Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Facepalm:

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 6:40pm
Originally posted by Lightningbolt Lightningbolt wrote:

I did read the article and you balled yourself into a "Yep, having access to a weapon sure helped this guy." post.  . I guess I took yours wrong. The article never states that she tried to attack him with the axe but rather used it for entry.  To me it could seem that he made a terrible mistake and shouldn't own a gun either.


I bolded the edit you made to your post so there would be no doubt what I was referring to when I posted the following from the first line of the article:  "Authorities say a dentist was defending himself when he shot and wounded his estranged wife who had attacked him with a pickax."
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 6:40pm
The point of my post is that many people aren't trained to own guns.

At this present time formal training is not required to own a gun(that I know of)

When you gun owners decide to realize that not everyone is as well trained as others, you will realize why certain guns should be banned.

I am all for guns, I love them. They are fun as hell. Should everyone be allowed to own them? No.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


We might as well ban knives while we're at it. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


Yes, because guns and knives are exactly the same...




while they obviously are not, i do think it is a somewhat valid point about where we should make a line.

both do have perfectly good legitamate uses and both can be used to kill people.

the AWB seems to me to be based on a premise that lends itself quite easily to a slippery slope, exactly where should the line be drawn?
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 7:01pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

The point of my post is that many people aren't trained to own guns.

At this present time formal training is not required to own a gun(that I know of)

When you gun owners decide to realize that not everyone is as well trained as others, you will realize why certain guns should be banned.

I am all for guns, I love them. They are fun as hell. Should everyone be allowed to own them? No.
 
Here in MI CCW requirements are a joke.  Most classes last one day and you're on your way.  My club offers a 2 week course with an entire day of class devoted to law and there are still a TON of jokers that got certified that shouldn't even look at a gun.   I used to help instruct basic until I couldn't take the dangerous environment any longer. I'm talking about bullets accidentally being fired and bouncing off of walls, barracades, floors etc.  There has to be a better way of screening.  I'll take whatever tests they want me to.  Deepen the requirements heavily.


Edited by Lightningbolt - 27 February 2009 at 7:05pm
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 7:02pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


Yes, because guns and knives are exactly the same...




while they obviously are not, i do think it is a somewhat valid point about where we should make a line.

both do have perfectly good legitamate uses and both can be used to kill people.

the AWB seems to me to be based on a premise that lends itself quite easily to a slippery slope, exactly where should the line be drawn?


Yes, there is a slippery slope once we start in on "dangerous things."

But the very same reasons why guns are qualitatively better weapons for self-defense than knives are the reasons why they are qualitatively worse in the hands of baddies, and therefore qualitatively of more interest for regulation.

Moreover, guns are instant escalators - unlike knives.

Take the old guy challenging the repo man. If he runs out to stop the thief with a knife/bat/frying pan, the repo man would have the option of backing off, deescalating, or taking other non-lethal action.

When the old man comes up with a gun, the situation instantly escalates all the way to death.

If I have a knife in my hand, you don't necessarily feel threatened unless I am close. If I have a gun in my hand, I am instantly and automatically a lethal threat to everybody within eyesight.

So while I recognize the slippery slope, I feel comfortable drawing a sharp line between knives and firearms.

The line I do NOT fully accept, however, is the line between rifles and sawed-off shotguns and machineguns, or between machine guns and RPGs, mortars, flamethrowers, and other higher-order anti-personnel weapons.

That distinction strikes me as more arbitrary, and I always wonder why the gun lobby is prepared to settle for handguns and rifles without pushing for deregulation of those other weapons.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


We might as well ban knives while we're at it. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


Yes, because guns and knives are exactly the same...





And yet another joke missed by Peter.

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 7:11pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:




And yet another joke missed by Peter.


Alas, it will not be the last.



"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 7:17pm
I honestly thought you of all people on the forum, would get the Bobbit picture, but can't always be right.

Edited by Linus - 27 February 2009 at 7:18pm

Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 10:38pm
to young... that happened when i was 5 and i think im a few years ahead of most of the forum.

upstate NY is a little more lax, i knew many people who would get bear permits to carry a pistol. (not sure exactly but they said a bear permit let you open carry anywhere in the area, one lady worked as a social worker in Rochester and would carry a small revolver for protection.)

state of NY
"A license to possess a handgun serves also as a license to carry unless restricted. If there are no restrictions written on the license, the licensee is permitted to carry a handgun, loaded or unloaded, concealed, on or about his person. An applicant for a license to carry must be required to show, in addition to the requirement for possession, that "proper cause exists" for the issuance of such a license; for example, for target shooting, hunting, or self-defense. The license can be amended to include one or more additional or different handguns. The licensee is required to carry the license on his person at all times when carrying a handgun. Possession of any "loaded" rifle or shotgun in a vehicle is illegal. A loaded handgun may be carried in a vehicle by a properly licensed individual. ("Loaded" means loaded in magazine or chamber. A loaded handgun means one for which the person possesses ammunition.)"

(if you have the ammo it is considered loaded, if you have a permit you can have a box laying next to the handgun or 1 in the chamber)

if you guys have the money for an AR go ahead and buy one. they are selling a few hundred dollars over what they should right now and if a ban passes 2-3 years into it they will probably be worth 2500-3500$...

make sure you get a folding stock.

Edited by merc - 28 February 2009 at 9:01am
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 February 2009 at 11:38pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


Yes, because guns and knives are exactly the same...




while they obviously are not, i do think it is a somewhat valid point about where we should make a line.

both do have perfectly good legitamate uses and both can be used to kill people.

the AWB seems to me to be based on a premise that lends itself quite easily to a slippery slope, exactly where should the line be drawn?


Yes, there is a slippery slope once we start in on "dangerous things."

But the very same reasons why guns are qualitatively better weapons for self-defense than knives are the reasons why they are qualitatively worse in the hands of baddies, and therefore qualitatively of more interest for regulation.

Moreover, guns are instant escalators - unlike knives.

Take the old guy challenging the repo man. If he runs out to stop the thief with a knife/bat/frying pan, the repo man would have the option of backing off, deescalating, or taking other non-lethal action.

When the old man comes up with a gun, the situation instantly escalates all the way to death.

If I have a knife in my hand, you don't necessarily feel threatened unless I am close. If I have a gun in my hand, I am instantly and automatically a lethal threat to everybody within eyesight.

So while I recognize the slippery slope, I feel comfortable drawing a sharp line between knives and firearms.

The line I do NOT fully accept, however, is the line between rifles and sawed-off shotguns and machineguns, or between machine guns and RPGs, mortars, flamethrowers, and other higher-order anti-personnel weapons.

That distinction strikes me as more arbitrary, and I always wonder why the gun lobby is prepared to settle for handguns and rifles without pushing for deregulation of those other weapons.
 
I think the difference is in regulation, as I stated earlier. The tools are readily available for law enforcement to deal with a firearm, there are NOT however systems in place for the local police force to deal with, lets say, an RPG attack on a grocery store.
 
While a rifle may be capable of spreading mass destruction, it is only capable in trained hands. There are few people who can stand up to a trained police force with an assault rifle and come out on top.
 
And I think that brings us back to the knives argument. While on the technical side yes there's a world of difference between a knife and a firearm, a knife is still a weapon in its own right. There are many people capable of doing more with a knife than most average joes could with a concealed firearm. While a knife isn't good at a distance (for some :P), it's FAR more concealable and deadly at a close range. There have been many people stabbed in a crowd where no one ever caught the person who did it. That is much more difficult and near impossible with a firearm.
 
So again, it all comes back to the ability for local police to enforce the law and respond to threats.
 
 
Back to Top
Frozen Balls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10

Joined: 14 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frozen Balls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 12:24am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Good. Maybe they all will develop $500/day drug habits and quit working for $.50 an hour. Or they'll all be so smacked out of their minds that they wont be able to climb fences anymore.



This wins best quote ever.

Back to Top
Frozen Balls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10

Joined: 14 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frozen Balls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 12:27am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.


How will it make society less safe if they aren't banned?



Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

The point of my post is that many people aren't trained to own guns.

At this present time formal training is not required to own a gun(that I know of)

When you gun owners decide to realize that not everyone is as well trained as others, you will realize why certain guns should be banned.

I am all for guns, I love them. They are fun as hell. Should everyone be allowed to own them? No.


Yes, because for the last 400 years people have required extensive training to safely own a firearm.
It's not that hard.



Edited by Frozen Balls - 28 February 2009 at 12:35am

Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 1:34am
Originally posted by Frozen Balls Frozen Balls wrote:

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.


How will it make society less safe if they aren't banned?


 
I'm not sure what type of response you were going for with that one, but I can't make sense of it. Your X-box doesn't make society safer, therefore lets get rid of it?
 
The argument was why assault weapons make society UNSAFE. Nobody ever said they make things any safer, but my question was for someone to show me an intelligent reason why banning assault weapons will make society safer, and not one person has been able to answer that. You can talk around the subject all you want, but I'm fairly confident the answer to that question doesn't exist.
 
Bear in mind if you can show me proof, I'm not unwilling to change my stance. But I have yet to see that in my years of weapons discussions, both in person and on the internet. Most of what you see are people who are either gun fanatics who think their AR-15 will stop the coming apocalypse, or those who think that guns are all equipped with baby skull seeking bullets. The gun debate is a true circus in every sense of the word.
Back to Top
Frozen Balls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10

Joined: 14 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frozen Balls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 1:37am
So I just re-read that, and turns out I was agreeing with you. I just can't read.

I drove 400 miles today after drinking until 4am yesterday. 32 ounces of red bull is the only thing keeping me alive right now.

Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 5:15am
Ceeseman762 both, either.

I shoot surplus Chicom, surplus Soviet, modern Russian, locally made South African mil spec, S&B from Czech, hell even a couple of boxes of Cor Bon JSP's.

Generally from an AK-47 style weapon. I've shot a couple quality weapons like Sagia's and a custom bolt rifle, but mostly from a 1952 milled Russian AK.

Anyone who says you can't hit a running coyote with an AK at 300m has never learnt to use use an AK.

Both the AK 47 style weapon platform and the 7.62x39mm are very good for many things besides shooting up a McDonalds.

KBK

Edited by Kayback - 28 February 2009 at 5:20am
Back to Top
JohnnyCanuck View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
In soviet Canuckistan...

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1361
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JohnnyCanuck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 10:53am
Originally posted by Ceesman762 Ceesman762 wrote:



Assault Rifle in NYC.  Can any one tell me why?  Cookie to the first!


It's not the bayonet at all, it's the shoes.
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 11:58am
Originally posted by stratoaxe

I have a challenge-

Give me one way in which the assault weapons ban will make society safer. Cookies to anybody who can answer that.
 
 
Mathematically it could be twisted to show that it would make society safer or not safer.  Less guns=less bullets flying in the air.  Less guns in law abiding citizens hands=more bullets flying in the air because criminals know that people are unarmed. 
 
I personally think that it would be better for extensive training for some types of gun ownership but then it gets into a whole different set of problems of how to classify again. Example; CCW holders would have the most requirements,  but does the farmer need any training to pop an occasional rabbit with a 22 because it gets into his vegetable garden and he like's rabbit stew?  I happen to dislike the strengthening in the government with particular attention being paid to what is going on RIGHT NOW and in asking for more requirements for gun ownership I'm asking to open the flood gates of government infringement on "My rights".   More government control will ultimately result in nothing but bad news. 
 
It's human nature to play both sides of the coin.  Funniest thing in existance.
 
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 1:35pm

There's really no practical way at this point to require training for firearm owners, as the number of owners out there would simply exceed the number of dollars we could afford for such a program.

And then we get back to the point that felons with guns arent going to submit themselves to government training for a weapon they'll never be allowed to own.
 
I think the goal of this country should be less focused on limiting the types of guns that law abiding citizens can own, and getting the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
 
This of course is very daunting task, so it's much easier to continually punish the legal owners who are easily tracked and persuaded, and to an even more ridicuou extent, make gun makes liable for people who legally weren't supposed to own a gun to begin with. The anti-gun movement is, and always has been, an excercise in futility and fantasy. You are, in all practicality, not going to get guns off the streets. So it's a much easier route to get them out of the hands of legal gun owners, then when someone's murdered with a firearm the government can shrug and say we did what we could.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 8:39pm
Originally posted by Frozen Balls Frozen Balls wrote:


Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

The point of my post is that many people aren't trained to own guns.

At this present time formal training is not required to own a gun(that I know of)

When you gun owners decide to realize that not everyone is as well trained as others, you will realize why certain guns should be banned.

I am all for guns, I love them. They are fun as hell. Should everyone be allowed to own them? No.


Yes, because for the last 400 years people have required extensive training to safely own a firearm.
It's not that hard.




Really, that's your stance?

You are seriously going to tell me that most gun owners shouldn't go through more training?

Did I say it was hard at all?

People like the article I linked have NO BUSINESS owning a gun to use it for self defense, unless they are trained on more about when to actually bring the gun out.

He got shot because people were outside messing with his car. Hell he could have stayed inside and called the cops....
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 February 2009 at 9:58pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by Frozen Balls Frozen Balls wrote:


Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

The point of my post is that many people aren't trained to own guns.

At this present time formal training is not required to own a gun(that I know of)

When you gun owners decide to realize that not everyone is as well trained as others, you will realize why certain guns should be banned.

I am all for guns, I love them. They are fun as hell. Should everyone be allowed to own them? No.


Yes, because for the last 400 years people have required extensive training to safely own a firearm.
It's not that hard.




Really, that's your stance?

You are seriously going to tell me that most gun owners shouldn't go through more training?

Did I say it was hard at all?

People like the article I linked have NO BUSINESS owning a gun to use it for self defense, unless they are trained on more about when to actually bring the gun out.

He got shot because people were outside messing with his car. Hell he could have stayed inside and called the cops....
 
then possibly hauled rectum out a door or window on the opposite side of the house.  Not sure if this would be the right move but forcing confrontation is the dumbest thing possible.  I think at the point the car was broke into I'd have to assume the house would be next. 
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.