Gun Laws in America

1…910121415…19

Comments

  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified, if you use your gun for protection, like you said, I'd suggest you carry it in your hand all the time because it won't do you much good in your backpack.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    Show me proof that a gun is the least deadliest weapon, not stories.

    Guns are made for killing, if they don't do that, they just fuck you up real bad.

    I'd take someone attacking me with a knife over someone with a gun anyday.

    check stats. i can give you a gun; me a knife and i can kill you before you ever hit me. give me a bow and arrow and you're dead before you ever see me. i've been shooting for 40 years and can out shoot about anyone. if i really wanted to kill someone; i wouldn't use a gun. the survival rate is much too high.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    farfromglorified, if you use your gun for protection, like you said, I'd suggest you carry it in your hand all the time because it won't do you much good in your backpack.

    That doesn't make much sense. Carrying a gun in my hand all the time would invite much more danger than it would solve.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    check stats. i can give you a gun; me a knife and i can kill you before you ever hit me. give me a bow and arrow and you're dead before you ever see me. i've been shooting for 40 years and can out shoot about anyone. if i really wanted to kill someone; i wouldn't use a gun. the survival rate is much too high.

    Unless you're some kind of very weak person, it's harder to kill someone with a knife.

    What stats are you talking about?

    Oh but do you think you should be allowed to have a gun since you're not a law abiding citizen, I mean that would kind of make you a criminal and it's because of criminals law abiding citizens buy guns right?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That doesn't make much sense. Carrying a gun in my hand all the time would invite much more danger than it would solve.

    Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Collin wrote:
    Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.

    dont encourage him
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.

    Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because guns aren't perfectly lethal. They remain a skill weapon. That, however, does not make guns "the least deadliest of all the known weapons".



    If you can bayonet someone from 500 yards away, let me know.



    This is specious logic. You're fixating on the attributes of bullet wounds without examining the overall power of the gun itself. I can't hit your vital organs with a pencil from a long distance. Hell, being able to outrun me pretty much invalidates any close-combat weaponry as being more deadly than a gun.

    As weapons go, guns aren't terribly gruesome, yes. A mace, correctly wielded, is a terribly lethal and gruesome weapon. But a mace held by one man cannot level an army of thousands. A gun, however, allows a small minority to completely destroy a vast majority. One need only to look at the clash of cultures armed with guns against those without to understand the lethal force of guns.

    None of this matters in the context of gun control, IMO. A tool of death has no ethical consequence -- it is the death itself and the actions and choices of the murderer that matter. But claiming that guns are "the least deadliest of all the known weapons" is completely silly, and seems motivated by a logic that simply wants to somehow demonstrate that since guns are largely precision weapons they should be welcomed over others. In some contexts, particularly the execution of war, that logic can fly. But when simply debating the overall lethality of weaponry, it is a cop-out.

    if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.
    next; when have you ever heard of someone being robbed from 500 yards away? a handgun is virtually worthless farther than 50 yards. i've seen deer shot with high power rifles scamper away. obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.


    do you have proper paper work if you were pulled over or searched by police?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

    "The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet). The previous record was held by Carlos Hathcock, achieved during the Vietnam War, at a distance of 2,250 meters. Hathcock was also famous for his 93 confirmed kills during the Vietnam conflict."

    next; when have you ever heard of someone being robbed from 500 yards away?

    Yeah, it's called taxation, a system very much reliant on the persuasive power of guns.
    a handgun is virtually worthless farther than 50 yards. i've seen deer shot with high power rifles scamper away. obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.

    Certainly one is not going to use a handgun to shoot something 100 yards away. But a pencil or bayonet is also worthless at 100 inches away.

    I'm curious, if guns are the least deadly weapon around, why do you take them hunting?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sure it does. It simply provides an option which I may use or disregard at my discretion. I make absolutely no claims that keeping an unloaded gun in my backpack is some kind of panacea for danger. The fact remains that I may never use it. However, the fact also remains that it may one day prove useful.

    my state licensed me to carry a gun. i believe 23 states now offer conceiled weapon permits. the supreme court upholds a persons right to defend themselves. over and over again. i may never use my gun is self defence against a person; but i'd rather have a gun and not need it; then need a gun and not have one.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    do you have proper paper work if you were pulled over or searched by police?

    Certainly, yes.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

    "The current record for longest range sniper kill is 2,430 meters (7,972 feet), accomplished by a Canadian sniper, Corporal Rob Furlong, of the third battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI), during the invasion of Afghanistan, using a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) McMillan bolt-action rifle. This meant that the round had a flight time of four seconds, and a drop of 78.4 meters (257 feet). The previous record was held by Carlos Hathcock, achieved during the Vietnam War, at a distance of 2,250 meters. Hathcock was also famous for his 93 confirmed kills during the Vietnam conflict."




    Yeah, it's called taxation, a system very much reliant on the persuasive power of guns.



    Certainly one is not going to use a handgun to shoot something 100 yards away. But a pencil or bayonet is also worthless at 100 inches away.

    I'm curious, if guns are the least deadly weapon around, why do you take them hunting?

    so you agree; a highly trained sniper with specialized weaponry can hit a target at 500 yrds and further. just like i said.
    the hunters i know use arrows because it produces a quick kill; and it's silent. if you check hunter success rates; you will find very low success rates. ie: number of licenses vs number of kills.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Certainly, yes.

    not only do i carry the permit; the police can check their computer if i don't have it with me. seems to me these people should be more concerned with criminal control and not gun control.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    so you agree; a highly trained sniper with specialized weaponry can hit a target at 500 yrds and further. just like i said.

    Yes, I agree. Now, can a highly trained librarian hit someone with a pencil from 500 yards away?
    the hunters i know use arrows because it produces a quick kill; and it's silent. if you check hunter success rates; you will find very low success rates. ie: number of licenses vs number of kills.

    Certainly. But the same goes for hunters using a bow and arrow or a torch and a cliff. Fact remains that guns are the primary choice for a very good reason.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    Carrying it in your backpack doesn't make much sense either.

    the 7 yard rule is the general rule of thumb. you draw your weapon when the attacker comes within 7 yards. if it's in your backpack; you'd better draw sooner. drawing sooner could get you into legal trouble because it's hard to prove imminent danger from a farther distance. with all the new holsters and other means to carry a conceild weapon; i'd suggest something easier to access.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    onelongsong wrote:
    if you can hit someone at 500 yards with anything; let me know. it's an almost impossible shot unless you have specialized weaponry. few bullets have killing power after 300 yards.

    Your average .308 is good well past 800 yards. In the hands of a trained marksman it's good over 1,000. Same goes for the .223
    obviously; you have limited knowledge of firearms.

    :rolleyes:
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    69charger wrote:
    Your average .308 is good well past 800 yards. In the hands of a trained marksman it's good over 1,000. Same goes for the .223



    :rolleyes:

    there are several software programs where you can calculate kinetic energys; velocity; and bullet drop without leaving your computer. i suggest you invest in one.
    once again i reiterate; it takes intense training for anyone to hit a target over 500 yrds. a trained marksman; ie: sniper has that training. but really; how many trained marksman are on the street comitting crimes? the police are highly trained with their weapons yet watch the reality police shows and see several officers shooting at a suspect from 5 feet away without hitting him. how do you explain that?
  • miller8966
    miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    IMO every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a gun. Except in either church or at bars.
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    miller8966 wrote:
    IMO every law abiding citizen should be able to carry a gun. Except in either church or at bars.
    Do you think there's likely to be gun battles in church if they're allowed there?
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963

Categories