How do you feel about guns?

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Rattler

When you devise a knife throwing machine which can dispense 30 knives in 5 seconds, that should be banned as well.

you cant bann my hands.

[Rattler]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

you cant bann my hands.

No but they could be removed with one of your knives.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Rattler

No but they could be removed with one of your knives.

Then i can attach an Axe to the Stump... or a chainsaw.

[Rattler]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Then i can attach an Axe to the Stump... or a chainsaw.

Scissorhands 2.0

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

So you differentiate in the types of killing. Not the point. I don't see how you could deny the extremely remote possibility exists that those weapons would be needed, and that is what they were designed for, a situation where offensive is a defensive. I understand seeing it as remote enough of a possibility to decide not to own them, but others just don't agree.

You prove to me the manufactures designed those weapons for murder, and not legal killing, you will have a point.

Offensive killing is murder, unless sanctioned by the government of course.

Which goes to your last point, what these weapons are designed for is murder when it comes to a civilian using it.

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Here is your problem in this argument. You fail to accept that some people, in some situations need to be killed. And the police or military, or whatever guardian angel you think is following you around more than likely aren't going to be there when if you are unlucky enough to ever meet someone like this.

A great many people in this world are very very very bad and will do horrible things to you if allowed. It's just how it is. One can chose to be prepared, or one cannot. One thing I don't feel is acceptable is for others to tell others which level of preparedness they are allowed to be. It's their life to protect as they see fit, not yours.

I carry a .357 revolver. There is a 12 gauge shotgun in my apartment. Believe me, if I need protection in that manner I have it. But there is no need for a weapon that is designed to be used to go out and look for trouble, which is what assault weapons are.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Banning the sales would not effect criminals very much.

So, in most of those instances, the weapon was initially purchased legally and then lended or sold, or it was stolen.

So if the laws were more strict, they wouldn't have even been available to steal. Pretty much leaving only that little 9% for the black market.

Seems like a sizable decrease to me.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Westwood Bengal

I agree that there is not a simple solution. That does not suggest that we should take no action. And to your point on 15 round clips vrs 10 round clips, lets just hope that any new laws address the weapons those clips are intended for.

For what its worth, I don't intend to make any of this personal, and I think highly of your football related posts.

It's all good WB. I don't take things in here personal. It's a big world, everyone thinks different. Well, that's what I'm saying about clips. 10, 15, makes little difference. (10 is what will come with a hand gun purchased during the last ban, and will be in the language of a new ban). But, since the previously sold 15 (or however many over 10), round clips are legal to have, (just not purchase), then the parts to fix 15 round clips have to remain available. And so then one can just purchase the parts and put it together. Has like 3 pieces. And, changing 10 round clips in a gun anyway is a less than 1 second undertaking. So the ban really has little if any effect on, at least handgun size clips. That's what I was getting at. It's a feel good law. Doesn't do a whole lot beside get some politician's picture on the 7pm news.

[Millz]

I'm pretty neutral and laid back on guns in general. However I feel that assault rifles or any gun designed for a swat team/battlefield should be banned. Any gun and all form of ammo should be banned from being bought/traded/etc on the internet. And anyone caught with a gun that used it in a criminal act should have both trigger fingers amputated off. But overall thats about it.

[BengalRugby]

Then i can attach an Axe to the Stump... or a chainsaw.

Merl?

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Nothing in that thread that I've posted that I wouldn't share with my pastor.

How about you? Are you willing to share your fantasies about killing people with your pastor?

Fantasizing about something and knowing something can happen are two different things.
You saying someone buys a gun because they fantasized about killing someone is like saying people who wear seat belts fantasize about getting into car wrecks.

[Old White Guy]

How many people here have had their house broke into?
I have never had.
So much paranoia. With a gun in the house. There is a better chance of shooting yourself or some one you love by accident. Before you need to take out a some one that is going to do you harm

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

How about the 5 year old girl who's dad shot and killed her by accident last week when he was coming out of the gun store?

How about the other 5 year old girl who shot herself last week while playing with her daddy's handgun?


Yes... I know your story on this already: bad, nasty gunowners. If they just would have done the right thing!

And I'll bet they thought they were good gunowners before the incidents, just like all the other gunowners.

All pure negligence on the part of the gun owners. But hey, some kid was left in a running car while their parents ran into the gas station. The kid jumps up into the drivers seat and throws it in drive and stomps the gas. The car goes slamming through the store killing the mother, cashier, and 3 others..............Is it the cars fault? I'm sure if I took just a minute to look I could find story after story that would be similar to this.

[BengalRugby]

So, in most of those instances, the weapon was initially purchased legally and then lended or sold, or it was stolen.

So if the laws were more strict, they wouldn't have even been available to steal. Pretty much leaving only that little 9% for the black market.

Seems like a sizable decrease to me.


Depends on your point of view.

If you assume the crimes are only committed due to the item being unavailable/banned initially, yet attained by other means bu a creative criminal, I might agree. But if the guns are still available via other sources, gun stores, collectors, military, for theft, then the law holds little merit.


But to be honest, one doesn't know if there is greater harm is one using semi-automatic pistols versus simply buying dynamite and wrapping it with nickles to toss in a crowd. Or driving any vehicle into a crowd. Heck, we can all come up with better scenarios than one that kills a paltry 20 people, very few necessitate semi-automatic weapons. Unless you intend to ban them all, then this firearms banning is simply pageantry and nonsense.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

If they had a gun with a 5 year old in the house it should have been in a Safe place like a Gun safe or had the trigger lock on it (and been unloaded)

Shot his daughter leaving the gun store? wasnt aware they let you walk out with those things loaded. If your not planning on killing something you shouldnt aim at it or remove the saftey.

Gun saftey classes would go a long way and parents instead of trying to hide their guns from their kids need to teach them to respect the guns.

This is true and I believe should be applied to a lot of things people try to "hide" from their kids.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

The Second Amendment was one of those rights I defended for 14 years... and I'll defend it still today.



Nope. We have quite a few break-ins in our area. But "hot" break-ins are quite rare. Plus, I refuse to give in to fear. I'm not gonna let worrying about something that might happen mess with me. I've got better things to do... like posting dirty pictures in the "Clean Funny Pictures" thread.



Apparently the guy who accidentally shot his daughter in PA didn't know there was a round in the chamber. He had just bought gun and was taking it to his truck where the girl was. A very sad story.

Well then that's still negligence on his part and extremely negligent on the shop owner since neither of them opened the breech to check if it is clear.
Anytime I pick up a gun I take the magazine out and clear the breech. Even if I "know"(best to be sure with guns) it is clear I STILLcheck.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Offensive killing is murder, unless sanctioned by the government of course.

Which goes to your last point, what these weapons are designed for is murder when it comes to a civilian using it.



I carry a .357 revolver. There is a 12 gauge shotgun in my apartment. Believe me, if I need protection in that manner I have it. But there is no need for a weapon that is designed to be used to go out and look for trouble, which is what assault weapons are.

Please just show me ONE gun manufacturer's ad that says "You can go out and hunt people down and have TONS of fun!!!!"

[ajustyle]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Please just show me ONE gun manufacturer's ad that says "You can go out and hunt people down and have TONS of fun!!!!"

THIS is why I don't own a gun, yet.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by ajustyle

THIS is why I don't own a gun, yet.

Well apparently this guy knows where the lot of em' are so your gonna be ponying up some cash bud.
May have to give him a while to find those manufacturers though.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

If it's an open carry state I could strap my Mosin Nagant(1947 Russian surplus 7.62x54R) to my back and walk down the street with it LEGALLY.

FAIL AGAIN! Guns aren't designed to kill people, they are designed to put lead on a TARGET.

It is ironic you make the two bolded statements almost back-to-back.

The Mosin Nagant rifles were originally designed, developed, and adopted by the Russian military to kill the enemy. Killing people is exactly what they are designed to do. Putting "lead on a target" with a Mosin Nagant is just practice for what they are designed to do which is kill people.

Claiming a weapon like a Mosin Nagant or AR15 isn't designed to kill people is like claiming a M240B is designed to be a noisemaker or an M1 Abrams is designed to be a SUV.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

The Second Amendment was one of those rights I defended for 14 years... and I'll defend it still today.

I know.

Makes me wonder how many how many others in this thread stepped forward to do the same?

I'm reasonably certain CinciREborn and his suggestion you move to Canada if you like socialism couldn't be bothered to put down the Xbox controller and get up off the couch to render the same selfless service to this country as you have.

I mean if only there had been one or two armed conflicts going on during the past decade plus, I'm sure CinciREborn would be among the 1% of Americans who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan so he could demonstrate he likes freedom as much as he claimed. Not only his own freedom, but the freedom of others he will never meet. Right?

Now that I think about it, probably the only thing CinciREborn should say to you is a simple, "Thank you." Then go back to playing his Xbox and keep the move to Canada suggestion to himself.

[Sher Khan]

I think one thing missing from the thread is the clear knowledge that the 2nd Amendment has been upheld in the courts and cities like DC, and Chicago, etc., which previously had a 100% ban on weapons ownership within their districts, had their laws recently struck down and have to accept that citizens had a right to own guns. Like it or not, that is their right under the constitution. It is from that understanding one has to work with this. Not everyone lives in a townhouse or apartment building and may live in remote locations or on large properties in rural areas. Saying to someone "you don't need that", is highly opinionated and can be applied to just about anything. You don't need a Mustang with 700 horses under the hood or a pickup truck with large tires. You don't need to make your own beer, wine, or beef jerky. You don't need Christians.com, Facebook, or Twitter. And you don't need a Mink coat, a big house, a boat, a drum set, or a harmonica.

It's just silly to assume everyone is like you the person who can't understand for the life of you why someone else wants a particular thing or needs it for any reason.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Please just show me ONE gun manufacturer's ad that says "You can go out and hunt people down and have TONS of fun!!!!"

They don't need to. The people the weapons I am talking about are designed for know it.

Then when they want to expand sales into the civilian market they can't advertise that. But it doesn't change what it was designed for.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

It is ironic you make the two bolded statements almost back-to-back.

The Mosin Nagant rifles were originally designed, developed, and adopted by the Russian military to kill the enemy. Killing people is exactly what they are designed to do. Putting "lead on a target" with a Mosin Nagant is just practice for what they are designed to do which is kill people.

Claiming a weapon like a Mosin Nagant or AR15 isn't designed to kill people is like claiming a M240B is designed to be a noisemaker or an M1 Abrams is designed to be a SUV.

At least someone else is understands that. I don't know what your stance is on the whole issue we keep debating, but it's good to know someone else is willing to acknowledge that weapons designed for military use are tools for killing humans.

[Sher Khan]

They are also designed to kill Coyote, mad dogs, and Grizzly Bear. Any weapon can kill people, including knives, ball bats, automobiles or a machete, it depends on what the owner does with it. Reacting to the media using incidents to pump up their ratings does not address the issue. If we're talking public safety and not some highly publicized incident or incidents, then guns are not the most dangerous issue nor responsible for the most deaths or injuries.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

They are also designed to kill Coyote, mad dogs, and Grizzly Bear. Any weapon can kill people, including knives, ball bats, automobiles or a machete, it depends on what the owner does with it. Reacting to the media using incidents to pump up their ratings does not address the issue. If we're talking public safety and not some highly publicized incident or incidents, then guns are not the most dangerous issue nor responsible for the most deaths or injuries.

Certain firearms are designed as tools for particular jobs. Some are designed for hunting, some for self defense, some for target shooting, and some for killing people in an offensive situation. It's that last group I focus on. My stance is not reactionary, though. I want to make that clear. I've felt this way since I was little. It's the way I was taught how to handle firearms that shaped my opinions. The way I was raised, the way my father was raised as well. In order to handle/own/carry a firearm you should learn how to use it effectively. If you know how to use it effectively, there is no need for a semi-automatic.