| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Injection Grain Bag |
| |||||||
 Asante Big Moissanite shill    Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 92,590 |
| ||||||
Well a creaking bumpy cart pulled by a farting donkey can't hold a candle to a modern hybrid car, can it? And nowadays you can get 300.000 or even 600.000km out of a car. Not too long ago that was 100.000km. If you buy a good modern car and take good care of it, it can take you to the moon and back as far as mileage is concerned.
No, handguns are built for the purpose of firing reliably and accurately. What you chamber is your responsibility. It can be a blank cartridge to start a marathon, a signal flare to alert the coast guard or a pepperspray squirt to discourage an attacker. Some types of BULLETS are designed to effectively incapacitate (rubber bullets) or kill (hydroshocks) people, but not nearly all. Don't tell me a .22 LR propelled only by a primer is designed to effectively kill or incapacitate, and yet the .22 LR is the single most fired round by gunowners. Or a Bismuth bullet, cause that one's especially designed to not pollute a shooting range with lead. What round you chamber is your responsibility. What purpose you fire it for and under which conditions is your responsibility also. If your kid harms himself with your gun, your responsibility, it could happen with any power tool. -------------------- personal empowerment for the world  LGBT - Love God Before Tradition
| |||||||
 Larrythescaryrex teardrop on the fire   Registered: 07/19/00 Posts: 11,004 Loc: further down the Last seen: 3 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
So only buy jacketed hollow-points.
-------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
| |||||||
|
the spiral Neuroscientist   Registered: 05/13/02 Posts: 1,769 Last seen: 11 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
The reason people want more accurate and reliable handguns is the same reason people who lived before guns would want a more accurate, more reliable sword or hatchet or whatever. If most people bought guns JUST to shoot it at the range then the gun industry would be about the same size as the paintball industry. Guns are weapons, and weapons are meant to kill, and the better weapon is the one that kills the other guy the fastest, and guns are damn good at that. I imagine people "went to the range" in terms of practicing more often when they were fighting with swords than people go to the range today to shoot pistols. Nobody uses a pistol if they're hunting, even small game, so I think it's silly to believe that the industry in handguns is driven and maintained entirely by target shooters, which seems to be what you're saying.
That's a bloated figure because target shooters shoot .22 LR and target shooters use a TON of ammunition! Plus .22 LR is actually IMO the best choice when you're hunting your own species, at least if you're taking them by surprise and not fighting each other in a war. Its far quieter than anything else except maybe an airgun but I don't think you can reliable penetrate the cranium (save in a few places) with a .177 airgun, which is the next most quiet common projectile I can think of. Also supposedly a .22 LR round has a tendency to ricochet inside the skull, lacking the energy to fly all the way through the bone of the skull twice and instead bouncing around as if scrambling an egg. I'm not sure if that part is true. .22 LR might be a round more associated with shooting cans and bottles and small varmints, but that doesn't mean someone who's a decent shot with a .22 can't kill you just as dead just a quick as they could with a .45. For the record, thinking about violence like that makes me feel a little sick. The psycho that shot up the congresswoman clearly had a thought disorder if you listen to his ramblings, which is a hallmark of schizophrenia, and the fact that nobody had noticed and put him on meds despite the fact that he was suspeneded pending a mental health review.....when someone has a thought disorder, they tend to say a whole bunch of things that clearly don't make any sense , so when someone is doing that it's not that hard to diagnose - and unless he was faking, this guy definitely had some sort of thought disorder if you listen to the various videos he made. I don't see how you can listen to someone tell you the government is controlling our minds through grammar and, if you care aboutt them at all, not proceed to bust your ass to get them treatment. Modern antipsychotic medication has traded things like lobotomies and desperate prognosis with a world where people with the disease can hold high level jobs and have families. The tucson shooter almost definitely would not have shot all those people if he'd been on antipsychotic meds. The fact that he even shot a 9 year old girl during his anti-government mind control shooting spree strongly says to me that he was experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time of the shootings; if you were there you were part of the conspiracy and had to be put down. If he'd been getting proper meds and treatment this wouldn't have happened. I'm surprised more people haven't expressed outrage over THAT fact. If you're a crazy dude trying to shoot up a crowd yeah you won't want a .22, but thats not usually a factor one considers when purchasing a firearm. If people were only interested in shooting things that are the right size for a .22, that's all they'd buy, but if you want to take down a big intruder you don't want to need the accuracy a .22 would require. People don''t usually buy a gun whose selling point is that you'll get the most points in target practice or at a competition; being able to blow the other guy away with the least amount of brainpower required brings in a lot more money selling far more firearms than the range. If you're in the ammunition business, though, it's a different story. I used to go to the range more. These days, though, the one rifle (22) I have is practically inaccessible and hasnt' been taken out and cleaned or oiled for several years. I've never owned a firearm, though, whose purpose was anything but shooting at cans and shooting the damn squirrels who would try and destroy my birdfeeders. They got the message and I didn't need the rifle anymore. I shot a .22 pistol at competition and placed fourth, but I can't see a reason besides the range that anyone but an assassin would buy 22 caliber pistol ... Anyway, my point is that there would be no gun industry or gun lobby as we know it if it weren't for all the money people spend on guns people buy because they think they might have to shoot someone but really hope they don't. Those people are still part of the group of people buying a gun whose sole purpose is to effectively cut down a human being, and they stop being part of the group who can't shoot anyone cause they don't have a gun - not that this isn't sometimes justified. I certainly don't need a 31 shot clip on a handgun for personal protection btw! Nobody does. I don't need a 31 shot magazine on a hunting rifle! There's only one thing you can do with a 31 shot magazine that you can't do with a 12 shot one. --------------------   
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan
| |||||||
|
Asante Big Moissanite shill Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 92,590 |
| ||||||
Only those who intend it as a weapon.
Since when do target shooters "bloat the figure"? Most rounds are fired by target shooters, thats precisely why your weapon assertion fails. Many people KEEP guns as weapons, but very few bullets are fired by private individuals using the gun AS a weapon. Its like a knife, most knives are used at the dinner table, in the kitchen or when doing DIY, you CAN use a knife as a weapon but most of the time its a tool, just like a pistol is.
Now who's being violent? Self defense doesnt have to be quiet, a sawed off 12 ga shotgun does the job reliably and a lot more effectively than a .22, only assassins and hitmen have to be quiet. A lot more people have a gun for self defense than for being a sneaky hitman.
-------------------- personal empowerment for the world LGBT - Love God Before Tradition
| |||||||
 Patlal You ask too many questions  Registered: 10/09/10 Posts: 45,180 Loc: Ottawa 
Last seen: 3 minutes, 52 seconds |
| ||||||
This is true. Killer are killers, guns arent. The whole war argument thing, also true, the US has an army of 300 million soldiers called citizens. No marching army on this planet could take over the US. Patriotism + guns = invincibility. Take canada for example, we got hunting guns, a few handguns and no machine guns. Currently, the liberals have fucked up the army so badly here that we are now rediculously unarmed for a G8 country. We have a shit ton of ressources, nothing to defend it. Thank god the conservatives are in power and trying to resolve this problem. But its a minority governement and the liberals are dying to slowly.... -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!  Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
so who's hands are the right hands? could it be 270 million people that owned guns and never killed anyone? is it the cops who shoot innocent bystanders at double the rate of law abiding gun owners using their weapons in self defense, is the 10,000 lives lost in gun crimes worth more than the nearly 1,000,000 who's lives may have been lost had they not been armed... as collateral damage goes, that's an extremely low figure, only 1% of the total but it wasnt law abiding citizens that did the murdering with fire arms, it was criminals and if you remove the guns from the poplace, what's the odds that the criminals will give theirs up... does this mean the criminals are the right hands for guns to be in? because it's them and the police that will have the guns
None of that has anything to do with guns, which is what I thought we were discussing. I'll go along with this diversion for a moment, though. Sure, shit happens, people die, whatever. That does not mean that we humans are powerless to improve our circumstances such that bad shit happens less often, and when it does happen we are ready for it. so how exactly did banning guns improve the circumstances for folks in Chicago, Washington DC and New York City, well DC for several years became the murder capitol of the US, let's take a look at chicago and what happens when the law abiding citizens are disarmed http://www.cityrating.com/citycr murder and robbery are 2.7x the nation average, all violent crimes are double the national average and other crimes are a little over let's take a look at a city that made gun ownership mandatory http://www.cityrating.com/citycr murder, half the national average, robbery and other violent crime is one tenth the national average because every head of household is required by law to own a firearm. so how exactly does disarming law abiding citizens whom have never harmed anyone improve their circumstance when they're exposed to criminals that now have no reason to fear them... we can see that bad shit really doesnt happen in Kennesaw and they have shitloads of guns, there's no school shootings, there's no Jared Loughners, there's no crime so to speak other than what spills over from a neighboring city with an increasing gang population
really? just who are those people? what exactly are they doing to prevent shit from happening, how did they save the 16000 people from being murdered, how did they prevent the 1.4 million violent crimes, well hell, how many actual crimes have they prevented in the last 20 years... any, any at all?
wow, you really love the straw man arguments, one would be criminal negligence the other would be willful murder, of course my kids always ask if they can eat the poisoned ice cream... what's funny is I always take a bite of their ice cream and tell them the reason is to make sure it wasnt poisoned
I wasn't talking about banning anything, but ok ... well what exactly are you talking about, outlawing crime, banning criminals, forbidding them from owning guns?, I believe those laws are already in place, the problem is that the criminals dont obey the laws, that's what makes them criminals
Please, point me to where I say it's the gun's fault and not the person who loaded and aimed it and pulled the trigger? every post that you claimed a mass murderer couldnt have been what he was had he not had access to a gun, you blame the gun for the crime in doing that as was already pointed out and ignored frequently by you, the gun doesn make the criminal, it's the intent that makes the criminal, they gun, the knife, the bomb, the poison, those are simply a means to an end, nothing more... as I recall, it's against the law to kill people but that hasnt stopped people from using what ever means they can to kill
we've already demonstrated that this is a fallacy, that if there is intent a man or woman bent on doing harm will find a way
cars are built for a purpose, sometimes that purpose is distorted and it becomes a 2 ton death machine, guns are built for a purpose, both offensive and defensive, it's been shown that 99% of the guns used against another human being in civilian hands is in fact in defense while that remaining 1% is used by the criminal element for offensive purposes and those used in defense are less than .03% of the firearms in the US... so, .0003% of the firearms in the US are used for this taking of life, why arent we all dead if the sole purpose of guns is to maim and kill?
| |||||||
|
nasem Stranger  Registered: 12/19/09 Posts: 338 |
| ||||||
|
poison ice-cream
 
-------------------- I dont know
| |||||||
|
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
absolutely incorrect, do you just post your assumptions about things you know nothing about because hand guns are very popular for hunting as are 'primitive' weapons like black powder, bows and even atlatls large game      
| |||||||
|
the spiral Neuroscientist Registered: 05/13/02 Posts: 1,769 Last seen: 11 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Except for possible regulations against automatic weapons and extended clips, I don't think that the fact that guns can be quite deadly in the wrong hands provides the moral justification that would be necessary to rob responsible adults of the right to own firearms. I've merely been pointing out that many handguns are purchased and kept entirely for their usefulness against people; the police carry pistols on their hips for a reason, after all. I'm not saying its wrong for people to own guns for protection, I'm just pointing out that guns are weapons - duh - and that handguns are the single most effective (deadly) weapon that most people have access to. If you go to a gun store and ask the owner about "stopping power" and which of his products is best suited to guarantee your safety from your crazy ex with an awful temper, I sincerely doubt you will be met with righteous indignation or even surprise that your reason for wanting a sidearm has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with human beings.
I didn't think that point would be so contested. I'm also surprised that people have challenged in earnest my assertion that the guy in Tucson would not have been able to wound and kill quite so many people if he hadn't brought a Glock along with him and his deadly psychotic intentions. I can't think of any other tool - outside of explosives - with which he could have inflicted nearly as much damage as he did. That point merely notes that handguns are good at doing what they are engineered to do; the engineers who made modern handguns into the powerful and comparatively safe tools (to the user, that is) they are today did their jobs very well. I don't find it at all surprising that handguns are as effective and common as they are considering that human beings are the most dangerous and potentially deadly animals that you can encounter. The bears in Alaska ran away at the sound of the bell on my vest (though I still carried a shotgun with bear slugs, just in case); I wish bells were as effective against muggers or gangs. I've heard repeated many times the assertion that "If guns were illegal then only criminals would have guns", and drug prohibition is a good example that backs up that statement; alcohol prohibition made alcohol a far more destructive force, drug prohibition has made drugs more dangerous and expensive and has infused the drug trade with violence in the same way the prohibition did with the alcohol trade. It was far easier to get a bag of weed than a bottle of vodka before I was 21, because I'd get carded if I tried to buy vodka. Handguns are as illegal as heroin in the city I live in, yet we used to be the city with the most gun violence in the country and are still somewhere in the top ten. For these and other reasons, I am anything but a prohibitionist and I think prohibitionists are rather naive. I don't think a paranoid schizophrenic should have been able to obtain a pistol as easily and quickly as the Tucson shooter did, let alone the extended clip, and I have merely noted that if he hadn't been able to obtain a gun then he would have had a much harder time doing as much damage as he did. I'm surprised people disagree with that. I'm not saying the gun - an inanimate object - bears any responsibility for the actions of the man who wielded it , nor am I saying that lacking a gun he wouldn't have hurt anyone. I am just saying that with power comes responsibility; children and individuals who for whatever reason lack the ability to own a firearm responsibly should not own firearms at all. Its kind of surprising how much easier it is to obtain a handgun than it is to get a drivers license! Edit: Oh, by the way, I found your (Prisoner#1) photos of big game hunters using handguns to be quite interesting. I should not have said that nobody uses handguns to hunt. The point I was trying to make was that even though - as you've shown - some people buy pistols and revolvers for hunting, hunters still account for only a small fraction of total handgun purchases. I openly admit I don't have statistics to back up that statement, but were I to go to my local gun store tomorrow do you think the owner would tell me otherwise? What I was interested in focusing on was why most people buy handguns, and specifically whether the majority of handgun purchases are for purposes like "home protection" - where people, not animals, are the intended targets. Edited by the spiral (01/17/11 10:39 PM)
| |||||||
|
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
they already have regulations on automatics and have had regs on any magazine over 10 rounds, check the Brady Bill and the National Firearms Act, the crap about 'automatic' you've heard in this Loughner case is media bullshit, the guy had a pistol that was not an automatic, an automatic fires several rounds with each pull of the trigger, his pistol only fired a single shot for each trigger pull and the ban on high capacity magazines never worked, criminals got all they wanted just as they do with anything else they want that's already illegal, prohibition never did shit, you should know that personally
you're half right, guns are weapons, no one will argue that point but just like any weapon, it's also a tool, where you're wrong is that it's not the single most deadly weapon people have access too, we've pointed that out time and again and you still ignore the actual facts, my car doesnt have to be reloaded after I run down 30 people, my gas can doesnt have to be reloaded to kill 300 people, it can all be done in an instant just as making a bomb capable of wiping out a church service or an abortion clinic is as simple as google
I dot have to ask because I know the answer, a well placed shot is stopping power, if the gun store owner sees you have a need like the psycho ex, he's typically going to recommend you go through gun training and visit the judge to get your concealment permit, and to buy the fire arm you still have to be subjected to a background check to make sure you're not a criminal... the concealment permit, it's even more extensive know what... places like political rallies such as the one in Tucson, it's illegal to bring a gun to one... law abiding citizens obey the laws, criminals l do not, maybe a serious change in the laws are needed, school shooters dont seem to pay attention to the 'gun free school zone' signs or the laws that surround them, just as loughner disregarded the laws regarding firearms at political rallies and killing people
well duh... if the drunk hadnt driven drunk he wouldnt have hit the school bus full of kids, if the terrorist hadnt hijacked airplanes on 9/11 then they wouldnt have crashed them into the WTC and pentagon killing more than 3000 people
many have been pointed out, seems you ignored them
guns dont do a fucking thing, they just sit there until a PERSON with ill intent picks it up, then that person uses that tool in a manner for which it was not designed, for murder, just ask all the gun manufacturers if they designed their guns to kill innocent people
yet here you are suggesting even more restrictions just like a prohibitionist
maybe if the cops had done their jobs and provided security at that rally, maybe if they had done their jobs and arrested the guy on one of the several occasions they had contact with him, maybe if they'd have had him involuntarily committed, maybe if his parents had payed attention, maybe if his dad would have loved him just a little more a gun's magazine is just something that holds bullets, you're vilifying the magazine for the actions of of a man, why are you doing exactly what the drug prohibitionists are doing
how is saying 'if he didnt have access to the gun and the extended clip he couldnt have killed all those people', 'without guns people couldnt be mass murderers' not blaming the guns
I'm a gun owner, I know exactly what's required to purchase a gun, you are aware they dont do a criminal investigation into your background to get a drivers license, right? are you aware that in many states you have to take a firearms safety course to obtain a firearm? please tell us how we should determine who can and cannot responsibly own a firearm, should we cut them open and count the rings?
wouldnt that be a matter of personal preference, I know around here Bow season is more popular because during gun season the deer become scarce 
| |||||||
|
Stains Blue Stranger  Registered: 01/17/11 Posts: 963 |
| ||||||
|
Sorry for tearing your post apart but I felt I had to to stand up
for my god given rights. I do agree with you on multiple points. but disagree with you on multiple points as well. I am going to make my position or stance on gun control quite clear here I guess... If a free man believe's he should own a automatic weapon or have extended clips on what ever weapon he chooses. than that is his choice and his freedom to do so. The Ideal of freedom has to co-exist with the fact that other people are free themselves. this democratic ideal about gun control is not constitutional it is taking another right or privilege away from Americans should they chose to exercise it. Republicans want to take away your right to smoke marijuana legally or medicinally... Democrats want to take away your guns... tell me how one is better than the other? each party want to take your rights away one way or another... with one ideal at a time. Where is the freedom? I read the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution of the United States and all 27 Amendments. I was a bit disappointed. look at Amendment 18 for example.... out of 234 years America has been established... 234 years... and only 27 Amendments have been added to the Constitution. only 27. But because of a simple fucking movement (the Temperance Movement) America was able to abolish alcohol. a simple movement. a movement to call a freedom "evil" alcohol... Shortly after... prohibition... because of a simple "Movement" to gain enough political momentum. made alcohol prohibited... Americans should take every right they have to heart. and not let any right waiver. If you let any of your rights waiver regardless if you agree with that right or not. There will be some Bureaucratic there to take it away. (remember Harry Anslinger  )Go ahead. let them take away our guns... I ask... where will it stop? they always seem to be talking abou adding a regulation to this. or passing a law for that. or taxing this... In another 234 years from now, what right will we still have?...
I agree... hand guns are for protection. Protection from other human beings. And yes they are crazy fuck bags out there. like the one that shot AZ Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That I would like to protect my family from. With a hand gun. Because it is concealable affective and easy to use. and does not carry a high powered round so I can minimize collateral damage if i am forced to employ it as a form of protection. We do not live in a utopia. Humans are still Primal and animal... dont believe me? walk into a court room with a pound of marijuana and no medical card. goto prison and you will see first hand the sociology of the human being. when you get out. I am almost positive you will want some sort of protection. be it a hand gun. or a roommate named bubba.
So... you can think of a more deadly weapon than a pistol other than explosives that he could have used? reference this. North Hollywood Shootout - 1997 An Assult Rifle would have been a MUCH more deadly of a weapon in this scenario. But again. an Assult Rifle is a mush better weapon for protection as well... this is a two way street...
Being a avid hunter. And being that I will not eat meat unless I hunted and killed it an cleaned it and butchered it and carried it out on my back and washed it and deep freezed it myself (yes I am a vegetarian unless I hunt and kill it myself i wont buy meat. i will only hunt for meat... rare breed i am now-a-days it feels like...) It pisses me off that you don't carry bear spray in Alaska. it pisses me off you don't carry bear spray in bear territory period... for 2 reasons... your life. and the bears life. bear spray is more affective then a bear slug. and it will not kill the bear. do me a favor and but a can of bear spray. PLEASE!!!!
me too...
TOTALLY AGREE.
That dont sound like a gun control problem to me. That sounds like a Classical American Health Care Issue to me... Better Health Care... would mean he would have been better diagnosed. would have been given treatment... and I doubt anyone would have died. But taking down gun control would be easier than taking down the billion dollar health industry...
It is also quite surprising how easy it is to get a hand and a drivers licence... compared to getting health insurance to solve the issue at the root of it all...
I have a couple handguns... I dont hunt with them... I DO take them hunting with me for protection... as well as bear spray when in bear country... or cougar country... I hunt with a High Powered Rifle or Shotgun depending on the game. I will say I again as I am pround of this fact that I only eat what I kill and wont buy meat. I am a responsible non-vegetarian... as my wife is a hard core vegetarian. These issues on gun control do not see like a issue on gun control... they seem like a health care issue not a gun issue... look at the root of the problem and not the easy scape goat... he was a crazy... thats a health issue... not a gun issue... what if he attacted her with a knife... are you going to out law knifes? what if he attacted with a shovel? would you out law shovels? (obviously body gaurds and security would foil an attack by a shovel or knife... but its a tool just as a hand gun is a tool) It is like declaring a war of drugs... where is that going to get you? your declaring war on an object... you need to declare war on the issue... drug use... and the best way to do this... is to treat and prevent.
| |||||||
|
Stains Blue Stranger Registered: 01/17/11 Posts: 963 |
| ||||||
The Brady Bill is expired... I like your style tho, Prisoner#1... Fuck restrictions, Its just another prohibition... be it guns, pot, human right... its just another prohibition...
| |||||||
|
Prisoner#1 Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
|
an interesting note on that '97 N. Hollywood shoot out, the cops went to a
local gun store and asked for guns that were widely available to civilians in order to stop the guys, another interesting note... seems those AKs the bank robbers used were brought in from china by Bill Clinton as part of a trade for ICBM technology
| |||||||
|
Stains Blue Stranger Registered: 01/17/11 Posts: 963 |
| ||||||
The fact I hate pointing out about that is... (because it sounds conspiracy theorist and i hate conspiracy theorist...) Police are pawns in political ideals. And politicians would rather have there pawns do there bidding than there jobs... California is notoriously anti gun... so Police do not have firearms or tools supportive to there jobs (back in 1997 now they have at least 1 AR-15 in every patrol car)... i.e. north hollywood shoot out... here is another example... detroit mi. over 3000 police employed through out the city... it is not un common for there to be 80+ priority 1 calls (priority 1 = priority 1... need immediate assistance... i.e. shootings rape robery ect...) where police officers are not able to respond for 18+ hours later... BUT funds are still allocated in the department for "hat patrols" (people driving around making sure police officers are wearing there hats when walking the street) fucking hat patrols... 20+ people riding around making sure police officers are wearing there hats... thats what my taxes pay for... fucking hat patrols.... Edited by Stains Blue (01/18/11 12:28 AM)
| |||||||
|
dshow Nomad  Registered: 01/22/09 Posts: 5,255 Last seen: 14 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
People against guns or gun control are just
 to me.Enough great reasons have been posted here as to why not have a gun. Plus if someone didnt say it.. Look up australia after they put on heavy gun regulations, crimes involving guns went up. Just go hunting and experience a gun to its fullest. it feels great. Great rush as well. --------------------  TRIP on this  http://www.shroomery.org/forums/Like EDM?(Electronic Dance Music) http://www.youtube.com/user/ThisHardstyle Music thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/Trance Music thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Asante Big Moissanite shill Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 92,590 |
| ||||||
 Mass murder by drug OD:
Mass murder by hammer and nail:
Mass murder by engine exhaust gas:
Are you ready to prohibit pharmaceuticals, carpenting tools and the internal combustion engine? -------------------- personal empowerment for the world LGBT - Love God Before Tradition
| |||||||
|
dshow Nomad Registered: 01/22/09 Posts: 5,255 Last seen: 14 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Good thing we got rid of Heroin, people cant die from it anymore.
-------------------- TRIP on this http://www.shroomery.org/forums/Like EDM?(Electronic Dance Music) http://www.youtube.com/user/ThisHardstyle Music thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/Trance Music thread http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
WakeboardrB Pepe Silvia  Registered: 05/18/03 Posts: 13,678 Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
It's still used medicinally in the UK, which is where Harold Shipman killed his 270+ victims. Diamorphine nigguh! -------------------- Same thing happened to me when I played Neil Armstrong in Moonshot. They found me in an alley in Burbank trying to re-enter the earth's atmosphere in an old refrigerator box.
| |||||||
|
the spiral Neuroscientist Registered: 05/13/02 Posts: 1,769 Last seen: 11 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Stains Blue - I found none of the points you made in your response to my post to be innately flawed, and appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position and point out possible issues with mine, and I also appreciate how you stuck to the debate at hand and never resorted to ad-hominim attacks. Thanks for offering some valuable food for thought.
Wiccan and Prisoner#1 - when you guys engage in debates on these forums, I virtually always feel that the question at hand has been clarified by your points. In this thread, however, when you guys cite examples where people used cars or their specific position in society (doctors who don't arouse suspicion when they give injections, and various other criminals who have been able to murder a number of people without the use of firearms) you really are reaching, and none of your examples are applicable to Tucson. Whether the Tucson killer considered using an 18 wheeler or jello laced with cyanide, his chances of racking up the number of casualties he was able to with a firearm, though perhaps possible, would be small, and he would have had to put significantly more effort into his planning to carry out those sorts of attacks - a feat that your average paranoid schizophrenic does not have the sort of "patience" for. When you match the planning involved and difficulty of execution of other methods to the amount of planning and relative difficulty of buying a gun and shooting into a crowd, I don't see how you can deny how sidearms make extensive planning and skill virtually unnecessary if some psycho wants to do what this psycho did. You keep citing these cases of mass murder NOT involving firearms that are the exception - this may make them juicy reading, but are you seriously suggesting that the Tucson shooter (if his goal was to maximize his bodycount) would have been smarter to choose a car or poison or something other than a gun? If you are suggesting that, then we are at an impasse, for while I'll accept that perhaps a modified assault rifle would have been more effective, an assault rifle is still a firearm. Especially considering that I have unambiguously stated that I am at best wary of gun control measures, I am rather bewildered at the lengths you guys will go to to try and make it sound like guns aren't THAT deadly, not really ... not compared to sprinkling stolen smallpox everywhere or filling a stolen truck with ANFO. Sure, a truck full of ANFO can be quite a bit more deadly, but the raw statistics on the number of people murdered by guns DESPITE how deadly other potential weapons may be only strengthens my point that the easy availability and relatively deadliness of handguns has a lot to do with the fact that the number of individuals who fall victim to gun violence in this country every year dwarfs the number casualties resulting from people misusing any other deadly weapon. It brings me pause to read a number of posts where gun owners attempt to downplay just how deadly their guns are - I sincerely hope that despite your denial of the deadliness of your weapons that you still take the proper steps to secure them. Face it - the Tucson shooter would have used a truck full of ANFO if he had access to one, or the knowledge to build one (without getting very busted very quickly), but he didn't need anything close to that elaborate to murder and wound all the people he did. From what I recall, even Eric Rudolph didn't rack up the body count this Tucson guy did - and Rudolph engaged in multiple attempts with multiple bombs placed in strategic locations. Why are some people so offended when someone else points out that guns are deadly weapons that allow people to commit mass murder in a manner that, lacking firearms, would require months of planning and a great deal of luck? Why are some people taken aback when I point out that guns are engineered for one purpose - to kill - and even if you think killing big game was the primary motivation behind the engineering of the modern sidearm, that doesn't negate the fact that a weapon designed to take down elk is by definition as good or better when murder is your objective? I feel rather suspicious that the motivation behind attempts to argue against the point that guns are extraordinarly well suited tools for murderers (I don't see anyone suggesting that we arm our soldiers with Volkswagons, or as in one of Wiccan's examples, hammers and nails) are making these arguments because they think that recognizing firearms as the effective and purpose-built tools they are would somehow provide ammunition (pardon the pun) to gun prohibitionists. Unfortunately for you guys, the truth matters, and if you truly believe what you are saying then I'd pay good money to see you try to prove your point with your car or what-have-you against someone armed with extended-clip semi-automatic pistols. In reality, I'd urge you not to make such an attempt as I enjoy your posts and would miss you... but that's merely an aside.
In the Netherlands, heroin is actually provided by the government (including home delivery) to some addicts, for a variety of reasons. I doubt I'd run into nearly as much vitriol if I was saying that heroin can be very deadly if misused, so I still feel truly boggled by how stating that firearms are exceptionally deadly in the wrong hands has whipped up this amount of debate. Edited by the spiral (01/19/11 12:14 AM)
| |||||||
|
Larrythescaryrex teardrop on the fire Registered: 07/19/00 Posts: 11,004 Loc: further down the Last seen: 3 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
Some people would have been able to reload without being stopped by some granny, thus perhaps negating the need for high capacity clips. Or alternatively, had the foresight to bring TWO guns.
Regardless, you have made your point, guns are a deadly weapon. If they weren't it would be meaningless that we had the right to bear them. They are not, however, weapons of mass destruction. -------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Injection Grain Bag |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Guns and shrooms...fun with projectiles |  oDin |
1,699 | 11 | 09/25/20 09:07 PM by ToTheSummit |
|
 |
The Land Of The Free (A question for Americans) |  Jackal |
3,185 | 19 | 08/08/03 07:54 PM by PDU |
|
 |
The Smoking Gun |  Hashbury |
917 | 2 | 11/14/02 01:28 AM by Papaver |
|
|
I'm tripping right now: Naked Gun vs. Die Hard?!? |  TonyMontana |
1,158 | 2 | 11/14/02 03:30 AM by TonyMontana |
|
 |
-A rather pressing question- (  1 2 all ) |
igore |
4,178 | 21 | 07/31/03 09:19 PM by Fungushungry |
|
 |
a few questions about the family :) |  Vulture |
2,216 | 10 | 09/01/03 09:47 PM by Vulture |
|
 |
question... ( 1 2 all ) |
ZenBhikku |
4,594 | 22 | 08/22/03 12:16 AM by ThEGrEaTBeLoW |
|
|
question about donating blood at work | swm |
2,019 | 16 | 07/21/03 04:58 PM by GernBlanston |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Entire Staff 7,402 topic views. 6 members, 910 guests and 284 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||