guns or no guns?
Replies
-
I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?
Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.0 -
I only made it through the first 22 pages of this thread, so apologies if someone has already said this and I missed it.
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Chris Rock. We don't need gun control. We need bullet control.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=chris rock bullet control&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II&ei=CA4OUJXSA4T40gGOqIGYAw&usg=AFQjCNGsRRitz_U-cGFGk0Afsu96xGmAxg&sig2=uLumc5rJXvyHRqv8iMwlSw0 -
I reload my own ammo anyway....
bullet control is gun control.
That would be like saying:
Car accidents kill more people every year, lets regulate cars...... NO you can't do that we how would we get to work.
Ok we will just increase the cost of gas, thats not regulating cars....0 -
Guns! DEFINITELY!0
-
Wow, there are a lot of pro-gun people here.
I don't think you can compare a gun to a spoon, or a car. Spoons and cars are useful, constructive objects that can be used in harmful ways. Anything can be. That does not make them equivalent to a weapon whose only purpose is to cause harm.
I guess I've never wanted a gun, so it's easy for me to say let's restrict them. I can't relate to the perspective that seems to value the freedom to own this object designed to hurt others over other people's safety.0 -
I said "an actual collection, LIKE of WWII weapons". Personally, I don't know anybody who collects modern weapons. Everyone I know with modern guns fires them, and items that are collected are generally not put to use. However, if you really want to collect modern weapons, fine. The WWII weapons was just an example.I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?
Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.
A couple for hunting is a couple for hunting. Maybe you prefer a specific shotgun for one animal and a different shotgun for another and a different rifle for another.
And shooting is a whole different story. That's a sport, not hunting or killing. I'm not going to say somebody shouldn't own multiple types of running shoes, so why should they not have different guns for different courses?
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.0 -
Wow, there are a lot of pro-gun people here.
I don't think you can compare a gun to a spoon, or a car. Spoons and cars are useful, constructive objects that can be used in harmful ways. Anything can be. That does not make them equivalent to a weapon whose only purpose is to cause harm.
I guess I've never wanted a gun, so it's easy for me to say let's restrict them. I can't relate to the perspective that seems to value the freedom to own this object designed to hurt others over other people's safety.
I'm going to try my best to hold in my anger from the nonsense you just spewed. Please tell me how you can't compare a gun to a spoon, BOTH of them are tools. Spoon for eating, gun for protection. I can't even begin to describe how ignorant you sound saying that a guns only purpose "is to cause harm". Really? That's there only purpose? Pure ignorance at its finest...0 -
I said an actual collection, LIKE of WWII weapons. Personally, I don't know anybody who collects modern weapons. Everyone I know with guns fires them, and items that are collected are generally not put to use. However, if you really want to collect modern weapons, fine. The WWII weapons was just an example.I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?
Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.
A couple for hunting is a couple for hunting. Maybe you prefer a specific shotgun for one animal and a different shotgun for another and a different rifle for another.
And shooting is a whole different story. That's a sport, not hunting or killing. I'm not going to say somebody shouldn't own multiple types of running shoes, so why should they not have different guns for different courses?
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.
I collect modern weapons, another guy on here posted a full gun safe of modern weapons that could be considered a collection... Also, there's purposes to owning a variety of guns and sometimes that means over 20. There is uses for assault rifles as well; home protection not to mention shooting competitions like 3-gun that require the use of an assault rifle. No one type of fire should be banned, all firearms are capable of lethality so that would make no sense banning one over the other. Not to mention these assault rifles you speak of, nearly all of them are semi-automatic just like a pistol, it costs like 10k and a lot of government paperwork to be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle.0 -
i'm getting my new york city shotgun permit and buying a shotgun. will also be attending a firearms safety course. why? cuz i want to.0
-
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.
The problem with that line of thinking is...first, lets say they draw the legal limit a "twenty guns", and then, later on, they say "there really is no need for more than fifteen" and then someone says "lets call it an even dozen" and then "ten! ten is a nice round number!" and then it just keeps going downhill from there.
When citizens no longer retain the right to protect themselves and their property, they are no longer citizens, they are subjects.0 -
If a trained a competent Concealed Carry permit holder had been in the audience, this could have potentially been stopped much sooner. If several were in the audience, even better.0
-
0 -
mm. cheeeeese...0 -
Wow, there are a lot of pro-gun people here.
I don't think you can compare a gun to a spoon, or a car. Spoons and cars are useful, constructive objects that can be used in harmful ways. Anything can be. That does not make them equivalent to a weapon whose only purpose is to cause harm.
I guess I've never wanted a gun, so it's easy for me to say let's restrict them. I can't relate to the perspective that seems to value the freedom to own this object designed to hurt others over other people's safety.
I think your right. You've never had one so how would you know?
First off when have we ever presented we prefer the presence of the freedom to own a gun over another person's safety. When have we presented this. Wait we haven't. We do care about others safety and we care about our safety that's why we have them. A gun doesn't put other's safety at risk nor do we put ourselves at risk by using them because we know how to use them properly. The only time a gun puts someone at risk is if its mismanaged or you make a threat towards someone first wielding said tool. I hate to break it to you anyone can put someone else at risk with anything if it's mismanaged or used to threaten someone.
Guns are like knives, CARS, and bats. If you swing randomly you could hit someone, if you pull out into a busy intersection you can hit someone potentially killing them, and if you trip with a knife pointy side up you lose an eye. The same is with a gun.
It is a tool that is useful but can be harmful if used in the wrong ways. It's used to defend homes, hunt for good, healthy meals, and it's used in competitions to give people (kids) scholarships. So no its purpose is not JUST to cause someone harm. If you don't want to defend yourself with a gun that's you. We who do are good, law abiding people and we do not wish to cause anyone harm if we don't have to. The real problem lies with those who obtain guns the illegal way and do intend to jeopardize other's safety. The only way to solve crime is education, making people take up responsibility, and enforcing rules already in existence and upholding the laws when they are broken. Less taxes, less entitled attitudes, and less coddling (meaning no coddling EVERYONE)0 -
If a trained a competent Concealed Carry permit holder had been in the audience, this could have potentially been stopped much sooner. If several were in the audience, even better.
Agreed, still wouldn't of been easy though since he threw gas canisters so no one could see or breath all the while he was just spraying left and right while wearing a gas mask.0 -
I mean, if somebody breaks into my home, I'm not going to put 30 holes into them... If you really feel the need to kill the poor soul who breaks into your home, you can do it with one bullet from a handgun.
I said an actual collection, LIKE of WWII weapons. Personally, I don't know anybody who collects modern weapons. Everyone I know with guns fires them, and items that are collected are generally not put to use. However, if you really want to collect modern weapons, fine. The WWII weapons was just an example.I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?
Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.
A couple for hunting is a couple for hunting. Maybe you prefer a specific shotgun for one animal and a different shotgun for another and a different rifle for another.
And shooting is a whole different story. That's a sport, not hunting or killing. I'm not going to say somebody shouldn't own multiple types of running shoes, so why should they not have different guns for different courses?
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.
I collect modern weapons, another guy on here posted a full gun safe of modern weapons that could be considered a collection... Also, there's purposes to owning a variety of guns and sometimes that means over 20. There is uses for assault rifles as well; home protection not to mention shooting competitions like 3-gun that require the use of an assault rifle. No one type of fire should be banned, all firearms are capable of lethality so that would make no sense banning one over the other. Not to mention these assault rifles you speak of, nearly all of them are semi-automatic just like a pistol, it costs like 10k and a lot of government paperwork to be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle.
And that cost and paperwork are assuming you're buying a fully assembled weapon, right? Wasn't there a series on the History Channel about some guys in Montana or Wyoming who are selling assault rifles that are missing one piece so they aren't considered complete and the government can't do anything about it?0 -
Someone posted this on Facebook.
0 -
I mean, if somebody breaks into my home, I'm not going to put 30 holes into them... If you really feel the need to kill the poor soul who breaks into your home, you can do it with one bullet from a handgun.
I said an actual collection, LIKE of WWII weapons. Personally, I don't know anybody who collects modern weapons. Everyone I know with guns fires them, and items that are collected are generally not put to use. However, if you really want to collect modern weapons, fine. The WWII weapons was just an example.I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?
Guns are tools. Each one meant for a different task. What if I want to collect Modern firearms? Whats so special about WWII firearms? There's functionally no difference. Whats a couple for hunting? What about shooting sports, the different genres have individual requirements, some up to 3 or 4 different depending on the course.
A couple for hunting is a couple for hunting. Maybe you prefer a specific shotgun for one animal and a different shotgun for another and a different rifle for another.
And shooting is a whole different story. That's a sport, not hunting or killing. I'm not going to say somebody shouldn't own multiple types of running shoes, so why should they not have different guns for different courses?
All I was saying is that, personally, I feel that there should be some limitations on the kinds/amount of weapons an individual can own. I'm not saying NO GUNS or ONLY ONE GUN FOR YOU. I'm saying that somebody really has no use for 20 guns and no civilian ever has use for an assault rifle.
I collect modern weapons, another guy on here posted a full gun safe of modern weapons that could be considered a collection... Also, there's purposes to owning a variety of guns and sometimes that means over 20. There is uses for assault rifles as well; home protection not to mention shooting competitions like 3-gun that require the use of an assault rifle. No one type of fire should be banned, all firearms are capable of lethality so that would make no sense banning one over the other. Not to mention these assault rifles you speak of, nearly all of them are semi-automatic just like a pistol, it costs like 10k and a lot of government paperwork to be able to own a fully automatic assault rifle.
And that cost and paperwork are assuming you're buying a fully assembled weapon, right? Wasn't there a series on the History Channel about some guys in Montana or Wyoming who are selling assault rifles that are missing one piece so they aren't considered complete and the government can't do anything about it?
My pistol holds 22 rounds in it, that's not far off from 30. Do I need that many rounds? No. But would it be nice to have if s*** hit the fan and world war 3 took place in my home? Yes. Sometimes it takes more than one bullet, not everyone has magical aim where they never miss. And no, the cost I'm talking about is for a FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms, meaning a gun that continuously fires as long as you're holding down the trigger. All guns come fully assembled, there's no extra paperwork or fee for that. If you want a fully automatic gun it will cost atleast 10k plus the paperwork that not everyone would be approved for. If you don't have the proper paperwork and you own a fully automatic firearm you better hope you don't get caught, because you will spend a LONG time in prison as well as facing fees that would put you in debt for life.0 -
I mean, if somebody breaks into my home, I'm not going to put 30 holes into them... If you really feel the need to kill the poor soul who breaks into your home, you can do it with one bullet from a handgun.
And that cost and paperwork are assuming you're buying a fully assembled weapon, right? Wasn't there a series on the History Channel about some guys in Montana or Wyoming who are selling assault rifles that are missing one piece so they aren't considered complete and the government can't do anything about it?
the poor soul that breaks into my home?? the person that certainly wants to steal my possessions, possibly kill and/or rape me and my family? you bet i'm going to aim to kill. you know why? because when you aim to wound, you end up with a wounded and pissed off intruder, who probably has his own weapon to use, and he's probably half drunk or high on drugs so he won't even feel the wound. that is if you actually hit him. always aim for the center of mass.0 -
I mean, if somebody breaks into my home, I'm not going to put 30 holes into them... If you really feel the need to kill the poor soul who breaks into your home, you can do it with one bullet from a handgun.
And that cost and paperwork are assuming you're buying a fully assembled weapon, right? Wasn't there a series on the History Channel about some guys in Montana or Wyoming who are selling assault rifles that are missing one piece so they aren't considered complete and the government can't do anything about it?
the poor soul that breaks into my home?? the person that certainly wants to steal my possessions, possibly kill and/or rape me and my family? you bet i'm going to aim to kill. you know why? because when you aim to wound, you end up with a wounded and pissed off intruder, who probably has his own weapon to use, and he's probably half drunk or high on drugs so he won't even feel the wound. that is if you actually hit him. always aim for the center of mass.
Couldn't agree more!
Also I'm not sure why she thinks the amount of rounds a firearm holds would matter, if there's an intruder in my home and I have to use lethal force I would stop firing after I succeeded. It's not like I'd just dump 30 rounds into the guy when he was dead after 3.0 -
The Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is CLEARLY Pro Gun... The Pro Gun "intent" of the Framers of the 2nd Ammendment was to establish a Deterrent to Tyrannical Government. Hunting is not mentioned at ALL.
Are you a Resident or Citizenof the US that does not Support, and Defend ALL of the Bill of Rights? If So, PLEASE, right now, drop what you're doing, and Leave This Country FOREVER. Any Citizen that does'nt defend the Rights of All Citizens is is either ignorant, or foolish.
Citizens of other countries do not enjoy the same protections we are blessed with by the Constitution.
Whether you are a citizen of another nation, or a "Liberal" Politician that wants to disarm my fellow Americans, You may not LIKE our freedoms, but thankfully you have no RIGHT to change them. If you care to try, just remember ALL THOSE GUNS will be here to deter you...
the constitution can be amended. is it possible the founding fathers couldnt dream of the weapons we have today? didnt guns of their day shoot 1 round a minute or so.
Free speech can be amended, so that if you talk bad about Obama you can be executed....just saying.0 -
Just a couple of my guns that I have pictures of.
I think my flag says it all.
thats a cool looking gun. what is it? and what are the things under the barrel? i dont recall that in my CoD games.
Since were posting gun porn:
Kimber Raptor II Stainless:
DPMS .308 26" Bull Barrel - This is my competition rifle:
My 3 gun competition AR with Eotech:
This is for home defense - Benelli M4 Semi-Auto shotty:
Home defense, nightstand pistol - Glock 22
0 -
Since were posting gun porn:
Kimber Raptor II Stainless:
DPMS .308 26" Bull Barrel - This is my competition rifle:
Gotta love gun porn, good looking guns you got there! I've been looking at the Kimber Pro Carry II as my next gun purchase, any 1911 recommendations?0 -
Since were posting gun porn:
Kimber Raptor II Stainless:
DPMS .308 26" Bull Barrel - This is my competition rifle:
Gotta love gun porn, good looking guns you got there! I've been looking at the Kimber Pro Carry II as my next gun purchase, any 1911 recommendations?
If you are looking for a compact for CCW, any glock compact or Kimber compact is what i would recommend. Glock's...well just cause they work...never had a problem with mine in competition.0 -
If you are looking for a compact for CCW, any glock compact or Kimber compact is what i would recommend. Glock's...well just cause they work...never had a problem with mine in competition.
I'm not much of a Glock fan, I like my M&P more. I just don't like the ergonomics of Glocks or the grip angle, I like that the M&P has the same grip angle of a 1911. Glocks definitely are proven reliable though that's for sure. As far as 1911s go I'd want a full size, nothing compact.0 -
And just so you know, I am not a gun nut.
I am the follwing:
1) A competition sport 3 gun shooter
2) I am prepared for when California has the "Big One". If we have a magnitude 9.0+ earthquake we will be on our own for a good long while. You can laugh all you want, but it can/will happen. Need to be prepared for the looter thugs.
3) Zombies
0 -
If you are looking for a compact for CCW, any glock compact or Kimber compact is what i would recommend. Glock's...well just cause they work...never had a problem with mine in competition.
I'm not much of a Glock fan, I like my M&P more. I just don't like the ergonomics of Glocks or the grip angle, I like that the M&P has the same grip angle of a 1911. Glocks definitely are proven reliable though that's for sure. As far as 1911s go I'd want a full size, nothing compact.
I have my Glock 22...it NEVER jams. My girl has a M&P 9mm...that thing is jam happy if you dont put premium or homemade ammo in it. I load all of my own calibers so its not a problem, but I always had a problem with hers with off the shelf stuff.
Springfield and Kimber are my fav's for 1911's....I forked out the extra cash for the Raptor II Stainless custom. Its my fav by far. So nice to shoot, extreme accuracy and a 3.5lb trigger.0 -
I have my Glock 22...it NEVER jams. My girl has a M&P 9mm...that thing is jam happy if you dont put premium or homemade ammo in it. I load all of my own calibers so its not a problem, but I always had a problem with hers with off the shelf stuff.
Springfield and Kimber are my fav's for 1911's....I forked out the extra cash for the Raptor II Stainless custom. Its my fav by far. So nice to shoot, extreme accuracy and a 3.5lb trigger.
Hmm I wonder why hers jams so much, I've put 3000 rounds of winchester white box through mine, which is pretty dirty ammo, and it has never once jammed on me. I only clean it every 1000 rounds also which is a bad habit, I need to start cleaning it after every use.0 -
Blaming a gun for a murder is like blaming a pencil for a misspelled word. If you had a magic button that made all guns disappear, a few minutes after you use it someone will be bludgeoned to death. The bottom line is that there are bad people in the world that will do horrible things. I agree that the media's sensationalism feeds into some people's sickness. Focus on the victims, not the scum bag that committed the crime. And, stop blaming guns for the actions of a human being.0
-
I have my Glock 22...it NEVER jams. My girl has a M&P 9mm...that thing is jam happy if you dont put premium or homemade ammo in it. I load all of my own calibers so its not a problem, but I always had a problem with hers with off the shelf stuff.
Springfield and Kimber are my fav's for 1911's....I forked out the extra cash for the Raptor II Stainless custom. Its my fav by far. So nice to shoot, extreme accuracy and a 3.5lb trigger.
Hmm I wonder why hers jams so much, I've put 3000 rounds of winchester white box through mine, which is pretty dirty ammo, and it has never once jammed on me. I only clean it every 1000 rounds also which is a bad habit, I need to start cleaning it after every use.
I am not sure why her's jams. I have to put slightly hot ammo through it for it to not jam. I thought it would have cleared up after she broke it in, but still no. Oh well...it just likes hot ammo.
Bad part is....she is a fantastic shot now....so I cant mess around with her...or its over ...hahahahaha0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions