Duckman on gun control

[HeyYou]

Should I not defend myself when someone tries to take away my constitutional rights? Handgun bans have been struck down in most locations here in the US where they were implemented, as unconstitutional, how is an assault weapons ban any different? Hand guns are used in more crimes by a HUGE factor, yet, bans are not legal.

 

I don't own assault RIFLES, I own assault WEAPONS.

 

Assault Rifle: Selective fire.

Assault Weapon: Semi-auto version of Assault RIFLE.

 

I use one my my SKS rifles for rodent control. Woodchucks are NOT the size of baseballs, they are the size of a small dog. With my scoped rifle, I can hit them at 100 yards every time. One shot, one kill. The slug does not expand appreciably. (until it hits anyway.....) I originally used a .22, but, it didn't have enough stopping power to penetrate the skull, they would just basically bounce off, and mr. woodchuck would run back into his hole.

 

I don't sit around, just waiting for an opportunity to shoot one..... I don't have the patience for that..... However, when I DO see one, it is a simple matter to grab my rifle, open a window, and shoot him dead. I am going to guess that Vagrant isn't a hunter either...... (nor am I.) I don't sit around drinking beer, waiting for something to stick it's head out......

 

I agree that assault weapons aren't the best for home protection. Too much penetration. You are just as likely to kill your neighbor, (or someone in the next room...) as you are anyone breaking into your home. (unless you have ammo specifically suited to the purpose......) When I lived out in the boonies though, my nearest neighbor was well out of range. I probably could not have hit one, even if I were trying to. (which I had no reason to.....) I am working on getting a place out in the country once again, and from there, I can't even SEE my nearest neighbors house. I like it. :)

 

Edit: Oh, and if there were multiple people in the theater with weapons, the body count would've been higher, not lower. The reaction from Gunman would've been to shoot Protector A, but Protector B, seeing Protector A's gun, might try to attack Protector A, thinking they are a secondary threat. Etc. etc. Bullets flying, richocheting, instead of a massacre, it would simply be a tomb.

 

That's one possibility. Of course, the guy with the arsenal, and body armor.... is going to be the most obvious threat, someone pulling a pistol and aiming it at the most obvious threat, would be seen as an ALLY, not an opponent. If you can't make that distinction in the heat of combat, then you have no business pulling your weapon in the first place. Better that you leave it in the holster, and do your best to get out.

[Moveing]

Edit: My brother agrees with HeyYou. Of course my brother's responses to me were. "No its not" "Because." "YOUR A F****** DEMOCRAT!"

How very eloquent.

When you try to touch other people freedomes they react most of the time angry, aggressiv and sometimes even violent. Thats normal. Thats good. Thats why we get freedomes in the first place.

 

 

Vindekarr

Well, here in Australia we have a system that works pretty well: we have reasonably strict gun laws,

No gun law is reasonably strict. Just because your neighbourhood doesn't look like Beirut 1984 isn't the laws merit.

 

and it's been decades since we had a truly major shooting(Port Arthur, 36 dead, mentally ill teen with a replica AK-47, 7x68 Russian, semi-automatic)

Oh come on!!! Again?? You see its allways this bullocks story of a mentally ill person doing a massacre and than Assautl Rifles get banned. Since dunblane the british banned all guns and broken britian became a hellhole of crime.

 

Seriosly, is there anyone out there who thinks all these massmurders where committed alone by these lone mentally ill crazies??

 

 

Allways the same Pattern. Masked Person shoots a bunch of people and get founded up dead or druged up in a dream state.

I didn't want to say this, but to end this silly debate about banning weapons we need to get this by the roots. Did Holms do the shooting or not?

 

I nearly every freaking massshooting people speak about a secound gunman, also this time in colorado. They saw a secound gunman on the island of Utøya, they saw a secound gunman in the school in winnenden, but no one speaks about that anymore.

Is this stuff stagend? It was close to a mayor polling about the UN Gunlegislation and right in time a lone mentally ill gunman showes up and killed some people.

 

This was a f***ing Black Op!!!

And you wanna take my guns??!

[Ghogiel]

*Touches ear*

The target is aware. Eagle 1 please advise.

[ginnyfizz]

Since dunblane the british banned all guns and broken britian became a hellhole of crime.

 

No we didn't, we banned all handguns for private use excepting only veterinary surgeons (the most humane way to slaughter a horse is a bullet rather than a lethal injection or the bolt gun used on cattle, sheep and pigs, for some reason that's how it is with horses)and licensed slaughtermen/huntsmen (a friend of mine who is a Master of Foxhounds is allowed a pistol). We also banned automatics and semi automatics for civilian use. Subject to either a shotgun licence (for shotguns, surprisingly enough) or a firearms certificate (slightly stricter, needed for rifles)you can own long barrel weapons in the UK.

 

The effect of this is that our world class pistol shooting team have had to train in France for the Olympics about to start on their own soil. And the criminals of course feel free to ignore the law and turn Moss Side in Manchester and Shottingham into Dodge City.

 

Whilst I find it difficult to envision using these assault type weapons for hunting - it's not how we do it over here, old chap - it's pretty clear that banning them doesn't do a fat lot of good for the rate of gun crime. I am not in favour of the level of gun control we have in Britain.

[Maharg67]

I agree totally with what Marxist Bastard says and the tweet he linked to. Regulating gun control is sensible and the only way to confront armed criminals in the end is with organized, well trained law enforcement bodies, observant citizens and some basic home defense weaponry allowed. But I speak in general of the world and of no nation in particular. In Australia we have strict gun control and I support it, generally, except when it reaches ridiculous degrees. I do not see that happening here. This is my first and final post in this topic!

[HeyYou]

I agree totally with what Marxist Bastard says and the tweet he linked to. Regulating gun control is sensible and the only way to confront armed criminals in the end is with organized, well trained law enforcement bodies, observant citizens and some basic home defense weaponry allowed. But I speak in general of the world and of no nation in particular. In Australia we have strict gun control and I support it, generally, except when it reaches ridiculous degrees. I do not see that happening here. This is my first and final post in this topic!

 

Trouble is, law enforcement is REACTIVE. They don't even head your direction until the crime is already in progress. A significant percentage of the time, by the time they actually arrive, assess the situation, and decide what to do, it is already way too late.

 

On the other hand, an armed homeowner can confront/subdue/kill the intruder, and the cops just clean up the aftermath. I know if it were my family involved, I would much prefer the latter situation.

[Ghogiel]

I am not in favour of the level of gun control we have in Britain.

Pepper spray is considered a firearm under UK law. Even any home made s*** in a squeezy bottle is a firearm offence.

[Vagrant0]

Good question, why should I justify my collection of bombs?

Exactly, why should you? I have one pound of binary explosives(unmixed) sitting on my desk right now. It's perfectly legal. Should I justify my possession of them? I'm thinking no.

By that logic, someone who collects pictures of child pornography should be allowed to as long as they aren't pleasuring themselves to it. Sure, most collections only exist because someone has an excess amount of money thrown around and wants to validate that expense by tying it with an interest. But there are obviously some things which people are not allowed to legally collect regardless of their reasons for collecting them. Sure, someone could go around collecting all the various types and styles of Extacy, take them home, mount them in a glass case, and it would be a great collection. But they would also be looking at serious drug possession charges if anyone reported that collection, even if they never had any intention to use it or sell them. Just because you want to collect it doesn't mean it's permissible by law.

[Aurielius]

We have debated this issue seven times within the last several years and as usual all the usual suspects have turned up.

A challenge for either side: Find one person who switched sides due to the peerless arguments of the oppostion in this endless circular argument.

[Syco21]

I didn't have to rape children to acquire my compounds, nor did the manufacturer. No crimes were committed in the manufacturing, distribution, sale or possession of my compounds. The only crime would crime would be if I mixed the components and then stored them.

 

They don't compare to child porn. As for drugs, drugs should be legal not unlike alcohol. This is coming from someone that hates hippies and drug addicts. :laugh:

 

But I also hate alcoholics. Still, I wouldn't support another prohibition on alcohol. Likewise, I don't support prohibition on drugs. It has cost us entirely way too much. Monetarily, the price has been through the roof. In terms of rights, we have lost many to the so called war on drugs. Despite these huge costs, it has only been effective at creating crime.