Guns

[Talentless]

This thread is being moved to the opinion forum, I wanted to place it here first so that the greater traffic of this forum would notice it early.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

IMHO,... anything that can be concealable (or altered to be concealed) should be melted down.....

..........{que the barbarick flame fest aimed in my direction from all the people who think their schloong gets bigger cause they own a .44}

 

[emad]

^redeye
agreed...that way there'd be less random killings...more i wanna say but i can't put it in words

 

[Talentless]

Does anyone here know statistical mathmatics? I'd like to know how many times an option would have to be selected be within + or minus 5% of the opinion of 19741 members (current total membership).

 

[Talentless]

I forgot to add an option. Option added.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Talentless
Does anyone here know statistical mathmatics? I'd like to know how many times an option would have to be selected be within + or minus 5% of the opinion of 19741 members (current total membership).

I'm probably way off here,.. but wouldnt that be 19741 x .05 = 987.05?

 

[Talentless]

I chose loose control because I do believe some make themselves an unjustifiable risk by their actions. But not by an unfounded suspicion.

 

[Talentless]

I would think it much more complicated. I saw a program on it once, but only partially, and some time ago. I don't think it was that simple.

 

[emad]

but doesn't loose control exist already? it's not all that helpful...strict would be nice but strict has it's drawbacks too. how do you know the person is smart enough to use it and store it safely? you've all heard the stories about the kid digging through their parent's closet and finding a pistol...

idunno, guns just aren't safe. i'd like to go to a firing range to use a pistol, but that's probably the extent of what i would want to use a gun for...that for me, means no need for me to own a gun.

edit
made it a bit more readable

 

[Duke]

I say moderate control, because I think there should be strict background checks and training/education requirements involved in getting a permit for gun ownership (excluding long guns). I'm less concerned about the types of guns it is legal to own than I am about the people who are allowed to own them.

 

[milefile]

I have an idea 💡. Why don't we make killing people with guns illega... oh wait. Never mind.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Protection from invading British/French/Indian soldiers is why we NEED guns in our houses

 

[Ghost C]

IMHO,... anything that can be concealable (or altered to be concealed) should be melted down.....

..........{que the barbarick flame fest aimed in my direction from all the people who think their schloong gets bigger cause they own a .44}

^redeye
agreed...that way there'd be less random killings...more i wanna say but i can't put it in words

Anything concealable should be melted down? Why? That just means that the criminals will carry around shotguns and more powerful rifles.

emad, from what I've seen of you, all of your posts are pure ignorant opinionated garbage with no fact to back them up. Do you have any actual facts about the actual amount of gun-related deaths each year? Because if you think guns causing "random killings" is a major problem, you should protest to outlaw cars, since they cause more deaths each year than violence involving pistols (Actually, more than violence involving any type of firearms, but that's not the point).

I remember a few years back someone went into a restaurant with a shotgun, attempting to rob everyone inside. Two people were legally carrying their concealed handguns. One woman with a 9mm in her purse, and a man with a (I think) compact frame .44 revolver on his ankle. The criminal turned his back to them (I guess they were both at the same table), and he ended up getting shot twice. Once in the leg with the .44, and once in the torso region with the 9mm. Two things never happened after that day: The man never walked without the use of a cane, and he never tried to rob anyone again.

So, without these concealable weapons, that situation would've turned out ugly, and could've turned out with innocent people getting hurt, or killed.

I think it should be obvious I oppose any form of gun control other than the background check we have in place in WV right now.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Protection from invading British/French/Indian soldiers is why we NEED guns in our houses

What about protection from burglars?

What about protection from our own government?

At least half the reason that the "right to keep and bear arms" is in our Constitution is so that citizens will be able to put up armed resistance to a totalitarian government, should one come to power.

 

[Talentless]

http://calculators.stat.ucla.edu/sampsize.php I hope this page is good enough. Using the mean option and changing only the population size to 19741, we need 377 entries in one of the options.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C


I remember a few years back someone went into a restaurant with a shotgun, attempting to rob everyone inside. Two people were legally carrying their concealed handguns. One woman with a 9mm in her purse, and a man with a (I think) compact frame .44 revolver on his ankle. The criminal turned his back to them (I guess they were both at the same table), and he ended up getting shot twice. Once in the leg with the .44, and once in the torso region with the 9mm. Two things never happened after that day: The man never walked without the use of a cane, and he never tried to rob anyone again.

So your saying it wouldnt have mattered if the lady or the guy missed and killed a 10 year old kid walking down the sidewalk?

I believe they should be prosecuted for attempted man-slaughter.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke


What about protection from our own government?

Ashcroft is coming for you now. With guns.

 

[Ghost C]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
So your saying it wouldnt have mattered if the lady or the guy missed and killed a 10 year old kid walking down the sidewalk?

I believe they should be prosecuted for attempted man-slaughter.

So we're going by "What if...?"s now? Since when did "What if?" matter in an argument of fact?

Did they miss? No. You know why? You have to take a firearms training course in order to get a concealed carry permit in this state. That also includes training on the range.

I believe you should research what you're arguing a little more, and try to learn something about firearms besides what you see on TV or read in biased news reports.

 

[Talentless]

You would impose a limitation on the defense against intent based on a hypothetical accident?

Your argument strongly implies I am beholden to mercy at all times.

Bats do not compare.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by Ghost C
So we're going by "What if...?"s now? Since when did "What if?" matter in an argument of fact?

Did they miss? No. You know why? You have to take a firearms training course in order to get a concealed carry permit in this state. That also includes training on the range.

I believe you should research what you're arguing a little more, and try to learn something about firearms besides what you see on TV or read in biased news reports.

Thats funny,...

 

[Duke]

I found it pretty much on the money, rather than amusing.

 

[Ghost C]

Why is it funny? Because you have no facts to back up your argument, just "what if" and "this could happen"?

That's not funny. That's stupidity on your part, especially for getting involved in a discussion based on fact, not fiction. In retrospect, that is laughable.

 

[Talentless]

And that reply, Red, borders on spam.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
Thats funny,...

I thought it was right on. For once I agree with G.

But just for kicks, what was so funny about it?

 

[Talentless]

That's not meant as a threat, but an observation of the weakness of your response.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Man,... I could sworn this was a topic of opinion..... ya know,.. Which position on firearms is closest to your own?

And if I choose to reply in a non hostiile fashion concering what I viewed as an attack, to save this from turning into a "who's got a bigger schlong fest",... I'm the spammer?,.................. thats just wonderful.

..

 

[milefile]

In AZ you can carry your gun in public, not concealed, though. That requires a special permit. And a few nights ago I was in a convenience store and the guy in front of me in line had some automatic pistol on his hip. I thought to myself, "woe to the criminal who tries to rob this place".

 

[Talentless]

Logic.

Physics say guns are effective at the following. Hitting a target with great force from a great distance.

Logic.

Great distance and power is almost always preferable to close proximity and even greater power.

 

[Ghost C]

I think I should point out there's a city somewhere in the south (I don't remember the name or the state) that requires all of it's residents to own at least one long arm, by law. I also point out that this city has a 0% crime rate, because really, are you going to break into a house when you know someone has a gun? I sure wouldn't (Not that I break into houses, but anyway...) want to do something that stupid.

[Edit: Nothing I said was supposed to be meant as hostile to anyone. I just don't take too kindly to people who think that anyone who owns a gun is compensating for something, or is psychotic, or wants to kill people. It's simply not true.]

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Talentless
That's not meant as a threat, but an observation of the weakness of your response.

In case you missed this, because I realize you were posting at nearly the same time.

But truly, we would all like to know what was so funny.

Every time a cop draws his gun, there is a chance of injury to innocent bystanders. Yet they are trained to minimize that chance. So why not require similar training in order for civillians to get a concealed-carry permit?