Bush's Gun Conference - will he be a pussy?

69charger

Cosmo wrote:

But I think the whole car vs. gun thing is ridiculous. That was the point of my challenge... you'd have to be a complete idiot to take up an offer where you get in a car and the other guy gets a fucking gun. I'll pick the gun 100% of the time..

I'll take up the challenge! You at the end of a 1/2 straight-away and me a the other end. I floor it and you don't move. Average gun on the street has 8 to 10 rounds. You better be pretty fucking good with that gun because I'm coming at you with a weapon with several million ft/lbs of energy vs. your 8 to 10 shots at a couple hundred ft/lbs.

Car wins.

jeffbr

69charger wrote:

I'll take up the challenge! You at the end of a 1/2 straight-away and me a the other end. I floor it and you don't move. Average gun on the street has 8 to 10 rounds. You better be pretty fucking good with that gun because I'm coming at you with a weapon with several million ft/lbs of energy vs. your 8 to 10 shots at a couple hundred ft/lbs.

Car wins.

You beat me to it! The guy with the gun would have to be 1) a hell of a shot to hit a rapidly moving target and 2) calm and collected under pressure because the driver would be bearing down on his ass at a rapid rate. The shooter would have only limited and obstructed target profiles for very brief moments.

I'd pick an average car driver to beat an average shooter any day in that duel. Cops don't even hit their targets most of the time. Studies of police shootings have shown a 20ft distance threshold for shot accuracy, dropping off rapidly beyond that. So if you are going to insure an accurate shot, the driver has to be within 20 ft (and that's for a cop with training). Good luck if that car is 10 - 20 ft away from you and closing when you fire that shot.

HunterandHunted

Maybe he'll recognise that that there is a war against education - the syllabus' just don't cut the mustard and this is the unequivocal, obvious backlash...
Or that the war at home is more pertinent to his countrymen's daily agenda than a wild ol' hootenanny across foreign plains...


Note: Tongue sticking out as far as humanly possible...

Ahnimus

Cosmo wrote:

Here's a challenge...
To anyone who puts up the 'Car as deadly as a gun' arguement...
You get in a car and I'll get me a gun and let's try to kill each other.
...
P.S. Pushing the car from an airplane over my house doesn't count, unless you are still behind the wheel.

Ah man, I would totally smoke you

dunkman

Cosmo wrote:

...

And if we are going to compare guns and cars... let's at least place the constraints on them... licensing, registration, operators's licences, whatever.

great points Cosmo.. and i've been saying this same thing for a while now

the car argument isnt valid until the same regulations and checks are put upon gun holders that are asked of car drivers

passing tests, car tax, registration, MOT's, insurances, all those signs on the roads telling you speed, warnings, etc... lots and lots of checks and paperwork... if people want to drive so much then they'll do all of the above to be able to get in a car... same with guns... if people want them so much then make them go through the same rigorous checks and procedures

and when people say "you're more likely to get killed by a car and a gun"... of course you are, there are 180million of the fucking things flying around the US quite openly... as someone has just said, you hardly ever see someone walking around with a gun... but cars are fucking everywhere... you're also more likely to get killed by choking on a fish bone than being shot by a gun.. the argument is just stupid!

Byrnzie

jeffbr wrote:

You beat me to it! The guy with the gun would have to be 1) a hell of a shot to hit a rapidly moving target and 2) calm and collected under pressure because the driver would be bearing down on his ass at a rapid rate. The shooter would have only limited and obstructed target profiles for very brief moments.

I'd pick an average car driver to beat an average shooter any day in that duel. Cops don't even hit their targets most of the time. Studies of police shootings have shown a 20ft distance threshold for shot accuracy, dropping off rapidly beyond that. So if you are going to insure an accurate shot, the driver has to be within 20 ft (and that's for a cop with training). Good luck if that car is 10 - 20 ft away from you and closing when you fire that shot.

There's a simple solution here. The gun I'd choose would be a sawn-off shotgun. Job done!

Puck78

well........ it seem to me that rhetoric arguments here took the argument far away from its meaning, that is: cars are made to move, guns are meant to shoot and kill.

Puck78

JamMastaE wrote:

first of all your FREEDOM was won from the barrel of a gun
second/the 2nd ammendment was put in place so if the government was to become a corrupt dictatorship the people would have a means to fight back(wich if you have a clue about whats happining in this country,we are there)
third / it was a hell of a lot easier to get a gun 30 - 40 years ago,i mean you could walk in a store and buy anything and take it home right away!hmmmm...so why do we have so much violence taking place NOW?maybe you sheep are being Socially engineered(google it if you don't know what it means) via t.v./hollywood etc.,but also dumbed down at the same time so your too stupid to comprehend what they are doing to you.Hitler,Stalin and Pol Pot confiscated all the guns (thats what registration is,a list they will use when they come to dissarm you,ask the law abiding citizens who had their guns taken from them by police & FEMA during Katrina,and left helpless against armed bandits!)gun confiscation is a precursor to genocide
you have been trained to dismiss logic and replace it with fear.quite a few of these school shootings are gov. black ops. designed to get you to willingly give up your guns (like Columbine).you can call me a conspiracy nut,it's what i expect from the uninformed morons who don't know shit about history or the present.Patrick Henrey said "the differnce between a citizen and a slave is the right to bear arms."
Auschwitz is full of the bones of people who gave up there guns.
Just remember tyrants,rapists,robbers and sickoes NEVER prey on an ARMED target!!!

you're pathetitc. At least pay respect to victims of genocide you quoted and abstein to talk shallow and meaningless

Byrnzie

Puck78 wrote:

you're pathetitc. At least pay respect to victims of genocide you quoted and abstein to talk shallow and meaningless

Be careful who you insult on here my friend! Remember Oklahoma? :eek:

lgt

Cosmo wrote:

...
Count the cars driving down the road.
Count the number of guns you see in people's hands walking down the street.
So?
...
Anyone want to challenge me to a duel? You in your Toyota Corolla... me, with my 9mm H&K?

lgt

Puck78 wrote:

well........ it seem to me that rhetoric arguments here took the argument far away from its meaning, that is: cars are made to move, guns are meant to shoot and kill.

Worth stating the obvious

jeffbr

Byrnzie wrote:

There's a simple solution here. The gun I'd choose would be a sawn-off shotgun. Job done!

Job done, you've just been run over. The shotgun's effective range is nowhere near that of a handgun. Between the decreased accuracy with a shorter barrel, and the shot pattern you'd get, you better be within about 10ft. Good luck with that.

Byrnzie

jeffbr wrote:

Job done, you've just been run over. The shotgun's effective range is nowhere near that of a handgun. Between the decreased accuracy with a shorter barrel, and the shot pattern you'd get, you better be within about 10ft. Good luck with that.

The reason I'd use a sawn off shotgun is because it would solve the problem of accuracy. I'd wait until the car was 10 - 15ft away and then blast my foe. The spray of pellets would mean that at least a few of them would hit their target. Obviously I'd dive for cover as soon as I'd fired.

Edit: O.k, so I've ignored the 'you don't move' part. Then it'll be a draw.