Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[Jarlaxle]

It was the OLD elephant guns that had up to a 2000 grain slug and velocity limits of 1500 fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_gun

Maybe Numin's really old.

Pidgey

This one IS old...1920's maybe. It's a H&H side by side double in .577 Nitro.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Gotta' throw this one in here:

Are you a Liberal, a Conservative or a Southerner?

Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

....................................................................

Liberal's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor! Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 911? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

...................................................................

Conservative's Answer:

BANG!

....................................................................

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click................
(sounds of reloading.) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the
Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"

Son: "Can I shoot the next one?"

Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"

Pidgey

Me: Step out of the way, catch the jacket my wife tosses to me and watch as she snaps open a pair of 3' telescoping fighting sticks and meets him halfway.
*10 minutes later*
Me: Hang up the pay phone after calling 911 to report a guy unconcious on the sidewalk, giving a fake name and using a bogus Noo Yawk accent.
Liz: *carefully wraps the guy's knife in her jacket while snapping her cell phone shut, after calling the carpenter who makes mounts for her collection* (she collects knives)
Me: "You enjoyed that, didn't you?"
Her:

 

[Pidgey]

Women just fight too dirty, what can we say?

Pidgey

 

[Here We Go]

Heck, there are some areas where the Police stop you and ask "Do you have a gun?" If "No" is the reply . . . . . they give you one.

 

[numinus]

Try being able to back up your statements. I'm still waiting for a link to the post you were talking about.

Try reading through this thread again.

If people derive pleasure from it, then why not?

Not if your pleasure represents a clear danger to society.

What I am asking is, in what situation is it designed to kill? Some guns are designed to kill from afar, some guns are designed to kill in close quarters, some guns are designed to be versatile. Some guns are designed to effect multiple targets in a single shot, some guns are designed to hit a single target precisely with a single shot.

How is one intended to kill with the Browning BT-99?

Does it really matter of if someone is killed from afar or close quarters? Or does it really matter if you kill 10 people in a few seconds or in a month?

Such restrictions do not apply to the knife metaphor. A knife, any knife, does not discriminate between targets, and knives can be used for restraint and killing about as effectively.

You will never see the point if you continue denying the existence of FACTS relating gun prevalence with homicide.

 

[numinus]

Re: Numnuts

Another dodge, another idiotic statement. The statistics may very well indicate that, "Household guns account for a disproportionately large number of homicides than any other weapon.", but that does not support your contention.

Where in the statistics does it say: "All guns are made to kill human beings?"

Defend your statement: "All guns are made to kill another human being."

"Duh, YEE HAW, Hummmm?"

Do you see where we are going with this folks? He makes blanket statements that he cannot prove (platitudes), refers to some statistics that are not directly related to the subject as if to prove his point. Again his lack of the knowledge in what be a basic logic exercise in Logic 101 show that this is not an adult, just some kid with too much time on his hands.

What an idiot you are.

I said all guns are made to kill. I did not specifically say human beings. And as the statistics demonstrate, it is being used to kill a lot of human beings.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

It is much easier to peruse my posts than the absolute dribble you have been posting. But I dont need bear attacks to justify my owning guns. I own plenty of guns that wouldnt help against a bear. The constitution provides justification for the far majority of Americans to own guns, without any reason.

To own a gun WITHOUT REASON, especially in the face of statistics that demonstrates its danger, is IRRATIONAL.

I asked a question, months ago now, simply who shouldnt own guns. You said nobody except law enforcement and police. You have been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again why you are incorrect.

The reasons put forth in this thread for owning a gun are:

To deter bear attacks
To feed one's family
To gain knowledge in mathematics and science
To defend one's self
To gain some personal pleasure

ALL OF WHICH I HAVE ROUNDLY REFUTED.

Keep dreaming.

 

[numinus]

Re: Numnuts

I can't imagine a kid presenting him/herself as a field engineer. I just think he/she's a communist who wants to be one of the Politburo with a dacha somewhere nice while the rest of us rot (those who weren't rounded up and put into the re-education camps, that is).

I went to the cited site, perused the data and was encouraged! When you consider that the total numbers of homicides are very nearly the same today as back in '76 and yet gun ownership has increased as well as the population, it's a miracle. The city in the U.S. with the highest murder rate per capita is... Washington, D.C. That's what gun control gets you. The only folks safe there are the ones with Secret Service agents in attendance.

Well, after going through all those statistics, it's pretty easy to see that what we need are more guns, more gun education and less restrictive laws regarding self defense. Thanks, Numin, (you silly cherry-picker, you!) for the eye-opening study!

Pidgey

Oh. You did not see the footnotes -- how the study was peer-reviewed and all?

And speaking of cherry pickers, is your source peer-reviewed? Is it comprehensive enough to cover 50 states -- or did it merely highlight certain states? And while you're at it, who is the author and what is his qualifications?

All these are available in MY source, fyi.

 

[numinus]

This is a touchy subject. I like to say... The nice thing about being a moderate is you get the previledge of having everyone mad at you.

First I read the 2nd as a guns to the militia statement. There's a "what exactly did they really mean" comma issue here that becomes an argueing point... but that doesn't mean I'm against gun ownership. It merely means I interperate the necessity a little differently.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and hangs in the National Archives.

There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," or after the phrase "to keep and bear arms." Different versions of the Amendment appear in various U.S. government documents.

Even with my interprtation I think someone not convicted of a felony or a violent, stalking or threatening misdomeanor and without a record of mental illness should be able to purchase a firearm. Notice though I didn't say ANY firearm.

I also see background checks and regulation as a strong requirement. To mandate licenses with renewals and titles for our cars and not have anything but cash on the barrelhead with a quick background check on newly sold weapons and no tracking or ownership change requirements after that original sale is in my opinion not prudent enough.

As well I think it is resonable that sporting weapons and personal protection weapons can be separated from military style large magazine type weapons for sale to the general public. I believe there should be a higher standard and more scrutinty put on those purchasing these military style weapons that basically just have the full auto switch removed. Possibly something similar to what we now have set up for someone to purchase fully automatic weapons... a Federal Firearms License.

I also think municipalities should be able to regulate where these weapons can be carried. Owning doesn't automatically mean take with you anywhere.

So you know... I say this as someone who owns a Beretta 380, Dan Wesson 357 pistol pack, Mossberg 12 gauge 6 shot pump and a M1 Carbine with both a standard 10 & military issue 30 round banana clip.

There is no need to over-rationalize the meaning of the ammendment. The right to bear arms merely facilitates the formation of the militia. The militia was designed as the states primary defense against foreign aggression.

The existence of a PROFESSIONAL ARMY under the control of the president makes the above point moot.

 

[dahermit]

Re: Numnuts

"Originally Posted by numinus
You can pussy-foot around the point all you wish and it would not even amount to a scratch or a dent on the entire argument.

I said, guns are MADE for a specific use - to kill another person. That you may use it for sport does not diminish this fact."

What an idiot you are.

I said all guns are made to kill. I did not specifically say human beings. And as the statistics demonstrate, it is being used to kill a lot of human beings.

Duh?

Well Duuuuuhhhhhhhhh! Num-nuts, evidently in your mind a "person" is not the same as a "human being"? If you can not remember the bull **** you post, go back and read it again.

 

[numinus]

Re: Numnuts

"Originally Posted by numinus
You can pussy-foot around the point all you wish and it would not even amount to a scratch or a dent on the entire argument.

I said, guns are MADE for a specific use - to kill another person. That you may use it for sport does not diminish this fact."




Well Duuuuuhhhhhhhhh! Num-nuts, evidently in your mind a "person" is not the same as a "human being"? If you can not remember the bull **** you post, go back and read it again.

Dear DUHermit,

Here is the post I made, in ITS ENTIRETY:

Post 165

"You can pussy-foot around the point all you wish and it would not even amount to a scratch or a dent on the entire argument.

I said, guns are MADE for a specific use - to kill another person. That you may use it for sport does not diminish this fact.

And assuming that there are guns that do not fall into this general principle -- a glue gun or a stapler gun, perhaps -- common sense would tell you that this is not the subject matter of debate."

But it is quite evident that you have no common sense to speak of. Otherwise, you wouldn't continue this line of debate like a dog tenaciously hanging to a bone.

 

[numinus]

A .458 Win. Magnum shoots a 500grain bullet, a 50 Browning Machine Gun (Ma Duce) shoots a 700 grain (I believe), bullet.
I know of no shoulder arm that shoots a 1543 grain bullet at 900 fps. He had to have made this one up, but it sounds real impressive does it not? Like something someone who is pretending to be an engineer would say just to sound knowledgeable.
Just a bunch of meaningless numbers, not relative to the issue.

DUHermit,

I have never claimed expertise on guns -- only the mathematical and physical principles behind them.

And if you would simply ask, I'd readily admit that I estimated the weight of a bullet offhand. The 300 m/s I vaguely remember from the military science required in my country.

The purpose of the post, ostensibly, is to demonstrate just how much energy is in a bullet when fired. But I see that after 14 years of vocational education, you are incapable of discerning just what gun and bullet specifications really translate to.

 

[numinus]

I most certainly am within my rights to shoot him if he has and is attacking with a knife (or a pipe, or a hammer, or a baseball bat, or a hachet). Depending on the circumstances (say, someone mugging my 88-year-old grandmother), an unarmed attacker certainly can justify shooting.



Never said otherwise.



I am within my rights to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. If that takes the entire magazine (it did for my uncle...IIRC, the attacker went down on the eleventh shot), then it does.



If I am in my house, I most certainly am. Google "castle doctrine" for details.

Can you even read?

...admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place...

I am curious -- do you understand the above statement to mean that you need to kill your assailant?

 

[numinus]

It was the OLD elephant guns that had up to a 2000 grain slug and velocity limits of 1500 fps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_gun

Maybe Numin's really old.

Pidgey

Just because I'm generally patient with the absurdities of women doesn't mean you can push your luck.

 

[dahermit]

Re: Numnuts

Dear DUHermit,

Here is the post I made, in ITS ENTIRETY:

Post 165

"You can pussy-foot around the point all you wish and it would not even amount to a scratch or a dent on the entire argument.

I said, guns are MADE for a specific use - to kill another person. That you may use it for sport does not diminish this fact.

And assuming that there are guns that do not fall into this general principle -- a glue gun or a stapler gun, perhaps -- common sense would tell you that this is not the subject matter of debate."Your meaning was clear to me numnuts. You made a ridiculous, inaccurate statement, was called on it for several posts, after dancing around the answer, you denied saying it, and now you are trying to say it was taken out of context.

But it is quite evident that you have no common sense to speak of. Otherwise, you wouldn't continue this line of debate like a dog tenaciously hanging to a bone.

Your meaning was clear to me numnuts. You made a ridiculous, inaccurate statement, was called on it for several posts, after dancing around the answer, you denied saying it, and now you are trying to say it was taken out of context( just like a kid would do). It is obviously not taken out of context, as what you were talking about are not glue or staple guns.