[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that uses the term “cop killer bullet” is either completely ignorant of the subject matter or is intentionally dishonest.[/quote]
or just a big retard.
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
GreenMountains wrote:
How about because they want one. In a free country, we don’t need a reason.
Why do I want a truck when I could take a bus? Why do I want a nice TV when I could have a 13" B&W?
Why do you need a computer? Why do you need an Internet connection?
Why do you need to lift weights?
If your worried about shooting yourself, maybe you should put down the bottle and check into a mental hospital? Get some anger management classes or something?
Quite a leap of logic from handgun ownership for sport to “assault rifles and ‘cop killer’ bullets. I am sure these weapons are absolutely necessary in day-to-day life in New Jersey if your hobby happens to be shooting cops through bulletproof vests.”
I’m back. Did you miss me? Nevermind, I know you did, that’s why you invited me back.
“I want one” is how a spoilt child reacts. You can do better than that, can’t you? And while you may not think you need a reason, the fact they are inherently dangerous with little utility beyond shooting something requires we ask the question ‘what are you going to shoot?’
Targets? Fine. Keep it at a range.
But what else? In whose hands could it fall? The teenagers who carry out the school shootings do not own the guns they use. They steal them from their parents, who were often licensed, stored the guns correctly and never broke the law themselves. But so long as your kids don’t get shot then I suppose it’s fine.
If revealing a concealed weapon is sufficient to scare a would-be attacker, then having a real gun on you at all times seems like overkill (so to speak). Surely a fake would suffice as no one here has so far indicated their revealed weapon has been used in ‘anger’.
Speaking of which, anger management, GreenMountains? Check the other posts; they’ve been consistently more aggressive and ill mannered than mine. Yours for example.
And I don’t drink, but thanks for your concern. That’s very caring of you.
The leap isn’t too great from guns to assault weapons etc, as the same arguments for the right to gun ownership have been extended over time to the more pernicious weapons. It started with quite a reasonable proposition but has since become absurd.
Why lift weights? It helps gets me laid. Is that the reason you have a gun, GM? I hope not. Repeat after me, GM: ‘No’ means no. ‘No’ means no …[/quote]
That’s so sad you can’t get laid. I don’t think lifting weights will help you. Try getting a better personality.
Where did I say I own a gun? I don’t currently. Seems to be a consistent problem with you…giant leaps of logic and assumptions pulled from nowhere. I guess rape is funny where you’re from too. Is that why your really against gun ownership and choose to lift weights? Date rape is a crime!
You have such a negative view of humanity and condescending attitude. Work on that and maybe you can get laid more.
Most of us prefer to live in a world where rules are not set by what the dumbest and craziest person might think of doing. Most Americans find the concept that people do not have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones, even in their own homes, bizarre.
What if someone lives in Alaska 200 miles by plane from the closest range? Where should they store their guns? Can’t target practice in the backyard? I guess you are against hunting as would require removing guns from the indoor range? So guns are only for the rich, right Rosie? The rest of the people have no rights.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that uses the term “cop killer bullet” is either completely ignorant of the subject matter or is intentionally dishonest.[/quote]
You’re right, zap, there is no such thins (I wonder why aren’t marketed with that name). Would teflon-coated, hardened, armor-piercing bullet have made you happier?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
David Murtagh wrote:
Blah, Blah, Blah… It’s okay to own a handgun, just not in your home except if you live in rural areas… Blah, Blah, Blah…
Mr. Murtagh,
- Do you currently or have you ever owned, operated, and maintained a firearm?
If yes, why you and not us? If no, then you really do not understand the onus and responsibility of firearm ownership and really should not be preaching it, especially not to those currently or formerly charged with defending our nation.
- Do you feel that people should be free to do as they please so long as it doesn’t affect your own life and liberty?
If yes, I don’t really see what your issue with any of our guns is, neither you nor my neighbor will be affected by my gun ownership. If no, then suddenly you become a very small part of the reason we have the right to bear arms.[/quote]
-
Yes. I shot 303s in Cadets in high school and at a range.
-
Yes. But the ease with which they can be misused (by you or others) and their inherenet risk means they are more dangerous than a car or other device.
[quote]GreenMountains wrote:
That’s so sad you can’t get laid. I don’t think lifting weights will help you. Try getting a better personality.
Where did I say I own a gun? I don’t currently. Seems to be a consistent problem with you…giant leaps of logic and assumptions pulled from nowhere. I guess rape is funny where you’re from too. Is that why your really against gun ownership and choose to lift weights? Date rape is a crime!
You have such a negative view of humanity and condescending attitude. Work on that and maybe you can get laid more.
Most of us prefer to live in a world where rules are not set by what the dumbest and craziest person might think of doing. Most Americans find the concept that people do not have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones, even in their own homes, bizarre.
What if someone lives in Alaska 200 miles by plane from the closest range? Where should they store their guns? Can’t target practice in the backyard? I guess you are against hunting as would require removing guns from the indoor range? So guns are only for the rich, right Rosie? The rest of the people have no rights.
[/quote]
It’s sad you have no sense of humour at all, GM. But calling me a girl’s name is very witty. Well done. Your Mensa application is in the mail.
Rules are set by the lowest common denominator. Look around you! Commonsense says you shouldn’t drink and drive. People do. That’s why we have laws against it.
And look at the stats. Gun ownership does not protect you in your own home - you are more likely to get shot by a family member when you think you’re shooting a Manson.
Don’t cry, but I’ll leave this forum, now.
Before I go, I’d like to say that I used to be in favour of gun ownership. After the Port Arthur Massacre in Australia I was still in favour of guns. But when you argue with people out loud in favour of guns you soon realise that your arguments are weak, illogical and embarassing. They make no sense because unless you need them for work or you live in Alaska 200 miles from the nearest airport and you need a gun for hunting or vermon control, then you’re argument is childish. You become the brat in corner screaming “I want my gun and you can’t take it from me!”
… As this forum has shown.
Keep well and safe.
Dave
Every time David M posts Johnny Cash rolls over in his grave.
[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Every time David M posts Johnny Cash rolls over in his grave.[/quote]
And the FOG index drops 20 pts. or better.
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that uses the term “cop killer bullet” is either completely ignorant of the subject matter or is intentionally dishonest.
You’re right, zap, there is no such thins (I wonder why aren’t marketed with that name). Would teflon-coated, hardened, armor-piercing bullet have made you happier?[/quote]
Perhaps people that know what they are talking aboiut don’t use that term is because more cops are killed in the line of duty crashing into telephone poles than are killed by bullets penetrating their body armor.
I have plenty of hunting rounds that are fully capable of penetrating most body armor that are not teflon coated or hardened. Do you still consider them “cop-killers”?
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
What, no questioning my manhood?
I am saddened.
It is interesting, though, that such aggression comes from gun owners. That’s reassuring.
And I can’t see a problem with owning guns, per se. But having them in your house does seem to be begging for an accident, which was confirmed by doogie’s post.
And wedding presents are traditionally given to help stock the house of the newlyweds (housewares, sheets etc), not just deluge them in an orgy of gifts for the sake of it.
Kumbaya …
[/quote]
Yeah well I know a particular couple that bought guns for each other for wedding gifts. The girl had to go through a long and several month process to get this .22 pistol with a built in the barrel silencer approved. Let’s just say the groom was elated. It’s a sweet pistol. And to each their own. They are both sharpshooters and that’s what they enjoy. (She even shot better than he did while on the collegiate rifle team)
I have heard good things about Taurus at the local gun club, even though I have no idea where to get them in Australia. I do love my Sigs, though.
For house defence, I prefer a pump action shot gun. There isn’t a person on the planet who doesn’t recognise the sound of a round being chambered into a pump action shot gun. Now THAT is a deterrent.
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
Rules are set by the lowest common denominator. Look around you! Commonsense says you shouldn’t drink and drive. People do. That’s why we have laws against it.
[/quote]
False analogy…nice try though. The proper analogy would be that if laws were set by the lowest common denominator, people would not be allowed to drive at all. Your analogy, properly structured, actually weakens your argument.
A: Cars are dangerous → Allow ownership of cars, make dangerous behavior (drinking while driving) illegal.
B: Guns are dangerous → Allow ownership of cars, make dangerous behavior (carrying unconcealed in public, firing in public without cause) illegal.
Based the logic you’ve presented in your drunked driving example, gun ownership should be allowed because we have alreadly criminalized what we consider dangerous usage.
Nope, the “stats” don’t say that. Are you referencing the Kellermann “study”, the “you’re 40 times more likely to kill a family member…” one? The same one that only counted instances where intruders were shot AND killed as a defensive gun use? Instances where intruders were injured or simply scared away were not included in that “study”. Or are you talking about the “study” that included suicides in the sample of “family members injured by gunfire”?
How about these “stats”:
The number of firearms in American
homes has increased approximately 45 percent since 1973 (1) while the number of accidental firearms fatalities in the home has steadily decreased from a high of 1,400 in 1974 to 500 in 2002.(2)
-
Kleck, G. and E. Britt Patterson ?The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates? Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 9 (1993) 249-287. -
National Safety Council,
Injury Facts, 2003 Edition, Itasca, IL; p. 129.
Is backing up your assertions with references not in the playbook?
Not true at all, and you repeating it does not make it true. You’ve been given a bunch of reasons that people own guns:
- Hobbists that enjoy shooting for sport.
- Hobbists that enjoy collecting guns.
- Hunters that shoot game.
- Home protection.
None of those reasons is illogical or embarrasing. It is you playing the “brat in the corner” role, you simply refuse to ignore the information presented to you because you can’t formulate a sound argument. In this thread you’ve declared that the 2nd does not grant the right to bear arms, and declared that firearms are not a valid means of home protection; you’ve provided no factual basis nor rational for either of these assertions (aside of course from stating that the “stats” support all of your positions). Legal scholars have been arguing over the scope of the 2nd amendment for about as long as it has existed, but you waltz in here, state your OPINION on the matter as fact, and then have the nerve to call someone else “childish” and “embarrassing”? Wow…
Do you actually have any logical arguments based on fact, or do you rely completely on emotional appeals and the blind faith that somehow, somewhere there are “stats” to support all of your positions?
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
- Yes. But the ease with which they can be misused (by you or others) and their inherenet risk means they are more dangerous than a car or other device.[/quote]
Your blatant exaggeration makes you seem like a troll (that or you didn’t think one iota about what you were typing). The statistics would argue against this, you are far (as in >10X) more likely to be killed by a fellow motorist than a fellow handgun owner and moreover, the other side of the argument is true as well; You are more likely to kill someone with your car on accident than intentionally or unintentionally with your gun. You were better off sticking to risk-to-benefit arguments, I definitely agree that someone with no firearms training who lives blocks from a police station has little/no need to actually own a gun (I still believe it’s their choice).
[quote]Vwaju92 wrote:
Dirty Tiger wrote:
Every time David M posts Johnny Cash rolls over in his grave.
And the FOG index drops 20 pts. or better.[/quote]
and i load another round into my .45.
[quote]
PantyPeePunch wrote:
I own a porn shop and carry a gun; it’s saved my life several times. I recommend a Glock if exceptional safety while quick draw hip firing or smashing someones face in is desired.
nolecat wrote:
Only a true T-Nation man can start a post off with “I own a porn shop and carry a gun…” That rules!![/quote]
Yeah, that’s true. That was a great line. How about making this a Strong Word?
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
PantyPeePunch wrote:
I own a porn shop and carry a gun; it’s saved my life several times. I recommend a Glock if exceptional safety while quick draw hip firing or smashing someones face in is desired.
nolecat wrote:
Only a true T-Nation man can start a post off with “I own a porn shop and carry a gun…” That rules!!
Yeah, that’s true. That was a great line. How about making this a Strong Word?
Makkun[/quote]
Second! Mods?
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
makkun wrote:
PantyPeePunch wrote:
I own a porn shop and carry a gun; it’s saved my life several times. I recommend a Glock if exceptional safety while quick draw hip firing or smashing someones face in is desired.
nolecat wrote:
Only a true T-Nation man can start a post off with “I own a porn shop and carry a gun…” That rules!!
Yeah, that’s true. That was a great line. How about making this a Strong Word?
Makkun
Second! Mods?[/quote]
Sounds like a fine suggestion. Though, I think his username might be holding him back. I mean, as excellent a quote as it is, you realize it would be credited to “PantyPeePunch”. Hardly a Testosterone-inspiring name. (No offense, PPP) But, if it were from someone like Generalissimo Carlos Baddassery III, it might have a better chance.
[quote]David Murtagh wrote:
I am curious, actually. I think a lot of people (especially in countries where guns are not as popular, such as Australia) wonder why people would choose to have a gun if not required for their work.
Having a gun increases the likelihood of an accident by guns (that’s commonsense). Statistics also point to family members being victims instead of intruders so the personal protection argument is weak at best (notwithsanding Katrina etc).
‘The Right to Bear Arms’ argument is a fallacy as any reading of the text indicates.
Bullpup notes that people are murdered by shovels. True, I suppose. Then he made the hoary argument about banning them. It’s silly. Like strangulation: should we ban hands? Of course, not. If we did, you wouldn’t be able to fire your guns and I wouldn’t have a sex life.
Hey, if you’re into guns, enjoy. What interests me is the reason and the psychology of why people own guns.
My apologies as well. My head must have been up my arse (thanks derek, you sound like a charmer) so I missed your earlier post yesterday explaining your situation. My bad. At least it kept this issue on the recent posts page and maybe you got some more advice that you would not otherwise have received.
For the record, hedo, I appreciate your measured responses - it was a nice change from the others (but it was expected).[/quote]
You are a cerified retard. I would bet that even your mom thinks your a total douchebag.
Thanks for the laughs mate.
I’m Duke Mattise in case Pantypeepunch is a bit much.
[quote]PantyPeePunch wrote:
I’m Duke Mattise in case Pantypeepunch is a bit much.
[/quote]
Damn, so lets see…your name is Duke and you run a porn store and own a gun. That, my friends, is bad ass! We should put Duke on the cover of all Biotest supplements!