Export thread

Not just any gun. An AK-47!

Yahoo news link

Yay stereotypes!

If it gets people to buy their cars, more power to them.

Here's the CNN Video of it, it's hilarious how he flusters the reporter. I'm personally all for this promotion 2A FTW!

CNN video gives a bit more. Plus it's not fox news, I would much rather watch that one.

However it also gave me this little gem as a side note: http://forum.halforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6181

That's something almost all southerners can agree on.


Go guns.

I don't really have a problem with people owning a handgun or a rifle but... I am uneased by the idea of handing out assault rifles. I mean, for fuck's sake.

Automatic Assault rifles are illegal. The AKs are semi, I believe.

LeQuack is correct a fully automatic rifle is illegal in the US so the AK's are semi-auto. With engineering though you can put a selecter switch in to make it full auto but then it's illegal. I also believe though, with a proper FFL you can own a full auto, and I know for a fact if you fill out the correct forms you can own silencers for your weapons.

Guns and religion .

I seriously don't see the appeal of guns, even for hunting, I can't imagine with all the possible technology its even fair to the animals. Even with how bows are now, I am pretty sure a person with parkinson's can kill a bunny.

That may have been very insensitive and very inaccurate just a thought though.

crono1224 said:

Guns and religion .

I seriously don't see the appeal of guns, even for hunting, I can't imagine with all the possible technology its even fair to the animals. Even with how bows are now, I am pretty sure a person with parkinson's can kill a bunny.

That may have been very insensitive and very inaccurate just a thought though.

Click to expand...

Crono, from a self-defense standpoint nobody ever needs a gun. Except when they do need one, then they really need it.

I personally carry a Taurus 24/7 pro .40 cal when not at the house, a S&W Sigma 9mm with a tac light for home defense and the wife has a Walther p22 target pistol for the shooting range (Which I haven't talked her into doing yet, she says next weekend for sure lol)

CrimsonSoul said:

crono1224 said:

Guns and religion .

I seriously don't see the appeal of guns, even for hunting, I can't imagine with all the possible technology its even fair to the animals. Even with how bows are now, I am pretty sure a person with parkinson's can kill a bunny.

That may have been very insensitive and very inaccurate just a thought though.

Click to expand...

Crono, from a self-defense standpoint nobody ever needs a gun. Except when they do need one, then they really need it.

I personally carry a Taurus 24/7 pro .40 cal when not at the house, a S&W Sigma 9mm with a tac light for home defense and the wife has a Walther p22 target pistol for the shooting range (Which I haven't talked her into doing yet, she says next weekend for sure lol)

Click to expand...

And how many times have you had to use it?

For that fact, whats even the ratio of gun ownership to it being used for self-defense, then factor in where the situation was escalated because the guy on defense had a gun and felt ballsy, rather than trying to diffuse the situation or try and get out of it.

I am willing to be that the number of times it has come in handy is such a lower number both in terms of total time of owning a gun to times it was used for defense, and number of people that own/need to use it.

crono1224 said:

CrimsonSoul said:

crono1224 said:

Guns and religion .

I seriously don't see the appeal of guns, even for hunting, I can't imagine with all the possible technology its even fair to the animals. Even with how bows are now, I am pretty sure a person with parkinson's can kill a bunny.

That may have been very insensitive and very inaccurate just a thought though.

Click to expand...

Crono, from a self-defense standpoint nobody ever needs a gun. Except when they do need one, then they really need it.

I personally carry a Taurus 24/7 pro .40 cal when not at the house, a S&W Sigma 9mm with a tac light for home defense and the wife has a Walther p22 target pistol for the shooting range (Which I haven't talked her into doing yet, she says next weekend for sure lol)

Click to expand...

And how many times have you had to use it?

For that fact, whats even the ratio of gun ownership to it being used for self-defense, then factor in where the situation was escalated because the guy on defense had a gun and felt ballsy, rather than trying to diffuse the situation or try and get out of it.

I am willing to be that the number of times it has come in handy is such a lower number both in terms of total time of owning a gun to times it was used for defense, and number of people that own/need to use it.

Click to expand...

Thankfully I've never had to use it. And as a CHL holder I try to de-escilate every situation as if it isn't absolutely necessary to use a firearm I could go to jail for using it.

Ah conviction rates of CHL holders to non-CHL holders why I have that information right here from 2007. which is 61,260 total convictions and of that 160 of those convictions were from CHL holders. man I bet the victims of the other 61,100 people wish they had a weapon to protect themselves or their families.

Edit: If it's possible to leave the area safely, say I'm driving in a car and someone tries to run me off the road I can call 911 while I drive, and I choose to use my handgun anyway, I'm in trouble

Edit 2: an armed society is a polite society, let's look at the "Wild West" compared to today:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.


Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

-- Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:12 pm --

And for the record I would love to never have to carry a gun but I choose to because a cop is to heavy for me to carry, and when seconds count the cops are only minutes away!

There's also all these examples of using a handgun in self-defense, how dare those people defend themselves with a handgun instead of possibly giving up their lives to the bad guy! That's just so disgusting of the victim to attempt to defend themselves! :humph:

To be honest, we can't say that those statistics are actually proof that guns dont increase murder rates. There are a whole wide variety of criminological theories that explain murder, with statistics to back them up.

There is also the statistics from the Texas Department of Public Saftey that shows conviction rates from non-chl holders compared to chl holders up there in that first link, the 61,260 people one

-- Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:22 pm --

Let me get the information off the DPS website, in Texas for all crimes that have the word "murder" in them there were 466 total crimes, of that 4 of those 466 had a concealed handgun license. So I suppose that CHL's increase murder by 4 every year, I'm not sure how many they stop though

-- Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:28 pm --

Here are four possible murders stopped by someone with a handgun (there are more) so I guess it more than evens out in the end This guy should have waited on 911 Oh wait, they didn't answer. Well there's this Woman who should have just locked the door good thing they guy didn't want to rape or kill her! Good thing this store owner had a gun otherwise the two armed men that came in may not have let him live. For the record, robbing a pawn shop full of guns in a stupid idea.

Arguing against someone owning a gun by asking them how many times they have had to use it is rather missing the point. No one WANTS to use a gun, hopefully they never have to. We don't own one, mainly because I don't have the time to learn to shoot and if I'm gonna own one I want to be responsible with it.

And another thing: That CNN reporter needs a good kick in the face. What a condescending bitch.

You know, I might be buying a new car soon, and that place isn't too far away.

I might have to check into this.

I'm not sure how murder statistics stack up vs each other, I feel that there are a multitude of reasons for homicide, and less people = less homicide not just by per capita, but the more people you have in an area the more conflicts on every level that will eventually arise.

Secondly, I don't know if there is a direct corrilation between owning a gun and being any safer. While I subscribe to the idea, if someone got in your face and you pulled out a gun it would scare them away, the next question is are you willing to use it, are you willing to kill a person, maybe they are just a bit crazier and hopped up than you now you are in a sticky situation. Maybe before you could have just lost your wallet and maybe your cell phone, but now you are in a gun to gun, or gun on knife situation.

Edit: If it's possible to leave the area safely, say I'm driving in a car and someone tries to run me off the road I can call 911 while I drive, and I choose to use my handgun anyway, I'm in trouble

Click to expand...

This confuses me, are you going to shoot at someone while driving on the road, it seems highly dangerous unless you are the only two people on the road, god forbid you miss and hit a random person.

I don't mean to bemoan the ownership of gun, just to me I find it unlikely to be used in many circumstances if ever.

I subscribe to the idea that if I feel so endangered that I really need to pull a gun then it is only going to be one tenth of a second later that I am pulling the trigger.

Crono by my statement I mean what if you're driving on a two lane road, at say midnight, some guy passes you, slams on the breaks pulling and blocks both lanes of traffic then gets out of the car and starts walking towards you with a weapon because he's some road rage ass hole. What would you do? That's what I'm talking about, not like rolling road battles or anything of the like, sorry if I wasn't clear on how I wrote that.

And I agree with Necro on that last post

CrimsonSoul said:

Crono by my statement I mean what if you're driving on a two lane road, at say midnight, some guy passes you, slams on the breaks pulling and blocks both lanes of traffic then gets out of the car and starts walking towards you with a weapon because he's some road rage a** hole. What would you do? That's what I'm talking about, not like rolling road battles or anything of the like, sorry if I wasn't clear on how I wrote that.

And I agree with Necro on that last post

Click to expand...

I like guns. What if arguments don't really hold well.


To answer your question: Drive off road.

CrimsonSoul said:

Crono by my statement I mean what if you're driving on a two lane road, at say midnight, some guy passes you, slams on the breaks pulling and blocks both lanes of traffic then gets out of the car and starts walking towards you with a weapon because he's some road rage a** hole. What would you do? That's what I'm talking about, not like rolling road battles or anything of the like, sorry if I wasn't clear on how I wrote that.

And I agree with Necro on that last post

Click to expand...

Is that even close to a realistic situation, though?

I've held a man at gunpoint in my home, lucky for him he was far enough away that I gave him a chance. Had he been clearly armed with something more than a crowbar and was ten feet closer...

Bowielee said:

CrimsonSoul said:

Crono by my statement I mean what if you're driving on a two lane road, at say midnight, some guy passes you, slams on the breaks pulling and blocks both lanes of traffic then gets out of the car and starts walking towards you with a weapon because he's some road rage a** hole. What would you do? That's what I'm talking about, not like rolling road battles or anything of the like, sorry if I wasn't clear on how I wrote that.

And I agree with Necro on that last post

Click to expand...

Is that even close to a realistic situation, though?

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact... it isn't That uncommon at all (two different links in there)

Anecdotes don't = actual events.

Bowielee said:

Anecdotes don't = actual events.

Click to expand...

Anecdotes? Those were actual events that happened to those to people

They are 2 events in how many years of guns and cars, and people, etc etc.

I get your feeling you are walking a night in a city and someone follows you and you end up in a dead end alley and have no where to go, that's fine.

Guns at home isn't the same as carrying weapons with you where ever you go.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure most homicides happen by someone you know, so that just kinda makes the whole thing even more strange, and most break-ins occur during the day when no one is home (probably for a reason).

Oh goody, this discussion again.

Sadly i was hoping it wouldn't go into it I mean can't high energizing statements be made without the need for rebuttal

CrimsonSoul said:

Bowielee said:

Anecdotes don't = actual events.

Click to expand...

Anecdotes? Those were actual events that happened to those to people

Click to expand...

So, you really believe that no one makes up stuff on the internet?

Link me a news story, then I'll consider it legit.

Ok I could do that and I agree that most murders are from people that you know. But how many bank robberies, hold-ups, car jackings, rapes, convient store robberies/shootings, university slayings could be prevented if one of those people had a license to carry a handgun and was able to fend off the attacker?
All 50 states have some sort of handgun carry laws but many people choose not to excercise that right. In Texas concealed carry is legal with a permit, in Wisconsin open carry (wearing a firearm displayed, non-concealed) is legal without any type of permit or background, as well as a few other states. It's not something I agree with though, but it's the way those states interpret the constitution so there's nothing I can do about it.

-- Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:12 am --

This is the event that brought concealed handgun rights back into Texas after they were outlawed since I believe 1895 through the Texas constitution. Random person drives into a luby's (yes, drives into) then starts shooting folks because he could.

I didn't post that to prove that it's an everyday event because it's not but when some people snap they really snap and go out in a big fashion. It's not the good guys that have CHL's that are the problem it's the ones that have guns illegaly be them stolen or possessed by a convicted felon and don't havevalid CHL's that are the ones robbing the stores that we need to protect ourselves from

CrimsonSoul said:

Ok I could do that and I agree that most murders are from people that you know. But how many bank robberies, hold-ups, car jackings, rapes, convient store robberies/shootings, university slayings could be prevented if one of those people had a license to carry a handgun and was able to fend off the attacker?
All 50 states have some sort of handgun carry laws but many people choose not to excercise that right. In Texas concealed carry is legal with a permit, in Wisconsin open carry (wearing a firearm displayed, non-concealed) is legal without any type of permit or background, as well as a few other states. It's not something I agree with though, but it's the way those states interpret the constitution so there's nothing I can do about it.

Click to expand...

That story doesn't fit your description at all. The assailant wasn't armed, and they both pulled over. I get your point, but this wasn't a situation where someone blocked the road and wouldn't allow the woman to pass, the woman pulled over voluntarily. What happened to her COULD have been safely resolved without the use of firearms.

I can really understand the side of the argument saying that people feel safer keeping firearms, like some sort of security blanket, and in some parts of the country, you probably ARE safer carrying a gun. I can't subscribe to the belief, however, that an armed america is a safer america.

Also, no one needs a semi automatic assault rifle except John Mcclane.

Ban all guns (taking it to that extreme, even though you may not be trying to take it to that extreme) for example, that isn't going to stop the bad guys from obtaining them, the black market is a son of a bitch and if someone wants to get a gun they can for whatever reason they have.

It would certainly make it easier to point out the badguys if no innocents carried guns.
Not that I support gun control.

I think we'd be safer without guns, but I don't think its the governments right to take them away from us.

CrimsonSoul said:

Ban all guns (taking it to that extreme, even though you may not be trying to take it to that extreme) for example, that isn't going to stop the bad guys from obtaining them, the black market is a son of a * and if someone wants to get a gun they can for whatever reason they have.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not taking it to that extreme, however, I can't think of a sane and logical reason that anyone would need a semi automatic rifle. That sort of firearm is only good for active combat, not home protection. A semi-automatic pistol, maybe, but not an assault rifle. THAT isn't about protecting anyone, it's about having an extention of your penis.

First LeQuack: You can't be a good witness if you're dead

Second Bowielee: Yes and no I still prescribe to the statement that you never need that one weapon until you need it, then you really need it. While at the same time I don't advocate walking down mainstreet with an AR-15 (civilian M16) or AK on your shoulder just because you can (and that is legal (at least in Texas)) or because that is your self defense weapon. But if that person decides to do it legally then that is their right, but I may be watching them closely or choose a different route for me and my family if I'm nearby.
Also, something that you may find outdated, it is our job to overthrow the government if they become too corrupt by whatever means possible. And yes, I find it outdated, but it is still our responsibility. In the grand scheme of things they have their place personally I believe that place is at the shooting range, a gun safe, or traveling in between the two places but I'm not going to try and stop their sell to legally authorized citizens because that doesn't stop bad guys from obtaining them ilegally.

Japan has extremely strict gun laws and what not, I don't think they have huge problems with gun violence.

You would to ban all guns need extremely strict gun laws, maybe a felony just to have one. But that brings in problems with off-duty police officers carrying them, maybe military personal, and if they are allowed say the forget their ids.

Its just a big mess, but your story of the rush hour thing is moot, she could have fled, and the diner thing may have been to if no one in there was carrying, and i'm not sure on the number of people do in relation to total population but i am sure its possible that no one in there then would have had a gun

Japan also has a hugely different culture than the USA.

Well, I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Spain we have strict gun regulations and there aren't, by far, as man crimes related to guns. You say the black market's a bitch, and it is, but in part that's because your loose regulations and many people having weapons allow some of them to end up in the black market, I guess.

I love this thread.

crono1224: I don't like guns and think they should be banned. All they cause is increased violence.
crimsonSoul: I disagree with your asumption **links to statistics on gun violance**
crono1224: Your statistics don't help my view so I'm going to say they're meaningless and continue stating that guns just cause violence.

*repeat*



seriously crono1224 you might as well claim that President Obama's been saving jobs in this economy with his stimulus plans, or that God exists. none of these things can be proven with evidence.

Covar said:

I love this thread.

crono1224: I don't like guns and think they should be banned. All they cause is increased violence.
crimsonSoul: I disagree with your asumption **links to statistics on gun violance**
crono1224: Your statistics don't help my view so I'm going to say they're meaningless and continue stating that guns just cause violence.

*repeat*



seriously crono1224 you might as well claim that President Obama's been saving jobs in this economy with his stimulus plans, or that God exists. none of these things can be proven with evidence.

Click to expand...

If there was such a thing as a troll textbook, I'm sure this would be in the example section. Very good work.

I have been owned, cause clearly statistics are never able to applied specifically to one side or the other . But alas, he has gotten me good with the fact that statistics can't be refuted.

poor you

:waah:

The thing is you are not refuting the statistics. You offer nothing in your argument other that your dislike of the statistics offered. How about information of your own? perhaps some studies showing that guns increase the rate of violence of a region when introduced? Or perhaps even that murder rates are even or higher among gun owners than non gun owners. That would go ways towards helping your argument and give you a leg to stand on.

nah, to much work.

If you ban guns gun crime does go down... just ask the british... over there knife crime is where it's at...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tab ... taltab.htm

All those crimes can be reduced to 0 without weapons. There I just posted a stupid statistic that in reality would never happen, but because it has numbers and its shiny it makes my point. Are you done trying to be intelligent and acting like statistics can't be bent to different things.

@Li3n said:

If you ban guns gun crime does go down... just ask the british... over there knife crime is where it's at...

Click to expand...

It's more or less like that here in Spain too. Probably most of Europe.

I don't need any more statistics than that.

crono1224 said:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm

All those crimes can be reduced to 0 without weapons. There I just posted a stupid statistic that in reality would never happen, but because it has numbers and its shiny it makes my point. Are you done trying to be intelligent and acting like statistics can't be bent to different things.

Click to expand...

So... of all violent crimes, in 2005 firearms were 9 percent....you just blew my mind

Surely you understand that a violent crime with a firearm is worse than one without a weapon?

tegid said:

Surely you understand that a violent crime with a firearm is worse than one without a weapon?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Just because a violent crime is perpetrated without any sort of weapon does not mean it is inherently better than one involving a gun.

Well then, I'll just add some magic word

tegid said:

Surely you understand that a violent crime with a firearm is probably worse than one without a weapon?

Click to expand...

tegid said:

Well then, I'll just add some magic word

tegid said:

Surely you understand that a violent crime with a firearm is probably worse than one without a weapon?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine a fistfight is preferrable to a gunfight. However, I'm not convinced that a hit-and-run is probably better than a convenience store hold-up.

Well then... usually should be fine. :humph:

tegid said:

Well then... usually should be fine. :humph:

Click to expand...

I understand that violent crime with a gun is different than violent crime without a gun, but even that implies that it's possible to make it so that violent crime occurs without guns, and that's just absurd.

oh, I agree, Tegid. but 9 percent isn't a big number if it were closer to 20% I would be more in line to agree but when the percentage is below 10% it makes you wonder what the other 90% consist of. such as this statistic from the same site "In 2006, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 22% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm." now that is a staggering number. On the other hand if these people walked into a store and saw 3, 4, 5, or more people with firearms, or suspected that they may have firearms don't you think that somehow prevents the crimes before they are even committed.

Of course I do. It's obvious. But if the criminal doesn't have a firearm either the situation is far less dangerous, isn't it? And, like I said, in the cases I know strict gun regulation makes guns much harder to get for criminals too.

Of course, the same laws won't work on different cultures, and yours has the gun owning right pretty much in the core, doesn't it? So I'm not saying you should completely forbid firearms, but maybe get progressively stricter regulations. I mean, for chrissake... AK47?!

Also, the statistic you brought in speaks in my favor, I guess.

They do, you needed the help I'm on the side of the road that takes an all or nothing stance on the subject like wire-tapping for "suspected" terrorist without a warrent that supposedly have the same rights as citizens. Either everyone has equal rights or no one does, that was the point of the constitution.
With that in mind I believe either ban all firearms or ban none of them. Want to ban all assault rifles, fine ban them for all civilians and police (I leave military out of this). Why does this make sense because if they are illegal no one will have them right, and we don't want police running to a store holdup with powerful assault rifles when the badguy only ahs a gun or a knife, that's absurd! Complete gun control is impossible in any area. I'm sure in Europe there are gun crimes and they a have very strict gun laws there but they don't allow their law abiding citizens to own one so they are left defensless in a situation where the badguy has a gun and they are left with knives or fist. I say even the playing field, the badguys want to hold me up with a weapon they are goign to have one pointed right back at their center mass.

First of all that is non-fatal crimes, so you gotta add in homicides committed with them. But regardless the number is still 9%. I don't see how it's completely shrugable, while it is low its not 0 .

I was merely making the point that numbers can support lots of things, such as you can see 9% as being low, and someone else can see it as being high. There isn't really a refrence point, and history is probably not the greatest arguement cause society changes and I tend to think that has a possible effect on crime.

Yeah, society is a son of a bitch.

Le Quack said:

Japan also has a hugely different culture than the USA.

Click to expand...

Do they still have the highest suicide rates in the world?

Espy said:

Le Quack said:

Japan also has a hugely different culture than the USA.

Click to expand...

Do they still have the highest suicide rates in the world?

Click to expand...

With the game shows they have I'd kill myself too

CrimsonSoul said:

Espy said:

Le Quack said:

Japan also has a hugely different culture than the USA.

Click to expand...

Do they still have the highest suicide rates in the world?

Click to expand...

With the game shows they have I'd kill myself too

Click to expand...

WITH YOUR GUN?????

Espy said:

CrimsonSoul said:

Espy said:

Le Quack said:

Japan also has a hugely different culture than the USA.

Click to expand...

Do they still have the highest suicide rates in the world?

Click to expand...

With the game shows they have I'd kill myself too

Click to expand...

WITH YOUR GUN?????

Click to expand...

this just in, people that commit suicide with guns are caused by guns!

We should get rid of cars so the roads will be safe for our kids.

Cat said:

We should get rid of cars so the roads will be safe for our kids.

Click to expand...

cause we don't need transportation

crono1224 said:

Cat said:

We should get rid of cars so the roads will be safe for our kids.

Click to expand...

cause we don't need transportation

Click to expand...

Hey, you can have transportation without cars and you would save many lives.

Espy said:

crono1224 said:

Cat said:

We should get rid of cars so the roads will be safe for our kids.

Click to expand...

cause we don't need transportation

Click to expand...

Hey, you can have transportation without cars and you would save many lives.

Click to expand...

True, I just assumed he was applying it to all forms, since not just cars kill people

Though I assume he was just kidding anywho.

So basically you can get a bargain on your "rob a bank today kit" that sound fun for everybody

The Mike said:

So basically you can get a bargain on your "rob a bank today kit" that sound fun for everybody

Click to expand...

You know felons are not allowed to own a handgun right, and everyone goes through a FBI background check on every purchase whether it's their first for 500th. So I doubt someone would just get a AK and decide to rob a bank if they have committed no crimes their entire life.

I just though about it, I get an AK and a good run away vehicle, and I've never committed a crime in my life.

(downloading stuff doesn't count)

The Mike said:

I just though about it, I get an AK and a good run away vehicle, and I've never committed a crime in my life.

(downloading stuff doesn't count)

Click to expand...

I think we should all be glad that the RIAA doesn't usually take their shit back by armed force.

TeKeo said:

The Mike said:

I just though about it, I get an AK and a good run away vehicle, and I've never committed a crime in my life.

(downloading stuff doesn't count)

Click to expand...

I think we should all be glad that the RIAA doesn't usually take their shit back by armed force.

Click to expand...

Yes we should "Sir, drop the mouse and slowly walk away from the computer"

Ok mike, do you plan on getting an AK and robbing a bank? No? That's because you are a reasonable person.

crono1224 said:

since not just cars kill people

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, this is about cars and we can all agree that without cars all kids killed by cars would not be killed by cars.

Cat said:

crono1224 said:

since not just cars kill people

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, this is about cars and we can all agree that without cars all kids killed by cars would not be killed by cars.

Click to expand...

Cat said:

crono1224 said:

since not just cars kill people

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, this is about cars and we can all agree that without cars all kids killed by cars would not be killed by cars.

Click to expand...

But cars have a practical purpose besides killing things.

Flimsy argument.

Bowielee said:

Cat said:

crono1224 said:

since not just cars kill people

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, this is about cars and we can all agree that without cars all kids killed by cars would not be killed by cars.

Click to expand...

But cars have a practical purpose besides killing things.

Flimsy argument.

Click to expand...

So killing things is never practical? You should tell all the hunters that, I don't think they know yet. :heythere:

Espy said:

Bowielee said:

Cat said:

crono1224 said:

since not just cars kill people

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa, this is about cars and we can all agree that without cars all kids killed by cars would not be killed by cars.

Click to expand...

But cars have a practical purpose besides killing things.

Flimsy argument.

Click to expand...

So killing things is never practical? You should tell all the hunters that, I don't think they know yet. :heythere:

Click to expand...

Re-read I never said that killing things wasn't practical, but that cars have more uses than just killing things.

Besides, Hunting in today's day and age isn't practical at all, it's recreational.

My son would be alive today if I didn't back over him with a car. :tear:

So can we ban every V12? They're not practical at all, just useful for recreation.

Bowielee said:

Re-read I never said that killing things wasn't practical, but that cars have more uses than just killing things.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you intone that since they "only kills things" they are bad. Why is that?

Bowielee said:

Besides, Hunting in today's day and age isn't practical at all, it's recreational.

Click to expand...

I understand you have your opinion but that is far from true. Many people still hunt for food as well as to help keep population of deer from becoming rampant and destroying environments, which can be a serious problem in many states.

But what if it was for simple recreation? Are you suggesting that if hunting was only for recreation (which clearly isn't the case) that it is then wrong? I'm very curious about this, I hear that a lot, that hunting is bad since it's for sport and I can't ever get a good reason out of anyone as to why that makes it a bad thing.

tegid said:

Surely you understand that a violent crime with a firearm is probably worse than one without a weapon?

Click to expand...

Ya, though sometimes one punch can kill a guy too. Weird, definitely the exception, but it happens.

As for myself, from all of the things I've read on the topic, banning guns doesn't seem to help any, and just ensures that the criminals HAVE them, and the law-abiding people don't, but I'll leave the detailed discussion of the relative merits to those with better research skills and better stats.

Espy said:

Bowielee said:

Re-read I never said that killing things wasn't practical, but that cars have more uses than just killing things.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you intone that since they "only kills things" they are bad. Why is that?

Bowielee said:

Besides, Hunting in today's day and age isn't practical at all, it's recreational.

Click to expand...

I understand you have your opinion but that is far from true. Many people still hunt for food as well as to help keep population of deer from becoming rampant and destroying environments, which can be a serious problem in many states.

But what if it was for simple recreation? Are you suggesting that if hunting was only for recreation (which clearly isn't the case) that it is then wrong? I'm very curious about this, I hear that a lot, that hunting is bad since it's for sport and I can't ever get a good reason out of anyone as to why that makes it a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I am sure there is other ways to quell the animal population, and even if not, it just allows hunters to have fun as I am sure they could just let the military or some other organization that needs guns to do it.

Also I am willing to be the number of people who need guns to hunt for food is only a fraction of the people who own them for self-defense and/or recreation.

Covar said:

So can we ban every V12? They're not practical at all, just useful for recreation.

Click to expand...

You just love to troll, do V12s kill people?

Espy said:

Bowielee said:

Re-read I never said that killing things wasn't practical, but that cars have more uses than just killing things.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you intone that since they "only kills things" they are bad. Why is that?

Bowielee said:

Besides, Hunting in today's day and age isn't practical at all, it's recreational.

Click to expand...

I understand you have your opinion but that is far from true. Many people still hunt for food as well as to help keep population of deer from becoming rampant and destroying environments, which can be a serious problem in many states.

But what if it was for simple recreation? Are you suggesting that if hunting was only for recreation (which clearly isn't the case) that it is then wrong? I'm very curious about this, I hear that a lot, that hunting is bad since it's for sport and I can't ever get a good reason out of anyone as to why that makes it a bad thing.

Click to expand...

You have a tendancy to put words in my mouth. I never said that hunting is wrong or bad in any way.

It is a recreational activity. It's more practical to go to the store and buy a steak than it is to invest in guns, a hunting stand and all that goes with it to obtain meat.

crono1224 said:

I am sure there is other ways to quell the animal population, and even if not, it just allows hunters to have fun as I am sure they could just let the military or some other organization that needs guns to do it.

Click to expand...

Of course their are other ways, why exactly are they better though? Why is it bad for hunters to do what they love and help the environment out at the same time? Just because you don't like guns? I assume you have a better reason that that.

crono1224 said:

Also I am willing to be the number of people who need guns to hunt for food is only a fraction of the people who own them for self-defense and/or recreation.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that self-defense and recreation are lesser reasons for owning guns than hunting for food? What sort of value measure are you basing that on?

Bowielee said:

Espy said:

Bowielee said:

Re-read I never said that killing things wasn't practical, but that cars have more uses than just killing things.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you intone that since they "only kills things" they are bad. Why is that?

Bowielee said:

Besides, Hunting in today's day and age isn't practical at all, it's recreational.

Click to expand...

I understand you have your opinion but that is far from true. Many people still hunt for food as well as to help keep population of deer from becoming rampant and destroying environments, which can be a serious problem in many states.

But what if it was for simple recreation? Are you suggesting that if hunting was only for recreation (which clearly isn't the case) that it is then wrong? I'm very curious about this, I hear that a lot, that hunting is bad since it's for sport and I can't ever get a good reason out of anyone as to why that makes it a bad thing.

Click to expand...

You have a tendancy to put words in my mouth. I never said that hunting is wrong or bad in any way.

It is a recreational activity. It's more practical to go to the store and buy a steak than it is to invest in guns, a hunting stand and all that goes with it to obtain meat.

Click to expand...

My apologies, it's hard to pick up "tone" in typing and your comment about it not being practical sounded like it was applying a negative connotation to hunting. Thanks for clearing it up.

Bowielee said:

It is a recreational activity. It's more practical to go to the store and buy a steak than it is to invest in guns, a hunting stand and all that goes with it to obtain meat.

Click to expand...

Maybe for suburbanites. However, for those who live farther way from major cities I imagine the situation is different. There are still people who get a majority of their meat from game. And they consider it more economical than buying it from a store.

figmentPez said:

Bowielee said:

It is a recreational activity. It's more practical to go to the store and buy a steak than it is to invest in guns, a hunting stand and all that goes with it to obtain meat.

Click to expand...

Maybe for suburbanites. However, for those who live farther way from major cities I imagine the situation is different. There are still people who get a majority of their meat from game. And they consider it more economical than buying it from a store.

Click to expand...

I'm from a little town in the middle of the woods in the upper penninsula of Michigan. In a town of just 2000 people, we still had a crocery store, which I'm sure most small towns do.

You don't have to live in a major metropolitan area to have a local grocery store. Even little house on the prairie had one :slywink:

I'm from a family of hunters. My dad was a cop and we used to go out in the woods and shoot guns recreationally. I understand the arguments for guns, and as a matter of fact, if I had the money, I would probably get myself a hunting rifle and go skeet shooting, because it's fun as hell.

So, I'm not in the "guns are strictly bad" camp. I do, however, hold my stance that there's really no reason that anyone would need an AK 47 other than to show off to their friends.

Eriol said:

tegid said:

Surely you understand that a violent crime with a firearm is probably worse than one without a weapon?

Click to expand...

Ya, though sometimes one punch can kill a guy too. Weird, definitely the exception, but it happens.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. We should outlaw hands!

If we have hands in the wrong hands, more lives could be lost.

Totally missed this thread. This is an interesting discussion.

It is my personal opinion that gun DEVELOPMENT should be regulated. I don't think it would be in the best interest of the nation to ban all guns from private use, but I think the reason so many people can get guns illegally in the states is due to the sheer volume of guns that are developed here. How many countries have regional gun shows that show off everything from high powered shotguns to semi-automatic assault rifles? How many countries sell guns at places like Wal-Mart? Our society is downright saturated with guns, and by saturating ourselves with so much, we find ourselves in situations where Billy Joe has a whole basement full of weapons that he decides to pawn off someday to the local gang members for extra cash, or that one weirdo comes across a warehouse full of AK47s and sells them with a car at a dealership. I would much rather have it so the weapons were made in light quantities, for those that actually take the time to register the gun properly and go through the correct checks, but that might just be me. I know gun companies would hate the idea.

P.S. I admit my knowledge in the affair of guns is limited, so maybe such regulations do exist and I am simply not seeing them, but I find the saturation of guns to be excessive in my area, with monthly gun shows. I just don't see the reason to have so many high powered weapons in regular "circulation".

I just think the introduction of cars to this thread as an analogy for gun distribution and regulation is utterly stupid.

Guns are designed for ONE purpose. To kill things. Period!

Cars are not and nor have ever been designed to be killing machines. They're transportation first and foremost.

That said. You require training and licensing for a car.

At the moment in PA anyway, any yahoo can buy a gun on a whim with a 5 second background check. No training, no permit required. Same day purchase and take home. How fucked up is that?

Felons can't buy a gun, Chaz. Also those people that buy guns with no idea what a trigger is are the same people that get killed/kill someone while their gun is "unloaded" but it is their consitutional right to own that firearm and it's their fault that the accident happened and they should be held responsible. you also need a license to buy/own certain types of guns too. that "5 second background check" that you talk about goes through the FBI uses your social (if you provide it, it's optional) and your name, if you refuse to give your social if anyone with your name pops up on the FBI check you can't get the gun until they do a deeper background check. The FBI also doesn't keep records on the background check so every time you buy a gun and they do the background check on you it's treated like you've never bought a firearm before so you get the same background check whether it's your first or 50th. There are exeptions to that, I'm personally exempt from the FBI background check for as long as I have my CHL but on that measure the background check preformed on me for my CHL took more than 4 months to complete from the day I mailed it to the day I recieved it.

CrimsonSoul said:

Ok mike, do you plan on getting an AK and robbing a bank? No? That's because you are a reasonable person.

Click to expand...

I can't, not because I don't think about it but because guns are illegal in my country

Well, they do but restrictions on vehicles so people don't get hurt/die.

You have to be atleast 16 to drive a car, seems like a regulation to me.

Edit: I need to read the latest posts.

Pretty much sums up my viewpoint on anything bigger than a 9 mm or standard hunting rifle.

Same goes for Porsches :tongue:

You know the .45 was brought into the service because with the pistols they had when shooting at the enemy they weren't going down because they were hopped up on drugs so they put in the .45 to put their dicks in the dirt. I don't personally like .45's but I like my .40