Bob in Mich Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 You need to relax. Have a smoother entry here, you'll do much better. I'm not being sarcastic or busting your balls. Yeah, sorry, you are right. I was getting frustrated I guess.
CountryCletus Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 Guns are much like political parties: the ideal amount of either is zero, but given the reality of both's existence, the next best amount is "billions". I'm sorry if this is a duplicate response, as I have not read the entire thread yet... I have a limited personal experience with guns used in crimes. While I work as a corrections officer, I deal with criminals on a a daily basis. In my life, where I live, thousands of people own guns, but there is almost ZERO crime stemming from such. I live in NWPA and people own guns for hunting. There is no possible way to make a distinction using gun legislation to differentiate between "hunters/sportsman" and "everyone else"... I have to say that I am against any form of legislation that infringes upon my ability to own/purchase firearms..
DC Tom Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 I live in NWPA and people own guns for hunting. There is no possible way to make a distinction using gun legislation to differentiate between "hunters/sportsman" and "everyone else"... So you support sport hunting of humans???? [/average liberal PPP poster]
Bob in Mich Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 It could be very tough to distinguish between a hunter/sportsman and 'everyone else' Agree completely However it is not nearly as difficult to distinguish a rifle designed for hunting from one designed for combat and offensive purposes. So I don't think the legislation is so impossible
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 However it is not nearly as difficult to distinguish a rifle designed for hunting from one designed for combat and offensive purposes. Wrong. But don't let your ignorance on the subject get in the way of your passion. That's what makes so many people today "special."
Bob in Mich Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Is it easier to distinguish the people or the rifles, genius? Enlighten us, please Put out all rifles manufactured today and try to divide them into piles of hunting rifles versus non hunting. You will have two pretty big piles with a third, much smaller pile left over to argue about. Some will be hard to define but most are not. I'll try not to stumble over my ignorance but let me give you a tip. Don't let your perceived superiority get in the way either
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 It could be very tough to distinguish between a hunter/sportsman and 'everyone else' Agree completely However it is not nearly as difficult to distinguish a rifle designed for hunting from one designed for combat and offensive purposes. So I don't think the legislation is so impossible As it pertains to small arms, what is the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon?
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 As it pertains to small arms, what is the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon? And before anyone answers this, I'd like to say that your answer is wrong and you're a moron.
Bob in Mich Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 And before anyone answers this, I'd like to say that your answer is wrong and you're a moron. lol
3rdnlng Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 lol Do you think that we should be able to have weapons for self defense, and if so, please explain the difference between them and offensive weapons.
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Is it easier to distinguish the people or the rifles, genius? Enlighten us, please My response was pretty clearly about guns, followed by an insult. Though I would say it's generally pretty easy to distinguish whether people are informed on this particular subject. Put out all rifles manufactured today and try to divide them into piles of hunting rifles versus non hunting. You will have two pretty big piles with a third, much smaller pile left over to argue about. Some will be hard to define but most are not. So do it then. After all, it's your hypothesis that we're talking about. Give us three examples from each group. That's nine guns total. Shouldn't be that hard to do, right? You know, since you know what you're talking about and obviously have some data to back up what you're saying. I'll try not to stumble over my ignorance but let me give you a tip. Don't let your perceived superiority get in the way either Oh, I'm quite sure by the end of this there won't be anything left to "perceive."
Bob in Mich Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 The guns that I own are not new. I don't have model numbers for you. It is not my hobby and I am not going to research that for you. I don't have to know that level of detail to carry on a discussion however. 1) Are you saying that gun experts, such as yourself apparently, could not make a determination with the MAJORITY of rifles made today as to whether or not the rifle is an appropriate hunting rifle? 2)Are they all made today so that one looks like the other? No way an expert could choose a pile to put it in, is that right?
FireChan Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 The guns that I own are not new. I don't have model numbers for you. It is not my hobby and I am not going to research that for you. I don't have to know that level of detail to carry on a discussion however. 1) Are you saying that gun experts, such as yourself apparently, could not make a determination with the MAJORITY of rifles made today as to whether or not the rifle is an appropriate hunting rifle? 2)Are they all made today so that one looks like the other? No way an expert could choose a pile to put it in, is that right? That depends. How high are they when they separate the piles?
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 The guns that I own are not new. I don't have model numbers for you. It is not my hobby and I am not going to research that for you. I don't have to know that level of detail to carry on a discussion however. Actually, you do. YOU made the statement that rifles could be separated into 3 piles: Hunting versus non-hunting with a third that apparently have big bird stickers on them to appeal to children (or something suitably ridiculous). I asked you for 3 examples from each group. You asked ME to do the research to prove YOUR hypothesis. Another ignorant "genius" exposed because when asked to provide the basis for opinion, you ran into the closet to search for your blankie. 1) Are you saying that gun experts, such as yourself apparently, could not make a determination with the MAJORITY of rifles made today as to whether or not the rifle is an appropriate hunting rifle? The differences in "rifles" that liberals want to ban and legal hunting rifles are mostly cosmetic. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how firearms work understands that distinction. No need to be an expert in this particular case. That being said, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting... 2)Are they all made today so that one looks like the other? No way an expert could choose a pile to put it in, is that right? Obviously not. There is a market element that exists to get people to buy rifles at premium prices because they are the ones the idiot politicians want to ban (and have driven the price up between 300-500% from pre-ban levels). I could show Diane Feinstein or Harvey Waxmen 10 different guns, all with similar across the board characteristics, and they'd want to ban the "scary" looking ones. They're apparently as smart as you are.
Bob in Mich Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Apparently then I was wrong. You win this discussion. I was completely wrong and I apologize. Is there some reason you can't carry on the discussion without being so damn condescending and insulting? Reminds me of Denniis Leary without the humor. It is a shame because it was educational there for a moment. You win, I was wrong.
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Is there some reason you can't carry on the discussion without being so damn condescending and insulting? Reminds me of Denniis Leary without the humor. It is a shame because it was educational there for a moment. Because I'm tired of people having "opinions" that aren't based on anything even remotely factual and how generally rabid they are about them. Gatorman is the prime example of today's partisan. We've generally run off most of the "died in the wool" partisan Republicans from this board but Gatorman's like an ass boil that just won't heal. I was wrong. Big points from me for being man enough to admit it, though I'm not looking for any kind of win.
Bob in Mich Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Just a followup in the lightening round, can't we tell something by the number of potential rounds or the allowance for magazines on these rifles? I mean unless you are hunting baby seals, why would a hunter need a hundred rounds? Edited July 20, 2014 by Bob in Mich
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Just a followup in the lightening round, can't we tell something by the number of potential rounds or the allowance for magazines on these rifles? I mean unless you are hunting baby seals, why would a hunter need a hundred rounds? Why does it matter? Name the last crime that was committed by someone using 100 round magazine for anything. People who want to kill people have always been able to find a way to do it. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel. The VaTech shooter used 2 pistols (a 10 round .22 caliber and a 15 round 9mm) to kill 32 people and wound 17. Changing the size of the magazine probably wouldn't have any real effect. The last time they tried a national magazine size law, the only real change was the price of larger cap mags on the used/reconditioned market. That horse has left the barn. We should be chasing the things that actually matter. The vast majority of gun violence in this country is tied to gang and drug culture. That's where the concentration should be. The gun laws currently on the books should be enforced, swiftly and without mercy on those who use firearms to injure or terrorize others. Until that happens (and it rarely does), there shouldn't be another law passed.
Tiberius Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Because I'm tired of people having "opinions" that aren't based on anything even remotely factual and how generally rabid they are about them. Gatorman is the prime example of today's partisan. We've generally run off most of the "died in the wool" partisan Republicans from this board but Gatorman's like an ass boil that just won't heal. Wow, you really are insane. This is so crazy for so many reasons. First off, your opinion about running off the partisan Republicans on this board blows up your statement that YOU are tired of people having opinions not based on facts. Holy crap how divorced from reality must you be to say something so factually wrong. I guess that's why you actually think the media really is out to get you. You think B-Man and company really are rational, thoughtful and non-biased posters. Crazy! Crazy! Crazy! 1
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 We've generally run off most of the "died in the wool" partisan Republicans from this board... Which partisan Republicans have been "run-off this board?" State facts please, name some screen names? Rich in Ohio? Even though this is PPP, I will refuse to be disrespectful to the ones I disagreed with in the past and have left us for good.
Recommended Posts