[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP33crds1tI[/media]
good old fashioned fun
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903300]you don't have to blow up people, you can blow up dirt or washing machines or sheds or old junker cars
grenades can be a lot of fun[/QUOTE]
youre dodging the argument
also, gotta think of what calibre I want. .38 special, .45colt, or .44/40. Part of me thinks .38
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38903205]But you guys didn't take into account that guns really [I]are[/I] fucking dangerous. I admit he may have been a bit overboard, but what I gathered from his argument is that they should crack down on who can have guns, because they're far too widely available at this point[/QUOTE]
I ask you then, did you look at the counter-arguments proposed as well? Ones not based on the fear of an object guiding an opinion? The points where we pointed out it's the individual, not the gun, that cause these kinds of things?
I've seen arguments like his before, they're generally based on the assumption that an object causes an action, not that an action uses an object. The idea that "guns kill people" seems to come from a fear of the power guns have within themselves. A gun, loaded, if left on a table, won't do anything, it object. The issue with that is that there is an underlying cause of these things, often social issues, and especially in the US compared to many other nations with much better healthcare and welfare. Trying to stop an object from being used leads to substitution, in Canada for instance, knives killed more people than guns in 2011, despite gun ownership being at some of its highest recorded levels since 1998. There's also the issue of effectiveness, and gun bans are ineffective, 49.9% of gun Toronto police confiscated that were considered "crime guns" were prohibited under Canadian law, evidently the ban has failed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The shooting in Edmonton and the 2 in Toronto this year, as well as the one at Dawson College in 2006, showcase that gun bans do not stop mass attacks, either, as does the shooting in Cumbria, England in 2010. The study I posted, which I did fairly late in the debate, but early in the study postings, was actually addressing Canada in specific to analyze the effectiveness of gun control here, and it concluded that it was ineffective. This point was largely ignored by him.
Also, I'd take the 7", it looks fucking SEXY! Uberti reproduction?
War on Drugs failed guys...
Let's do a War on Guns, it surely won't bite us in the ass, right.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903300]you don't have to blow up people, you can blow up dirt or washing machines or sheds or old junker cars
grenades can be a lot of fun[/QUOTE]
They sure can.
old gold:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/3Sw22.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38903321]youre dodging the argument[/QUOTE]
no I'm not, sure blowing up people is bad but there are definitely other things you can do with grenades
I used this example earlier, I can stab you with a pencil but that doesn't mean it's the only available use for it
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38903284]there doesn't have to be a difference
if you accept the premise that being able to blow people up is bad then the availability of basement jury-rigged alternatives shouldn't discourage you from being opposed to the legitimate sale of explosive devices[/QUOTE]
its not really the same thing though
a grenade doesn't really have any practical use outside of blowing people up (that you couldnt do with a more practical civilian explosive like TNT), a gun can be used for hunting and self defense (ignoring "sport" as a practical use)
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903334]no I'm not, sure blowing up people is bad but there are definitely other things you can do with grenades
[/QUOTE]
oh comon, like what? Im on your side in the overall debate dude but thats just silly
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38903322]also, gotta think of what calibre I want. .38 special, .45colt, or .44/40. Part of me thinks .38[/QUOTE]
.38 is the cheapest, about $15/50, versus $60/50 for .44/40 and $40/50 for .45 Colt.
But this discussion is probably better left for the firearms thread.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38903335]its not really the same thing though
a grenade doesn't really have any practical use outside of blowing people up (that you couldnt do with a more practical civilian explosive like TNT), a gun can be used for hunting and self defense (ignoring "sport" as a practical use)[/QUOTE]
so TNT is fine but grenades aren't? they're not all that different
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38903335]its not really the same thing though
a grenade doesn't really have any practical use outside of blowing people up (that you couldnt do with a more practical civilian explosive like TNT), a gun can be used for hunting and self defense (ignoring "sport" as a practical use)
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
oh comon, like what? Im on your side in the overall debate dude but thats just silly[/QUOTE]
Just give the grenade a stainless-steel barrel and a red barrel shroud and call it a target-shooter's grenade. :v:
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38903323]I ask you then, did you look at the counter-arguments proposed as well? Ones not based on the fear of an object guiding an opinion? The points where we pointed out it's the individual, not the gun, that cause these kinds of things?
I've seen arguments like his before, they're generally based on the assumption that an object causes an action, not that an action uses an object. The idea that "guns kill people" seems to come from a fear of the power guns have within themselves. A gun, loaded, if left on a table, won't do anything, it object. The issue with that is that there is an underlying cause of these things, often social issues, and especially in the US compared to many other nations with much better healthcare and welfare. Trying to stop an object from being used leads to substitution, in Canada for instance, knives killed more people than guns in 2011, despite gun ownership being at some of its highest recorded levels since 1998. There's also the issue of effectiveness, and gun bans are ineffective, 49.9% of gun Toronto police confiscated that were considered "crime guns" were prohibited under Canadian law, evidently the ban has failed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The shooting in Edmonton and the 2 in Toronto this year, as well as the one at Dawson College in 2006, showcase that gun bans do not stop mass attacks, either, as does the shooting in Cumbria, England in 2010. The study I posted, which I did fairly late in the debate, but early in the study postings, was actually addressing Canada in specific to analyze the effectiveness of gun control here, and it concluded that it was ineffective. This point was largely ignored by him.
Also, I'd take the 7", it looks fucking SEXY! Uberti reproduction?[/QUOTE]
Well of course it's the user's fault, not the object, but I share that fear of scary-looking-weapons being too readily available. Well, maybe assault rifles and the like, those things don't have a practical use aside from killing humans :v: Other guns, sure I could care less, as long as you have the appropriate licenses and whatnot. It's just when these nut-jobs upgrade from, say a low-capacity handgun or shotgun or hunting rifle to a fully automatic assault rifle.. that's when shit gets messy
Yeah the 7" makes my dick harder than diamonds.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38903322]also, gotta think of what calibre I want. .38 special, .45colt, or .44/40. Part of me thinks .38[/QUOTE]
Go with .38. From what I understand, it's cheap and still packs a punch, since it's the same size as a .357, but with less powder. .45 Colt is also good, although a little more expensive. Whenever I turn 21, I'll probably carry a .45, although I'll get ACP instead of Colt.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903344]so TNT is fine but grenades aren't? they're not all that different[/QUOTE]
please tell me you can only get TNT in America as a professional
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903344]so TNT is fine but grenades aren't? they're not all that different[/QUOTE]
are you serious
TNT is used for demolition, stump removal, and general earthmoving
the explosive charge in a grenade is too small for these purposes and it deliberately generates fragments designed to wound people that would make it basically useless for any sort of practical use
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38903361]please tell me you can only get TNT in America as a professional[/QUOTE]
yeah you cant just walk into anywhere and buy TNT, its a lot of paperwork and basically constant BATFE overwatch
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38903363]are you serious
TNT is used for demolition, stump removal, and general earthmoving
the explosive charge in a grenade is too small for these purposes and it deliberately generates fragments designed to wound people that would make it basically useless for any sort of practical use
[editline]20th December 2012[/editline]
yeah you cant just walk into anywhere and buy TNT, its a lot of paperwork and basically constant BATFE overwatch[/QUOTE]
You could probably get tannerite, but it's nowhere near as powerful.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903344]so TNT is fine but grenades aren't? they're not all that different[/QUOTE]
i think its totally possible for us, as a society, judge what is and isnt a legitimate use of an object and weight pros and cons in a way to decide, with some measure of sound judgment, what items should and shouldnt be freely avaliable. thats why, as an adult, you can buy cooking knives with no trouble but many states have laws banning switchblades. despite their similarities; one item is a useful tool and the other is obviously intended as a weapon and no hastily-thought-up lists of alternative uses for a switchblade will change the fact that a switchblade is clearly a killing tool and a cooking knife is clearly not
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38903361]please tell me you can only get TNT in America as a professional[/QUOTE]
$200 tax stamp if you're not an occupational taxpayer
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38903354]Well of course it's the user's fault, not the object, but I share that fear of scary-looking-weapons being too readily available. Well, maybe assault rifles and the like, those things don't have a practical use aside from killing humans :v: Other guns, sure I could care less, as long as you have the appropriate licenses and whatnot. It's just when these nut-jobs upgrade from, say a low-capacity handgun or shotgun or hunting rifle to a fully automatic assault rifle.. that's when shit gets messy
Yeah the 7" makes my dick harder than diamonds.[/QUOTE]
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd hunt with an AK-47 just to prove a point that all guns have a sporting purpose. AR-15s are also the most common gun used in 3-gun and service rifle competitions, and people all over Canada take their Israeli Tavor TAR-21s out coyote and groundhog hunting. Scary-looking weapons are functionally no different than a semi-auto hunting gun, and people are just scared of them because the media has told them they look scary. This is my biggest problem with Canadian gun laws, the class 12.4 and 12.5 prohibiteds, guns banned purely off of looks.
And the Lee-Enfield started its life killing humans, now it's one of the most popular deer rifles in Canada. The look of a gun is irrelevant to how "dangerous" it is, and these kinds of legislation go purely off the look, as does the definition of an "assault rifle."
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903384]$200 tax stamp if you're not an occupational taxpayer[/QUOTE]
its not even CLOSE to as easy as buying tax stamp weapons and parts
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38903381]i think its totally possible for us, as a society, judge what is and isnt a legitimate use of an object and weight pros and cons in a way to decide, with some measure of sound judgment, what items should and shouldnt be freely avaliable. thats why, as an adult, you can buy cooking knives with no trouble but many states have laws banning switchblades. despite their similarities; one item is a useful tool and the other is obviously intended as a weapon and no hastily-thought-up lists of alternative uses for a switchblade will change the fact that a switchblade is clearly a killing tool and a cooking knife is clearly not[/QUOTE]
switchblades were actually intended for use where you could only have one hand free to operate a folding knife at any given time, such as in rock climbing or certain industrial positions
similar with balisongs, but they were a traditional utility knife of the Batangueno people
THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD BAN GUNS UGUISE
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5733962/ShareX/2012-12/2012-12-19_23-01-06.jpg[/img]
heheh, I thought it was clever :P
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
forgot to add that I found it from the "4chan planning massive troll" thread
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38903417]its not even CLOSE to as easy as buying tax stamp weapons and parts[/QUOTE]
there's also a form for you to fill out and you have to wait like 6 months for it be approved but for NFA stuff it's really just a matter of waiting
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38903418]switchblades were actually intended for use where you could only have one hand free to operate a folding knife at any given time, such as in rock climbing or certain industrial positions[/QUOTE]
and then they gained widespread use as easily concealed weapons and the designs began to reflect that. i know that it seems really clever to come up with tiny little niggling arguments to work your way around any argument for sane public regulation but its really not coming across that well
if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a fucking duck
They can gladly go ahead and ban high capacity magainzes over 20 or 30 but maybe allow organizations that shoot Machine guns and etc have licenses that are soley for people paying to get into a gun event to shoot them.
To ban guns completely is dumb, to ban rifles looking like "super deadly weapons" is dumb. Our right to carry is not only to protect our selfs from criminals or other people looking to harm us but the government it's self. Coming from my super anti-gun side of the family I consider my self a gun hobbist. To be told that I can trust the goverment and police force around me to take care of me is bullshit. Last time we had to call the police for a person who got hit by a run away car they showed up in 15 minutes. If they break into my house 15 minutes could be me dead or robbed of everything.
To trust my goverment? Eh I don't see them trying to become some nazi germany any time soon but I'd rather not give up the one way to help prevent the government from ever taking over completely. Theres a reason other countries can't just invade the US. Instead of just fighting our military you fight the civilians too. Though the quote wasn't apparently said, it's damn well true.
[quote]
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.[/quote]
Aslong as pistols and rifles upto semi-automatic are allowed in civilian hands with ammo capacity's around 10 to 15 i'll be fine. That allows for typical rifles like M1 garand's and etc not to be banned and pistols to be kept. At the same time things outside gun hobbyists main intrests like firing machine guns will be kept at main paid events with licenses handed out by the state or federal goverment to allow them solely for that purpose.
Everything he used technically is stuff i agree we should still be able to carry. I just say it's an unfortunate event and shows we need better reform in mental care and safety. Even if they ban rifles or guns or extremely limit them we have a huge gun dump everywhere. You can't just say "hand them back" it'd lead to a massive dump in the black market and no one would hand em back. It just doesn't work like that.
Making it stricter to recieve a rifle or pistol makes sense. A physc test by a doctor or etc then a regular paper test to show your sane and don't have any mental issues. Yeah if a person REALLY wants to shoot up a school or etc they would be able to fake there way through but when they are doing that it's not even a mental issue that's just someone who wants to cause trouble. And we can't ban things cause someone wants to cause trouble otherwise we'd all just sit around doing nothing cause everything would be banned.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38903381]i think its totally possible for us, as a society, judge what is and isnt a legitimate use of an object and weight pros and cons in a way to decide, with some measure of sound judgment, what items should and shouldnt be freely avaliable. thats why, as an adult, you can buy cooking knives with no trouble but many states have laws banning switchblades. despite their similarities; one item is a useful tool and the other is obviously intended as a weapon and no hastily-thought-up lists of alternative uses for a switchblade will change the fact that a switchblade is clearly a killing tool and a cooking knife is clearly not[/QUOTE]
jesus christ you dont even know the origins of the switchblade and claim to know what to ban and what not to ban
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38903442]and then they gained widespread use as easily concealed weapons and the designs began to reflect that.[/QUOTE]
they didn't gain more widespread use as concealed weapons than any other pocketknife, and the design didn't really change any because it already had a spire point blade so it wouldn't catch on the inside of the handle when ejecting
they're largely banned because people think they look scary, not because they are designed for killing
straight razors have been involved in more crimes than switchblades
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;38903446]jesus christ you dont even know the origins of the switchblade and claim to know what to ban and what not to ban[/QUOTE]
thbbbbt
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;38903462]thbbbbt[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U[/media]
are you related perchance
idk i havent paid for an ancestry dot com account i would have no way of knowing
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.