Poll: gun rights but how much is too much?
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There should be no limit to the legal ownership of firearms, however I chose Assault Rifles and SMGs. Anything more is just unnecessary unless you're opening a private firearms museum. I'm all for home and personal defense firearms, which most assault rifles and SMGs perform very well. A rifle that fires a half-inch bullet isn't very practical for home defense (derr) and ammunition for a weapon like that is expensive.
As assault rifles stand, using the Democrat definition of "assault rifle", more people use them for target shooting and pest animal control. Actual assault rifles are illegal to own unless you have the proper licensing from the BATF. I know only two people that use "black rifles" for hunting. Everyone else uses bolt-action rifles around here.
SMGs sold to private owners in the United States are generally the civilian versions of the military-purpose weapons. In a few words; they're fancy pistols.
There are no rifle ranges in my area that allow the use of large-caliber rifles other than black powder rifles and some pistols. The projectile is too powerful to allow for safe shooting. A Barrett is not meant for engaging targets within 100 yards.
As assault rifles stand, using the Democrat definition of "assault rifle", more people use them for target shooting and pest animal control. Actual assault rifles are illegal to own unless you have the proper licensing from the BATF. I know only two people that use "black rifles" for hunting. Everyone else uses bolt-action rifles around here.
SMGs sold to private owners in the United States are generally the civilian versions of the military-purpose weapons. In a few words; they're fancy pistols.
There are no rifle ranges in my area that allow the use of large-caliber rifles other than black powder rifles and some pistols. The projectile is too powerful to allow for safe shooting. A Barrett is not meant for engaging targets within 100 yards.
in america in 2006 more than 30 800 people died due to gun use.
in britain in 2007 51 people died due to gun use.
i dont no about u but to me those seem pretty good on the british side.
also swords are so much cooler
in britain in 2007 51 people died due to gun use.
i dont no about u but to me those seem pretty good on the british side.
also swords are so much cooler
You have never been introduced to the concept of a pest. You must live in a city where you only see them as cute furry little beast that climb on power poles, and fences.factualsquirrel said:
They dig as well. They tear up plants and will destroy crops in trees (Some fruits).
I shoot crows on a regular basis as well. Why? Cause the damn things will sit in the trees and peck at the apples. Not much of a problem if they actually ate the things, but they won't land on the ground. So after a couple of pecks the apple falls out of the tree and they start pecking at the next one. A murder can empty a tree in a few days. Shoot a few of them, and string up the dead ones and it is weeks before they come back.
I even shoot rabbits. They dig large holes in the ground. I am not going to allow any of the horses to break a leg cause some people thing they look cute, besides parts of their meat tastes pretty damn good.
Actually without a gun as a tool on the ranch I would have to resort to traps, and chemical forms of pest control. The traps would just attract bears, and the chemicals I am sure would do more harm then good.
Oh I don't know where to start with how faulty this logic is. Do I start with the fact that straight up numbers don't work for a comparison when the population of your country is barely larger then the population of California? Or should I start with the fact you cannot compare only one part of the homicide rate and consider it a good thing, or the fact that this is not even a homicide rate? How many people are killed with knifes? Bludgeoned to death? How many of those deaths where people with firearms defending themselves?Tom the Feeble said:in america in 2006 more than 30 800 people died due to gun use.
in britain in 2007 51 people died due to gun use.
i dont no about u but to me those seem pretty good on the british side.
also swords are so much cooler
I think pistols present a greater danger to society than long rifles and shotguns. I would be happy to live in a society where the ownership of long barreled weapons is legal and regulated, but pistol ownership is limited to police and military. Cops won't need to worry about stopping some one on the street turning into shoot out unless the person has a 3 foot long rifle shaped bulge in their paints. Hunters and paranoid home defense people could keep their guns so long as they transport them through urban areas in secure cases.
I refuse to.factualsquirrel said:
Squirrelly man.
Guns are not that easy to get in the US. There is a little thing called background checks and waiting periods. Sure you can walk out with a rifle in most states if you pass the background check, which can mean a couple of hours in the store to fill out all the paper work and do the check, if the check fails then you can have a check submitted in writing, and have to wait for that check to come back before you can leave with the gun. But you will never walk out with a hand gun unless you have a permit like I do, and pass another background check.Squidwogdog said:
As far as guns being bad, do you really partake in an animistic beliefs? Guns are inanimate objects. It's not like touching one is suddenly going to turn you into a cold blooded killer, they don't think, they don't have personalities. Only the person wielding them does, and they can be just as efficient with a knife if there is nobody to stop them.
Pistols are rarely accurate. Unless you have a lot of practice, the sight distance is short, and they can be unwieldy to hold properly in many situations.hamster mk 4 said:
I would rather face off against some 200 ft away with a pistol then with a "long barreled weapon." Besides that most of the public shoots I have been able to read up on happened with a "long barreled weapon," a few of which where stopped by a person with a concealed carry permit. You know if the shooters really didn't care about themselves, you have to wonder why they always walk into populated areas where they know people are likely not armed? They never walk into a police station or a gun club and open fire. Always a school, or a mall.
Oh right, there is a group for gun lovers: Gun Nuts [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Gun-Nuts]
The way it is here in Canada works pretty well. The rednecks don't ***** about not being able to get guns, and usually, people only get killed in big cities like Toronto or Vancouver (and really, less Torontonians isn't a loss).
Banning guns is pointless. It wouldn't get rid of them and even if it did they'd just find other ways to kill each other.
How about a system that, you know, actually reforms people rather than just throwing them into a hole for X number of years and hoping it magically cures them? If you aren't seriously going to try to reform criminals then do away with any sentencing other than death. It'll be the kinder solution to all involved.
How about a system that, you know, actually reforms people rather than just throwing them into a hole for X number of years and hoping it magically cures them? If you aren't seriously going to try to reform criminals then do away with any sentencing other than death. It'll be the kinder solution to all involved.
You only read about the those incidents because the press loves to dramatize the gun battles, school shootings, and sniper attacks that are done with long barreled weapons. Nobody gives a crap about the muggings, rapes, and murders done with pistols because they have become so ubiquitous. According to this site 9 out of the 10 most popular weapons to commit crimes with are pistols.manaman said:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/236976.html
In a face to face confrontation where violence is certain rifles and shotguns are more deadly than pistols. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that pistols are better for criminals because they are cheaper, easier to use, and easier to conceal.
I was talking about mass shootings. A mugging isn't even a shooting (but it can lead to a shooting), and you know what you can mug someone with a knife just as easily. Great thing about a knife, you can even slice them a bit if they are uncooperative, your think they are going to be uncooperative, or you just feel like it, with minimal risk of getting a murder charge. Hydrostatic shock, fragmentation and yawing can all lead to a potential risk of death even from a shoot in the extremities.hamster mk 4 said:
You do realise that we can own guns in the UK? With the right permits you can own manual action rifles and shotguns, as well as certain black powder weapons, guns built before 1917 and weapons of special historical interest. It's just that we don't have a culture of gun ownership and getting your hands on the right permits takes a fair bit of effort.bernthalbob616 said:
Up until 1997 you could still own a handgun and before 1987 (IIRC) you could own semi automatic rifles and shotguns and we weren't all shooting each other back then. Culture and the very strict registration system meant use of guns as offensive weapons was a very rare thing.
pistols, rifles and shotguns. pistols you can protect yourself without having the kind of fire power to out gun the police, and shotguns and rifles because you only need this
not this
to kill a dear, but you might need this to kill hunger
But you are more likely to be mugged at gun point than involved in a mass shooting. Heck (even if you are male) you are probably more likely to be raped at gunpoint than involved in a mass shooting. You talk as if you are living in some action movie fantasy.manaman said: