Poll: Guns, are they good or bad?

[ModReap]

Guns are not bad.

The people holding them might be though.

 

[quiet_samurai]

I agree with the gun proponents. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So let's take this a step further: nukes for everyone. I mean, if we're all trained with nukes, we should be safe. No one would dare use a nuke for fear of getting nuked themselves. Worked in the Cold War between the US and Russia. I mean, we were never in danger of getting into a nuclear war... unless you count the Cuban Missle Crisis... or the SAC-Norad Communication failure of 1961... or the false alarms of 1979 and 1980... or the B-52 carrying nukes incident of 1968...

Before I get flamed by the gun fans on this thread, keep in mind that while I don't like guns, I'm not advocating their removal. On a practical and societal level, it would be impossible to do. I even live in a home with guns and have safety training. But the oft-quoted ideas that guns are tools is a very stupid argument. It's what I call the "stand off idea," that me and my adversary won't do anything because we both stand the risk of dying. The idea works... for a time. But I wouldn't take bets on how long adversaries can go without someone doing something hostile regardless of how well-armed you are. Plenty of wars have happened between very well armed countries.

[
And saying a gun should be illegal because it was designed to kill people is redundant and stupid as well. Of course they are meant to kill, that's what they are for. But take something that it meant to kill someone and bury it somewhere and it will sit there until the end of time and not kill anyone. It takes human interaction.

You do realize that you just made a argument for burying weapons away from people, as they can't use them if they can't get to them.

Couldn't resist.

That's fine.... I'm fully aware of that. I was just saying that people are to blame, not the guns themselves. And most gun owners are not likely to use them for violent crimes. I know several gun owners and the only time I have ever seen one almost used for purposes to shoot someone was for self defense, thankfully it wasn't required. Someone tried to pull a B&E at my friends house while we were there. Because he had a gun nothing got stolen and nobody got hurt, there were five of them and two of us. Who knows what would have happened if he wasn't armed..... fucking tweakers.

 

[RTK1576]

[
And saying a gun should be illegal because it was designed to kill people is redundant and stupid as well. Of course they are meant to kill, that's what they are for. But take something that it meant to kill someone and bury it somewhere and it will sit there until the end of time and not kill anyone. It takes human interaction.

You do realize that you just made a argument for burying weapons away from people, as they can't use them if they can't get to them.

Couldn't resist.

That's fine.... I'm fully aware of that. I was just saying that people are to blame, not the guns themselves. And most gun owners are not likely to use them for violent crimes. I know several gun owners and the only time I have ever seen one almost used for purposes to shoot someone was for self defense, thankfully it wasn't required. Someone tried to pull a B&E at my friends house while we were there. Because he had a gun nothing got stolen and nobody got hurt, there were five of them and two of us. Who knows what would have happened if he wasn't armed..... fucking tweakers.

I actually agree. People are the problem. I also know while there are instances when guns have deterred violence, there are also times that guns have made things worse. It's certainly not a black and white issue. I don't think it's stupid to protect yourself, but it's also not stupid to think that the removal of all guns from the situation is a good idea. Naive, perhaps, but it's no more naive than thinking that lots of guns makes things better. Personally, I'd rather someone try to kill me with a ball-point pen than a gun (couldn't help it, as someone made a rather silly comment earlier - I doubt he was joking, though).

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

See I had I discussion about this to my American friend other day on Xbox live, I told him that I didn't get the reason for guns and I think some times America is held back by laws stated in it constitution that made sense back then but in the modern world it doesn't make as much sense.
See America in my opinion isn't as free as it thinks it is because your tied down by the constitution, most country's these days, if they want to change, they can, if they want to change the laws then there free to do so, if they want to outlaw something then they can, in America you can't because such things may violate the American Constitution or The Bill O Rights.

Anyway's owning a gun back then when it was written made perfect sense, Britain was on the war path and was going through the whole imperialism stage, it made perfect sense for every American to be able to bear arms, America didn't have much of an army back then and it was mostly peasants America wasn't as big as it was now and it had just became independent, owning a gun meant that every American could fight if we made another attempt. These days however there's not too much of a point to it, America has a large army now, an Army which I think is the biggest in the world (Although it may be China) it has Allies like Britain and France and the rest of the united nations, so there's no real reason for the every day citizen to own a gun. Sure riot police and SWAT teams and Drug busters and such could do with them but other then that no the average citizen doesn't need them.

You can argue self defence all you want but it simply doesn't fly, most countries were people can't commonly get a hold of guns don't seem to need them for self defence, mostly because in them countries the common crook can't get a hold of a gun them selves so they have to rely on Knives or fists and it takes more guts to actually go up to some one and stab them then it does to shoot them because you have to get in close to threaten them or stab them, a good self defence class can teach you how to effectively disarm an armed opponent and to disable him at close range so there's less problems.

Just face the facts, there not necessary for every day life, people in country's without guns seem to get on fine without them, this isn't the old west, a Bear isn't going to pop round the next corner you turn to eat you, you just don't need them for every day life.

Now I can imagine some one is going to reply to the first part of the my post but please before you do think your argument through, don't just send me a message saying ZOMG!! YoU FukiN CoMmY TaRd.

Okay, the next person to say, "the military will step all over us is wrong", there is some law, or bill or constatutinal right or something that does NOT allow the US millitary to step foot on US soil unless its a Military base. Pretty much they CANT just come walking into a town and kill anyone, and even if their commander told them to, I really dought they would acually do it, and they would probably turn on that commander.

All internl issues are to be put in command of the Natinal Gaurd and local police forces, and guess what, a hell of a lot of those Natinal Gaurd and police forces are getting stupid, I'm not saying all, but I see a growing population of stupid police officers and also, there is a reason why the song 4 Dead in Ohio was made, look it up.

My father has a cabnet with enough guns to supply a small army, i also have about 7 guns, my uncle has 5, and my uncle on the other side of the family has 22. A friend of mine has 17, and another friend has 9. So, if we decided to make a "well organised malitia" (which is legal), we would have enough weapons to last a hell of a long time, plus alot of people in the area would be glad to join us in this milita. 5 peolpe in my neiborhood are Vietnam vets, 2 are Iraq vets, and another is a Afganistan Vet. We all know the lay of the land very well for we have all gone hunting in the area alot.

I personaly have a Black Belt in Karate, and I also know Spetsnaz tactics which would come in very handy.

And this one milita that we could (and would) make would disrupt anyone trying to wipe us out and we would most likely win the battle very easily.

What I'm getting at is, if a gun ban was ever put into effect, it wouldn't last long in my area, a gun ban is very illogical and will never happen.

And also, even if the military did somehow get involed, they would NEVER call in airstrikes or tanks, or 155's, for they WILL kill innocent civilians.

EDIT: WE are very are all clear of a criminal record, we are not violent, just talented.

 

[tsb247]

I agree with the gun proponents. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So let's take this a step further: nukes for everyone. I mean, if we're all trained with nukes, we should be safe. No one would dare use a nuke for fear of getting nuked themselves. Worked in the Cold War between the US and Russia. I mean, we were never in danger of getting into a nuclear war... unless you count the Cuban Missle Crisis... or the SAC-Norad Communication failure of 1961... or the false alarms of 1979 and 1980... or the B-52 carrying nukes incident of 1968...

Before I get flamed by the gun fans on this thread, keep in mind that while I don't like guns, I'm not advocating their removal. On a practical and societal level, it would be impossible to do. I even live in a home with guns and have safety training. But the oft-quoted ideas that guns are tools is a very stupid argument. It's what I call the "stand off idea," that me and my adversary won't do anything because we both stand the risk of dying. The idea works... for a time. But I wouldn't take bets on how long adversaries can go without someone doing something hostile regardless of how well-armed you are. Plenty of wars have happened between very well armed countries.

[
And saying a gun should be illegal because it was designed to kill people is redundant and stupid as well. Of course they are meant to kill, that's what they are for. But take something that it meant to kill someone and bury it somewhere and it will sit there until the end of time and not kill anyone. It takes human interaction.

You do realize that you just made a argument for burying weapons away from people, as they can't use them if they can't get to them.

Couldn't resist.

That's fine.... I'm fully aware of that. I was just saying that people are to blame, not the guns themselves. And most gun owners are not likely to use them for violent crimes. I know several gun owners and the only time I have ever seen one almost used for purposes to shoot someone was for self defense, thankfully it wasn't required. Someone tried to pull a B&E at my friends house while we were there. Because he had a gun nothing got stolen and nobody got hurt, there were five of them and two of us. Who knows what would have happened if he wasn't armed..... fucking tweakers.

I feel as though I should build on this.

The situation described above is exactly what firearms are neccessary at times, and is also the reason why many gun owners are taught to practice restraint. There is not need to kill the bad guy if the gun scares him off. It has done its job. It prevented the crime, and then it is up to the police to find those responsible.

Defending oneself with a gun does not necessarily need to end in someone dying. Often the very presence of a gun is an excellent deterrant to violence (as demonstrated above).

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

im not sure if you missed the "FEDERAL" part of all of this. if your talking about Legally carried concealed weapons than YES. there are very few dumb fucks that have a CCW permit. if your talking about open carry. well im sure joe blow walking down the street with a remmington 870 on his back with an open rack and 8 shells on the stock is going to have issues. and i know your going to bring up the "half covered" thing. yeah, you can wear a jacket over your fucking SERPA holster and be like "its open carry see?" because you can expose it. but i thought we were talking about CCW permits.

Actually, I was referring to the gun ownership laws in general and not CCW which was raised by someone else. It seemed to me they where raising CCW as if to point out that some small section of laws in a handful of states that is relating to a small percent of gun owners is somehow evidence of 'good gun laws.'

As for having issues for openly carrying guns outside of the law itself, that isn't at discussion here. The law in question is what I was looking at and the majority of US states have open carrying without a permit as LEGAL. Wether or not they would be harassed by the police is another matter entirely and more likely to lead to a successful civil case against the police force for acting outside of the law.

As for federal CCW... that tends to be more about where and when you can carry a weapon then the actual act of gaining a permit. Schools, national forests, pubs... places like that your now allowed to carry even with a permit. Getting the permit still is done under the state laws and they very from state to state on requirements.

 

[Tedy567]

im not sure if you missed the "FEDERAL" part of all of this. if your talking about Legally carried concealed weapons than YES. there are very few dumb fucks that have a CCW permit. if your talking about open carry. well im sure joe blow walking down the street with a remmington 870 on his back with an open rack and 8 shells on the stock is going to have issues. and i know your going to bring up the "half covered" thing. yeah, you can wear a jacket over your fucking SERPA holster and be like "its open carry see?" because you can expose it. but i thought we were talking about CCW permits.

Actually, I was referring to the gun ownership laws in general and not CCW which was raised by someone else. It seemed to me they where raising CCW as if to point out that some small section of laws in a handful of states that is relating to a small percent of gun owners is somehow evidence of 'good gun laws.'

As for having issues for openly carrying guns outside of the law itself, that isn't at discussion here. The law in question is what I was looking at and the majority of US states have open carrying without a permit as LEGAL. Wether or not they would be harassed by the police is another matter entirely and more likely to lead to a successful civil case against the police force for acting outside of the law.

As for federal CCW... that tends to be more about where and when you can carry a weapon then the actual act of gaining a permit. Schools, national forests, pubs... places like that your now allowed to carry even with a permit. Getting the permit still is done under the state laws and they very from state to state on requirements.

ok i claim mistake on that one. i thought you were saying the CCW permits were given out with out any training. my mistake.

however. i still do not agree with you. your saying that being able to openly buy, sell, and trade guns in a legal manner is bad. well if it were illegal it would still happen my friend.

 

[Tedy567]

outlawing pistols and assault rifles, sure there only meant to kill people but hunting rifles are fine with me

Allow me to introduce you to my hunting rifle:

I use it for prairie dogs, cyotes, rabbits, and other small game (whenever I can get a hunting trip put together).

The problem here is how ignorant people try and classify a firearm by, "How deadly," it is. I promise you that the firearm in the image I just posted will make a human no more or less dead than falling down a long set of stairs, getting hit by a car, overdosing on a prescription medication, getting hit by lightning, etc.

The fact is, that a firearm is a tool. It exists only to do the bidding of its master (the person wielding it). It my hands, the only living things that should fear me are the prairie dogs that called the wrong rancher's pastures their home.

thats an assault rifle variant probably made to only fire semi-automatic for civilian use, sure you can kill things,other than people, with it but try using that on a deer and you will only wound it. When I said hunting rifle im talking about bolt action rifles not all semi-automatics.

buddy if your using a .223 M4 with a RIS system. a foregrip. a bipod. a SOPMOD stock. and a 3-9 power scope. and a 30 round PMAG for hunting wildlife. you REALLY need to reevaluate what your hunting.

a great man once said:

i own several weapons that look like that. i will never EVER say their "hunting weapons" i have separate guns for that.
i own assault weapons and pistols because they can kill a man. i own bolt action sniper rifles because they can kill a man. i own hi capacity pistols because i want to be able to kill 13 men if i am jumped outside of my office. i own three assault rifles because i have the right to defend myself. that is why i own assault weapons. not to shoot targets. not to shoot squires. i own them to kill men if it is needed. and i hope that day never ever comes. but when it does. i shall be ready.

your the reason why it takes so fucking long to get an automatic.

oh i am? im sorry, maybe the REAL reason their a 10 day waiting period is to appease those stupid crying bleeding heart liberals that request a waiting period so you dont buy that 2000 dollar weapon then go knock over a 7/11 instead of buying a 100 dollar one off the street.

oh and. it could also be your FFL being a dumbass ;]

 

[Superbeast]

I did read your posts, and I disagree with you. I disagree with a lot of people on this thread, and I think some of their reasoning is stupid. Even though I didn't direct it toward one individual, I expressed my opinion. So sue me for having an opinion on a thread that asks for it.

And saying a gun should be illegal because it was designed to kill people is redundant and stupid as well. Of course they are meant to kill, that's what they are for. But take something that it meant to kill someone and bury it somewhere and it will sit there until the end of time and not kill anyone. It takes human interaction. People will always kill people, having a gun ready and available will not automatically make a person violent.

Maybe you should focus on the stories where a person saved his family or another person because he had a firearm, and not on the negative media coverage that most gun owners/users are portrayed to be.

You are permitted to have a differing opinion - it's just when you said "people on this thread are ignorant or very, very stupid" it came across as a personal attack - as I am one of the disagreeing parties so by extension you called me ignorant and stupid.

Guns should be illegal because people are using them to kill too many people, not just because they are designed to kill. Sure, you can blame it on people being ignorant/lax of safe storage and handling (all those accidental deaths) or a gang under-culture driving the crime rate up and that these crimes will still continue if guns were banned; but the gun still makes a murder far, far easier.

I am not focusing on media coverage of firearms - I am looking at the flat statistics of crime figures from the US Gov't. There is no media bias, there is no general premise ("guns are good/bad"), it's just the raw figures. I'm sure that DGU's (even non-firing ones) have stopped crimes - but when you consider the number of people killed by firearms, even on a per-capita basis, is so high (really, you are the highest of the developed nations) then surely something must be going wrong?

The argument that "DGU's are unreported/never looked at" is flawed in my opinion - because if what some NRA sites say is true (that there are 3 times more DGUs than murders with firearms in the US) then the United States, as a whole, is more lawless than Guatemala (from 2.4 murders/1000 to 6 murders/1000 US:Guatemala), and you as citizens should be furious about how ineffective the police force is and be clamouring for change and reform.

As I have said many times, guns cannot be banned in the US as it's too cultural and there are too many in circulation. But I think it's a fallacy to believe that guns make you safer when the crime rates from around the world disagree heavily with that notion, particularly when compared to the number of legal firearms in possession in the US.

 

[Sovvolf]

See I had I discussion about this to my American friend other day on Xbox live, I told him that I didn't get the reason for guns and I think some times America is held back by laws stated in it constitution that made sense back then but in the modern world it doesn't make as much sense.
See America in my opinion isn't as free as it thinks it is because your tied down by the constitution, most country's these days, if they want to change, they can, if they want to change the laws then there free to do so, if they want to outlaw something then they can, in America you can't because such things may violate the American Constitution or The Bill O Rights.

Anyway's owning a gun back then when it was written made perfect sense, Britain was on the war path and was going through the whole imperialism stage, it made perfect sense for every American to be able to bear arms, America didn't have much of an army back then and it was mostly peasants America wasn't as big as it was now and it had just became independent, owning a gun meant that every American could fight if we made another attempt. These days however there's not too much of a point to it, America has a large army now, an Army which I think is the biggest in the world (Although it may be China) it has Allies like Britain and France and the rest of the united nations, so there's no real reason for the every day citizen to own a gun. Sure riot police and SWAT teams and Drug busters and such could do with them but other then that no the average citizen doesn't need them.

You can argue self defence all you want but it simply doesn't fly, most countries were people can't commonly get a hold of guns don't seem to need them for self defence, mostly because in them countries the common crook can't get a hold of a gun them selves so they have to rely on Knives or fists and it takes more guts to actually go up to some one and stab them then it does to shoot them because you have to get in close to threaten them or stab them, a good self defence class can teach you how to effectively disarm an armed opponent and to disable him at close range so there's less problems.

Just face the facts, there not necessary for every day life, people in country's without guns seem to get on fine without them, this isn't the old west, a Bear isn't going to pop round the next corner you turn to eat you, you just don't need them for every day life.

Now I can imagine some one is going to reply to the first part of the my post but please before you do think your argument through, don't just send me a message saying ZOMG!! YoU FukiN CoMmY TaRd.

Okay, the next person to say, "the military will step all over us is wrong", there is some law, or bill or constatutinal right or something that does NOT allow the US millitary to step foot on US soil unless its a Military base. Pretty much they CANT just come walking into a town and kill anyone, and even if their commander told them to, I really dought they would acually do it, and they would probably turn on that commander.

All internl issues are to be put in command of the Natinal Gaurd and local police forces, and guess what, a hell of a lot of those Natinal Gaurd and police forces are getting stupid, I'm not saying all, but I see a growing population of stupid police officers and also, there is a reason why the song 4 Dead in Ohio was made, look it up.

My father has a cabnet with enough guns to supply a small army, i also have about 7 guns, my uncle has 5, and my uncle on the other side of the family has 22. A friend of mine has 17, and another friend has 9. So, if we decided to make a "well organised malitia" (which is legal), we would have enough weapons to last a hell of a long time, plus alot of people in the area would be glad to join us in this milita. 5 peolpe in my neiborhood are Vietnam vets, 2 are Iraq vets, and another is a Afganistan Vet. We all know the lay of the land very well for we have all gone hunting in the area alot.

I personaly have a Black Belt in Karate, and I also know Spetsnaz tactics which would come in very handy.

And this one milita that we could (and would) make would disrupt anyone trying to wipe us out and we would most likely win the battle very easily.

What I'm getting at is, if a gun ban was ever put into effect, it wouldn't last long in my area, a gun ban is very illogical and will never happen.

And also, even if the military did somehow get involed, they would NEVER call in airstrikes or tanks, or 155's, for they WILL kill innocent civilians.

EDIT: WE are very are all clear of a criminal record, we are not violent, just talented.

Wtf are you talking about?? did you read my message at all, I never said US troops are going to go and kill every one.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I answered the one about the drugs. I don't do drugs- but I think both guns and drugs should be legal

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

ok i claim mistake on that one. i thought you were saying the CCW permits were given out with out any training. my mistake.

however. i still do not agree with you. your saying that being able to openly buy, sell, and trade guns in a legal manner is bad. well if it were illegal it would still happen my friend.

Actually, your mistaken again but I can understand why... I am a 'grey' person when it comes to many things and did bad mouth groups like the NRA whom I feel are part of the problem. The NRA, and other such groups, are not interested in judging regulations, period. They are not interested in solving the problems surrounding gun violence. All they do is bang on the table, to get attention for themselves. In the end people, rational people who might be grey like myself but less inclined to researching the issue, will be turned off by such groups and become anti-gun simply because the pro gun group are nothing but 'gun nuts.'

Sensationalism is a problem gripping many debates and the groups within, gun control isn't any different.

My personal stance on fire-arms, if anyone was to dig through the records, is clearly in the 'fore' ground. I just don't see a problem with proper regulations designed around increasing gun awareness, safe handling and even mandatory training. None of this prevents a person from owning a fire arm and could lower the fatalities, particularly accidental shootings. I would even go as far as to having lock out systems mandatory myself, there are quite a few interesting computerised systems that can render a gun harmless as soon as it leaves the rightful owners hands.

In general gun regulations are not something to shy away from, they need to be evaluated and judged on the merits of reducing gun related fatalities and implemented if they are found to be good systems without interfering with the ability to own firearms. As for out right banning? Prohibition has only ever made a problem worse.

I've studied prohibition, I would never be for prohibition of anything knowing what I know....

 

[Tedy567]

ok i claim mistake on that one. i thought you were saying the CCW permits were given out with out any training. my mistake.

however. i still do not agree with you. your saying that being able to openly buy, sell, and trade guns in a legal manner is bad. well if it were illegal it would still happen my friend.

Actually, your mistaken again but I can understand why... I am a 'grey' person when it comes to many things and did bad mouth groups like the NRA whom I feel are part of the problem. The NRA, and other such groups, are not interested in judging regulations, period. They are not interested in solving the problems surrounding gun violence. All they do is bang on the table, to get attention for themselves. In the end people, rational people who might be grey like myself but less inclined to researching the issue, will be turned off by such groups and become anti-gun simply because the pro gun group are nothing but 'gun nuts.'

Sensationalism is a problem gripping many debates and the groups within, gun control isn't any different.

My personal stance on fire-arms, if anyone was to dig through the records, is clearly in the 'fore' ground. I just don't see a problem with proper regulations designed around increasing gun awareness, safe handling and even mandatory training. None of this prevents a person from owning a fire arm and could lower the fatalities, particularly accidental shootings. I would even go as far as to having lock out systems mandatory myself, there are quite a few interesting computerised systems that can render a gun harmless as soon as it leaves the rightful owners hands.

In general gun regulations are not something to shy away from, they need to be evaluated and judged on the merits of reducing gun related fatalities and implemented if they are found to be good systems without interfering with the ability to own firearms. As for out right banning? Prohibition has only ever made a problem worse.

I've studied prohibition, I would never be for prohibition of anything knowing what I know....

hmm.
well see i never said anything about the NRA but i actualy agree with you 100% on that. the NRA is a bunch of old farts that want to be able to own guns and thought they could fix the problem through publicity. WRONG.

as for mandatory training. i say yes. i think that the day you buy a gun you sign a contract that makes you attend hands on traning on the upside of 20 hours total. (spread out over a week). no matter how many you own. every gun you buy. you take the time to learn every single thing about that gun, and you retake the training classes.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

It wasn't just publicity, teaching people isn't a bad idea after all. No it was the methods they used, the 'government boogyman is out to get your guns' ever time any regulation was brought up. Hell they even fought back ground checks! No they are sensationalists who have no interest beyond banging the table.

As for mandatory training, fully with you there. I've even toyed with the idea of mandatory militia service. With gun owners having to join a local groups, likely just shooter clubs, and practice with them once every... say a quarter... to retain their skills at handling these weapons. Let me make it clear that such groups would not be military oriented, Nothing really more then having to log a few hours at a range every couple of months. One thing I wouldn't be able to stomach is seeing such groups turned into a defacto-conscription program. No civilian all the way!

Frankly, I can't imagine owning a gun and NOT doing this anyway....

 

[Borrowed Time]

you dont fuck around with 2,000 pounders man. they do some fucking damage. 155s are badass. 155 HE/AP. forget about it.*said mobster style*

ok back on toppic of off toppic.

teach those youngins how to hit a 12 inch plate at 100 yards so they can cover you while you take the long shots at 1000+!!!

Those GBU-39's are only 250 pounders, but most standard US aircraft can carry 4 of those babies. They have about 38lb. of AFX-757 HE but has the same penetration of the BLU-109 2000 pounders. So far they've been able to penetrate 8 feet of reinforced concrete no problem. They're also 50% accurate to 5-8 meters, which is pretty impressive for a non-self propelled munition of its type.

They're doing quite well actually. 10 and 12 years old and they already have decent grouping with the .22 I'm teaching them with. And I don't care what anyone says, a .22 may not go through body armor when fired from a long rifle, but if that hits a soft spot, the round is going to tumble along your bones. It's crazy just how much damage such a small round can do.

i have several .22s. personal favorite is the .17hmr though (for a small round)
i think some sort of semi auto .22 loaded with hydrashocks would be a badass home defense weapon. no recoil. 10 round mag. nothing is going to get by those rounds.

the original JDAM bombs were 2000 pounders were they not? i honestly dont know. im not an airforce guy. i just know that m24s shoot farther than hajis bullets do. :] oh and that when haji decided to hole up in a mudhut somewhere said airforce guy can drop some real whoopass on them. (FTW)

Yeah, the originals were 2k's but these GBU-39's are a new variety that they've developed to allow the strike of multiple targets instead of a single 2000 pounder. They're more of a precision strike munition then an "OMGWTFBLOWCRAPUP" type. =P

And yes, though .22's don't have much stopping power (in general) they're incredibly deadly. (the whole tumbling along a persons's bone structure) If coupled with hydrashocks, that'd be pretty interesting to see. Though handgun ammo doesn't achieve hydrostatic shock because of it's lack of projectile speed. Instead it tries to duplicate the effects through expansion. I know most of my long rifle rounds already are hollowpoints so I'm not sure what the difference would be between hydrashock ammo and those. :shrug:

BTW, sorry for the long reply time, I've been off work the last 3 days and don't check the escapists on my days off. Too much other crap to do, LIKE SHOOT STUFF WITH MAH GUNZ N' DRINK DA BEERZ! :sigh:

 

[Lord Thodin]

Wanna know why the forefathers made sure we could own guns? Not because we like to hunt, or to make us look cool to "teh bitchez" but for one irrefutable cause. To over throw the government. If the government was EVER being ruled in a way we saw unfit the forefathers wanted the citizens to rally and fight, to live in a world THEY desired. A world by the people for the people. Taking away our guns takes away a right to make the world in the image the government facade has now. One ruled by the people.

 

[Thatrandomguy]

Ok, i came in on this a little late but one thing that bugs me is that everyone who says 'a pistol or assult rifle cant kill a deer' is dead wrong. pardon the horrible pun. It is all in ammunition type, as i know several people who use pistols (yes, semi-automatic cartridge-type as well as revolvers) to hunt and even assult rifles for deer. Semi-auto, again. Most basic ammunition (what you hear about on the news?) is 7.62 NATO Full-metal jacket rounds made to have full penetration of personell body armor, but even then it is designed to spin once it has hit its target making it as effective (if not more so) than a typical soft-tip hunting round. I myself hunt with a Winchester 30-30 rifle, laugh all ya want the thing puts a slug as agguratley through 3 trees as a deer, not to mention its easy to carry. As for gun laws, the US DOES have some pretty sloppy rules, but we do have the freedom to use them to protect ourselves too. its not just a mantlepiece. Brit and Aussie (sorry guys, its easier than spelling your country)gun laws are their buisness, and unless we start causing riots over there with guns from over here, im perfectly fine with our laws in the US. (btw... i LOVE your varmit gun mortislegio. prime example of a (i believe that is the new model m16?))

 

[titanium turtle]

guns to only be allowed to be kept in houses or at a gun range

makes sense