Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

Real good chance of it.
What continues to amaze me is that the anti-gun crowd would have her disarmed, under the pretense of public safety, enabling her and the baby to be victims of whatever those two where planning to do.

Yes, but in this case, it's my expert opinion. I do have professional certification in this area, have dealt with many, many would be firearms experts over the years, and have gotten pretty good at separating the people who know what they're talking about from the mall ninjas. Maybe you have a different definition of "uninformed" than I do, but I tend to apply the label to people who repeatedly say things that I know to be untrue; I'm even giving them the benefit of the doubt in that I'm not just calling them liars and deceivers. What do you call people who have strong opinions about subjects they talk out of their ass on?



Let's just say I toned it down from "f*ck you people in the neck, die in a fire" and leave it at that. Remember, I got into guns because they fascinate me, as do weapons generally, and am forced into the political side of things by people who want to mind my business because they don't understand and are ignorant and fearful; I resent having to "reason" with these people at all, and my frustration is starting to show. I'm happy to answer technical questions or honest queries politely, but I've just had it with the judgmental "you cowards have blood on your hands!" types, especially when they follow it up with some VPC or Brady sourced BS and want to claim they know guns better than I do.



Just to clarify, you think that someone's debate style somehow impacts their knowledge of firearms? Sure Raptor plays in the mud with some of our more inchoate liberal posters and incorporates a fair amount of counter-griefing into his posts (I say "counter" because I saw the evolution in progress and he used to be fairly polite), but none of that changes the fact that he does know his stuff when it comes to guns, gun laws, shooting sports, etc. I'm probably better on the purely technical end of things as that's what I went to school for, but both JB and Raptor have probably put more total rounds downrange that I have, if only because I didn't come from a gun owning family background.

I only put Ace in the second group because he doesn't own any guns yet, a situation that I can identify with since I got interested long before I could legally own one and didn't have a very gun friendly family. I thought I knew a lot when I went off to school, but there really is no substitute for hands on experience when it comes to "getting" firearms, and almost more importantly, firearms people.

Also, you still didn't name anyone one the anti side who knows what they're talking about.

I don't doubt your qualifications or knowledge, in fact I greatly respect them. As a rule I just don't see promoting certifications on an informal internet board as a good method of discourse. It is not that I don't believe you, it is that to back it up often requires more self-disclosure than I consider to be safe or necessary to reveal in a public forum such as this, where there is actually no literal gain for you to do so. Your arguments can do the talking more than your certifications in any case. I am not anti-gun and intend to purchase a firearm in the next few years and possibly get into hunting. As is I am armed with several hunting bows and I am a pretty good shot and quick reloader, so I feel confident enough that I might survive when the zombies start in




No, I actually don't see any sort of debate at all coming from that particular user. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a very long time and made efforts to get along and it was an obvious waste of my time. In my opinion debate style can certainly serve as an indicator of the level of discourse that an individual is capable of.



That wasn't really my point, my point was they are unlikely to want to engage if it begins with self-congratulation. If a debate (not a meta-topical discussion like this one) follows that sort of entry I just feel it would end up having a very passive-aggressive atmosphere.

So, if we stop using guns to kill things, what are we supposed to use them for? Most of the firearms I know of are too short to make good crutches; they really don't look good as lawn ornaments; and despite the fact that many people need more iron in their diets, guns don't taste very nice at all. Pretty much just leaves "target shooting for fun" and "killing things" (like tasty, tasty deer)...

STOP THE WANTON SHOOTING OF INNOCENTS! OUTLAW LONGBOWS!!

You can still fire them in the air during celebrations and such. It's cool, everyone knows the bullets never come down, so it is perfectly safe and fun for the entire family!

It is one year since the Norway massacre

http://news.yahoo.com/norway-remembers- ... 22035.html

We typically expect these types of massacres to occur periodically in the USA. No big surprise, here. Norway was a shock. We could probably start a pool over when the next massacre will happen. And, we all know that it will happen.

If people used guns responsibly and only for self defense it wouldn't be an issue.People kill people with or without guns.

The only logical thing to do is ban anything that may be used to kill people. Therefore rocks, hands, feet, vibrators and pens are illegal as of now

Dox, can you offer a link to a non-ideological website that will give us the basics of what you'd like us to know?

The guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords in AZ was tackled by bystanders - one of whom was packing and had a CC permit, btw - when he paused to reload.


saying that some people are faster at reloading than others is not an argument against making them reload sooner.

Guns don't kill people... they just make it really, really easy for people to kill people.

Ooh, I know a couple of things about guns. One is that guns don't kill people. The other is that guns don't save people either.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ83KXUloP8[/youtube]

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_a ... _gun_rant/

LKL wrote:

As I said earlier on this same page about the tackling option:
“True but it's not an option that is going to present itself all that often and it is very time critical.
Tackling someone doesn't always end it since he might be able to quickly defeat you.
Better odds are to use that time to put a few holes in him from some kind of cover if possible.”

No one can possibly go through all of the variables and scenarios but I never said tackling was never an option. It is a viable option in some cases but not something I’d ever want to rely solely on.


Call me dense but I’m not sure what you’re saying or implying that I’m saying.
How quick someone can re-load a weapon is a factor.


Easier, anyway, but not for certain in all cases, depending.......
Possession of a gun can also make it easier for someone to defend themselves against being killed.

This argument will just go in circles. If you don't like people killing animals stop eating meat if you thank the slaughter house is more humane than a gun you have a lot to learn. If you think guns only kill innocent people don't bother calling the police when there is a mad man at your door try to diplomatically talk him in to giving him self in to the law. The way I see it is you do have gun nuts and you have people who think that the can protect you at all times. I live one hour from the nearest police station I'm not going to plead with an intruder I know how and when to use my guns. I wish I could all ways say the same for law enforcement.