[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A handgun is not designed to “kill someone”, by the way. It is designed to stop the attack. A .45 caliber bullet or two in the hip or torso is not necessarily lethal, but will stop a 200-pound man from carrying out any of his previous plans, be they robbery, rape or homicide. [/quote]
I don’t know about you, but the .45 bullets I used to fire are definately designed to kill someone.
[quote]Skystud wrote:
I don’t know about you, but the .45 bullets I used to fire are definately designed to kill someone.[/quote]
The .45 was designed for use during the Philippine Insurrection, because the .38 Colt pistols used by the US Army at the time were insufficient to stop the Moro rebels when they charged the US positions. An enemy would take several hits to the torso, and still have enough energy to hack at the soldiers with his machete, before collapsing from blood loss.
To correct this situation the .45 ACP cartridge and Colt pistol were adopted by the Army, with a large-diameter, slow-moving bullet designed to expend its energy into the target, thereby stopping the attacker with a single shot, before he could carry out his attack.
The design of the bullet has undergone many transmutations since 1905, but its purpose has remained the same. And if anything, changes in bullet design have resulted in improvements in stopping power, not killing power.
I am all for guns in the home. Everyone should have one for self defense and defense of their property in case of robbery or insurrection.
Open carrying is ridiculous. Maybe that shit works for you bumpkins in Idaho, but in a place where there’s over a thousand people per square mile (mostly more), the last thing I want is every fucking idiot having a gun on him in the supermarket.
Say what you want, but I don’t trust people to carry guns all over, being as a few drinks and an argument escalates a lot quicker when a .45 is involved.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I am all for guns in the home. Everyone should have one for self defense and defense of their property in case of robbery or insurrection.
Open carrying is ridiculous. Maybe that shit works for you bumpkins in Idaho, but in a place where there’s over a thousand people per square mile (mostly more), the last thing I want is every fucking idiot having a gun on him in the supermarket.[/quote]
This is the argument of every gun-grabber of which you have proven yourself smarter than. Freedom comes with choices. Not every “bumpkin” is going to run around armed. Just because I can legally have an Ar-15 and carry that around town doesn’t mean that I do. Open carry is perfectly legal now, yet only a minority do it. That is perfectly fine. If I see an idiot OC’ing I avoid him. The problem is that people are telling me and mine that WE cannot do it even though we aren’t idiots.[quote]
Say what you want, but I don’t trust people to carry guns all over, being as a few drinks and an argument escalates a lot quicker when a .45 is involved.[/quote]
Actually I have found it to be quite the opposite. Situations have seemed to be much less likely to escalate when you may have to defend not only your pride, but also your life. I would make it a pretty solid point only to conceal carry in bars if such were legal in the first place. Irish, your argument is at the crux of what is wrong with all government in the first place. You are wanting to legislate gun laws because you do not trust people to behave responsibly.
Like it or not your solution therefore is to impose on our liberties. By this logic, most any government inrusion is acceptable. Why do we need speed limits? Because we cannot trust dumbasses to drive safely. Why do you need to ban trans-fatty acids? Because we cannot trust fatasses to eat in moderation.
The price of freedom my friend is responsibility and shudder discrimintation. If a man wishes to carry then he should be responsible for his actions while armed and he should be proficient in the use of his chosen weapon. Equally so, we as society are responsible to wisely discriminate against someone if we see him armed and looking like a fool or a sketchy individual. Discrimination however is looked upon solely as bigoted and racist while wise discrimination is completely unrelated.
Mike