Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

Guns aint toys. They're tools for killing. People who own guns ought not (and for the most part do not) treat them as toys. I
Having said that, they are not as dangerous as you say, as long as people are responsible with them. Which again reiterates my point that they are most certainly not toys. You dont have to have licenses to play with toys. Toys cant kill people.

Now I can tell I'm not going to change anyones mind, and have avoided this thread thus far for that reason, so I'm going to go now. I've wasted my time posting on gun hate threads before, and I've come to realise there is no reasoning with people who dislike guns.

BAI.

I resent that. What have I said that's unreasonable? You said it yourself, they're tools for killing, and therefore should not be entrusted to civilians unless strictly monitored. And you can't say that owning something strictly for entertainment purposes doesn't categorize it as a toy.

Apologies.

I tend to get very frustrated very quickly in these kinda threads.

But yeah, Guns are not toys because toys cant usually cause death or injury to the operator or people around them if used incorrectly. However, you make a good point about them being toys if used for entertainment. I'll give you that, many guns are used primarily for recreational purposes, and as such might be termed toys, although as I said, toy does not usually imply a highly dangerous killing tool. However many guns are also used by civilians for pest control purposes too, and as such dont really count as toys, just tools.

But like I said, there are fundamental differences between people who dont like guns and people who do. I can almost guarantee we wont convince each other because you probably find people who use and enjoy guns as unfathomable as I find people who are scared of guns.

I don't fear guns, just the people behind them. When push comes to shove, the government, whether you agree with yours or not, is on your side. They should have the authority and the practical means to enforce laws and protect the people. People however are irresponsible. The longer somebody has a gun, the more accustomed to it they become, so in a way the most experienced people are the most dangerous. There have been more than a few cases in history of "Nah, it's fine. No really, it's supp--BANG".

Good point about the people being the problem. As I said, guns are just a tool. I personally agree with my country's (UK) strict gun laws because they weed out a lot of potentially irresponsible owners.

I disagree with your comment about experienced gun owners though. The people I shoot with, or have seen shooting, that are experienced are very very mindful of safety, and encourage us younger shooters do the same. Yes accidents do happen, but safety techniques such as only ever having a loaded gun pointing downrange, never carrying a loaded gun etc help reduce this. The longer you shoot, the more gun safety becomes habit.

Yes, but it only takes a momentary lapse in judgement. Drivers Education teachers have been booked for speeding, that is.

 

[Wadders]

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

I'm sorry pal, but on this point I'm gonna have to ask what the fuck you're on about.

Just because target shooting or clay shooting isnt as physically demanding as football or hockey or whatever, does not mean it isnt a legitimate sport. It requires immense amounts of skill at higher levels, and is hard enough at lower levels. Also, the Olympics has has sport shooting events. I dont wanna be rude, but if you had ever fired a gun you may appreciate this. Its not just point and click like on games you know.

It is a proper sport, and therefore people can own guns for sporting purposes.

 

[micky]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

 

[Wadders]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

Guns aint toys. They're tools for killing. People who own guns ought not (and for the most part do not) treat them as toys. I
Having said that, they are not as dangerous as you say, as long as people are responsible with them. Which again reiterates my point that they are most certainly not toys. You dont have to have licenses to play with toys. Toys cant kill people.

Now I can tell I'm not going to change anyones mind, and have avoided this thread thus far for that reason, so I'm going to go now. I've wasted my time posting on gun hate threads before, and I've come to realise there is no reasoning with people who dislike guns.

BAI.

I resent that. What have I said that's unreasonable? You said it yourself, they're tools for killing, and therefore should not be entrusted to civilians unless strictly monitored. And you can't say that owning something strictly for entertainment purposes doesn't categorize it as a toy.

Apologies.

I tend to get very frustrated very quickly in these kinda threads.

But yeah, Guns are not toys because toys cant usually cause death or injury to the operator or people around them if used incorrectly. However, you make a good point about them being toys if used for entertainment. I'll give you that, many guns are used primarily for recreational purposes, and as such might be termed toys, although as I said, toy does not usually imply a highly dangerous killing tool. However many guns are also used by civilians for pest control purposes too, and as such dont really count as toys, just tools.

But like I said, there are fundamental differences between people who dont like guns and people who do. I can almost guarantee we wont convince each other because you probably find people who use and enjoy guns as unfathomable as I find people who are scared of guns.

I don't fear guns, just the people behind them. When push comes to shove, the government, whether you agree with yours or not, is on your side. They should have the authority and the practical means to enforce laws and protect the people. People however are irresponsible. The longer somebody has a gun, the more accustomed to it they become, so in a way the most experienced people are the most dangerous. There have been more than a few cases in history of "Nah, it's fine. No really, it's supp--BANG".

Good point about the people being the problem. As I said, guns are just a tool. I personally agree with my country's (UK) strict gun laws because they weed out a lot of potentially irresponsible owners.

I disagree with your comment about experienced gun owners though. The people I shoot with, or have seen shooting, that are experienced are very very mindful of safety, and encourage us younger shooters do the same. Yes accidents do happen, but safety techniques such as only ever having a loaded gun pointing downrange, never carrying a loaded gun etc help reduce this. The longer you shoot, the more gun safety becomes habit.

Yes, but it only takes a momentary lapse in judgement. Drivers Education teachers have been booked for speeding, that is.

I know, but such mishaps are not exclusive to shooters. You said it yourself, driving instructors make mistakes. A mountain climber might be distracted when sorting his gear out, and fall to his death. A motorbike racer might possibly misjudge a corner and loose control and fall off, breaking a leg.

Dangerous accidents are not exclusive to gun owners.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

I'm sorry pal, but on this point I'm gonna have to ask what the fuck you're on about.

Just because target shooting or clay shooting isnt as physically demanding as football or hockey or whatever, does not mean it isnt a legitimate sport. It requires immense amounts of skill at higher levels, and is hard enough at lower levels. Also, the Olympics has has sport shooting events. I dont wanna be rude, but if you had ever fired a gun you may appreciate this. Its not just point and click like on games you know.

It is a proper sport, and therefore people can own guns for sporting purposes.

NOOOOO!? REALLY?! GUNS IN REAL LIFE ARE DIFFERENT FROM VIDEO GAMES?!

It's pretty hard to diffuse bombs, but that's not at the Olympics. But even the thought of adding Poker proves how rubbish most of those sports are.

And I implied that our definition of a sport is too loose. And if I believe in gun control, why would I ever have fired one? There is no real, legitimate, or practical reason for a civilian to have a gun, unless it is used strictly to protect livestock.

And anyways, loose gun laws allow for not just shotguns and rifles, you know. And if I had to sacrifice my favorite pastime to ensure the tools of my folly are not used in homicide, then that would be a noble sacrifice indeed.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

Well, try switching a puma and an accountant, they wouldn't perform very well in the others' role, either. The fact that something out of somebody's element is difficult for them is a very flimsy excuse for allowing devices invented for the purpose of killing in the hands of every Joe Blow who wants one.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

Guns aint toys. They're tools for killing. People who own guns ought not (and for the most part do not) treat them as toys. I
Having said that, they are not as dangerous as you say, as long as people are responsible with them. Which again reiterates my point that they are most certainly not toys. You dont have to have licenses to play with toys. Toys cant kill people.

Now I can tell I'm not going to change anyones mind, and have avoided this thread thus far for that reason, so I'm going to go now. I've wasted my time posting on gun hate threads before, and I've come to realise there is no reasoning with people who dislike guns.

BAI.

I resent that. What have I said that's unreasonable? You said it yourself, they're tools for killing, and therefore should not be entrusted to civilians unless strictly monitored. And you can't say that owning something strictly for entertainment purposes doesn't categorize it as a toy.

Apologies.

I tend to get very frustrated very quickly in these kinda threads.

But yeah, Guns are not toys because toys cant usually cause death or injury to the operator or people around them if used incorrectly. However, you make a good point about them being toys if used for entertainment. I'll give you that, many guns are used primarily for recreational purposes, and as such might be termed toys, although as I said, toy does not usually imply a highly dangerous killing tool. However many guns are also used by civilians for pest control purposes too, and as such dont really count as toys, just tools.

But like I said, there are fundamental differences between people who dont like guns and people who do. I can almost guarantee we wont convince each other because you probably find people who use and enjoy guns as unfathomable as I find people who are scared of guns.

I don't fear guns, just the people behind them. When push comes to shove, the government, whether you agree with yours or not, is on your side. They should have the authority and the practical means to enforce laws and protect the people. People however are irresponsible. The longer somebody has a gun, the more accustomed to it they become, so in a way the most experienced people are the most dangerous. There have been more than a few cases in history of "Nah, it's fine. No really, it's supp--BANG".

Good point about the people being the problem. As I said, guns are just a tool. I personally agree with my country's (UK) strict gun laws because they weed out a lot of potentially irresponsible owners.

I disagree with your comment about experienced gun owners though. The people I shoot with, or have seen shooting, that are experienced are very very mindful of safety, and encourage us younger shooters do the same. Yes accidents do happen, but safety techniques such as only ever having a loaded gun pointing downrange, never carrying a loaded gun etc help reduce this. The longer you shoot, the more gun safety becomes habit.

Yes, but it only takes a momentary lapse in judgement. Drivers Education teachers have been booked for speeding, that is.

I know, but such mishaps are not exclusive to shooters. You said it yourself, driving instructors make mistakes. A mountain climber might be distracted when sorting his gear out, and fall to his death. A motorbike racer might possibly misjudge a corner and loose control and fall off, breaking a leg.

Dangerous accidents are not exclusive to gun owners.

But they happen, and while I cannot fathom why someone would want to fly around on a two-wheeled deathtrap, or scale a piece of scenery, those activities don't involve such dangerous tools as guns.

And Driving Instruction is a necessity for the modern world, so we can't exactly remove it.

 

[capin Rob]

Hell, I'm 14 and I have a rifle, but I don't even shoot it.

 

[micky]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

Well, try switching a puma and an accountant, they wouldn't perform very well in the others' role, either. The fact that something out of somebody's element is difficult for them is a very flimsy excuse for allowing devices invented for the purpose of killing in the hands of every Joe Blow who wants one.

now you just seem crazy those are both sports you just picked the most different things you could find i- you know what im done with this stupid argument we wont see eye to eye and this is going no-were, so you keep hating guns and ill keep liking them. ok?

 

[The_Communist_Tsar]

Real guns aren't of any use for ordinary shooting, I think that they are mostly for hunting or "removing" pests from your field. If you want something for target practice get a nice soft air gun. Anyways guns are no bad omen.

 

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

Unless you NEED a gun, as in it is very likely you are going to have to fend off unwelcome guests given the neighbourhood... then I would consider it. But if it's just for target practice.. it really isn't worth the risks involved. I don't mean by yourself despite the possibility... but if someone else gets their hands on it.. kids, burglers etc... then that is when the problem arises. Don't care how safe you play it... you may slip up at some point and one mistake is all you need.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

Well, try switching a puma and an accountant, they wouldn't perform very well in the others' role, either. The fact that something out of somebody's element is difficult for them is a very flimsy excuse for allowing devices invented for the purpose of killing in the hands of every Joe Blow who wants one.

now you just seem crazy those are both sports you just picked the most different things you could find i- you know what im done with this stupid argument we wont see eye to eye and this is going no-were, so you keep hating guns and ill keep liking them. ok?

I was making a point, which I explicitly stated in my comment. When taken out of their element, anybody would not perform well.

And why exactly do you like them? Qualify your reason. Is it because you're gun-crazy? Is it because you're intent on becoming a big-game hunter? What reason do you have?

 

[micky]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

Well, try switching a puma and an accountant, they wouldn't perform very well in the others' role, either. The fact that something out of somebody's element is difficult for them is a very flimsy excuse for allowing devices invented for the purpose of killing in the hands of every Joe Blow who wants one.

now you just seem crazy those are both sports you just picked the most different things you could find i- you know what im done with this stupid argument we wont see eye to eye and this is going no-were, so you keep hating guns and ill keep liking them. ok?

I was making a point, which I explicitly stated in my comment. When taken out of their element, anybody would not perform well.

And why exactly do you like them? Qualify your reason. Is it because you're gun-crazy? Is it because you're intent on becoming a big-game hunter? What reason do you have?

a puma wouldnt only perform badly it cant even talk and would end up eating the interns which wouldn't be so bad. anyways! i explain my reasons to someone else so i will restate what i said i like shooting, its fun a chalenge and you get to meet a lot of cool people when going to a range, if you have a bad day shooting some rounds down range can make it better. and seeing that last shot hit the center of the target feels good.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

Well, try switching a puma and an accountant, they wouldn't perform very well in the others' role, either. The fact that something out of somebody's element is difficult for them is a very flimsy excuse for allowing devices invented for the purpose of killing in the hands of every Joe Blow who wants one.

now you just seem crazy those are both sports you just picked the most different things you could find i- you know what im done with this stupid argument we wont see eye to eye and this is going no-were, so you keep hating guns and ill keep liking them. ok?

I was making a point, which I explicitly stated in my comment. When taken out of their element, anybody would not perform well.

And why exactly do you like them? Qualify your reason. Is it because you're gun-crazy? Is it because you're intent on becoming a big-game hunter? What reason do you have?

a puma wouldnt only perform badly it cant even talk and would end up eating the interns which wouldn't be so bad. anyways! i explain my reasons to someone else so i will restate what i said i like shooting, its fun a chalenge and you get to meet a lot of cool people when going to a range, if you have a bad day shooting some rounds down range can make it better. and seeing that last shot hit the center of the target feels good.

So, you're saying that you want your weapon available for when you're emotionally unstable?

And, just so you don't lose sleep computing it, here's another analogy: It's like taking a German man, who only speaks German and is not familiar with any non-German customs, and an Iranian woman with similar attributes and switching their places. They have no experience; and therefore shall perform poorly.

 

[micky]

Instead of an expensive gun, why not get a cheap video game? No matter how well-trained you are for a civilian, you're no Vasily G. Zaitsev, and you're a whole lot less likely to cause damage with a PS3 than a gun.

It's just, if all you want is target shooting, why not shoot The Flood instead of a paper target?

I'm guessing you've never fired a gun.

Firing guns on games and firing guns in real life are 2 entirely different experiences. I like doing both, but games are no substitute for blasting clay pigeons or any other firearm related hobbies or sports. Similarly games let me shoot bad guys, which you cant very well do in real life unless you're a soldier or something.

Umm...No I haven't, and I never really want to, unless I have to. I don't see why you'd want to waste money on nothing but a dangerous toy. I prefer my toys to be as likely to kill someone as a carbonated beverage.

It's a skill and a hobby, much like Archery, would you fault them?

Yes, actually. Unless you're an agent of your government or a farmer, there is no real excuse for you having a proper weapon.

Self-defense is a load of crap, because if somebody mugs you, chances are they have you at the business end of a weapon as well. And I'm also willing to bet none of us are Chow Yun-fat, and can't pull off any spectacular disarming manoeuvres.

And "Sport" is crap too, because if you're not doing anything physically demanding (and don't anyone dare compare the exertion from gunfire to something like basketball), you might as well be reading or playing a video game.

do sports have to be physically demanding to be classified as a sports? shooting is hard and takes a lot of practice. dont say its not a sport when its just as much of one a basketball

By definition, no, but be honest, are Video Games or Poker sports? Sport should involve some athleticism, and I'm sorry, you cannot compare absorbing the kickback of maybe a dozen shots from a gun to going nine rounds in a boxing ring, or three periods of hockey.

There's no grey area on athleticism: And gun-play is not athletic.

im not comparing them but they are all a chalenge, try switching a hockey player and a pro marksman places they would both do very poorly

Well, try switching a puma and an accountant, they wouldn't perform very well in the others' role, either. The fact that something out of somebody's element is difficult for them is a very flimsy excuse for allowing devices invented for the purpose of killing in the hands of every Joe Blow who wants one.

now you just seem crazy those are both sports you just picked the most different things you could find i- you know what im done with this stupid argument we wont see eye to eye and this is going no-were, so you keep hating guns and ill keep liking them. ok?

I was making a point, which I explicitly stated in my comment. When taken out of their element, anybody would not perform well.

And why exactly do you like them? Qualify your reason. Is it because you're gun-crazy? Is it because you're intent on becoming a big-game hunter? What reason do you have?

a puma wouldnt only perform badly it cant even talk and would end up eating the interns which wouldn't be so bad. anyways! i explain my reasons to someone else so i will restate what i said i like shooting, its fun a chalenge and you get to meet a lot of cool people when going to a range, if you have a bad day shooting some rounds down range can make it better. and seeing that last shot hit the center of the target feels good.

So, you're saying that you want your weapon available for when you're emotionally unstable?

And, just so you don't lose sleep computing it, here's another analogy: It's like taking a German man, who only speaks German and is not familiar with any non-German customs, and an Iranian woman with similar attributes and switching their places. They have no experience; and therefore shall perform poorly.

i knew you were going to make me sound like a psycho! thats a much better analogy than the last one. i am going to bed my head is pounding! good night or good morning were ever you live

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

 

[Ickorus]

Do you need the gun?

No?

Then i agree with your mother and her boyfriend, it's their house, they have far more right than you to say what's in their house. In a couple years get one if you're still desperate.

 

[micky]

Yes, by all means ban guns. Trust the government to take care of you. Trust the police to protect you. Good citizens don't need guns. Good citizens don't need to know things. Censor the internet, it is for your own good.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/video-of-confrontation-after-u.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYQD-btqhKg


Good Citizens don't resist. Good citizens don't question.

so we should fallow blindly? just wondering are you a comi?

 

[Quad08]

I don't think any civilian should be allowed have a gun unless it's for hunting.

Guns are extremly dangerous regardless of who is holding it and if his mother does not want a gun in her house then tough shit for the OP.

And what about when the citizens must stand up against the government?

Certainly will be easier to be trampled if we aren't allowed to have guns.

I'm loyal to and trust the state.

I'll drink to that

OT: Respect the wishes of your mother and her boyfriend. You are living in there household after all. If you don't like the rules, you can always leave