Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 151
for the gun control peoplePage 7 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

America was the FIRST country in the world founded on liberalism with the agenda of individual freedoms for all. Where people do not have to bow down to their freakin government, where you have the right to say whatever you want about them. No other country in this world can say that.

True, the US has much to be proud of in that respect, but in my country we can, and do, say whatever we want about our leaders, in the press, television and public forums. People would even verbally abuse our former Prime Minister, John Howard whilst he was on his morning exercise. We have pretty close contact with all our politicians over here. The same is true for all of the first-world democracies.


I would suggest you take a good hard long look at your own country's history, see if your country has never "wronged" anyone. If you can do that, then throw the stone, if not, well then piss off.

In this country we constantly examine ourselves, good and bad, our treatment of our indigenous population has been less than stirling to say the least. I'm also happy to be told to 'piss-off' by somebody who is capable of reason, whether I agree with them or not.


Actually, if I am not mistaken are not you from a country that was, or still is, a colony of the Brits?

Former British colony, whilst the Queen is technically our Head of State, we are a sovereign nation and probably will end up a republic in due course, the problem is, nobody can agree upon a model that won't be at risk of corruption. The system we have at the moment is not perfect, but it has very effective checks and balances.

So I thank you for a thoughtful reply, in particular your views on US (and British and French) foreign policy.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 152
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:58:41 AM

Cite?


Alright.

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10141047datingPostpage11.aspx

Notice how this guy has been for two days asking for a cite to show a threat of a total gun ban, and no one has been able to provide him with one?
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 153
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:48:45 AM

so if we were to meet on the street..and we had a discussion would you then insist that any comment I make..needs to be supported?..would you tell me to go to the library and bring back books as proof?..


If you were to make a claim such as the one in this thread, then yes, I would want some confirmation before I accepted it as fact.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 154
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:53:00 PM

Well since you seem to be anti gun


I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.

On another note, based on what I see of people in my job and my daily life, I do not want many of those people having access to a butter knife, let alone a gun.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 155
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:55:17 PM

Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families? Some may, but I'm sure the majority would not; the US is more intergrated then it was in the time of Lincoln and Davis (the Civil War).


That, however, is not an argument conducive to needing a gun. If the majority of the people with guns are on your side, then you have no need for one.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 156
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:16:31 PM
Fzrhusker brings a valid point to the table. This is more for the folks who believe that the US military will "turn" on them. Think about it, besides the Oath, every man and woman in the military is either someones father, brother, nephiew, husband, uncle, son, daughter, aunt, mother, niece, grandkid and the list goes on. Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families?


Law abiding citizens of my state have been disarmed at gun-point by the national guard on their own property while in their own homes. It can happen, and I am sure it will be attempted again.


I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.

On another note, based on what I see of people in my job and my daily life, I do not want many of those people having access to a butter knife, let alone a gun.


This is rediculous. You are saying that owning a weapon will turn a family man into some kind of Rambo killing machine. Basically, you are saying that one should not own a hammer for the use of hammering nails because if you have a hammer, you might smash your thumb. Yeah, you just might, but without a hammer, you sure as hell won't be building any cabinets. Same as with a car. With a car, you could kill/be killed, yeah? Well without one you are disadvantaged greatly in many areas. With a firearm, you also have the potential to do/recieve harm, but without one, you are powerless to stop harm from being done to you.

One word for you: Responsibility. You learn a lot about that when you get your driver's license/first dog/whatever. It should carry over.

As to the people you know who you would not trust with a butter-knife, well they have access to a 3500# missile known as a vehicle. That would worry me a lot more.

I really think you are fishing for a reason where there is not one.
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 157
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:51:00 PM

I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.


So you'd prefer to let the criminal come in, might as well open the door so that you don't have the hassel or expense of replacing the broken door frame, and taking what he wants? After he's done robbing you blind, he then starting eyeballing your wife and daughter. Are you going to hand him some rubbers so you don't risk them getting pregnant or catching an STD? OR are you going to fight back? Now if you chose to fight back and the criminal is armed, would it be smarted to be armed as well, or try to fight ball with whatever is close at hand? Protecting yourself and your loved ones is the a good reason to own a firearm. Their level of danger doesnt go up at all in a home invasion because you're aremed. And for the record, most criminals are lousy shots. You'll probably want a cite for that too. For that, I can offer my first hand observations, as well as direct you to numberous news stories where the hit ratio is horrible. There was one recently with 20rds fired and no one was hit.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 158
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:45:46 PM
This country will end the same way every other country similar to it did. The people will empower the government because they are "unable" to take care of themselves and want someone to do it for them. The government will abuse that power. We will slowly sink into economic ruin due to this, and the rest will follow as predicted. Erosion is the way of all good things, sadly I feel that prepairing for it rather than trying to prevent it is energy better spent. We can prolong, but not prevent.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 159
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 9:59:55 AM

I really think you are fishing for a reason where there is not one.


Say what you will, we both know that what I posted was right.
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 160
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 10:39:06 AM

My personal opinion, is that I believe government does have the right to REGULATE guns. For example, I would like to see the loop hole closed that allows individuals to purchase at gun shows w/o a background check.


Dealers have to perform a background check. The only people that don't have to do a background check is private sellers, because they don't have the means. Someone going to a show to sell off a few of their dads old guns isn't the problem. The problem is that the criminals aren't being punished like they should, and that you can't profile because its "racist".
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 161
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 10:46:38 PM
Say what you will, we both know that what I posted was right.


Ummm. No. It was a load of crap from someone who doesn't even own a firearm and therefor wouldn't have a clue about the emotions that go along with being able to actually defend yourself optimally (I say optimally, because a big guy with a knife is nasty, so it's not like a firearm is the ONLY weapon with which you can defend yourself, just the most effective) in your own home.

Owning a weapon turns you into some hunter-seeker killing machine just about as much as not owning a weapon turns you into a little girly-man who is scared of his own shadow. If a person is aggressive, they will go a'hunting that home intruder in their tighty-whiteys with a pocket-knife. If they are not, they would hole up in their room and lock the door even armed with an MP5.

Your logic is just as sound as if I said "Everyone with a sports car speeds, and people with econo-cars don't." We all know how much of a load of crap that is.

The point is, a firearm gives you options to defend yourself even if your physical prowess is lacking (100# female without training in hand-to-hand). Some people have the mentality that they will either be lucky and not harmed, or that their life/limb/mental health is worth less than that of their attacker. I suffer from neither. While I have no desire to shoot someone, I am glad that I have the option to do so if the situation demands it.



 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 162
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 10:56:58 PM

Dealers have to perform a background check. The only people that don't have to do a background check is private sellers, because they don't have the means. Someone going to a show to sell off a few of their dads old guns isn't the problem. The problem is that the criminals aren't being punished like they should, and that you can't profile because its "racist".


Something like less than 1% of firearms used in crimes came from gun-shows, btw.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 163
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:16:16 AM
^^^ yep, guardsmen and cops took weapons from citizens who were only interested in protecting themselves from the same scumbags who were shooting at the rescue helicopters & looting during Katrina's aftermath.

That's all good though...as our Florida firetrucks were cutting a way thru 1-10 westbound...when we found out that they were shooting at the helo's & rescue personell, we stayed in Mississippi to help there. As far as we were concerned, NO could go to Hades. Besides, the destruction in Mississippi was more than enough to keep us busy for quite awhile. Lord knows they appreciated us.

If you've ever lived in a bad neighborhood and wondered why ambulances & fire takes so long to get there...shooting at cops is one thing...shoot at rescue personnel and you get Severely Delayed Response for at least a year, if it happens twice...forget about seeing a fast response for the next decade...like, we go get a burger & a bulletproof vest before even thinking about heading that way. Then we sit OUTSIDE the neighborhood and wait for police to clear the scene before entering...and by that time the "Golden Hour" is usually half up.

Think I'm kidding?? Ride along with an FD/ambulance in a bad area in any decent-sized city. Cops go first, rescue only approach once it's SAFE...in some extreme cases, more than an hour will pass.
 bigshrek
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 164
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:40:35 AM

If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.


You MUST be Canadian. It's been my experience that most crooks adopt the "Spray & Pray" method of gunfighting. They aren't very accurate & definitly not very well trained in firearms use...even when shooting at each other. The homeowner has a DISTINCT advantage in knowing their own home...and how to defend it with a weapon they've practiced with.

Here in Florida we have what is known as the "Stand Your Ground" law...which basically means that ANYWHERE you are attacked or accosted, you may reply with deadly force...it's caused a definitive drop in our crime rates over the last ten years. We also have Concealed Carry permits, which folks take a class & are instructed on how to properly use their guns to drop a bad guy in his tracks. We also have the IDPA & IPSC, which each train people monthly at our ranges to defend themselves & their families against attackers, whether on the streets or in their homes. We have some of the most highly trained civilians in the world...many of whom are retired military and were already proficient in firearms use before looking at home defense. Finally, we have 10-20-LIFE, which punishes those who use guns during the commission of a crime with manditory minimum sentences, 10 for Having a gun during a crime, 20 for Firing it, even if it doesn't hit anyone, and LIFE if a bullet strikes anyone, even if it doesn't kill them. And we are the 3rd highest user of the Death Penalty for those who kill.

Intelligent laws & well-trained citizsens make for less crooks...one way or the other. Attrition works.

----

On another note, guns are used for MORE than just home defense, they're also used to keep predatory animals at bay.


(CNN) -- A rising Canadian folk singer was killed by coyotes this week in a national park in Nova Scotia, a park spokesman said Thursday.

Taylor Mitchell, 19, was at the beginning of the Skyline Trail in Cape Breton Highlands National Park on Tuesday afternoon when she was attacked, according to Chip Bird, the Parks Canada field unit superintendent for Cape Breton.

Bird said hikers saw the coyotes attacking Mitchell and called 911. She was airlifted to a hospital in Halifax, where she died about 12 hours later, he said.


If Canucks were allowed to carry pistols, that young lady would likely be alive & healthy. Of course, realizing that the Wilderness is WILD might have also helped, she should have been hiking in a GROUP with at least one big guy & a shilelagh ;)

Thinking nature is like Disney is often a fatal error...predators WILL kill you, given a chance, because humans are slow and easy prey...when unarmed.

 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 165
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:13:45 AM
^^^Training, training, training. Its been said many times on this forum. Your statements also so your ignorance about fighting with knives, bats and the like. In an advanced knife fighting class designed for LEOs the instructor had everyone put on white tshirts and gave a young kid a a red marker. The students had to keep from getting "cut". Not one of them was able to. If someone come at you with a knife, its going to be nasty. If they use a bad, the likely hood of you getting a broken bone or being knocked out is highly likely. How much are you going to be able to fight back after having an arm broke, or a serious cut? If someone has a gun pointed at you, the object isn't trying to draw and shoot them before they can shoot you. The best thing to do is to try and disarm them. It can be done, but it takes training
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 166
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:28:53 PM

You MUST be Canadian. It's been my experience that most crooks adopt the "Spray & Pray" method of gunfighting. They aren't very accurate & definitly not very well trained in firearms use...even when shooting at each other. The homeowner has a DISTINCT advantage in knowing their own home...and how to defend it with a weapon they've practiced with.


Yes, I am Canadian, and proud of it.

It's been my experience that many people with guns think they are skilled with them, and suffer the consequences for that false presumption when trying to defend their home against the supposedly inferior and disadvantaged crook.


On another note, guns are used for MORE than just home defense, they're also used to keep predatory animals at bay.


There aren't many predatory animals in urban North America, where you'll find the majority of pistol owners.


If Canucks were allowed to carry pistols, that young lady would likely be alive & healthy.


You do not know the circumstances about the attack, so you don't know if she would have lived if she had a pistol.

Also, it is quite shameful of those of you who are exploiting this tragedy to push your agenda on these forums.
 DaveInMableton
Joined: 6/2/2008
Msg: 167
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:10:50 PM

There aren't many predatory animals in urban North America, where you'll find the majority of pistol owners.


There are plenty of predatory animals in all urban areas in North America. Muggers, Gang members, people that break into houses. These are all predators that prey on people. Their intended victims being allowed to have guns just means there will likely be fewer predators in the future

Many people in the some parts of the U.S. are starting to wake up to this fact and are starting to fight back against the government slowly taking away our rights, including the right to carry a gun.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 168
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:20:31 PM

There aren't many predatory animals in urban North America, where you'll find the majority of pistol owners.


While the post above mine outlines things very well with reguards to crime, yes there ARE predatory animals in urban America. As we further turn natural habitat to shopping mall, we are having more and more coyotes, etc. in urban America. However, the greatest issue comes from feral dogs/dogs let run wild. It seems every year they maul/kill some jogger, whatnot, and every year, you read where another, better prepaired jogger, shot them/fended them off with a handgun. There are plenty of animals in urban America that might need killin', and not just the 2-legged variety.
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 169
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:23:13 PM

^^ Did you notice how I listed 'RUN' as the first option in my ways of avoiding being wounded/killed when confronted by someone with a knife, bat, or other non-gun weapon? Unless the person had a weapon that could hit me at distance, my first response would be to get away from the person so that they could not reach me with it. This could not be done if the assailant has a gun. Thanks for assuming that I am overly brave/stupid, but disarming would be my last choice, regardless of the type of weapon.

As for the knife-fighting exercise, they showed you how difficult it is to avoid injury so that you would NOT get into a knife fight in the first place. Even if you 'win', then you are still almost certainly going to be seriously injured. I am well aware of this, and have no intention of attempting to disarm someone with a knife. However, assuming that I was aware that someone with a knife was intending me harm, then running may be effective. If they had a gun, running would not.

Let's say that you absolutely had no choice but to disarm the assailant. Which would you rather they have: A gun that they can shoot you with before you can even get to them and that will most likely cause serious or incapacitating bodily harm the very first use? Or a knife or a bat that they must get within a few feet to use AND causes less damage?

My example of the 'showdown' was also mainly in contradiction to the assertion that guns are justified because those without physical prowess can use them to protect themselves. While this is true, it works both ways. Someone who would be physically incapable of defending themselves against a stronger/faster aggressor COULD use a gun to defend themselves, but they COULD also use that same gun to victimize a stronger/faster person.

In addition, I was pointing out that having a gun would not aide you should you find yourself already faced with a drawn gun. I do not, and did not, believe that you should 'shoot them before they shoot you'. I was, in fact, ridiculing that mentality by pointing out that life is not a movie. If the assailant is dumb enough to stand next to you, and you are trained to disarm them.....then having a gun yourself would have no effect on your chances of success. If the assailant is not standing within arms reach, then you really don't have much of a chance. If you know of some secret way to disarm a gun-wielding attacker from distance (that is not from a movie), feel free to share.


Running isn't always an option, they can still chase after you, you shouldn't have to run anyway, and what about any family and friends (or date) that you're with? Are you just going to leave them to fend for themselves? Thats pretty cowardly. As far as what I would prefer the person to have, it would honestly depend on the person. The average confrontation happens at only a few feet apart. A bat can do A LOT of damage. I personally know someone who had to have half his face reconstructed and lost an eye from one hit. Most people don't know how to use a knife for offensive/defensive purposes and while I have been trained for disarming someone with a knife as well, I don't feel as comfortable doing that as I would disarming someone with a firearm.

Your statement about someone using a firearm to victimize a stronger person seems to be putting the blame on the gun. Its nothing more than a tool. That same person can use a variety of other means to do harm to those (s)he wishes to. I also can't figure out why you don't believe in shooting the criminal before he shoots you (given the oppritunity). You're faced with deadly force. I'm not going to give the criminal a chance to try and kill me before reacting. Again, I'll say that most confrontations happen very close. If its not quite in arms reach, there's ways to close the gap while not appearing aggressive. You obviously don't have the mindset to fight back so its really pointless to go into any detail about it, but it can be done. Most criminals are cowards anyway, and don't know how to handle someone that doesn't give into what they want
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 170
for the gun control people
Posted: 10/31/2009 10:38:01 PM
This entire anti-gun attitude stems from a lack of self-confidence in one's self to properly use a firearm, the desire to consolidate power, or lack of confidence in one's fellow human being. Period. No other argument exists for being against firearm ownership.

Conversely, ownership of a firearm could also be claimed to stem from lack of confidence in one's fellow human being as well, but in this scenario the fear of one's contemporarys moral compass being "off" is also acompanied by a marked lack of under-estimation of that person's capability and hence the desire to become armed ones self.

I am confident in my own competance with a weapon, have no desire to see power consolidated among a police/government state, and am reticent to underestimate the criminal mind, as opposed to being insecure and/or fearful of my fellow man/woman and adopting a less pro-active stance towards countering any possible ill works they may have plotted, as many "anti-gunners" have done.

After cutting through the PC and smoke and mirrors, arguments against firearms can be distilled to these key points unless one wishes to talk economics or something else remote.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 171
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 11/1/2009 11:36:12 AM
I haven't read the whole thread but I'd guess someone brought up the utterly irrelevant claims of Professor Kleck. There is a simple way to break down the efficacy of gun control. The United States has the most unfettered access to firearms in the developed world and unequivocally has the greatest gun violence problem in the developed world. Period. When that statistical reality changes get back to us, K?
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 172
for the gun control people
Posted: 11/1/2009 11:48:46 AM
I haven't read the whole thread but I'd guess someone brought up the utterly irrelevant claims of Professor Kleck. There is a simple way to break down the efficacy of gun control. The United States has the most unfettered access to firearms in the developed world and unequivocally has the greatest gun violence problem in the developed world. Period. When that statistical reality changes get back to us, K?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
Comparing the two tables will show a few holes in your theory.

I would direct you to look at the rate of crime/firearm related murders in Columbia. America has more guns than them, so what happened to your theory? Are you going to tell me America has more gun-violence than Columbia, or are you going to tell me that Columbia is "not part of the developed world"?

Basically, what I am telling you, is that I am not going to curb my rights (or support the curbing of others) just because you have decided to tell me that inanimate objects are causing crime. Sorry. You are free to not own a weapon, and I will remain free to own them.

When the chips are down, you are going to either sit there and take what is in store for you, or call the cops and hope they drive fast. I prefer the non-helpless route. Not that it will work for me, but the odds sure are better. I mean, would I rather call someone with a gun who is 15 mintues away and from what I have seen, not nearly as proficient with it to defend myself, or reach over and grab my own, in a time of need? That's like saying you will call your brother from 15 minutes across town to come cook supper for you instead of learning to cook yourself and buying a spatula. Not nearly as serious of course, but it makes just as much sense.

Oh, and before you say "I am lucky and crime doesn't happen to me/in my area" or whatever variation, what happened to your opinion that our country was so bad and violent? Surely you aren't going to pull the whole "I feel safe" thing after telling me how horrible crime is in this country, right?
 FL CO
Joined: 12/23/2008
Msg: 173
view profile
History
for the gun control people
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:52:24 PM
^^^They don't realize how dangerous a knife is. Inside of 21' someone with a knife is concidered a lethal threat. As you mentioned, when trying to disarm someone with a knife, its very likely that you will get seriously hurt. With a firearm, you can possible prevent them from even firing, or only allow them to get off one shot. This is where training comes in. Learning how to maneuver yourself and the firearm so that you can disarm them and not get shot in the process.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 174
for the gun control people
Posted: 11/1/2009 10:35:04 PM
Unlike in the movies, most GSW's are not fatal occurances. Nor do they knock you back 15 feet and make you do a backflip. Nor is a shotgun going to hit everything in the room, it must be aimed. Nor is someone likely to hit someone running, 50 yards away, with their pistol aiming it sideways (or properly, for that matter, in most hands), nor is shooting something 800m distant easy (multiple cross-winds, etc. etc. etc.).

So much myth about guns and gun ownership out there spread by those who decry them, yet know absolutely nothing but what the media rams down their gaping maws.
 hornyjj
Joined: 6/8/2009
Msg: 175
for the gun control people
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:26:02 PM
We'll see how good of an idea that was when your nephew or friends kid comes over and shoots you with it... Guns have ONE ethical use, to shoot animals for food. And i'm sorry, but a handgun isn't your best option. If you have a hunting RIFLE, that is acceptable. The only handguns that should be allowed are the ones the police carry, and i know because i am one myslef, that it is ONLY there to stop people from using guns.. Gee who'd have thunkd that eh!
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED