Guns

[Swagger897]

There's nothing wrong with a bullet designed specifically to kill human beings. They should be legal to own, it is legal to kill human beings in many scenarios - and this would be a useful tool for doing that. Hunting is not even the primary reason guns are legal.

I didnt know it was designed to kill people, not just to kill.

And yes i do know the last line is a bit on the lower side to defend. Hell, there are even olympic teams for shooting..

 

[Danoff]

I didnt know it was designed to kill people, not just to kill.

And yes i do know the last line is a bit on the lower side to defend. Hell, there are even olympic teams for shooting..

Oh, I don't know whether it's specifically designed to kill people either. I didn't read anything about it. I just wanted to mention that there would be nothing wrong with a bullet designed specifically to kill human beings since there are many times when killing human being is legal, moral, appropriate, and in your best interest (even in Europe!!). Having the proper tool for the job seems appropriate.

 

[mister dog]

Quit saying that your opinion accounts for over 500 million people. It does not, and you assume that the majority means entire area, including Deep South, alaska, and midwest states here.

Never stated that my opinion accounts for the whole of the US, I said most americans would oppose strict gun control (European style) IMO... There is a difference.

No, in fact it isn't fair to have a limit. Saying that someone can only buy a Ford Fusion (or Mondeo) and someone else a limited Reventon is the same. You want to limit what people can have, because you assume someone will go on a massive hunt to kill all people. It is not to say there will be thieves after it, because there will be, but one should still be allowed to own whatever he/she pleases.

Didn't say that neither...

Did you account for the fact that you must have a license before you can even purchase the weapon, and then to carry it in public. It is technically a crime not to have a carry permit and go out to buy a gun in a store, and walk it to your car concealed.

Conditions yes, but I'm sure many people in the US have a license and carry one around in public (am I right?), something which you can't do over here...

Once again, you assumed the entire State thinks as you do. You must have disregards to look up those who do care for guns, because otherwise the thought of yours would be different by now. Even if it's a place i haven been living in for a good bit of time, I have read and watched enough over time that a large portion of Europeans dont support it.

Please read my above remark, you are misinterpreting my words.

Something like this has already come out before, but was banned. I wont be surprised if we see a bit of an uproar about this stuff.

Indeed and i hope this will be banned just the same.

and what is to say a hallow point .22 to the head, in the Death T wont kill someone on the first shot? And like the media, you assumed it's only for use against people, not hunting...

The thought of using these types of bullets to go hunting sounds a bit sadistic to me

Anyway; I get it you all love your guns and I'm the only one opposing them in this thread, so it's normal I get the tide against me...

 

[Famine]

Anyway; I get it you all love your guns

I don't have any guns, because I live in a European country where many weapons are outright illegal to own.

Quit using that as a shield to hide behind and answer the questions. Bullets that are designed to end the threat in one shot already exist - why is this a bad thing?

 

[fredyellowone]

Guns are useless. People don't need guns. (With the exception of military and police. And in those two case, it's because those people are agents of the State, and the first and main characteristic of any State is it's monopoly on violence - thanks to Max Weber, BTW.)
Only lunatics are thinking that they can and will protect their family with guns. It's the opposite. Your regular Rambo has more chances to kill harmless people in any home break or criminal offense than helping himself or anyone for that matter.

Statistics are showing this. Studies are showing this.



As for the Second Amendment, only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

The historic argument is also void. A bunch of Americans tend to think it's supposed to be that way because according to them, they live in a country with a great history of violence and firearms. Of course, this is ********. France, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Greece and Russia are all countries with a far more violent history.

So, the question is not about "do we need guns or not". The question is about reforming the freaking outdated US constitution, written with horses and cowboys on mind; fixing the inequities that is driving some Americans to live on palaces while another big bunch of the population is starving with unemployment, unable to afford medical care and/or decent lifestyle; all in the name of savage capitalism and that moronic protestantism doctrine that teach you that to be a good man and close to God, you have to be as rich as possible.

At least, stupidity can be fixed right?

Well for that, we would have to send back to school a lot of people. We would also have to purge the Bible Belt from it's almost inalienable foolish state. No kidding, that "belt" is home of the most radical people in the United States. Some of the people that are living there are thinking that Noe got Dinosaurs on his Arch, they are buiding horror houses to scare childrens from committing abortion or for having sex before mariage; those States are home of the KKK, the biggest fanboys of the death penalty (hello China!) and Guns are also living in the Bible Belt... And you guessed it, where do you think there is the most poverty in the United States?

But it's a cycle. I understand that it's hard to get a proper education when you got no money. Instead, you have to join the military, because it's your only chance to live a decent life. After that, it's groupthink; trying to wage wars on some countries all in the name of democracy; while the real interest at hand is geopolitic, fossil fuel and economy.

Well maybe stupidy can't be fixed, after all.

 

[Swagger897]

Never stated that my opinion accounts for the whole of the US, I said most americans would oppose strict gun control (European style) IMO... There is a difference..

Never said whole either, I only stated a number that accounts for the US and Europeans who would be in favor...

Didn't say that neither....

then what is the basic defense for all pro-legislation advocates who want more regulation to stop these occurences? Every time since the Columbine shooting there has always been a knee jerk reaction and I have a question to ask you...

Are you the type who will join because of a knee jerk reaction, or have you always been the type to defend the immorality of guns?

Conditions yes, but I'm sure many people in the US have a license and carry one around in public (am I right?), something which you can't do over here...
.

I am not 100% sure of it but from the people I ask it is only those of ages 50+ who actually get them. Anyone younger that i've asked seems they have too much time in other things to go see a judge. And those below the age of 30 who are reckless don't care. Not to say there are those who take things seriously, but the majority (based on people who I've actually asked, not an assumption for a nation) don't, which isnt surprising for where I'm from...

Indeed and i hope this will be banned just the same.
.

I could care less if it is banned. The first instance it is used at a person and in an illegal procedure in which it actually kills first shot, i think it will be banned because of a knee-jerk...

The thought of using these types of bullets to go hunting sounds a bit sadistic to me

Anyway; I get it you all love your guns and I'm the only one opposing them in this thread, so it's normal I get the tide against me...

Im sorry but how? Hallow points are meant to inflict more damage, and then if you have a core lockt which will expand, then it is even better...



I dont have a problem with you at all, and there must be two sides to everything made.. it is only those who want to be a part of trends, cause attention for there self, and those who argue to piss people off that i hate. Yes, hate... The only issue I think a lot of people have is the fact you say "majority". You didnt sign up on this forum with half of Europe and half of America on your side, but only for your opinion. Please keep it like that, your opinion only..

Guns are useless. People don't need guns. (With the exception of military and police. And in those two case, it's because those people are agents of the State, and the first and main characteristic of any State is it's monopoly on violence - thanks to Max Weber, BTW.)
Only lunatics are thinking that they can and will protect their family with guns. It's the opposite. Your regular Rambo has more chances to kill harmless people in any home break or criminal offense than helping himself or anyone for that matter.

Statistics are showing this. Studies are showing this.



As for the Second Amendment, only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

The historic argument is also void. A bunch of Americans tend to think it's supposed to be that way because according to them, they live in a country with a great history of violence and firearms. Of course, this is ********. France, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Greece and Russia are all countries with a far more violent history.

So, the question is not about "do we need guns or not". The question is about reforming the freaking outdated US constitution, written with horses and cowboys on mind; fixing the inequities that is driving some Americans to live on palaces while another big bunch of the population is starving with unemployment, unable to afford medical care and/or decent lifestyle; all in the name of savage capitalism and that moronic protestantism doctrine that teach you that to be a good man and close to God, you have to be as rich as possible.

At least, stupidity can be fixed right?

Well for that, we would have to send back to school a lot of people. We would also have to purge the Bible Belt from it's almost inalienable foolish state. No kidding, that "belt" is home of the most radical people in the United States. Some of the people that are living there are thinking that Noe got Dinosaurs on his Arch, they are buiding horror houses to scare childrens from committing abortion or for having sex before mariage; those States are home of the KKK, the biggest fanboys of the death penalty (hello China!) and Guns are also living in the Bible Belt... And you guessed it, where do you think there is the most poverty in the United States?

But it's a cycle. I understand that it's hard to get a proper education when you got no money. Instead, you have to join the military, because it's your only chance to live a decent life. After that, it's groupthink; trying to wage wars on some countries all in the name of democracy; while the real interest at hand is geopolitic, fossil fuel and economy.

Well maybe stupidy can't be fixed, after all.

So you are calling me a rambo since I own a lot of guns. Most of which i said was for collectible and monetary use, but you also proceed to link it to stupidity....

I'd find different ways to voice that because that is a single sided mindset as to how a gun owner thinks..

 

[Zenith]

So you are calling me a rambo since I own a lot of guns. Most of which i said was for collectible and monetary use, but you also proceed to link it to stupidity....

I'd find different ways to voice that because that is a single sided mindset as to how a gun owner thinks..

Protip: If isn't willing to read through the thread before posting unsubstantiated claims, then he probably isn't willing to respond intelligently to you.

People just want to post their opinion, defending it or learning from it is not part of their plan.

 

[Swagger897]

Protip: If isn't willing to read through the thread before posting unsubstantiated claims, then he probably isn't willing to respond intelligently to you.

People just want to post their opinion, defending it or learning from it is not part of their plan.

Mainly I said that so a mod doesn't see it...

 

[Danoff]

@fredyellowone

Wow, what a chaotic and pointless rant. Where to begin.

Hi, I'm Danoff. I'm a gunowner, I own 6 firearms and am looking to acquire another 2. The purpose of these firearms is for self defense. I'm an atheist, I don't live in the bible belt, and I'm more familiar than most americans with the US constitution.

Guns are useless.

With the exception of target practice, hunting, self defense, and of course committing crimes - totally useless.

People don't need guns.

Responsible people own guns because responsible people take their self-defense and the defense of their property and loved ones very seriously.

Only lunatics are thinking that they can and will protect their family with guns.

That's not really an argument, it's more just namecalling. How would you go about protecting your family in a break-in?

It's the opposite. Your regular Rambo has more chances to kill harmless people in any home break or criminal offense than helping himself or anyone for that matter.

Statistics are showing this. Studies are showing this.

Citation needed. Your video doesn't demonstrate that at all.

All your video demonstrates is that if you take a group of people, talk to them about guns all morning, give them one for the first time, and have someone break in - they'll be thinking about... you guessed it... the gun instead of self defense. Someone who practices concealed carry often is likely to have forgotten that they even have the gun on them (not literally forgotten, more like you forget about your wallet but know it's there). Their first move would be to duck for cover. Only when they couldn't get away would they even process the fact that there was a gun - and at that point how is it not more useful to have it?

Also, there's a reason police don't carry their weapons under a t-shirt on a belt. Everyone I know who practices concealed carry doesn't do that - it's not very concealed and it's not easy to get.

As for the Second Amendment, only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of the 2nd ammendment. I suggest that you read DC vs Heller.

So, the question is not about "do we need guns or not". The question is about reforming the freaking outdated US constitution, written with horses and cowboys on mind;

The constitution doesn't need fixing, read DC vs Heller.

fixing the inequities that is driving some Americans to live on palaces while another big bunch of the population is starving with unemployment, unable to afford medical care and/or decent lifestyle; all in the name of savage capitalism and that moronic protestantism doctrine that teach you that to be a good man and close to God, you have to be as rich as possible.

...and you've lost lock on the conversation at this point. Your lack of understanding of economics or assumption that anyone in support of self defense or capitalism is, for some reason, religious, is totally not relevant.

Well for that, we would have to send back to school a lot of people. We would also have to purge the Bible Belt from it's almost inalienable foolish state. No kidding, that "belt" is home of the most radical people in the United States. Some of the people that are living there are thinking that Noe got Dinosaurs on his Arch, they are buiding horror houses to scare childrens from committing abortion or for having sex before mariage; those States are home of the KKK, the biggest fanboys of the death penalty (hello China!) and Guns are also living in the Bible Belt... And you guessed it, where do you think there is the most poverty in the United States?

But it's a cycle. I understand that it's hard to get a proper education when you got no money. Instead, you have to join the military, because it's your only chance to live a decent life. After that, it's groupthink; trying to wage wars on some countries all in the name of democracy; while the real interest at hand is geopolitic, fossil fuel and economy.

Well maybe stupidy can't be fixed, after all.

...and now you've gone right off the deep end. Somehow mixing creationists, the KKK, the death penalty, pro-lifer activists, the iraq war, military service, lack of critical thinking, and gasoline consumption with gun ownership. Just... wow. These are all completely separate issues.

 

[fredyellowone]

Responsible people own guns because responsible people take their self-defense and the defense of their property and loved ones very seriously.

So, there is responsible people only in the United States, Switzerland and in some rogues States? That is not a lot of responsible people out there.

 

[Famine]

only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

I'm sure someone once said something similar about the British and their muskets, cannon and dreadnoughts.

*rebuttal*

And doesn't at any point cover why we should be making laws to say that people who wish to abide by the law cannot own one if they want.

So, there is responsible people only in the United States, Switzerland and in some rogues States? That is not a lot of responsible people out there.

You seem to be conflating "responsible people" with "people not disarmed by the state" (and also a relatively poor knowledge of worldwide gun legislation).

I'm sure there are myriad responsible people who would own guns if only a group of people barely representing a fifth of them had said they'll be put in prison for it.

 

[Badasp5.0]

As for the Second Amendment, only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

Please give us some more insight on how technology is a instant defeat to a insurgency? Please explain your experience with Real world COIN operations or are you just talking about it since you played Call of Duty?

 

[Zenith]

It's funny because all those F-22's and tanks have been unable to stamp out an insurgency of goat farmers with rusted AK's in ten years...

 

[mister dog]

then what is the basic defense for all pro-legislation advocates who want more regulation to stop these occurences? Every time since the Columbine shooting there has always been a knee jerk reaction and I have a question to ask you...

Are you the type who will join because of a knee jerk reaction, or have you always been the type to defend the immorality of guns?

Well i live in a society where they aren't really part of our culture, my dad had one (he was a cop), but the older i got; the more examples i saw of the bad they can do; in wars and conflicts; in shooting sprees... the millions and millions of people that died because of them. IMO this vastly outweighs the good that can come from them from target practice. Also i do not support hunting if not for the sole purpose of putting food on the table. God created life in all it's forms, who are we to end it just for the **** of it?

When a madman enters a school and kills defenseless innocent children, it is only normal people are vocal to ban them outright.

I am not 100% sure of it but from the people I ask it is only those of ages 50+ who actually get them. Anyone younger that i've asked seems they have too much time in other things to go see a judge. And those below the age of 30 who are reckless don't care. Not to say there are those who take things seriously, but the majority (based on people who I've actually asked, not an assumption for a nation) don't, which isnt surprising for where I'm from...

You might have a point there, and that's a good thing as wisdom (mostly) comes with age. It is however always a danger having them around IMO. The son of that responsible person might find a way to get to his guns. If i'm not mistaken that is exactly what happened for the Sandy Hook shooting as he got the guns of his mom no?

 

[Exorcet]

Guns are useless. People don't need guns.

We don't need any invention seen in the last 10,000 years, we've survived as a species longer without them.

Only lunatics are thinking that they can and will protect their family with guns.

Then how is it that you can find reports of exactly that happening?

Your regular Rambo has more chances to kill harmless people in any home break or criminal offense than helping himself or anyone for that matter.

Then Rambo shouldn't have a gun. Hiding and vilifying guns won't make people safer around them either. Exposure and training could though.

As for the Second Amendment, only deep and deranged morons are going to think that guns will help you fight against whatever fascist governement would be elected, with some M16, Smith & Wesson revolvers, and a handful of grenades (And Bushmaster rifles or whatever); against any modern Occidental army, packed with f-22 raptors, tanks, cruise missile, destroyers, M 240 machine guns, bombs, AC-130 and Pave Low's.

The government would collapse trying to use any of that if the factory workers, engineers, farmers, etc were actively resisting them rather than supplying them with fuel, food, and an economy.

The weapons you listed are very good for dealing with high end offense weaponry. Quite of few of them are next to no use against an insurgency. The F-22 can't even find people on the ground. Cruise missiles need a designated target, and it would have to be a fairly large target to be cost effective. Destroyers can't attack anything beyond the cost except via cruise missiles. There is no way to wipe out a hypothetical armed US civilian population short of flattening the continent with nukes, which then destroys the government unless they want to move elsewhere.

So, the question is not about "do we need guns or not". The question is about reforming the freaking outdated US constitution, written with horses and cowboys on mind; fixing the inequities that is driving some Americans to live on palaces while another big bunch of the population is starving with unemployment, unable to afford medical care and/or decent lifestyle; all in the name of savage capitalism and that moronic protestantism doctrine that teach you that to be a good man and close to God, you have to be as rich as possible.

Legal access to guns is necessary. It's a right, it's required to be on equal terms with law breakers, and it's required to fight an unjust government.

Well i live in a society where they aren't really part of our culture, my dad had one (he was a cop), but the older i got; the more examples i saw of the bad they can do; in wars and conflicts; in shooting sprees... the millions and millions of people that died because of them. IMO this vastly outweighs the good that can come from them from target practice.

What about the good coming from people stopping the bad things you mentioned? Guns are more than target practice, they're self defense.

Also i do not support hunting if not for the sole purpose of putting food on the table. God created life in all it's forms, who are we to end it just for the **** of it?

You need to prove God exists, that his rules make sense, and then deal with the rest of life that needs to kill other life for energy.

When a madman enters a school and kills defenseless innocent children, it is only normal people are vocal to ban them outright.

It's a kneejerk reaction possibly made without thinking. So it might be naturally, but no one should take it seriously.

Imagine guns are banned worldwide tomorrow. Every law following citizen in the world disarms. Will law breakers? Will school shootings remain limited to schools or spread?

You might have a point there, and that's a good thing as wisdom (mostly) comes with age. It is however always a danger having them around IMO. The son of that responsible person might find a way to get to his guns. If i'm not mistaken that is exactly what happened for the Sandy Hook shooting as he got the guns of his mom no?

The problem there wasn't guns. It was someone who wanted to shoot people, which is the problem that needs solving. Remove the guns and the killers are still there and there are less ways to stop them.

 

[Famine]

Well i live in a society where they aren't really part of our culture, my dad had one (he was a cop), but the older i got; the more examples i saw of the bad they can do; in wars and conflicts; in shooting sprees... the millions and millions of people that died because of them. IMO this vastly outweighs the good that can come from them from target practice. Also i do not support hunting if not for the sole purpose of putting food on the table. God created life in all it's forms, who are we to end it just for the **** of it?

When a madman enters a school and kills defenseless innocent children, it is only normal people are vocal to ban them outright.

If a criminal uses something for a crime, why will making it illegal stop the crime?

And how is warfare involved now? The satnav/GPS in your car was originally used to guide missiles to their targets - and I'm sure more than one bad man has used it to find a bank to rob or school to shoot up. Ban satnav because it outweighs all the good of going somewhere?

I don't even know why I'm asking these questions since you just keep ignoring any kind of challenge to your viewpoint.

 

[mister dog]

If a criminal uses something for a crime, why will making it illegal stop the crime?

True that; it is a form of fighting against the stream, but rest assured I oppose criminality just the same as i oppose guns. There should be effective measures out there to counter them both.

And how is warfare involved now? The satnav/GPS in your car was originally used to guide missiles to their targets - and I'm sure more than one bad man has used it to find a bank to rob or school to shoot up. Ban satnav because it outweighs all the good of going somewhere?

I don't even know why I'm asking these questions since you just keep ignoring any kind of challenge to your viewpoint.

You're pulling it out of context here; satnav is a tool that tracks positions down, it is the missile itself that does the killing.

 

[Famine]

And the gun is simply a tool for aiming - the bullet itself does the killing.

True that; it is a form of fighting against the stream, but rest assured I oppose criminality just the same as i oppose guns. There should be effective measures out there to counter them both.

Then you need to work on how you keep weapons out of the hands of criminals before you make criminals out of people for simply owning weapons. Doing that just makes more criminals and fewer people to resist the real criminals.

 

[Zenith]

It is also important to remember that a government banning guns and a government getting rid of guns and even a government making it impossible for violent people to do violent things are entirely different.

Let's say you can justify banning guns (you haven't, and you won't), you will still need to figure out a way to get rid of them (you can't), and then you've still ignored the actual issue which is violent people being violent to others.

 

[mister dog]

And the gun is simply a tool for aiming - the bullet itself does the killing.

This wise man said it all:

 

[Zenith]

You repeatedly respond to points that defeat your argument with a sort of joking "Yeah I've got no real response to that. Here's a smiley and a cutesy excuse."

It doesn't help your case.

 

[Swagger897]

Well i live in a society where they aren't really part of our culture, my dad had one (he was a cop), but the older i got; the more examples i saw of the bad they can do; in wars and conflicts; in shooting sprees... the millions and millions of people that died because of them. IMO this vastly outweighs the good that can come from them from target practice. Also i do not support hunting if not for the sole purpose of putting food on the table. God created life in all it's forms, who are we to end it just for the **** of it?

When a madman enters a school and kills defenseless innocent children, it is only normal people are vocal to ban them outright.

You might have a point there, and that's a good thing as wisdom (mostly) comes with age. It is however always a danger having them around IMO. The son of that responsible person might find a way to get to his guns. If i'm not mistaken that is exactly what happened for the Sandy Hook shooting as he got the guns of his mom no?

Which is unfair because of the actions from one person should stop 250 + million others... It is not fair, nor Constitutionally sound by our "sacred documents".. If someone took a ATV in a mall and ran them all over, do we ban all ATV's because they can go any where? Do we ban guns because they can go anywhere?

My state is currently reducing the limits as to where you can take them. The only place I believe you can not take them are to church and government offices, and also buildings that stand that no guns are allowed. The county, or township you might call it, next to mine bans all guns. From air rifle to a 155 millimeter howitzer... However, funny thing is, they have more crimes with a weapon involved, than my county does. By a lot.. Look at Atlanta, at one time the most dangerous city in the world. The mayor called state troopers to patrol the streets, with and with out weapons to show that they still had a presence. Now, it is on the decline but still bad, only because of government cutbacks because their presence is unknown, and virtually non existent...

IMO, i would rather have a cop shoot my enemy, rather than me to avoid legal issues. However, if someone does, and help is not near, the job will be done by myself under the "Stand Your Ground" law put in by my state, where an unwanted civilian can be shot, not at, but shot (two different things) for trespassing even without notice of sign or verbal communication.

And the gun is simply a tool for aiming - the bullet itself does the killing.

Was going to say the exact same thing till i scrolled down...

This wise man said it all:

Woahh... that definitly broke AUP but none the less, it conveys only the point that guns are used to kill people. Not to have fun target shooting, not to have fun at an olympic meet, not to have fun at a range day with your friends. A gun is no different than food. It sells it's story through the history before it. With 21st century technology or 19th century, there is a story to them all..

And the olympic thing... A shotput could kill a person if thrown at their head. So I think we should ban all round things, that anyone can throw at lethal speeds... How will you argue that...

 

[mister dog]

You repeatedly respond to points that defeat your argument with a sort of joking "Yeah I've got no real response to that. Here's a smiley and a cutesy excuse."

It doesn't help your case.

You repeatedly quote my posts and try to ridicule it with hollow arguments that play more on me than on the point being discussed, I haven't read a thing from you that I find constructive or worth thinking about.

Anyway if the mood here is one of a bunch of vultures hitting on the same prey, maybe you should have your little party by yourselves as any counterpoint made by someone that opposes your views is ridiculed and criticized...

If you think me posting Chris Rock is a way to "get out of the discussion", you've got it wrong. If you can't appreciate something funny for what it is, you are being a sad git.

 

[Famine]

If you think me posting Chris Rock is a way to "get out of the discussion", you've got it wrong.

Try answering any the questions I've asked you then, because you seem to be doing anything but.

"What questions? I scrolled past them", you say?

what's the problem with a round designed to eliminate the threat on the first shot rather than on the sixth?

Which, incidentally, already exist.

(asked three times with a variety of wordings)

 

[Zenith]

You repeatedly quote my posts and try to ridicule it with hollow arguments that play more on me than on the point being discussed, I haven't read a thing from you that I find constructive or worth thinking about.

Accusing me of dodging the point. Oh the irony.

I made a "play" on your argument or lack thereof. I honestly don't care whether you think I have posted anything constructive because it is quite obvious that you haven't read much of the thread you are posting in. I and many others have repeatedly posted statistics and logical arguments in this thread. You can go find them and think about proper counter-points or you can continue to post without thinking and we will continue to wipe the floor with those arguments.

Anyway if the mood here is one of a bunch of vultures hitting on the same prey, maybe you should have your little party by yourselves as any counterpoint made by someone that opposes your views is ridiculed and criticized...

Any ridiculous point will be ridiculed, most certainly. You act like we're teaming up on you just because we're mean. The collection of posters in this thread are disagreeing with your points because your points don't work.

If you think me posting Chris Rock is a way to "get out of the discussion", you've got it wrong. If you can't appreciate something funny for what it is, you are being a sad git.

You can post Chris Rock, but it would only make sense to do so if you pair Chris Rock with an actual argument that addresses the points raised against you. You only did the first.

I don't find him funny, nor did I come to this thread to see Chris Rock. I came here to discuss guns, so maybe you should appreciate the Guns thread for what it is and make a separate thread for Chris Rock clips.

 

[mister dog]

@Famine Here's your answer;

The end result is basically the same (one RIP round or six bullets in someone's body), but if someone get's shot once for whatever reason, it would be nice if he has some survival chance no? Imagine how much victims a nut can make that has these types of bullets in his gun, there would be practically no survivors and his killing ratio would increase significantly...

Let me ask you a question now; you wouldn't mind these bullets being available then?

 

[Famine]

The end result is basically the same (one RIP round or six bullets in someone's body), but if someone get's shot once for whatever reason, it would be nice if he has some survival chance no?

No.

Imagine how much victims a nut can make that has these types of bullets in his gun, there would be practically no survivors and his killing ratio would increase significantly...

I'm not concerned about the hypothetical actions of criminals acting illegally.

I'll reiterate that you don't need an "RIP" round to one-shot stop a miscreant. Just about anything more than a .22 to the face will do it and, though they're not the fabled manstoppers of Hollywood fame, there aren't many questions a .45 ACP doesn't answer. Of course if you're into serious home defence, there's always the shotgun.

Let me ask you a question now; you wouldn't mind these bullets being available then?

Nope.

They don't do anything that other stuff on the market doesn't already do and they're far too expensive.

 

[IneedSchool]

Does anybody know the name of the model of this double barrel shotgun?

 

[mister dog]

They don't do anything that other stuff on the market doesn't already do and they're far too expensive.

Gun control a la Chris Rock so to say.

 

[Exorcet]

Imagine how much victims a nut can make that has these types of bullets in his gun, there would be practically no survivors and his killing ratio would increase significantly...

I can only really see this happening if everyone just stood still and watched the shooter. On the other hand, if everyone else had a one shot kill on the shooter, his spree would probably end faster.

The example you posted seems a little one sided. Why is the criminal the only one to benefit? Also, while it's just an example, real life would have more context. If the situation you posted were to actually happen, what would be the circumstances behind it?