[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30706968]Maskmanship as a sport? That's far more focused on semi-automatic weapons, I fail to see why one would need a fully automatic weapon in order to have a fun time.
[/QUOTE]
You can't say you wouldn't want to play with something like a vickers machine gun.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;30707037]You can't say you wouldn't want to play with something like a vickers machine gun.[/QUOTE]
automatics are a waste of ammunition, so yeah, I can pretty easily say I wouldn't want one
sure I'd like to have the momentary experience of having it once but that's not an experience I'm hanging over, and I think that societal safety is significantly more important than some gun crazed idiot who has a massive erection for weaponry and an insatiable desire for destruction
it's a fucking gun not a toy, they are designed first and foremost to kill.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30706968]Maskmanship as a sport? That's far more focused on semi-automatic weapons, I fail to see why one would need a fully automatic weapon in order to have a fun time.
I understand this, I routinely go shooting with family and friends when down in Florida.
What I'm simply saying (as a person who has been immersed into several different states' gun cultures) is that the people that are in groups dedicated to gun rights generally aren't looking for "sane" gun laws - they're looking for little to no regulation whatsoever, which is absolutely idiotic.
I can understand how it's a fun activity, but just as you say i'll realize it's not just for people who want to feel powerful, many people treat them like fucking toys which [B]they most certainly are not.[/B] The obsessive gun culture treats them like toys.
edit: i'm hardly anti-gun, I share 6 weapons with my father that we went in together on.[/QUOTE]
firing an automatic weapon is fun, but to buy an automatic weapon you need a specific license for it.
it shouldn't be hard to see why someone would enjoy shooting an automatic weapon, it's fun to shoot guns.
and what do you mean people treat them like toys?
there are always going to be stupid people that don't follow safety rules,
but from what i've seen people are plenty careful with their weapons.
and i'm glad there are crazy gun lobbyists that want ridiculous no-regulation gun laws, because
when they propose their total lack of restriction and the anti-gun lobbyists propose total restriction,
they generally end up balancing eachother out and meet a safe but privileged middle ground for gun ownership.
i'd like to point out i have no issue with what this man did with his vehicle or their decision to blow it to shit
it's the statement that they want "sane" gun laws that i think is just hilariously ludicrous
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30707093]it's a fucking gun not a toy, they are designed first and foremost to kill.[/QUOTE]
boomerangs, bows, slingshots were designed to kill, so were swords.
just because something was designed for killing doesn't mean it can't be used safely and appropriately in a society that understands the danger of a weapon.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30707131]firing an automatic weapon is fun, but to buy an automatic weapon you need a specific license for it.
it shouldn't be hard to see why someone would enjoy shooting an automatic weapon, it's fun to shoot guns.[/quote]
Why is it fun to shoot guns?
[quote]and what do you mean people treat them like toys?[/quote]
I don't know, you just said that it was fun to shoot guns!
[quote]there are always going to be stupid people that don't follow safety rules,
but from what i've seen people are plenty careful with their weapons.[/quote]
I'm not concerned about people following safety rules, I'm concerned about the desire by gun nuts for ever increasing rates of fire, shorter barrels, better concealed carry, and anything else that is altogether useless in a self defense situation.
[quote]and i'm glad there are crazy gun lobbyists that want ridiculous no-regulation gun laws, because
when they propose their total lack of restriction and the anti-gun lobbyists propose total restriction,
they generally end up balancing eachother out and meet a safe but privileged middle ground for gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
well now I think that's silly, I don't demand that my political representitive goes around demanding a new communist state just so I can get proper healthcare for the poor.
[editline]25th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30707182]boomerangs, bows, slingshots were designed to kill, so were swords.
just because something was designed for killing doesn't mean it can't be used safely and appropriately in a society that understands the danger of a weapon.[/QUOTE]
boomerangs and slingshots have been adapted into toys, just like guns have into water pistols.
I don't propose a ban on water pistols, so I don't propose a ban on boomerangs that don't have blades attached to them nor to slingshots that can't carry payloads heavy enough to kill people.
Bows - while dangerous - are dangerous on the level of semi-automatic weaponry. They have a significantly lower capacity for widespread destruction.
[quote]In this case, the charity is Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A), a group dedicated to "bringing some sanity to Massachusetts gun laws."[/quote]
in this case, bringing some "sanity" to the gun laws means allowing open carry and other stupid shit
I have no gripe with automatic weapons, but this is a shitty way to draw support for your cause.
I read it and thought it was Ryan Dunn's. The I re read it and realized it was ok.
Only in America.
[editline]25th June 2011[/editline]
What are those orange things?
[QUOTE=aydin690;30709303]Only in America.
[editline]25th June 2011[/editline]
What are those orange things?[/QUOTE]
clays
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting[/URL]
Just realized Clarkson would have a heart attack if he seen this.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30706180][img]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/06/medium_twin-50-caliber_m2.jpg[/img]
Epic gun[/QUOTE]
You aren't a real man until you hip fire that off the mount.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30707093]automatics are a waste of ammunition, so yeah, I can pretty easily say I wouldn't want one
sure I'd like to have the momentary experience of having it once but that's not an experience I'm hanging over, and I think that societal safety is significantly more important than some gun crazed idiot who has a massive erection for weaponry and an insatiable desire for destruction
it's a fucking gun not a toy, they are designed first and foremost to kill.[/QUOTE]
Making automatic weapons legal in Mass. isnt going to be a threat to anyone's safety.
Virtually no crimes are committed with legally obtained automatic weapons. Getting the license required to own one is extremely difficult, and actually obtaining an automatic weapon itself is about as difficult, and prohibitively expensive.
[editline]26th June 2011[/editline]
As for people treating them like toys, thats because in essence the types of guns they have ARE toys.
Now before you go off on me with "BUT GUNS ARE DEADLY AND SHOULD NEVER BE TREATED AS TOYS YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED OMG", look at it this way: you don't go out and buy an assault rifle or automatic weapon for anything other than recreational purposes. There really isn't any LEGITIMATE use for them other than destroying the shit out of targets and showing them off at meetups and other such things. In that respect they are "toys" in the same sense that owning a ridiculous sports car or off road truck is a "toy".
As long as they are being safe with their weapons, I don't care if they view it as a toy or a tool.
If anyone wants to educate themselves on firearms, feel free to read [url=http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf]this 105 page PDF.[/url]
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;30709836]If anyone wants to educate themselves on firearms, feel free to read [url=http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf]this 105 page PDF.[/url][/QUOTE]
someone posted that source a while ago in another thread, and I went through it and found several unreliable sources and ridiculous claims
it's not credible, so stop posting it
[QUOTE=JDK721;30709981]someone posted that source a while ago in another thread, and I went through it and found several unreliable sources and ridiculous claims
it's not credible, so stop posting it[/QUOTE]
Care to link me to these "unreliable sources" via PM?
6 or so should be enough to discredit it.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;30710155]Care to link me to these "unreliable sources" via PM?
6 or so should be enough to discredit it.[/QUOTE]
what an arbitrary number
here are some to start off:
Why Gun Registration will Fail, Ted Drane, Australian Shooters Journal, May 1997.
When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives, Bob Brooks, Firing Line, September 2001.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30710242]
Why Gun Registration will Fail, Ted Drane, Australian Shooters Journal, May 1997.
[/QUOTE]
is a shaky source, but it's a fact.
as published in Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1972, pages 243-247.
[quote]For instance, when dealing with Baader-Meinhof terrorism, the Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. Government estimated between seventeen and twenty million guns were to be registered, and in fact only 3.2 million surfaced, leaving some 80% unaccounted for.
Despite those measures, on April 24th, 1996, the German Police Federation estimated twenty million illegal guns in Germany today, with the figure growing. In 1994 alone, 4,993 illegal arms were seized during importation. Of the 2,905 firearms taken from criminals in that year, only 4.8% had ever been legally owned, according to the German Interior Ministry.[/quote]
[quote]
When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives, Bob Brooks, Firing Line, September 2001. [/quote]
Bob Brooks is a former LEO that is the source of that quote.
[quote]“It is my belief that [licensing and registration]
significantly misses the mark because it diverts our attention from what should be our
common goal: holding the true criminals accountable for the crimes they commit and
getting them off the street.”[/quote]
Richard Hammond would be very displeased.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;30710427]is a shaky source, but it's a fact.[/QUOTE]
no it's not
you can't possibly state "gun registration fails" as a fact. it simply doesn't work like that. also, it's a blog post by an obviously biased person.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;30710427]Bob Brooks is a former LEO that is the source of that quote.[/QUOTE]
someone's opinion shouldn't be in a PDF entitled gun FACTS
[QUOTE=JDK721;30709981]someone posted that source a while ago in another thread, and I went through it and found several unreliable sources and ridiculous claims
it's not credible, so stop posting it[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saving me 105 pages of reading.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30710607]no it's not
you can't possibly state "gun registration fails" as a fact. it simply doesn't work like that. also, it's a blog post by an obviously biased person.[/quote]
Actually, the whole piece about Germany is a fact.
You should read about the Federal Gun Registration act in Germany, it's some scary stuff.
Obviously gun registration is going to be different in different cultures. So yes, you can't say "gun registration fails" but I can say with reasonable certainty "gun registration would fail in the United States"
[quote]someone's opinion shouldn't be in a PDF entitled gun FACTS[/QUOTE]
That entire document is about gun facts. Please disprove the facts you claim are incorrect.
That is an opinionated quote. I'll trust the opinion of an LEO twice again as much as any politician who are behind anti-gun campaigning.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo[/media]
[quote]someone posted that source a while ago in another thread, and I went through it and found several unreliable sources and ridiculous claims
it's not credible, so stop posting it [/quote]
Just link me the previous sources and claims you found unreliable, I'll do some digging on them.
Even if you have any question of the validity of that document, it makes for some good reading, and as always you should investigate the sources to see if they are indeed correct before you believe them.
Well I would get rid of the car too if it was 20k to repair it.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30706968]I fail to see why one would need a fully automatic weapon in order to have a fun time.[/QUOTE]
are you a woman
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;30705903]
To hell with A Serbian Film, this shit is HARD to watch! :gonk:[/QUOTE]
It's ok, it was an automatic.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30707272]Why is it fun to shoot guns?[/QUOTE]
Why is it fun to own expensive, fast Porshes? They're more expensive and dangerous than economy cars, why would anybody want to own one?
No criminal in their right mind would spend $10-$15k to go through the process of getting a fully automatic firearm with the required tax stamp, let alone having to wait several months just to get it. The real criminals go to a local pawn shop, buy a cheap, small .32 caliber pistol, and hide it in their waistband. Automatic weapons are too prohibitively expensive and time wasting to get when a $89 saturday night special can kill people too.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30707391]in this case, bringing some "sanity" to the gun laws means allowing open carry and other stupid shit[/QUOTE]
Because openly carrying a firearm where everybody can see it and knows you're carrying is far, far more dangerous than concealed carry where nobody knows you're armed, right?
There's a huge social stigma against open carrying anyway, I guarantee if you walk around open carrying for a couple days, you'll be given several looks or even have a cop walk over to talk to you. The only people who would actually open carry would be those who know the laws and care about them, somebody with ill intent would just stuff their gun under their waistband to avoid the attention.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30706968]Maskmanship as a sport? That's far more focused on semi-automatic weapons, I fail to see why one would need a fully automatic weapon in order to have a fun time.[/QUOTE]
I've done a few friendly competitions with submachine guns. usually it's shit like who can break all the bottles the fastest
[editline]26th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lorden;30713757].32 caliber pistol[/QUOTE]
any criminal with any sense would get a 9x19 or .38 special since the ammo is so much cheaper
What a Porsche car.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30709504]Making automatic weapons legal in Mass. isnt going to be a threat to anyone's safety.
Virtually no crimes are committed with legally obtained automatic weapons. Getting the license required to own one is extremely difficult, and actually obtaining an automatic weapon itself is about as difficult, and prohibitively expensive.[/quote]
The issue with legalizing automatic weapons is that it would actually drive the prices of black market weaponry down further, making it [I]easier[/I] for people who legitimately want them for violence to obtain.
[quote]As for people treating them like toys, thats because in essence the types of guns they have ARE toys.
Now before you go off on me with "BUT GUNS ARE DEADLY AND SHOULD NEVER BE TREATED AS TOYS YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED OMG", look at it this way: you don't go out and buy an assault rifle or automatic weapon for anything other than recreational purposes. There really isn't any LEGITIMATE use for them other than destroying the shit out of targets and showing them off at meetups and other such things. In that respect they are "toys" in the same sense that owning a ridiculous sports car or off road truck is a "toy".
As long as they are being safe with their weapons, I don't care if they view it as a toy or a tool.[/QUOTE]
My personal opinion on the matter is that guns that serve no practical purpose are inherently viewed as toys and as such do not command the same respect. Weapons that serve only the extremes - that is, as a toy, and as a weapon for widespread destruction (in contrast to pistols, semi-automatic and bolt action rifles) in my opinion are unnecessary.
Where were the buildings?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
