<< Fscking Gun Freaks, I've got to be armed just to protect myself against those scary motherfsckers. I'm more afraid of therm than any God Damned Criminal. >>
RGN tries to fart dust in Red's direction but is too young.
<< Fscking Gun Freaks, I've got to be armed just to protect myself against those scary motherfsckers. I'm more afraid of therm than any God Damned Criminal. >>
RGN tries to fart dust in Red's direction but is too young.
All this nonsense just because we have opposing thumbs 
This right to bear arms is rediculas. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but putting a gun in the hands of every goof who needs a sense of power isn't a bright idea at all.
It's those same goofs that search news clippings everywhere to find that .01% of the stories that actually backup their idealism.
This right to bear arms is rediculas. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but putting a gun in the hands of every goof who needs a sense of power isn't a bright idea at all.
It's those same goofs that search news clippings everywhere to find that .01% of the stories that actually backup their idealism.
<< Shotgun steve: The official US GOV statistics on gun crime in America. From the CDC in Atlanta.
Now you can tell us what a liberal pinko i love you operation the CDC is. >>
Would you care to provide a link to the specific document?
I would like to pose some questions:
What about people who just want to collect guns? People who just want to buy the gun and keep it locked in the display case and never even buy any ammo? Do they need extensive training? Do they need to be able to disassemble, clean and assemble an AK4 or AK5 in less than one minute... In complete darkness and -25 C?
Could there be a problem with the gun dealers and their policies of dealing guns? There is research here where the undercover agent is laying it on pretty thick that he will use the fifty caliber rifle/ammo that hes asking about to do something illegal and the dealer goes right along with it.
What about people who just want to collect guns? People who just want to buy the gun and keep it locked in the display case and never even buy any ammo? Do they need extensive training? Do they need to be able to disassemble, clean and assemble an AK4 or AK5 in less than one minute... In complete darkness and -25 C?
Could there be a problem with the gun dealers and their policies of dealing guns? There is research here where the undercover agent is laying it on pretty thick that he will use the fifty caliber rifle/ammo that hes asking about to do something illegal and the dealer goes right along with it.
anti gun laws increase crime in Australia
the crime rate has risen since Australia put into effect the anti gun laws as is also the case in Great Britian... something the gun grabbers ignore and are in denial about...by the way before you gungrabbers start YAMMERING about the site the figures come ftom the govt itself
the crime rate has risen since Australia put into effect the anti gun laws as is also the case in Great Britian... something the gun grabbers ignore and are in denial about...by the way before you gungrabbers start YAMMERING about the site the figures come ftom the govt itself
I'd like to take a stab at some logic here.Let's see if we can agree that 1:The constitution is the pre-eminent document in the entire United States of America.
2:There were "Amendments" (additioinal provisions)made to the document.These "Amendments"were to be called "The Bill of Rights".
3:It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the amendments were listed in the order of importance, to the authors.
4:The original authors to the Constitution of the United States of America were putting their lives on the line by agreeing to it's principals,and amendments.
5: Therefore,the 2nd amendment carries more weight than the 14th Amendment.
This all seems logical to me.
2:There were "Amendments" (additioinal provisions)made to the document.These "Amendments"were to be called "The Bill of Rights".
3:It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the amendments were listed in the order of importance, to the authors.
4:The original authors to the Constitution of the United States of America were putting their lives on the line by agreeing to it's principals,and amendments.
5: Therefore,the 2nd amendment carries more weight than the 14th Amendment.
This all seems logical to me.
<<<Not really, the .223 is a not a 5.56mm bullet. Think about it, the caliber .22 is 6mm big, the .223 has to be bigger than the .22...>>>
Check your ammunition specifications once again. I'm a civilian and even know this one.
The 223 Remington is acutally misnamed as it fires a bullet .224" in diameter.
The 5.56mm NATO fires the same .224" bullet. It is acutally the same cartridge as the 223 Remington although NATO gives shoulder dimensions slightly differently. The ammunition is interchangeable. (Just like the 308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO, by the way.) I suggest an excellent book called "Cartridges of the World" by Fred Barnes if you don't believe me.
6mm is a .243" bore. The 243 Winchester and 6mm Remington are not even cartridges of .25" bore (The 257 Roberts and 250 Savage are). The only 6mm military cartridge for NATO was the short-lived experimental 6mm SAW of the 1970's. The cartridge was scrapped, but the Sqaud Automatic Weapon lived on chambered for the 5.56mm.
Moral of the story: Don't pay attention to commercial cartridge names. Examples: 223 Reminton (.224" bore), 222 Remingon (.224" bore), 225 Winchester (.224" bore), 357 SIG (.355/9mm bore), 44 Magnum (.429 bore), etc.
Check your ammunition specifications once again. I'm a civilian and even know this one.
The 223 Remington is acutally misnamed as it fires a bullet .224" in diameter.
The 5.56mm NATO fires the same .224" bullet. It is acutally the same cartridge as the 223 Remington although NATO gives shoulder dimensions slightly differently. The ammunition is interchangeable. (Just like the 308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO, by the way.) I suggest an excellent book called "Cartridges of the World" by Fred Barnes if you don't believe me.
6mm is a .243" bore. The 243 Winchester and 6mm Remington are not even cartridges of .25" bore (The 257 Roberts and 250 Savage are). The only 6mm military cartridge for NATO was the short-lived experimental 6mm SAW of the 1970's. The cartridge was scrapped, but the Sqaud Automatic Weapon lived on chambered for the 5.56mm.
Moral of the story: Don't pay attention to commercial cartridge names. Examples: 223 Reminton (.224" bore), 222 Remingon (.224" bore), 225 Winchester (.224" bore), 357 SIG (.355/9mm bore), 44 Magnum (.429 bore), etc.
<< Guns save lives. Gun control does not. Just ask Michael Colbourne >>
Are you into advertising? Talk about taking a complex problem and turning it into a sound byte.
Are you into advertising? Talk about taking a complex problem and turning it into a sound byte.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
<< Shotgun steve: The official US GOV statistics on gun crime in America. From the CDC in Atlanta.
Now you can tell us what a liberal pinko i love you operation the CDC is. >>
In all fairness, I believe the CDC statistics on gun violence were all (or nearly all) compiled by folks working under one particular researcher, and are wildly controversial. Though the NRA and other pro-gun rights advocates have never disproven them, the CDC has, since their publication, officially foresworn publishing these kinds of statistics due to the controversy over this researcher. This is all according to NPR - I will try to find a source.
EDIT: The researcher's name is Dr. Arthur Kellerman. More info on the CDC's gun violence statistics appears here, but it appears this article arguably has its own bias and you may or may not agree. At least, unlike the original post here, it has some substance behind the principles it articulates!
Red Dawn, you really shouldn't be afraid of "gun freaks." The VAST majority of us would never harm a person unless in self defense. We like to own guns, and committing a crime is the fastest way to get that right taken away from us. I'd say even ALL of us wouldn't harm a soul, but that can't be true for ANY group. (ie: All chefs are not good cooks, etc).
I have a hypothetical situation. I'd like to hear your responses to it.
Imagine you're relaxing with your friend in your house, watching your children play. Your friend, who is carrying a concealed weapon (that you do not know about) goes to the bathroom. At that moment, a would be assailant comes in, pulls out a gun, and announces loudly that unless you produce all your valuables, he will kill you and your children. Your friend in the bathroom hears this, draws his gun, and quietly returns to the room where the assailant is. He asseses the situation, sees that you and your children are in danger, and notices the assailant hasn't noticed him. He warns the attacker, and when the assailant raises his his gun to shoot, your friend shoots and kills the man. It is later found that the gun was stolen from a house in another town near you, when the same situation occured, and the owner was forced to open his safe and hand over his firearm. He was a repeat offender, who had been in jail before for similar offenses and could not legally buy a gun. Your friend had a license for his gun, and had a concealed carry permit. Your family is safe, and many stolen goods will be returned. An investigation by the police shows that the only option your friend had was to shoot him, otherwise harm could have came to your family.
Would this change your personal opinion on firearms?
I have a hypothetical situation. I'd like to hear your responses to it.
Imagine you're relaxing with your friend in your house, watching your children play. Your friend, who is carrying a concealed weapon (that you do not know about) goes to the bathroom. At that moment, a would be assailant comes in, pulls out a gun, and announces loudly that unless you produce all your valuables, he will kill you and your children. Your friend in the bathroom hears this, draws his gun, and quietly returns to the room where the assailant is. He asseses the situation, sees that you and your children are in danger, and notices the assailant hasn't noticed him. He warns the attacker, and when the assailant raises his his gun to shoot, your friend shoots and kills the man. It is later found that the gun was stolen from a house in another town near you, when the same situation occured, and the owner was forced to open his safe and hand over his firearm. He was a repeat offender, who had been in jail before for similar offenses and could not legally buy a gun. Your friend had a license for his gun, and had a concealed carry permit. Your family is safe, and many stolen goods will be returned. An investigation by the police shows that the only option your friend had was to shoot him, otherwise harm could have came to your family.
Would this change your personal opinion on firearms?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,504
- 20,107
- 146
<<
<< AND, for every one of your "kids get to guns and kill selves and friends" there is a "GUn owner defends self from would-be killer" to match it. >>
Actually, there are 32 incidents where a law abiding citizen ends up with a gun death or injury for every reported incident of a "bad gun" helping good people. >>
The problem with the CDC/Kellermann nonsense is they only counted defensive gun uses that resulted in deaths. In other words, justifiable homicides. This number is meaningless, for one very simple reason: the vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGU's), no shots are fired and/or no one is killed.
There are, in reality, approximately two million DGU's per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms. Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
Also, Kellermann included SUICIDES in his number of deaths which accounted for nearly 90% of the 43 to 1 ratio. If this isn't misleading, I don't know what is...
The "32 to 1" or the more popular "43 to 1" statistic is just plain nonsense.
<< << Guns save lives. Gun control does not. Just ask Michael Colbourne >>
Are you into advertising? Talk about taking a complex problem and turning it into a sound byte. >>
Guns don't kill people. People that shoot guns don't kill people.
Bleeding from the wounds created by the ammunition OF A GUN kills people.
Naw... Too long winded.
Operators Are Standing By (They Might Be Giants)
I dunno, my view is this....
You have two guys both are having some problems, maybe he just got fired, his wife cheated on him, someone is nagging his ass so bad that he is getting really pissed off, or he is just in the depths of deprression for some reason...they feel like they are backed into a corner psychologically...whatever.
Guy no.1 has a gun in his possession..sitting there on his coffee table, staring at him while going through this crisis
Guy no.2 no real access to guns at all
It seems to me that guy no.1 has another "solution" to his problems...quick, easy, and final...someone is gonna pay
Where as guy no.2 w/ no gun or real ability to get one is forced to solve these problems rationally
It just seems a little like too much power for an individual to have. I mean there have been times I wish I had a gun in my moments of anger etc. who knows what I would have done...I am glad I forced to resolve it all in a different way. I consider myself strong to, what about others that are in far deeper, and are far weaker...the temptation combined w/ the ability to carry out vengence or whatever just seems a little too easy and dangerous.
You have two guys both are having some problems, maybe he just got fired, his wife cheated on him, someone is nagging his ass so bad that he is getting really pissed off, or he is just in the depths of deprression for some reason...they feel like they are backed into a corner psychologically...whatever.
Guy no.1 has a gun in his possession..sitting there on his coffee table, staring at him while going through this crisis
Guy no.2 no real access to guns at all
It seems to me that guy no.1 has another "solution" to his problems...quick, easy, and final...someone is gonna pay
Where as guy no.2 w/ no gun or real ability to get one is forced to solve these problems rationally
It just seems a little like too much power for an individual to have. I mean there have been times I wish I had a gun in my moments of anger etc. who knows what I would have done...I am glad I forced to resolve it all in a different way. I consider myself strong to, what about others that are in far deeper, and are far weaker...the temptation combined w/ the ability to carry out vengence or whatever just seems a little too easy and dangerous.
As if the gun is what's good and evil, although I tend to believe that hand guns have no positive role in society.. it's still not rally evil in itself. Just it's intention, purpose, and reason.
<<<It just seems a little like too much power for an individual to have>>>
But not too much power for the government and it's henchmen alone to have?
But not too much power for the government and it's henchmen alone to have?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,504
- 20,107
- 146
<< I dunno, my view is this....
You have two guys both are having some problems, maybe he just got fired, his wife cheated on him, someone is nagging his ass so bad that he is getting really pissed off, or he is just in the depths of deprression for some reason...they feel like they are backed into a corner psychologically...whatever.
Guy no.1 has a gun in his possession..sitting there on his coffee table, staring at him while going through this crisis
Guy no.2 no real access to guns at all
It seems to me that guy no.1 has another "solution" to his problems...quick, easy, and final...someone is gonna pay
Where as guy no.2 w/ no gun or real ability to get one is forced to solve these problems rationally
It just seems a little like too much power for an individual to have. I mean there have been times I wish I had a gun in my moments of anger etc. who knows what I would have done...I am glad I forced to resolve it all in a different way. I consider myself strong to, what about others that are in far deeper, and are far weaker...the temptation combined w/ the ability to carry out vengence or whatever just seems a little too easy and dangerous. >>
Well, thank gawd you don't have a gun. However, for those of us with a sense of responsibility and self control, why should we be unarmed sheep vulnerable to every crook and tyrant in the world?
Please, don't project your lack of self control (or the lack of self control you fear you may have) on everyone else.
But not too much power for the government and it's henchmen alone to have?
Umm....maybe a bit, it's up for debate I guess, the theory is that these "henchman" (Cops, Miltary) have them to uphold The Law, and use them juduciously...it's their job.
I just hope you see my point...in no way am I giving a concrete opinion on the whole subject of guns...I live in Canada, and was just playing around w/ the thought of myself having access to a gun, and how that possibly may have been dangerous at different points in my life Personally I would not like the thought of my neighbours having a gun kicking around there place either. Maybe I am for gun control.
Up here, it just does not make much sense...why do I need a handgun...I have never been in a situation where I have really needed one, nor do I know anyone else either that has. A rifle for hunting is different though...obviously. What about the UK..cops don't walk around w/ guns...how do they manage?(honestly I don't know the stats or anything)
Umm....maybe a bit, it's up for debate I guess, the theory is that these "henchman" (Cops, Miltary) have them to uphold The Law, and use them juduciously...it's their job.
I just hope you see my point...in no way am I giving a concrete opinion on the whole subject of guns...I live in Canada, and was just playing around w/ the thought of myself having access to a gun, and how that possibly may have been dangerous at different points in my life
Personally I would not like the thought of my neighbours having a gun kicking around there place either. Maybe I am for gun control.Up here, it just does not make much sense...why do I need a handgun...I have never been in a situation where I have really needed one, nor do I know anyone else either that has. A rifle for hunting is different though...obviously. What about the UK..cops don't walk around w/ guns...how do they manage?(honestly I don't know the stats or anything)
Here's something someone sent me just now, I could care less about what anyone has to say about it.
> Here is a funny statistic --
>
> Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
>
> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
>
> Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171.
>
> Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
>
> Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
>
> Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188.
>
> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
> than gun owners.
>
> "Remember, Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one
> doctor."
>
> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
> before this gets out of hand.
>
> Remember guns don't kill people, doctors do!
> Here is a funny statistic --
>
> Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
>
> Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
>
> Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171.
>
> Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
>
> Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
>
> Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188.
>
> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
> than gun owners.
>
> "Remember, Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one
> doctor."
>
> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
> before this gets out of hand.
>
> Remember guns don't kill people, doctors do!
Well, thank gawd you don't have a gun. However, for those of us with a sense of responsibility and self control, why should we be unarmed sheep vulnerable to every crook and tyrant in the world?
Please, don't project your lack of self control (or the lack of self control you fear you may have) on everyone else.
Amused one....I am not amused....If I only had a gun (I'll try not to take that personal attack personally)
P.S. The thing is if I was in the US I could have a gun.
Please, don't project your lack of self control (or the lack of self control you fear you may have) on everyone else.
Amused one....I am not amused....If I only had a gun (I'll try not to take that personal attack personally)
P.S. The thing is if I was in the US I could have a gun.
a study was completed on person's who committed crimes with the use of a firearm; it was found:
1. 90% of them had eatten wheat/flour products within the past 24 hours.
2. 100% of the felons had ingested wheat/flour as a child.
3. 96% of the victums had eatten wheat/flour products within the past 24 hours.
4. felons who had illegally acquired firearms, circumventing laws governing firearm ownership and purchasing, also kept wheat/flour products beyond their specified safety dates for food consumption.
based on this, if we outlaw wheat/flour products, it should eliminate crimes involving firearms.
I guess what I'm trying to identify is that statistics can be slanted to prove whatever point a person wants to defend. I support some gun laws and control as long as they are based on sound reasoning with a specific "ACHIEVABLE" goal. I also own firearms and teach my children in the proper usage of firearms.
1. 90% of them had eatten wheat/flour products within the past 24 hours.
2. 100% of the felons had ingested wheat/flour as a child.
3. 96% of the victums had eatten wheat/flour products within the past 24 hours.
4. felons who had illegally acquired firearms, circumventing laws governing firearm ownership and purchasing, also kept wheat/flour products beyond their specified safety dates for food consumption.
based on this, if we outlaw wheat/flour products, it should eliminate crimes involving firearms.
I guess what I'm trying to identify is that statistics can be slanted to prove whatever point a person wants to defend. I support some gun laws and control as long as they are based on sound reasoning with a specific "ACHIEVABLE" goal. I also own firearms and teach my children in the proper usage of firearms.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter