142 replies to this topic

[Golan]

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:59, said:

Oh for Christ's sake. Must we hear this argument again?

Yupp. It´s not like the opposing side would be very creative either.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:59, said:

A nuke is not a firearmm. It also requires much more advanced methods of control so that it does not overheat and blow up in the middle of your living room.

Oh come on, you can perfectly put an A-bomb in your living room, put a sheet over it and have your kids having a hold tea party on it without that damn thing doing ANYTHING.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:59, said:

Explosive weapons were not mentioned. They are thus not to be brought into this argument.

Explosive weapons were mentioned for the simple fact that they are weapons. You know, umbrella terms and such.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:39, said:

Why CAN'T I own an AK-47? Is it any more lethal than a pistol? Mind you a pistol can be concealed.

A pistol doesn´t fire an armor-piercing 7.62 which can be pulled out of your neighbours living room wall when the CSI arrives.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:39, said:

In fact, when I get older, I want to fill my guncase with an AK-47, an SL-8, an M4A1 SOPMOD, perhaps an SVD and an M249. So maybe not THAT over the top but still, do you think I am going to go out and use them for the purpose of the elimination of human life?

Dementia is a nice thing.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 14:39, said:

Like has been said before: It is not the gun, it's the person holding it.

See codecat´s post.

[Whitey]

Having trouble comprehending the word "gun" are we? This is not weapon control, this is gun control. Two very different things.

Now onto the larger caliber rifles: If they aren't hurting anyone, what's the problem.

And lastly: Define gun. An airsoft gun? A BB Gun? A paintball gun? A nail gun or staple gun? Even a water gun?
I smell police abuse.

Edited by Leatherneck, 29 April 2007 - 16:03.

[Golan]

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:03, said:

Having trouble comprehending the word "gun" are we? This is not weapon control, this is gun control. Two very different things.

But same logic behind it.
Anyways, if you want to... so why not allow atomic cannons aswell? After all, they´re guns too... very big ones.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:03, said:

Now onto the larger caliber rifles: If they aren't hurting anyone, what's the problem.

See that´s the problem. They ARE hurting big times.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:03, said:

And lastly: Define gun. An airsoft gun? A BB Gun? A paintball gun? A nail gun or staple gun? Even a water gun?
I smell police abuse.

Hugh? Police abuse? Wanna start a rebellion or something?
Define Gun
I´m all for that "weapon accelerating a projectile for the intent of hurting/damaging someone/something" thingy... however, I´d like to bring in the limitation of actually beeing potent to severely wound human.

Edited by Golan, 29 April 2007 - 16:29.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

cboidy you just negated your own freaking argument of owning a gun. you want guns for self protection. you can do that with a normal gun. you dont need a AK-47 for it. And if a time comes that you do need an AK-47 to protect yourself then i pity the society you live in.

[AllStarZ]

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 12:03, said:

Having trouble comprehending the word "gun" are we? This is not weapon control, this is gun control. Two very different things.

Now onto the larger caliber rifles: If they aren't hurting anyone, what's the problem.

And lastly: Define gun. An airsoft gun? A BB Gun? A paintball gun? A nail gun or staple gun? Even a water gun?
I smell police abuse.

People tend to use large-calibre weapons if they want to kill someone. Now something like a 12.7 mm is ridiculous, but anything around .30 is quite commonly used.

Anyways, a .50 BMG is not required for any purpose relating to civilian activities. Hunting could be accomplished with large calibre low-med velocity firearms, and target shooting does not require or is better suited for other weapons. Home defence is an equally improbably situation. These sort of rifles are just luxuries, and unneeded luxuries. It just serves as the epitome of the Gun Culture in America.

We're talking firearms. That specific enough for you?

Edited by AllStarZ, 29 April 2007 - 16:38.

[Whitey]

Now I'm all for owning a large gun that fires nuclear rounds, given that the nuclear rounds are not for sale, as they are explosives.

About the luxuries: Yes. They are unneeded luxuries. So are automobiles, and they kill people too. I suppose we should outlaw them? And planes too?

Edited by Leatherneck, 29 April 2007 - 16:48.

[AllStarZ]

The difference, is that an automobile and aircraft are useful for getting around in daily life. Where the hell are you going to need a .50 calibre rifle, which can disable engine blocks, go through walls, and even damage tank armour?

[Golan]

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:48, said:

Now I'm all for owning a large gun that fires nuclear rounds, given that the nuclear rounds are not for sale, as they are explosives.

You still haven´t had a point against outlawing explosive weapons only while allowing firearms other than that you don´t want to talk about it.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 16:48, said:

About the luxuries: Yes. They are unneeded luxuries. So are automobiles, and they kill people too. I suppose we should outlaw them? And planes too?

Partly, yes. The "must have" (well, "must use" for planes) stance towards these is just idiotic. ÖPNV FTW!!!

[TehKiller]

Allright....the AK is more of a last resort weapon in home defense...

anyway explosives arent needed anywhere for civilians unless their job doesnt require them....u dont wanna defend your home with a frigging grenade launcher fireing HE shells

Edited by TehKiller, 29 April 2007 - 18:08.

[Whitey]

Exactly.

Now back to planes and automobiles: Walking works just fine. We need to move, but feet can do just the same, only slower.

Just as hands can strangle a deer for meat, but a gun can do it much better. And why use a hunting rifle if you can take the luxurious way out and use an AK. Just like: Why drive a standard sedan, instead of a Ferrari or Porsche? If I'm going to go hunting, I want to set myself apart from the usual hunter.

[Athena]

Why kill a deer like that at all? As far as I know you are not allowed to shoot one.. they are not that much of a common species .

I'm against hunting just for the hunt, btw. It is also not fair with a gun.

And, I personally would not want a Ferrari or a Porsche. I'd rather have a more standard car.

[TehKiller]

In EU (not whole Europe) its not allowed to shoot a deer as far as i know
And yes you are right with the regular and non-regular part....I personally would like to be a bit different and would go with a semi auto AK than a rifle or shotgun

[Whitey]

I prefer the Porsche.

Anyway, I am for hunting as long as the remains are put to use. I mean it isn't wasting anything.

And how else do I kill a deer. Oh and I am fairly certain that they ain't illegal around here.

Besides, a high-velocity round has a better chance of a 1-hit, painless kill. A shotgun spreads shells which imbed in the animal in various locations, not always killing it instantly. Imagine the suffering. :( I'd rather take a clean hole through the brain than a few shots to the chest. And a well-aimed shot from a REAL sniper rifle does a much better job.

[Golan]

TehKiller, on 29 Apr 2007, 17:54, said:

anyway explosives arent needed anywhere for civilians unless their job doesnt require them....u dont wanna defend your home with a frigging grenade launcher fireing HE shells

I don´t want to defend my home with a frigging semi-automatic 15 round clip gun either, but some people DO want to and I´m pretty shure some wouldn´t be disinclined to using HE grenade launchers.

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 18:03, said:

Now back to planes and automobiles: Walking works just fine. We need to move, but feet can do just the same, only slower.

My comment up there wasn´t meant as a joke you know...

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 18:03, said:

Just as hands can strangle a deer for meat, but a gun can do it much better. And why use a hunting rifle if you can take the luxurious way out and use an AK. Just like: Why drive a standard sedan, instead of a Ferrari or Porsche? If I'm going to go hunting, I want to set myself apart from the usual hunter.

Didn´t you just want to defend yourself before? Now it´s a status symbol to show those suckers how cool you really are?

TehKiller, on 29 Apr 2007, 18:11, said:

And yes you are right with the regular and non-regular part....I personally would like to be a bit different and would go with a semi auto AK than a rifle or shotgun

Well try beeing different by not having a gun at all...

Leatherneck, on 29 Apr 2007, 18:12, said:

Besides, a high-velocity round has a better chance of a 1-hit, painless kill. A shotgun spreads shells which imbed in the animal in various locations, not always killing it instantly. Imagine the suffering. :( I'd rather take a clean hole through the brain than a few shots to the chest. And a well-aimed shot from a REAL sniper rifle does a much better job.

Penetrating a moving deer´s brain with a single shot from an AK47?
A real sniper will leave nothing worth for "putting to use".

Take a bullet with just enough penetrating power to hit through the skull once. It just takes a blink of an eye and there won´t be enough nerve cells left for the dear to feel anything.

Edited by Golan, 29 April 2007 - 20:09.

[Whitey]

There is a line between defense and insanity, and explosives cross it.

Your point?

Yeah. Pretty much.

Yes, and be defenseless against an armed criminal?

The added velocity and bullet size increases the chances of success.

[CodeCat]

I'd say guns cross it pretty clearly, too. But that's just my point of view.

[Hobbesy]

Blaat85, on 29 Apr 2007, 04:14, said:

So.. you can kill someone who tries to attack? Like who? And you would not go to jail for it? What if the person accidentally was not an attacker but a family member visiting you and you killed them? sounds a bit dangerous to me.

I think he means his country getting invaded.

[Golan]

@Leatherneck
Why? You still haven´t answered this.

My point is I wouldn´t mind getting rid of large-scale personall transport vehicles, so don´t mock me with the "you don´t mind other luxury aswell".

[...]

Not getting shot by them on sight perhaps... *is too lazy to look for crime statistics*

It will however most likely just penetrate the deer and leave a gaping hole (that is in case you don´t use a .50 and shot it in half). A small hole, hurting like shit, with blood "dripping" out for a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly long time.

Edited by Golan, 29 April 2007 - 20:36.

[Hobbesy]

Well I use a carbine for hunting. Just a simple Remington carbine, nothing fancy or overpowered. We also don't hunt just for fun, we actully use the meat. Either by eating it ourselves or donating it to charity. Also Blaat, deer are very common where I live, to the point of overpopulation.

I also belive that automatic weapons, or weapons that use a round as powerful as a 7.62 should be locked up in a goverment vault, but can be shot for fun at firing ranges for a fee.

Edited by Hobbes1098, 29 April 2007 - 20:53.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

people are allowed to use jets but you dont see civies owning a F-16 or a F-18 because those are way to dangerous to be in the hands of normal civilians. same is the case with guns. unless you want to compensate for some other areas then you don't need big guns to show off.

Quote

The added velocity and bullet size increases the chances of success.

unless you are up against neo this wont make a difference. a higher bullet velocity would barely give 1/10000th of a second difference in hitting the target.

come on leather. its stupid arguments like these that make all pro gunner look like raving idiots. stick to the core issue other wise if you take those arguments to a debate and you got a smart ass infront off you he would totally beat your ass in this discussion.

[AllStarZ]

You just need a gun.

Because not everyone is a 6 foot tall Zulu Warrior on drugs.

[Whitey]

Prophet, what reasonable argument have you supplied?

That they are unncessary? Neitehr is a computer.

There isn't much to argue on the topic. It is just liberal fanatics that hate guns and want to abolish every other damn item in the world.

Edited by Leatherneck, 29 April 2007 - 22:50.

[AllStarZ]

Why do you need a .50 calibre rifle for home defence, target shooting or hunting? Why do you need an AK-47 to take down a bear or to punch holes in a target? In terms of need, you only need civilian standard weapons to ensure the safety of your person. A .50 cal sniper rifle is more likely to get you killed in a home defence scenario than a single shot .223 Remington hunting rifle.

And I'll tell you why we need a computer, a car or an airplane. We need a computer to do our work (need being absolute especially around in North America). We need a computer to entertain us. We need a computer to keep in touch with our surroundings. We need a car to get around. In the time it takes us two days to walk somewhere a car can do it in 2 hours. We need an airplane to cross oceans in a matter of hours and on a more local level, to be able to attend business meetings. Not everyone needs a computer, a car, an airplane or a gun, but it sure helps. But we only need the bare necessities, everything beyond that is just showing off.

The difference between a gun and a car or a computer in the respect of showing off is that a .50 cal can prove infinitely more dangerous when utilized maliciously.

[Whitey]

Not without bullets... Then it's like having a heavy baseball bat with a few dohiggymajiggers.

All guns should be legal. Every one of em, from cannons to artillery to pistols to squirt guns. Some just need to not have ammo.

That is my (new) stance on it.

That way I can still use simmunition with my .50 to do some super paintballing.

Seriously. There's nothing wrong with a gun.

[AllStarZ]

There's something wrong with the usage and particular variations of it.

Furthermore, individuals need to use reasonable force. If a man comes at you with a knife and you kill him with 7 gun shots to the chest then it'll be up to the jury to see if that was reasonable force. One shot to the chest with any firearm above .22 Long Rifle or .38 ACP should be enough.

And CBoidy, keep politics out.

Edited by AllStarZ, 29 April 2007 - 23:30.