No Idea, I have gun mags going back for over 20 years, Ill narrow it down to the 80s pile with your post making me think thats about when I read it.
and yes it was a small town, but it was larger than 200 people, it seems to me that it was something closer to 5 thousand, but I could be wrong.
The point is that its the criminals that should be punished, shit Im a gun nut and Im OK with background checks, but dont belive they do shit, if I fail a back ground check I can still walk outside my houes and buy a gun from someone close by with no check at all. Hte punishment for crimes needs to be harsher not preventative actions taken agains law abiding citizens. currently they want to outlaw semi autos, I personally dont own any, I dont like them, I like reliable shit no jams no worries revolvers, bolt actions, pump actions, and lever actions, but if someone eles likes them I dont give a shit if they own them. Its what someone does with a gun that should be considered in a case, not that the gun exists, punish the bastards that use them in commiting a crime, not me for wanting to own more of them.
I have enough now I coudl kill a few hundred people from a tower or a window, Id be willing to bet I could take out the entire police force of a small town like I live in, but it doesnt mean I plan to or ever would. then there are those that would if they had the balls to try, those are the fuckers that have to be dealt with, not idiots like me and scotty that want to hunt, target practice, and defend ourselves.
-
Wanna see something REALLY scarey?
-
Wait, outlaw semi-automatics? Would that be for every semi-automatic, including shotguns? If they tried to do that, it would be very stupid. You can shoot just as fast with a pump action shotgun, so any argument that it slows the rate of fire would be downright stupid. When I switched from a pump action to a semi-auto (due to getting taller and using some of my dad's guns) I saw no difference in the amount of time it takes to shoot two or three shells. I can understand outlawing automatics, because you can just hold down the trigger and unload like mad, but a semi-automatic doesn't have an advantage like that. You still have to pull the trigger over and over. Fricking idiots who think, "ahhh, it has the word 'automatic' in it, we have to ban it!" God I hate idiots like that who base their ideas off of no research or common sense.
-
heh. Glad I'm not the only self defense enthusiast. Oldfolks I have to agree.. any case study has to have a broader target then just one or two towns regardless of size. I personally have to agree though. If everyone had guns no one would need to use them. why? Because only suicidle people would actually attempt to kill someone knowing they will die in return.And guess what? if someone wants to kill someone else that bad they will do it with or without a gun. If everyone is armed then at least the psychopath may only shoot one person instead of 20 before the cops arrive.
-
Thats the plan, the goal. semi auto has no place in anything but killing people. That is the argument.shot gun, pistols, rifles.They are trying to say that since they banned assault rifles (that dont really exist, I can put damned near any gun into an assault category) that semi autos all fall into the assault cat.As to not making a study out of one or two towns, thats true, but, its not a study, its a law in those few places, and the theory behind it is sound and those towns continue to prove it, its not a new thing it goes back 20 years.If I get some time today between shit on my list Ill try to find that article, its shitty to talk about it and say this and that from either side with out having it handy to read and make certain of the details it outlines.Its nto a case study, it simply shows a trend by showing crime rates over the years. Noone thinks twice about passing new laws to take my guns away when they pull the crime rates for new york city or LA, they use them against me and i live a thousande miles from either of them.
-
The antigun bastards are crafty :/... They love pulling out cases where guns are used in crime. However, they always seem to leave out the times when a gun actually SAVES lives. Cases where civilians using guns to circumvent crime just get left out.
-
Or the massive number of guns that aren't used illegally in any way shape or form.
-
The only problem with them not being used illegally in generic is that its extraordinarily easy to contort "hunting" no matter how many safe practices are used to say it encourages violence and shooting people rather then animals.If your arguing about them being used to stop/intervene in crime then you are at least arguing that its stopping crime.
-
Same thing could be applied to any FPS video game.
-
Not only can it.. it is on a regular basis. Which is why if I'm in a debate about guns I don't talk about video games. While it is possible to counter the argument if I am pro guns I am going to hit hard by not mentioning the oppositions arguments.While it can be argued that guns are used often legally without people dying. Why bring up something in that context unless I want to steer the other person into a trap?Instead of bringing up all use of gun. I bring up Crime circumvention which is a direct blow to the "guns are only used for evil" which is much harder to form a rebuttle from. If I bring up "guns are used alot without people dying" they bring up "but, they encourage violence towards people and encourage cruelty towards animals." I then have to mention that its people who hunters are the ones who are for the death penalty of misuse of guns because they stand to lose their guns when people misuse them.
-
and that bastard dick chaney does nothing to promote safe gun usage either! Fucking Prick!
-
Didn't he say something along the lines of, "Stuff like that happens"?And Nny, I see what you mean.
-
I dont care what he said, Iv been around guns since I was bron, my dad had a big collectionof them, me and all of my brothers have decent to large size collections and we all are hunters and outdoorsmen, we were taught from teh time we were old enough to walk that guns are bad to play with they are tools and should be treated as such and taken care of and used with in teh rules of safety.None of us has ever had an accident with a gun, in all the hunting trips with my brothers nad dad together (thats 5 epopel afield with large caliber rifles and pistols) never even an accidental discharge or close call. that shit does nto happen and while Im cool with smoking a fatty and walking through the woods with a pistol on my side, its another story to mix guns and drugs or booze.That pistol is on my hip and never comes out of the hoslter unless its needed, getting fucke dup and shooting the shit out of stuff is another story. whre I go the most Iv had that pistol out 2 times for bears. One of those tiems turned out to be a dog from a camp down teh road in the middle of the night, so in actual use, only once for bear and even in tha case I had no reason to shoot, atleast not at the bear, a solid shot into a tree was more than enough to send the bear off in another direction. gun accidnets do not happen if you have responsible parties using them. alwyas know your target and whats beyond it. Never carry a gun with a round in the chamber, dont pull the bastard out unless your willing to use it, and empty or loaded dont point the fucker at people unless its a matter of life or death.pretty common sense type of rules eh?ther more but those ar the basics and the most important ones that any idiot, aside from the vice president apparently, can follow. I guess hes a special kind of idiot who has shit like that happen on a regular basis or seems to think that it happens to everyone.in over 30 years of being afield Iv never had it happen to me and combine the lifetimes of myself and brothers and dad? thats nearly 200 years (65 years on my dad alone) of no bullshit accidents with a gun.Its a matter of responsability and common sense and some respect.
-
"I then have to mention that its people who hunters are the ones who are for the death penalty of misuse of guns because they stand to lose their guns when people misuse them"
WHAT?
ya lost me there, I was with ya till that sentance, I think ya used the worng words or wrong order or something, let your brain get ahead of your fingers?
I do it all the time myself so Im nto bitching at ya about it, but could ya please explain where ya were going with that sentance?
I understand the end and the beginning its that part in teh middle that has me fuckered.its people who hunters are the ones who are for the death penalty of misuse of guns because
hunters support the death penalty because they stand to lose thier guns due to the people that misuse them?
that were you were trying to go with that?
I dont believe its true if so. I knwo many hunters who oppose the death penalty, myself not being one of them, Im all for it, just think it should be faster and not such a spectacle to carry out. and I apply that to people who muredered others by knife, explosives, running them down in a car, throwing them off a bridge, what ever method of death they chose to inflict. -
You misunderstood my post. I was adding onto your comment about Cheney, because him saying something like that is hugely stretching the truth to make it seem like it wasn't that bad he did it, because it happens often. But it doesn't happen often, and I know that. I've been hunting roughly five years (don't remember the first time I went dove hunting with my dad, as in me shooting them and not just watching) so I know that shit doesn't happen hardly at all, unless the person is a complete idiot and/or hasn't handled a gun. It's amazing how little common sense people have. Oh, I'm going to put a shit load of powder into my gun and shoot it, causing the barrel to completely explode. My dad has talked about one way to show children how powerful and dangerous guns are is to have one shoot a shotgun or rifle (one that kicks, of course) and they'll get pushed back from the recoil. It would work better than just telling them because they'd actually feel the power, without getting hurt (much). I still remember the first time I used a shotgun, I wasn't ready and got pushed back a couple feet. I wonder if there have been studies on how many people who have used guns in crime have actually taken a gun safety course before, or had even used a gun before.
-
Grvty, I could be wrong but, I seem to recall hunters seem to (in general) be for the death penalty. I was refering to the point about guns as to how I would use that in a debate.Lol... In short that was me adlibing a debate. I could be wrong but, I generally remember reading that gun owners were pro death penalty and wanted stricter penalties for misuse of guns.
-
I did nto mis unserstand.You talked some shit on him, I elaborated. I wasnt attacking you with all the shit I said in there, I was once again attacking that piece of shit. I just elaborated on what you had said.
-
teh pro death I have never heard, and Im constantly around guns and people who own them. I know people thta agree with both sides of it, pro and con. Gun owners have always supported stricter harsher punishment of those that misuse guns. Why is it that the peopel it affects most are those that want stricter shit for criminals nad those that are so scared about anyone having a gun dont belive in harsher shit for the bastards that misuse them?thast te really interesting question here.ey want to punish manufacturers and keep guns away from people period, but dont seem to think its worth while to punish the wrong doer as its cruel.
-
It makes some degree of sense to me. Antigun activist generally believe that if there are no guns people won't commite crimes.. They don't believe that people will use baseball bats instead...Personally I think i'd rather be shot then stabbed or clubbed..Bullets can at least be a chance its painless shot and dead.... With a baseball bat... its gunna hurt 0.o