Quantcast

Guns don't kill people......

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
I will Reconcile those 2 arguments with TWO, count them TWO typed of guns, I'll even get crazy with a 3rd
1) Guns are for defending my family, home and nation- that would be defensive firearms, see glocks and AR15s
2) Guns are not for killing or harming people- Those would be target guns
3) Guns are for killing animals- Those are called hunting guns
I'm going to jump in again, because I just was in a town where everyone seems to own a gun.

The first kind of guns we need to regulate, and California does do a lot of that.

I've fired TheMontashu's target rifle, and the idea of using it to kill someone, well, I would better off hitting you over the head with the stock.

Hunting rifles are certain lethal, but the reality is the average gangbanger is not pulling out a Remington 700 bolt action and doing drive bys. (Of course, there will be another Texas Tower shortly after I write this). But the Mooshoo's father pointed out to me that Gov Brown has signed a bill requiring new rifles after 2014 to be registered just like handguns. It seems excessive to me, given how few murders there are with rifles.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Getting high doesn't inherently kill anyone. At worst maybe just the user. But you know what outlawing coke DOES do? It keeps people from busting out lines in public (well VISIBLY in non-club public), and having a very casual approach to its use. Not everyone, but most. So that DOES accomplish at least the awareness that if you're high as shlt, you're doing something illegal and should probably watch yourself. Does it keep anything bad happening from someone high on coke? No. But I guarantee you it would be worse if it were completely legal.

You can teach all the behavioral things you want. And you know who that will affect? Almost solely the people who weren't going to go shoot up crowded spaces anyway. Until it becomes a stigma to be walking around with something that can kill someone in a millisecond (and is designed only to put holes in things), there will be no penalty for easily getting ahold of firearms. There will be no reason to think anything is out of the ordinary when Shelley Shannon, Shawna Ford, Scott Roeder, Jared Lee Loughner, the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Seung-Hui Cho show off them's collection. But none of those people stood out because they had guns. Because hey, weez in the states, that means freedom! That's a problem. Do you understand that?

You act like wanting to curb gun enthusiasm and easy availability is some revolutionary idea. This WORKS in other countries. It's not a theory.

But FIGHTING for the right to carry pistols into bars, and FIGHTING for the need to bring guns into national parks, and FIGHTING for the right to make any damn thing available that shoots in this country is retarded. THAT's my big gripe with the NRA. You obviously didn't understand my previous post stating that it would be in their best interest to side with more logical controls. Instead they decided to go full bore with all guns, all the time, everywhere. And because of that the first time offender who can legally go buy any damn gun he wants, can still follow the law up until the last second when someone or several people die. Yeah keep fighting for that. It's awesome.

And I never said it did. Quit arguing against things I'm not even saying. All I'm AM saying is that a reduction in incidents is worth achieving.
Your argument, particular mentioning Klebold & Harris, reminds me of the NRA convention held in Denver 2 weeks after the Colombine shooting.

The best that the NRA could do was cancel most of the convention and say they were sorry.

Yeah, I like to explode dynamite, drive my car 150mph, and a bunch of other dangerous things. I like to think I would survive, but I know if we had no laws controlling these actions, people would drop like flies.

While I think people should be allowed guns, if we changed the culture as well as the laws, I'm not against that either.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,524
494
Im over here now
Don't blame me. I put the meusheu on ignore. I can't even decipher some of his posts! If he was my kid I'd take him for a long car ride, drop him off and just make a new one.
soon everyone will be on your ignore list and no one will notice and or care
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
...and the stupid shall inherent the Internet...
I'm just smart enough to understand where semantics disconnect from reality. Would you not agree that a .50 is probably the most deadly round there is? I mean, hell guys in the military have made kills at 2000+ yards. Has there been a SINGLE crime commented with one? Nope! They are sever thousand dollars, heavy and slow to set up/shoot. It's actually easier to used a car in allot of ways, and there are more vehicular homicides than ones with target specific rifles, and 50's combined. You're missing the whole point where just because it shoots a bullet and yes, sure can kill as well as another bullet. If you look at the facts though, they are too heavy, slow to shoot, and extensive to be used in crimes, ever probably.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I'm just smart enough to understand where semantics disconnect from reality. Would you not agree that a .50 is probably the most deadly round there is? I mean, hell guys in the military have made kills at 2000+ yards. Has there been a SINGLE crime commented with one? Nope! They are sever thousand dollars, heavy and slow to set up/shoot. It's actually easier to used a car in allot of ways, and there are more vehicular homicides than ones with target specific rifles, and 50's combined. You're missing the whole point where just because it shoots a bullet and yes, sure can kill as well as another bullet. If you look at the facts though, they are too heavy, slow to shoot, and extensive to be used in crimes, ever probably.
****, dude, I never said anything about gun control or crime.

Edit: Let me clarify. I never advocated gun control or basing gun control on types of guns, which seems to be your focus here.
 
Last edited:

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
No you've been sitting here saying my .22 is as deadly as my glock. Yes it can kill, but it's incredibly impractical and the idea that it's actually meant to/for and or great for killing like you guys have been saying is absurd
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
No you've been sitting here saying my .22 is as deadly as my glock. Yes it can kill, but it's incredibly impractical and the idea that it's actually meant to/for and or great for killing like you guys have been saying is absurd
Jesus, read what I write for once.

You are still doing what we noted before--putting words into others' mouths so you can make your canned Internet argument. If you calm down from thumbing through your "NRA Guide to Online Interaction" you'll notice I never equated the killing ability of various firearms, just mentioned that they were good at killing. I don't carry a 22 LR because it's less effective for my purposes than the ones I do carry. But that 22 LR is still a pretty good way to kill, human or animal, if you have to do it. Note I didn't say to win a two-way gunfight, or achieve fire superiority in an Australian peel, or clear a room...I just said to kill something. Putting a chunk of fast-moving 22 lead into a person has proven itself quite fatal.
1) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury

2) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury

3) Shoot someone with it and they will be in serious danger of death or grave bodily injury


Everyone here understands that some guns are much better at killing people than others. But your strenuous argument that the purpose/features/ergonomics of some guns makes them less deadly is completely missing the point. All guns are good at killing even if some are better than others.

Not mass murder, not hunting, just "killing" in the abstract. Go shoot yourself in the face with a single-shot Hammerli and tell me it's not good at killing. Oh, wait, you can't, because you would be dead.
 
Last edited:

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
Jesus, read what I write for once.
I read that, but you have contradicted yourself more than once here. I'm also not discussing BS semantics like I have said before. Yes a .22 will kill you, no a target rifle is not an effective weapon. Or a weapon at all in my mind, as it was never intended to be one, and from all I can tell aren't really used for that. If a target gun was made to put holes in paper an 99% of them are used to do just that, then how and when and where is it ever a weapon???
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,669
1,713
chez moi
I read that, but you have contradicted yourself more than once here. I'm also not discussing BS semantics like I have said before. Yes a .22 will kill you, no a target rifle is not an effective weapon. Or a weapon at all in my mind, as it was never intended to be one, and from all I can tell aren't really used for that. If a target gun was made to put holes in paper an 99% of them are used to do just that, then how and when and where is it ever a weapon???
I said they were good at killing. That's true.

You are the one doing cartwheels over the definition of a "weapon," a word I never used.

Yet I am the one involved in "BS semantics."

Eat a **** sandwich, kid. Later!
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
I said they were good at killing. That's true.

You are the one doing cartwheels over the definition of a "weapon," a word I never used.

Yet I am the one involved in "BS semantics."

Eat a **** sandwich, kid. Later!
And my response is, if they are so good at killing, why doesn't any one kill with them?

I'm not at all, I just grew up as a target shooter, and understand the distinct difference between an anchutz and an AR, in both design and intended use.

I will as soon as you remove what ever large object is causing your butt to be hurt
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
I'm not at all, I just grew up as a target shooter, and understand the distinct difference between an anchutz and an AR, in both design and intended use.
Shut up.

What's a black gun "sniper rifle"? Black gun usually refers to AR variants. The closest thing to an AR variant I have seen as a sniper rifle is an M14,
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
that's 1 out of how many gun deaths???? Doctors and cars still have air guns beat by 100000 fold, so do knives
This is the subtlety of gun discussions.

Yes, guns kill. Yes, any gun can kill.

You can argue that cars kill as well, but that's not the purpose of cars.

But if you delve deeper into gun arguments, certain types of guns are used much more in murders than others.

But it is a subtlety that is missed by many anti-gun advocates.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
23
SF, CA
I will Reconcile those 2 arguments with TWO, count them TWO typed of guns, I'll even get crazy with a 3rd
1) Guns are for defending my family, home and nation- that would be defensive firearms, see glocks and AR15s
2) Guns are not for killing or harming people- Those would be target guns
3) guns are for killing animals- Those are called hunting guns
So you agree that you have no constitutional right to own #2. ****, you're even arguing that you don't have a constitutional right to own #3. That's WAY more anti-gun than I'd ever argue.
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
So you agree that you have no constitutional right to own #2. ****, you're even arguing that you don't have a constitutional right to own #3. That's WAY more anti-gun than I'd ever argue.
Just as much as we have no constitutional right to own a TV. If the argument holds true that they are in fact not intended to be (or very often used as) weapons then people having them or not should be a non issue and falls into the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" (stuff) banner

If you want to look at the intent of the second amendment, I would argue that it's to protect ourselves from the government as much as anything, and by that logic we should be aloud to own a tommy gun to mow down the man. I'm trying to be a little more realistic than that