Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Pro-Gun logic?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


dan2see


Jan 5, 2013, 12:48 AM
Post #51 of 85 (2958 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [camhead] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
You know, none of us go onto gun forums and argue about climbing...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URdSD8UWxLk


Cliffhanger with Stallone on YouTube


curt


Jan 6, 2013, 1:41 PM
Post #52 of 85 (2914 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [camhead] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
You know, none of us go onto gun forums and argue about climbing...

Let's start doing that...

Curt


SylviaSmile


Jan 6, 2013, 7:31 PM
Post #53 of 85 (2892 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2011
Posts: 982

Re: [curt] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

curt wrote:
camhead wrote:
You know, none of us go onto gun forums and argue about climbing...

Let's start doing that...

Curt

+1 . . . seriously. I don't know what is up with this place and guns!


pinktricam


Jan 7, 2013, 1:49 AM
Post #54 of 85 (2880 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [SylviaSmile] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

SylviaSmile wrote:
curt wrote:
camhead wrote:
You know, none of us go onto gun forums and argue about climbing...

Let's start doing that...

Curt

+1 . . . seriously. I don't know what is up with this place and guns!


Apparently you've missed it, but there's been a heightened interest in guns and potential gun legislation here in the US lately. Please, do try and keep up.


(This post was edited by pinktricam on Jan 7, 2013, 3:44 AM)


AkAxeMan


Jan 8, 2013, 8:17 AM
Post #55 of 85 (2823 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2012
Posts: 16

Re: [Kartessa] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.


AkAxeMan


Jan 8, 2013, 8:21 AM
Post #56 of 85 (2822 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2012
Posts: 16

Re: [AkAxeMan] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?


camhead


Jan 8, 2013, 10:48 AM
Post #57 of 85 (2810 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20658

Re: [AkAxeMan] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?


hugepedro


Jan 8, 2013, 12:21 PM
Post #58 of 85 (2801 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [camhead] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

Most hunters carry a sidearm for situations where getting off multiple rounds quickly, in close quarters, is called for, where a bolt-action rifle isn't the best tool. Ranchers carry a sidearm for the same reason. Hikers/backpackers/climbers, such as myself, also carry a sidearm in some situations (particularly when I'm going somewhere there's been a lot of mountain lion activity). Friends of mine have been stalked by mountain lions on trails just outside of town here in Santa Fe. Hell, just a few years ago a mountain lion broke into a jewelry store right on the Plaza. Cougars are scary (and I'm not talking about the kind most often sighted in Santa Fe, the ones wearing too much turquoise and belly-button piercings.).

And, more and more hunters are moving to using AR type rifles. The 'assault-rifle' stigma of the traditional hunting mindset (i.e. bolt-action is best) is fading. Many features of these rifles make them great in many hunting situations. Highly accurate out to mid-range distances. Light weight. Ability for rapid-fire when it's needed (so the hunter doesn't feel the need to carry a sidearm in addition to rifle). Lots of hunters are chambering them up to higher calibers for big game hunting.

Additionally, there are lots of traditional 'hunting rifles' that are semi-auto with detachable magazines. You can get a semi-auto .308 with 20rd detachable magazines that I guarantee you can do far more lethal damage than a .223 AR-15 with 30rd magazines.

Not that I'm not for more/better regulations. Just pointing out that effective regulations will likely encroach big time into the space that lots of people consider 'legitimate' weapon usage. So whatever regulations are implemented, they need to be written by smart people that understand firearms, hunting, self-defense, and crime, which would exclude most of the people in Congress.


chadnsc


Jan 8, 2013, 1:33 PM
Post #59 of 85 (2786 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [hugepedro] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

Most hunters carry a sidearm for situations where getting off multiple rounds quickly, in close quarters, is called for, where a bolt-action rifle isn't the best tool.

Bullshit. I'm sorry to be so in your face about it but in my 20 years of hunting in MT, MN, UT, AK, WY, and CO I've NEVER heard of a hunter carrying a pistol to get off multiple rounds quickly in close quarters.

I've heard of bow hunters going after big game who carry a very large caliber single shot handgun or revolver as backup.

I've seen some hunters carrying a large caliber as backup or a smaller caliber (.38, .44) for wolves and such but very, very few.


Listen, short of carrying a very large caliber handgun (44 mag, 47-50, ect) your standard handgun calibers (9mm. .38, .40, .45, .357) aren't going to do dick to anything much larger than a whitetale deer. Even when using those previously mentioned large caliber hanguns you're not going to get off a lot of shots due to recoil; also most only hold 4 to 5 rounds.

On a side note I've also been backpacking in a lot of places with mountain lion and grizzly and I've never carried a hangun for protection. Why you ask? Bear spray is easier to use, aim, and carry.


hugepedro


Jan 8, 2013, 2:08 PM
Post #60 of 85 (2778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [chadnsc] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Just cuz you ain't heard of it don't mean it ain't so.

Where I grew up (northern B.C., SE Alaska), where there is lots of dense brush and it's easy to surprise/get surprised by bear or moose, it was commonplace to carry .44 mag or bigger. When your rifle is slung over your shoulder and you're trying to move through rugged terrain and dense brush, and you maybe have only 1 hand available, the rifle ain't gonna cut it.

Your choice to carry bear spray. I'd want something more when a bear decides it wants to terrorize a campsite all night long, returning to attack people in tents multiple times over the course of several hours. Bear spray is useful against bears that might be trying to remove a perceived threat from their space, not as useful for a bear that is in determined predation mode.

And pepper spray isn't much fun if you have a stiff wind in your face.

Friends of mine had an hour long standoff with a mountain lion. They were hiking when they 'caught' him stalking them. He was readying to pounce from about 15 feet away when they made eye contact and he froze. When they tried to slowly back away he would advance. They threw rocks, sticks, anything they could grab, nothing would get him to back down. After an entire hour of that he finally decided they were too much trouble. I think I would want to have ANY caliber gun in that situation.


chadnsc


Jan 8, 2013, 2:31 PM
Post #61 of 85 (2771 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [hugepedro] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

hugepedro wrote:
Just cuz you ain't heard of it don't mean it ain't so.

Where I grew up (northern B.C., SE Alaska), where there is lots of dense brush and it's easy to surprise/get surprised by bear or moose, it was commonplace to carry .44 mag or bigger. When your rifle is slung over your shoulder and you're trying to move through rugged terrain and dense brush, and you maybe have only 1 hand available, the rifle ain't gonna cut it.

Your choice to carry bear spray. I'd want something more when a bear decides it wants to terrorize a campsite all night long, returning to attack people in tents multiple times over the course of several hours. Bear spray is useful against bears that might be trying to remove a perceived threat from their space, not as useful for a bear that is in determined predation mode.

And pepper spray isn't much fun if you have a stiff wind in your face.

Friends of mine had an hour long standoff with a mountain lion. They were hiking when they 'caught' him stalking them. He was readying to pounce from about 15 feet away when they made eye contact and he froze. When they tried to slowly back away he would advance. They threw rocks, sticks, anything they could grab, nothing would get him to back down. After an entire hour of that he finally decided they were too much trouble. I think I would want to have ANY caliber gun in that situation.


Oh I've heard of it. I've even seen them used (handguns) by hunters. Just because I've seen it used by some I don't presume to think that ALL hunters carry handguns.

I'll keep with the bear spray when I'm backpacking. It worked for me against a charging grizzly with cubs in Yellowstone and another grizzly crushing tents at our campsite in Glacier.

I for one found the 45 foot range and wide spray cone to to work quite well. I don't think I'd have been able to get a good vital shot in those few seconds I used the bear spray. You are right though that you have to be aware of the wind. Then again you have to aim a pistol and hit in the bears vitals so each system has it's drawbacks.


iknowfear


Jan 8, 2013, 3:18 PM
Post #62 of 85 (2766 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 633

Re: [Kartessa] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Kartessa wrote:
Feel free to add/edit this, I'm trying to understand how this works a little better.

In General Terms:

Although guns are attributed to a large percentage of violent deaths in the USA, there are people are still against doing anything about it, claiming that there are so many other things out there that can be dangerous in the hands of a criminal too, so why centre out guns? "If keeping my gun means that people out there are shooting at each other with automatic weapons, so be it."

Or in Trad-Climber Terms:

Its like if you had 10 ham sammiches and 9 friends, but you want to eat 2 sammies. So instead of just eating one, and letting all your friends get some awesome ham sammich action, you eat 2 and throw the other 8 away. After all, you didn't have enough to please everyone.

a "fine example" of pro gun logic:
http://www.youtube.com/...ed&v=AtyKofFih8Y
and part 2

http://www.youtube.com/...ed&v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo


hugepedro


Jan 8, 2013, 3:50 PM
Post #63 of 85 (2758 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [chadnsc] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
Just cuz you ain't heard of it don't mean it ain't so.

Where I grew up (northern B.C., SE Alaska), where there is lots of dense brush and it's easy to surprise/get surprised by bear or moose, it was commonplace to carry .44 mag or bigger. When your rifle is slung over your shoulder and you're trying to move through rugged terrain and dense brush, and you maybe have only 1 hand available, the rifle ain't gonna cut it.

Your choice to carry bear spray. I'd want something more when a bear decides it wants to terrorize a campsite all night long, returning to attack people in tents multiple times over the course of several hours. Bear spray is useful against bears that might be trying to remove a perceived threat from their space, not as useful for a bear that is in determined predation mode.

And pepper spray isn't much fun if you have a stiff wind in your face.

Friends of mine had an hour long standoff with a mountain lion. They were hiking when they 'caught' him stalking them. He was readying to pounce from about 15 feet away when they made eye contact and he froze. When they tried to slowly back away he would advance. They threw rocks, sticks, anything they could grab, nothing would get him to back down. After an entire hour of that he finally decided they were too much trouble. I think I would want to have ANY caliber gun in that situation.


Oh I've heard of it. I've even seen them used (handguns) by hunters. Just because I've seen it used by some I don't presume to think that ALL hunters carry handguns.

I'll keep with the bear spray when I'm backpacking. It worked for me against a charging grizzly with cubs in Yellowstone and another grizzly crushing tents at our campsite in Glacier.

I for one found the 45 foot range and wide spray cone to to work quite well. I don't think I'd have been able to get a good vital shot in those few seconds I used the bear spray. You are right though that you have to be aware of the wind. Then again you have to aim a pistol and hit in the bears vitals so each system has it's drawbacks.

Well I didn't say "all", I said "most". That was probably not entirely accurate. It was very common in SE Alaska, and most the hunters I know here in NM carry pistols. That's not a statistically significant sample, I admit. My point is that this is what most people would consider a 'legitimate' purpose for a handgun.


hugepedro


Jan 8, 2013, 3:58 PM
Post #64 of 85 (2752 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [hugepedro] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

For the record, I'm a gun owner that thinks we need more regulations to help keep them out of the wrong hands, and I do think it's possible to have such regulations without infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights.

However, focusing on gun regulation alone will not solve our problem. Motivation and advance planning can defeat pretty much any security measure. And technology and information can get around regulations. The technology exists today to manufacture non-metal gun parts using a 3D printer. It won't be long before ANYBODY can make a gun that will defeat our current airport security measures.

We need to put significant resources into reducing/preventing crime, and not just focus in the tools used in crime.


pinktricam


Jan 8, 2013, 5:10 PM
Post #65 of 85 (2740 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [camhead] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

You wrote "clips." That renders your entire argument null and void. You realize that right?

On another note, there are literally tens of thousands of sport matches every year that are staged safely using handguns.

Yes, they are used for sport and there are fewer fatalities within that sport than there are are in climbing.

Didja keep up with me? Or maybe you should stick to teaching your history, which you probably do an almost passable job of....barely.


chadnsc


Jan 8, 2013, 6:02 PM
Post #66 of 85 (2734 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [pinktricam] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

You wrote "clips." That renders your entire argument null and void. You realize that right?

With your poor understanding of firearms, grammar, and carry laws that would mean any argument here is null and void. You realize that right?


pinktricam


Jan 8, 2013, 6:34 PM
Post #67 of 85 (2725 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [chadnsc] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

You wrote "clips." That renders your entire argument null and void. You realize that right?

With your poor understanding of firearms, grammar, and carry laws that would mean any argument here is null and void. You realize that right?

For goodness sakes, read what you just wrote. Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.


AkAxeMan


Jan 8, 2013, 7:04 PM
Post #68 of 85 (2711 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2012
Posts: 16

Re: [chadnsc] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

Most hunters carry a sidearm for situations where getting off multiple rounds quickly, in close quarters, is called for, where a bolt-action rifle isn't the best tool.

Bullshit. I'm sorry to be so in your face about it but in my 20 years of hunting in MT, MN, UT, AK, WY, and CO I've NEVER heard of a hunter carrying a pistol to get off multiple rounds quickly in close quarters.

I've heard of bow hunters going after big game who carry a very large caliber single shot handgun or revolver as backup.

I've seen some hunters carrying a large caliber as backup or a smaller caliber (.38, .44) for wolves and such but very, very few.


Listen, short of carrying a very large caliber handgun (44 mag, 47-50, ect) your standard handgun calibers (9mm. .38, .40, .45, .357) aren't going to do dick to anything much larger than a whitetale deer. Even when using those previously mentioned large caliber hanguns you're not going to get off a lot of shots due to recoil; also most only hold 4 to 5 rounds.

On a side note I've also been backpacking in a lot of places with mountain lion and grizzly and I've never carried a hangun for protection. Why you ask? Bear spray is easier to use, aim, and carry.

I am going to have to call your bullshit. I have been living in Alaska for several years now and whenever I go hiking or hunting I carry a sidearm for bear and wolf protection. The wolves in this area are known to bait dogs out and attack them as well as attack humans. Also a reason that my dogs are always on a leash.

In response to your cyanide remark, do you happen to know where i can get some legally, I have several firearms but can never tell when i could use some cyanide also.


pinktricam


Jan 8, 2013, 7:51 PM
Post #69 of 85 (2703 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [AkAxeMan] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

AkAxeMan wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

Most hunters carry a sidearm for situations where getting off multiple rounds quickly, in close quarters, is called for, where a bolt-action rifle isn't the best tool.

Bullshit. I'm sorry to be so in your face about it but in my 20 years of hunting in MT, MN, UT, AK, WY, and CO I've NEVER heard of a hunter carrying a pistol to get off multiple rounds quickly in close quarters.

I've heard of bow hunters going after big game who carry a very large caliber single shot handgun or revolver as backup.

I've seen some hunters carrying a large caliber as backup or a smaller caliber (.38, .44) for wolves and such but very, very few.


Listen, short of carrying a very large caliber handgun (44 mag, 47-50, ect) your standard handgun calibers (9mm. .38, .40, .45, .357) aren't going to do dick to anything much larger than a whitetale deer. Even when using those previously mentioned large caliber hanguns you're not going to get off a lot of shots due to recoil; also most only hold 4 to 5 rounds.

On a side note I've also been backpacking in a lot of places with mountain lion and grizzly and I've never carried a hangun for protection. Why you ask? Bear spray is easier to use, aim, and carry.

I am going to have to call your bullshit.

Considering the source you're quoting, calling bullshit's a pretty safe bet.


chadnsc


Jan 9, 2013, 8:39 AM
Post #70 of 85 (2675 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [AkAxeMan] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

AkAxeMan wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
hugepedro wrote:
camhead wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
AkAxeMan wrote:
Guns aren't the real problem, we should ban hammers from public use and purchasing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

The FBI is stating that hammers and blunt objects are used to kill more frequently than guns. Just some food for thought.

I retract my previous statement, i Just finished reading the report, More people are killed with hammers and blunt objects than with rifles. Looks like guns across the board are used more frequently, however it also looks like Hands, Fists, Feet, etc are used more frequently than rifles as well. should we ban hands?

So, you seem a little slow, given that you get your news from Breitbart, so I'm going to try to lead you through this with baby steps--

-Ricin has essentially no use or benefit beyond killing people, so it is strictly illegal to have in any quantity.

-Cyanide is also very good for killing people, but it has some limited uses that go beyond just killing people, say, for mining, so some people can obtain it, with a lot of regulation and paper work.

-Nitrogen fertilizer can be used to make explosives, but it has even more widespread and practical use than cyanide, so it is even easier to obtain, but you still need to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to get it.

You following me so far?

Nearly everything this side of ricin has some sort of practical, beneficial use that does not directly involve killing people. Cars kill thousands a year (actually, more than that if we factor in carbon emissions), but benefit billions. Hammers, scissors, and fists kill a few hundred a year, but also benefit billions, and have more and better non-lethal uses than they do lethal ones.

Still with me?

Of all guns, rifles probably have the MOST practical, non-lethal-to-human uses. They're great for hunting and varmint control, but not really the best tools for killing lots of people quickly. Hmm, maybe that's why they were compared to hammers in your study?

Handguns, in particular, semi-automatics? What is their practical, non-lethal use? There is not a lot of evidence that they are used for so much self-defense that they should be freely available. Sometimes they can be useful in the hands of trained law-enforcement officials, though. So, it would make sense to treat handguns like cyanide; lethal, but limited useful application, so perhaps we should limit and regulate their use and ownership.

So, tell me, what are the practical uses for semi-automatic rifles with banana clips like the AR? They're not the best tool for game hunting, and there are other guns out there that are both better for hunting and not so good for mass shootings. They would also suck for self-defense; you're not going to keep one concealed in your jacket to pull out quickly when that mass shooter busts into your classroom or theater.

In other words, their ratio of lethal to practical use is more on the side of ricin than of hammers. Laws should reflect that.

Any questions?

Most hunters carry a sidearm for situations where getting off multiple rounds quickly, in close quarters, is called for, where a bolt-action rifle isn't the best tool.

Bullshit. I'm sorry to be so in your face about it but in my 20 years of hunting in MT, MN, UT, AK, WY, and CO I've NEVER heard of a hunter carrying a pistol to get off multiple rounds quickly in close quarters.

I've heard of bow hunters going after big game who carry a very large caliber single shot handgun or revolver as backup.

I've seen some hunters carrying a large caliber as backup or a smaller caliber (.38, .44) for wolves and such but very, very few.


Listen, short of carrying a very large caliber handgun (44 mag, 47-50, ect) your standard handgun calibers (9mm. .38, .40, .45, .357) aren't going to do dick to anything much larger than a whitetale deer. Even when using those previously mentioned large caliber hanguns you're not going to get off a lot of shots due to recoil; also most only hold 4 to 5 rounds.

On a side note I've also been backpacking in a lot of places with mountain lion and grizzly and I've never carried a hangun for protection. Why you ask? Bear spray is easier to use, aim, and carry.

I am going to have to call your bullshit. I have been living in Alaska for several years now and whenever I go hiking or hunting I carry a sidearm for bear and wolf protection. The wolves in this area are known to bait dogs out and attack them as well as attack humans. Also a reason that my dogs are always on a leash.

In response to your cyanide remark, do you happen to know where i can get some legally, I have several firearms but can never tell when i could use some cyanide also.

That's fine.

My comment was responding to H's remarks that MOST hunters carry a sidearm to get off shots quickly. Some hunters do, but most do not.

As for you carrying a handgun for wolf and grizzly bear defense . . . well that's your choice. That doesn't mean that everyone does it. Hell I backpack around timberwolves and grizzly nearly year round for the past ten years and only had to use a deterrent twice; worked like a charm too.

Sorry I can't help you with cyanide. WTF?


chadnsc


Jan 9, 2013, 8:45 AM
Post #71 of 85 (2668 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [pinktricam] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
With your poor understanding of firearms, grammar, and carry laws that would mean any argument here is null and void. You realize that right?

For goodness sakes, read what you just wrote. Calling you retarded would be an insult to retarded people.

You don't understand that your constantly incorrect and inane rantings regarding firearms make anything you say on the subject highly suspect?

Add to that your admission of blatantly breaking the law in regards to CCP not only make you a hypocrite but a liar as well.

Your use of the word retarded however just shows that you're a crass asshole.


pinktricam


Jan 17, 2013, 5:32 AM
Post #72 of 85 (2540 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [chadnsc] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Wally World score this morning: 600 rounds of 9mm and 100 rounds of .38 Special +P....still no .223 though.


chadnsc


Jan 17, 2013, 8:02 AM
Post #73 of 85 (2532 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [pinktricam] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Shouldn't you be buying P-mags for your AR?


pinktricam


Jan 17, 2013, 1:23 PM
Post #74 of 85 (2517 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [chadnsc] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
Shouldn't you be buying P-mags for your AR?
Actually, I'm all magged up. What I want is more ammo....I'm down to around 600 rounds of .223/5.56.


chadnsc


Jan 17, 2013, 1:33 PM
Post #75 of 85 (2513 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [pinktricam] Pro-Gun logic? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I'm sure you're away that .223 and 5.56 aren't the same.

Just like I'm sure you know you can shoot .223 out of a 5.56 but not the other way around.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook