View Full Version : 8 year old shoots 7 year old.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,767580,00.html
in Swedish.
So, a 8 year old kid packs a gun in his backpack, and then shoots a 7 year old in the arm at school!
Turns out the 8 year old brought it with him to Play with it and accidently shoot one of.
A mother said something like; "Theese things happens, thank god the little girl is ok!".
What a stupid attitude... she makes it sound like its nothing major, sh't happens, lets get over it.
I guess better controll over arms is needed.
doc_bean
01-24-2006, 23:12
..or we should just take away the kids and guns from the people who are obviously unfit to handle either, let alone both.
Goofball
01-24-2006, 23:16
ttp://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,767580,00.html (http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,767580,00.html)
in Swedish.
So, a 8 year old kid packs a gun in his backpack, and then shoots a 7 year old in the arm at school!
Turns out the 8 year old brought it with him to Play with it and accidently shoot one of.
A mother said something like; "Theese things happens, thank god the little girl is ok!".
What a stupid attitude... she makes it sound like its nothing major, sh't happens, lets get over it.
I guess better controll over arms is needed.
Don't be silly. Gun control is just fancy talk for fascism and tyranny.
Guns don't kill people; 8 year-olds kill people.
That kid should be tried as an adult and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Have you guys got the death penalty in Sweden?
I hope so.
Samurai Waki
01-24-2006, 23:23
The parents should be held responsible. A.) For not Keeping the Gun in a Secure Place, and B.) Because they probably never told the kid about gun safety, Gun Laws, and The Punishment for breaking Sed Laws. Then it probably would have never happened.
Ah woops, this was in the US, not Sweden, sorry for not pointing that out! :wall:
The parents should be held responsible. A.) For not Keeping the Gun in a Secure Place, and B.) Because they probably never told the kid about gun safety, Gun Laws, and The Punishment for breaking Sed Laws. Then it probably would have never happened.
yeah kids, if there is something they never do, its breaking the law! ~;)
Goofball
01-24-2006, 23:31
Ah woops, this was in the US, not Sweden, sorry for not pointing that out! :wall:
Excellent! Then we can execute the little bugger!
The Blind King of Bohemia
01-24-2006, 23:31
These things happens, thank god the little girl is ok!"
Yeah love, happens all the time:inquisitive:
Excellent! Then we can execute the little bugger!
yeah! that would teach the little rascal! :2thumbsup:
(sarcasm btw)
The parents should be held responsible. A.) For not Keeping the Gun in a Secure Place, and B.) Because they probably never told the kid about gun safety, Gun Laws, and The Punishment for breaking Sed Laws. Then it probably would have never happened.
Shhhh.... Nobody wants to hear that- you can't hold the parents accountable for their negligence! If it wasn't for the evil guns, this could've never happened in the first place afterall.:dizzy2:
Goofball
01-25-2006, 01:06
If it wasn't for the evil guns, this could've never happened in the first place afterall.:dizzy2:
Quite true.
Glad to see you're finally seeing the light.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/24/md.child.shot.ap/index.html
Update, in English.
I especially love this part:
Police charged the boy's father, John L. Hall, 56, with leaving a firearm in a location accessible by an unsupervised minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon.So, the father was a felon in possession of a firearm. If the existing laws were enforced properly, yada yada yada. With any luck this will kick in a 3-strikes sentence for the father.
A little more disturbing:
The boy was taken into custody, and police said they were drawing up charges against him.
Montgomery County is pretty well-to-do (this is a DC suburb). This ought to be good for the local news.
Soulforged
01-25-2006, 01:59
If it wasn't for the evil guns, this could've never happened in the first place afterall.Well...Technically yes. But there's no need for that, what one needs is better control in such places as the school, places where culture is promoted or where arts or other social activities happen. Besides those places usually are autocratic so they don't have to allow guns is they don't want to. The problem is usually domestic, but not always the blame is on the parents or the tutor, there's times when nobody can be blamed.
The boy was taken into custody, and police said they were drawing up charges against him.THIS is morally repugnant. And I think it's illegitime too right?
Papewaio
01-25-2006, 02:05
The boy also was charged, but authorities said that was done only so he could be helped by juvenile authorities.
That would be to trigger off the case that his parents have mislead him and made him a juvenile criminal... hence the state can step in and either monitor more closely or remove him from his 'home'.
Alexanderofmacedon
01-25-2006, 04:51
it sound like its nothing major, sh't happens, lets get over it.
Yeah, **** does happen so get over it...
Nothin we can do about it now...:juggle2:
/edit: use all asterisks, not just some in between letters.
Major Robert Dump
01-25-2006, 06:13
The kids father was a felon in possession and THAT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE.
You can't pass more laws to prevent other laws from being broken, thats like making cars illegal because of drunk driving.
I recall this happening two or three years ago under almost exact circumstances, some pimp/felon/drug dealer's stepson got his gun and killed a little girl at school.
At least theres an upside to the story.
Divinus Arma
01-25-2006, 06:31
The difference between America and Europe:
In Europe, when an 8 year old shoots a 7 year old, it is an honest-to-goodness accident.
In America, when an 8 year old shoots a 7 year old, the little punk was honestly trying to kill the other kid.
No sarcasm here. This is true. Urban Americans can be rotten little bastards.
Strike For The South
01-25-2006, 06:36
This is just poor parenting. The father was a felon and like MRD said there are only so many laws you could pass. The kid was 8 he didnt understand the situation (probably) and a bad thing happend. Im not giving up my guns becuase of this.
Zalmoxis
01-25-2006, 06:46
The obvious problem here is kids. If kids did not exist, or were not allowed to develop, such things would never happen except in liquor stores. *sarcastic*
Alexanderofmacedon
01-25-2006, 06:49
The difference between America and Europe:
In Europe, when an 8 year old shoots a 7 year old, it is an honest-to-goodness accident.
In America, when an 8 year old shoots a 7 year old, the little punk was probably playing on of his favorite video games in real life.
No sarcasm here. This is true. Urban Americans can be rotten little bastards.
Fixed it...
You can't pass more laws to prevent other laws from being broken, thats like making cars illegal because of drunk driving.Yup. :book:
doc_bean
01-25-2006, 13:11
This is just poor parenting. The father was a felon and like MRD said there are only so many laws you could pass. The kid was 8 he didnt understand the situation (probably) and a bad thing happend. Im not giving up my guns becuase of this.
Wait, you can get guns before a drivers license or beer in Texas ? :dizzy2:
Ja'chyra
01-25-2006, 13:45
I blame the dolphins, seems they're not happy with ruining tuna nets now they're using strange subliminal messages in their squeaking to cause this sort of thing.
Well either that or the parents :idea2:
Just A Girl
01-25-2006, 13:53
Guns are bad M-kay.
Strike For The South
01-25-2006, 14:31
Wait, you can get guns before a drivers license or beer in Texas ? :dizzy2:
no the ones Ive used dizzy2:
If I was to believe the news and some of the opinions on the board about firearms - I should of been shot and killed by my older brother at least 5 times, and my younger brother at least 10 times growing up.
Oh well I guess my parents were responsible and taught me how to respect and treat weapons so that there is no such thing as an accidental shooting,
Just A Girl
01-25-2006, 14:38
If I was to believe the news and some of the opinions on the board about firearms - I should of been shot and killed by my older brother at least 5 times, and my younger brother at least 10 times growing up.
Oh well I guess my parents were responsible and taught me how to respect and treat weapons so that there is no such thing as an accidental shooting,
Yah But they are handy for killing / wounding people huh
Vladimir
01-25-2006, 15:53
Yah But they are handy for killing / wounding people huh
So am I but you can't ban me.
Lentonius
01-25-2006, 16:48
arent guns illegal in sweden anyway:inquisitive:
Major Robert Dump
01-25-2006, 17:03
LOL it wasnt sweden, it was a swedish article on something that happened in the states. Look at the picture
Just A Girl
01-25-2006, 18:48
Yah But they are handy for killing / wounding people huh
So am I but you can't ban me.
I doubt a 7 year old would take you to school and shoot their freind with you.
Rodion Romanovich
01-25-2006, 19:00
Guns don't kill people; 8 year-olds kill people.
:laugh4: May I quote that for my signature?
Lentonius
01-25-2006, 19:02
ooh, in the U.S
well that explains everythinglol:laugh4:
AggonyDuck
01-25-2006, 20:14
What I find interesting is that the father apparently kept the gun loaded, because I don't believe that an 8-year old would go and load it on his own...:no:
Ianofsmeg16
01-25-2006, 21:10
and 8 year old shoots a seven year old?
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world...
Goofball
01-25-2006, 21:56
:laugh4: May I quote that for my signature?
I would be humbled and honoured if you did.
Vladimir
01-25-2006, 22:16
ooh, in the U.S
well that explains everythinglol:laugh4:
Or Switzerland:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_consulate_shooting;_ylt=AurMZbNLpUqwJ4iDvx_t9opw24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUC Ul
Watchman
01-25-2006, 22:28
...
...so where's the punchline ? ~:confused:
ajaxfetish
01-26-2006, 08:27
Guns are bad M-kay.
Exactly. How are you supposed to win the war if your troops can't even fire in the rain? This is why I'm more excited about revisiting Medieval instead of moving on to something like Napoleon. I'll be waiting for stories about school macings, and kids stealing their parents' swords and hacking at each other.
Guns are a tool. They can be used safely or dangerously. Banning guns will not stop violent crimes from happening (especially as the criminals are the most likely to break a law about not having a gun). After all, the father was already breaking a law in having the gun as a convicted felon. If guns were banned generally he may well still have had it.
Ajax
"Guns are a tool"
Sure but unlike an axe for example, its only designed to Kill. :skull:
Its not like go grab your chaingun and head out into the forest to take down a few trees. Then you go home and put handgranades in the tree to make firewood.
Ja'chyra
01-26-2006, 10:25
"Guns are a tool"
Sure but unlike an axe for example, its only designed to Kill. :skull:
Its not like go grab your chaingun and head out into the forest to take down a few trees. Then you go home and put handgranades in the tree to make firewood.
Of course they're designed to kill, doesn't mean that that's how they will be used, where do you draw the line? Bows? Hunting knives? Kitchen knives? Knitting needles?
I have no problem with people owning weapons so long as they are responsible enough to make sure they are safe.
Anyway, as a wise man once said "Guns don't kill people, wappers do"
Well, kitchen knifes are not designed to kill but to be used in the kitchen. So thats no issue.
Bows?... well, can be used as hunting weapon, but I think atleast in Sweden that is forbidden since it will make the animal suffer more.
Knitting needles?... well, if your a Knitter.... :laugh4:
Thing is, a 9mm pistol has no usefull purpose except killing people, its what its designed to do.
Concerning hunting tho, In sweden your allowed to have a hunting rifle if you have a license. Well I think thats ok, but thats about the only area people need rifles or guns! To hunt!
Adrian II
01-26-2006, 11:48
Excellent! Then we can execute the little bugger!Don't forget the parents and siblings have a responsibility too. Execute the whole family, I say. And the neighbours for good measure.
Kralizec
01-26-2006, 12:05
Thing is, a 9mm pistol has no usefull purpose except killing people, its what its designed to do.
Concerning hunting tho, In sweden your allowed to have a hunting rifle if you have a license. Well I think thats ok, but thats about the only area people need rifles or guns! To hunt!
Technicly, the purpose of a 9mm is not to kill but to incapacitate. Death is often only a logical consequence. Policemen are trained to fire at non lethal areas if convenient.
I just don't understand why the hell people would want to have a 0.50 magnum for self defense. "oh look, that drunk guy came at me so I defended myself by blowing his intestines out through his backside" :oops:
doc_bean
01-26-2006, 13:02
Don't forget the parents and siblings have a responsibility too. Execute the whole family, I say. And the neighbours for good measure.
In certain african areas anyone who was within a certain radius of the murder site at the time of the murder gets detained until the trial. Maybe the US should take note ?
Vladimir
01-26-2006, 14:14
Bows?... well, can be used as hunting weapon, but I think atleast in Sweden that is forbidden since it will make the animal suffer more.
What the hell happened to you people?! You bring us the Vikings and now this? Talk about turning over a new leaf. (just kidding but OMFG the irony) I suppose Sweden supports assisted suicide for animals that are near death?
Nice spin ajaxfetish.
Those who often argue for gun control or against often resort to using emotional appeal and strawman arguements to make their point.
The 8 year old unfortunately got access to a weapon that was not properly cared for by his parents, the parents did not teach the child that the gun was not a toy, but a weapon, and finally it seems that the father was in violation of the current law for owning a weapon.
The situation here is not an arguement for stronger gun control in the United States, but for proper enforcement of the current gun laws of the nation and the state.
Making new laws that are stronger will not change anything if the current law is not enforced.
Vladimir
01-26-2006, 15:00
If a law is not enforced it's not truly illegal.
What the hell happened to you people?! You bring us the Vikings and now this? Talk about turning over a new leaf. (just kidding but OMFG the irony) I suppose Sweden supports assisted suicide for animals that are near death?
We are still brutal jerks and rape others women from time to time... I promise. Personally I dont care much for how animals are hunted.
assisted suicide for animals? what do you mean? Someone who doesnt help a dying animal to die quick is just stupid. If they are in a great deal of pain they should be killed.
English assassin
01-26-2006, 17:17
Making new laws that are stronger will not change anything if the current law is not enforced....
OK, well that's true.
So what should be done that isn't being done now, since 8 year olds shooting 7 years olds is obviously unacceptable? How do you stop an irresponsible felon getting hold of a gun in a country where there are more guns than people and no idea where on earth they are (since registration would obviously be contrary to human rights, or the bible, or something, I forget what).
Edit: actually, forget it. So long as they don't have ICBMs I don't care.
Vladimir
01-26-2006, 17:33
assisted suicide for animals? what do you mean? Someone who doesnt help a dying animal to die quick is just stupid. If they are in a great deal of pain they should be killed.
Hopefully you took my post as humor and not an attack. I agree with the above. Anyone that believes hunting a deer with an arrow is cruel has no idea how cruel nature can be. Our laws are an attempt to impose some order on *our* nature but again, they need to be enforced as swiftly and severely as society allows. Anyone who gives a gun to a felon knowing he can't legally own one should get the same sentence as the other.
Reenk Roink
01-26-2006, 18:33
More proof that society is going downhill...:no:
Why didn't he use a sword? :shame:
Goofball
01-26-2006, 18:54
Those who often argue for gun control or against often resort to using emotional appeal and strawman arguements to make their point.
And some of those who disagree with gun control call every argument in its favor an "emotional appeal" or a "strawman."
Matter of fact, they do the same thing when discussing abortion. Or religion. Or the war in Iraq. Or gay marriage. Or...
Well. You get the point.
I'm not mentioning any names though...
:balloon2:
And some of those who disagree with gun control call every argument in its favor an "emotional appeal" or a "strawman."
LOL - the hateful comments toward those in favor of arming the populace are just what I called them, same as the hateful comments toward those that are in favor of gun control. Which was what the comment was directed at. Provide a logical arguement for gun control and I will discuss the information provided - discuss it in the way this thread is going, well you get what you get.
A prime examble is the discussion we once hade about weapons. Your arguement initially was against all weapons - however when we discussed it - you actually modified your opinion on it. Emotional appeal does not change people's opinions on this type of subject. Logical and facts is what normally helps people reach a informed decision.
Matter of fact, they do the same thing when discussing abortion. Or religion. Or the war in Iraq. Or gay marriage. Or...
Well you do have a tendency to resort to strawman and emotional appeal when you discuss abortion, religion, and gay marriage. So I guess indeed the shoe fits you very well doesn't. :laugh4:
Well. You get the point.
That most of your arguements are just that. :laugh4:
On a serious note - I was directing the comment at both sides of the discussion. The situation occured because of irresponsible parents and the failure to enforce the current gun laws. Notice that the dig is on both sides for allowing yourselfs not to see that the issue contains the problems that both sides desire. Gun Control and responsiblity. If the current laws were enforced to the standard that they were written - then maybe such circumstances would not happen. If such things continue to happen then stronger laws would need to be looked at. However inadequate enforcement of the current laws does not equate to needed to make new law. Enforce what is there already to see if it will actually do what it (the Law) was designed to do.
Ask the following questons which I did not see in the article.
Where did the father purchase or get the weapon?
Why was it not in a place where the child could not get it?
Why was it loaded?
There are a ton of other questions that need to be asked and answered. The authorities are doing the right thing in arresting the parents for their lack of responsiblity. The authories are doing the right thing in charging the child - to allow the state to handle his well being since the parents obviousily failed in this instance.
I'm not mentioning any names though...
Neither did I, but it seems to have struck a chord with you nethertheless.:book: :inquisitive:
Ironside
01-26-2006, 20:04
Hopefully you took my post as humor and not an attack. I agree with the above. Anyone that believes hunting a deer with an arrow is cruel has no idea how cruel nature can be. Our laws are an attempt to impose some order on *our* nature but again, they need to be enforced as swiftly and severely as society allows.
IIRC hunting with bows is forbidden because the arrows is designed to bleed the target to death. That particular hunting technique isn't that common in nature. Problems of getting away a second shot if the first one miss is also supposed to be an issue.
But I haven't studied the issue carefully. I don't hunt, I don't care.
rory_20_uk
01-26-2006, 20:46
A 9mm to incapacitate??? If the other guy's got a gun, then suddenly you need to kill. Giving everyone the right to have one doesn't help that, does it?
If people must have their guns due to whatever rights were present 200 years ago, doesn't it make sense that there might be some stringent controls on getting hold of one? Background checks, a permanent register, fines if guns not reported stolen - y'know the whole "responsible owner" bit with teeth to penalise those that aren't.
I would have to say that I am mentioning chemically or gas powered creations that fire projectiles. Bit long winded, but I'd hate for someone to think that I am talking about knitting needles... :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
A 9mm to incapacitate??? If the other guy's got a gun, then suddenly you need to kill. Giving everyone the right to have one doesn't help that, does it?
True - but in a free society everyone should have the right, just like the other rights that most democratic governments guarntee their citizens.
If people must have their guns due to whatever rights were present 200 years ago, doesn't it make sense that there might be some stringent controls on getting hold of one? Background checks, a permanent register, fines if guns not reported stolen - y'know the whole "responsible owner" bit with teeth to penalise those that aren't.
You have hit the crux of the issue in my opinion. The current laws are not enforced in a uniform and consistent manner
Rodion Romanovich
01-26-2006, 21:38
I would be humbled and honoured if you did.
:bow: Expect to see it when my signature returns in a week or so from now :2thumbsup:
Vladimir
01-26-2006, 21:38
Remember that there are two ways to eliminate crime: Get rid of all laws or kill off all the people.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 00:54
End of the day people.
Theres A Much higer % of gun related deaths and injurys in countrys where guns are legal.
Infact There are relitivly few In the uk, where guns are Illigal.
Where as we tend not to hear abouth the 100's of gun deaths per day in the usa. Cos theres not enough air time on the news to document them all.
like i said.
Guns are bad M-kay
Goofball
01-27-2006, 01:09
True - but in a free society everyone should have the right, just like the other rights that most democratic governments guarntee their citizens.
And that is the centre of the argument.
Why should everybody have the right to own a gun? What is so important and necessary about gun ownership that you are placing it on the same level as say, freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or freedom to not be detained without charge or trial? Those are rights everybody should have in a free society, if that society wants to call itself free. But the freedom to own a gun? That doesn't even come close to being as important as those things.
And that is the centre of the argument.
Yes indeed - that is why I mentioned that most of the time the arguement boils down to emotional appeal and strawman arguements. Every society is different. The United States society is different then the one in Canada. Just like the society of South Africa is different then the society of England. You can interchange culture with society if one so desires.
Why should everybody have the right to own a gun?
Owning property is to me a fundmental right of a democratic society. Notice that I am saying, I am not saying the state can not regulate such ownership, but that the right to own property is fundmental. To me a gun is nothing more then a tool, a dangerous tool that must be care for and handled properly to prevent its misuse - but only a tool. The tool has no intent, only the user of that tool has intent.
What is so important and necessary about gun ownership that you are placing it on the same level as say, freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or freedom to not be detained without charge or trial?
Those are rights everybody should have in a free society, if that society wants to call itself free. But the freedom to own a gun? That doesn't even come close to being as important as those things.
[/quote]
A fundmental right regardless of what type it is, is equal to all other fundmental rights, in my humble opinion. In fact I detest handguns because I don't find a fundmental need for them for protection of livestock or for hunting. But in keeping with the intent of the constitution - A well regulated Militia being important to the protection of a free society, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed., I am not willing to sacrifice the right to bear arms, because of my person dislike of handguns. I elect not to own a hand gun instead. The government can even regulate weapons - which is what it does indeed to with most of the gun control laws that are on the books.
Can the constitution be ammended to refrine the current wording of the 2nd Ammendement? Yes it can, and the onus for that is on the United States Congress and the will of the people of the United States. I don't even have a problem with such an effort because it follows the constitutional process - to change the constitution to meet modern day concerns is well within the keeping of the intent of the founding fathers. So I don't want more legal code that will not be enforced by the government, I want the process to change the constitution to be followed if the majority of the population believes that the right to keep and bear arms is no longer needed for the protection and maintenance of our free society.
There are a lot of reasons why the founding fathers placed and worded the 2nd Ammendment the way they did. One of those reasons was to insure all 13 colonies became states under the same Federal Government. One of the reasons why the second ammendment was worded in such a way, was because many of the states wanted the ability to keep the Federal Government from being to tryannical.
And that is the centre of the argument.
Why should everybody have the right to own a gun? What is so important and necessary about gun ownership that you are placing it on the same level as say, freedom to practice the religion of your choice, or freedom to not be detained without charge or trial? Those are rights everybody should have in a free society, if that society wants to call itself free. But the freedom to own a gun? That doesn't even come close to being as important as those things.
Why isnt it? Because you say so?
Concerning hunting tho, In sweden your allowed to have a hunting rifle if you have a license. Well I think thats ok, but thats about the only area people need rifles or guns! To hunt!Pssst... hunting usually involves killing. :wink:
A 9mm to incapacitate??? If the other guy's got a gun, then suddenly you need to kill. Giving everyone the right to have one doesn't help that, does it?No, you still need to incapacitate. Maybe you dont understand the definition?
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 03:31
Allowing people to own a Un needed machine that was designed for killing Is not needed as a fundimental right.
its as simple as defining Chocolate as a luxury, and bread as an essentail.
Other fundimental rights are ESSENTIAL.
Owning a gun "hand cunse esesialy"
Is just a luxury That nobody need's Nor deserves.
Its like saying That prisoners have the right to be fed $400 lobster served with oyster sauce and caviar,
decorativly placed on a 24 carrat cold plate, adorned with do do feathers,
instead of a regular meal.
becous its their right to eat.
just like its your right to defend your self.
Yet you chose to go Over kill.
Where as i would use my fists.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 03:33
Owning a gun "hand cunse esesialy"
----------------------
I haft to correct that.
"its sposed to read"
Owning a gun "Hand gunsEspecially "
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-27-2006, 03:34
And you would die.
Fists vs bullets doesn't make for a very even match.
Criminals have an uncanny knack for disobeying laws, including those that limit firearm possession.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 03:44
funny....
Seeems i havent been shot yet..
Prehaps thats becous theres no 1 with a gun around here?
funny....
Seeems i havent been shot yet.. Me neither.
Prehaps thats becous theres no 1 with a gun around here?I know lots of people who have guns, and many more that I dont know also have them. So prehaps it's not that simple. :wink:
Allowing people to own a Un needed machine that was designed for killing Is not needed as a fundimental right.
Our founding fathers would seem to disagree.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 03:51
Me neither.
I know lots of people who have guns, and many more that I dont know also have them. So prehaps it's not that simple. :wink:
Our founding fathers would seem to disagree.
well you founding fathers needed them to murder and rape the natives dint they...
well you founding fathers needed them to murder and rape the natives dint they...
And that's why it's pointless to try to have anything resembling a rational discussion with you. :dizzy2:
Waiter, check please.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 03:56
In other word's
yes shambles Your right.
when our foundin fathers wrothe the declaration, They needed the guns as america was virtualy in a state of matial law.
With cattle rustlers and Indians and such.
These days there used primeraly for murder so the fundimental resoning for having them is gine,
"TAXi forXiahou Please"
In other word's
yes shambles Your right.
No in other words its absolutely pointless to discuss the subject in a rational and logical fashion because of the use of emotional appeal, strawman arguements, and hyperbole that both sides will use to make their points.
when our foundin fathers wrothe the declaration, They needed the guns as america was virtualy in a state of matial law.
Incorrect. The founding fathers had other reasons for writing the 2nd Ammendment. It would require a history lesson to be given, which I doubt you really want to understand since its obvious that you believe certain revisions of history to come up with such a hyperbole statement.
With cattle rustlers and Indians and such.
Neither which imposed Martial Law other then temporary call ups of the militia's to combat Native American tribes. There were conflicts with the Native American tribes which were the which happen when one group begins to migrate into another's area, sometimes because the white's were just wanting the lands that they were negotated by treaty as the tribal lands of that tribe. You know the evils of a desire to expand and grow.
Now for part of the history lesson you don't want to hear.
There was a necessity to have state militias during the time that the founding fathers drafted the constitution, a new formed country that fought and won its independence from an Imperial nation that did not like losing its terrority. The founding fathers were also hestiant to having a large standing Army, a militia requirement for men of a certain age answered the requirement for the young nation to defend itself if it became necessary. To insure that a militia was armed - (one of the requirements of the time for the militias were to provide their own bedroll and rifle) - required that the government allow the citizens to be armed.
Futhermore if you read some into the reasons for the second ammendment you will catch the hidden reason for the ammendment being drafted in the manner in which it was.
These days there used primeraly for murder so the fundimental resoning for having them is gine,
Again an incorrect conclusion, based upon generalized sources of information I would image.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 04:26
Well no red leg....
You see america is a fully developed country. now
And as such no longer has a need to have a vigialate state.
Although you guys seem to be stuck in the 1800's
With bounty hunters still a prominant part of your society,
in this country vigilantees get arested, becous trying to catch a criminal dosent make being a criminal right.
You seem to be stuck in a time warp.
Your no longer out on the range with indiuns coming to scalp you.
and There is no real reason for ANY 1 to won a gun.
Your only reasoning is, criminals can have them, so i want them to or i dont feel safe.
Which makes you as bad as them IMHO.
If a criminal points a gun at you and says give me your wallet and you go to give it to him,
And he sees the but of your gun..
Your gonna get shot.
(I know id shoot you if i saw you reach in to your coat and i noticed u had a gun)
So how does having a Gun make things better?
How is having a gun Essential? And there for a fundimental right?
its your arguments that are pointelss.
And whats this straw man crap?
Straw men were pagan made object that they sacrificed people in.
Are you trying to imply That these people who get shot ar purpusfully shot to be Marters for anti gun campaigns?
Or is this just a knee jerk reaction to A raw nerve being pressed?
Well no red leg....
You see america is a fully developed country. now
And as such no longer has a need to have a vigialate state.
And when the American People want the ammendment modified or removed it will do so through the constitutional process.
Although you guys seem to be stuck in the 1800's
With bounty hunters still a prominant part of your society,
in this country vigilantees get arested, becous trying to catch a criminal dosent make being a criminal right.
Bounty Hunters which are really called bail enforcement agents are not vigilantees, they serve a purpose to allow the bail bond agents to not forfiet their bond to the court when the criminal skips. Vigilantees are also prosecuted in this country.
You seem to be stuck in a time warp.
Your no longer out on the range with indiuns coming to scalp you.
Strawman arguement.
and There is no real reason for ANY 1 to won a gun.
Weapons serve a purpose on ranches and farms to this day.
Your only reasoning is, criminals can have them, so i want them to or i dont feel safe.
Which makes you as bad as them IMHO.
An emotional appeal arguement.
If a criminal points a gun at you and says give me your wallet and you go to give it to him,
And he sees the but of your gun..
Your gonna get shot.
(I know id shoot you if i saw you reach in to your coat and i noticed u had a gun)
I have been robbed at both knife and gunpoint. The knife was easy - I told him to go get a gun and come back. The criminal who carried the gun the cops got him as he left the store. A silent alarm works wonders.
It seems your focusing only on one part of the overall issue of gun control and not what the 2nd ammendment's means.
So how does having a Gun make things better?
How is having a gun Essential? And there for a fundimental right?
Good questions but there is no easy answer to them now is there.
its your arguments that are pointelss.
Your opinion - but goes to show why such discussion such as gun control go nowhere, to many people are set on the hyperbole of the issue, not on the facts.
And whats this straw man crap?
Straw men were pagan made object that they sacrificed people in.
Strawman arguements - you might want to look them up. Its fairly easy to find.
Are you trying to imply That these people who get shot ar purpusfully shot to be Marters for anti gun campaigns?
Not at all - which again shows that your position is based more upon emotional appeal.
Or is this just a knee jerk reaction to A raw nerve being pressed?
Not at all, but you have shown my point about why the issue gets wrapped up emotional appeal and strawman arguements every time.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 08:10
Its not a straw man argumet,
Its a Morral argument.
Changing its name to make you feel better wont change the fact that killing is wrong.
Guns are used for killing.
and there for guns are wrong.
It really is that simple.
Otherwize...
These questions would have Simple answers.
So how does having a Gun make things better?
How is having a gun Essential? And there for a fundimental right?
Good questions but there is no easy answer to them now is there.
I have Simple answers as to why they arent Essential. arent fundimentaly right, and Dont make thigs better.
Prehaps that means I am correct
ajaxfetish
01-27-2006, 08:55
Its not a straw man argumet,
Its a Morral argument.
Correction: it's both
Ajax
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 09:03
What i dont het is what you guys mean by a straw man argument.
A straw man was a pagan ritual burning, where they made a straw man with a sacrifical human inside then they burnt it.
So what do you guys mean By a straw man argument?
or is it Just a word you guys use when you cant win a morral debate?
Haudegen
01-27-2006, 10:42
I´d like to add a few thoughts about gun control here:
A general ban of firearms doesn´t mean that there can be no exceptions. For example people who are in a higher than normal danger of being victim of a crime (for example shop owners), could be allowed to possess a gun.
It is true that a general ban does not stop people with high criminal energy from getting a gun. But many tragedies caused by normal lawful people could be avoided.
However I´ve recently read something that made me think twice about gun control: In 1938 the pogroms against jewish people in Germany started just a few days after the nazi-government had successfully confiscated all the guns in the hands of jewish people. With gun control there is no defense against crimes committed by the government.
Its not a straw man argumet,
Its a Morral argument.
A moral arguement address the morals of the issue. Talking about indians coming to scalp you is a strawman
Changing its name to make you feel better wont change the fact that killing is wrong.
Guns are used for killing.
Murder is murder, killing in self defense is not wrong. Killing to put meat on the table is survivial.
and there for guns are wrong.
The logic does not follow. Guns are also used for hunting. So if your arguement is that all killing is wrong, your arguement does not hold. Given the need for food and self-defense.
It really is that simple.
Otherwize...
These questions would have Simple answers.
That also does not follow. Nothing is simple when it involves social and political issues.
I have Simple answers as to why they arent Essential. arent fundimentaly right, and Dont make thigs better.
Prehaps that means I am correct
Not at all - it means you have an opinion on the matter that is yours. It does not mean you are right nor does it mean you are wrong.
What i dont het is what you guys mean by a straw man argument.
A straw man was a pagan ritual burning, where they made a straw man with a sacrifical human inside then they burnt it.
So what do you guys mean By a straw man argument?
or is it Just a word you guys use when you cant win a morral debate?
When one makes a distorted statement about the issue or what was stated by the opposite side of an issue, to prove that their point is correct, that means the arguement is a strawman fallacy.
Its simple to find out - a google search into logical fallacies will reveal this.
Vladimir
01-27-2006, 14:55
A straw man was a pagan ritual burning, where they made a straw man with a sacrifical human inside then they burnt it.
A straw man is the likeness of a man made of straw. A Wickerman is the likeness of a man made in the style of wicker furniture which was used in human sacrifices.
Ironside
01-27-2006, 16:57
However I´ve recently read something that made me think twice about gun control: In 1938 the pogroms against jewish people in Germany started just a few days after the nazi-government had successfully confiscated all the guns in the hands of jewish people. With gun control there is no defense against crimes committed by the government.
And even with the amount of weapons the Iraqis had, Saddam still sat secure from his own people.
Weapons among the general population is a factor to consider, not something that changes everything. Guns does improve the strength of a rebellion, but you still need to get to the point were rebellions are needed and that people knows that a rebellion is needed.
Considering that rebellions often means certain death, especially before it has taken fire, it isn't easy to start one.
The best way to protect yourself from the goverment is to prevent the dictorship from ever happening, when it comes to the point when shooting the police is a good thing for democracy it's often too late already .
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 19:02
You dont need a gun for self defence red leg.
Im sure they taught you hand to hand combat in the army.
People got By Just fine without guns for hunting and murdering,
Btw shooting some 1 in self defence Is illigal here. (even if your legaly allowed to own a gun)
So No shooting some 1 in self defence Is not right.
Its not morral.
Farmers have Guns here shotguns or usualy .22 Rifels (not air rifels)
but the general publick arent allowed to have guns.
Our standard police officers have no guns,
yet even though some have guns in this country We arent so cowardly as to Cry and whine "we need them for self defence"
Cos you dont need a gun a stick a knife or anything for self defence.
They make self defence easier. Its true.
But not when the opponent has the same waepon as you.
That just means 1 of you is going to die.
And thats a dumb way of defending ANYTHING.
A farmer in the uk. A while ago, had his house broken in to at night By a young male.
The farmer Shot him with his shotgun and the kid died.
the farmer was prossicuted.
And i say rightly so.
No 1 has a right to take away some 1's life For ANY reason.
and giving the mass populus guns for NO apparent reason Is just dumb.
Its true some "VERY FEW" need guns.
I dont agree that you need guuns for hunting.
Go to the store.
I dont agree you need guns for self defence.
Just grow up
And i dont beleve guns are morraly right.
A impliment of death Is never right.
You dont need a gun for self defence red leg.
Im sure they taught you hand to hand combat in the army.
Pay attention to the arguement used - instead of attempting to twist what was stated. Which would be a strawman fallacy on your part.
You stated that killing was wrong, killing in self-defense is perfectably appectable in most countries. Notice I did not state with a gun - just that self defense is a justification for having to kill. In other words you wanted a moral arguement against killing - self defense gives one a moral justification for having to kill.
People got By Just fine without guns for hunting and murdering,
Btw shooting some 1 in self defence Is illigal here. (even if your legaly allowed to own a gun)
Then you do not have an issue with the tool that the killer uses, but the killing itself.
So No shooting some 1 in self defence Is not right.
Its not morral.
You can not have it both ways. Your contradicting yourself here. Self defense is justifable or not? If self defense against a deadly attack requires the individual to use deadly force, was the act of self defense immoral?
Farmers have Guns here shotguns or usualy .22 Rifels (not air rifels)
but the general publick arent allowed to have guns.
Our standard police officers have no guns,
Sorry your again confusing the issue. So farmers are allowed to have shotguns and rifles - which goes to the point I am making. Your arguement is guns - rifles and shotguns fall within that catergory. So either your issue is with handguns or is it with private ownership of firearms. Because contray to your statement here - farmers and ranchers are part of the general public.
yet even though some have guns in this country We arent so cowardly as to Cry and whine "we need them for self defence"
Your commiting another strawman arguement. Which is not really worth resonding to. Like I have stated before I have been robbed at gunpoint and an attempted robbery at knifepoint. So I don't have a tendency toward being a coward, and have faced situations both in the military and in civilian life that if I did not pay attention to my surroundings and the situation at hand - I would of not only cost myself my life but others around me.
If your going to resort to hyperbole, emotional appeal, and only strawman arguements - you have again only gone and proved my point that most times that is exactly how the arguement about gun control always goes.
Cos you dont need a gun a stick a knife or anything for self defence.
They make self defence easier. Its true.
Your logic here is flawed - see above statements. Is self defense justified? Is the use of deadly force in self defense justified if the attacker's intent is to give your bodily injury or is using deadly force against you in his attack?
But not when the opponent has the same waepon as you.
That just means 1 of you is going to die.
And thats a dumb way of defending ANYTHING.
A knife, a axe, a bat, and even a gun will result in the death of an individual when two people engage in a violent act. If only the criminal is armed the intended victim ends up dead. If both are armed - then the intended victim has the possiblity to defend themselves and/or chase off the attacker without bodily harm to either, or the most likely scenerio someone ends up dead. So your arguement here boils down to does the intended victim have the right to use deadly force to protect his life and property if a criminal is attempting to take either using deadly force?
A farmer in the uk. A while ago, had his house broken in to at night By a young male.
The farmer Shot him with his shotgun and the kid died.
the farmer was prossicuted.
And i say rightly so.
If the farmer can not prove that the criminal act of the individual was one of intended harm to that farmer's person - then yes he should be prosecuted.
However if the farmer was defending himself from a criminial that intended possible harm to him - then the farmer is justified under the law to defend himself.
No 1 has a right to take away some 1's life For ANY reason.
and giving the mass populus guns for NO apparent reason Is just dumb.
A strawman arguement of my own.
So if a man comes at you with a knife intending to cut and stab you, you will allow the individual to do so, at the cost of your own life?
Its true some "VERY FEW" need guns.
I dont agree that you need guuns for hunting.
If you hunt you need either a gun or a bow and arrow. Hunting is regulated.
Go to the store.
I dont agree you need guns for self defence.
Again notice what my postion is on the issue. The 2nd Ammendment provides to citizens of the United States the right to keep and bear arms. Self defense is only one of the many reasons for the constitution having those words in it.
Just grow up
When someone resorts to this type of arguement it shows that their postion is not based upon facts - but emotional appeal. I disregard statements like this until someone begins to over indulge in this type of stance. However what it shows is an immaturity on your part and a lack of knowledge on the overall issue.
And i dont beleve guns are morraly right.
A impliment of death Is never right.
So again I will committ another strawman arguement.
Knives are an impliment of death. Several are by design soley used for the killing of other human beings, many are designed for utility purposes, but in the end the knife has been used as a tool to bring death to another. From the simpliest form of a cutting knife to the unique designs of different fighting knives and swords.
So I guess next you will be for regulating and removing all knives from households.
I fear the countries where guns are necessary for defense. Jeesh.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 19:52
Red leg KILLING in self defence IS NOT acceptable.
Your being A typical soldier.
I fear the countries where guns are necessary for defense. Jeesh.
Then I guess you fear the military of your nation.
Then I guess you fear the military of your nation.
C`mon. I meant where the regular man in the street have a gun stored at home because he is fearing criminals, or whatever it is that he fears.
Major Robert Dump
01-27-2006, 19:59
States with conceal and carry laws have lower violent crime rates, whereas historically states who passed those laws also saw the adjacent counties of neighboring states have a rise in violent crime, which means the criminals were aware...
How long would it take to get guns away from criminals if everyone had to turn in their legal gun tomorrow? 5 years? 10 years? Sorry, I don't think I'd want to live anywhere where that was going on, criminals would see it as a duck shoot
Oh, and we don't have 100s of gun deaths per day -- even if you include police killing criminals. And the last few years accidental shootings have been less than 300 nationally, thats pretty low considring more people drown, more people die in fires and 30,000+ died in car accidents last year.
Some of you have obviously never been in or lived around incredibly high crime areas like parts of Dallas, parts of St Louis, parts of California. Even in Oklahoma there are neighborhoods where outsiders are not only targeted because they are outsiders, but even the police pull them over and tell them to go to another neighborhood. Why should I not be allowed to go to South OKC to shop and eat? Well, the answer is I'm not, because I carry a legal gun so I'm not scared of the homies, or the choloes, or the trailer trash who wants to kick my ass in a 7-11 becuase I brushed up against them in line.
Two days ago a worker at a restraunt got his ass beat by a couple of frat boys when he went to take out the trash, saw them pissing on someones car, and he told them to stop. They stomped his head while he was down, broke his nose, knocked out a couple of teeth now hes unconscious in the hospital and this is a decent part of town. Guess what? Had I been the victim at least one of those guys would be dead (the other one would likely runa way) right now, because there is NO WAY, AND I MEAN NO WAY, THAT IM GOING TO SUFFER GREIVOUS BODILY HARM BECAUSE SOME JERKS DECIDE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A FIGHT.
It's nice to pander for gun control when you live around few guns or in a community thats not full of drunks and thieves and people who want to whip you because they think they can. You should go visit East st Louis sometime, and be sure to tell them your a tourist and don't believe in guns.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 20:02
Funny seems to state you have 38,317 gun related injusrys and deaths every year..
Thats more than 100's
Red leg KILLING in self defence IS NOT acceptable.
And that is only opinion - therefor it does not prove or disprove anything about the right to keep and bear arms which is in the consitution of my nation.
Your being A typical soldier.
Typical an attempt at insulting someone because they do not share your opinion. By the way I had this opinion on weapons from before I joined the military, I grew up in the rural backwoods of New Mexico and Texas. Care to guess how many times I had to use a weapon to kill snakes, rabid predators, rats, coyotes, put a horse down, and yes to even kill a few sheep. I also hunted a lot growing up.
I don't like handguns because I don't like them. Shotguns and Rifles are tools for the farm and ranch. There is also a need to hunt wildlife to keep the population of the animals under control. Especially deer since man has pretty much removed the natural predators from many areas. You ever see the result of a run-away deep population explosion on the area in which the deer herd lives?
Again gun control issues have many dynamtics. The aspect of self defense is only one of those. However if that is the crux of your arguement for gun control is that you do not belief that self defense is justified - then that is fine. But are you willing to discuss the numerous other reasons why gun control is not a simple discussion nor a simple solution?
So if that is the only part you are focusing on - you have limited your scope of understanding and knowledge about why most citizens in the United States are against gun control.
C`mon. I meant where the regular man in the street have a gun stored at home because he is fearing criminals, or whatever it is that he fears.
The regular man where I come from owns weapons in order to hunt and protect his livestock. If your going to use hyperbole - a little in return is always pleasant is it not?
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 20:05
The actual Gun deaths were 17,971
1991-1992.
And the other 20 THOUSAN people were mearly maimed or injured.
It's nice to pander for gun control when you live around few guns or in a community thats not full of drunks and thieves and people who want to whip you because they think they can. You should go visit East st Louis sometime, and be sure to tell them your a tourist and don't believe in guns.
Most of them would be to scared to go into East St. Louis.
I rather enjoyed my visited to that part of St. Louis about 10 years ago. Some good BBQ to be had there.
The regular man where I come from owns weapons in order to hunt and protect his livestock. If your going to use hyperbole - a little in return is always pleasant is it not?
So... 'All' gun owners hunt or have a livestock to protect?
Let`s say the regular gun owner, if that`s better.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 20:16
You can get gove controlled companys to keep down rampant wildlife populations.
The regular citizen does Not NEED to hunt.
Hunting is now A luxury not essential.
so i dont buy any of that part of your argument.
And i dont think its an insult to say your being a regular soldier.
You do have the regular soldier mentalaty, To me that may be bad, But to you its probably not.
So it should possibly be taken as a compliment,
Unless you hold views on soldiers that i did not expect you to,
Im Plesantly suprized to hear you disslike Pistols.
These are my bigest gripe with guns.
In this country we get allong just fine with Farmers having rifels and shotguns. And nobody els having guns.
We have rampant wild life 2.
fox hunts used to be Really bad, but there now illigal.
And surplus fox population Can be controlled by official pest controll members. flying about in a heli copter and poping a shot at them.
There Is NO morral reason for most people to have a gun,
And theres no practical reason either.
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 20:19
Some of you have obviously never been in or lived around incredibly high crime areas like parts of Dallas, parts of St Louis, parts of California. Even in Oklahoma there are neighborhoods where outsiders are not only targeted because they are outsiders, but even the police pull them over and tell them to go to another neighborhood. Why should I not be allowed to go to South OKC to shop and eat? Well, the answer is I'm not, because I carry a legal gun so I'm not scared of the homies, or the choloes, or the trailer trash who wants to kick my ass in a 7-11 becuase I brushed up against them in line.
Two days ago a worker at a restraunt got his ass beat by a couple of frat boys when he went to take out the trash, saw them pissing on someones car, and he told them to stop. They stomped his head while he was down, broke his nose, knocked out a couple of teeth now hes unconscious in the hospital and this is a decent part of town. Guess what? Had I been the victim at least one of those guys would be dead (the other one would likely runa way) right now, because there is NO WAY, AND I MEAN NO WAY, THAT IM GOING TO SUFFER GREIVOUS BODILY HARM BECAUSE SOME JERKS DECIDE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A FIGHT.
It's nice to pander for gun control when you live around few guns or in a community thats not full of drunks and thieves and people who want to whip you because they think they can. You should go visit East st Louis sometime, and be sure to tell them your a tourist and don't believe in guns.
And that is a PRO gun argument?
LMFAO
So... 'All' gun owners hunt or have a livestock to protect?
Let`s say the regular gun owner, if that`s better.
The majority of weapons are owned by those in the rural areas of the nation. So guess what my definition would be closer then yours.
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-27-2006, 20:31
Btw shooting some 1 in self defence Is illigal here
Assuming you live in the UK (I seem to remember you're Welsh, correct me if I'm wrong), that statement is false.
If somebody was attempting to kill/seriously injure you, it would be perfectly legal for you to kill them, however you did it-providing you could prove that the force used was neccessary to prevent critical harm to yourself or others.
You can get gove controlled companys to keep down rampant wildlife populations.
So more government intervention is your answer?
The regular citizen does Not NEED to hunt.
Hunting is now A luxury not essential.
try again - your going into opinion only - provide facts.
so i dont buy any of that part of your argument.
And I don't buy your arguement that having to kill in self-defense is not justifiable.
And i dont think its an insult to say your being a regular soldier.
You do have the regular soldier mentalaty, To me that may be bad, But to you its probably not.
So it should possibly be taken as a compliment,
Unless you hold views on soldiers that i did not expect you to,
You did not mean it as a compliment so this explanation is not necessary.
Im Plesantly suprized to hear you disslike Pistols.
These are my bigest gripe with guns.
Which is why your arguement for gun control fails - your addressing all the weapons into one catergory.
In this country we get allong just fine with Farmers having rifels and shotguns. And nobody els having guns.
However your arguing for something different in the United States. Your lumping all weapons together. That also shows the hypocrisy of your arguement. You want a tougher standard for the United States then what is in your own country.
We have rampant wild life 2.
fox hunts used to be Really bad, but there now illigal.
And surplus fox population Can be controlled by official pest controll members. flying about in a heli copter and poping a shot at them.
Shooting out of a helicopter is not an apporiate way to hunt. Neither is the fox hunt.
There Is NO morral reason for most people to have a gun,
And theres no practical reason either.
There are all kinds of practical reasons. You have even stated that its prefectly acceptable for farmers and ranchers to have rifles and shotguns - those by definition are guns.
Care to guess how large the rural population of the United States is?
Haudegen
01-27-2006, 20:35
How long would it take to get guns away from criminals if everyone had to turn in their legal gun tomorrow? 5 years? 10 years? Sorry, I don't think I'd want to live anywhere where that was going on, criminals would see it as a duck shoot
That´s the point, I think. Laws against guns are only obeyed by lawful people. Once a whole society is armed to the teeth, there is no easy way back. In such a situation gun controls hurt the good citizens most. I know, that the second amendment has had its purpose in history. But I think from today´s point of view it caused a regrettable situation.
Don Corleone
01-27-2006, 20:50
Hmmm, Just a Girl, if you don't mind, would kindly offer the source of your 17K and 20K figures? The Center for Disease Control, which actively advocates banning all firearms ownership lists the number at 3500 and of those, 2500 were shot by the police in the commission of a crime. I'm just curious how they got those numbers so undercounted...
Vladimir
01-27-2006, 21:37
Isn't it mandatory to own an automatic weapon in Switzerland? Iraq is filled with families that have AK-47's and the most common form of violence against our troops is/are IEDs.
Major Robert Dump
01-27-2006, 21:42
Funny seems to state you have 38,317 gun related injusrys and deaths every year..
Thats more than 100's
can you even read?
you said far back in this thread 100s killed every day. 100x365=365000 per year. 38,000 gun related injurys or deaths is not 365000, its not 100s per day, it includes deaths with accidents which also includes polics shootings
Major Robert Dump
01-27-2006, 21:46
Red leg KILLING in self defence IS NOT acceptable.
Your being A typical soldier.
Killing to prevent death or serious harm to yourself or someone else is prefectly acceptable. Hippie.
That´s the point, I think. Laws against guns are only obeyed by lawful people. Once a whole society is armed to the teeth, there is no easy way back. In such a situation gun controls hurt the good citizens most. I know, that the second amendment has had its purpose in history. But I think from today´s point of view it caused a regrettable situation.
Someone that is very close to how the issue of gun control has developed in the United States.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html
Care to guess how adequately the current laws are enforced?
And then lets not forget Ruby Ridge. Which is now one of the holy cows for the pro-gun lobby. I detest the actions of Randy Weaver because he endangered his family with his actions, but the government has an equal share of blame for what happened at Ruby Ridge.
The actions of the Federal Government concerning the issue gives credance to some of the pro-gun crowd about why the 2nd Ammendment can not be done away with.
About the most neutral articles on the events on the web. There are others that take a more extreme and harsh view about the governments actions.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-02-2.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/20.html
Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 23:09
LOL im a hippy .. ??
Far out man.
and i spose i did say 100's a day so thats my bad.
As for hunting not being necisarry...
You can go to a store and Buy food these days,
You dont NEED to go hunting,
Hunting these days is a sport and there for a luxury.
Major Robert Dump
01-27-2006, 23:56
Suggesting gun ownership from the standpoint of hunting is a cop-out. But since you seem to know everything, I will enlighten you a little.
I can go to the store and buy beef or pork for 1.99 a pound for ground and 3.00+ for steaks, which I do. And once a year I can also go kill a deer or two or three and have hundreds of pounds of meat that I got for FREE, meat that I freeze and use the entire year. I can also kill boars for pork, and shoot turkeys and dove and quail.
Do I have to do this to survive? Do I live off the meat? No, its gamey and I don't eat it everyday but its good for stews and chili and mixing ground with other forms of ground, and I also give a lot of it away. Do I do it because it saves me money and lets me take little vacations in the woods? Yes. So hunting is a valid recreation, and it keeps wild animal populations from starving, and it saves me money. Some people may do it for "luxury" but not me. In fact, it's more work than fun and its a pain in the ass. I suppose you think I'm stupid for biking everywhere since I have a car and a bus stop next to where I live...
Gun ownership in the rural areas to keep coyotes away from chickens etc is a perfectly acceptable argument, and no a government agency isnt going to drive 45 miles out into the boon docks to scare of wolves from your livestock. Believe it or not, but this country has PLENTY of rural areas where you can drive for an hour without seeing a house or car, and your answer to Reds assertion about guns in rural areas is absolutely absurd.
And speaking of wild animals, lets get back to our discussion about crime and cities and self defense. Since some of you are saying that keeping a gun at home for self defense is counter-productive to the self defense argument -- which to a certain point it is, especially if the gun is unlaoded -- what about people who actively carry a gun for self defense? Address that one for me. Am I a psycho? Am I paranoid? Have you ever been robbed, or felt you were in serious danger? Or been subject to someones road rage or random crime spree? Ever been assaulted for no reason? Not saying those things happened to me, and I'm certainly not using a weapon toi make up for some self-percieved shortcoming. Trust me, most gun owners arent going to shoot somebody to avoid casual conflict, and its not always about shooting people anyway. You can brandish a gun to protect your property or to spook someone off who is giving you heck, you just cant shoot them.
I suppose your personal experiences don't matter and neither do mine, since we could both just lie to support our arguments......
I don't "fear" for my personal safety. I don't worry about being mugged everytime I leave the house. I don't feel that the only way I can feel safe is when I'm armed, but there are people who live and play in places where that is the case.
Oh, and owning a "machine gun" is illegal unless you have a dealers license, and the ATF doesnt just give those out, ya know. Also, the definition of "assault weapon" as defined by the ATF is a joke, so when you hear about an assault weapon ban expiring etc etc we're talking about a rifle being considered an "assault weapon" because it has 2 or more characteristics including length of stock, bayonet capability, and all sorts of other things that could technically turn a .22 peashooter into an "assault weapon". Bananna clips are illegal. Magazines over a certain capacity are illegal. Full-autos are illegal. I own a 8 shot, bolt action rifle that is considered an "assault weapon" by ATF standards.
Guns are here. They have been around a long time, and will be around a lot longer, and as long as that is the case I will own a few.
Just A Girl
01-28-2006, 00:05
Well your responce has been 1 of the best so far,
Atlest your honest.
And yes i have frequently been involed with 1 knife attack. and i have had many a bottle broken over my head.
Yet i am alive as i have neer been shot.
And the knife hit me in my rib and only chiped the bone.
I have plenty of scars from being bottled though,
but to tell you the truth,
I really enjoy a good bar room brawl
Just A Girl
01-28-2006, 00:09
Corections to this...
Well your responce has been 1 of the best so far,
Atlest your honest.
And yes i have frequently been involed in fights involving weapons.
1 knife attack. and i have had many a bottle's broken over my head.
Yet i am alive as i have never been shot.
And the knife hit me in my rib and only chiped the bone.
I have plenty of scars from being bottled though,
but to tell you the truth,
I really enjoy a good bar room brawl,
Soulforged
01-28-2006, 00:11
Killing to prevent death or serious harm to yourself or someone else is prefectly acceptable. Hippie.I don't know...even hippies have common sense you know.:2thumbsup:
Major Robert Dump
01-28-2006, 00:21
Taking a gun into a place where alcohol by the drink makes up more than 40% of the sales is a felony, and can be charged federally if the DA wants to. The % of alcohol sales may vary slightly by state, but the idea in general is "no guns in bars." (cops excluded, of course) Also, bar security cannot have firearms either unless they are hired and paid by the owner (no contracting one in) and the guard has to carry the gun concealed. Not even the owner can legally have one unless it is kept in a seperate part of the building designated as not being part of the bar.
Liquor stores and parties arent affected, BUT, it is also a federal offense to be in possession of a gun while under the influence of alcohol. It's not uncommon to see shop owners around here wearing a holster and a gun, as its legal to carry in plain view if you dont have a conceal permit and it is private property. And guess what, those places never get robbed, although I must admit that if someone were decide to rob the place after casing it, it would likely make the owner 5000X more likley to be shot since the robber knows he has a gun and might as well come in shooting. That being said, it doesnt happen around here, but I would not advise any business owner in a bad neighborhood to keep their gun on their hip in plain view, its better if its concealed.
When I go out drinking I take pepper spray that looks like a cell phone. :idea2:
Just A Girl
01-28-2006, 00:25
Is this an agree to disagee Situation as always when it ocmes to gun laws?
Is this an agree to disagee Situation as always when it ocmes to gun laws?
It has always been that way in the United States since the days of the first regulations placed on weapons.
You should read some of the arguements about the gun laws that were passed in the 1930's.
Soulforged
01-28-2006, 01:02
This situation of guns complicates when it surrounds the apocalictip views of certain people (wich are of course hiporbolic, as anything extreme). There's little to argue really. The rule is always freedom, then the exception is restriction. You don't need an express law that allow the use of guns, however to fullfil the exception you'll need that express law. In the case that this exists it could be analyzed if it's a sound and just policy. In the case of simple handguns and rifles, the question is pretty simple: the guns don't have conducts, humans have. If a person wants to kill another he'll kill him with or without a gun, and if he wants the gun he'll need to buy it illegally (for whatever reason you like) wich will generate the day to day problem of efficiency known as "The War on (place whatever you like here)". As I see it, restricting guns, to the point of being forbidden (or forbidden in most cases) will generate two problems: a legal issue (wich includes the exercise of freedom, and in the case of USA the violation of the 2nd Amendment -the later can be dismised) and another efficiency of public administration problem. For where you want to see this issue there's no gain in banning guns. The question of motives are irrelevant, it doesn't matter if I buy the gun to self defense or to other purposes.
This situation of guns complicates when it surrounds the apocalictip views of certain people (wich are of course hiporbolic, as anything extreme). There's little to argue really. The rule is always freedom, then the exception is restriction. You don't need an express law that allow the use of guns, however to fullfil the exception you'll need that express law. In the case that this exists it could be analyzed if it's a sound and just policy. In the case of simple handguns and rifles, the question is pretty simple: the guns don't have conducts, humans have. If a person wants to kill another he'll kill him with or without a gun, and if he wants the gun he'll need to buy it illegally (for whatever reason you like) wich will generate the day to day problem of efficiency known as "The War on (place whatever you like here)". As I see it, restricting guns, to the point of being forbidden (or forbidden in most cases) will generate two problems: a legal issue (wich includes the exercise of freedom, and in the case of USA the violation of the 2nd Amendment -the later can be dismised) and another efficiency of public administration problem. For where you want to see this issue there's no gain in banning guns. The question of motives are irrelevant, it doesn't matter if I buy the gun to self defense or to other purposes.
You have one major flaw in this arguement. When discussing laws within the United States the constitution is the document in which the law must be based upon. Legal codes in the United States can not be in violation of this founding document, therefor the constitution can not be dismissed.
I would hazardous a guess that no law can violate the constitution of any nation that has one, to do so means that the law by its very nature is un-constitutional and therefor non-enforcable.
Soulforged
01-28-2006, 05:27
You have one major flaw in this arguement. When discussing laws within the United States the constitution is the document in which the law must be based upon. Legal codes in the United States can not be in violation of this founding document, therefor the constitution can not be dismissed. I used dismissed in the sense that by interpretation that clause can be futile in this days.
I would hazardous a guess that no law can violate the constitution of any nation that has one, to do so means that the law by its very nature is un-constitutional and therefor non-enforcable.You're right Red, but it's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion.
EDIT to add: It really seems odd that such an interpretation can take place at all, but I've heard it many times (from people of the USA). And I say this because usually a constitution does not come with transitory laws in it, by the importance and the fundamental character of it, and by that same importance, if the law was meant to be transitory -even more if it restricts the exercise of certain action- it should have been expressed in the text and not be subject to interpretation. I would agree with you Red, but it seems that there's still people that sustain the contrary possition.
I used dismissed in the sense that by interpretation that clause can be futile in this days.
You're right Red, but it's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion.
No problem, just wanted to point out that one of the main sticking points about the gun debate in the United States is the way the constitution is written. The choice of words leave some room for interpatation in regrard to how the state can regulate arms, but not a lot of room concerning the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
America can not address the issue of gun control without looking at the 2nd Ammendment.
Edit: I see from your edit that I think we are in agreement, just slightly different viewpoint on the particulars of the subject.
Major Robert Dump
01-28-2006, 12:21
I don't even bother making the constitution arguments because either A: people who aren't american won't quite understand the value we put in it or B: People who are american think they can skirt it with clever wording in laws or, in a suprising number of cases, think striking an amendment is an easy thing and an obvious necessity like adding suffrage and slave amendments, just to be done willy-nilly because its oh-so-the-right-thing-to-do.
Gun control FTW
I don't even bother making the constitution arguments because either A: people who aren't american won't quite understand the value we put in it or B: People who are american think they can skirt it with clever wording in laws or, in a suprising number of cases, think striking an amendment is an easy thing and an obvious necessity like adding suffrage and slave amendments, just to be done willy-nilly because its oh-so-the-right-thing-to-do.
Gun control FTW
Yes indeed many do not want to understand the impact of the Constitution nor the requirement that the law must fall within the scope of the constitution if the document expressily mentions it.
In other words for those outside of the United States.
Gun Control is also constitutional issue, along with all the other issues involved with it.
Soulforged
01-28-2006, 16:40
I don't even bother making the constitution arguments because either A: people who aren't american won't quite understand the value we put in it...You would be wrong. Every country I know puts the same value in the constitution. The value of such document is not subjective thing, the same instrument speaks for itself and has value in itself, absolute value.
EDIT to add: I would be even willing to risk this- I think that in my country the respect to the Constitution is even greater, at least formally, because we've what is called a "petrified" (petrea) Constitution. The system used to change it is not flexible as in the USA, that's why our Constitution has have only two changes in 153years of history.
rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 13:37
I think that things in America are approached in completely the wrong way. Instead of the current "we can't ban the Magnum .50 as that affects a rancher with a rifle" why not "all guns are banned with the following exceptions..."
The perceived need for the individual to carry a gun to feel safe about "them" is lunacy:
Of course you can't wait until you are attacked before you attack - preemptive defence is the order of the day.
You can't wait until they draw the gun - so you have to assume that they have one and act on that presumption.
You are so big and tough that rather than avoid trouble you and your god given rights can go into rough areas and well, shoot perceived trouble makers when perceived danger occurs.
How as outsider one knows that they were the Bad Guys and the person with the smoking gun was the Good Guy is not clear. Do the police too understand this need to protect yourselves from "ass kickings", or would they again shoot first and ask questions later - or can you shoot the police citing defending against tyranny?
Changing laws is tough. But does that mean you give up at the first hurdle? Americans seem very keen to change laws / rulers of those they don't like - yet extremely reluctant to alter any of their own even if it would result in LESS blood being spilt.
~:smoking:
I think that things in America are approached in completely the wrong way. Instead of the current "we can't ban the Magnum .50 as that affects a rancher with a rifle" why not "all guns are banned with the following exceptions..."Its called the Constitution. :book:
rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 14:02
Right. And changing it is hard, and difficult - more so than attacking other countries.
As I said: just because it's hard is NOT a reason for not attemptind to do it. My phaseology was one that I think is BETTER - I doubt that the Founding Fathers thought that current gun ownership in cities is quite what they had in mind.
~:smoking:
As I said: just because it's hard is NOT a reason for not attemptind to do it. My phaseology was one that I think is BETTER - I doubt that the Founding Fathers thought that current gun ownership in cities is quite what they had in mind.And what do you think they had in mind?
Just because it's hard to repeal the 1st amendment isn't a reason not to either. But I still don't want to repeal it or anything else in the Bill of Rights.
rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 14:17
I for one wouldn't be able to say what people in times of muskets thought weapons were primarily used for.
But drivebys? Kids shooting other kids? Polics accidentally shooting whoever? Somehow I doubt it.
If you think / believe that your laws are working well then great! I'm... pleased there's the Adlantic. In the UK we review laws and so although years ago swords were common somewhere along the line we updated the law.
~:smoking:
Just A Girl
01-29-2006, 14:21
I for one wouldn't be able to say what people in times of muskets thought weapons were primarily used for.
But drivebys? Kids shooting other kids? Polics accidentally shooting whoever? Somehow I doubt it.
If you think / believe that your laws are working well then great! I'm... pleased there's the Adlantic. In the UK we review laws and so although years ago swords were common somewhere along the line we updated the law.
~:smoking:
yep I dont see people around here saying But in the 12th century we were allowed to carry a consealed crosboww,
And a sword on display for self defence.
You cant take those laws away, Or the bandits will get us!.
And I dont see criminals Still using the old weapons now as an advantage, becous honest law obiding citizens got rid of theres.
Reenk Roink
01-29-2006, 23:12
And what do you think they had in mind?
The founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were extremely wary of a standing army. It went against the grain of their republican ideals. Also, in the case of an overly oppresive government, there should be an option to revolt as they thought.
Of course, America evolved, and now we have a huge standing army and it doesn't matter how many guns the civilians own....
rory_20_uk
01-29-2006, 23:21
I thought it was to prevent Washington becoming overbearing on the other states, but I had no substantive information to that affect. Do you know of anything to prove this? The 2nd amendment is very poorly written.
~:smoking:
The founding fathers, especially Jefferson, were extremely wary of a standing army. It went against the grain of their republican ideals. Also, in the case of an overly oppresive government, there should be an option to revolt as they thought.
Of course, America evolved, and now we have a huge standing army and it doesn't matter how many guns the civilians own....Yes, but luckily, you can't just flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet because some think it no longer applies.
Reenk Roink
01-29-2006, 23:35
I thought it was to prevent Washington becoming overbearing on the other states, but I had no substantive information to that affect. Do you know of anything to prove this? The 2nd amendment is very poorly written.
~:smoking:
Some of the letters that Jefferson wrote might bring insight into why...
Mongoose
01-29-2006, 23:45
Look at it this way: Do you own a car? Do you NEED to own a car? Think of all the RoadRage and drunk driving suffering that could be prevented if every one took the train and or used other means of public transportation.:laugh4: Now, of course, some people do need a car, but most of the population does not.
Reenk Roink
01-29-2006, 23:50
Now, don't get me wrong, I could care less if guns are banned or not, but the car analogy isn't doing it for me. I mean, cars are meant to transport people around, guns are meant for killing things....
Mongoose
01-29-2006, 23:52
RedLeg mentioned some positive uses for guns. Euthanizing farm animals, or just for hunting. Neither are important for most people, but the same goes for cars too.
rory_20_uk
02-01-2006, 12:30
Sigh: Mongoose it's the usual "pseudo logic but not quite" vis a vis cars.
Cars basic use is to transport people from A to B. In a very small subset of cases incidents occur. Drunk driving is the alcohol NOT the car - unless people falling off bridges whilst drunk is the fault of the bridge :dizzy2:
As redleg states in some parts of america some types of firearm still have legitimate use - as they do in the UK.
No one ever hunted with a pistol - if you do I think that the person buying one should have to prove it.
And in home defence isn't it the case that it's usually family members that get shot rather than intruders? And of course if burglers have to assume that the people in the house are armed they are much more likely to shoot first and worry later.
~:smoking:
Cars basic use is to transport people from A to B. In a very small subset of cases incidents occur. Drunk driving is the alcohol NOT the car - unless people falling off bridges whilst drunk is the fault of the bridge :dizzy2:So, alchohol should be banned?
No one ever hunted with a pistol - if you do I think that the person buying one should have to prove it.Lots of people hunt with revolvers- even more use them for a coup de grace after having shot an animal with a rifle or other weapon.
But, if hunting was the only allowed use of guns then we may as well ban them altogether. Hunting isn't the reason for the second amendment and isnt why they're a protected right.
And in home defence isn't it the case that it's usually family members that get shot rather than intruders? And of course if burglers have to assume that the people in the house are armed they are much more likely to shoot first and worry later.
Actually statistics would suggest that if people in a house are armed, they wont break in while people are home. Compare the incidents of home invasions with the residents home vs away between America and countries with severe gun restrictions. Surveys also indicate that criminals are by far most afraid of their victims being armed. They worry more about that than being caught by the police or going to jail.
Goofball
02-01-2006, 18:11
So, alchohol should be banned?
No, but drinking alcohol then driving a car should be banned. Oh, wait. It is.
Sorry, for a moment there I thought you might have actually had a valid point.
My mistake.
Haudegen
02-01-2006, 19:03
Sigh: Mongoose it's the usual "pseudo logic but not quite" vis a vis cars.
Cars basic use is to transport people from A to B. In a very small subset of cases incidents occur. Drunk driving is the alcohol NOT the car - unless people falling off bridges whilst drunk is the fault of the bridge
I don´t think the analogy with cars is that bad. I look at the issue in this way:
A society is free to allow certain risks.
This applies to guns in the USA, in spite of the tragedies that can happen, because it is seen as the essence of liberty and because many people feel that they need it for self protection.
With cars it is basically the same in most countries. A car itself contains a potential danger because it has easily enough power to kill a person. A driver who perfectly follows the traffic regulations can kill legally if an incautious person walks in his way. The argument that this is the victims´own fault doesn´t count in my eyes, because if the driver had to use a bicycle (for example), the other person had a much higher chance to survive.
The point is that society has decided to allow cars because they benefit individual freedom and the society is willing to pay the price. And it is paid with the lives of many road casualties.
I don´t say that any of these choices are good or bad. But I think it´s important to be aware of these choices.
Major Robert Dump
02-01-2006, 19:42
Sigh: Mongoose it's the usual "pseudo logic but not quite" vis a vis cars.
Cars basic use is to transport people from A to B. In a very small subset of cases incidents occur. Drunk driving is the alcohol NOT the car - unless people falling off bridges whilst drunk is the fault of the bridge :dizzy2:
As redleg states in some parts of america some types of firearm still have legitimate use - as they do in the UK.
No one ever hunted with a pistol - if you do I think that the person buying one should have to prove it.
And in home defence isn't it the case that it's usually family members that get shot rather than intruders? And of course if burglers have to assume that the people in the house are armed they are much more likely to shoot first and worry later.
~:smoking:
I hunt with a pistol. If you try to hunt boars with a rifle you are going to get killed when it closes on you, and very rarely do you get a long range shot. I use a 5-shot 44 Special. For Deer I use a 30/30 and only make head shots, as I'm not the least bit interested in the trophy. For quail and duck a .410 or 20 guage. For fish I use dynamite. J/k, I use a trot line
If I had to estimate how much money I saved by eating game meat last year it would probably be close to $1000.
No, but drinking alcohol then driving a car should be banned. Oh, wait. It is.
Sorry, for a moment there I thought you might have actually had a valid point.
My mistake.Maybe we should ban felons from puchasing and possessing firearms too. Oh wait- they already are.... but then, I never thought you had a valid point. :wink:
Major Robert Dump
02-01-2006, 20:04
It's more than just felons who are banned. If you answer "yes" to any of the following questions on a 4473 you can't buy a firearm of any sort:
have you ever recieved a dishonrable discharge from the military?
are you currently taking medication for mental illness?
have you been diagnosed with mental illness?
are you a fugitive from justice?
are you subject to a restraining order or convicted of domestic abuse
are you a legal citizen of the united states (this one you have to put yes)
and so forth (the wording isn't perfect). This is done before calling the ATF hotline to run the background check, and I know about 1 in 10 get turned down for a disqaulifying answer, in which case you still have to keep the form on file in case the person comes back and tries again. There is, however, no other method in place to flag the person for a failed 4473, in other words you still dont call the hotline and say "hey this guy put yes to dishonorable discharge keep him in the file so you can reject him next time" All 4473s are kept in the store forever unless the ATF requests them.
Can the questions be faked? Yes. Will a background check show the questions were faked? In most cases no, the FBI and ATF isnt gonna know that joe regular got takes prozac. However, if you are caught after the fact with a gun and its determined when the cops trace the gun that you lied on the 4473 you will go to federal prison, no quarter on that one.
Theres also other required thiungs, like the address on the form has to match the address on a valid state ID, no PO BOXES etc and other little red flags that will let a sales clerk turn you down. To be honest, I don't like guns being sold in Wal-Mart by kids barely out of high school making $7 an hour, I think something like that should be kept to the pros. Wal-mart is reluctant to make changes because of their rural customer base, but they really should, and probably will ,eventually
To be honest, I don't like guns being sold in Wal-Mart by kids barely out of high school making $7 an hour, I think something like that should be kept to the pros. Wal-mart is reluctant to make changes because of their rural customer base, but they really should, and probably will ,eventually
Well, if they can do it within the rules- great. If they screw up, then WalMart should lose its FFL.
Major Robert Dump
02-01-2006, 20:23
Well, if they can do it within the rules- great. If they screw up, then WalMart should lose its FFL.
Wal-Mart screws up all the time. Very rarely do they lose their FFL, and if they do it is done on a store by store basis. In other words, the stores in California who were letting people walk out with the weapon before making the hotline call, those stores can't sell anymore.
Most of the mistakes that are made, however, are purely administrative and in no way indicitave of the persons eligibility to get the gun. For example, the clerk forgets to get the second signature or doesn't get a zip code. In a case like that, the customer is called and asked to return, and the employee is either fired or given a write up. Also, a salaried manager has to be present for the transaction so that manager is given a write up or fired as well. It's a tad unfair and cumbersome on both the manager and the hourly guy, and considering how busy Wal-Marts can be and how rude customers are, its a rush job to say the least.
Theres also an intimidation facotr when it comes to red flags. Perhaps a person who might be turned down due to behavior or supsiciousness is not turned down becuase the clerk is a child and the salaried manager is a 50 year old lady who weighs 100 pounds. I don't know of any cases of this happening, but I've seen people try to bully there way to gertting a firearm and have wondered what would have happened if the clerk and manager had been a pushover
(PS-from 2003-2005 I was a salaried assistant then a salaried co-manager of a super center(#2 in the store) and was about to be promoted to a home office job, I quit in june, hated the job, hated the company, hated the customers, hated the managers i worked with (did like the money, 44k)...stay tuned for MRDs wal-mart thread coming to a board near you.
Major Robert Dump
02-01-2006, 20:28
I forgot to say what happens if the customer doesn't return to complete the form:
Whats supposed to happen, is 48 hours after the incident IS DISCOVERED you contact district loss prevention, who then has 24 hours to contact the ATF, and if the ATF has to go track the guy down to get the 2nd signature its a nice fat fine up to 50,000 dollars.
The way its REALLY done, if the guy hasnt returned 48 hrs lafter the error is DISCOVERED, you contact LP, and LP tries to track down the guy and never contacts the ATF. I've seen this drag out for as long as 2 weeks, and in cases like that the clerk and the manager were both fired. Note the DISCOVERY part of the rules....LP can always just push back the discovery time to coincide with when they eventually contact the ATF, and with the clerk and the manager gone no one will claim otherwise.
Welcome to Wal-Mart
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 02:08
Extreemists dont use the rational part of their brain,
this thread is Proof, :)
Now watch how the WE WANT GUNS extreemists reply to these.
You dont need guns for any reason,
Self defence is a weak Joke for having a weapon. Which just means your a coward.
Huinting clubs could be made Like those wild life parks.
Guns suplied on site in a walled park No guns leave the confines of the hunting area.
this would provide Hunting grounds for Leasure and meat,
Pests like deer can be controlled by the goverment.
Not that deers are pests, humans are the pest the deers were fine till you destroyed there food.
Human Rights dosent enter in to it.
no human needs the right to be able to carry or own a device for killing.
So those are all the reasons WHY you lots say you need guns.
And those are all Rational debates as to why guns arent needed,
so what do you guys say?
2nd amendment probably?
Strike For The South
02-02-2006, 02:13
wow you seem to have no reason ethier:laugh4: Ive been around guns my whole life and Ive never been shot and nethier has anyone I know. So just leave us alone and let us shoot and be happy.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 02:23
wow you seem to have no reason ethier:laugh4: Ive been around guns my whole life and Ive never been shot and nethier has anyone I know. So just leave us alone and let us shoot and be happy.
Point proven.
Strike For The South
02-02-2006, 02:25
Point proven.
how so
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 02:27
Your debate Had No rational reasoning.
Your debate Had No rational reasoning.
neither did yours.
Extreemists dont use the rational part of their brain,
this thread is Proof, :)
Now watch how the WE WANT GUNS extreemists reply to these.
You dont need guns for any reason,
id be really carefull about blanket statements like these, because unfortunately in your attempt to paint all the "WE WANT GUNS extreemists" as irrational, you painted yourself as an extremist along with them.
as to your arguements.
Self defence is a weak Joke for having a weapon. Which just means your a coward.
so my wife and children are cowards because i have a firearm in the safe forf them, when im away, what are you gonna do when someone bigger and stronger, and meaner than yourself tries to break into your home, call the police and pray they arrive in time, where i live it takes the cops a average of 20 min just to show up, unless of course you live next to a donut shop. kidding on the donut shop. a gun in the hands of someone who is properly trained is an equalizer, if someone is intent on harming you and you know you can not stop them physically, well good luck to you is all i say.
Huinting clubs could be made Like those wild life parks.
Guns suplied on site in a walled park No guns leave the confines of the hunting area.
this would provide Hunting grounds for Leasure and meat,
this is a joke right, i nor any hunter whom i know would even call this hunting, hunting for me is more than meat acquirement, and ive never hunted for leisure in my life. hunting for me is about getting away from the civilized world, getting back to my roots so to speak, it is an experience that i truly enjoy and would not trade for a park. most of my dearest memories of my life involve hunting and fishing with my dad, and friends. the stories we get out of it still live on to this day.
and btw, i dont hunt with a rifle anymore, i bow hunt exlusively now, for everything except duck and geese... but i do bring a firearm with me, a 44 super redhawk which i must say is ideal for the suprise encounters with bear, moose, carribou, and wolf.. and all these animals are capable of ripping me in half without much effort on thier part. the gun is my equalizer, usually a shot in the ground in front of them is enough to get them to scatter and leave.
Pests like deer can be controlled by the goverment.
Not that deers are pests, humans are the pest the deers were fine till you destroyed there food.
you mean like the way the state is handling the wolf population up here, they've gotten so bad, their starting to attack children in the villages up north, hell ive even seen a few around my house, and i live in the city, a huge urban sprawl in the middle of the wilderness... the state has been debating for 2 years how to control them, and the problems just getting worse.
just because you dont find their reasons for owning firearms as legitimate doesn't make them any less valid, thats all part of being rationale, you have to see both sides of the arguments...
to the topic of the thread, a truly sad affair, hopefully the victim will recover quickly and not have emotional scarring over this, and the parents of the boy who brought the gun, should be brought up on neglect charges or something... no child, nor most adults can get their hands on any of my weapons, wether they be firearms, my bow, or my muskets.. they are all locked away in my gun safe, only my wife and i know the combo, and all the ammo is in a second gun safe, only i have the combo to that.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 03:10
Yes im sure having a gun makes them very safe in deed,
So a burgular breaks in.
Your wife runs for the safe,
Struggles with the combination,
Pulls out the gun.
Loads it.
......
Wait.
shed have been shot when she went runnig for the safe,
I guess its better that way though.
What you call hunting, may not be what I sudjested,
Buts thats just becous your being awkkward.
A 20 square mile enclosure for hunting Would be more than adequate,
If the gowerment is not good at stoping the pests.
Vote in a better goverment.
simple enough.
You can even use gin traps, No need for guns.
Gin traps are nasty pieaces of work i must admit.
But a human cant get stuck in 1.
And yes i guess I could be discribed as an anti gun extreemist,
But i listen to your debates, and think about them rationaly.
then give you valid alternatives,.
This is where we differ.
Yes im sure having a gun makes them very safe in deed,
So a burgular breaks in.
Your wife runs for the safe,
Struggles with the combination,
Pulls out the gun.
Loads it.
......
Wait.
shed have been shot when she went runnig for the safe,
I guess its better that way though.
Tsk tsk - that is not a rational arguement. Your also making assumptions and leaping to conclusions that were not entered into evidence by Jay.
What you call hunting, may not be what I sudjested,
Buts thats just becous your being awkkward.
Because what you suggested is not hunting. Its just shooting. Hunting in the Alaska Wilderness is about as rugged as it gets. It also goes to show that you are not worried about conservation.
A 20 square mile enclosure for hunting Would be more than adequate,
Its not hunting if the animals are trapped in an enclosure.
If the gowerment is not good at stoping the pests.
Vote in a better goverment.
simple enough.
Laughable. Do you have any idea about the amount of terrority we are discussing?
You can even use gin traps, No need for guns.
Gin traps are nasty pieaces of work i must admit.
But a human cant get stuck in 1.
Traps is not hunting nor is it a good method of population control.
And yes i guess I could be discribed as an anti gun extreemist,
But i listen to your debates, and think about them rationaly.
then give you valid alternatives,.
Have yet to see a valid alternative to hunting and ranch use of rifles.
Your arguement concerning handguns crosses into valid arguements but you ruin it with extremist postions concerning what is in the United States a guarntee by the Constitution. An issue that you refuse to address with rational arguement, just emotional appeal and hyperbole postions.
This is where we differ.
Correct - Jay has given you a rational arguement, and you have used an irrational arguement against. :laugh4:
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 04:27
I see no way a piece of paper That has some outdated and un needed laws on It provide a rational reason as to why you need guns.
aso for ranch use of rifles. I dont see anything worng with allowing Farmers/ ranch people. to own a single shot .22 Rifel. One of those 1s that arent actualy bolt loaded.
You haft to pull the back of it HARD! to open the chamber to insert the shell.
And then after you fire the chamber is automaticvally opend,
These things are near impossible for a child or un trained person to load.
Purley due to the fact there so clumbsy to load initialy
Not one of these .22
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/images/ayoob91-5.jpg
As that is a bolt action .22 which can easily be loaded by a child.
(I know cos i often used bolt actions to shoot birds when i was younger)
The .22 Im happy to see on a farm Is not a bolt action.
It has a nipple on the back which you pinch withe hindex finger and thumb.
And it really takes a bit of effort to pull the thing back so it locks and you can place your .22 cartrage in.
Thing has a 1 and 1/2 mile range so Its more than powerfull enough.
I could not find a pic of the type i mean.
But this is similar...
if you remove the little hadel on the side.
http://www.gunblast.com/images/Paco_CZ452/454rifle%20010.jpg
the ones im on about dont have a recess to accept the little handel.
and instead you haft to manualy pull the whole thing back with your fingers.
Im sure you gun fanatics will have seen 1,
Seeing as ive used both types and i dont even like guns and beleve they should be banned.
I see no way a piece of paper That has some outdated and un needed laws on It provide a rational reason as to why you need guns.
That piece of paper is where every law in the United States has it foundation. To change the law, one must address the constitutionality of the law, or the arguement against or for is not based upon rational thought.
aso for ranch use of rifles. I dont see anything worng with allowing Farmers/ ranch people. to own a single shot .22 Rifel. One of those 1s that arent actualy bolt loaded.
A .22 rifle is not suitable for killing animals larger then small rodents. It would lead to suffering and inhumane death of the animal.
You haft to pull the back of it HARD! to open the chamber to insert the shell.
And then after you fire the chamber is automaticvally opend,
These things are near impossible for a child or un trained person to load.
Purley due to the fact there so clumbsy to load initialy
You don't know much about weapons.
Not one of these .22
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/images/ayoob91-5.jpg
As that is a bolt action .22 which can easily be loaded by a child.
(I know cos i often used bolt actions to shoot birds when i was younger)
The .22 Im happy to see on a farm Is not a bolt action.
It has a nipple on the back which you pinch withe hindex finger and thumb.
And it really takes a bit of effort to pull the thing back so it locks and you can place your .22 cartrage in.
Thing has a 1 and 1/2 mile range so Its more than powerfull enough.
Wrong that .22 rifle is a bolt action rifle. Wrong on the effective range of the weapon.
I could not find a pic of the type i mean.
But this is similar...
if you remove the little hadel on the side.
http://www.gunblast.com/images/Paco_CZ452/454rifle%20010.jpg
the ones im on about dont have a recess to accept the little handel.
and instead you haft to manualy pull the whole thing back with your fingers.
The weapon you are descriping is in essence a 22 caliber bolt action rifle that has a manual cocking spring that must be pulled back to bring the firing pin back so that it engages the trigger. It is normally a single shot rifle that must be loaded manually one cartiridge at a time.
Im sure you gun fanatics will have seen 1,
Seeing as ive used both types and i dont even like guns and beleve they should be banned.
So we should ban weapons becaue you don't like them. Tsk Tsk not a rational arguement.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 06:02
And we should have weapons cos you guys enjoy killing things and are violent towards eachother?
very rational.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 06:05
And any way,
The manual .22 single loading rifle I used had a Range of 1.5 miles.
it was only small
i dint say it had a Killing range of greater.
And cant you guys shoot things in the head?
If i can shoot a crow out of the sky with a poxy little .22 single loader With no scope,
How come you guys cant get in a head shot on a animal.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 06:14
You may like to know, Seeing as im now admiting I used to like guns.
That i have had a few gun related convictions.
Most recent being.
Dischargin a fire arm without a licence,
owning a un registerd fire arm,
dischargin a fire arm with in 50 yards of a populated area.
And discharging a fire arm withing 50 yards of a A road,
(a roads being the main bulk roads)
There is a gun club about 5 miles away from me.
And a shooting range even closer.
I live in a rural area.
And as such I do tend to come across a lot of .22 rifels ans double barel shot guns.
As i said i dont like bolt actions as they are Easy for a child to abuse.
Same goes for shotguns.
but the .22 rifels i dont realy mind are the single loaders which takes conciderable effort to cock initialy.
then you load the cartrage.
flick the little lever so the barrel is sealed at the back again. then you can fire.
After you fire the chamer is already empty and ready to accept the next round.
These things are prety safe if unloaded as kids in general dont have the srength to cock it the 1st time.
Crazed Rabbit
02-02-2006, 06:24
Yes im sure having a gun makes them very safe in deed,
So a burgular breaks in.
Your wife runs for the safe,
Struggles with the combination,
Pulls out the gun.
Loads it.
That's why you don't keep guns in safes. You keep them where you have ready and quick access to them.
Most recent being.
Dischargin a fire arm without a licence,
owning a un registerd fire arm,
dischargin a fire arm with in 50 yards of a populated area.
And discharging a fire arm withing 50 yards of a A road,
So, we should get rid of guns because a person convicted of mishandling/criminally using guns doesn't want us to?
As i said i dont like bolt actions as they are Easy for a child to abuse.
Same goes for shotguns.
Kids need to be taught about guns; you don't need to ban guns. Did you know that the youngest age category of hunters in the US (16 & under), kids basically, have the lowest accident rate of all hunters?
Crazed Rabbit
If i can shoot a crow out of the sky with a poxy little .22 single loader With no scope,
How come you guys cant get in a head shot on a animal.
Maybe they've been playing the game on a higher difficulty level, or they've been shooting in real life.
And we should have weapons cos you guys enjoy killing things and are violent towards eachother?
Again leaping to conclusions from lack of evidence.
Major Robert Dump
02-02-2006, 06:41
You may like to know, Seeing as im now admiting I used to like guns.
That i have had a few gun related convictions.
Most recent being.
Dischargin a fire arm without a licence,
owning a un registerd fire arm,
dischargin a fire arm with in 50 yards of a populated area.
And discharging a fire arm withing 50 yards of a A road,
(a roads being the main bulk roads)
There is a gun club about 5 miles away from me.
And a shooting range even closer.
I live in a rural area.
And as such I do tend to come across a lot of .22 rifels ans double barel shot guns.
As i said i dont like bolt actions as they are Easy for a child to abuse.
Same goes for shotguns.
but the .22 rifels i dont realy mind are the single loaders which takes conciderable effort to cock initialy.
then you load the cartrage.
flick the little lever so the barrel is sealed at the back again. then you can fire.
After you fire the chamer is already empty and ready to accept the next round.
These things are prety safe if unloaded as kids in general dont have the srength to cock it the 1st time.
Wow. I carry a gun pretty much every waking hour, have never broken the law regarding a firearm and have even brandished a firearm in possible self defense (note the word brandished), then you come along and say we are all stupid and cowards and need to be saved from ourselves, yet you represent the very argument most commonly used to make guns illegal: you broke the law with a gun.
This is too much for my simple brain to handle. I'm going to go break down into an irony-induced seizure, beat my imaginary wife, then come back and start a thread entitled "domestic abuse r teh bad"
And any way,
The manual .22 single loading rifle I used had a Range of 1.5 miles.
I doubt very seriousily that it had a range of 1.5 miles. The effective range of a .22 caliber bullet is less then 400 meters.
it was only small
i dint say it had a Killing range of greater.
No but you stated that the weapon has a range of 1.5 miles. That is not correct.
And cant you guys shoot things in the head?
We are not discussing marksmanship.
If i can shoot a crow out of the sky with a poxy little .22 single loader With no scope,
How come you guys cant get in a head shot on a animal.
Oh I hit what I aim at every time. Again we are not discussing marksmanship. The effective range of a .22 caliber bullet is measured in meters - last time I looked it was less then 400 meters, I believe it is actually around 100 meters. I could begin to get into a discussion of ballastics and bullet charastics of flight, but it I am sure it would be very boring. Lets just say that a .22 caliber bullet does not travel a straight line for 1.5 miles.
You may like to know, Seeing as im now admiting I used to like guns.
That i have had a few gun related convictions.
Most recent being.
Dischargin a fire arm without a licence,
owning a un registerd fire arm,
dischargin a fire arm with in 50 yards of a populated area.
And discharging a fire arm withing 50 yards of a A road,
Lets see I have been around weapons for 40 years - since the day I was born and brought home to my parents house. Never have I accidently discharged a weapon, nor have I ever violated the law concerning the proper discharge of a weapon. My weapons are all legal within the laws of the United States, to include the pre-registation law for one of the weapons I own, but do not fire.
So is your arguement against owning weapons solely based upon your inablity to abide by the law of your country regarding weapons?
Why should I be punished for your inablity to follow the law in regards to the proper use of a firearm?
Major Robert Dump
02-02-2006, 06:54
LOL you would be lucky to find a .50 cal that would go 1.5 miles and still be remotely accurate, let alone a .22. And a .22 at that range wouldn't even break the skin unless it was coming down at 90 degree arc. I've shot rabbits in the head with a .22 and they didn't die. Rabbits taste good BTW, but not much fat and not much meat. Same with squirrels, but don't eat their brains, ever. It's bad karma.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 06:58
That's why you don't keep guns in safes. You keep them where you have ready and quick access to them.
Yeah like on top of the kids toy box?
And i dont know what your guys problem is,
I shot a few birds in Glynlifon, (its a walled enclosure in a forestry)
Aparantly i was to close to the main road.
and shooting crows is easy.
fair enough initialy you keep missing it, but ice you figure out how far aheadd to aim. You prety much always hit the bird,
Now when i used yo go shooting things.
id often initialy miss.
reload,
Then wait a while for the birds to come back, And try again.
But then i started thinking.
Where the hell did those bullts that keep missing go?
Box the bullets came in said theyd go 1.5 miles.
So seeing as i was aiming up,
them suckers could have gone any where.
so i started going to glynllifon, Shooting small animals and birds.
Aparantly. Glynllifon is to close to the roads. and to close to polulated areas.
never the less it was still safer imo. due to the fact if i missed the bulet either hit a tree or eventualy hit the wall that suronds the place.
But honestly.
Its not worth it.
You guys say you have teh right to kill animals.
Fine,
Your an animal
So i guess im allowed to shoot you.
and these days I would be more inclined to shoot a human than an animal.
for the pure reasons Animals never did squat wrong to any 1.
But humans are a pest.
And acording to you Pests need to be controlled.
So all your arguments about wanting to hunt animals. Just means That i have an argument that i wantt to kill people who hunt animals.
This does not mean that its right for me to do so,
Neither does it mean its right for you to kill animals for sport.
Rationaly tell me Why killing animals for sport is not as bad as killing humans for sport.
way i see it they have as much right to be allowed to live without geting shot by some Testosterone filled red neck who has nothing better to do with there free time.
I know this is a pointelss debate for the simple reason Guns kill things and killing things is wrong.
And you guys have the strangest mind set ive ever seen.
maby when you become a little more mature Probably when tour about 90.
you may relize guns arent great.
there not needed,
We got on fine without them for ages, Even with Wild animals roaming loose Much more so than these days.
and the things were invented for killing Humans.
so beleive what you like.
the religios ones amongst you should be ashamed,
Good dint put life on this planet for you to go around shooting it for sport.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 07:06
P.S
taken from:
http://yarchive.net/gun/maximum_range.html
#I'm fairly new to shooting .22's, and I have a question about how far they
#really travel. I use CCI mini-mags, hv, and do all of my shooting in the
#direction, a direction I need to shoot in. Now, (that's my Ross Perot
#imitation), on the box it says, "Dangerous to 1 1/2 miles",
-----
#I can't help you regarding the angle of fire. However, I can certify that
#when a box of .22LR states that it can kill or injure someone at a range
#of over a mile - it's not exaggerating. I have read several newspaper accounts
#of people being killed or injured by stray .22LR bullets that were
#fired by some yo-yo who thought they wouldn't have any 'whack' left in
#them after travelling so far. I recall one incident that occurred about
#5 years ago in the UK: A farmer was out 'varminting' with his bolt-action
#in .22LR. He killed a few and went home. Later, the Police came round and
#questioned him about an incident that had happened earlier that afternoon:
#a little girl aged about 7 years old had been playing in her back garden
#(about a mile from the farm) when someone shot her in the side of the head.
Major Robert Dump
02-02-2006, 07:10
Some hunt for fun, for the fellowship, or for food. Some of us have different uses for firearms, store them in different manners, some have families to consider and some don't, some can come home and put the gun ander a pillow on the couch and some have kids to think about,
Goes to show you there is not a single argument or stereotype that is going to shut us all up.
Okay, since Idaho isn't here to actually toss some decent arguments around, I'll be devils advocate, do the work for the gun grabbers and toss out some fodder. We just had another post office shooting spree. Discuss. (I'm going to bed, btw, its midnight and I need to go reposess a car tomorrow morning. glad I get to take a gun!!!!)
Major Robert Dump
02-02-2006, 07:13
P.S
taken from:
http://yarchive.net/gun/maximum_range.html
#I'm fairly new to shooting .22's, and I have a question about how far they
#really travel. I use CCI mini-mags, hv, and do all of my shooting in the
#direction, a direction I need to shoot in. Now, (that's my Ross Perot
#imitation), on the box it says, "Dangerous to 1 1/2 miles",
-----
#I can't help you regarding the angle of fire. However, I can certify that
#when a box of .22LR states that it can kill or injure someone at a range
#of over a mile - it's not exaggerating. I have read several newspaper accounts
#of people being killed or injured by stray .22LR bullets that were
#fired by some yo-yo who thought they wouldn't have any 'whack' left in
#them after travelling so far. I recall one incident that occurred about
#5 years ago in the UK: A farmer was out 'varminting' with his bolt-action
#in .22LR. He killed a few and went home. Later, the Police came round and
#questioned him about an incident that had happened earlier that afternoon:
#a little girl aged about 7 years old had been playing in her back garden
#(about a mile from the farm) when someone shot her in the side of the head.
That's why you don't miss.
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 07:16
LOL you would be lucky to find a .50 cal that would go 1.5 miles and still be remotely accurate, let alone a .22. And a .22 at that range wouldn't even break the skin unless it was coming down at 90 degree arc. I've shot rabbits in the head with a .22 and they didn't die. Rabbits taste good BTW, but not much fat and not much meat. Same with squirrels, but don't eat their brains, ever. It's bad karma.
And whats That Exept for Ignorance from a suposedly Educated gun user?
A mirage?
Crazed Rabbit
02-02-2006, 07:20
That's why you don't keep guns in safes. You keep them where you have ready and quick access to them.
Yeah like on top of the kids toy box?
Yeah. Exactly. That's the best, most readily availible spot. Most people I know don't keep toy boxes in their bedrooms. Again, it's also a matter of education. Did you read what I wrote about kid hunters being the safest? Proof that properly educated kids won't have problems around guns.
And i dont know what your guys problem is,
I shot a few birds in Glynlifon, (its a walled enclosure in a forestry)
Aparantly i was to close to the main road.
and shooting crows is easy. fair enough initialy you keep missing it, but ice you figure out how far aheadd to aim. You prety much always hit the bird,
...
You guys say you have teh right to kill animals.
Fine, Your an animal So i guess im allowed to shoot you.
and these days I would be more inclined to shoot a human than an animal. for the pure reasons Animals never did squat wrong to any 1.
But humans are a pest.
And acording to you Pests need to be controlled.
Rationaly tell me Why killing animals for sport is not as bad as killing humans for sport.
way i see it they have as much right to be allowed to live without geting shot by some Testosterone filled red neck who has nothing better to do with there free time.
Unbeknownst to you, who apparently shot into the air with a gun you thought to have a range of 1.5 miles in semi-populated areas, people actually kill animals for food. You wouldn't know that, but a lot of people still get some food from hunting. Just because you don't know how to use guns responsibly and get your food from the local store doesn't mean others can't use them responsibly.
Considering that you seem to think killing people who hunt for food is a good idea-even better, morally, than killing animals I don't think you should try to tell us that guns are bad.
Crazed Rabbit
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 07:24
I have already said Hunting for food Is acceptable,
But it should be done within a specialized walled enclosure of say 20 square miles.
where guns are suplied on site and do not leave.
Anything els you want is just you guys being awkward
Just A Girl
02-02-2006, 07:32
Oh btw...
When i was shooting birds I was No where near a populated area.
and there were no main roads or houses within a 5 mile radius.
Upon deciding that was potentialy unsafe,
I then went to shoot smaller animals In a forest.
Where my stray shots would do little more than hit a tree or 2 foot thick solid stone wall.
That is when i was prossicuted for being to close to populated area's.
Yes im sure having a gun makes them very safe in deed,
So a burgular breaks in.
Your wife runs for the safe,
Struggles with the combination,
Pulls out the gun.
Loads it.
......
Wait.
shed have been shot when she went runnig for the safe,
I guess its better that way though.
all right heres the plan in case your curious... when i leave town, which is the only time i unlock the weapons in the 1st place. i pull out the 12 gage shotgun, and the box of birdshot, yes birdshot, at the range were talking its lethal, and it will dissapate its energy quickly, lessens the chance of hurting neighbors and such. this gets locked in a safe in our bedroom, it has fingerprint access for quick opening.
in the event some nutjob tries to enter my house, the front door is a steel door, and i reinforced the frame and hinges for extra protection. it will buy a few seconds for her to run into our bedroom, which is reinforced to make entry extremely difficult. lock the door, which is also reinforced and has a bar we can drop over the door to make entry harder.
she then grabs the shotgun. a browning over/under double barrel, real nice design btw, shoots great and is excellent for fowl.. it looked like this.
http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/images/013232m.jpg
now its used and doesnt look so perty.
and calls 911.. it takes the cops 15 to 20 minutes on a good night to get here roughly, so if he manages to gain entry to the room, shes to aim for center mass and unload both barrels, then reload, and stay put, dont go look for him, let the coppers worry about that, if by some miracle hes alive and tries to enter anew, the repeat the unloading until the police arrive and properly identify themselves.
What you call hunting, may not be what I sudjested,
Buts thats just becous your being awkkward.
A 20 square mile enclosure for hunting Would be more than adequate,
thats cruel and inhumane, we have herds of animals the migration range is 2 or 3 thousand miles, lets go ahead a pen them into a 20 square mile area...
heres a summary of my state for you,
Alaska is the largest state in the United States in terms of land area, 570,374 square miles (1,477,261 km²). If a map of Alaska were superimposed upon a map of the lower 48 states, Alaska would overlap Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado. Alaska has the longest coastline of any state.
With its numerous islands, Alaska has nearly 34,000 miles (54,700 km) of tidal shoreline. The island chain extending west from the southern tip of the Alaska Peninsula is called the Aleutian Islands. Many active volcanoes are found in the Aleutians. For example, Unimak Island is home to Mount Shishaldin, a moderately active volcano that rises to 9,980 ft (3,042 m) above sea level. The chain of volcanoes extends to Mount Spurr, west of Anchorage on the mainland.
North America's second largest tides occur in Turnagain Arm just south of Anchorage, which often sees tidal differences of more than 35 feet.
Alaska is home to 3.5 million lakes of 20 acres or larger. Marshlands and wetland permafrost cover 188,320 square miles, mostly in northern, western and southwest flatlands. Frozen water, in the form of glacier ice, covers some 16,000 square miles of land and 1200 square miles of tidal zone. The Bering Glacier complex near the southeastern border with Yukon, Canada, covers 2250 square miles alone.
in short it huge, and there are more animals here than people, in fact i heard the number of carribeau and moose, each by themselves outnumbers the number of people we have in the state. most people who move up here are fiercely independant and love the outdoors and nature, we love our animals up here and the rugged beauty of the state and we take guarding it seriously.. penalties for illegal taking of game are very high financialy and we jail every serious offender we get our hands on...
If the gowerment is not good at stoping the pests.
Vote in a better goverment.
simple enough.
You can even use gin traps, No need for guns.
Gin traps are nasty pieaces of work i must admit.
But a human cant get stuck in 1.
if only it were that simple, we elect good men and women to office, but once in the mob as it were, they become mired in politics and toe the party line.. it infuriates me to no end.. but short of revolt, i keep voting and keep calling them on their bs, which is about all i can do...
traps wouldnt work for the wolves, most adults would avoid them, but i can just see a headline now, about a 2 or 3 year old from some village dying in trap, traps just arent a good solution.
And yes i guess I could be discribed as an anti gun extreemist,
But i listen to your debates, and think about them rationaly.
then give you valid alternatives,.
This is where we differ.
close, but id say the main difference is you and i are on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as gun control. although i wouldnt call myself pro gun extremist... you can offer alternatives till your blue in the face, but in the reality one must accept compromise in order to get anything accomplished in this world... although i believe a person should be able to own anythings on this planet they want, they must also accept the responsibility for owning said item, the good and the bad, as well as accept liability for when things go awry.
for me its all about personal responsability, i own firearms, but i accept the resposibility that it is my job to make sure that they are stored safely so that no one may be injured by them, it is my job to make sure i use them in a safe and legal way. any failures that may result from my firearms, wether a child getting their hands on it, or improper use of one that causes harm or worse yet, death.. will be my fault, not the state, not the manufacturer, or the business that sold it to me... for me theirs no grey area on this subject.
I have already said Hunting for food Is acceptable,
But it should be done within a specialized walled enclosure of say 20 square miles.
where guns are suplied on site and do not leave.
Anything els you want is just you guys being awkward
all right hypothetically ill bite.. i have some questions,
1. who will be deciding which unfortunate animals get the death sentence..
2. who will be herding the deceased into the area.
3. who will control the number of people in the area. you know to prevent accidental deaths, and that sort...
im sorry this idea of yours sounds like an amusement park...
its like "controlled" hunts some unethical guides do for rich clientel... this is not hunting.
hunting is where a person enters the animals domain and stalks the animal for the kill... yes its barbaric in a sense, but it requires skill to track and even to kill an animal.. for me its not about the kill, its the all the events leading up to it, especially with a bow, because i have to get within 50 to 75 feet of it in order to assure a kill shot... have you ever tried to get that close to a wild animal, its hard, it requires a lot of skill and patience..
hunting for me is almost a spiritual experience, being out there in the wilderness with just me, the weather, the terrain, and the animals, is very calming for me... truth be told i dont even care anymore if i get an animal on the hunts i go on, the journey is what matters to me...
and then you get to share your experiences with your mates at the campfire at the end of the day over a few beers at the end of the day, for me its relaxing,
the park would remove that for me, if the animal spooks, oh no hes gonna run for another 6 miles until he hits the wall and is cornered... if you want people like me to quit hunting then thats a great way to do it....
Oh btw...
When i was shooting birds I was No where near a populated area.
and there were no main roads or houses within a 5 mile radius.
Upon deciding that was potentialy unsafe,
I then went to shoot smaller animals In a forest.
Where my stray shots would do little more than hit a tree or 2 foot thick solid stone wall.
That is when i was prossicuted for being to close to populated area's.
although im unfamiliar with your laws, i dont even know where you live, it sounds to me like you were hosed... if it happened up here, id get you a good lawyer and it would eventually get thrown out of court... thie events you descibe make no sense to me what so ever.. i dont know of any civilian firearm that can even travel that far.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 04:13
1. who will be deciding which unfortunate animals get the death sentence..
2. who will be herding the deceased into the area.
3. who will control the number of people in the area. you know to prevent accidental deaths, and that sort...
1. Animals like to Live in certain places. so obviously it depends where you are. "if it was legale you wouldnt be able go eliphant hunting in wales will you."
Although You could. provided they wernt endangerd Due to IDIOT HUNTERS. and they were kept with a walled enclosure.
2. Who stocks the fish in a stock pond?
3. Who does that now?
Way i see it.
hunter go out hunting and shoot eachother all the time thinking the other 1 is a deer or something.
So i dont see a rational argument in your debate.
As for the whole enclosure thing any way..
Theres virtualy no diference. between a Large enough walled enclosure and Open land.
if you want a area larger than 20 square miles, Then that could be debatable.
its not impossible to make HUGE areas say 100 square miles.
Where youd never Notice there was walls.
(probably wouldnt notice there were walls in a 20 square mile enclosure)
Like i said your just rying to be awkward,
-------
although im unfamiliar with your laws, i dont even know where you live, it sounds to me like you were hosed... if it happened up here, id get you a good lawyer and it would eventually get thrown out of court... thie events you descibe make no sense to me what so ever.. i dont know of any civilian firearm that can even travel that far.
I didnt get a bad sentance at all.
few 100 hours, Comunity service.
and confiscated all my weapons,
Swords knifes, even my quater staff.
Aparantly i was not suposed to have them.
And i supose thats right.
I got off lightly id say,
and only due to the mitigating surcumstances ("I learnt sentance that one in the actual court room :)")
my solisitor. said, I had been thinking. of the consiquences of my actions. And had attempted to minimize potential damage.
But like they said,
I shouldnt have had the things in the begining, And if i had been older I would definatly have been given a tougher sentance.
Any way.
Like i said It dosent seem Like theres any point in discussing this,
Some people would rather Kill things than be a decent person.
Last i say on the matter.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 04:23
Seems Im Saying something els.
It seems you are verry paranoid with all that sequrity.
i dont even Lock my doors.
You guys seem like cowards to me,
Over here in the mountains we sort things out the old fashioned way.
And we dont let things drop.
Ive known a few Houses to misteriously go up in flames, becous some 1 broke in to the wrong house.
You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender.
All i can imagine is that People who need guns are inadequate and need some thing to make them feel more Powerfull.
I dont care personaly if i did i die. Time to go is all.
It dosent matter about size,
And if you guys ever really fought instead of Pulling out your guns And start weting your selfs.
Youd relize that.
to quote Dave lister.
"One swift knee in to the happy sack's and hel drop like any 1 els"
Major Robert Dump
02-03-2006, 04:33
I don't see how killing animals for food makes me a bad person, its no better or worse than how the chickens and beef we eat is slaughtered. I don't do it for the thrill, or even the hunt or the trophy, but it is possible to have a good time while doing it.
Are you aware that deer breed so quick that if they weren't hunted they would overpopulate, starve to death and in some cases go into populated areas and cause car accidents? Are you aware that certain animals have "seasons" during which you can hunt them, and hunting out of season can bring you huge fines and jail time?
Yeah, yeah, they wouldnt get hit by cars and starve if it weren't for us crappy humans taking over everything, etc etc but now you are dealing with going back in time or undoing modern living and housing, which isn't going to happen. Call it the point of no return if you will, just like guns saturating our culture is so deep that you couldnt take away legal guns without putting citizens in undue danger, thats a point of no return as well. I'd have no problem living in a society where no one had guns, but if the only way to get there is by taking the legal ones away and making us go through a 15 year surge in violent crime then I'll pass. Crooks who have guns don't care about the law, and if they know citizens likely wont have a gun (or if they do have one will be scared to use it for fear of going to jail) then the fine that keeps bad people from preying on whomever whenever will be crossed.
Major Robert Dump
02-03-2006, 04:38
Seems Im Saying something els.
It seems you are verry paranoid with all that sequrity.
i dont even Lock my doors.
You guys seem like cowards to me,
Over here in the mountains we sort things out the old fashioned way.
And we dont let things drop.
Ive known a few Houses to misteriously go up in flames, becous some 1 broke in to the wrong house.
You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender.
All i can imagine is that People who need guns are inadequate and need some thing to make them feel more Powerfull.
I dont care personaly if i did i die. Time to go is all.
It dosent matter about size,
And if you guys ever really fought instead of Pulling out your guns And start weting your selfs.
Youd relize that.
to quote Dave lister.
"One swift knee in to the happy sack's and hel drop like any 1 els"
And for that post you can eat shit. I hope you choke on whatever pills you take. Retard.
Strike For The South
02-03-2006, 04:40
Seems Im Saying something els.
It seems you are verry paranoid with all that sequrity.
i dont even Lock my doors.
You guys seem like cowards to me,
Over here in the mountains we sort things out the old fashioned way.
And we dont let things drop.
Ive known a few Houses to misteriously go up in flames, becous some 1 broke in to the wrong house.
You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender.
All i can imagine is that People who need guns are inadequate and need some thing to make them feel more Powerfull.
I dont care personaly if i did i die. Time to go is all.
It dosent matter about size,
And if you guys ever really fought instead of Pulling out your guns And start weting your selfs.
Youd relize that.
to quote Dave lister.
"One swift knee in to the happy sack's and hel drop like any 1 els"
You are making a real big genralazation there little buddy. There are many types of gun owner just like any other type of people. Not to mention I dont ever remember someone saying they pulled a gun on another human. We are not all insane crazy gun nuts. There just a part of our culture. We dont talk about them much i dont wake up everymorning constatly wondering what I can kill.
Strike For The South
02-03-2006, 04:42
nm.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 04:42
You know i dont disaprove of hunting for food.
And I apologize for my rash and Broad statement.
Also for some what insulting remarks,
Its the matter that i have a problem with and although its People who make it a problem.
I spose i should Not single any 1 out.
like i said.
I really dont have anything more to add.
although i still and always will belive you guys are in the wrong.
If you want to know why.
Read my previous posts,
I really cant express it any better.
:bow:
Seems Im Saying something els.
It seems you are verry paranoid with all that sequrity.
i dont even Lock my doors.
LOL I never locked my doors when I lived on a Military Base, nor did I lock them when I lived 15 miles out in the woods. Guess what - your generalization here is nonsense.
You guys seem like cowards to me,
Over here in the mountains we sort things out the old fashioned way.
And how to do think they sort it out in the mountains here. By the way what you have in England - Wales are not mountains. Just mere hills.
Another generalization that is nonsense. The old fashion way is to duel with a knife or a blade, been stuck once or twice not a whole lot of fun now is it.
The other old fashion way was to get dueling pistols, and walk ten paces.
Both traditions carried over by cultures far better then the one you currently live in.
And we dont let things drop.
Ive known a few Houses to misteriously go up in flames, becous some 1 broke in to the wrong house.
Oh arson. And you call us in American cowards. Yea right.
You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender.
A big red flag - aplogy in second post not accepted. Someone needs to learn what is a civil discussion and what is not. You have crossed the line.
All i can imagine is that People who need guns are inadequate and need some thing to make them feel more Powerfull.
Hyperbole
I dont care personaly if i did i die. Time to go is all.
It dosent matter about size,
And if you guys ever really fought instead of Pulling out your guns And start weting your selfs.
Youd relize that.
Oh says the man you probably has never faced combat.
to quote Dave lister.
"One swift knee in to the happy sack's and hel drop like any 1 els"
Actually that would be incorrect. I have seen guys under so much aderline that getting hit in the happy sack had no immediate effect.
You know i dont disaprove of hunting for food.
And I apologize for my rash and Broad statement.
Also for some what insulting remarks,
Learn to be civil in your discussion points and then your aplogy will be accept. This is a habit with your style.
Its the matter that i have a problem with and although its People who make it a problem.
I spose i should Not single any 1 out.
Blame someone else now is it? No Just a Girl otherwise known as shambles. The problem is not other people, the problem is how you decide to address others. Not to hard to understand at all.
If you want to know why.
Read my previous posts,
I really cant express it any better.
The problem is that you can't express yourself at all in a logical and civil manner.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 06:34
Yes red Leg i have never faced combat.
You are so Right with that conclusion.
LOL.
Prehaps you dont hear me Bragging about things.
but im more than capable of looking after my self.
-
i see nothing wrong with
"You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender. "
Althoug it seems to have Hit a nerve with every 1 of you.
truth seems to hurt Good.
Any way.
Its a pointless debate.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 06:39
And just for the record.
Not 1 of you have told me,
How killing animals is better than killing humans.
You havent acknowlaged that a .22 round can travel over a mile and Has been documented that it does happen, and has happend,
And neither you Come to the defence of your origional stament that a .22 round only travels 400 yards.
It seems to me you are the ones who need an education concerning guns.
Prehaps then you would relize How wrong you are.
Yes red Leg i have never faced combat.
You are so Right with that conclusion.
LOL.
I knew that.
Prehaps you dont hear me Bragging about things.
but im more than capable of looking after my self.
I doubt it. Those you think they can take care of themselves in a fight, normally end up getting the worse end of the deal.
-
i see nothing wrong with
"You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender. "
And that is your problem. If you don't understand how to be civil in a discussion, then you have no arguement for when you get warned, abused and ridiculed by otehrs.
Althoug it seems to have Hit a nerve with every 1 of you.
truth seems to hurt Good.
You have not typed a truth. You have only typed what was meant to be an insult. Look into the forum rules once again. And then you haven't been paying attention to what people are advocating or presenting either.
Any way.
Its a pointless debate.
Gun control is not a pointless debate. There is actually some very valid reasons to advocate certain aspects of the issue. The problem is that those who advocate gun control do not want to discuss how to do it within the parameters of the Constitution, nor will they discuss the necessity to actually re-visit the 2nd Ammendment.
Howeve you have shown that you can not be civil in a discussion. That you know next to nothing about weapons, gun laws, or wildlife conservation.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 07:36
I see you managed to avoid the part about being wrong about .22 shels.
and just cant explain how killing animals is better than killing humans.
I have also given you Compromizes that would work,
But You have no capasaty to comprimize.
Which is evident througught this thread.
Theres A difrence between Insults.
Comments, And Oppinion.
I stated My oppinion.
If you find it unsulting Then that Is your problem.
I dont see It as insulting and infact.
if some 1 said To me,
People who have "small members" need guns to make em feel better.
I would agree, and see no insult in it at all.
Its not my fault It happend to hit a raw nerve.
Infact With the reaction.
"EAT SHIT, And I hope you die on what ever medication Your On Retard."
Given By MRD
Its a good example why people like him shouldnt be given Guns.
If some 1 gets so upset over a simple observation, and oppinion.
Then obviously they arent to be trusted with guns.
Oh n btw.
Im not going to start bragging about all My conquests and How good i am with my fists,
Cos honestly, Only inadequate people who cant really stand up for them selfs need to do that.
I see no reason in discussing wether or not I can defend my self adequatly.
And your feeble attempts to portray me as some 1 who cannot,
Are simple a knee jerk reaction to comments about Gun owners "man hood"
But there you go.
What can you do. Theres no point discussing things with You guys in a civilized and logical manner,
as is evident throughout this thread.
Perfectly legitimate compromizes were sudjested.
And the gun nuts went mad.
So i change to A more BLUNT aproach which Usualy works agaisnt Ignorance.
But you always run the risk of being Insulted by people who fail to comprehend the bigger picture.
Never mind.
No skin off my nose.
And just for the record.
Not 1 of you have told me,
How killing animals is better than killing humans.
That is because that is not the arguement anyone has presented. What has been presented is that certain wildlife is hunted for its meat. Other animals are hunted for control of the population of that animal. Not one person has stated that killing an animal is better then killing humans.
You havent acknowlaged that a .22 round can travel over a mile and Has been documented that it does happen, and has happend,
And neither you Come to the defence of your origional stament that a .22 round only travels 400 yards.
You might want to read what was written. Effective range of a round is not the same as the range of a round. Do you really want to get into a discussion about ballastics and the charastics of how a round travels?
Do you know at what angle you must fire a .22 caliber rifle to get the round to travel the full range of that round? Do you know what weather conditions must be present for the round to travel its full range? Do you want to attempt to understand how the rotation of the earth and the curvature of the earth effects the range and travel of a round? How gravity will effect the way the round will travel?
A .22 caliber bullet fired on a horizontal plane does not travel 1.5 miles, in fact it travels at a downward angle almost immediately after it leaves the rifle barrell and it drops fast as the bullet begins to loose its velocity. Which is where the effective range comes in. Those who shoot rifle bullets in the air had better understand what is in the flight path of the bullet and how the parabolic nature of the bullet along that path works.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm
It seems to me you are the ones who need an education concerning guns.
Prehaps then you would relize How wrong you are.
LOL - care to guess what I did for 12 years in the military. Ballastics is something I know very well.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 07:42
Seeing as I aced physics.
I know for a fact that gravity afects eferything in the same way.
droping a bullet at the same time as you shoot 1. (given they are the same distance from the gorund)
Would mean they both hit the floor at the same time.
This does not change the fact That .22 rounds Do have a range of 1.5 miles.
And no 1 ever said from a totaly hrisontal fiering position.
Or are you telling me, That they only put 1.5 miles on the box. becous they think it looks good?
I see you managed to avoid the part about being wrong about .22 shels.
You are again incorrect.
and just cant explain how killing animals is better than killing humans.
Tsk Tsk.
I have also given you Compromizes that would work,
But You have no capasaty to comprimize.
Which is evident througught this thread.
Actually you have not given any compromise that will work. You have stated things that for one is inhumane to the animal and is not in line with wildlife conservation.
Theres A difrence between Insults.
Comments, And Oppinion.
Then you might want to learn what those differences are.
I stated My oppinion.
If you find it unsulting Then that Is your problem.
Tsk tsk when you direct it at an individual or a group of people it is no longer an opinion.
I dont see It as insulting and infact.
if some 1 said To me,
People who have "small members" need guns to make em feel better.
I would agree, and see no insult in it at all.
Tsk tsk - that happens to be an insult.
Its not my fault It happend to hit a raw nerve.
Not a raw nerve at all. If you hit a raw nerve you would find out real quick what language I use.
Infact With the reaction.
"EAT SHIT, And I hope you die on what ever medication Your On Retard."
Given By MRD
Normally happens when someone insults another now doesn't?
Its a good example why people like him shouldnt be given Guns.
If some 1 gets so upset over a simple observation, and oppinion.
Then obviously they arent to be trusted with guns.
Oh n btw.
Knuckleheads that shoot .22 caliber rifles at birds in the air should not be trusted with firearms at all.
Im not going to start bragging about all My conquests and How good i am with my fists,
Cos honestly, Only inadequate people who cant really stand up for them selfs need to do that.
Oh so tempting to use your type of opinion at your own statement. But I shall refrain for now.
I see no reason in discussing wether or not I can defend my self adequatly.
And your feeble attempts to portray me as some 1 who cannot,
Are simple a knee jerk reaction to comments about Gun owners "man hood"
Tsk tsk. If I wanted to make an attempt at questioning your ability to do anything, all I have to do is look at the way you present your arguement and the language that you use. Conclusion is that you could not find your way out of a wet paper bag.
But there you go.
What can you do. Theres no point discussing things with You guys in a civilized and logical manner,
as is evident throughout this thread.
Oh yes the classic denial of the individual who first slings the insults.
Perfectly legitimate compromizes were sudjested.
And the gun nuts went mad.
LOL - you didn't like the fact that your compromize was in fact not a legitmate method at all.
So i change to A more BLUNT aproach which Usualy works agaisnt Ignorance.
Tsk Tsk - you just don't get it do ou
But you always run the risk of being Insulted by people who fail to comprehend the bigger picture.
Well when you present an arguement full of false conclusions, lack of knowledge, and frankly haven't got a clue about what you are talking about. It seems you don't have a big picture view of the issue. But a very narrow and limited size understanding.
Never mind.
No skin off my nose.
Those that resort to insulting others show that yes indeed it was some skin off of your nose. You don't resort to insulting others unless you have no real arguement.
Seeing as I aced physics.
I know for a fact that gravity afects eferything in the same way.
So you aced it - then why the comment below.
droping a bullet at the same time as you shoot 1. (given they are the same distance from the gorund)
Would mean they both hit the floor at the same time.
A bullet being fired by an explosive charge exceeds the velicoty of the bullet that is dropped.
This does not change the fact That .22 rounds Do have a range of 1.5 miles.
Again what conditions must be meant for the round to travel its full range potential? (I happen to know the answer, but I suspect you dont.)
And no 1 ever said from a totaly hrisontal fiering position.
Then you don't understand ranges and ballastics.
Or are you telling me, That they only put 1.5 miles on the box. becous they think it looks good?
No it is done because of safety. Its called understand the risk and potential of the bullet.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 08:03
Like I said before,
No point discussing this futher.
You cant copmprimize.
You come up WIth the most Rediculous arguments.
Like Its inhumane.
I mean Really.
How humane is it to go out hunting?
To me you have no arguments worth listening to.
Although For a while I did, And accepted some of them.
And gave you what i imagined to be a valid compromize.
Questions asked about the compromize were answerd.
And no rational reason as to why it would not work was returned.
Only
"its inhumane"
And Given the fact you want to go out and shoot the littel critres thats so Laughable I dont belive you can be serious.
Like i said redleg.
I havent Insulted Any 1 imo.
If i had you would know about it.
There would be sentances like.
"Why do you want a gun YOU.. Inadequate, Pants wettin, red neck, Yellow bellied testosterone filled ****"
But Im not insulting any 1,
Why dont you ask some 1 Who I have insulted What im like If i begin to insult some 1.
Becous honestly.
There are no insults here.
Only some 1 who was hurt by the truth.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 08:06
Red leg Im sorry, But you OBVIOUSLY have no clue about physics.
if you place a gun in a clamp so it is totaly horisontal. "get a spirit level on it"
Then hold a bullet at the Exact same height as the gun barrel.
and drop it as you fire.
Both bullets will hit the floor at the same time.
The bullet that was fired will travel a greater distance in the same amount of time as it takes gravity to pull it down to earth,
But unless you stick wings on the bullet.
They will both hit the floor at the same time,
Go back to school.
Like I said before,
No point discussing this futher.
It seems you have no ability to understand the issue beyond your own viewpoint.
You cant copmprimize.
You come up WIth the most Rediculous arguments.
Coming from you that is just rich. :laugh4:
Like Its inhumane.
I mean Really.
How humane is it to go out hunting?
More then trapping an animal in an enclosure.
To me you have no arguments worth listening to.
Although For a while I did, And accepted some of them.
And gave you what i imagined to be a valid compromize.
What you imagined to be a valid compromise does not make it a valid comprise. A .22 caliber rifle is inadequate to put down a horse, and will often not kill a cow. It is inadequate for hunting game especially mule deer, elk, moose, big horn sheep, and bear.
Keeping animals that are used to several 100 miles of range in an enclosure for the ability for people to go hunt them is not wildlife conservation, nor is it humane for the animal. In the wild the animal has a greater chance of avoiding you then you have of actually seeing them.
Questions asked about the compromize were answerd.
And no rational reason as to why it would not work was returned.
[/quoe]
Actually, its no rational reason that you would accept.
[quote]Only
"its inhumane"
And Given the fact you want to go out and shoot the littel critres thats so Laughable I dont belive you can be serious.
Tsk Tsk. Care to guess if I go hunting anymore? I don't have the need to hunt for my meat. However I respect the right for those that desire to hunt to have that ablity. I happen to know what is need on many farms and ranches in the United States, having lived most of my childhood in the woods.
Like i said redleg.
I havent Insulted Any 1 imo.
And you would be incorrect.
If i had you would know about it.
Oh its alreadly been seen. The use of the term coward is an insult no matter how you use it.
There would be sentances like.
"Why do you want a gun YOU.. Inadequate, Pants wettin, red neck, Yellow bellied testosterone filled ****"
But Im not insulting any 1,
Oh such language was used. Care to guess where.
Why dont you ask some 1 Who I have insulted What im like If i begin to insult some 1.
Tsk Tsk
Becous honestly.
There are no insults here.
Only some 1 who was hurt by the truth.
Actually lets review.
You guys seem like cowards to me,
Over here in the mountains we sort things out the old fashioned way.
You guys say your tough and thing your great,
but in all honesty.
your nuthing without your member extender.
Thats just from one post.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 08:26
I said SEEM like cowards to Me.
See the extra words???
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 08:38
Btw...
If you call a spoon a spoon, Thats an observation.
If you call a car a car, Thats an observation 2.
if you cal a coward a coward. That is also an obervation
And most definatly
if you say You seem like cowards to me. That is an Opinion.
Duke John
02-03-2006, 08:46
and just cant explain how killing animals is better than killing humans.
And Given the fact you want to go out and shoot the littel critres thats so Laughable I dont belive you can be serious.
:laugh4: Says the person who was shooting birds and then went to the forest to kill smaller animals, tssk.
Red leg Im sorry, But you OBVIOUSLY have no clue about physics.
LOL - actually I know enough to trap you in this discussion..
if you place a gun in a clamp so it is totaly horisontal. "get a spirit level on it"
Then hold a bullet at the Exact same height as the gun barrel.
and drop it as you fire.
Both bullets will hit the floor at the same time.
I didn't say horizontal plane now did I, and neither did you initially. I used a vertical plane - not a horizontal. I can play such games all day long if you so desire.
The bullet that was fired will travel a greater distance in the same amount of time as it takes gravity to pull it down to earth.
But unless you stick wings on the bullet.
They will both hit the floor at the same time,
Actually you have you have failed to take into account the other aspects of ballastics that effect the bullet as it is being fired from the rifle. All Rifle bullets follow a parabolic arc. While the bullet will be effected by gravity in the same manner as the bullet that is dropped, it must also follow the physic rules of the ballastics involved in its firing. The bullet that is dropped will actually land slightly ahead of the fired round. Because the velocity of the bullet travelling will have a minute effect on the drop rate that gravity will cause on the round itself. The rifling of the barrell will cause a minute raise of the round as it leaves the barrell.
What this little sidebar about physics and ballastics has demonstrated is, that while you will refuse to ackownledge the point, the .22 caliber rifle that you advocate for a hunter will not work within the intent of the framework that you stated as being a valid comprise. In other words you have proven that your idea was not a rational nor a comprise. The effective range for the hunter is limited, and several other ballastic aspects of the round also make it of limited use for hunting ame.
Hope you had a nice time playing, but you lose, try again next time.
Go back to school.
No need - I laid a nice little trap that you have fallen right into.
Btw...
If you call a spoon a spoon, Thats an observation.
If you call a car a car, Thats an observation 2.
if you cal a coward a coward. That is also an obervation
And most definatly
if you say You seem like cowards to me. That is an Opinion.
Tsk tsk - its called an insult because you are argueing to the person not the subject.
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 09:13
I see your in need of some education.
Go there.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 09:47
//hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmec/tra2.gif
See Its simple
Just A Girl
02-03-2006, 09:52
Silly insert key made me delete the HTTP: part
But heres a Simple pick of whet you should know.
"saves you reading all that text in the page i posted"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmec/tra2.gif
See its that simple...
Sorry for the numerous posts.
but i should get my edit button back soon.
Ser Clegane
02-03-2006, 14:13
This thread obviously went completely downhill. :no:
Actions have been taken - more actions might be taken after further reading of the last pages.
Closed
EDIT: just for clarification - this thread has been closed due to some posts on the previous page
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.