US Government wants to take firearms away by force!
Yes it does make you anti-gun.
First by dictating what I need.
Secondly you imply that a certain type of firearm is somehow responsible for crime.
If my AR-15 is a dangerous assault weapon then your bolt action -06 is an assassin's sniper rifle.
Besides, all you "need" for deer hunting is is a recurve or compound bow, a single shot shotgun with slugs, or a single shot muzzle loader.
Actually, you're the worse kind of anti-gunner because you don't think you are anti-gun but instead a morally responsible gun owner applying the so called "common sense" that's been dictated to you and making a show of distancing yourself from those who own guns that you've been lead to believe are "icky".
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by Raptor on 19 May 2013, 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... eoM#t=147s
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Interesting. I suppose that means I have to turn in my bolt-action .30-06 with the 5-round magazine, and surrender my annual hunting license...
There isn't a line of sight in my house where I can't provide better home defense with various so-called "harmless" household items than I possibly could with a firearm. The problem I find is that most people, even those who pride themselves on "thinking outside the box", have far too limited a definition of weapons. My "thrown weapons" include coffee mugs, heavy ceramic plates, two cats, two ferrets, and a selection of knives (not all of them are properly balanced for throwing, although in a pinch even the carving knives can be used to distract an assailant until I can close to hand-to-hand range). Close-in weapons include more knives (what can I say, I like knives), the guitar controllers for playing Rock Band on my XBox (seriously, heft one by the neck sometime - those things are serious clubs), three dogs (which have the advantage of being self-directed), and of course my hands, feet, elbows, knees, and assorted other hard parts. And that's leaving out the possibilities inherent in the kids' toys, or using the wired controllers of my old PS2 as improvised bolas...
I have a replica of a Frankish throwing axe, which probably works as good as the real thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
He meant exactly what he said - the loss of life is not as important as his right to own or shoot whatever his black little heart desires.
Which right wing talk show host (or whoever it was) was it and what exactly did he say? A Youtube video would help. I have a black little heart, too, but I can’t make sense of these allegations without some substance.
I think they just don't put the thought into it.
I think that’s what Vladimir Lenin referred to as “useful idiots”.
Gun clubs are legal and people are learning how to shoot every day of the year.
I’ve been saying this all along but the anti’s have gotten their way enough times make them a threat. Maybe not right now but who knows about later.
I don’t expect there will ever be an all-out gun ban but I do expect nibbling away at the edges like there has been until they get close enough to the center that we can call it an all-out gun ban in effect.
I'll try to hunt down his name and perhaps even a video.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
PsychoSarah
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity
At 5 ft there's going to be little to no spread.
At the distance where a shot pattern becomes comprehensive enough to do what you and other misinformed individuals like to think it'll to the pattern is to thin to be counted on as effective.
Not all threats are going to be at 5 ft.
A shotgun is not always the ideal defensive weapon.
How? Please be specific.
I for one won't stand by and have anything of mine taken.
The fact remains that gun control is a step process, one category at a time.
How about the fact that a large portion of people like you would only give up their guns if the government pried them from your cold, dead hands?
Assult rifles can easily kill a whole lot of people at once (if say, you were a crazy person fireing into a crowd). They are bigger than pistols (which are common self defence weapons), and what are the chances you are going to have a crowd of people invading your home (please, no zombie comments here). I, for one, don't give a crap whether or not people can own assult rifles. There are plenty of other weapons to choose from.
It is what it is.
"Those things which are precious are saved only by sacrifice". You'd never understand the meaning, though.
They just get up and do this on their own? My "assault rifles" have never been naughty like this.
A few days ago I only needed a shotgun according to you. Are you slipping?
Uh huh, and one of my choices are what you call "assault rifles".
Get over it.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Whatever that was supposed to be about was lost on me and probably most of the rest of the world.


par·a·noi·a
/ˌparəˈnoiə/
Noun
Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.
HTH
Yes, people who have a fear of firearms are paranoid.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
PsychoSarah
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity
Raptor, you are not understanding my point. I am not anti guns. I just don't know why people feel the need to have assult rifles (which would never be used for hunting anything but people). I just want there to be a better system for keeping them out of the hands of crazy people (just apply that to guns in general, really).
Even if every gun on the planet was destroyed, people would just kill each other in a different way, so taking away guns is pointless and just makes it so that good people can't defend themselves from gangs, etc. (they would just get them illegally, like they often do already). Prohibition has already proven that making something illegal does not get rid of the associated problems.
The term "assault rifle" technically doesn't apply to what I think you're talking about. One of the key attributes of an assault rifle is that it is selective fire meaning it can fire semi or full auto. What appear to be assault rifles in common circulation are the semi-auto only versions of them. Example: An AR-15 is a semi-auto only version of the selective fire M-16.
It's not so much a "need" as a want to own. Why does anyone want a sports car when a minivan will satisfy their needs and get them where they want to go?
Yes, what you call assault rifles are used for hunting. Just because the rifle holds 20 or 30 rounds doesn't mean all of them have to be fired at each target. Some states require them to use a smaller capacity magazine while hunting.
Any gun is only as dangerous as the user.
A skilled rifleman can do more damage and wreak more havoc and terror with a scoped bolt action hunting rifle than some dumb ass can with an AR-15 and several magazines.
The skilled rifleman would choose his killing ground more carefully and shoot more precisely and deliberately from a concealed vantage point. It would be hard to find find him to stop him and we're talking distances of up to several hundred yards.
If someone like Adam Lanza waded into one of the local malls around here with an AR-15 or an AK he'd stand a good chance of being killed by an armed citizen before he got very far or before the cops were even called.
There are enough guns already in circulation (tens of millions at least) to even try to control who's allowed to have what without even considering the constitution. The gun laws we have now aren't much more than a token effort to control them.
With all the law enforcement assets that have tasked to go after illegal drugs in this country they can't even seriously hope to get a handle on it. If I want to I can go two miles from my house and buy all the meth I want and not really worry about getting caught.
The mere notion of gun control would be laughable except that it'll keep those that need protection from legally getting it.
Banning "assault weapons" won't do anything but lead to banning handguns, then other rifles, then shotguns since banning anything won't won't have the desired effect.
It's not like merely reaching into the play-pen to remove a dangerous toy.
You claim that "assault rifles" are such a menace or a potential menace but they've been selling like bottled water. By your account the streets should be running red with blood but they are not. Deaths where those kinds of rifles were used are statistically insignificant when compared to all other deaths.
They can't be destroyed because they can't be located and we want to keep it that way.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by Raptor on 20 May 2013, 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Even if every gun on the planet was destroyed, people would just kill each other in a different way, so taking away guns is pointless and just makes it so that good people can't defend themselves from gangs, etc. (they would just get them illegally, like they often do already). Prohibition has already proven that making something illegal does not get rid of the associated problems.
People would try to kill each other in different ways. Guns are tools that increase one's efficiency in killing things; without guns, the same number of killing attempts would be made but the efficiency would go down, meaning that more people would survive the attempts to kill them.
I'm not anti-gun, either - I have at least one relative who carries a gun sometimes for her own safety - just pro-gun-control.
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Even if every gun on the planet was destroyed, people would just kill each other in a different way, so taking away guns is pointless and just makes it so that good people can't defend themselves from gangs, etc. (they would just get them illegally, like they often do already). Prohibition has already proven that making something illegal does not get rid of the associated problems.
People would try to kill each other in different ways. Guns are tools that increase one's efficiency in killing things; without guns, the same number of killing attempts would be made but the efficiency would go down, meaning that more people would survive the attempts to kill them.
I'm not anti-gun, either - I have at least one relative who carries a gun sometimes for her own safety - just pro-gun-control.
My feelings exactly.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
We've been over this and over this.
Being pro-gun control makes your anti-gun.
It couldn't be any simpler.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
We've been over this and over this.
Being pro-gun control makes your anti-gun.
It couldn't be any simpler.
No, it just means you're anti-getting shot by crazy or criminally inclined people.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
The Immigration force in my country is crazy! |
25 Apr 2025, 12:48 pm |
A 5th Force of Nature May Have Been Discovered Inside Atoms |
17 Jun 2025, 6:33 pm |
Turning Qatari 747 into Air Force One could cost $1 billion |
13 May 2025, 9:34 pm |
Trump-military parade protesters will face very heavy force |
15 Jun 2025, 12:18 am |