Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

That works on just about anything; a guy named Karamojo Bell racked up something like 3,000 elephants while working as a game culler in Africa using a 7mm Rigby rifle, which is neither particularly large nor powerful, by reliably making a brain shot. For bear I'd still prefer something big and fast, since if you're talking defense rather than hunting it means that the bear is coming after you and not the other way around, and a powerful round is insurance against less than perfect shot placement. That's also the reason that my trail gun is a 10mm auto with a 15 round magazine rather than a six shot .44 magnum revolver; I'll trade a bit of energy for another 10 shots at hitting the bear in the right spot under duress.

But you do have a problem with people in urban areas carrying the weapons they need to protect themselves from the two-legged predators that live there?

Brings this to mind.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alPmPSls-9s[/youtube]

I am not against handgun protection for people who want it and are competent enough to handle one. What I am against is the lax attitude toward handing out guns and ammunition to people, even former criminals.

As we are all aware, the shooter purchased 6000 rounds of ammunition online. How is that sane? How is that reasonable?

I would like to see guns eliminated from this world but I would settle for a compromise of increased regulation.

Guns are worse than knives and other weapons, because guns are easy. You can shoot from a distance. It is an easy weapon for a nutjob who has gone off the handle. A knife is not so easy. I suppose there are other ways, but at least make the criminals work a little bit harder, right?

I find it rather naïve, to put it diplomatically, that you think only rural areas possess dangers that would justify being armed.

Heavenlyabyss wrote:

Not always easy or even possible to separate the wheat from the chaff in society. Life has it's risks but why not try and mitigate the risks we can instead of wasting time and effort trying to mitigate the risks that we can't.



What’s lax about it? Maybe you should read up on the federal laws regulating dealers and purchase requirements. I’ve bought several guns and I’ve never seen or heard of a dealer that will even entertain the notion of cutting corners on a gun transfer. I can assume nearly 100% of them are of the same mindset.
Besides, why not focus less on the hardware and more on the individuals perpetrating these crimes?
Maybe it’s just me but none of my guns have done anything on their own or taken control of my mind.
An occasional grumbling from some of them that I don’t take them to the shooting range often enough but that’s about it.



Define "reasonable".
Buying 6k rounds of ammo does not under any circumstances make or even suggests someone is going to do a massacre. More than anything
it’s the lack of trust in some of our more dubious politicians that drives ammo hording. There are other reasons but I’d have to say that fear of knee-jerk and/or agenda driven legislation is at the top.


That says a lot.



And each time we have an increase in gun control there is no proven decrease in crime where a gun is used. When there is no effect the cry goes up for more gun control and the subsequent lack of effect is the result.
The progression of gun control is constantly fed by its lack of actual effect.



Guns are usually easier, not necessarily easy. The greater the distance the less easy and harder still for moving targets. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people that thought guns were “easy” repeatedly miss a large stationary target on thier first time shooting. I've seen naturally good shooters but most, including me, are not. It's a skill that has to be developed and kept sharp.

What I can't stand is the politicians pushing for gun control usually have no experience with firearms and spread misinformation out of ignorance or intentionally lying.
For example:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ&list=FL7sNKfVHOTjAj1AVIF-Np6w&index=141&feature=plpp_video[/youtube]
Anyone who knows even a little about guns and ammunition will be laughing (and\or very angry) at this. My jaw dropped when I first saw this video.
As far as I know, There has never been an instance of ANYONE using a .50BMG in any kind of attack in the US.
There's absolutely no reason a legally obtainable gun cannot be used for hunting or recreational shooting.

Here's a definition of an assault weapon according to the 1994 assault weapon ban:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

When was the last time you heard of an attack in which someone uses a bayonet?
They justify banning guns with pistol grips by claiming that it makes it easier to shoot from the hip. That type of shooting is wildly inaccurate outside of hollywood.
They claim flash suppressors hide the flash down range or the target so no one will see where the shooter is. That is total BS! What it really does is keeps the muzzle flash from obstructing the sights.

According to this, my little Ruger 10-22, which I use for squirrel hunting would be considered an assault weapon.
Just because it's a semi automatic with an adjustable "telescoping" stock and a pistol grip.
Some of these laws are ridiculous and useless! We need to enforce the laws we already have more effectively.

The only thing banning all guns will do is make law enforcement and criminals the only people who have guns. How will making it harder or impossible to legally get a gun stop someone who doesn't give a crap about obeying the law?
Saying only the police should have guns won't do much good when they get to someone's house several minutes AFTER an armed intruder breaks in and shoots whoever lives there.

Last edited by jetbuilder on 26 Jul 2012, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Got no problem with handguns of a normal capacity, provided CCs are required to pass some minimum qualifications and stay away from alcohol and other drugs when they're packing. That said, I think that there are far too many hotshots who think that they can intimidate someone into fleeing just by pulling out a handgun/penis substitute, and end up escalating a situation into lethality when it might not have gone there had they not pulled the gun.

I simply can't imagine walking around with a gun. Even before they banned hand guns over here, hardly anyone except the police and criminals carried guns. It's the still the same way.

I'd be interested t see what the violent crime rate that involves firearms in your area is now compared to before the ban. Now the criminals know the only people besides themselves that have guns are the police. I'd bet that makes them feel more confidant in robbing someone at gunpoint since they know their victim is unarmed.

This is why I totally oppose total gun bans!

And how would you determine that? Sounds a lot like prejudice to me. In 92% of cases where a licenced gun owner pulls a gun out, either no shot is fired or only warning shots are.

Just FYI, normal pistol magazine capacity these days is 15-20 rounds, that's the size of the magazine that the gun is designed for and comes with; extended magazines protrude from the bottom of the grip and are generally considered impractical for carry. Also, it's already illegal to carry while impaired.



You think, huh? Well I happen to know that the number of CCW permits revoked due to firearms related incidents of any kind is less than one percent, and that the across the board crime-rate for CCW holders is far below that of the general public. So think all you want, just know that you're provably wrong on this one.

Last edited by Dox47 on 26 Jul 2012, 11:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In my area, specifically, it's much lower. That has more to do with the main gang getting busted than with the ban, though.

To put it diplomatically, I think maybe you ought to do some research on this before you go any further....

George Zimmerman, dead unarmed teen.

How about this?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYA78ss-B-o[/youtube]