I find is the most exhilarating, but airsoft has the better tactics and teamwork where as paintballs shinning moment is speed-ball, in my opinion at least.
> 
> Also water-guns, it is summer after all. ;3



No, not odd... just very messy.  I once hit a paintcan on the trashpile I didn't know still had oooold paint in it (the Beeman P1 Magnum is a beast).  Luckily, glasses saved my eyes (*never forget protective eyewear*).  But I still have these little greenish paint-stain spots on my gun.  Unfortunately, I've neither had time nor opportunity to either paintball or airsoft.

However, waterguns and summers I remember well... though I was more the water-ballooner type.  Or saved the trouble and just used a hose... best "watergun" ever made!




RandyDarkshade said:


> True, time to get said topic back on track. I have had a couple BB guns before, sold those though.....actually i can't remember what i did with one of them, one was just a cheap plastic piece of crap i bought out of boredum. It may have broke.......Oh no no, i remember, *it got pinched by someone visiting my appartment*. never did find out who.



That's a shame, "cheap plastic piece of crap" notwithstanding...




RandyDarkshade said:


> I was still living with parents when i had my .22 air rifle, had a long enough back yard to use it in. but moving forced me to sell it as i couldn't use it where we moved too. I used to set all sorts of different targets up, empty soda cans, beer cans, old plastic buckets, bamboo canes, even blown light bulbs.



Bamboo canes?  How did those work out...?




NewfDraggie said:


> I always liked accuracy over power, though power was fun for the feel and sound of the force. Though scoped rifles were always my favorite, to see where the shots where hitting depending on gravity and wind, having to adjust until you can nail it dead-on every time. That's my favorite thing about firearms honestly. <3



There's a saying, Newf:  "The only interesting gun is an accurate gun."  My favorite thing has always been that it doesn't matter who you are... an 8 year old kid, an 80 year old lady, fat, skinny, Arnold Swartzeneger or Benny Beanpole, on two legs or in a wheelchair... if you can hold a gun steady and squeeze the trigger, you can compete on equal footing with anyone, if you practice, practice, practice.  Just like the pros.  Shooting is a sport that doesn't discriminate, and I like it for that reason.  And though hitting your mark with careful aim is a great feeling of accomplishment, sometimes serendipity strikes when you aren't even trying.  Like the time this fly landed on a rusty tin can, and I pulled my Daisy Powerline 1200, shot from the hip... and nailed the fly.  Or the time I first shot my uncle's custom Pensylvania rifle... it put me on my butt in the dirt, but I hit my mark dead-square.  Had I been turkey-shootin' at the time, I would've won the turkey.




Darkwing said:


> Wow, interesting link, but the price for some of these are outrageous, though.



Hey, metal is more expensive than plastic...


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 10, 2009)

An air gun is merely a child's toy. I don't own any guns of my own, but I'd better start stockpiling so I can protect myself against WBC's terrorist freaks, who are probably planning some idiotic violent demonstration for their meaningless cause. 

I was taught how to shoot on a .22 bolt-action rifle with a scope as a wee one (about 8 or 9) by my grandfather in Maine. Years later, my uncle handed me a .44 Magnum (revolver) made by Taurus to shoot at a dead tree with. From a distance of about 70 feet, I got all 6 shots to hit the trunk, which was about 9 inches around. That'd easily drop any zombie, but the WBC *shudder* is made up of monsters far more vile...

If I could get any gun ever made (no restrictions), practically speaking, I'd probably go with the FN FAL or the G3. Kind of old, but they kick the M-16's ass.


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 10, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> An air gun is merely a child's toy.



Actually, air rifle and air pistol (CO2 guns) are shot at the Olympics, along with .22 pistol and Olympic Trap (shotgun game). Watching the pistol matches is akin to watching paint dry, but the shotgun is fun to watch, and the airgun matches are decidedly serious competition... I thought I'd throw that out there.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I don't own any guns of my own, but I'd better start stockpiling so I can protect myself against WBC's terrorist freaks, who are probably planning some idiotic violent demonstration for their meaningless cause.



lolwut?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 10, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> *An air gun is merely a child's toy.* I don't own any guns of my own, but I'd better start stockpiling so I can protect myself against WBC's terrorist freaks, who are probably planning some idiotic violent demonstration for their meaningless cause.
> 
> I was taught how to shot on a .22 bolt-action rifle with a scope as a wee one (about 8 or 9) by my grandfather in Maine. Years later, my uncle handed me a .44 Magnum (revolver) made by Taurus to shoot at a dead tree with. From a distance of about 70 feet, I got all 6 shots to hit the trunk, which was about 9 inches around. That'd easily drop any zombie, but the WBC *shudder* is made up of monsters far more vile...
> 
> If I could get any gun ever made (no restrictions), practically speaking, *I'd probably go with the FN FAL or the G3*. Kind of old, but they kick the M-16's ass.



No, airguns are serious business:

http://www.glbarnes.com/

As for your choice of rifles, they're both good, but you can add this one to your list:

http://www.knightarmco.com/images/sr25.html


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 10, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> http://www.knightarmco.com/images/sr25.html



Wow, now those are what I call guns.

But I bet those are mad expensive, aren't they


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> To be fair, I'd have to agree.  I can picture you going on a homocidal rampage because someone did something stupid.


Well, he hasn't taken away my extensive collection of knives yet ._.

...okay, it's not that extensive, but I do have a few cool ones stashed away. Dunno where they are right now, though...


----------



## Azure (Jul 11, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> Well, he hasn't taken away my extensive collection of knives yet ._.
> 
> ...okay, it's not that extensive, but I do have a few cool ones stashed away. Dunno where they are right now, though...


Please tell me you like to cut people.  Erotically.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 11, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Wow, now those are what I call guns.
> 
> *But I bet those are mad expensive, aren't they*



They are, indeed:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/kmc_sr25.html


----------



## Krevan (Jul 11, 2009)

The gun in that link is sick! Which caliber is that model? 7.62?

 I used to have an airsoft version of that.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 11, 2009)

Krevan said:


> The gun in that link is sick! Which caliber is that model? 7.62?
> 
> I used to have an airsoft version of that.



Yep... the SR-25 is 7.62x51mm, otherwise known as the .308... same caliber as the original Armalite AR-10, before it got downsized to .223 (5.56x45mm) and re-named AR-15.


----------



## Krevan (Jul 11, 2009)

Not a fan at all of .223
.30-06 and .44 Magnum are my two favorite calibers.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Please tell me you like to cut people.  Erotically.


Well, cutting them turns _me_ on...


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 11, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Did you ever shoot in any of the High School ranges?



Yep.  Appleby College (k-12) had is own private cadet core, and a summer/winter biathlon program.  Range was under the stage in the gym.  Outdoors, we shot into berms that were backstopped by Lake Ontario.  It was a different age.  SMLE No7 and No.8 trainers with diaopter sites were the target gun of the day.

I shot one match at UofT's Hart House range, and occasionally at Union station too.  The Scarbourough Rifle club was running matches in the local community centre (yep....like the YMCA) but Toronto's mayor put a stop to that 50 year old tradition.  Apparently only basketball is allowed there now.


----------



## Krevan (Jul 11, 2009)

Ive never fired a pure target shooting rifle before, would like to give it a shot but dont think it would be my thing.

I wish my school had a shooting team but California is all looney on gun related things. :/


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

Krevan said:


> California is all looney. :/


Fix'd.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 11, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> They are, indeed:
> 
> http://www.impactguns.com/store/kmc_sr25.html



Wow, about 8000 dollars per rifle.

My parents would melt if I asked them to buy me something like this.


----------



## Krevan (Jul 11, 2009)

Rofl yeah guess your right, CA is looney


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 11, 2009)

Krevan said:


> Not a fan at all of .223
> .30-06 and .44 Magnum are my two favorite calibers.



Can't say I've ever shot a .44 magnum... but .223 and thirty-aughts are nice. The Bolt-action guns are masochism with their recoil, but semi-auto .30-06 rifles are great. No more recoil than a .22 

What model do you use?

And isn't California an S.S.R. instead of a state? (j/k)


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 11, 2009)

Krevan said:


> Ive never fired a pure target shooting rifle before, would like to give it a shot but dont think it would be my thing.
> 
> I wish my school had a shooting team but California is all looney on gun related things. :/



Not as much as you might think.  Try here http://www.usashooting.com/clubState.php?id=CA


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

Is it derailing if I say I really, really want this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTPz59y5538


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 11, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> Is it derailing if I say I really, really want this one?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTPz59y5538


 Everyone does.  
Grenade rounds <3

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's bringing the thread back on topic.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm not a fan of shotguns, other than the Masterkey underslung.
THe AA-12 is meh, just as much as the USAS12 is meh to myself.

The Masterkey is <3 though.
http://www.knightarmco.com/m203_12ga.html


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Everyone does.
> Grenade rounds <3


RAPID-FIRE grenade rounds <333



> Actually, I'm pretty sure that's bringing the thread back on topic.


I'd also really like a double-barreled revolver, except DMC4 kinda ruined the concept because Nero sucked so badly...


----------



## ProxySlaughter (Jul 11, 2009)

Remington 870 Wingmaster (12g), Browning BLR (.308 ), Mossberg 702 Plinkster (.22LR), Glock M78 (Fixed Blade), Browning Eclipse Carbon Fiber (Folding Blade).

Not much but they all work for hunting, shooting, skinning, etc.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 11, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> RAPID-FIRE grenade rounds <333


 Yeah, I'm pretty sure it can't get more badass then that.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 11, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure it can't get more badass then that.



How about Rapid-fire rockets?

Or better yet, rapid fire mini-nukes?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> How about Rapid-fire rockets?
> 
> Or better yet, rapid fire mini-nukes?


Mini-nukes don't exist, and rockets really can't be rapid-fire due to the fact that they're _rockets.

_Besides that, the splash damage would probably kill anyone firing them.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 11, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> Mini-nukes don't exist, and rockets really can't be rapid-fire due to the fact that they're _rockets.
> 
> _Besides that, the splash damage would probably kill anyone firing them.



I present the Mini-Nuke
And rapid-fire rockets too.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I present the Mini-Nuke
> And rapid-fire rockets too.


 Aka the suicide nuke .

That gyrojet pistol sounded cool, too bad it apparently sucked.


----------



## Azure (Jul 11, 2009)

Satan Q. Jones said:


> Well, cutting them turns _me_ on...


Hmmm....


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I present the Mini-Nuke.



Mini Nukes are real?

I was just making a fallout 3 reference.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I present the Mini-Nuke
> And rapid-fire rockets too.


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 12, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Is it derailing if I say I really, really want this one?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTPz59y5538



Would be nice if they made a semi-auto only version, with a standard under-barrel 8-round mag... though I imagine those neat grenade rounds are military only, and would be horrendously expensive, anyway.




NewfDraggie said:


> I'm not a fan of shotguns, other than the Masterkey underslung.
> THe AA-12 is meh, just as much as the USAS12 is meh to myself.
> 
> *The Masterkey is <3 though.*
> http://www.knightarmco.com/m203_12ga.html



Not a bad choice, Newf... looks handy.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 12, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Mini Nukes are real?



_Were_ real, yes.

Thankfully, they've been withdrawn - with a damage radius equivalent to the rocket range I doubt they'd have been much more than a last-ditch weapon anyway.

But if you want a _really_ bizarre nuke idea, I present the British chicken-powered nuke.



> *Blue Peacock*â€”dubbed the "chicken-powered nuclear bomb"â€”was the codename of a British tactical nuclear weapon project in the 1950s with the goal to store a number of ten-kiloton nuclear mines in Germany, to be placed at target locations on the North German Plain in the event of war. The mines would have been detonated by wire or an eight-day timer. If they were disturbed they were set to explode within ten seconds.
> [...]
> *One technical problem was that buried objectsâ€”especially during winterâ€”can get very cold, and it was possible the mine would not have worked after some days underground, due to the electronics being too cold to operate properly. *Various methods to get around this were studied, such as wrapping the bombs in insulating blankets. One particularly remarkable proposal suggested that live chickens should be included in the mechanism. *The chickens would be sealed inside the casing, with a supply of food and water;* they would remain alive for a week or so, which was the expected maximum lifetime of the bomb in any case. *The body heat given off by the chickens would, it seems, have been sufficient to keep all the relevant components at a working temperature.*
> _(emphasis added)_



TL;DR - half of the things that people nowadays think of as being only suitable for video-game plots were actually seriously considered and/or _built _during the bad ol' days of the Cold War...


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 12, 2009)

Actually the Davy Crockett was designed for border protection; during the Cold War they feared that border attacks would occur, so their plan was to fire one of those "mini nukes" and the resulting blast would eliminate the first wave with the fallout sticking around for about 48 hours so reinforcements could arrive on the defensive side. The main downfall of the Davy Crockett was that sometimes fallout could come down on the people using it, due to the range. This could be fixed by firing it from higher altitude, such as a helicopter or a tower. There was an issue with the thing not arming, making a nice little scare tactic... or having it just land in front of you harmlessly and scare the crap out of those firing it.

It was a bad idea entirely, but it's still cool.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jul 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> _Were_ real, yes.
> 
> Thankfully, they've been withdrawn - with a damage radius equivalent to the rocket range I doubt they'd have been much more than a last-ditch weapon anyway.
> 
> But if you want a _really_ bizarre nuke idea, I present the British chicken-powered nuke.


_Wow._ And I thought bat bombs were ludicrous...

I think this gun should be looked into.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually the Davy Crockett was designed for border protection; during the Cold War they feared that border attacks would occur, so their plan was to fire one of those "mini nukes" and the resulting blast would eliminate the first wave with the fallout sticking around for about 48 hours so reinforcements could arrive on the defensive side. The main downfall of the Davy Crockett was that sometimes fallout could come down on the people using it, due to the range. This could be fixed by firing it from higher altitude, such as a helicopter or a tower. There was an issue with the thing not arming, making a nice little scare tactic... or having it just land in front of you harmlessly and scare the crap out of those firing it.
> 
> It was a bad idea entirely, but it's still cool.



Well, the next time they build a mini-nuke, they should build it like this:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/Fat man fallout 3/oNe-8-SeVeN/05-TheFatMan.jpg

with it's ammo being this:

http://media.photobucket.com/image/fat+man+fallout+3/Paedok/250px-Mini_Nuke.png?o=2


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 12, 2009)

Meanwhile... I feel a call to "Health and Safety" coming on.

*Woman shot while sitting on toilet*


> A bullet from a gun that was accidentally dropped injured a Florida woman sitting in a bathroom stall, US police say.
> 
> Police said the bullet hit 53-year-old Janifer Bliss in the lower left leg. She was taken to a hospital with minor injuries.
> 
> ...



WTF happened to safety catches? And carrying a loaded gun into a *toilet*... <shakes head> 

Only in America.


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 12, 2009)

Wow, epic fail on the owner's part. You're not supposed to leave it cocked.

Health and safety are washing your hands after handling lead bullets and keeping your firearm un-cocked in a holster and/or pointed in a safe direction at all inactive times, respectively. Nice and easy, right?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Meanwhile... I feel a call to "Health and Safety" coming on.
> 
> *Woman shot while sitting on toilet*
> 
> ...


 It's a shame that it shot the non retarded woman instead of just hitting the lady that owned it.  That would've been a fine case of natural selection if it had, possible Darwin worthy.  *shakes head*  Oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 12, 2009)

Wasn't very concealed if she dropped the flamin thing, did she not holster it properly in it's holster?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Wasn't very concealed if she dropped the flamin thing, did she not holster it properly in it's holster?


 Must have been expecting to get attacked in the stall if she had the safety off and the holster not strapped.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Must have been expecting to get attacked in the stall if she had the safety off and the holster not strapped.



Out of all places why would someone attack another person in a bathroom stall :lol:


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Out of all places why would someone attack another person in a bathroom stall :lol:


 They WOULD be vulnerable.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> They WOULD be vulnerable.



Yup, because we all know that most murders occur in the shitter.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Yup, because we all know that most murders occur in the shitter.


 Most T-Rex murders do, atleast.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Most T-Rex murders do, atleast.



Wtf? Is T-Rex some kind of gang or something?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Wtf? Is T-Rex some kind of gang or something?


 Jurassic park reference.


----------



## Wreth (Jul 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Most T-Rex murders do, atleast.



I love you


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Yup, because we all know that most murders occur in the shitter.



Catching people with their pants down, you mean?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Catching people with their pants down, you mean?



That would be an embarrassing way to "go"...


----------



## Leostale (Jul 13, 2009)

Is Air soft guns qualify on this thread, If so
I has Mp5(automatic)


----------



## Fenra (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't own any as its England and Illegal over here.... not to mention they scare the shit out of me! It's just not natural to have something that powerful and deadly in your possesion!... then again I'm pretty biast here, my past doesn't smile favorably on firearms.... nothing like having one pointed at your forehead at 16 working behind the till in a local store to scar you for life!


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Catching people with their pants down, you mean?



"Cato, get out of zee toilet!"

"Yes Inspector Clouseau!"


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 13, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> I love you


 I appreciate that.  Enjoy it while it lasts.  I"m pretty sure Satan Q. Jones is plotting your demise for replacing her in my signature.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually the Davy Crockett was designed for border protection; during the Cold War they feared that border attacks would occur, so their plan was to fire one of those "mini nukes" and the resulting blast would eliminate the first wave with the fallout sticking around for about 48 hours so reinforcements could arrive on the defensive side. The main downfall of the Davy Crockett was that sometimes fallout could come down on the people using it, due to the range. This could be fixed by firing it from higher altitude, such as a helicopter or a tower. There was an issue with the thing not arming, making a nice little scare tactic... or having it just land in front of you harmlessly and scare the crap out of those firing it.
> 
> It was a bad idea entirely, but it's still cool.



dont forget the innaccuracy, btw the pic on wiki in color is my wallpaper on my comp. still awesome even if it is impractical by todays standards. went to a surplus store and this guy who own the place is a great guy had a 75mm recoiless rifle that i confused with the Davy for $2000. also i would have never figured you for knowing this weapon.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

Fenra said:


> I don't own any as its England and Illegal over here.... not to mention they scare the shit out of me! It's just not natural to have something that powerful and deadly in your possesion!... then again I'm pretty biast here, my past doesn't smile favorably on firearms.... nothing like having one pointed at your forehead at 16 working behind the till in a local store to scar you for life!



Anyone notice the irony?  In a country where guns are banned, here we have someone who's had said "illegal object" pointed at his forehead by a criminal.  Proof that gun control only affects the law-abiding....

Fenra, yes, it's scary having a gun in your face, but a gun in YOUR hand is nothing for you to be scared of.  And just because it isn't "natural" doesn't mean it is bad.  A car is an "unnatural" object, even more powerful and deadly than a gun... do you drive a car or other vehicle, Fenra?  Do you ride the bus?  Or train?  Or fly?  All "unnatural" things.  As humans in a modern world, we surround ourselves with many powerful and deadly things.  None of them "natural"...


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Anyone notice the irony?  In a country where guns are banned, here we have someone who's had said "illegal object" pointed at his forehead by a criminal.  Proof that gun control only affects the law-abiding....



Exactly.

Thank God I am protected by the second amendment.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Thank God I am protected by the second amendment.



PRAISE GOD, JESUS AND DALE EARNHARDT.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> PRAISE GOD, JESUS AND DALE EARNHARDT.



Isn't Dale dead...?


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Isn't Dale dead...?



isnt Jesus?


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> PRAISE GOD, JESUS AND DALE EARNHARDT.



Word.

EDIT: And, yes, I believe in the spaghetti monster.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Word.
> 
> EDIT: And, yes, I believe in the spaghetti monster.



bro, pound it. *waits for fist pound*


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> bro, pound it. *waits for fist pound*



*Pounds it*

And, yes, I also have a tendency follow the New Yorker Stereotype, considering I don't live far from there.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> *Pounds it*
> 
> And, yes, I also have a tendency follow the New Yorker Stereotype, considering I don't live far from there.



seemed more like a fratboy stereotype, i though New Yorkers were more, GTFO before i shove you into traffic, or sue you depending on my borough.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i though New Yorkers were more, GTFO before i shove you into traffic, or sue you depending on my borough.



That is very true. I have witnessed it.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> That is very true. I have witnessed it.



a fine reason for the second amendment, you shove me into traffic, oh is gridlock, bang for attempted murder.


----------



## Fenra (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Anyone notice the irony? In a country where guns are banned, here we have someone who's had said "illegal object" pointed at his forehead by a criminal. Proof that gun control only affects the law-abiding....
> 
> Fenra, yes, it's scary having a gun in your face, but a gun in YOUR hand is nothing for you to be scared of. And just because it isn't "natural" doesn't mean it is bad. A car is an "unnatural" object, even more powerful and deadly than a gun... do you drive a car or other vehicle, Fenra? Do you ride the bus? Or train? Or fly? All "unnatural" things. As humans in a modern world, we surround ourselves with many powerful and deadly things. None of them "natural"...


 
Touche on the irony, lord knows where people are finding guns over here, I dont even want to know what goes on behind the viel of law and order over here to be honest... and I guess i used the word unnatural a little to lightly and I appologise for that, I guess it was the best way in my mind at the time to convey the power firearms can have, but i didnt do too good of a job there so sorry again.


----------



## Wreth (Jul 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I appreciate that.  Enjoy it while it lasts.  I"m pretty sure Satan Q. Jones is plotting your demise for replacing her in my signature.



D: I best be on my guard.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> isnt Jesus?



Not the last time I checked...


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Not the last time I checked...



what about all the crucifiction and acending into heavan, same as a high speed collision on a round track.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> what about all the crucifiction and acending into heavan, same as a high speed collision on a round track.


 Except minus the revival.  Which, in all honesty, is kind of the important part.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Except minus the revival.  Which, in all honesty, is kind of the important part.



where is he at now then, and the acention came after the revival, damn it religous topic from guns, why did i have theology as a course requirement.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

Fenra said:


> Touche on the irony, *lord knows where people are finding guns over here*, I dont even want to know what goes on behind the viel of law and order over here to be honest... and I guess i used the word unnatural a little to lightly and I appologise for that, I guess it was the best way in my mind at the time to convey the power firearms can have, but i didnt do too good of a job there so sorry again.



If a criminal wants something, they find it, whether they have to beg, borrow... or steal.  That's the definition of a criminal, someone who defies the law.  Ban guns, and only the criminals will have guns.  That's how it works.  It has nothing to do with law and order (except for the law not doing its job, of course)...

No prob on the language, Fenra.  But thanks for the apology, anyway... and yes, firearms do come with power.  And responsibility.  Power comes in many forms, and we use these forms every day.  Drive our cars (filled with explosive fuel), run our homes on electricity and flamable gasses... in essense, we play with lightning and fire, and ride around in mobile bombs... all without thinking about it.  We also vote people into positions of authority and power, with all the risks and dangers inherent in allowing such people to get too big for their britches.  Yes, power comes in many forms.  Power is abused every day, both by those who do it due to neglect or carelessness, or by those who abuse it deliberately, to their own selfish ends.  It is not the tool, it is the person who wields the power.  The tool is just an aid to that end, able to be used for good or ill, all based on the intent of the person using it.

You actually did a good job at conveying your position, even if it came on a little strong.  I can understand that, since you found yourself on the "wrong end" of a firearm.  Glad you weren't hurt... or worse.  If I may, I'd recommend learning about the subject of firearms, both the good and the bad aspects, and the history.  It may allow you to understand the power and the responsibility gun ownership imparts to the individual.  I imagine you already have a grasp of politics and the power involved there, as well, but it wouldn't hurt to do a little comparative education from that angle, as well.  Take care....




blackfuredfox said:


> what about all the crucifiction *and acending into heavan*, same as a high speed collision on a round track.



He ascended into Heaven alive...




blackfuredfox said:


> where is he at now then, and *the acention came after the revival*, damn it religous topic from guns, why did i have theology as a course requirement.



Which is why He now lives in Heaven...


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> He ascended into Heaven alive...
> Which is why He now lives in Heaven...



but heaven is a place of immortal souls in a supernatural states or differnt dimension sn thus if he is alive then Dale must be alive in some state or another, back to guns and away from religion, .357 kicks ass.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> but heaven is a place of immortal souls in a supernatural states or differnt dimension sn thus if he is alive then Dale must be alive in some state or another, back to guns and away from religion, *.357 kicks ass*.



But I keep mine loaded with .38 Special target wadcutters, anyway...


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But I keep mine loaded with .38 Special target wadcutters, anyway...



I alternate chambers, three of each to a cylinder; or randomly.  Great way to break a flinch.


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 13, 2009)

Do you shoot competitively, Irreverent? You might have mentioned it at some point but this thread is huge.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 13, 2009)

Undaunted said:


> Do you shoot competitively, Irreverent? You might have mentioned it at some point but this thread is huge.



I do.  Formerly Skeet, Trap and Sporting Clays, some PPC, SASS, a bit of 3P.  Right now, I  coach and am the director for a local rifle league.  I shoot F-TR class (fullbore)  and teach intro classes during the winter.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I alternate chambers, three of each to a cylinder; or randomly.  Great way to break a flinch.



I live in a duplex in a residential neighborhood... full mags would be excessive.  And wadcutters make a nice, neat hole... you know, for "drainage".


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I live in a duplex in a residential neighborhood... full mags would be excessive.  And wadcutters make a nice, neat hole... you know, for "drainage".



Oops.  I was in target shooter mode, wasn't thinking about tactical.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Oops.  I was in target shooter mode, wasn't thinking about tactical.



Irreverent, is it true that in Canada rifles out number Canadians 2-1?


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 13, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> Irreverent, is it true that in Canada rifles out number Canadians 2-1?



Not really. 

"Official" government records suggest that 7 million Canadians own 21 million guns (of all types), but they sort of forgot a centuries worth of Customs and Excise records.  Import and export records since 1937, and records from local manufacturers (Cooey, Lakefield, now Savage Canada, PGW, Dlask etc registered with Industry Canada)  would suggest its closer to 1-1. 

That's not to say that every Canadian owns a gun.    But some of us might be hoarding.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Not really.
> 
> "Official" government records suggest that 7 million Canadians own 21 million guns (of all types), but they sort of forgot a centuries worth of Customs and Excise records.  Import and export records since 1937, and records from local manufacturers (Cooey, Lakefield, now Savage Canada, PGW, Dlask etc registered with Industry Canada)  would suggest its closer to 1-1.
> 
> That's not to say that every Canadian owns a gun.    But some of us might be hoarding.



and another question, what is the murder rate up there?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 13, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Oops.  I was in target shooter mode, wasn't thinking about tactical.



No need for "Oops"... we're both shooters here, so I know what you meant/intended.  I just wanted to clarify my position.  Besides, I got four boxes of the stuff cheap (I think it was all they had left of it on the shelf).  Someday, I'll try the mag stuff, when I have the time and money for some ammo and range-time (shelves are still pretty empty of handgun ammo here, last I checked).  Though years ago, a guy at the range let me shoot his Blackhawk, everything from mild wadcutters to full-blown stuff.  Had no problem till I got to the full-mags... not the recoil, but the barrel/cylinder-gap blast... perhaps a bit of muzzle-blast, as well?  Felt like my face had been slapped, so I only fired that one round.  Funny thing?  All my shots cut a nice cloverleaf on the target (even that last), right at my point-of-aim!  Nice...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> dont forget the innaccuracy



With a 1.5kT yield warhead, accuracy isn't really an issue


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Anyone notice the irony?  In a country where guns are banned, here we have someone who's had said "illegal object" pointed at his forehead by a criminal.  Proof that gun control only affects the law-abiding....



On the other hand, the odds of Fenra and I getting on the receiving end of a bullet fired accidentally from a dropped handgun in a toilet are _significantly_ lower than they are for you


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Though years ago, a guy at the range let me shoot his Blackhawk, everything from mild wadcutters to full-blown stuff.



Pardon my ignorance, but what's a "wadcutter" round? It's not like a dum-dum bullet, is it?


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what's a "wadcutter" round? It's not like a dum-dum bullet, is it?



No, not a all.  A "wad cutter" is a cylindrical, blunt bullet without a pointed tip; often loaded flush with the mouth of the case.  Its designed to cleanly cut paper targets at relatively low (for caliber) speeds.   Traditionally a target shooters bullet of choice, optimized for short range practice with high accuracy requirements.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wadcuttercomp.jpg for details, the center cartridge holds a wadcutter bullet.

As Roose pointed out, it does have short range tactical applications, where over penetration is a concern.

Originally used to describe ammuniation made at the Dum-Dum arsenal in India, today "Dum-dum" is misused and miss understood vernacular (think facial-tissue/Kleenex) for any type of bullet with an open tip or cavity, designed to promote rapid expansion and deceleration within the target, maximizing energy transfer and internal wound balistics.

Ironically, hollow point rifle bullets, with long for caliber driving bands (aka a high ballistic co-efficient) and boat-tail bases are THE most accurate type for target shooting at ranges beyond 600m.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> With a 1.5kT yield warhead, accuracy isn't really an issue



acutually, it kind of is. even with a big explosion your going to have lead lined tanks and troops moving in CBRN suits, and with the Soviets lots and lots of cannon fodder. so radiation will help but not alot, so accuracy is a bit of an issue.


----------



## emoral (Jul 14, 2009)

hmm... You lot are saying all this technical stuff of 16pages of guns bullets and stuff so... yeah, i love you guys but seriously don't use guns... 

PS I hope you haven't got any real guns and if you have dispose of them immediately before you get caught with them


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

emoral said:


> hmm... You lot are saying all this technical stuff of 16pages of guns bullets and stuff so... yeah, i love you guys but seriously don't use guns...
> 
> PS I hope you haven't got any real guns and if you have dispose of them immediately before you get caught with them



by chance is your favorite history era the 1965-1969 years and your favorite band the beetles?


----------



## Thatch (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> and with the Soviets lots and lots of cannon fodder



Screw soviets, think of the chinese.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> by chance is your favorite history era the 1965-1969 years and your favorite band the beetles?


 
He is British. They havent had actual rights since Cromwell took over.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> He is British. They havent had actual rights since Cromwell took over.


ah


szopaw said:


> Screw soviets, think of the chinese.



oh dear god, but wait wouldnt we see mass troop movements from their land, toward the Iron Curtian in Europe.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 14, 2009)

emoral said:


> hmm... You lot are saying all this technical stuff of 16pages of guns bullets and stuff so... yeah, i love you guys but seriously don't use guns...
> 
> PS I hope you haven't got any real guns and if you have dispose of them immediately before you get caught with them


 You're funny.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're funny.



i do beleive he has never met Irreverent or heard of the 2nd Amendment, wait he a brit he thinks everyones a brit then.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 14, 2009)

I wonder why the pinkos keep a low profile in comparing the murder rates between the States and nations were it is much higher despite harsher gun laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i do beleive he has never met Irreverent or heard of the 2nd Amendment, wait he a brit he thinks everyones a brit then.


You don't even have to meet Irreverent, you just have to come within like 3 threads of him and you can sense the impending doom that lingers around him. You know, because of how evil guns are.. and stuff. With him packing enough weaponry to take downa few third world countries, he's GOTTA be an evil crime lord or something.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You don't even have to meet Irreverent, you just have to come within like 3 threads of him and you can sense the impending doom that lingers around him. You know, because of how evil guns are.. and stuff. With him packing enough weaponry to take downa few third world countries, he's GOTTA be an evil crime lord or something.



i wonder if i can become an evil minion for him, i have a reference from a religon as Top Minion and Minion of the month.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 14, 2009)

emoral said:


> but seriously don't use guns...



But how would I win metals? 



> PS I hope you haven't got any real guns



The hell?  What part of 



> _I do. Formerly Skeet, Trap and Sporting Clays, some PPC, SASS, a bit of 3P. Right now, I coach and am the director for a local rifle league. I shoot F-TR class (fullbore) and teach intro classes during the winter._



did you miss?



> you have dispose of them immediately before you get caught with them



The only people that want my guns, are Liberals, Democrats, Socialists and....my competitors. :twisted:



Jashwa said:


> You don't even have to meet Irreverent, you just have to come within like 3 threads of him and you can sense the impending doom that lingers around him. You know, because of how evil guns are.. and stuff. With him packing enough weaponry to take down a *few* third world countries, he's GOTTA be an evil crime lord or something.



*Oh please....give me a break. * I could only take down one, (well...maybe two) third world countries at the most! :razz:




blackfuredfox said:


> i wonder if i can become an evil minion for him, i have a reference from a religon as Top Minion and Minion of the month.



Shino has already applied.    But if you bring me a shrubbery......


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> *Oh please....give me a break. * I could only take down one, (well...maybe two) third world countries at the most! :razz:
> Shino has already applied.    But if you bring me a shrubbery......



well thats what we minions are for, and would you like a fence around the shrubery?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> well thats what we minions are for, and would you like a fence around the shrubery?


 Reference fail.


Hey Irre, it.  That is all.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> I wonder why the pinkos keep a low profile in comparing the murder rates between the States and nations were it is much higher despite harsher gun laws:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate



Because we're trying to keep this thread talking about guns instead of flogging the dead horse of gun control yet again.

But since you insist:

"Most recent figures"
* USA - *5.8* homicides per 100,000 populations
* UK - 2.03 homicides per 100,000 populations
* New Zealand - 2.0 homicides per 100,000 populations
* Canada - 1.85 homicides per 100,000 populations
* Australia - 1.45 homicides per 100,000 populations

If you're implying that "pinkos" aren't posting homocide rates because it shows the liberal gun laws in the USA prevent homocides, I'd say you've just proven the _opposite_ with the US having DOUBLE the rate of the UK. (Don't you even READ your references?)

Now, back to debating the merits of wadcutter bullets and the effectiveness of shoulder-launched 1.5kT nuclear rounds...


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> the effectiveness of shoulder-launched 1.5kT nuclear rounds...


 Have we mentioned the scared shitless factor yet?  I mean, anyone crazy enough to fire that bad boy has to bea  psycho,a nd that's intimidating by itself.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Because we're trying to keep this thread talking about guns instead of flogging the dead horse of gun control yet again.
> 
> But since you insist:
> 
> ...



SHUT UP YOU LYING ASS, its launched from a tripod fool, you know heavy a recoiless rifle is, hell the war head is 71 pounds.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> He is British. They havent had actual rights since Cromwell took over.



What a typical self-centred Yank attitude. You fail.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> What a typical self-centred Yank attitude. You fail.



i belive you have that wrong, he was seeing it as though everyone followed british law.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> ts launched from a tripod fool, you know heavy a recoiless rifle is, hell the war head is 71 pounds.



I bet Rambo or Arnie could fire one of those off with one _hand _ though 

Ah, you gotta love action movies - especially the Never-Emptying Ammo Magazine(tm)...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i belive you have that wrong, he was seeing it as though everyone followed british law.



No, it's the "no-one outside the US has rights 'cause they don't have guns" attitude that pisses me off.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> No, it's the "no-one outside the US has rights 'cause they don't have guns" attitude that pisses me off.



i belive Irreverent has guns, and isnt in the U.S. and i dont follow that attitude.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Because we're trying to keep this thread talking about guns instead of flogging the dead horse of gun control yet again.
> 
> But since you insist:
> 
> ...


 
Actually, on that chart, they officially have all the parts of the UK separated.
And thus:
Recent Stats are: 

United States- 5.8
Scotland (UK)- 2.56
Northern Ireland (UK)- 2.48
The United Kingdom (officially)- 2.03
England and Wales- 1.03

Now, if we had separate catagories for Michigan(Detroit), California(Los Angeles and Oakland), Provinces(Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam), and Everyone else, the rates would be far lower. 

If you would note that Puerto Rico is at the top of the list, and is included as a part of the United States (with a rate of 18.8 ), then there is obviously something wrong with the numbers.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I bet Rambo or Arnie could fire one of those off with one _hand _though
> 
> Ah, you gotta love action movies - especially the Never-Emptying Ammo Magazine(tm)...


To be fair, Arnold probably COULD fire one of those with one hand. 

And Rambo WAS wearing a bandana, which if anyone has ever played MGS, then you know that it gives you infinite ammo.



jesusfish2007 said:


> Actually, on that chart, they officially have all the parts of the UK separated.
> And thus:
> Recent Stats are:
> 
> ...


The rates would not be far lower.  I guarantee the worst parts of the country have higher homicide/100,000 people rates than the country as a whole.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> No, it's the "no-one outside the US has rights 'cause they don't have guns" attitude that pisses me off.


 
Finland has rights. And we have only been using arguments that England is turning into Airstrip One. ONLY ENGLAND. Note that I did not write THE REST OF THE WORLD. Unless, in your mind, England=The Rest of the World. In which case, enjoy that fantasy.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Because we're trying to keep this thread talking about guns instead of flogging the dead horse of gun control yet again.
> 
> But since you insist:
> 
> ...



* South Africa *38.6*

Proof posative, suck my balls!


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> i belive Irreverent has guns, and isnt in the U.S. and i dont follow that attitude.



Yes, I have guns.  Yes, I AM CANADIAN.  No, I don't have rights. 

Specifically, the right to own guns or the right to own property; neither of which are enshrined in the so-called Canadian "Constitution" (British North America Act of 1867, or in Tredeau's flawed Charter of Rights).  Despite what it says on my passport, I am still a subject of the Queen, not a citizen.

Ironic, eh?

(and I thought we were gonna make 500 posts too  )


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 14, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Yes, I have guns.  Yes, I AM CANADIAN.  No, I don't have rights.
> 
> Specifically, the right to own guns or the right to own property; neither of which are enshrined in the so-called Canadian "Constitution" (British North America Act of 1867, or in Tredeau's flawed Charter of Rights).  Despite what it says on my passport, I am still a subject of the Queen, not a citizen.
> 
> ...



then what other countries besides the U.S. have rights.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 14, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> then what other countries besides the U.S. have rights.



Hard to say, because many countries don't specifically enumerate their rights, or have specific protections (amendments) like the US does.  Also, many countries use the broader "right to own property" and "right to self defense" as defacto gun rights.   Anything not forbidden is permitted.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> * South Africa *38.6*
> 
> Proof posative, suck my balls!



Proves what, exactly?

* Singapore - 0.48
* Japan - 0.69
* Greece - 0.76
* Ireland - 0.91


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 14, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Actually, on that chart, they officially have all the parts of the UK separated.
> And thus:
> Recent Stats are:
> 
> ...



However, your argument doesn't add up with comparing the US to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, because the comparison there IS between nations. Canada is STILL well under half the rate of the US.

Besides, do you REALLY believe that one or two states in the US have sufficient Columbia-like rates of homocides to skew the count for the rest?


----------



## Britmike (Jul 15, 2009)

Barretta 302 single barrel semi-automatic shotgun. Fucking beautiful.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> However, your argument doesn't add up with comparing the US to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, because the comparison there IS between nations. Canada is STILL well under half the rate of the US.
> 
> Besides, do you REALLY believe that one or two states in the US have sufficient Columbia-like rates of homocides to skew the count for the rest?


 
You have probably never heard of Detroit, Oakland, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, or St. Louis...


Countries that have few gun laws, and their murder rates:

Norway-0.78
Finland-2.17


Moderate Gun Control:
Switzerland-2.94
Czech Republic-2.22
United States-5.8
Canada-1.85
Now... Lets look at some countries with heavy gun control:

China- 2.36
Mexico- 10
South Africa-38.6
Iraq-89
Russia-18.0
Belarus-8.31

Hmmm....
Im getting some strange vibes, right now...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 15, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> You have probably never heard of Detroit, Oakland, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, or St. Louis...


 
So a handful of US cities are practically in an Iraq-like violent state, and that's what makes the US look bad. Riiiiiiight.



jesusfish2007 said:


> Countries that have few gun laws, and their murder rates:
> Norway-0.78
> Finland-2.17
> 
> ...



Define what you consider "moderate gun control" and "heavy gun control" first, please. So far, it looks like you're cherrypicking countries like Iraq so the US can look good. 

And quoting Iraqi murder rates in support of loose gun control? You DO realise Iraq is still dealing with the aftermath of the US invasion and subsequent insurgency, right? And how do you come to the conclusion that Iraq has "heavy" gun control? (Funny how US-style gun laws are one thing the US never bothered imposing on Iraq during the occupation...)


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Proves what, exactly?
> 
> * Singapore - 0.48
> * Japan - 0.69
> ...



The fact that there's exceptions proves that it's not just down to the legality of an inaminate piece of metal that's the issue, it's to do with the cultural attitudes of that society. 

A good example of that is that Britain has awful gun laws. We had the right to bare-arms taken off of us because of a few abused it, with odd exceptions almost every firearm is under a blanket ban, and the goverment wonder why since then all that's happened is knife-crime and bare handed assult has skyrocketed. Compare to say Switzerland where everyone, by law, has to own assult riffles and it's quite acceptible to carry it around in public, is a very stable nation.

Not inaminate objects, it's the citizens that create the problems. Gun don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 15, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Gun don't kill people, people kill people.



People kill people... with guns. (And knives, and poison, and...)

The point is that weapons in general, especially guns, make it a damn sight _easier _for people to kill people. How many people have been killed by someone else's bare hands, as opposed to being killed with a weapon?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

> Gun don't kill people, people kill people.


This argument makes as much sense as "Glasses don't see, eyes see."
For people that don't understand the metaphor, glasses don't see but they sure do help a lot for people that can't see.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> People kill people... with guns. (And knives, and poison, and...)
> 
> *The point is that weapons in general, especially guns, make it a damn sight easier for people to kill people.* How many people have been killed by someone else's bare hands, as opposed to being killed with a weapon?



But you aren't getting the point here, Mayfurr... it doesn't matter how easy it is, if a person is not prone to violence, they will not kill, even if you shove a loaded gun into their hands.  So, people do kill people... and people who don't kill people won't kill even if they have a gun.  Do you understand the concept now...?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

But you're not getting it Roose, a person wanting to kill but unable to will be able to with a gun in their hands.


----------



## sephiroya (Jul 15, 2009)

lemme see,i have a Barret Arms 50.caliber rifle,but i dont use it,it costs to much.i also have a 50.AE desert eagle and a 490. rifle.490. is a new type of ammo,it replaced 50.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> But you aren't getting the point here, Mayfurr... it doesn't matter how easy it is, if a person is not prone to violence, they will not kill, even if you shove a loaded gun into their hands.  So, people do kill people... and people who don't kill people won't kill even if they have a gun.



Yes, but people who who ARE motivated to kill people will kill a lot MORE people with a machine gun in a given time than with (say) a knife. And sadly, it is impossible to perfectly predict who is and isn't motivated to kill people until it actually occurs - how many times have we heard when a shooting takes place that the shooter "was a really quiet person"? 

Do _you_ understand the concept of "risk mitigation" - minimising the impact of when something that might happen actually does happen?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Yes, but people who who ARE motivated to kill people will kill a lot MORE people with a machine gun in a given time than with (say) a knife. And sadly, it is impossible to perfectly predict who is and isn't motivated to kill people until it actually occurs - how many times have we heard when a shooting takes place that the shooter "was a really quiet person"?
> 
> Do _you_ understand the concept of "risk mitigation" - minimising the impact of when something that might happen actually does happen?



The law can only address the issues of violence after the fact... and the best way to deal with it after the fact is to keep the violent offender behind bars.  It is not the law's business to predict, nor does it have the authority or right to pre-judge people by means of "risk mitigation".  Deal with it *when* it happens, not before.  Risk is always part of a free society, and we either have to accept that risk... respect the rights of the individual... or we'll end up turning this entire nation into a prison, where every "citizen" is under Government control.  Do you understand this concept of "accepted risk", Mayfurr...?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

sephiroya said:


> lemme see,i have a Barret Arms 50.caliber rifle,but i dont use it,it costs to much.i also have a 50.AE desert eagle and a 490. rifle.490. is a new type of ammo,it replaced 50.


Uh-huh...


			
				His FA page said:
			
		

> Age: 14


Oh, imaginary weapons don't count.
Also it's a Barrett Mxxx (M82a1a, M107, M95, etc) 50 caliber rifle, and 50AE (Action Express) is just the round, It's simply a 50 Caliber Desert Eagle. Also what's a 490?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The law can only address the issues of violence after the fact... and the best way to deal with it after the fact is to keep the violent offender behind bars.  It is not the law's business to predict, nor does it have the authority or right to pre-judge people by means of "risk mitigation".  Deal with it *when* it happens, not before.  Risk is always part of a free society, and we either have to accept that risk... respect the rights of the individual... or we'll end up turning this entire nation into a prison, where every "citizen" is under Government control.  Do you understand this concept of "accepted risk", Mayfurr...?


I see, well sorry to burst your bubble but many countries that are prisons under your definition are much better (in many, many ways besides just lower violent crimes) than the "free" USA. I'd be more worried about other freedoms first before firearms if I were you.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Also what's a 490?



Ruger and S&W were mucking around with .460 caliber revolvers.  Maybe that's what Sephiroya was talking about?


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 15, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I do.  Formerly Skeet, Trap and Sporting Clays, some PPC, SASS, a bit of 3P.  Right now, I  coach and am the director for a local rifle league.  I shoot F-TR class (fullbore)  and teach intro classes during the winter.



Very nice. I do about the same myself, although my shotgun technique is going to take a while to fix up to a decent point. It's good to see so many people on here are interested in the sport.

Now, being that the thread derailed again into "guns is bad," I will post my position. I hope this is a helpful contribution, as it is in a friendly spirit of discussion.

*A Little Gun History Lesson *[SIZE=+1]
  3-7-8[/SIZE]           *  In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.     From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,     were rounded up and exterminated.  This doesn't include the 30 million     'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine.     *  In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From     1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were     rounded up and exterminated.     *  Germany established gun control in 1938 and from     1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo     and SS.  Hundreds of thousands died as a result.   * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to     1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were     rounded up and exterminated.  *  Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From     1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were     rounded up and exterminated.  * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to     1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up     and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million     * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975     to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were     rounded up and exterminated.  *  Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated     in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.  * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender     640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program     costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year     results:  Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2     percent  Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent  Australia-wide, armed robberies went up     44 percent (yes, 44 percent)In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are     now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned     them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their     guns.  It will never happen in your country? I bet the Aussies said that too.  While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady     DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward     in the first  year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are     guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.  There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins     and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain     how public safety  has decreased, after such monumental effort and     expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.     The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.  You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear     politicians disseminating this information.  Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property     and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.  Take note, before it's too late.     The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,     please remind him of this history lesson.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> A person wanting to kill but unable to will be able to with a gun in their hands.



That is true, but remember, the same concept applies to knives, swords, crowbars, saws, hammers, and even cars.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The law can only address the issues of violence after the fact... and the best way to deal with it after the fact is to keep the violent offender behind bars. It is not the law's business to predict, nor does it have the authority or right to pre-judge people by means of "risk mitigation".  Deal with it *when* it happens, not before.



The problem with this is that it's a case of "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" - this does NOTHING towards preventing lives being taken in the first place.



Roose Hurro said:


> Do you understand this concept of "accepted risk", Mayfurr...?



"Risk mitigation" and "accepted risk" are all part of "Risk Management" - something which I am involved with on a regular basis in my _job_. So yes Roose, I _do _understand it thankyouverymuch. Risk management is about mitigating the likelihood and impact of  unacceptable risk to the point where that risk _becomes _acceptable.

I actually don't have a problem with people owning hunting rifles, shotguns etc for hunting or target shooting, or pistols for use at a shooting range. What I *do *have a problem with is military-style weapons being held by people outside of the military, and people - including the police - routinely carrying weapons in public in US-style open carry / concealed carry. To me, the risk of those weapons being used inappropriately in public (due to firepower / ease of use) outweighs any benefits in personal protection that they may give, and I'm quite comfortable with NZ gun laws that heavily restrict their use. And even the local gun-lobby appears to hold this position - the NZ equivalent of the NRA has NEVER (to my knowledge) advocated US-style carry laws.

(Funnily enough, the Wikipedia article on NZ gun politics claims that _"New Zealand's gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific"_ - so are NZ gun laws liberal or restrictive? You tell me!)

The difference between our positions appears to be that while I believe it's acceptable to put at least _some _kind of a basic safety fence at the top of a cliff to reduce the number of people falling / jumping off the edge, you appear to believe that a safety fence is an unacceptable restriction over your right to walk wherever you want, and that it's far better from an _ideological _perspective to have an ambulance (or hearse) at the bottom of the cliff to deal with the mess afterwards. Of course, the ambulance at the bottom is far more expensive to run than the cost of putting a simple fence at the top, but while there still will be idiots who climb over the fence, _less people overall will die or be injured from falling over the edge with the fence_. And that's a *good *thing - isn't it?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> So a handful of US cities are practically in an Iraq-like violent state, and that's what makes the US look bad. Riiiiiiight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Guns are completely illegal in Iraq. Thus, the common man is denied legal ownership of weapons, and only the Crazies will take initiative to get ahold of one...


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Undaunted said:


> Very nice. I do about the same myself, although my shotgun technique is going to take a while to fix up to a decent point. It's good to see so many people on here are interested in the sport.
> 
> Now, being that the thread derailed again into "guns is bad," I will post my position. I hope this is a helpful contribution, as it is in a friendly spirit of discussion.
> 
> ...



Actually you're wrong, you're missing plenty of statistics here.
For example, in 1996 in AU (Australia) the firearm ban was initiated, and like taking candy away from a baby it will kick and scream so for the next two years firearm violence spiked a FEW percent, the thing is they changed the system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This spike could simply be normal, seeing as it wasn't that much. Also, after those few years the crime-rate plummeted to the lowest it has -ever- been and has been continuing to lower every single year.
Here's a source, unlike what you had for anything you posted. A AU government statistics website.
http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx
Note the spike at around 1996 and look at how low it has been since.

Also all the size changes, colour, and so far I picked out one gigantic flaw...I'm wondering how legit the other stuff is without sources.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> That is true, but remember, the same concept applies to knives, swords, crowbars, saws, hammers, and even cars.


Yeah, no. I meant unable to kill with any of those, a SINGLE six shooter is a thousand times more deadly than any of those used as a weapon.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 15, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> (and I thought we were gonna make 500 posts too  )


 Care to rethink that?


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> What I *do *have a problem with is military-style weapons being held by people outside of the military, and people - including the police - routinely carrying weapons in public in US-style open carry / concealed carry. To me, the risk of those weapons being used inappropriately in public (due to firepower / ease of use) outweighs any benefits



The problem Mayfurr, is that the neophyte thinks target/hunting guns and so called "military style" guns are different.  They are not.  With the exception of full auto (banned in most places or restricted, even in the US - requires a BAFT license and tax for class III).

The difference between an AR15 and a Remington 7600 is purely cosmetic. They both have the same action, barrel length, use the same cartridge, similar capacity magazines and (out of the box) are a capable of the same accuracy.  One has black plastic stocks and a black barrel, the other has fine walnut stocks and a blued barrel.  That's the only difference.  With pistols, the differences are even fewer. A gun is a gun is a gun, n'est pas?

When the Canadian government tried to ban my target guns, they deemed them to be "sniper weapons"....its was only the $14Billion dollar cost of the program that stopped them....we may not be so lucky next time.



Jashwa said:


> Care to rethink that?



Yeah.  I wouldn't bet against ya.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, no. I meant unable to kill with any of those, a SINGLE six shooter is a thousand times more deadly than any of those used as a weapon.



That is true, but someone who can't kill can kill with what I mentioned in my last post.

So if you can kill people with tools, (Such as hammers, chainsaws, crowbars, etc.) then according to your logic, they should be banned also, right?

I mean, a gun is a tool used mainly for hunting, war, and self defense, so since a gun is a tool that you can kill someone with, all other tools should be banned, right?


----------



## Undaunted (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Actually you're wrong, you're missing plenty of statistics here.
> For example, in 1996 in AU (Australia) the firearm ban was initiated, and like taking candy away from a baby it will kick and scream so for the next two years firearm violence spiked a FEW percent, the thing is they changed the system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This spike could simply be normal, seeing as it wasn't that much. Also, after those few years the crime-rate plummeted to the lowest it has -ever- been and has been continuing to lower every single year.
> Here's a source, unlike what you had for anything you posted. A AU government statistics website.
> http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx
> ...



I changed the size so I wouldn't make a colossal post, and the color since no one will read that whole thing: http://www.rense.com/general81/ligun.htm , and I wanted to highlight the issue in AU. I could have actually left that portion out and had the same argument successfully.
 This is posted as my logic and opinion exclusively, mainly because I have a problem keeping my mouth shut when I feel strongly about an issue. >. < 

Whatever the case, I'm here to talk about the sport. Politics will make no one friends...


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 15, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> That is true, but someone who can't kill can kill with what I mentioned in my last post.
> 
> So if you can kill people with tools, (Such as hammers, chainsaws, crowbars, etc.) then according to your logic, they should be banned also, right?
> 
> I mean, a gun is a tool used mainly for hunting, war, and self defense, so since a gun is a tool that you can kill someone with, all other tools should be banned, right?


 No.  Guns have specific rules because of the sheer destructive and life threatening power that they have.  It oversimplifies the decision to kill someone.  It's a lot easier to make a mistake and pull the trigger and shoot someone, than it is to bludgeon someone with a hammer.  I don't mean mistake as in "I accidently shot", I mean mistake as in mental mistake in the choice to do it.   

For example, say that you come home and your wife is cheating on you.  You walk in on them cheating, you have a gun right there within reach.  It's much easier to take that gun and pull the trigger in a fit of rage than it would be to go somewhere else, get a weapon, and brutally attack the other man.  Plus, the lowered lethality of the other weapons causes someone to think more about what they're doing.  It requires them to put more effort and time into killing the person instead of a simple fraction of a second thought to pull a trigger.  Plus, you can decide against killing someone in the middle of trying to bludgeon them or stabbing them, as long as you don't get them in a lethal spot.  You can't stop a bullet once it's been fired.   

Guns give the normally spineless people the ability to act on their homicidal thoughts without a great deal of difficulty.  Anybody can shoot someone, there's little room for error as long as you don't have the aim of a villian in a James Bond film.  If you go to stab or beat someone, there's so much more of a risk of you being overpowered or something going wrong and having the tables turned on you.  That's another major deterrent.  

That's just my two cents on this issue.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 15, 2009)

Damn it guys, you still got this thread going?, you guys must really, really love ya guns. Closest i have come to holding a real gun is a blank firerer.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Undaunted said:


> I changed the size so I wouldn't make a colossal post, and the color since no one will read that whole thing: http://www.rense.com/general81/ligun.htm , and I wanted to highlight the issue in AU. I could have actually left that portion out and had the same argument successfully.
> This is posted as my logic and opinion exclusively, mainly because I have a problem keeping my mouth shut when I feel strongly about an issue. >. <
> 
> Whatever the case, I'm here to talk about the sport. Politics will make no one friends...



That source isn't very valid, it's just a copy-paste of what you wrote (well, you copy+pasted from it, same difference really) and there's no sources on that page at all. It's just a website anybody can make and post anything they want, I already proved one thing wrong (without -any- doubt) with a government statistical database. Granted we can't assume it's all wrong, but what is right and wrong isn't very clear on that link, at all. I'd find another.
Also, this last sentence on that site: 


> If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends.


and


> The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
> 
> With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
> Without Them........We Are "Subjects".


is laughable, this is clearly done by somebody that's misinformed or intentionally stretching/misinforming to get his own way; a manipulator that tricks people too lazy to look into things further, such as yourself. This website is laughably biased and crazy-conspiracy-theory certified of the highest degree.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> That is true, but someone who can't kill can kill with what I mentioned in my last post.
> 
> So if you can kill people with tools, (Such as hammers, chainsaws, crowbars, etc.) then according to your logic, they should be banned also, right?
> 
> I mean, a gun is a tool used mainly for hunting, war, and self defense, so since a gun is a tool that you can kill someone with, all other tools should be banned, right?



yeah ok, so tools that have -massive- benefit compared to tools that don't, argument isn't working from my point of view. I don't even have to explain further why that doesn't work, it's pretty much common sense at this point. A firearm is a thousand times more deadly and imposes power in the hands of the weak a thousand-fold more than any other weapon (without going into things like nukes).


Jashwa said:


> No.  Guns have specific rules because of the sheer destructive and life threatening power that they have.  It oversimplifies the decision to kill someone.  It's a lot easier to make a mistake and pull the trigger and shoot someone, than it is to bludgeon someone with a hammer.  I don't mean mistake as in "I accidently shot", I mean mistake as in mental mistake in the choice to do it.
> 
> For example, say that you come home and your wife is cheating on you.  You walk in on them cheating, you have a gun right there within reach.  It's much easier to take that gun and pull the trigger in a fit of rage than it would be to go somewhere else, get a weapon, and brutally attack the other man.  Plus, the lowered lethality of the other weapons causes someone to think more about what they're doing.  It requires them to put more effort and time into killing the person instead of a simple fraction of a second thought to pull a trigger.  Plus, you can decide against killing someone in the middle of trying to bludgeon them or stabbing them, as long as you don't get them in a lethal spot.  You can't stop a bullet once it's been fired.
> 
> ...


Also this too.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I don't even have to explain further why that doesn't work, it's pretty much common sense at this point.



I am sorry for sounding so idiotic, I was just talking from your point of logic.

I just find the fact of banning guns absurd, all it does is just leave the protected, unprotected, and the criminals still armed because they still find ways to obtain these guns.

I mean, sure, these laws lower the rate of murders and homicides, but they still happen, and when they happen, the victims are armless.

Then again, there are less brutal ways to cope against robbers, thieves, criminals, and everything else. Like taesers, Bear mace, Pepper Spray, etc.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Oh banning guns is absurd, but it works.
They're fun, but they do more negative than positive.
To put it simply a compromise is removing the ammo, or making it harder to get off-range. But they (you know who they are) want all of it or they will pull the "we're prisoners" card out of their asshole.



> I mean, sure, these laws lower the rate of murders and homicides, but they still happen, and when they happen, the victims are armless.


Ok, but most "victims" of firearm related crimes are victims because they tried to be a hero, if they sit there and shut up instead of drawing a weapon on somebody armed then it would be reduced, citizens carrying a firearm think they're gods.
Also, somebody still dies, so what if it's the assailant? One persons death doesn't justify another.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 15, 2009)

I like guns. My family also needs them because of the neighborhood we live in. (Because unlike Canada, crime happens in America at a much higher rate).
Plus target shooting is fun, and it is a cultural thing for Americans to love firearms. At least the Midwest, and Southwest do.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Oh banning guns is absurd, but it works.
> They're fun, but they do more negative than positive.



Sounds reasonable.



NewfDraggie said:


> To put it simply a compromise is removing the ammo, or making it harder to get off-range.



I agree with this.



NewfDraggie said:


> Ok, but most "victims" of firearm related crimes are victims because they tried to be a hero, if they sit there and shut up instead of drawing a weapon on somebody armed then it would be reduced, citizens carrying a firearm think they're gods.



Really good point, if a robbery was going on in a store and I was in the middle of it, I would sit down and shut the hell up as well, even if I had a concealed weapon with me.

But if I was being mugged or something and I had a concealed weapon in my pocket, then that will be a different story.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

If your robber is half as smart as you are he has a seriously large advantage, no matter what weapon you have concealed his is already out. Now if he doesn't have a deadly weapon or is fumbling moron you could run away just as easily, if not it's just money and killing somebody to protect your "shit" (for a lack of a nicer term) isn't really worth fighting for...but I see where you're coming from, there are cases where it does work and nobody is harmed because they back down.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> If your robber is half as smart as you are he has a seriously large advantage, no matter what weapon you have concealed his is already out.



Really good point.



NewfDraggie said:


> Now if he doesn't have a deadly weapon or is fumbling moron you could run away just as easily.



Exactly.



NewfDraggie said:


> if not it's just money and killing somebody to protect your "shit" (for a lack of a nicer term) isn't really worth fighting for...



Well, what else would you expect, I live in America, it is always about money here :lol:



NewfDraggie said:


> but I see where you're coming from, there are cases where it does work and nobody is harmed because they back down.



Exactly, but it is a 35-40 percent chance that will happen, considering that some people rob in gangs and groups, especially here in America.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 15, 2009)

That assumes that the criminal was able to get into a position where he could fire on you before you were aware of his presence. In that case the availability of a gun is irrelevant, he has you. But, in cases where you know of an intruder before he can get the drop on you, which I can only image make up a large percentage of them, then it definitely is better to have a gun than not to have one. 

If the criminal is simply there for the loot, then when he knows you have a weapon, he is going to leave. No one in their right mind is going to stay in a house and risk their life to rob a few thousand dollars worth of shit. If he is there for a more malicious reason, and so won't leave, then you are unquestionably better off with a gun. 

Additionally, I have no moral qualms with killing a man robbing me. The same is true for many people. The right to protect your property, which is your livelihood, has been a sacred social rule for as long as civilization. I see no reason to strip someone of the ability to enforce this for what essentially amounts to an irrational fear of a tool. And I stress the irrationality of it due to the _lack of correlation_ between gun control and gun crime, at least in the US*. If a law is not efficacious, then there is no reason to pass it, period. And especially not if it involves taking away someone's "rights" because it upsets some people. I simply find the irrational fear associated with guns and the subsequent legal backlash irritating beyond belief, and not just because it effects me.

*I say "for the US" because it is essentially pointless to compare gun control laws from different countries. Utterly, completely, pointless. There are far too many variables involved to make an accurate comparison. Ranging from culture, political climate, geography, etc. Just because a particular law worked in Australia, which is an island, does not mean it would work for America which is flanked by two borders. Or that the cultures of the two countries would react the same. Gun control _works_ for some countries and it _doesn't_ for others. This should not be a surprise. My point is that the US is one of those "doesn't" countries.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Exactly, but it is a 35-40 percent chance that will happen, considering that some people rob in gangs and groups, especially here in America.


That's not just in the US, in Halifax there's "swarms", groups of people with generic weapons (wood pieces, metal pieces, chains, glass, fists, etc) that swarm single targets, usually near killing them, sometimes killing them. But it's not like a firearm will stop it.


CommodoreKitty said:


> That assumes that the criminal was able to get into a position where he could fire on you before you were aware of his presence. In that case the availability of a gun is irrelevant, he has you. But, in cases where you know of an intruder before he can get the drop on you, which I can only image make up a large percentage of them, then it definitely is better to have a gun than not to have one.


Well I would think the percentage is in the other favor for firearm murders, not all firearms related deaths, robberies, or accidents; just the murders.


> If the criminal is simply there for the loot, then when he knows you have a weapon, he is going to leave. No one in their right mind is going to stay in a house and risk their life to rob a few thousand dollars worth of shit. If he is there for a more malicious reason, and so won't leave, then you are unquestionably better off with a gun.


If he's there with the intent on killing you he's going to kill you, if he has no intent then he still can and struggling isn't helping.


> Additionally, I have no moral qualms with killing a man robbing me


That's your problem, you're no better than the robber at that point. Which is why here that gets life in prison, thank god.


> The right to protect your property, which is your livelihood


Human life, no matter who is always better than your "shit", stop caring about your "shit" more than your fellow species and perhaps your country will be half-decent.


> I say "for the US" because it is essentially pointless to compare gun control laws from different countries. Utterly, completely, pointless


Why? because it always shows the opposite of what people like you say is true, and evidence about being wrong must be false or non-comparable....


> There are far too many variables involved to make an accurate comparison.


No, not really. The only variable is educational level, so unless you're saying the USA is full or retards (which means they should probably have the guns removed entirely in that case) then I refer back to my "I'd rather not be proven wrong so your proof can't be used as proof."


> Just because a particular law worked in Australia, which is an island, does not mean it would work for America which is flanked by two borders. Or that the cultures of the two countries would react the same. Gun control _works_ for some countries and it _doesn't_ for others. This should not be a surprise. My point is that the US is one of those "doesn't" countries.


Hehe...well actually I'll bring your attention to something from within the USA then, also there's comparisons of the UK banning firearms and firearm related deaths dropping significantly, but continuing on:
The 1976 handgun ban prevented 47 deaths each year. 
(Source)

Inb4 "Fuuuuuuuuuuu"


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 15, 2009)

Gun statistics are by their very nature deceptive. As I outlined in in my other post you simply cannot include all the variable. I made an intuitive assumption; I would think that most break ins are load, and would wake up or otherwise alert any occupants, allowing them to get their weapons, thereby eliminating the "edge" the criminal has. If the opposite is true, and most are quite or the occupants are not alerted, then having or gun is irrelevant, if the criminal has his sights on you, you won't be able to get the weapon anyway. For that reason I think you can eliminate that as a variable, because the gun doesn't even factor in. It does in the other however, and I very strongly believe that it can be nothing but a boon in a home roberry situation.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 15, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's not just in the US, in Halifax there's "swarms", groups of people with generic weapons (wood pieces, metal pieces, chains, glass, fists, etc) that swarm single targets, usually near killing them, sometimes killing them.



That's terrible.



NewfDraggie said:


> But it's not like a firearm will stop it.



May I suggest grenades :3



NewfDraggie said:


> Well I would *think* the percentage is in the other favor for firearm murders, not all firearms related deaths, robberies, or accidents; just the murders.



Bring me proof of this. If you can, bring me firearm homicide/murder reports from 4 different countries, each country with a different type of government.

If all four are in favor of firearm murders, then I will believe you.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

Well ok, that's two: AU and Washington (does Washington firearm ban of 1976 count? refer to my previous post if you missed it, I edited it in before you posted)
This shows that England and Wales crime rates dropped from firearms bans, that's four.

I also have some information on a study done with two Brazilian cities having a firearm ban for a short period of time, which it was closely monitored and firearm related crime dropped.
(Source)


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 15, 2009)

EDIT: wait a minute....


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 15, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> EDIT: wait a minute....



Yeah my bad, I'm done editing.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 16, 2009)

We should start threads for gun laws in each country, so that British people and the Peoples from the land of Milk Bags and Molson are excluded from what moral qualms we dont have about owning guns for self-defense, and other purposes. 

Also, Newf... if you had a gun, and had the ability to shoot someone robbing you, and they also have a gun, what would you do?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 16, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> We should start threads for gun laws in each country, so that British people and the Peoples from the land of Milk Bags and Molson are excluded from what moral qualms we dont have about owning guns for self-defense, and other purposes.
> 
> Also, Newf... if you had a gun, and had the ability to shoot someone robbing you, and they also have a gun, what would you do?


Let him rob me if he had a firearm or point it at him and tell him to wait for the police if he didn't. If I didn't have a firearm and he didn't have a weapon I would fight him myself. In your example I would not shoot to kill if I had to shoot, the kneecap would be the most I would do. But I don't get robbed all the time; so, so far my current protection seems to be working.

But you've fail to see my sources showing four countries and one extra showing a part of the USA (Washington firearm ban), that show firearm related deaths drop when there's a firearm ban. I kinda edited a bit and might have screwed up others but you came in after the edits, meaning you didn't read it.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Let him rob me if he had a firearm or point it at him and tell him to wait for the police if he didn't. If I didn't have a firearm and he didn't have a weapon I would fight him myself. In your example I would not shoot to kill if I had to shoot, the kneecap would be the most I would do. But I don't get robbed all the time; so, so far my current protection seems to be working.
> 
> But you've fail to see my sources showing four countries and one extra showing a part of the USA (Washington firearm ban), that show firearm related deaths drop when there's a firearm ban. I kinda edited a bit and might have screwed up others but you came in after the edits, meaning you didn't read it.


 
Washington D.C. Is Airstrip One when it comes to how many security measures are in place. There shouldnt be crime there... At least not murder.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 16, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> On the other hand, the odds of Fenra and I getting on the receiving end of a bullet fired accidentally from a dropped handgun in a toilet are _significantly_ lower than they are for you



Not really...




NewfDraggie said:


> But you're not getting it Roose, a person wanting to kill but unable to will be able to with a gun in their hands.



If a person *wants* to kill, they will kill, even if all they have is their bare hands... guns are just tools, not magic.  Lack of a gun has never prevented a killer from killing.




NewfDraggie said:


> I see, well sorry to burst your bubble but many countries that are prisons under your definition are much better (in many, many ways besides just lower violent crimes) than the "free" USA. I'd be more worried about other freedoms first before firearms if I were you.



You don't possess the power to burst any bubble, Newf...

Sheep can be very well cared for, but they are still sheep.  Still prisoners, unable to make any free choices, always under the beck and call of Government, being told what to do with their lives, without choice... without the ability to enforce their choice, because they have no claws and no teeth.  And there are many places where the sheep are slaughtered in their masses, every day.  Because they have no means of defense.  This cannot be tolerated, ever.




Darkwing said:


> That is true, but remember, the same concept applies to knives, swords, crowbars, saws, hammers, and even cars.



Not to mention bare hands...




Mayfurr said:


> The problem with this is that it's a case of "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" - this does NOTHING towards preventing lives being taken in the first place.



There is nothing you can do towards preventing lives being taken in the first place.  If you believe there is, you're living in a fantasy world of kittens and pink unicorns.  Every murderer ever born has always had their first victim.  What we need to do is prevent this individual from doing it a second time, and the way to do that is to catch them, lock them away, and never let them out, except from the inside of a bodybag.




Mayfurr said:


> "Risk mitigation" and "accepted risk" are all part of "Risk Management" - something which I am involved with on a regular basis in my _job_. So yes Roose, I _do _understand it thankyouverymuch. Risk management is about mitigating the likelihood and impact of  unacceptable risk to the point where that risk _becomes _acceptable.



The question is, who decides what is acceptable?  In a free society, it is the individual who decides, not the Government.  So long as I, as an individual, cause no harm to another, then the decision is mine, and mine alone.  Only if my actions cross over into the area of irresponsibility, neglect and carelessness do I become subject to the punishment of law.  This is right, this is good.  This is acceptable risk.




Mayfurr said:


> I actually don't have a problem with people owning hunting rifles, shotguns etc for hunting or target shooting, or pistols for use at a shooting range. What I *do *have a problem with is military-style weapons being held by people outside of the military, and people - including the police - routinely carrying weapons in public in US-style open carry / concealed carry. To me, the risk of those weapons being used inappropriately in public (due to firepower / ease of use) outweighs any benefits in personal protection that they may give, and I'm quite comfortable with NZ gun laws that heavily restrict their use. And even the local gun-lobby appears to hold this position - the NZ equivalent of the NRA has NEVER (to my knowledge) advocated US-style carry laws.



You are free to assess your individual acceptance of risk, Mayfurr... but you have no right to tell others they must accept your opinion on the matter.  Indeed, it is *to you*.  Let's keep it that way, hmmm...?




Mayfurr said:


> (Funnily enough, the Wikipedia article on NZ gun politics claims that _"New Zealand's gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific"_ - so are NZ gun laws liberal or restrictive? You tell me!)



And didn't we have some list of gun related deaths floating around?  Care to show us what that rate is in New Zealand?  Compared to their "lax" firearms laws...




Mayfurr said:


> The difference between our positions appears to be that while I believe it's acceptable to put at least _some _kind of a basic safety fence at the top of a cliff to reduce the number of people falling / jumping off the edge, you appear to believe that a safety fence is *an unacceptable restriction over your right to walk wherever you want*, and that it's far better from an _ideological _perspective to have an ambulance (or hearse) at the bottom of the cliff to deal with the mess afterwards. Of course, the ambulance at the bottom is far more expensive to run than the cost of putting a simple fence at the top, but while there still will be idiots who climb over the fence, _less people overall will die or be injured from falling over the edge with the fence_. And that's a *good *thing - isn't it?



Ahhh!  But the thing is, I would never want to jump off a cliff, and I would certainly take the individual precautions necessary to avoid "falling"... so, yes, a fence is an insult, as well as waste of resources, when those who would jump... or who are simply unable to stop from falling... should simply be kept away from the edge of the cliff by means of a leash.  Puting a leash on everyone, simply because some might jump... how can that be acceptable to anyone?  As for the falling, that is all a matter of education, and the acceptance of personal responsibility.  This is how risk management is supposed to work.  Assess the risk, then keep the jumpers restrained, and teach the rest how not to fall.  This is acceptable to me.  How about you, Mayfurr...?




NewfDraggie said:


> Actually you're wrong, you're missing plenty of statistics here.
> For example, in 1996 in AU (Australia) the firearm ban was initiated, and like taking candy away from a baby it will kick and scream so for the next two years firearm violence spiked a FEW percent, the thing is they changed the system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This spike could simply be normal, seeing as it wasn't that much. Also, after those few years the crime-rate plummeted to the lowest it has -ever- been and has been continuing to lower every single year.
> Here's a source, unlike what you had for anything you posted. A AU government statistics website.
> http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx
> ...



Newf, you picked out that one thing, and ignored the rest... you need to stop doing that.




NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, no. I meant unable to kill with any of those, *a SINGLE six shooter is a thousand times more deadly than any of those used as a weapon*.



Statistics prove you wrong, Newf:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html



> In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), *34,040 people died* from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately *54 percent* resulted from suicide, *41 percent* resulted from homicide, and *3 percent* were unintentional (see figure 2). *Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States*.



http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html ... read the rest of the statistics that follow, Newf...



> *Killed by Car Accidents*
> 
> Highway fatalities account for more than 94% of all transportation deaths. There were an estimated *6,289,000 car accidents* in the US in 1999. There were *about 3.4 million injuries* and *41,611 people killed* in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000. An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S.






NewfDraggie said:


> Ok, but most "victims" of firearm related crimes *are victims because they tried to be a hero*, if they sit there and shut up instead of drawing a weapon on somebody armed then it would be reduced, citizens carrying a firearm think they're gods.
> Also, somebody still dies, so what if it's the assailant? One persons death doesn't justify another.



Huh...?  Newf, this is so stupid, I want to reach out over the internet and choke some sense into you...

Anyone who is *robbed* (aka - criminally attacked) is a victim... being a hero doesn't make a person a victim, and sitting there and shutting up doesn't make a person NOT a victim.  I also find your sympathy for the "assailant" disgusting.  Better the victim dies than the assailant?  Pure bullcrap, Newf!  It's quite clear you are one of the sheep.




jesusfish2007 said:


> We should start threads for gun laws in each country, so that British people and the Peoples from the land of Milk Bags and Molson are excluded from what moral qualms we dont have about owning guns for self-defense, and other purposes.
> 
> Also, Newf... if you had a gun, and had the ability to shoot someone robbing you, and they also have a gun, what would you do?



He would go "Baaa!" and hand the robber his gun...




NewfDraggie said:


> Let him rob me if he had a firearm or point it at him and tell him to wait for the police if he didn't. If I didn't have a firearm and he didn't have a weapon I would fight him myself. In your example I would not shoot to kill *if I had to shoot, the kneecap would be the most I would do*. But I don't get robbed all the time so so far my current protection seems to be working.



Uh huh... sure, Newf.  Hope that would work for you... in your dreams.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

Might as well make a new post. 

Newf, you linked to a pdf that, while supporting the statement that overall crime has gone down, does not speak on the issue of _gun related crime._ In fact, firearms were scarcely mentioned at all, while the exception being the number of _charges_ for fire-arm offenses. For this reason I do not feel it is appropriate to take that sources' information into account when judging the efficacy of a gun ban. It simply says nothing of the issue. 

And even if you do find something showing the correct data, (which you will if you look hard enough, I have seen it) that still is not necessarily a strong correlation between gun laws and gun crimes. You would need to compare the overall drop in crime to the drop in gun crime and make sure the %'s match up. You would also need to look at the drops in certain types of crimes and compare them. You also need to make sure that the overall murder rate corresponds to the drop in gun crimes: the ultimate point behind banning guns is to save lives. If it doesn't save lives, either because it doesn't work or because people simply switch to different weapons then it is failing in its primary purpose. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/murder_rate432.png

This shows overall murder rates rise. While "overall crime" can go down, certain aspects, like murders, can go up. But I guess this is besides the point, the meat of the issue is that simply showing a chart with a line representing gun crime going down means relatively little on its own. There are far too many variables involved for such a simple outlook, and people often do not recognize that. It is often the "ohh look a graph!" syndrome and people take it a face value. 

That being said, however, I feel that a gun ban could work for Britain, even if it hasn't yet. It has a culture with the appropriate phobia of the things, and more importantly is an island so it can better monitor what is coming in. Yes, I am sure to _could_ work in Britain, but remain unconvinced from what I have seen so far. 

Now, on to the US. I _very_ strongly believe that gun bans in the US are futile and pointless. Not only because we are crazy motherfuckers who love guns, unlike the rest of the west, but because we share two borders that make smuggling them very easy, a Black Market that allows very easy access to a multitude of guns, and so on and so forth. Suffice it to say, gun bans have not been proven to be effective in the US, and so _there is no prerogative_ to ban them. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

One is a wiki chart that is easy to read, the other links to a .gov site showing _the same data_ so the validity of the wiki chart is not an issue. Anyway, pay close attention to the "other guns" category in the chart. You will clearly see that it remains mostly stable throughout the years, with no noticeable drop in assault weapon crime even after the blanket ban on assault weapons after 1995. This would leave one to believe that the ban was not effective. 

Now, to illustrate the stupidity of a lot of graphs, here is a graph with total homicides to '05. 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

Now, some people will link you to a chart that shows that "zomg assault weapon crimes have gone up since the ban! Unban them!" And this is true. If the total assault weapons crimes stay the same while total murders go down, then it would appear that the % murders with assault weapons went up, but only if you look at those two variable. Looking at it as a whole, however, it becomes clear this simply is not the case. The graph, while true, is deceptive. 

My entire point is that there is no accurate or provable correlation between banning guns and drop in gun crimes in the US. Alternatively, there is no correlation between banning guns and an _increase_ in gun crimes, either, as some gun proponents would lead you to believe. 

No, for a variety of reasons, banning guns has no effect on gun crimes. This effectively makes gun laws, again in the US, pointless. They do not achieve their purpose, they do not do what they intend to do. For this reason, I feel that there should not be as many or as restrictive gun laws, simply because _there is no reason_ to implement them in the fist place.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Let him rob me if he had a firearm or point it at him and tell him to wait for the police if he didn't. If I didn't have a firearm and he didn't have a weapon I would fight him myself. In your example I would not shoot to kill if I had to shoot, the kneecap would be the most I would do. But I don't get robbed all the time; so, so far my current protection seems to be working.
> 
> But you've fail to see my sources showing four countries and one extra showing a part of the USA (Washington firearm ban), that show firearm related deaths drop when there's a firearm ban. I kinda edited a bit and might have screwed up others but you came in after the edits, meaning you didn't read it.


 
Unlike you, I have no Moral Qualms about killing somebody who might kill someone else, OR MORE PEOPLE. You aint calling the cops if the guy has a gun to your head. 

And I have been following this thread for quite some time. You were trying to pull a Wolfeedarkfang by trying to cover up your trail of failure.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 16, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> If a person *wants* to kill, they will kill, even if all they have is their bare hands... guns are just tools, not magic. Lack of a gun has never prevented a killer from killing.
> 
> *So you're saying that the VT shooter would have still killed 30 some people with an axe or some other form of weapon if he did not have a gun?  Hell, would he have even been able to kill people with a lesser weapon without being swarmed/overpowered and not even considering the fact that it takes alot more guts to bludgeon/cut someone than it does to shoot?  Refer to my other post.  *
> 
> ...


 Responded in bold in the quotes.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

A guy made a flamethrower to torch a school at cologne; I would say availability of guns won't stop someone if they want to kill.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 16, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> A guy made a flamethrower to torch a school at cologne; I would say availability of guns won't stop someone if they want to kill.


 Again, that's assuming everyone that kills is a psycopath that will stop at nothing to kill someone, which is definately not the case.   It would, however, stop the people who only kill because it's easy to do and available at the time.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

Yes it would, it most certainly would. 

That of course assumes that they cannot get the weapons in the first place, which is the crux of this whole debate.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 16, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> Unlike you, I have no Moral Qualms about killing somebody who might kill someone else, OR MORE PEOPLE. You aint calling the cops if the guy has a gun to your head.


Uh, having a gun under the best of all circumstances minus him having a dud/faulty round in the chamber, you still can't get out of that...lolfail.


Jashwa said:


> Responded in bold in the quotes.


Other than shooting down him trying to relate firearms to cars you summed up my thoughts pretty well, good job. He's tried comparing firearms to cars a lot, and I do mean a lot, and despite me constantly telling him that raw deaths vs. deaths doesn't work, in that case doctors kill more than anything because thousands of people die while under their care. Disregarding all the good something does simply doesn't work in the real-world Roose, you would fail any university if you wrote a paper with statistical comparisons like that.


CommodoreKitty said:


> A guy made a flamethrower to torch a school at cologne; I would say availability of guns won't stop someone if they want to kill.


Won't stop them from trying, but will stop him from succeeding or from killing more than one. How many people were killed by Mr. Makeshift flamethrower?
Also you're using intentional word structure so that you can't be proven wrong in what you say, just like Roose "killers will be killers without firearms" durr, they killed. But a -lot- of people that would kill if they had a gun, but they don't kill because they simply don't have a firearm, this also relates to people wanting to kill themselves but don't because firearms are easier and not available. There's been plenty of times when little kids kill their parents with firearms because they were mad over CRAP that doesn't even matter, they're kids.

Also you can't disregard all -five- of my sources (one being INSIDE the USA) just because one source included all deaths and not just firearms. It still included firearms.


jesusfish2007 said:


> Washington D.C. Is Airstrip One when it comes to how many security measures are in place. There shouldnt be crime there... At least not murder.


Well actually it was the entire STATE of Washington, the graph only showed District Columbia because it simply did, read the source.

Edit: You can't ignore my FACTS because you simply think it's got higher security, using that logic I can't say California because San Diego is one of the homes for the US Naval fleet, meaning it has higher security. This also goes toward Texas because people there have a lot of firearms and thus higher security. AND New York due to 9/11 and being a large harbor the security is better there too. In fact this argument can account for the entirety of the United States of Amuurica because they have higher security compared to other countries. Wait no, disregard any proof I give you based on bullshit ideology, there I'm always wrong no matter how many sources, how much fact I pump out.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

I am not disputing the accuracy of the information in your sources, I am disputing how representative they are of the efficacy of gun control. But, in any event, your pdf (and specifically your pdf, as that was what I used to make my point) did not show gun crimes _at all,_ which, as I illustrated before, makes it essentially useless in analyzing gun control laws. 

Also, the ban was for the District of Colombia, not Washington state. Washington state is on the other side of the country 

Anyway, if you look at the graph you listed, you will see that, overall, murders increased since 1976. They did report a reduction in gun crime, but again that could be for many reasons, and using variables that may not be representative of the whole issue. I direct you again to the national gun ban of 1995, which had no effect on _total_ gun crime in the US. These two studies would seem contradictory, would they not? In fact they _are_ contradictory. One says that banning guns helps, the other does not. This only supports my assertion that there is no real correlation between banning guns and gun crime.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 16, 2009)

Hmmm, yes I was wrong about the Washington thing, my bad. But it doesn't change the fact that less people were murdered each year while it was in effect.
Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey, in 1997 the handgun ban was put into effect, and as you can see violent crime didn't skyrocket.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

No, _more_ people were murdered each year. The graph you linked showing total murders clearly moves in the "up" direction since 1976. And, once again, your graph is not looking at the whole picture. It is entire possible for both "total crime" and "violent crime" as a whole to go down while murders go up. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/murder_rate432.png

Murders, higher. That graph cannot possibly tell you the prevalence of hand gun crimes in the UK; the data _simply is not there._ 

But, yet again, _graphs tell you little_. They can even misinform you. They are extremely deceitful. Once more, if you take the % change in assault weapons crimes after the 1995 ban relative to the decline in total murders, you will see assault weapons crimes _go up as a percentage of total murders._ Surely this means banning assault weapons increases their use by criminals!  The data is completely accurate and the graph is true, but it is also misleading. What it does not tell you is that _total assault weapons crimes_ stayed the same. 

So, no, showing a graph that has a line going "down" and a title with "guns" in it does not mean that gun control laws work. Gun bans and gun crime are largely unrelated.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 16, 2009)

That's because it was lifted... left that part out.
And total violent crimes for UK didn't rise after handguns were banned, at all.

You're ignoring it because you want to ignore it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 16, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Might as well make a new post.
> [...]
> My entire point is that there is no accurate or provable correlation between banning guns and drop in gun crimes in the US. Alternatively, there is no correlation between banning guns and an _increase_ in gun crimes, either, as some gun proponents would lead you to believe.
> 
> No, for a variety of reasons, banning guns has no effect on gun crimes. This effectively makes gun laws, again in the US, pointless. They do not achieve their purpose, they do not do what they intend to do. For this reason, I feel that there should not be as many or as restrictive gun laws, simply because _there is no reason_ to implement them in the fist place.



Thanks for a well thought out, informative and above all *objective* post. <applauds>

No really, I appreciate it - especially as unlike a certain other poster you didn't resort to labelling those who disagree with you as "sheep".


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

Okay listen, violent crimes is a large category. It includes, among other things: rape, assault, _murder_, and essentially anything that involves harm or malicious action against a person. It is important to understand that murder is merely _one aspect_ of violent crime. So it follows that violent crimes as whole can decrease, while murders increase, provided that the decrease in the other areas offsets the increase in murders. I am not ignoring anything.

EDIT: thx ^.^


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 16, 2009)

Anyway... in terms of BIG guns, how about the 18.1" guns on the Japanese battleship _Yamato_? 

The British mounted a slightly smaller 18" gun on HMS _Furious_ during WW1, but they had to remove it 'cause apparently every time they fired the thing rivets on the deck plating would shear off... which makes you wonder what the recoil must have been like when _Yamato_ fired a broadside with *nine* of the buggers...!


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

I would think that improvements in metallurgy or design in the relatively long time between the two wars would explain why the Japanese one worked while the British one didn't.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 16, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> My entire point is that there is no accurate or provable correlation between banning guns and drop in gun crimes in the US. Alternatively, there is no correlation between banning guns and an _increase_ in gun crimes, either, *as some gun proponents would lead you to believe*.



I'm of the belief that banning guns (not to mention gun control, itself) is useless, as well.  Not just in the US, but everywhere.  Availability of guns has no correlation with gun crime.  Non-availability of guns has no correlation with gun crime.  Culture, society, and the human heart and mind have a far, far greater correlation with all forms of violence that exist, all around the world.  Change those factors, if you truly wish to stem the tides of violence.  Blaming the tools will change nothing... which is the point.  However, disarming the public does ultimately effect the public safety in a negative way, in those cultures where the gun is established in the society at large.  So, I agree...




CommodoreKitty said:


> No, for a variety of reasons, banning guns has no effect on gun crimes. This effectively makes gun laws, again in the US, pointless. *They do not achieve their purpose, they do not do what they intend to do.*[ For this reason, I feel that there should not be as many or as restrictive gun laws, simply because _there is no reason_ to implement them in the fist place.



Actually, if you ignore the lie of "public safety", then the purpose of gun laws have nothing to do with the stated goals.  In other words, the intent of gun laws has never been to "increase public safety"... and if that isn't the true intent, then what, exactly, is the true purpose of such laws?  Why are they still "on the books", if they are ineffective at reducing the violence...?  This is, in brief, why I believe all anti-gun laws are UNreasonable.  They do not and cannot achieve their stated goals...




jesusfish2007 said:


> Unlike you, I have no Moral Qualms about killing somebody who might kill someone else, OR MORE PEOPLE. You aint calling the cops if the guy has a gun to your head.
> 
> And I have been following this thread for quite some time. *You were trying to pull a Wolfeedarkfang by trying to cover up your trail of failure.*



This is Newf, remember...?




Jashwa said:


> *So you're saying that the VT shooter would have still killed 30 some people with an axe or some other form of weapon if he did not have a gun?* Hell, would he have even been able to kill people with a lesser weapon without being swarmed/overpowered and not even considering the fact that it takes alot more guts to bludgeon/cut someone than it does to shoot? Refer to my other post.



No.  But the VT killer was unstable, and his odd behavior was known, but left undealt with.  That is the issue, not his use of a gun.



Jashwa said:


> Because strangling/beating someone to death with your bare hands is the same as pulling a trigger that requires barely any effort....



Murder is murder, Jashwa, irreguardless of the tool used.  Violence is within the person.



Jashwa said:


> *You're assuming that every single killer out there is a cold hearted serial killer.* This is bad, Roose, you should stop doing that. What about passion crimes like I mentioned before? Do you think that the impulse decisions made to pull that trigger would be made the exact same if it took more effort and time to do, let alone the guts it would take to kill someone in such a personal way?



No, I'm not... I'm assuming every single killer out there *is a killer*.  Passion crimes are no different.  If the person was not at heart capable of becoming a killer, they would not resort to murder, even in a "fit of passion"...

So, Jashwa, all your questions here are making an assumption.  What about the question of punishment?  Should we punish all killers equally, whether cold-blooded or passionate?  Is not murder... murder?  A crime of passion is not an accident, it is simply a rash decision, made by someone with a killer's heart who simply never lived "the moment" until their "passion" allowed it to rise to the surface.  Crime and violence doesn't just come out of the blue, it has to be there, within the person's heart... and it has to be stimulated, in order for it to be released.  Some criminals/killers are stimulated by poverty... some by fear or hatred... others by different means.  As I said, every murderer has their first victim.  All we can do is prevent the second, by making sure the *individual person* responsible is dealt with.  You cannot prejudge the innocent.  You can only judge the guilty, after the fact.



Jashwa said:


> *If you pay attention to what he was actually saying instead of just reading a few words*, then you'd realize that he said "firearm related crimes". He was saying that the people that are shot by firearms are trying to be an hero and wouldn't have gotten shot otherwise. He has a point, if they'd just give up the 40 dollars, they wouldn't get shot. The same thing applies to resisting in general, though.



If you would have paid attention, you would have read the implied "at gunpoint" in my words...

As for your assertion?  No, he has no point.  A victim of crime is a victim of crime.  Doesn't matter if they try to be a hero, and fail... or if they never try.  He implied that "being a hero"  made that person a victim, while the person who simply sat down and kept quiet, by default, wasn't.  As if being shot made a person a victim, but being robbed at gunpoint didn't.  That implication is what I addressed...



Jashwa said:


> Personal attacks, nice. *They help your argument greatly.*



No, but they help relieve the bad taste in my mouth... oh, and don't forget to berate Newf for doing the same thing!  And don't forget, I'm old enough to be Newf's father, so I have "Old Codger" status.  That means I can stick out my tongue and get away with it......... *




CommodoreKitty said:


> A guy made a flamethrower to torch a school at cologne; I would say availability of guns won't stop someone if they want to kill.



Indeed...




NewfDraggie said:


> Also you're using intentional word structure so that you can't be proven wrong in what you say, just like Roose "killers will be killers without firearms" durr, they killed. But a -lot- of people that would kill if they had a gun, *but they don't kill because they simply don't have a firearm*, this also relates to people wanting to kill themselves but don't because firearms are easier and not available. There's been plenty of times when little kids kill their parents with firearms because they were mad over CRAP that doesn't even matter, they're kids.



No, they simply don't kill because they are not killers.  They don't have the heart of a killer...

As for suicides, if a gun is not available, then pills will be... just like a killer, if a person wants to suicide, then they will suicide.  Their choice.  The tool doesn't matter...




NewfDraggie said:


> Also you can't disregard all -five- of my sources (one being INSIDE the USA) just because one source included all deaths and not just firearms. *It still included firearms*.



But Newf?  If you are arguing *firearms* deaths, then including all the rest is not being honest.  Eliminate that one source of contention, and you solve the problem... understand?




NewfDraggie said:


> Edit: You can't ignore my FACTS because you simply think it's got higher security, using that logic I can't say California because San Diego is one of the homes for the US Naval fleet, meaning it has higher security. This also goes toward Texas because people there have a lot of firearms and thus higher security. AND New York due to 9/11 and being a large harbor the security is better there too. In fact this argument can account for the entirety of the United States of Amuurica because they have higher security compared to other countries. Wait no, disregard any proof I give you based on bullshit ideology, there I'm always wrong no matter how many sources, how much fact I pump out.



I can ignore your "facts" because you ignore mine, when they contradict yours.  Until your comments address all the issues relevant to the discussion... until you stop ignoring the facts other present that PROVE YOU WRONG... until you can admit you don't *have* all the "facts"... well, then, your arguments have no weight.




CommodoreKitty said:


> I am not disputing the accuracy of the information in your sources, I am disputing how representative they are of the efficacy of gun control.



Same here, with a few small (unstated) provisions...




NewfDraggie said:


> Hmmm, yes I was wrong about the Washington thing, my bad. But it doesn't change the fact that less people were murdered each year while it was in effect.
> Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey, in 1997 the handgun ban was put into effect, and *as you can see violent crime didn't skyrocket*.



But it didn't *tank*, either...




CommodoreKitty said:


> Gun bans and gun crime are largely unrelated.



I support this statement.




Mayfurr said:


> Thanks for a well thought out, informative and above all *objective* post. <applauds>
> 
> No really, I appreciate it - especially as *unlike a certain other poster* you didn't resort to labelling those who disagree with you as "sheep".



Feel free to use my SN, Mayfurr... I ain't shy.  And I call them as I see them.  I'm just being honest...




CommodoreKitty said:


> Okay listen, violent crimes is a large category. It includes, among other things: rape, assault, _murder_, and essentially anything that involves harm or malicious action against a murder. It is important to understand that murder is merely _one aspect_ of violent crime. So it follows that violent crimes as whole can decrease, while murders increase, provided that the decrease in the other areas offsets the increase in murders. I am not ignoring anything.
> 
> EDIT: thx ^.^



I freely admit you're doing a much better job at this than I am... keep it up!




Mayfurr said:


> Anyway... in terms of BIG guns, how about the 18.1" guns on the Japanese battleship _Yamato_?
> 
> The British mounted a slightly smaller 18" gun on HMS _Furious_ during WW1, but they had to remove it 'cause apparently every time they fired the thing rivets on the deck plating would shear off... *which makes you wonder what the recoil must have been like when Yamato fired a broadside with nine of the buggers...!*



Was the Yamato equiped with seatbelts...?




CommodoreKitty said:


> I would think that improvements in metallurgy or design in the relatively long time between the two wars would explain why the Japanese one worked while the British one didn't.



Sounds like a reasonable assumption...


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 16, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> No. But the VT killer was unstable, and his odd behavior was known, but left undealt with. That is the issue, not his use of a gun.
> 
> *He may have been an unstable person capable of killing someone, but you can't honestly believed that he would've been able to kill the amount of people that he did without a gun.  You said it yourself, we can't protect the first victim, but we must do our best to prevent the second (or third, fourth....30th, etc.).  You're trying to dodge my questions by bringing the legal issue of punishing the killer into play, which is not even the subject at hand.  This isn't a thread about criminals in general, this is a thread about guns, which is why I was asking questions about his use of guns in his spree killing.   *
> 
> ...


 Responded in bold again.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

Jashwa said:
			
		

> What he didn't say was how that went for the guy who made the flamethrower as opposed to if he had a handgun. I guarantee he didn't kill multiple people with it.



He killed ten and injured twenty, which is about in line with your standard school shooting.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 16, 2009)

Ya know, when i hear on the news where somebody killed a burglar breaking into their home (intended or not) and the homeowner goes down for murder, i often wonder is it fair?

There was a farmer who went down for murder over here for shooting two burglars, one dcied as a result of the gunshot wounds (I say wounds cause the farmer used a 12 gauge i think, a shotgun of somesort anyway). I may think the wrong way here but, the guy asked for it, he shouldn't of been trespassing and burglaring someones property in the first place, and i think the farmer has a right, just like anyone else, to defend his home, and his property. 

The farmer didn't intend to kill anyone, he just pointed and fired (bare in mind the farmer was old and most likely didn't have perfect eyesight.) I think the farmer went down on a manslaughter charge anyway. Does anyone else think he should of gone down for it?, or are we in our right to defend what belongs to us?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 16, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> He killed ten and injured twenty, which is about in line with your standard school shooting.


I have been proven wrong. Although, that's a rare occurence (the home made flamethrower thing, not me being wrong).



RandyDarkshade said:


> Ya know, when i hear on the news where somebody killed a burglar breaking into their home (intended or not) and the homeowner goes down for murder, i often wonder is it fair?
> 
> There was a farmer who went down for murder over here for shooting two burglars, one dcied as a result of the gunshot wounds (I say wounds cause the farmer used a 12 gauge i think, a shotgun of somesort anyway). I may think the wrong way here but, the guy asked for it, he shouldn't of been trespassing and burglaring someones property in the first place, and i think the farmer has a right, just like anyone else, to defend his home, and his property.
> 
> The farmer didn't intend to kill anyone, he just pointed and fired (bare in mind the farmer was old and most likely didn't have perfect eyesight.) I think the farmer went down on a manslaughter charge anyway. Does anyone else think he should of gone down for it?, or are we in our right to defend what belongs to us?


 Manslaughter was the right charge.  He has a right to defend his property, but the taking of lives is still wrong.  Were the robbers armed?  If they were and it was in self defence, then maybe he shouldn't have.  From your story, though, it sounds like they were just trying to steal some stuff and he opened fire on them.  Lives shouldn't be taken over a few dollars worth of items.


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 16, 2009)

I don't think it was appropriate. The fact of the matter is that you do not know the intentions of someone who is invading your property. They could simply want to steal something, or they could have a more malicious intent in mind. Why would you take the chance if you do not have to? I see no reason why someone should have to put their own lives on the line simply to save someone who took a risk and knows the dangers in the first place. He should have been given a metal, as far as I am concerned. 

And I believe that people should have the right to protect their property with deadly force if necessary. Property is your livelihood and your life, everything you do is in one way or another linked to your property, so attacking the property is attacking the person. This has been the assumption for property law for a very long time, and it should stay that way.


----------



## moonchylde (Jul 16, 2009)

In kentucky if someone breaks into your home and/or property, you have the legal right to defend yourself with lethal force, but if you just wound them, you can face criminal charges. More then one police officer has given the advice of "if you shoot them on the front porch, drag them inside before you call us." 

The fact is, if someone breaks into my home, I have no way of knowing what his/her intentions are, so more then likely I'm going to assume the worst. If they have a weapon, I have no intention of letting them hurt me or my family, and I will defend myself by any means or force necessary, and that includes with a gun if possible. Anyone who says "Oh, but you could use non-lethal devices for home defense," that only works if the burgaler doesn't have a gun himself; i.e. the old addage "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." It's a cliche, but it's true: I'd rather have one and not need it then to need it and not have one.

As for the VT killer, the dude was fucking nuts. He wanted to kill those people; if he hadn't been able to get guns, he probably would have built explosives from crap you can get at any hardware or grocery store. If you're that far gone, and you want to kill people bad enough, you'll find a way. 

Best quote on gun control ever: 

Gloria - "You know 68% of people killed last year were killed with guns?
Archie - "Would it of made you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta' windows?" 
-- All in the Family


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 16, 2009)

if someone breaks into my house, i only have knives, a fake luger, and a hollowed hand grenade. so i launch the grenade down the hall, slide the luger down towards em, they point it at me, and then i have the right to kill them on sight due to the lack of an orange tip, so i run up and stab them as they wonder what is happening with the gun. so a quite lethal solution. Irreverent knows best so, would this hold water? i also have a number of blunt objects.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 16, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I have been proven wrong. Although, that's a rare occurence (the home made flamethrower thing, not me being wrong).



Had the Columbine criminals been successful in detonating their improvised fuel-air bomb, all 3,500 students and staff would have been killed that day.  It would have made the Oklahoma bombing look like a firecracker and left a crater 1 km across.  Funny how all the focus was on guns, and not the ready availability of 20lb propane tanks.



> Manslaughter was the right charge.  He has a right to defend his property, but the taking of lives is still wrong.  Were the robbers armed?  If they were and it was in self defence, then maybe he shouldn't have.  From your story, though, it sounds like they were just trying to steal some stuff and he opened fire on them.  Lives shouldn't be taken over a few dollars worth of items.



Not familiar with the specifics of the case referenced above, but if it was the Tony Martin case (from memory) he was a remote farmer on a moor, that had already been attacked and burgled several times...the police believed he was eccentric and paranoid and simply stopped coming to his house.

Its an interesting paradox.  Crazy as a loon (or not), when you depend on the state for your protection, what do you do when the state unilaterally abdicates its duties?  This is not just limited to crime, I'm sure a case could be made for refugees et al.



blackfuredfox said:


> if someone breaks into my house



You dial 911 and retreat behind a barricade as best you can.  If your motion detectors, house alarm and under-fed pit-bull with AIDS haven't prevented the home invasion, your steel safe-room door will buy you the time to make the call.



> Irreverent knows best so, would this hold water?



Not under Canadian law.  Retreat is mandatory until it no longer becomes an option.  "Castle domain" laws will be different in your jurisdiction, best you check with a local Crown (ADA in the US?)

@Jashwa: post 484, eh?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 16, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Had the Columbine criminals been successful in detonating their improvised fuel-air bomb, all 3,500 students and staff would have been killed that day. It would have made the Oklahoma bombing look like a firecracker and left a crater 1 km across. Funny how all the focus was on guns, and not the ready availability of 20lb propane tanks.
> 
> @Jashwa: post 484, eh?


 Shit.  That's all I can say.


And I told you we'd get there, you just gotta have faith, Irre .


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> He may have been an unstable person capable of killing someone, *but you can't honestly believed that he would've been able to kill the amount of people that he did without a gun*. You said it yourself, we can't protect the first victim, but we must do our best to prevent the second (or third, fourth....30th, etc.). You're trying to dodge my questions by bringing the legal issue of punishing the killer into play, which is not even the subject at hand. This isn't a thread about criminals in general, this is a thread about guns, which is why I was asking questions about his use of guns in his spree killing.



I'm saying he wouldn't have been able to kill anyone, had his KNOWN mental instabilities been dealt with.  Unfortunately, the people aware of his issues did nothing, he went uninstitutionalized and untreated... WAS ALLOWED TO RUN FREE WITH A CLEAN RECORD, so he was able to legally purchase the gun with which he committed his crime.  Why was his mental history not on record?  Why was he not dealt with, as a person with mental/emotional/behavioral issues?  You know, locked up in a mental ward, where he couldn't buy a gun or shoot anyone?  And yes, the subject at hand is punishing the criminal... because we let known violent offenders run free by letting them out of prison.  You can look up the facts:  Most violent crime is by REPEAT OFFENDERS.  Those who have been arrested, released, arested, released... you get the picture?  Killers let out of prison, to kill again.  That should never happen, Jashwa...

And no, the thread may be about guns, but this particular side-discussion is about violence.  It's about people saying that guns cause violence, when gun have nothing to do with it.  They are inanimate objects, harmless in and of themselves... only people can commit violence, and the ready availability of guns is no excuse.  Why?  I'll tell you why:

I've had guns in one form or another since I was eight, and in the last 39 years, I have had ample opportunity to release my "passions" in violent form, with a gun easily available to hand.  But in all that time, I have not done so.  Why?  Because I am not a violent person... I don't have a killer's heart.  Understand?




Jashwa said:


> Violence is within the person, yes, *but that violence is brought to the surface with the use of a firearm* without more than the squeeze of a finger whereas the effort put into going about that violence in another way might have been enough to keep it suppressed. Don't dodge that part of my post only to try to make it look like I wanna side with the killer and take his side. Who are you, Fox News?



No, the firearm has no blame in the matter of violence, since it is incapable of violent thoughts.  Anger and hate, those two human emotions bring violence to the surface... those two emotions of the heart.  So, I know from *personal experience* the lie of your assumption.  You don't want to blame the person, you want to blame the tool, because it's easy... just as easy as you say it is to pull a trigger.  If guns didn't exist, people would still be killing people, and violence would still exist in the human heart.  People have been killing people ever since Cain and Able, long, long before guns existed.  So violence... every single act, gun or no gun involved... is a *human* issue, not a gun issue.  This is not dodging, this is seeing and speaking the truth of the matter.




Jashwa said:


> No. *There is a difference between a Dahmer and some guy who decides to shoot the guy he finds cheating on his wife*, or even with the two bit thief that carries a gun for intimidation but is "forced" to use it. There shouldn't be a difference in the eyes of the law, but there IS a diffference. Murder is murder and should be punished as such (with the specific degree in place, of course), I'm not arguing against that. *I'm arguing that there are different degrees of killers as well.* Not everyone that kills with a firearm would have done so without a firearm.



No, there is no difference... both are murderers.  Both acted in a way that resulted in unwaranted (non self-defense related) death.  I'll agree, there is a matter of degree between the two, but the firearm will never have had a hand in making either a killer.  As I have already told you, above, 39 years of non-violent gun ownership on my part has proven the lie you keep trying to push.  It is not the gun, it is the person.  It doesn't matter if the person doesn't kill without the gun... the very fact they WOULD have killed WITH it, simply returns everything in this issue back to the kind of person involved.  It's a matter of choice, as well as opportunity.  The person who kills in a fit of passion is just as guilty as the person who plans out their act of murder.  *"Not everyone that kills with a firearm would have done so without a firearm"*...?  Perhaps.  But then, plenty of people have killed without firearms at hand.  In other words, *"Not everyone who kills does so with a firearm."*  So, this demonstrates again that it is not the firearm, but the person.

Oh, and you're forgetting the media influence on killers... yes, killers watch the same movies, and read or watch the same news reports.  Killing with a gun is considered badass, is it not?  Are not most killings in movies done by means of a gun?  Are not the most "newsworthy" acts of violence... those most notably reported and spectacularized... shootings, of one kind or another?  How many *major* newscasts have you seen that involve stabbings?  How many *major* newscasts have you seen focus on self-defense related shootings?  You don't see this, because, to the popular media, these are not newsworthy events... not like the school shootings, which can end up top of the news wires for weeks, if not months.  Like anything, if you make it look "glamourous" or give it a mark of notoriety/infamy, you will have people wanting a "piece of the action".  Those who clamor for fame without violence, and those who use their acts of violence to gain "screentime".  And a "badass" reputatiion.  Remember, the VT Killer made a video, and left behind his writings... even in death, he made others take note of his name.  




Jashwa said:


> Wait, what assumption was I making? I answered this in the paragraph above. *Without guns, the means of that violence rising to the surface wouldn't be there, or atleast it would be there much less*. It's so much easier for that person to have that violence rise up and pull a trigger than for them to try to overpower the other person and kill them with other means. Also, there's alot more that could go "wrong" for the killer when they're using a different method other than a gun. A victim could possibly run away from a bat or a knife, the victim could actually grab something near by and use it to retaliate, the victim could actually even wrestle the weapon away from the assailant and turn the tables. That's not even mentioning the fact that a knife or a bat is much less lethal, even if they still possess the power to kill.



This is the assumption you're making, Jashwa.  Not your only assumption, but it's one you keep repeating in a redundant manner.  As if it were some holy mantra...

Re-read my above replies.

I could go over every little point in your passage, but I will stick with the one underlined assumption you make:  That a victim should risk injury by trying to wrest away the assailant's weapon.  No... no... this doesn't work.  This is an unacceptable "alternative" to armed self-defense.




Jashwa said:


> I understood the implied gunpoint, but a person is not a victim of that gun just by being mugged. They're a victim of mugging, not of being shot. Newf was talking about victims that were shot.



No one is the victim of any gun, which is why I implied the gunpoint, but WROTE ABOUT the robber.  An innocent person is a victim of the violent person who robs/assaults them, not of the weapon used to "persuade" them, through fear.  And no, Newf was not talking about victims that were shot:



NewfDraggie said:


> Ok, but most "victims" of firearm related crimes *are victims because they tried to be a hero*, if they sit there and shut up instead of drawing a weapon on somebody armed then it would be reduced, citizens carrying a firearm think they're gods.
> Also, somebody still dies, so what if it's the assailant? One persons death doesn't justify another.



So, not only does he directly state that most "victims" of *firearm* related crimes are victims *because they tried to be a hero*, he goes on to insult people who carry for self-defense, by directly stating they *"think they're gods"*...

A victim is a victim, Jashwa, whether they are mugged or shot.  And whether they try to "be a hero" or "sit there and shut up"...




Jashwa said:


> Again, you're not understanding what Newf was trying to convey. He didn't imply that being a hero made that person a victim, *he SAID that being a hero made that person a victim of a firearm*. He wasn't saying that only people that get shot are victims, but that victims of mugging would not have been shot if they had not tried to be an hero. *You're completely ignoring the points that we're making and simply trying to deflect the topic.* You did it before with the issue of guns making murders easier by trying to make it look like I was siding with the killers and not blaming them and you're trying to do it now with trying to make it an argument about when a person is a victim. You're doing this because you know that you can't disprove the main points of arguments, so you're trying to "win" by "disproving" the things that we didn't even say.



See my previous words, just above, along with Newf's quoted passage...

If Newf was indeed saying that, then why didn't he use the right words?  Not to mention the fact that it's the person with the gun that makes another person a victim, not the gun itself.  Second bolded line?  No.  I've read the rest of your passage, and I've also read all the passages you refer to.  They had no point, other than to continue on with this endless, illogical harping on inanimate objects being responsible for violent acts, when I have repeatedly made it clear that inanimate objects are incapable of thought or independent actions.  Every act of violence ever committed has been committed by a PERSON.  Never by an inanimate object.  You need to stop going on and on with this constant insistance that guns make people violent.  I know this is a lie because I have owned guns for 39 years, have had ample "passion" and opportunity to use them violently... but I DID NOT.  Why?  Because I AM NOT A VIOLENT PERSON.  End of subject...




Jashwa said:


> I'll berate Newf for doing the same thing if I happen to be quoting him and it's right there. *Since when does age matter on the net?* Also, is this the point where I'm supposed to call you a stubborn old man clinging to your guns?



Age matters when it comes to Life Experience, Jashwa... and I have 47 years of that Experience.  Online or off, it matters.  And I cling to my life experiences, not my guns.  My guns are simply tools I enjoy collecting and using for hunting and recreation... I hope I never need to use one of my guns for self-defense, but if I ever have the need, I will have the tool.  I also keep a fire-extinguisher handy, with the same hope I never have to use it to save my life and home.  I simply see others, like you, who blame an inanimate object for acts of human violence, and it makes my teeth grit in annoyance.  But then, education has fallen so far down the hole today, I can't really be surprised.




Jashwa said:


> What he didn't say was how that went for the guy who made the flamethrower as opposed to if he had a handgun. I guarantee he didn't kill multiple people with it.



Well, I don't really need to say anything here, since the flamethrower thing is dealt with, already...




Jashwa said:


> Where is this heart of a killer stuff coming from? Everything's not black and white, Roose. People aren't inherently evil or inherently good. Sure, people either possess the potential to kill or not, but that doesn't mean that someone with the potential to kill would've always done it before. Look at the people in this thread, I'm assuming including yourself, that would shoot people that were robbing them or that had a gun. You people have the potential to kill, but how many people have you murdered recently, Roose? I mean, *you do have the heart of a killer, right?*



I have the heart of a sheepdog, Jashwa... I will not lay down my life if I have a means to defend it.  But I will not MURDER.  That is what separates a killer from a sheepdog.  Yes, I have the potential to kill, but I will use it only to DEFEND my life, and the lives of others.  That is what makes me a sheepdog, and not a sheep.  It is also what makes me a sheepdog, and not a killer... not a murderer.




Jashwa said:


> You're ignoring the inherent human trait of cowardice. People kill themselves with guns because it doesn't take much effort, it's quick, and it ends everything instantly, or so they believe at least. There are people out there that would be scared of the pain when dying, which is why they choose guns as a method of suicide. *They watch too many movies and think gunshot=instant death.*



_Ping!_

Thank you for answering your own unasked question.  Sleeping pills don't take any effort, either, and are totally painless.  I know full well, Jashwa... suicide is itself the "solution" of a coward, no matter what they use to kill themselves.  Like I said, if a gun isn't available, then pills will be... mind checking your own medicine cabinet?  Since I imagine you don't have a gun cabinet...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 17, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I don't think it was appropriate. The fact of the matter is that *you do not know the intentions of someone who is invading your property*. They could simply want to steal something, or they could have a more malicious intent in mind. Why would you take the chance if you do not have to? I see no reason why someone should have to put their own lives on the line simply to save someone who took a risk and knows the dangers in the first place. He should have been given a metal, as far as I am concerned.
> 
> And *I believe that people should have the right to protect their property with deadly force if necessary*. Property is your livelihood and your life, everything you do is in one way or another linked to your property, so attacking the property is attacking the person. This has been the assumption for property law for a very long time, and it should stay that way.



On the other hand, does this give you the right to blow away *anyone* who comes onto your property that you don't like? Door-to-door canvassers, strangers looking for directions, couriers, neighbours and council workers? Shoot up a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses, then claim with a straight face it was in self-defence?

I don't have any problem with people using what weapons they have to hand if they feel their life is REALLY in danger and there's no alternative, but I really don't like the idea of proposing what is in effect a "licence to kill" in the name of self-defence for anyone you don't like that so much as touches your property.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 17, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> So, not only does he directly state that most "victims" of *firearm* related crimes are victims *because they tried to be a hero*, he goes on to insult people who carry for self-defense, by directly stating they *"think they're gods"*...



Coming from a self-confessed gun owner who loftily describes people who don't agree with his "treat guns like iPods" position on gun laws as "*sheep*" (because of course _he's_ not a sheep, oh no...), I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 17, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Coming from a self-confessed gun owner who loftily describes people who don't agree with his "treat guns like iPods" position on gun laws as "*sheep*" (because of course _he's_ not a sheep, oh no...), I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.



"Baaa...?"

*_translation:  Are you the pot or the kettle...?_


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 17, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> People kill people... with guns. (And knives, and poison, and...)
> 
> The point is that weapons in general, especially guns, make it a damn sight _easier _for people to kill people. How many people have been killed by someone else's bare hands, as opposed to being killed with a weapon?



Yes, but why should an extreme minority of criminals ruin the privladge, hell, the RIGHT to own a certain contraption or item for the rest of the population. If someone murders someoene using a gun, do you think we should:

a. Give a harsh punnishment for the criminal
b. Abolish any gun rights for everyone
c. Introduce new restrictions in firearm laws

Case B: Someone using items purchased at their local convinence store commits arson with the intention of homicide. In response we should:

a. Give a harsh punnishment for the criminal
b. Blanket ban matches, lighters, petrol and other flammible materials
c. Introduce tougher restrictions on owning these items

Case C: Someone using their PC hacks into a national bank network and steals a great sum of money. In response we should:

a. Give a harsh punnishment for the criminal
b. Blanket ban computers
c. Introduce tougher restrictions on owning computers


You see? What fair is it on the vast majority of law abiding citizens who do not exploit their access to such things and can be trusted with them? The only solution to ending the sky-rocket in crimes with weapons is tougher punnishments, the criminal will know what they have coming. Not even people who mug at knife point get jailed, and people who cause perminant brain damage via smacking someone round the head with a base-ball bat aren't given the life sentence (life sentence only being 21 years anyway), and in Britain atleast the parliment only wonders why we have such a reckless generation of criminals on our hands.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 17, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Yes, but why should an extreme minority of criminals ruin the privladge, hell, the RIGHT to own a certain contraption or item for the rest of the population. If someone murders someoene using a gun, do you think we should:
> 
> a. Give a harsh punnishment for the criminal
> b. Abolish any gun rights for everyone
> ...



Seconded.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 17, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I'm saying he wouldn't have been able to kill anyone, had his KNOWN mental instabilities been dealt with. Unfortunately, the people aware of his issues did nothing, he went uninstitutionalized and untreated... WAS ALLOWED TO RUN FREE WITH A CLEAN RECORD, so he was able to legally purchase the gun with which he committed his crime. Why was his mental history not on record? Why was he not dealt with, as a person with mental/emotional/behavioral issues? You know, locked up in a mental ward, where he couldn't buy a gun or shoot anyone? And yes, the subject at hand is punishing the criminal... because we let known violent offenders run free by letting them out of prison. You can look up the facts: Most violent crime is by REPEAT OFFENDERS. Those who have been arrested, released, arested, released... you get the picture? Killers let out of prison, to kill again. That should never happen, Jashwa...
> 
> *You're deflecting and trying to make this into a different discussion then it's supposed to be.  I'm not blaming the gun for the person's actions, I'm blaming the gun for giving the person the ability to commit more wrong deeds.  Talking about our justice system is another debate for another thread, and also one that I have to say that I agree with you on.  People shouldn't be allowed to run free with mental instabilities, but the bottom line is that they ARE.  These people are capable of great violence, and guns only magnify that.  Once again, you can't say without a doubt that Mr. VT Shooter, whatever his name was, would've been able to cause all that damage without the use of a firearm?   *
> 
> ...


 Responded in bold, again.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You're deflecting and trying to make this into a different discussion then it's supposed to be. *I'm not blaming the gun for the person's actions, I'm blaming the gun for giving the person the ability to commit more wrong deeds*. Talking about our justice system is another debate for another thread, and also one that I have to say that I agree with you on. People shouldn't be allowed to run free with mental instabilities, but the bottom line is that they ARE. These people are capable of great violence, and guns only magnify that. Once again, you can't say without a doubt that Mr. VT Shooter, whatever his name was, would've been able to cause all that damage without the use of a firearm?



Re-read that bolded line, Jashwa... you start by saying you're not blaming the gun for one thing, and then you turn right around and blame the gun, again, with different words.  Guns are not responsible for a person's actions, neither is a gun responsible for giving that person any ability to commit wrong deeds.  YOU are the one deflecting the issue.  Guns do not cause violence, in any way or form.  They are INANIMATE OBJECTECTS... innert, harmless.  It is the person USING them who is responsiblel for his/her actions.  It is the person who GIVES THEMSELVES the ability to commit "more wrong deeds".  The gun is in no way responsible, because it has no free will.  It cannot choose what it does... that choice is made by the person who holds it.  Always...




Jashwa said:


> I have not once said that guns are responsible for a person's actions. The person is responsible for his or her own actions, *but a gun can be an easy means to go about that violence*.



I'm afraid you have, Jashwa... by your constant repetition of your *"Holy Mantra"*, you keep insisting that guns make it easy to kill, when it is the person who makes it easy to kill.  Doesn't matter if they use a gun, knife, blunt object or bare hands.  The tool is not the issue, it is the actions of the person.  People have the freedom to choose what they do with guns.  With any weapon or tool.  Always...




Jashwa said:


> I'm not saying that EVERY person that owns a gun can is at an increased risk of violence, *but that those people that are tetering on the edge are more prone to it*.



But you cannot rightfully mark *all* people as prone to it... you cannot pre-judge the innocent.  Ever...

Gun laws only affect the law-abiding... only those who are NOT "teetering on the edge".  Someone who *is* teetering on the edge, then falls on the side of violence, can only be judged after they fall.  And when they fall, no law will stop them from committing violence.  As far as I can see, Jashwa, you are finding an excuse to split hares (*not a misspelling*)...




Jashwa said:


> I've never been blaming the firearm for the violence. If you assumed that from my posts, then I guess it's my fault for not wording clearly enough. *I'm blaming the firearms for magnifying the violence and making people capable for more destruction than would be possible otherwise*. I'm blaming the guns for giving someone who might be a killer deep down inside the means to do it without more than the slightest effort. I'm blaming it for giving that guy who might not have killed otherwise the means to do so. I'm blaming it for giving that small asian guy, who most likely wouldn't have the strength to kill multiple people without a firearm, the ability to kill 30 people.



Again you say you're not blaming guns, then, in the very next breath, you blame them...

Firearms are not responsible for violence.  Firearms are not responsible for magnifying violence or making people "more capable".  Again, firearms are inanimate objects, with no self-will.  People have self-will... people choose violence... people magnify violence... people destroy.  The tools chosen have no bearing on the issue of who's at fault, no bearing on anything.  Before guns, wars were fought with swords, spears, arrows... more primative tools.  And thousands died.  Tens of thousands.  All because of HUMAN actions, not because of the chosen weapons *of the time-period*.

All the other blame you assign to guns?  No... had "that small asian guy" been treated for his mental condition, all those people would still be alive.  And as you yourself said:  *"... someone who might be a killer deep down inside...."*  Yes, someone... some PERSON.  And I repeat:  You cannot pre-judge *everyone*, based on what one person MIGHT do.




Jashwa said:


> No, you're right. It doesn't matter if the person doesn't kill without the gun because with a gun available, *why would they kill someone using a more difficult means?* (with the exception of the various poisoning methods, but this isn't about those types of murders) What matters is WOULD they have killed without a gun had one not been available? There's no way to really tell, so I guess we'll never reach an agreement on this point. I believe that there are SOME people out there that have killed witha gun that would not have done so had the gun not been available.



Why?  Because they're a killer.  Because they may like the personal touch a knife gives... the feel of blade in flesh.  You brought up Dahmer earlier.  From what I remember from bits of the film Silence Of The Lambs, didn't he cut open his victim's skulls, and eat their brains?  You know, didn't he go about his murders in a "difficult" fashion?

Well, that's Hollywood, and this is the reality:

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

http://www.karisable.com/skazdahmer.htm

Lots of links available, but these three should do.  And from what I've been able to gather from a quick skim of the info, Dahmer never used a gun.  He did it the "hard" way.

And yes, this is about murder.  About killers.  If guns are so easy, why don't all killers use them?  And I note another problem with your "logic"... *"WOULD they have killed"*...?  This is the rub, Jashwa.  You have no way to know, one way or the other.  But blaming the gun is "easier", isn't it?  You don't have to consider all the complicated HUMAN issues involved in violence and crime... and murder.  You don't have to get inside a killer's head.  Simply say they wouldn't have killed without a gun, even though you cannot in any way truthfully say such a thing.  See what I mean by assumptions?  Blame the responsible party, not an inanimate object.




Jashwa said:


> Exactly. If society is idolizing these gun crimes and making them more famous, then they're only fueling people to commit more crimes with guns. *Take away the guns and those people won't be able to get that kind of fame and that could be another possible deterrent.* Good point.



See what I mean about your viewpoint, here?  Why take away the guns?  Why NOT take away the fame... the infamy?  Why not sensationalize acts of self-defense, so the violent learn that people can defend themselves, and they can end up injured or dead?  Why does the media always sensationalize the bad and the negative, rather than the good and the positive?  Why did YOU immediately blame the gun, rather than the fame?  Or the media?




Jashwa said:


> *I kept repeating it in hopes that you would finally acknowledge it.* Are you saying that guns don't make it easier to kill someone? Isn't one of the main traits we assign to criminals that use guns the trait of cowardice? When you're talking about someone who pulls a gun on someone else, isn't one of the first words used to describe them "coward"? These cowards, these spineless bastards that would take life away from someone else for no reason or little reason, would they have done it without that easy way out? Would that pansy that pulls a gun trying to car jack someone or trying to mug someone have attempted to do so with a knife or a bat? I can guarantee no one is getting car jacked or mugged from inside their car with anything less than a firearm, unless they're a potential Darwin Award recipient. A mugging...yeah it happens with knives, but would every single thug with a 9mm go out and use a knife instead to try to rob people? Would they risk breaking and entering without their precious gun as leverage? Be completely honest with me, do you think that EVERY single criminal who uses a gun to intimidate or to kill would do so without a gun in their possession? I know that outlawing guns wouldn't make them give up their weapons, but I'm not arguing about gun laws, so don't try to say that. I'm arguing about the use of guns in violent crimes.



Why would I acknowledge something illogical and nonsensical?  Why would I ever agree that an inanimate object is ever responsible for a human action?  Never.  Won't happen...

Coward?  A gun is a tool of "persuasion"... it is something people fear, both the ignorant and the wise victim, when it is in the hand of a violent criminal, intent on doing them bodily harm.  It is an effective tool that allows a criminal to get their way, through fear and intimidation.  Cowardice has nothing to do with the issue, anyway, so I have no idea why you bring it up.  I would suggest you study the subject of criminal activity... after all, you have a computer and an internet connection, otherwise you wouldn't be here.  Remember "Google is your friend!"  I can't spend all my time educating you about these "spineless bastards".  Notice those words, Jashwa.  They are words applied to PEOPLE, not guns.  As I have told you before, if we kept violent offenders... killers, murderers... in prison for LIFE... or if we executed them for their crimes... then all of what you speak of in your above passage would be rendered moot.  Not to mention, you are still blaming the tool for the crime, not the person.  Control the violent person, not the tool.  Oh, and one thing about the wise person:  They can be trusted to use a gun properly, in such situations.  Wisdom comes from experience, but the wise also gather knowledge, so they know when and where, as well as how to defend themselves.  We already know why...

Would every single gun-thug do the deed with a knife?  I have already answered this, above, in reply to your assumptions.  If a criminal is desperate enough, they will do the deed with whatever weapon... whatever tool they can get their hands on.  Again, I suggest you educate yourself.  I gather Hollywood hasn't done you a favor.

Oh, as for burglers... those who break and enter?  They usually prefer to do so when the people they're robbing aren't home... unless they are specifically targeting the homeowners.  Or just don't care, one way or the other, due to the crystal meth they just snorted or smoked.  But that is, again, not the gun's fault.




Jashwa said:


> *The fatal flaw in your logic about the underlined part is assuming that with guns being allowed that everyone that is a victim would have a firearm on them at the time and be able to use it back against the assailant.* I'm not sure of the exact statistics, but I'm pretty sure that most muggings/robberies occur against a defenseless or almost defenseless victim. Most people don't have a gun carrying permit or a concealed weapons permit to carry a guna round with them to protect themselves. If guns weren't there, they'd be on a much more even playing field and potentially be able to save their own life by resisting. As it is now, if someone's holding you at gun point, you're pretty much screwed.



I've made no such assumption... in fact, being a resident of Kalifornia, I cannot legally carry for self-defense, anyway.  They don't allow that here.  YOUR fatal logic flaw is assuming an unarmed victim should be able to fight off an armed assailant.  Or, to paraphrase a quote from elsewhere, *"That a 110 lb woman should be able to fight off a 220 lb rapist."*  And yes, everyone who chooses NOT to be a victim should have the right and freedom to carry.  I also note you're spouting a "Newfism"... you know, that an armed victim won't be able to defend themselves, anyway.  Well, then:

http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/armed_self_defense_jan_2001.htm

*http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/*

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/16/an-african-villages-armed-self-defense-story/

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

http://armedcitizensofchicago.typepad.com/armed_citizens_of_chicago/self-defense-stories/

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

You could also plug "armed self defense stories" into your browser, if you want more...

Oh, and about those CCWs:

http://www.azccw.com/More Facts & Statistics.htm

http://www.doddsazccw.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

More info is available...




Jashwa said:


> Even if he wasn't saying that, I'm saying that now. Not necessarily the "think they're gods" part, but the trying to be an hero often results in you getting shot. I'm not saying that they aren't victims of being mugged, but they're not victims of being shot and wouldn't be victims of being shot if they had just sat there and shut up.



See the above links again, related to self-defense...

A vicitim is a victim is a victim is a victim, shot or not.  You are simply separating one form of "victimization" for another, and you are not making any relevant point by  doing so.  If someone chooses to be a hero, let them take the risk for a potentially greater reward:  The knowledge they made a difference, stood up as a sheepdog, even if they failed.




Jashwa said:


> Maybe it's because Newf's not perfect, or maybe I have interpreted it wrong? He'd have to specify for us exactly what he meant. Again, you're repeating your assumption that I'm blaming the guns and not the people in a redudant manner...*like some holy mantra*...
> 
> Refer to my opening paragraphs about me blaming the guns for magnifying things and not for causing them.



Then we trade mantra for mantra, don't we?  Thing is, one of us sees the real problem, and the other doesn't.  One of us understands that inanimate objects are inanimate objects, while the other ascribes self-will towards something that's never been alive.

Refer to my passage about blaming HUMANS for their actions... for the cause and the magnification.




Jashwa said:


> *Assume what you will about my intelligence because of my age.* I'm pretty sure they don't let morons into Carnegie Institute of Technology, but ok. We'll assume that I'm too young and stupid to grasp simple concepts. In all of your experience, you've never had to use your guns as self defence. Hey, look, you have the same experience that I do with guns as self defence weapons in 39 years of gun owning as I do in 7. That's nifty. Again with the repeating of the assumption that I'm blaming guns for the violence themselves, when I've denied it multiple times. I'm, once again, blaming guns for the magnification and as an outlet for that violence.



Oh, I expect you're an intelligent individual... but you obviously lack experience.  I have been suicidal... I have two people in my life I would dance on the graves of... I have loaded guns "easily" at hand.  But... I'm still alive, they're still alive.  I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE the lie you keep repeating.  It is not the gun, it is the person.  Always.  Forever.  I was raised to believe suicide was wrong.  I was raised to believe murder is wrong.  Being who I am, even with a loaded gun at hand, I *choose* NOT to go against what I was raised to believe.  Even though you insist it would be "so easy" to do.  And that guns are to blame for people blowing their brains out.  And that guns are to blame for "magnification".  No.  The PERSON is to blame.  Always and forever.

Tell me something, Jashwa... being a gun-owner, have you ever wanted to blow your own brains out, of blow someone else's brains out?  I'll let you get back to me on that one...




Jashwa said:


> Yeah, I bit the bullet on that one. I'll admit when I'm wrong.



Thank you...




Jashwa said:


> I wasn't talking about defending your life; I was talking about defending your property. Would you shoot someone trying to rob your house?



But what if my property is my livelihood?  What if the truck they're trying to steal is what earns me my living?  They have no right to be on my property without my permission.  They have no right to take what isn't their's.  If they come on my property without my permission, and attempt to steal or vandalize my property, I am perfectly within my rights to hold them at gunpoint for the authorities... and, if they attempt violence, I am perfectly within my rights to shoot.  So, yes, I would shoot someone trying to rob my house, if they didn't pay attention to the loaded twelve guage in my hands, and attempted violence.  If they drop and run, then I've done my job, and I have no reason to shoot.  Let the authorities hunt them down and serve justice, I've done what I've needed to do.  The function of a gun in self defense is to stop the crime in progress, not to kill.

Thing is, if someone is sneaking around on my property, I have reason to believe they are up to no good.  They could simply be stupid, irresponsible teenagers, just TPing my house.  They could be trying to steal the vehicle in my driveway.  They could be looking to deliberately kill me... this has happened, so it is reasonable to assume this as a worse-case scenario.  I won't know until the moment comes, but I will have the shotgun at hand, anyway, should this "invasion" prove to be a crime in progress.  But I will not shoot unless my life is threatened.




Jashwa said:


> You could atleast have read my previous post in this thread stating that I own two guns myself. I have a 12 gauge shotgun and a 30.06 rifle, but I have access, if I wanted to use them, to my dad's gun collection of around 30 various rifles and shotguns and to my step dad's two handguns and two rifles. Oh, and I have access to the two rifles of my uncle's that are at my house. I've hunted since I was odl enough to obtain a license. Don't assume that just because I think that guns are used for more evil than they are for good that it means that I don't own any.



You have access to all these guns... have you blown your brains out, or blown anyone else's brains out?  If not, why not?  I've shared a bit of my experience with you, about time you returned the favor.

Though I do find it funny that you make no comment about my other points... perhaps because you can't say anything in rebuttal?  If not, please address the ease of pills issue, and whether we should ban such easy to get and use medications...


Oh, and if I've missed anything that needs addressing, let me know, hmmm?


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 17, 2009)

ITT: Roose thinks firearms are the great equalizer in society and come before anything in laws for freedom.


----------



## Azure (Jul 18, 2009)

Wow, this thread is still around?  Really, you can argue til you're blue in the face, and at the end of the day, you prove nothing.  I'll still have access to firearms, and you'll still be a bunch of idiots who this I can't also kill you with a knife, or my bare hands, both of which I can do. I'd probably enjoy it more too.

EDIT- I have access to fully automatic weapons.  At all times.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 18, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Wow, this thread is still around?  Really, you can argue til you're blue in the face, and at the end of the day, you prove nothing.  I'll still have access to firearms, and you'll still be a bunch of idiots who this I can't also kill you with a knife, or my bare hands, both of which I can do. I'd probably enjoy it more too.
> 
> EDIT- I have access to fully automatic weapons.  At all times.



lucky, i can get an M-3 Grease Gun, MG-42, along with a 75mm Recoiless rifle. but i have to pay monies.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 18, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Wow, this thread is still around?  Really, you can argue til you're blue in the face, and at the end of the day, you prove nothing.  I'll still have access to firearms, and you'll still be a bunch of idiots who this I can't also kill you with a knife, or my bare hands, both of which I can do. I'd probably enjoy it more too.
> 
> EDIT- I have access to fully automatic weapons.  At all times.



Yeah, internet tough guy; he can kill you without the need for weapons, that doesn't stop him from flaunting his access to fully-automatic weapons.

I bet you wouldn't even look at somebody with an angry expression, let alone kill somebody. Saying otherwise is pointless, especially online.

This is exactly what I'm talking about too, the attitude of the general public once they use firearms, the whole "I'm tough shit now" ordeal that overwhelms 99% of human beings.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 18, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> "Baaa...?"
> 
> *_translation:  Are you the pot or the kettle...?_



Let me type this slowly, so you can comprehend it:

Newf "Gun owners think they're gods": Kettle.
Roose "If you're not for guns, you're a sheep - BAAA! BAAA! BAAA!": Pot.

The ironic thing is, you're proving Newf's point for him...


----------



## Azure (Jul 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, internet tough guy; he can kill you without the need for weapons, that doesn't stop him from flaunting his access to fully-automatic weapons.
> 
> I bet you wouldn't even look at somebody with an angry expression, let alone kill somebody. Saying otherwise is pointless, especially online.
> 
> This is exactly what I'm talking about too, the attitude of the general public once they use firearms, the whole "I'm tough shit now" ordeal that overwhelms 99% of human beings.


Wow, you're really uptight aren't you guy?  I think you need to relax. Funny thing is, I can't take those weapons off base.  Nor did I even infer I was going too.  I think you read too far into things old chum. That, and you are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.  I ain't no internet tough guy, I'm an actual tough guy. Get it straight.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 18, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> The only solution to ending the sky-rocket in crimes with weapons is tougher punnishments, the criminal will know what they have coming.



If "tougher punishments" were such a deterrent to violent crime, you'd think that the states in the US with the friggin' *death penalty* would have next to no violent crime - yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

And if simple incarceration was a deterrent, again you'd expect the US with one of the largest incarceration rates by population to be free of most violent crime - yet New Zealand, who (sadly) rivals the US in terms of incarceration rates by population has _half_ the homicide rate by population of the US _according to the Wikipedia link *you *previously posted_. 

So "tougher punishments" basically have bugger-all impact on crime rates, and only result in increased costs to the taxpayer in building more and more prisons to hold people for longer.


----------



## Darkwing (Jul 18, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, internet tough guy; he can kill you without the need for weapons, that doesn't stop him from flaunting his access to fully-automatic weapons.
> 
> I bet you wouldn't even look at somebody with an angry expression, let alone kill somebody. Saying otherwise is pointless, especially online.
> 
> This is exactly what I'm talking about too, the attitude of the general public once they use firearms, the whole "I'm tough shit now" ordeal that overwhelms 99% of human beings.


 
I agree with this.

Although, I don't use my guns to look tough, I shoot for fun


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 18, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Re-read that bolded line, Jashwa... you start by saying you're not blaming the gun for one thing, and then you turn right around and blame the gun, again, with different words. Guns are not responsible for a person's actions, neither is a gun responsible for giving that person any ability to commit wrong deeds. YOU are the one deflecting the issue. Guns do not cause violence, in any way or form. They are INANIMATE OBJECTECTS... innert, harmless. It is the person USING them who is responsiblel for his/her actions. It is the person who GIVES THEMSELVES the ability to commit "more wrong deeds". The gun is in no way responsible, because it has no free will. It cannot choose what it does... that choice is made by the person who holds it. Always...
> 
> *No, there is a distinct difference between blaming a gun for the crime. That would be like letting a murderer go free because it's the gun's fault, not his/hers. The person is responsible for his or her actions, but the gun gives them the ability to commit those actions the way that they did. Guns are inanimate objects and can't be specifically blamed for any actions, but they can be used for those actions. That's what I'm trying to get you to realize. I'm not pinning the responsibility of the action on the gun, but merely acknowledging the fact that the gun can be used for the greater harm. *
> 
> ...


Replied in bold, yet again.




NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, internet tough guy; he can kill you without the need for weapons, that doesn't stop him from flaunting his access to fully-automatic weapons.
> 
> I bet you wouldn't even look at somebody with an angry expression, let alone kill somebody. Saying otherwise is pointless, especially online.
> 
> This is exactly what I'm talking about too, the attitude of the general public once they use firearms, the whole "I'm tough shit now" ordeal that overwhelms 99% of human beings.


 Because people in the army would never be able to kill anyone, right?  I'm pretty sure he's more than the general public.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 18, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Let me type this slowly, so you can comprehend it:
> 
> Newf "Gun owners think they're gods": Kettle.
> Roose "If you're not for guns, you're a sheep - BAAA! BAAA! BAAA!": Pot.
> ...



Actually not, but it seems I've got your goat...




Mayfurr said:


> If "tougher punishments" were such a deterrent to violent crime, *you'd think that the states in the US with the friggin' death penalty would have next to no violent crime* - yet this doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
> And if simple incarceration was a deterrent, again you'd expect the US with one of the largest incarceration rates by population to be free of most violent crime - yet New Zealand, who (sadly) rivals the US in terms of incarceration rates by population has _half_ the homicide rate by population of the US _according to the Wikipedia link *you *previously posted_.
> 
> So "tougher punishments" basically have bugger-all impact on crime rates, and only result in increased costs to the taxpayer in building more and more prisons to hold people for longer.



That's because we have this thing called "Death Row"... and we have these creatures called lawyers.  Oh, and we have the sheep who "Baaa!" anytime some murderer gets executed.  Enough "Baaa!"... well, the death penalty ends up abolished.  Criminals know that capitol punishment is a joke in the states that have it, they just have their lawyers plead for endless appeals, while they get free room and board.  Besides, if criminals were smart, they wouldn't be criminals... at the very least, they wouldn't have gotten caught.  And... Yay!... you've noticed the fact violence is never ending, and that location/culture is a factor.  This will be so for as long as humanity exists, pretty much no matter what you do.  This doesn't mean you don't stop doing.  This means, if it ain't broke, don't fix it... but if it is, THEN WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T YOU FIXED IT YET!  AKA, fixed society.  If banning guns doesn't work... if incarceration doesn't work... if the death penalty doesn't work... then try something else till you find something that does work.  After all, crime is a social issue... a HUMAN issue.  What works for one group may not work for another.  But, if you can find a way to cure the human race of fear and hate, then you will have found the key to a solution for all.

What it boils down to is, there is no simple answer for such a complex issue, Mayfurr.  Violence is not easy to control, even with capitol punishment... in fact, it cannot really be controlled, only contained on an individual basis, if the effort is put out and the law is properly enforced.  And that is the real rub:  Enforcing the laws that already exist.  How far do you want to go?  I certainly don't want to pay a penalty, lose rights or freedoms, just because someone else broke the law, and some "stuffed shirt" doesn't want to enforce punishment.  Why should I be comfortable being treated like a criminal, when I have done no wrong?  Don't give me that "Good of the society" garbage... that is avoiding the issue.  We are individuals, not members of a herd.

So, Mayfurr?  If "tougher punishments" have no impact on crime, what do you propose we do?  New Zealand seems to indicate that "prison density" isn't a factor in detering violence.  Why does NZ have half the per-capita homicide rate?  Even though it has the same "prison density" as the US... and is only one locality, one nation out of many?  Too many questions, not enough answers!


@Jashwa... 

I'll get to your post later, no more time tonight!  Things to do tomorrow...


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 18, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Wow, you're really uptight aren't you guy?


I'm not your guy, buddy.


> I ain't no internet tough guy, I'm an actual tough guy. Get it straight.


Nice fairytale, princess.


Jashwa said:


> Because people in the army would never be able to kill anyone, right?  I'm pretty sure he's more than the general public.


He never said he was in the military that I read, until afterward when he mentioned the "base".
Being in the military doesn't make you tough shit, either. I've been in the military, technically the militia but anyway, it doesn't instantly make you anything at all...in fact plenty of morons, pussies, and immature losers are in the US army and most armies around the world. Too bad being a soldier doesn't instantly make all tough-guy attitude online justified, or else I might actually comprehend taking back what I said, maybe.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 18, 2009)

i actually never thought this would get off the ground, 500, wow.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 18, 2009)

And with that, we hit the 500 post lock! :shock:

Outstanding!  

@Jashwa,  first round of beers is on me, mate!


----------

