[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38900441]He's not here to discuss, he's here to make sweeping, ignorant generalizations and spout nonsense, all the while ignoring sensible individuals who tell him why he's wrong and making hyperbolic statements and spouting nonsense because he can't seem to stand or comprehend the fact that someone else uses guns for something he doesn't.[/QUOTE]
lol so because I think guns shouldn't be used against humans in a civilian setting, I spout nonsense?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38900238]An assault rifle has more utility than a cannon. Its a bad comparison, since cannons aren't used to hunt or recreation.[/QUOTE]
You've inspired me: I'm going to go hunting with a cannon. :v:
everybody else here has only been calling me an idiot and picking out technicalities, dodging the real issue of "guns are bad"
[QUOTE=zydos;38900478]lol so because I think guns shouldn't be [b]used against humans in a civilian setting[/b], I spout nonsense?[/QUOTE]
What the fuck? We [i]don't![/i] You don't think we take people and use them as targets at the shooting range, do you? :o
I've gone hunting with a cannon before, you load it up with steel shot and it's just like a giant shotgun. you'll reach your bag limit quick hunting goose or quail with a cannon
[QUOTE=zydos;38900478]lol so because I think guns shouldn't be used against humans in a civilian setting, I spout nonsense?[/QUOTE]
literally nobody here has ever said or even implied that guns [i]should[/i] be used against humans in a civilian setting
you could make millions if you started selling these strawmen
[QUOTE=zydos;38900489]everybody else here has only been calling me an idiot and picking out technicalities, dodging the real issue of "guns are bad"[/QUOTE]
Well they're not, and we've pointed out many times why they're not.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38900238]An assault rifle has more utility than a cannon. [B]Its a bad comparison, since cannons aren't used to hunt or recreation.[/B][/QUOTE]
HOGWASH
[url]http://www.buckstix.com/HowitzerHunt.htm[/url]
ILL HUNT WITH A CANNON IF I WANT
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38900496]I've gone hunting with a cannon before, you load it up with steel shot and it's just like a giant shotgun. you'll reach your bag limit quick hunting goose or quail with a cannon[/QUOTE]
Ha! [i]Bag limit![/i] :v:
[QUOTE=zydos;38900385]THE cannon, not the Chinese firework-launcher, if that needed to be cleared up
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
looooool
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
America[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, did your parents ever teach you decency? Because if they did, they did a shitty job at it.
[QUOTE=cccritical;38900256]a few have been arguing a straight up ban on all guns based ONLY on what they were originally intended for, and completely ignored any counter arguments, such as: 'it's possible to use something for reasons other than its intended purpose' and 'you're using several dozen things right now in ways that they weren't originally meant to be used, how are guns any different'[/QUOTE]
A straight up ban is unfeasible and ill-advised, however regulation is entirely possible. an Assault weapons ban comes down (should come down to) to evaluating the necessity of owning an FN-FAL or similar weapon to the intended purpose, which doesn't really meld unless you plan to invade the Falklands. I'm sure we have vastly different ideas about freedom and the ownership of firearms being a 'right' but there has to be a point at which your draw the line and say 'this is absurdly unnecessary'
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38900509]I'm sorry, did your parents ever teach you decency? Because if they did, they did a shitty job at it.[/QUOTE]
I think he mastered it, then got dropped on his head...
[QUOTE=zydos;38900478]lol so because I think guns shouldn't be used against humans in a civilian setting, I spout nonsense?[/QUOTE]
Because you refuse to accept target shooting as a legitimate sporting purpose and reason to own guns, and label them exclusively as "killing machines," while making illogical, false, and hyperbolic statements about the usage or intended usage of guns you're spouting nonsense.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38900509]I'm sorry, did your parents ever teach you decency? Because if they did, they did a shitty job at it.[/QUOTE]
he was raised in the only barn in canada that was anti-gun
[QUOTE=zydos;38900489]everybody else here has only been calling me an idiot and picking out technicalities, dodging the real issue of "guns are bad"[/QUOTE]
[quote]
You know how cars work, right? In layman's terms, you ONLY HAVE TO step on a pedal and you go very quickly and you build up enough kinetic energy to kill multiple people. That doesn't at all trip an alarm of "wow I shouldn't have a billion of these around and play with them"?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuKP-rNyiOQ[/url]
80+ killed, 100 injured.
Ban racing
[/quote]
So should we ban racing then or what?
[QUOTE=cccritical;38900524]he was raised in the only barn in canada that was anti-gun[/QUOTE]
Yet he owns a gun.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Why don't you just get rid of that gun?
hunting with cannons actually used to be extremely popular, they called it a punt gun and the only reason they're not real popular today is because you can't sell wild game anymore
home defense
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Apache249;38900538]Yet he owns a gun.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Why don't you just get rid of that gun?[/QUOTE]
Because I use it to hunt and nothing else. I don't have it in my closet "in case badguys break in"
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38900507]Ha! [i]Bag limit![/i] :v:[/QUOTE]
one shot can net you roughly 50 waterfoul if you know what you're doing, it really is a good way to hunt
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38900518]A straight up ban is unfeasible and ill-advised, however regulation is entirely possible. an Assault weapons ban comes down (should come down to) to evaluating the necessity of owning an FN-FAL or similar weapon to the intended purpose, which doesn't really meld unless you plan to invade the Falklands. I'm sure we have vastly different ideas about freedom and the ownership of firearms being a 'right' but there has to be a point at which your draw the line and say 'this is absurdly unnecessary'[/QUOTE]
[quote]Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.[/quote]
out of that entire list, there are two (2) things that aren't cosmetic
the neat thing is, you don't even need an outside-threaded barrel for a silent firearm
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTs-38_Stechkin_silent_revolver]this little guy[/url] is not only easier to conceal than every single 'assault weapon,' it's also dead silent without any modifications to it
banning guns because they look scary is not only ineffectual but absolutely wrong, it's as bad as banning cars for having spinning rims and spoilers and custom paint jobs because those are the vehicles most often used in street racing and street racing often leads to casualties
[QUOTE=zydos;38900551]Because I use it to hunt and nothing else. I don't have it in my closet "in case badguys break in"[/QUOTE]
[I]but hunting est très dangereux[/I]
[QUOTE=zydos;38900551]home defense
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Because I use it to hunt and nothing else. I don't have it in my closet "in case badguys break in"[/QUOTE]
That isn't why I have my guns either
I don't kill ANYTHING with my guns, nor do I want to, nor do I ever intend to. They aren't for hunting and they aren't for home defense. They're for shooting targets. Inanimate, non-living, paper targets secured to a block of styrofoam the size of a minivan. They're fun to shoot, fun to work on, fun to show off, fun to talk about, fun to compare, and fun to look at.
[QUOTE=cccritical;38900583]out of that entire list, there are two (2) things that aren't cosmetic
the neat thing is, you don't even need an outside-threaded barrel for a silent firearm
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTs-38_Stechkin_silent_revolver"]this little guy[/URL] is not only easier to conceal than every single 'assault weapon,' it's also dead silent without any modifications to it
banning guns because they look scary is not only ineffectual but absolutely wrong, it's as bad as banning cars for having spinning rims and spoilers and custom paint jobs because those are the vehicles most often used in street racing and street racing often leads to casualties[/QUOTE]
I wasn't advocating banning things because they looks scary, more that they are unnecessary to the accepted uses of firearms, which I guess for Americans is everything under the sun. It's a bit jarring for me that the US guarantees guns as a right.
ed: and something I disagree with
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38900650]I wasn't advocating banning things because they looks scary, more that they are unnecessary to the accepted uses of firearms, which I guess for Americans is everything under the sun. It's a bit jarring for me that the US guarantees guns as a right.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand: what do you think makes (since this was your example) an FN FAL less appropriate for shooting targets than any other gun, if not because it's scary looking? Is it because it's a military grade firearm? What do you think differentiates a "military grade" firearm from any other firearm? The scary appearance?
I don't want to get aggressive but your logic is seeming very circular.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38900559]one shot can net you roughly 50 waterfoul if you know what you're doing, it really is a good way to hunt[/QUOTE]
I think I'll put cannon hunting on my bucket list.
[QUOTE=zydos;38900489]everybody else here has only been calling me an idiot and picking out technicalities, dodging the real issue of "guns are bad"[/QUOTE]
Well when every single one of your so called "technicalities" are broken and wrong then we would then call your entire argument broken and wrong. You haven't been receiving flak for the past 6 or 7 pages for no reason.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;38900781]Well when every single one of your so called "technicalities" are broken and wrong then we would then call your entire argument broken and wrong. You haven't been receiving flak for the past 6 or 7 pages for no reason.[/QUOTE]
People just don't want to give up their guns. How much worse off would your life be without them?
[QUOTE=zydos;38900862]People just don't want to give up their guns. How much worse off would your life be without them?[/QUOTE]
So now your argument, thus defeated, is reduced to "why not?"
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
Some people are allergic to peanut butter. How much worse off would your life be without peanut butter? Ban peanut butter!
Bahahahahaha
Question dodging 101. My life, personally, would be just fine without peanut butter, thanks. Though, if guns were outlawed, I'd be just fine. Hell I'd feel better knowing that there might not be instant-killing-machines in people's pockets, waiting to be used on me/anyone
[QUOTE=zydos;38900862]People just don't want to give up their guns. How much worse off would your life be without them?[/QUOTE]
Give up your computer, or at least your internet. Goodbye.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.