Page 26 of 78 FirstFirst ... 162223242526272829303676 ... LastLast
Results 626 to 650 of 1930

Thread: United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

  1. #626
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    6,733

    Default

    If a gun is in a safe you have to take time to get it out, and the gunman is going to wait until he has clear targets before he takes out a gun and starts shooting. It could lessen the numbers a little yeah, but there are more efficient ways out there to get better results.

  2. #627
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    101

    Default

    It's a lot easier to think about it from the gunman's point of view. If you wanted to kill as many people as possible, where would you go? The place where nobody can stop you, e.g. a place where there are no guns. I like the idea of putting a gun in a safe, but you have to find a balance between not letting an unqualified person i.e. a kid get a hold of it and getting to it quick enough to stop a mass shooter.


    [img]http://i41.*******.com/2dqo1e.png[/img]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Total clan wins: 25

        Spoiler:- Credit:

  3. #628
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    294

    Default

    I feel like Schools would be safer if teachers were guns. Have an AK-47 teach History.

  4. #629
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    6,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matoro View Post
    It's a lot easier to think about it from the gunman's point of view. If you wanted to kill as many people as possible, where would you go? The place where nobody can stop you, e.g. a place where there are no guns. I like the idea of putting a gun in a safe, but you have to find a balance between not letting an unqualified person i.e. a kid get a hold of it and getting to it quick enough to stop a mass shooter.
    This is why there is support for "Hey, how about we try and make it so the gunman won't have a gun in the first place!"

  5. #630
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sogeking View Post
    This is why there is support for "Hey, how about we try and make it so the gunman won't have a gun in the first place!"
    Not much support, the Assault Weapon's ban cannot even muster up 50 votes. And like I said with Chicago strict gun laws do not stop gun crime in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sogeking View Post
    If a gun is in a safe you have to take time to get it out, and the gunman is going to wait until he has clear targets before he takes out a gun and starts shooting. It could lessen the numbers a little yeah, but there are more efficient ways out there to get better results.
    Not really following you, the gunmen go for the classrooms or the cafeteria, for the mass casualties before lock down begins, this gives more than enough time for the Principal to get the gun from her office.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  6. #631
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    6,733

    Default

    Alright, looking through this thread a little we've got way too much discussion over the same repeat topics, so if the thread doesn't really move forward it might have to be closed, because I really don't want this to continue to be a brick wall debate, as those are not fun or productive at all.

  7. #632
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sweet Home, Chicago
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sogeking View Post
    This is why there is support for "Hey, how about we try and make it so the gunman won't have a gun in the first place!"
    The best solution for this, in my mind, is that we better track the sale of legal firearms, while tracking down and removing illegally made, sold, or imported guns from the 'streets' as they're called. Let's focus first on shutting down the black market for illegal weapons, before we go about deciding to stop the legal sales to civilians.

    Regardless of your stance on whether or not people should have weapons, its inarguable that the illegal sale of arms is what's fueling a massive amount of crime in poverty stricken area of the Americas. Preventing the mass moving of arms by syndicate groups and unlicensed arms dealers should be a priority.

    Now, on the issue of private sales? I say private sales be made public. The transfer of a weapon to another person should be well-documented at all times. A lot of patriotic people are wary of this idea, since they think there might be an Australia situation going on where they have everyone register their guns... and then confiscate them at a later date. But here's the thing; Americans have such a stigma about such a thing, it would be absolutely unfeasible.

    The government is never going to be able to disarm the American populace. There are too many gun-owners who will defend hteir right to bear arms, even if it means outright revolt and the murder of ATF agents if such a 'confiscation' ever occurred. It's impractical, because it will start a massive, violent backlash against the government. That's why there's never going to be a full on confiscation, so registration would NOT be an infringement of anyone's right to bear arms in anyways.

    All firearms, regardless of type, should be allowed to be sold publicly to a registered, licensed gun-owner. A receipt between the giving and receiving parties will document the exchange, including the weapon's serial number, the identities of the people involved, and anything else you could feasibly need. Three copies of the receipt are made; one for each party, and one to be neatly stowed away in an appropriate file for whatever office, perhaps the ATF, that would handle this. The receipts would be sorted by the type of weapon, and the serial number. In this sense, every legally manufactured and sold weapon will have its own file, always up to date on its last known location and ownership.

    This means, that if a gun is sold ILLEGALY, and is then used in a crime, then the 'last known' owner will be held accountable as an arms salesman (unless the gun is stolen. The validity of the claim can be investigated). This would make it impractical for anyone to illegally transmit a weapon to a 'criminal' party, since the last LEGAL owner will still be responsible for it.
    Here are some links. Clicking on them, and then following their instructions will generate revenue from adds which is directly donated to one of many causes. You may click any of these links once a day to make a small donation. Please do so.


    | Global Warming | Animals and Pet Shelters | Books For Children | Hunger | Breast Cancer | Children's Health Care

  8. #633
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darkjigglypuff View Post
    The best solution for this, in my mind, is that we better track the sale of legal firearms, while tracking down and removing illegally made, sold, or imported guns from the 'streets' as they're called. Let's focus first on shutting down the black market for illegal weapons, before we go about deciding to stop the legal sales to civilians.
    you can't just "clean up the streets" and remove every illegal gun effectively. it's not worked for drugs, and i imagine 99% of other products that are sold illegally.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkjigglypuff View Post
    Regardless of your stance on whether or not people should have weapons, its inarguable that the illegal sale of arms is what's fueling a massive amount of crime in poverty stricken area of the Americas. Preventing the mass moving of arms by syndicate groups and unlicensed arms dealers should be a priority.
    illegal guns are definitely a problem, but the likes of sandy hook, virginia tech etc occured with legally owned guns in areas that you would hardly call poverty-stricken. you can keep saying banning and removing illegal guns will solve the problem but the fact is that it won't (and it's so hugely impractical the amount of work they'd need to dedicate to doing so would be absurd).

    Quote Originally Posted by darkjigglypuff View Post
    Now, on the issue of private sales? I say private sales be made public. The transfer of a weapon to another person should be well-documented at all times. A lot of patriotic people are wary of this idea, since they think there might be an Australia situation going on where they have everyone register their guns... and then confiscate them at a later date. But here's the thing; Americans have such a stigma about such a thing, it would be absolutely unfeasible.
    just because you'd make it illegal to trade guns under the table doesn't mean it wouldn't happen (again, look at drugs).

    Quote Originally Posted by darkjigglypuff View Post
    The government is never going to be able to disarm the American populace. There are too many gun-owners who will defend hteir right to bear arms, even if it means outright revolt and the murder of ATF agents if such a 'confiscation' ever occurred. It's impractical, because it will start a massive, violent backlash against the government. That's why there's never going to be a full on confiscation, so registration would NOT be an infringement of anyone's right to bear arms in anyways.
    the newest bill doesn't propose that every single gun ever be removed from homes, just the ones that are totally unnecessary in a home or for hunting (assualt rifles and guns with large clip sizes). laws like this work perfectly fine in other countries, including where i'm from (see death rates by firearms [homicide], 3.6 per 100,000 in the US compared to 0.09 in Australia and 0.04 in the UK). you will probably say "oh, but knife crime is much higher in the UK!!!" or something, but the fact remains you can't shoot up a school or neighbourhood with a knife.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkjigglypuff View Post
    All firearms, regardless of type, should be allowed to be sold publicly to a registered, licensed gun-owner. A receipt between the giving and receiving parties will document the exchange, including the weapon's serial number, the identities of the people involved, and anything else you could feasibly need. Three copies of the receipt are made; one for each party, and one to be neatly stowed away in an appropriate file for whatever office, perhaps the ATF, that would handle this. The receipts would be sorted by the type of weapon, and the serial number. In this sense, every legally manufactured and sold weapon will have its own file, always up to date on its last known location and ownership.
    why should any type of firearm be legally sold? should anyone be able to go and buy a belt-fed machine gun like an M240? why? because of "FREEDOM" and the multiple century old constitution when such firearms didn't exist? just because an assault rifle or machine gun or rocket launcher or WHATEVER has a serial number on it doesn't mean the people who buy them will be perfectly fine / sane citizens in regards to their use of these firearms. the only reasonable way to deal with the problem is to remove the ludicrously powerful guns and start with preventative measures regarding the sale of guns to mentally unstable individuals. i can't imagine any sane person going and committing a shooting.

    Quote Originally Posted by darkjigglypuff View Post
    This means, that if a gun is sold ILLEGALY, and is then used in a crime, then the 'last known' owner will be held accountable as an arms salesman (unless the gun is stolen. The validity of the claim can be investigated). This would make it impractical for anyone to illegally transmit a weapon to a 'criminal' party, since the last LEGAL owner will still be responsible for it.
    so instead of preventing gun crime you'd rather just have everyone else blame each other and have innocent people arrested for crimes committed with their gun unless they can be proven innocent? most developed countries on earth use an "innocent until proven guilty" court system, why should the US be using a "guilty until proven innocent" model? it doesn't make any sense and actually ruins lives.
    life is
    a game

  9. #634
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    the newest bill doesn't propose that every single gun ever be removed from homes, just the ones that are totally unnecessary in a home or for hunting (assualt rifles and guns with large clip sizes). laws like this work perfectly fine in other countries, including where i'm from (see death rates by firearms [homicide], 3.6 per 100,000 in the US compared to 0.09 in Australia and 0.04 in the UK). you will probably say "oh, but knife crime is much higher in the UK!!!" or something, but the fact remains you can't shoot up a school or neighbourhood with a knife.
    Well lets break this down.

    A: The Assault Weapon's Ban is not going to pass, Democrats are looking like they cant even get to 50 votes from their own party, and that is no where near the 60 needed to get through a filibuster, and even then there is the House which wont pass it, so discussing it is rather... well... moot

    B: Assault Weapons are not the weapon of choice for mass shootings, handguns are, this is the conclusion of a study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. So the only reason to ban these guns is well "We don't like them".

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...tings-n1502393

    C: Britain and Australia are both island nations, they are surrounded by largely first world nations. They do not have to worry about a mass amount of illegal contraband crossing their border if they ban something. The U.S. does.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  10. #635
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Well lets break this down.

    A: The Assault Weapon's Ban is not going to pass, Democrats are looking like they cant even get to 50 votes from their own party, and that is no where near the 60 needed to get through a filibuster, and even then there is the House which wont pass it, so discussing it is rather... well... moot
    isn't the whole point of the thread to talk about the current legislation that's being passed around? if not, my bad or whatever

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    B: Assault Weapons are not the weapon of choice for mass shootings, handguns are, this is the conclusion of a study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security. So the only reason to ban these guns is well "We don't like them".

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...tings-n1502393
    the key word in this article is "semi-automatic" handguns, most of which have magazine capacities higher than 10, which are also being targeted with the legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    C: Britain and Australia are both island nations, they are surrounded by largely first world nations. They do not have to worry about a mass amount of illegal contraband crossing their border if they ban something. The U.S. does.
    how do you explain the likes of Romania then? it's totally surrounded by other countries. guns in Romania are heavily regulated:

    and their homicide rate is the same as the UK's.
    edit: i should probably add here that at least one of the countries that borders Romania (Bulgaria) allows the posession of assault weapons and semi-automatic pistols (and has a firearm related homicide rate nearly 6 times higher than Romania)

    no doubt black market illegal weapon smuggling business corporation enterprise pty ltd. will still do as well as they ever would, but you aren't going to have everyone all of a sudden switch to buying illegally when the legal options (for excessive weaponry) are exhausted. i don't think people could love their guns so much that they'd be willing to risk their livelihoods to obtain them.
    Last edited by moot; 1st February 2013 at 9:33 PM.
    life is
    a game

  11. #636
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    isn't the whole point of the thread to talk about the current legislation that's being passed around? if not, my bad or whatever
    It is but I don't see why it is worthy being discussed when it is DOA.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    the key word in this article is "semi-automatic" handguns, most of which have magazine capacities higher than 10, which are also being targeted with the legislation.
    Semi Automatic merely refers to a type of gun that does not require the user to reload it manually after every shot, by definition every single gun on the market outside of say shot guns and bolt action rifles are semi automatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    how do you explain the likes of Romania then? it's totally surrounded by other countries. guns in Romania are heavily regulated:

    and their homicide rate is the same as the UK's.

    no doubt black market illegal weapon smuggling business corporation enterprise pty ltd. will still do as well as they ever would, but you aren't going to have everyone all of a sudden switch to buying illegally when the legal options (for excessive weaponry) are exhausted. i don't think people could love their guns so much that they'd be willing to risk their livelihoods to obtain them.
    I would say that all depends on where they live, if a person lives in a high crime area where response time is measured in ten or fifteen minutes, they may see it as the lesser of two evils.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  12. #637
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Semi Automatic merely refers to a type of gun that does not require the user to reload it manually after every shot, by definition every single gun on the market outside of say shot guns and bolt action rifles are semi automatic.
    i am fully aware of what semi-automatic means. why do you need a .44 caliber pistol that can shoot 100 rounds per minute when there are less powerful, smaller magazined pistols that would be fine for self defense (.22 caliber with 10 round clips) which wouldn't be affected by these gun regulations? also why does anyone actually need an assault rifle? i am genuinely curious
    (also what's wrong with a .22 or .308 rifle for farm / hunting uses)

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I don't see why it is worthy being discussed when it is DOA.
    why even post in this thread then
    life is
    a game

  13. #638
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    i am fully aware of what semi-automatic means. why do you need a .44 caliber pistol that can shoot 100 rounds per minute when there are less powerful, smaller magazined pistols that would be fine for self defense (.22 caliber with 10 round clips) which wouldn't be affected by these gun regulations?
    That is for a gun owner to debate, honestly I have never owned one so I do not know, but I do not see how it is pertinent to the fact that massacres are far more likely to be caused by handguns than assault rifles which is what the bans are trying to target.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    also why does anyone actually need an assault rifle? i am genuinely curious
    (also what's wrong with a .22 or .308 rifle for farm / hunting uses)
    From what I heard on this one the design of a assault rifle like the AR-15 is so perfectly made that it is ideal for hunting

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    why even post in this thread then
    Because not everything in this thread revolves around a dead bill?
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  14. #639
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Breaking the sound barrier
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    The main issue here is that the government is letting paranoia and fear determine how things are done and how the country is regulated. And people so easily forget that terrorists and criminals absolutely adore this. It's why they exist, it's what they feed off of. It's how they leverage what they can do into power and control. Because today's nobodies can become tomorrow's infamous villains by shooting up a school or ordering their followers to crash planes into civilian buildings. You didn't know who Adam Lanza or Osama bin Laden were before it happened. And now you do, but if you allow what they did and other similar events dictate how people live and the way things are done, then what they set out to do was a perfect success. You now live in fear, you're now willing to scrap freedoms that have existed since this country's founding, and you're giving others the infamy and encouragement to do it again and see how much they can get fear and paranoia to be the guiding hand of this country. You've immortalized their names, given them power, showcased their actions for the world to see, and now, given their legacy a chance to take root in how laws and regulations come to pass for generations to come. If you really hated what they did, you wouldn't let them change a single damn thing about how people live here and you'd let their names and identities decay with scorn and indifference. Because death, to these guys, isn't nearly as defeating as being ignored and forgotten.

    Ask yourself, how much would you really enjoy a world that is filtered, censored, edited, sanitized, and then repackaged by the government for your own protection? Do you really know the kind of world you live in, or are you just following the positive reassurances the government is trying to give you? Do you really think we're that much better off in a protective bubble where we're only hearing about puppies and the reviews of the latest Disney film? Some of you may think this is crap, but you've been attuned for it for so long that you've forgotten what it's like otherwise. There was once a time when boys were allowed to play cowboys and army men with toy guys, and yes, they didn't all grow up to be murderers and liquor store robbers. Or how kids could even buy action figures from a movie that was even rated R, a movie they would have never been allowed to see today. The government needs to wake up and stop trying to paint over the parts of reality they don't like. And people need to stop being so freaked out about everything and quit living day to day fretting about worst case scenarios. Instead, living in fear, being selfish, and blaming someone else for one's own mistakes or simple, pure accidents and leveraging that for as much monetary value as possible has become the personal mantra of everyone. Welcome to the new nation of vampires.

    And now, people are looking at the statistics rather than the real picture. You're insisting on comparing apples to oranges with regards to gun regulation working for some countries, and totally convinced you'll get the same outcome if the same thing happens here, as if there's no such thing as demographics and cultural differences and everything is just one monoculture throughout the world where you think you can sum it all down to simple math and plug in whatever you'd like into the formula. And like a bad joke, it's like we're getting inspiration from places like China, and thinking that's the kind of country we should model ourselves after. Like suddenly we've lost all faith and foundation in what we've been this whole time, and suddenly feel like America's been on the wrong track ever since we started.

    Ask yourself, do you like where things are going?

  15. #640
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    That is for a gun owner to debate, honestly I have never owned one so I do not know, but I do not see how it is pertinent to the fact that massacres are far more likely to be caused by handguns than assault rifles which is what the bans are trying to target.
    the ban is also going to affect most handguns, you linked to an article saying these were the main offenders and i already went over this? so sane people will still be able to have a small handgun effective for self defense, insane people won't be able to load up on 15-20 round handguns and shoot up schools....??????

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    From what I heard on this one the design of a assault rifle like the AR-15 is so perfectly made that it is ideal for hunting
    ??? what? how is an assault rifle ideal for hunting? the ideal hunting rifle is a decent caliber single shot bolt or lever action rifle, preferably with a scope. you don't need to unload a clip of 20 rounds into a deer to kill it
    life is
    a game

  16. #641
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    the ban is also going to affect most handguns, you linked to an article saying these were the main offenders and i already went over this? so sane people will still be able to have a small handgun effective for self defense, insane people won't be able to load up on 15-20 round handguns and shoot up schools....??????
    From what I found there is no article saying it will affect "most handguns" it will effect guns with clips over 10 bullets, but that is rather useless, as not only can anyone make a longer clip, but they can easily reload as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    ??? what? how is an assault rifle ideal for hunting? the ideal hunting rifle is a decent caliber single shot bolt or lever action rifle, preferably with a scope. you don't need to unload a clip of 20 rounds into a deer to kill it
    They provide low recoil and very high accuracy, which is why the military uses a similar design.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-daniel-foster
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  17. #642
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    From what I found there is no article saying it will affect "most handguns" it will effect guns with clips over 10 bullets, but that is rather useless, as not only can anyone make a longer clip, but they can easily reload as well.
    try looking at the most popular firearm brands. like 90% of models produced have a 13-20 round magazine size

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    They provide low recoil and very high accuracy, which is why the military uses a similar design.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-daniel-foster
    recoil shouldn't affect hunting. if you hit it first shot like you're supposed to, the animal will go down. if you need to take multiple shots in quick succession hunting is probably not for you. as for accuracy, rifles like the .308 winchester are effective over several hundred metres and work on animals as large as moose and elk.
    life is
    a game

  18. #643
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    try looking at the most popular firearm brands. like 90% of models produced have a 13-20 round magazine size
    And yet they only have to ban the manufactures from making such large clips, such as putting in a simple plastic block that would cover the extra rounds. So I think you are confusing hand guns with regulating clips.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    recoil shouldn't affect hunting. if you hit it first shot like you're supposed to, the animal will go down. if you need to take multiple shots in quick succession hunting is probably not for you. as for accuracy, rifles like the .308 winchester are effective over several hundred metres and work on animals as large as moose and elk.
    As the article states it is more for hunting smaller animals like rabbets, and by the way if you miss on the first shot which many people do, the animal more than likely isn't going to stand around and let you take a second.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 1st February 2013 at 11:32 PM.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  19. #644
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    And yet they only have to ban the manufactures from making such large clips, such as putting in a simple plastic block that would cover the extra rounds. So I think you are confusing hand guns with regulating clips.
    if they become illegal they're obviously going to adapt to their largest market. why even leave the option on the table

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    As the article states it is more for hunting smaller animals like rabbets, and by the way if you miss on the first shot which many people do, the animal more than likely isn't going to stand around and let you take a second.
    first point: you're obviously not going to be hunting rabbits from long range, a small rifle will do fine for smaller critters. also don't need multiple shots, because you're not going to hit a hare/rabbit moving at full speed. as for the second, yeah that's what i said. you don't need more than a single shot weapon when you're hunting, because if you miss and just spray bullets from an AR15 trying to hit it hunting may not be the sport for you.
    life is
    a game

  20. #645
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    if they become illegal they're obviously going to adapt to their largest market. why even leave the option on the table
    I don't think you are understanding me, the ban deals with high capacity clips, all they need to do is shorten the number of bullets that the clips can hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    first point: you're obviously not going to be hunting rabbits from long range, a small rifle will do fine for smaller critters. also don't need multiple shots, because you're not going to hit a hare/rabbit moving at full speed. as for the second, yeah that's what i said. you don't need more than a single shot weapon when you're hunting, because if you miss and just spray bullets from an AR15 trying to hit it hunting may not be the sport for you.
    Okay this is becoming incredibly subjective, you may not think they need it, but as we covered in this thread already, there are alot of things we do not "need" to do things in life.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  21. #646
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perusing the North Pacific.
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    recoil shouldn't affect hunting. if you hit it first shot like you're supposed to, the animal will go down. if you need to take multiple shots in quick succession hunting is probably not for you. as for accuracy, rifles like the .308 winchester are effective over several hundred metres and work on animals as large as moose and elk.
    Ideally, yes you should only need one shot, but in the field things aren't always ideal. Not everyone is a perfect shot all the time, and even if they were, sometimes a perfect shot in the vitals isn't enough. I have seen first hand deer that just would not go down after a heart or lung shot. Deer and elk, especially elk, can be more than capable of running several hundred yards after being shot. Yes, ideally you do make that perfect shot, most of the time that will be enough to drop the animal, but there are always those exceptions. Better to be able to limit how far the animal gets in those cases and increase your chances of retreiving the animal than letting it go to waste.

    And yes, recoil does affect hunting. It affects the accuracy of the firearm, which is vital to making ethical shots.

    Though I do agree that .308 Winchester is one fine and effective caliber.
        Spoiler:- My Custom Challenges:

  22. #647
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    @fart
    Posts
    1,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    I don't think you are understanding me, the ban deals with high capacity clips, all they need to do is shorten the number of bullets that the clips can hold.
    I understand very clearly. I was saying if it's just left to the manufacturers, high capacity clips wouldn't be illegal, they'd still be on the market and psychos could still buy them. That is not a very effective idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Okay this is becoming incredibly subjective, you may not think they need it, but as we covered in this thread already, there are alot of things we do not "need" to do things in life.
    It became subjective when you said the AR15 is the ideal hunting weapon, all I was saying was that it's overkill. You can kill an animal easily enough with a lesser gun.

    Also Silver shark, obviously you're not going to get a clean kill everytime, but you would get the same problem with an AR, too. There is no perfect weapon for it, but I think it's fairly easy to say the AR15 is totally overkill while still not being flawless.
    life is
    a game

  23. #648
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    I understand very clearly. I was saying if it's just left to the manufacturers, high capacity clips wouldn't be illegal, they'd still be on the market and psychos could still buy them. That is not a very effective idea.
    Which is why I believe we were speaking of the Feinstein bill. That being said, as I said before making a high capacity magazine is not THAT hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    It became subjective when you said the AR15 is the ideal hunting weapon, all I was saying was that it's overkill. You can kill an animal easily enough with a lesser gun.
    I was speaking of the design and provided you a link to back it up, it being overkill or not is up to the hunter.
    "No. I don't agree with him on a LOT of issues. Unlike most Republicans, who are blindly loyal to their party" ~ Maedar on Barack Obama

  24. #649
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Perusing the North Pacific.
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moot View Post
    Also Silver shark, obviously you're not going to get a clean kill everytime, but you would get the same problem with an AR, too. There is no perfect weapon for it, but I think it's fairly easy to say the AR15 is totally overkill while still not being flawless.
    That's for the hunter in question to decide. For an elderly or disabled hunter, an AR-15 could be ideal with its simple, light weight, low recoil design.
        Spoiler:- My Custom Challenges:

  25. #650
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sweet Home, Chicago
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvershark View Post
    That's for the hunter in question to decide. For an elderly or disabled hunter, an AR-15 could be ideal with its simple, light weight, low recoil design.
    In fact, my grandmother uses an AR-15 for home defense for this reason. It's very easy to handle and maintain for more fragile people, and 30-round magazines let her defend herself even with shaky aim.


    Here's a tip, by the way: You need to prove, with an actual statistic, that the number of gun-related murders would go down, or that mass shootings would be less dangerous, if only 10-round magazines were available. You need to prove this, because otherwise it's baseless speculation. Prove to me that only allowing the sale of small magazines will decrease murder-rates, because otherwise, you're doing something entirely based on a kneejerk reaction.


    Also, relating to an early post in the thread: No, actually, .22 is NOT a good personal defense round. It is a plinking and varmit round, and will do jack to a full-grown man bent on raping/killing/whatever. And only 10 rounds of it, in semi-automatic fire? You'd be lucky to even startle them.


    And hey, here's another thing: As a general trend, as the 'destructive potential' of weapons goes UP, it so happens that the amount of crime committed with them goes DOWN. In fact, the least powerful weapons notably, small pistols which hold less than 20 round anyways) are the ones most used in crimes, while more 'destructive' firearms are more commonly used for home defense, recreation, and hunting.

    So, the 'Assault Weapons Ban' is entirely useless.
    Here are some links. Clicking on them, and then following their instructions will generate revenue from adds which is directly donated to one of many causes. You may click any of these links once a day to make a small donation. Please do so.


    | Global Warming | Animals and Pet Shelters | Books For Children | Hunger | Breast Cancer | Children's Health Care

Page 26 of 78 FirstFirst ... 162223242526272829303676 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •