john5746 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 . . .Im not saying its a bad idea but there's already a rather large tax or so im told. If you were want that' date=' start a charity, not a govt funded org. In any case, am I right or did Arnold S. (gov. Cali) just pass the law illegalizing 50 caliber rifles in CA??? How many crimes have ever been caused by the 50 cal??? What exactly was this law for???[/quote'] A charity is a good idea, but taxing guns and ammo would guarantee that most of the funds come from those who support the weapons that kill. Am I right or is there any need for a 50 cal gun? Shoot a Rino? Forget Iraq Bush! Get the WMD's out of the US! A terrorist has a much better chance of getting his hands on some weapons here and taking out some people. How many crimes have been committed with A-bombs, other than the US? Why do we want to ban them? I mean its fun to go out to sea and test them and watch the fish come up afterwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 yeah, sure john, except all the radiation sickness that soon after ensues. a terrorist has absolutely no chance of getting a weapon in america that is more powerful or has a higher rate of fire than he could acquire in a foreign country. not only that, but look at the statistics of gun crime, australia, before the outlawed guns, there were a considerable amount of gun deaths, but after they outlawed them...THERE WERE MORE!! same in England. same in washington DC, same in any other place that outlaws guns. who needs a 50 caliber gun...well...thats not a question that gun owners should have to answer...it strikes their fancy, its a free country, so it really shouldnt matter...would you sacrafice freedom just so that people like sarah brady and dianne feinstein can tell you how to be safe? i hate all this banning of stuff. its moronic, we as a populace are no longer allowed to enjoy ourselves, because anything slightly dangerous is banned...pretty soon everyone who likes to play around with chemicals will no longer be able to buy simple sulfur. its already extremely difficult to buy KNO3 anymore. if too much gets banned, then we wont have any purpose to live...hell, TV will be banned for our own safety. i think that the PEOPLE of the US should be able to assess the risk of something, and determine if they want to take part in that something. but by outlawing something, that just grows our curiousness, and so we will find a way to take part in whatever it is. just to experience it. if i dont want to wear my seatbelt, damnit, i shouldnt have to. but now i can be fined like..100 bucks. because i had disregard for my OWN safety...it does no harm to others by not wearing MY seatbelt. we are no longer left up to make decisions, they are all being made for us. and we as a country are humbly obeying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 I don't care if you use a seatbelt. I don't care if you do drugs. I don't care if you use prostitutes. I don't care if you buy certain weapons. Maybe you don't think anything should be banned. I think some drugs, weapons and chemicals should be banned. I understand opinions can vary as to any or which should be banned. I happen to see very little need for weapons, except to defend yourself from people with weapons. A small handgun is good enough. Alcohol is enough, smoking - well too many addicts now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Cap: It's a debate' date=' a good debater can debate both sides of a debate. I can some, when I'm undecided. Not when opposed so easily. I knew alot about guns and stuff, at least compared to evolution and stuff.I think there should be tight laws, really tight, bu not completely banned. I'm not on anyone's side am I? Sorry.[/quote'] I'm in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but I'm in favor of the public owning conventional rifles and hand guns. The right to bear arms cannot be banned in the U.S., it's the 2nd amendment to the constitution. Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, he wrote book....."Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". He claims that guns save 2 million lives a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 So make it a bigger tax. What's the problem? How many guns does one person need? Several depending on types of hunting and target practice. Shotguns for rabbit, squirrel, birds.... Rifles for deer, moose, elk..... .22lr for 50 to 100 yard plinking, .223 for 100 to 200 yard plinking, 50 cal for 1.5 mile plinking.... Am I right or is there any need for a 50 cal gun? Shoot a Rino? Yes, there is national clubs that use 50 cal for long distance shooting. There should be a huge tax added to every gun sale to pay to all survivors of gun violence. My guns have never shot anyone, nor has anyone I have known that owns a gun. Why should we be penalized for something a criminal has done. That would be like saying there should be a huge tax on alcohol for all of drunk drivers that have killed someone. Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, he wrote book....."Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". He claims that guns save 2 million lives a year. The sound of a 12 guage pump being chambered is a sound that any criminal would recongize and cause to run. I'm in favor of a ban on assault weapons, but I'm in favor of the public owning conventional rifles and hand guns. The right to bear arms cannot be banned in the U.S., it's the 2nd amendment to the constitution. "Assult weapons" have been banned for a long time, an assult weapon is a firearm that is fully automatic or can fire more then 1 round per 1 pull of the trigger. Simply owning a gun that looks like a military rifle does not make it an assult gun. In order to legally own or sale automatic weapons you must have a class 3 license. With that class 3 license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 The sound of a 12 guage pump being chambered is a sound that any criminal would recongize and cause to run. Are you sure you interpreted my previous post correctly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Are you sure you interpreted my previous post correctly ? I was agreeing with you statement on how guns have saved lives, just in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 The sound of a 12 guage pump being chambered is a sound that any criminal would recongize and cause to run. not if the criminal has a gatling gun. and remember, now, that same 12 gague pump could just as easily be used by criminals. i don't have any weapons in my house. if i ever notice intruders, i'll probably do a quick and easy chloramine synth and threaten the intruder with a bucket of peroxymonosulfuric acid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Several depending on types of hunting and target practice. Shotguns for rabbit' date=' squirrel, birds.... Rifles for deer, moose, elk..... .22lr for 50 to 100 yard plinking, .223 for 100 to 200 yard plinking, 50 cal for 1.5 mile plinking....[/quote'] I did actually say need, and not "want". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I did actually say need[/u'], and not "want". If you are an avid hunter, then yes, it is a need. Its pointless to hunt rabbits with a 30-06, you need a small shotgun or .22lr rifle if you are good. Then you cant use a 4-10 shotgun to hunt elk, you need a 300wsm. So yes, for hunters, there is a need for different size and types of firearms. I hunt for deer, rabbit, squirrel, and one for turkey, plus one day to hunt elk. My AR15 is not a hunting rifle, it is my plinker for fun. I have a Model 94 30-30 for deer hunting, 20 guage / 12 guage / .22lr for small game hunting. Now for someone who hunts, yes there is a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 You don't know the difference between "want" and "need." You "want" to hunt. It is not necessary for your survival. But that's nitpicking. Me, if there was a burglar in my house, I'd chuck my textbook. He'd be out cold in 2 seconds flat. Stupid textbooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 not if the criminal has a gatling gun. Here is some stats for you.... Firearms ownership United States population...273' date='000,000 [u.S. Census Bureau'] Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians...235,000,000 [industry and other estimates] How much has this increased in the past 40 years?...tripled [Combination of sources cited by Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997)] What fraction of U.S. households owns firearms?...42% What fraction of U.S. residents owns firearms?...28% [Davis and Smith, General Social Surveys, 1972-1993, all figures] Accidental, suicide, and homicide deaths by firearm Total accidental deaths per year (all causes), U.S....96,000 Motor vehicle accidental deaths per year...43,000 Fatal firearms accidents per year...1,100 (The firearms accidents figure is an all-time low, even though the U.S. population is at an all-time high, and gun ownership is at an all-time high.) Fatal firearms accidents age 0-5...17 Fatal firearms accidents age 5-14...121 Fatal firearms accidents age 15-24...401 Fraction of all Emergency Room visits that involve firearms accidents...0.2% [Centers for Disease Control, all figures] Accidents of all kinds (not just firearms) constitute the fifth leading cause of death in the United States, but the other four leading causes combined account for 16 times as many deaths as accidents. Accidents constitute a relatively small but easily prevented cause of death. Suicides by firearm, per year...18.000 Murders by firearm, per year...14,000 [Centers for Disease Control, both figures] Researchers have studied the figures on firearms ownership, firearms accidents, suicides, and murders, during the period from 1959 to the present. Purpose: To find out whether accidents, suicides, or murders by firearm increase or decrease as the supply of firearms increases or decreases. Result: The rates of accidents and murders by firearms do not show any relationship to the number of guns owned by civilians. The gun supply has increased and decreased without affecting the accident or murder rates. Suicides by firearms have increased when more guns have been available, but the total suicide rate hasn’t changed; when guns are less available, people find other ways to commit suicide. Positive side of civilian firearms ownership Defensive gun uses (DGUs) by civilians, per year...2,500,000 to 3,500,000 Fraction of DGUs in which no shot is fired...92% In most DGUs, a firearm is merely displayed by the intended victim, and the criminal flees. No one is injured. Civilian gun ownership clearly gives the edge to the law-abiding defender, because in 82 percent of DGU situations, the criminal has no gun. [Combination of sources cited by Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997), all figures] Crimes committed with guns, per year...1,000,000 About three times as many DGUs occur per year. [Combination of sources cited by Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997)] What can be done about guns and violent crime? Taking all guns away from the entire U.S. population would be: Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under many state constitutions Unfeasible (too many guns owned by too many people; guns are easily hidden or smuggled; guns last a very long time) Politically impossible (almost half the households own guns) Futile (crime rates don’t show correlation to the gun supply) The practical answer is to try to keep guns away from criminals and children. Instant background check at gun dealer for all gun sales Permit to carry handgun (background check and safety course required) outside home or place of business Instant background check for private sales of guns (between friends, neighbors, etc.) Laws requiring guns be stored inaccessible to children What doesn’t work? - Ban certain types of guns (e.g., "assault weapons") Doesn't work, because: "Assault weapons" are about 1 percent of the guns used in crime Criminals want the same guns as law-abiding people—handguns that are small, concealable, reliable, and affordable Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals will switch to whatever they can get - Ban inexpensive handguns Doesn't work, because: Criminals prefer reliable, middle-priced guns; 80 percent of the handguns used in crime do NOT fall under the government definition of "Saturday night special" [bATF definition of "Saturday Night Special"; statistic from Kleck's Targeting Guns] Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals switch to whatever they can get This type of ban merely keeps poor people from buying guns for self protection This type of ban dates to the post-Civil War "Black Codes," laws intended to keep blacks down after they were freed from slavery - "Smart" guns Doesn't work, because: If computer inside gun mechanism "crashes," gun may not work when needed; for this reason police don’t want "smart" guns "Smart" gun is likely to tempt owner to leave gun accessible to children on the assumption that the internal computer is foolproof and will prevent children from firing gun; "smart" gun is not a substitute for standard safety practices (like safe storage) - Suing gun manufacturers Doesn't work, because: Increases in gun supply don’t cause increases in crime Lawsuits ask courts to ban products that are made legally under laws passed by Congress and state legislatures Lawsuits ask courts to blame manufacturers for behavior of criminals who misuse the products If gun lawsuits succeed, the next targets may be producers of cars, prescription drugs, alcoholic beverages, and red meat; all these products may be misused by a few but are actually used correctly and safely by millions of people every day Source = http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolecularMan14 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 not if the criminal has a gatling gun. and remember' date=' now, that same 12 gague pump could just as easily be used by criminals. i don't have any weapons in my house. if i ever notice intruders, i'll probably do a quick and easy chloramine synth and threaten the intruder with a bucket of peroxymonosulfuric acid[/quote'] That might work but before you get a chance, the 12 gauge will go off and you'll look like a bloody brick of swiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 That might work but before you get a chance, the 12 gauge will go off and you'll look like a bloody brick of swiss hehe, so you think. i'd have the advantage as i would be the one who knows the person is after me and the person after me wouldn't know where i would be. so i could be like "WHABAM!" and throw a bucket at him that has a combination of sodium hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid, which of course at rapid rates is yielding loads of chlorine peroxide, which will blow up in the intruder's face. it'll be memorable. come on, you can see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 If you are an avid hunter, then yes, it is a need. Its pointless to hunt rabbits with a 30-06, you need a small shotgun or .22lr rifle if you are good. Then you cant use a 4-10 shotgun to hunt elk, you need a 300wsm. So yes, for hunters, there is a need for different size and types of firearms. I hunt for deer, rabbit, squirrel, and one for turkey, plus one day to hunt elk. My AR15 is not a hunting rifle, it is my plinker for fun. I have a Model 94 30-30 for deer hunting, 20 guage / 12 guage / .22lr for small game hunting. Now for someone who hunts, yes there is a need. You can list as many different types of guns and "prey" as you like, but it isn't going to impress and confuse me so much that I just suddenly flop over and drool "oooh yes you are right, hunting isn't a past-time". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 That might work but before you get a chance, the 12 gauge will go off and you'll look like a bloody brick of swiss I'd be more worried just by the fact that living in that country forces 3,500,000 defensive gun uses per year, but everyone seems to be "ok" with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolecularMan14 Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 hehe, so you think. i'd have the advantage as i would be the one who knows the person is after me and the person after me wouldn't know where i would be. so i could be like "WHABAM!" and throw a bucket at him that has a combination of sodium hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid, which of course at rapid rates is yielding loads of chlorine peroxide, which will blow up in the intruder's face. it'll be memorable. come on, you can see it happening. lol, true, i like the way you put this scenario together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 hunting isn't[/u'] a past-time". How did people live and eat before the market place? Easy, they hunted there prey. It goes way back in time, so yes, hunting is a past-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I'd be more worried just by the fact that living in that country forces 3,500,000 defensive gun uses per year, but everyone seems to be "ok" with that. That is a small percentage of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 That is a small percentage of the population. So is the 14,000 killed by guns. How did people live and eat before the market place? Easy, they hunted there prey. It goes way back in time, so yes, hunting is a past-time. You're taking it out of context. Besides, saying it is a need means it isn't a past-time. Then it would be a necessity rather than just a sport. You're contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 How did people live and eat before the market place? Easy, they hunted there prey. False dilemma. People won't starve if they don't "hunt" for food - we've been over all of this already. It goes way back in time, so yes, hunting is a past-time. Yes, I know it's a past-time. Hence a want, and not a need. You should read people's posts more carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 That is a small percentage of the population. Representing the distribution of events as a percentage of the population is fairly meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 Yes, I know it's a past-time. Hence a want, and not a need. You should read people's posts more carefully. I did read you post, let me bold and underline it for you. You can list as many different types of guns and "prey" as you like, but it isn't going to impress and confuse me so much that I just suddenly flop over and drool "oooh yes you are right, hunting isn't a past-time". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 You're taking it out of context. He says you're not going to MAKE HIM SAY THAT. In other words your argument will not make him say hunting isn't a past-time. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I did read you post, let me bold and underline it for you. Again, you're just demonstrating that you are not reading (or perhaps understanding) what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts