40 Reasons for Gun Control

Originally posted by OHLC


I guess you now think crossbows should be banned :D

First you resort to unaccurate facts and wrong argumentation.
Now you are getting into emotional statements.
More...

I don't think nor did I ever say that hunting weapons should be banned. I have not heard of crossbows being used in a criminal capacity. I must not be paying attention to the latest developments in armed robbery or terrorism. I will try and do better.

What does the word "unaccurate" mean? Never saw it before. If you meant "inaccurate", then what facts are you referring to?

And what statements were emotional? Or maybe the whole issue is really just an emotional one. Where do you draw the line?

My original point was I said I saw absolutely no point in ANYONE outside of the military or law enforcement having a need or use for certain weapons. I don't know how this can be argued. But if you and the NRA feel that a need exists for a weapon like a Mac10 then fine. Me, I wouldn't want to count on it to hit a deer if I was hunting... a bow and arrow is more accurate (not to mention more sporting). And since they fire 9mm rounds, it would seem to me to be easier to hold and fire a regular handgun. Of course if I needed to fire 70 rounds for some reason, then I guess an assault weapon would be more suitable. Just hard for me to imagine the circumstances. Maybe I haven't given it enough thought. But on the surface, it would seem a little bulky to me. Then again, so is a bazooka like the other guy wanted.

I'm just happy my cell phone fits in my pocket.

Originally posted by ElCubano
.....ask a gun expert and he/she will tell you that a 9 milli has no stopping power...
More...

Yeah, but James Bond used a .25. Skill counts!:)

peace,
rs7

 
Originally posted by rs7




Yeah, but James Bond used a .25. Skill counts!:)

peace,
rs7
More...


The movie Character.......hahahahaha...in real life when bullets are a blazing and zippin and your running for cover; hitting your target is good enough....remember I am talking stopping power , for you guys to argue this is silly...9 milli or 10milli or .44 mag...a delta 10 milli will do the job just fine ( nickle plated of course :D )
 
>>
I don't think nor did I ever say that hunting weapons should be banned. I have not heard of crossbows being used in a criminal capacity. I must not be paying attention to the latest developments in armed robbery or terrorism. I will try and do better.
>>
Your initial point was about a kid looking down a shotgun barrel.
It was your example to argue that firearms are significantly more dangerous than anything used before.
I proved you wrong with the crossbow example.
The question was not about terrorism.

>>
What does the word "unaccurate" mean? Never saw it before. If you meant "inaccurate", then what facts are you referring to?
>>
Sorry, English is not one of the languages I am proficient with.
But I am sure my spelling is not 100% wrong.
You used one French word 'finis' and got it wrong (100%).

**
Example of inaccurate fact:
The cop must have been a pretty lousy shot! A guy getting mugged at an ATM would be so close to his attacker, a .22 should be sufficient
**
>>
And what statements were emotional? Or maybe the whole issue is really just an emotional one. Where do you draw the line?
>>
I think it is both rational and emotional.
The emotional part is an endless debate, but the rational part can be discussed. So far, the pro gun control guys never end up
with anything that holds to a rational analysis, this is why they revert to emotional stuff.

**
example of emotional comment :
Thanks for making me see the light. Guns are good. Nice an clean.
**
>>
My original point was I said I saw absolutely no point in ANYONE outside of the military or law enforcement having a need or use for certain weapons. I don't know how this can be argued. But if you and the NRA feel that a need exists for a weapon like a Mac10 then fine. Me, I wouldn't want to count on it to hit a deer if I was hunting... a bow and arrow is more accurate (not to mention more sporting). And since they fire 9mm rounds, it would seem to me to be easier to hold and fire a regular handgun. Of course if I needed to fire 70 rounds for some reason, then I guess an assault weapon would be more suitable. Just hard for me to imagine the circumstances. Maybe I haven't given it enough thought. But on the surface, it would seem a little bulky to me. Then again, so is a bazooka like the other guy wanted.
>>

Let's say that you went far away from your original point.
I do not agree with the original point for political reasons.
Remember about the Turks/Armenian, Nazis/Jews...

>>
I'm just happy my cell phone fits in my pocket.
>>
Also had to get a SGH-S100 that fits in my pocket, I still prefer a Taurus, though.


OHLC, a rational freedom lover

 
A few comments

First let me apologize to rs7, apparently I misunderstood his post. Yes, a 9mm is certainly enough gun, but a .40 would be better. My point was that if you decide to shoot -you should shoot to kill, or you risk having your weapon turned against you. Of course you can get multiple shots off a 9mm, I thought you said you wouldn't do that. Sorry if I misunderstood. When I referred to a tiny gun, I was talking about people who buy those little pocket .22s for protection. Looking back on my post, I shouldn't have mentioned rs7 specifically. I'm not clear why people think these situations don't happen very often, they happen all the time. Yes, I agree that the ease of getting guns is a big part of the problem.

I am not against all forms of gun control. Criminal background checks? Good idea. Raise the age limit from 18 to 21? Good idea. Guns for sale at Wal-Mart? Probably a bad idea. Mandatory safety classes for carry permit? Good idea. I still really don't like the idea of a central gun registry because it could become a confiscation list. It's been done before, it can be done again.(Dare I use the H word?) I'm sorry if that seems childish or paranoid. I do believe that the founders of this country intended for us to be armed, to prevent the government from becoming to powerful. It doesn't really matter whether they envisioned assault weapons or ray guns. I think what they couldn't envision was the breakdown of society, religion, family. I'm not trying to preach, I'm not very religious myself. Those are social problems, not gun problems. The guns were always here, it's the culture that has changed. Fix the culture. Why aren't people more concerned about kids killing kids over shoes. Instead they're worried about redneck farmers shooting pumpkins with .50cal rifles that never get used in crimes.

Hope I'm not pissing everyone off, it's not my intention.

I heard a helicopter fly over my house today. Sure, some say that there's a hospital nearby, but I'm pretty sure this helicopter was black.



Snake

.
 
Why do so many of the anti-gun posters keep talking about there being no need for Mac10s and AK47s.

Heads up - those weapons are ALREADY illegal. You can't legally buy one. Continuing to bring them up renders your argument invalid.

If you've got good reasons why people shouldn't be able to own a semi-automatic AR-15 or any other semi-auto that they want, knock yourself out trying to make it. But drop the Mac10 and AK47 references - they're invalid and highlight a lack of understanding of the material factors.

Note that if full auto conversion kits for certain semi-autos are available - the converted weapon are still ILLEGAL. You want to make the conversion kits illegal - great. But the semi-autos themselves aren't the problem.

As far as someone's comment that guns are only good for killing people - have you ever heard of target practice?

And before someone posts the inevitable anti-gun stupidity that the police are there to defend us so no one really needs a gun - get a clue. The cops are there to take the report of your death or beating or robbery or whatever.

There isn't a cop around that's going to stop someone who's breaking into my house from doing something to my daughter or wife. And no, I don't want to be forced to wield or fire a shotgun in close quarters because some pea-brain who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about doesn't think I "need" a handgun - it's a whole lot safer and reliable to use a handgun for close quarters defense.

The problem with both the anti-gunners and the NRA is that they're both at the extremes. The anti-gunners have been so intent on working to incrementally and ultimately impose total gun control that the NRA has been forced into the equally psychotic opposing position of being opposed to almost all measures for fear that the anti-gunners will use Christmas tree extensions to expand beyond the reasonable.

Most gun owners have no problem with rational things like instant criminal checks, waiting periods, testing/certification for carry permits, etc. - it's the overkill measures that make getting reasonable things difficult to get implement.
 
Originally posted by Snake Plisken
First let me apologize to rs7, .
More...

Not necessary. If we had nothing to argue about, it would be boring.

And yes, I agree that there is virtually no use for a .22 handgun. They say it's a ladies gun. I say that's bullshit. A woman is getting raped...she says "hold on, I need to get something from my purse".
A .22 is a street weapon. Or hit man's weapon.

A .22 rifle, sure. A .22 target pistol? The best! Fun to shoot, and very accurate. And the ammo is nice an cheap. But those little .22 handguns? They have as much legitimate use as an AK47.

But yeah, I agree with what you said in this last post. Especially the part about the black helicopters!!

This market is ridiculous. Is MSFT up or down?
(I like INTC today, but no overnights for me with CSCO after the bell and IBM red).

Peace,
:)rs7
 
rs7, you are the voice of reason and sanity on this board. you've always been for as long as i can recall. forget these idiots, and i use the term idiots LITERALLY. they think with their brainstems and their johnsons. i call them DICKHEADS. i think that about sums it up:eek:
 
Originally posted by LongShot
rs7, you are the voice of reason and sanity on this board. you've always been for as long as i can recall. forget these idiots, and i use the term idiots LITERALLY. they think with their brainstems and their johnsons. i call them DICKHEADS. i think that about sums it up:eek:
More...


I dont know why you need to put it that way, we are just having a discussion...

I just like the fact that I am free to protect my family.. Why is it wrong that we think gun control will help the criminals more than the non-criminals....surely u can agree that a thug will obtain a gun legally or ilegally; if they can own one why cant I???
 
Originally posted by LongShot
rs7, you are the voice of reason and sanity on this board. you've always been for as long as i can recall. forget these idiots, and i use the term idiots LITERALLY. they think with their brainstems and their johnsons. i call them DICKHEADS. i think that about sums it up:eek:
More...

??????
:confused:

You must have me confused with someone else:)

And ElCubano, you gun toting maniac.....I agree. If the bad guys can have them, then we should be allowed to also. But my contention really was that the world would be a safer place if no one had guns. Obviously, this is never going to be the case.

I want Rod Smith back. Give you Chris Carter and a good quarterback...Greise or Vick.

Peace,
:)rs7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top