Guns

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Background checks are only a part of the topic; wonder how Americans would think if you would wanna tighten up gun laws by not allowing them to carry anymore, but strictly keep their guns in the house just like most European laws state?

That's asinine, and it defeats the purpose of defending yourself if need be out in the public.

Also just look at the laws in place already and the difference between them US vs Europe. You really think the difference in gun laws would be that great between both regions without the peoples consent?

Not sure what you're asking here.

I am challenging the flat statement "guns are designed to kill" which is patently untrue. And that's the reality. If someone wants to argue that some guns are designed to kill, or that the original purpose of guns was to kill, I wouldn't take issue to that. But the blanket statement "guns are designed to kill", no.

I could mention air rifles, pellet guns and paint guns here too, all of which are classified as firearms in some jurisdictions. Is anybody going to try to tell me that a paint gun, which I used to fire at other people and was shot back with as well, are "designed to kill"?

Sir, my paper made non-existent cousin died via paint gun, I take offense to your nonsense!!!

/sarcasm fully included, I agree with bob.

Also I will remind you lot that obviously have the depth of reading comprehension on par with a blow fish, that this has been explained to you on another thread. You wanting to glaze over it and then resubmit the question is starting to border on spam. Either you get it or you don't, and if you don't then you probably wont ever so stop asking.

 

[Swagger897]

Background checks are only a part of the topic; wonder how Americans would think if you would wanna tighten up gun laws by not allowing them to carry anymore, but strictly keep their guns in the house just like most European laws state?

Also just look at the laws in place already and the difference between them US vs Europe. You really think the difference in gun laws would be that great between both regions without the peoples consent?

Depending on the weapon, background checks are required (hold on) to even hold them in public. Expect in my case in Georgia, you can have a special license where a court ordered judge signs off a card (looking at a background check(which defeats the purpose)) where you can hold a pistol (this is what the carry permit is for) in public, concealed.

Unless you want to bring up the navy yard where the guy had an 870 i think (depending on the barrel length its quite a large shotgun) and concealed it in parts, it is really hard to distinguish what people have in their personal belongings.. I however do not want to go to TSA for just the food depot, but dealerships, major retailers, and pawn shops (Not all pawn shops, because some are very good. I have one near where i live and its probably the biggest pawn on youtube that doesnt have a reality tv show (Moss Pawn and Gun))

 

[mister dog]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 and @Swagger897 ; my point was that other members don't like me making the generalization that most Americans would oppose stricter gun control, and most Europeans (myself included); support strict gun control.

I didn't prove this generalization of mine with all kinds of stats (my bad), but clearly you 2 fellas here are an example of Americans opposing stricter gun control rules in the nature of what we have here in Europe AKA can't carry a gun on the streets. There will be exceptions (Americans hating guns and wanting them gone from the streets, and vice versa Europeans liking the right to stroll around with them), but I think that's what the majority of people on our 2 continents would agree on.

 

[Beeker1972]

Any type of weapons control brings death of innocent people. Only the power hungry loves weapons control.

 

[Swagger897]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 and @Swagger897 ; my point was that other members don't like me making the generalization that most Americans would oppose stricter gun control, and most Europeans (myself included); support strict gun control.

I didn't prove this generalization of mine with all kinds of stats (my bad), but clearly you 2 fellas here are an example of Americans opposing stricter gun control rules in the nature of what we have here in Europe AKA can't carry a gun on the streets. There will be exceptions (Americans hating guns and wanting them gone from the streets, and vice versa Europeans liking the right to stroll around with them), but I think that's what the majority of people on our 2 continents would agree on.

Actually, I am not for stricter ways to limit the control for rifles, or weapons with similar nature, excluding pistols which represent the same shape of rifles, but taken down are pistols.

I actually voted for moderate control. I did not vote for strict, only because I want to be able to buy a gun, a responsible person me being, without having a background check for the purchase of ammo. For not having high capacity magazines, clips, etc being outlawed. For not having high powered rifles equipped with high powered optics being illegal when sold together. For not having innovation be illegal (Yet in tonights State of The Union Obama clearly said innovation is what will build us (thank God for Audi)) and limiting what can be produced and sold.

Anyone can carry an AR-15 (the most generalized rifle there is nowadays) *if you obtain proper licenses and are not in violation with federal laws including the name of a felony on your records*. People like you will be the ones to banter, hide children's eyes from the sight of a man/woman walking with an AR-15 being carried in a safe manner as prescribed by local hunting regulations and licenses, and other documents that are necessary. Unlawful disarming of civilians on streets should be unconstitutional. Our nation was strung together by militias and revolts, unlike yours through totalitarian methods eventually disintegrating to your current day State.

Knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings or demonstrations of public firings is what kills (pun not intended) me. It is the unaccounted for that cause these terroristic outcries to nations who contain US criminals wanted by the law that want their fame on the nightly news. There is no way we can stop people as such, because how do you differentiate personalities without going through assimilation into one domestic culture. Here in America, I am happy to know that most people do not have thoughts of hate towards Muslims who live in my country, but rather bring no attention to it. It is the fools who do so for fame that win the eyes, not brain, of the weak who can be fed corrupt knowledge about scandalous objectives. It is the fools who I presume are brought up indifferently to public opinion, who need to be awaken to see the realities of the World we live in.

It is nice to know we have a day to celebrate the Earth. Why cant we have an official human appreciation day. Yes we ALL have done wrong to Mother Nature, by creating wars for thoughts which last only a few decades rather to millions of years.The dinosaurs that roamed the Earth millions of years ago never had a problem with weapons. People never had problems with people. That is until greed was introduced. Then, revenge. What follows are the tumultuous events that led us to here; divided yet equal.

So, before you make another generalization for your community, State, continent, and apparently my nation as well, I'd advise you to stop because you are throwing out far fetched ideas that only you can understand as legitimate. There is no easier way to say stop other than that, because your opinion is not shared (so far) with any other person at the moment, that the majority of America and Europe, (not Spain (Espana) you say but Europe) have similar thoughts.

A little personal info about me. I own over twenty rifles, and two pistols. Most of the rifles are wall hangers and collectibles waiting to be sold. Both pistols have never seen my "crack", never been past the shooting range at the sportsman club, never been pointed towards a person, even myself when cleaning, never has shot anything but paper, and wood. My rifles are solely used for food gathering or target. I have a Ruger .22 with an optic mounted for squirrels, a Marlin 30-30 used for deer or pest deterrent, a 1928 Mosin Nagant used for target shooting. I have four shotguns. A .410 winchester used for squirrel hunting when they dont come out of the trees, a 20Ga 870 pump for target shooting, a German double barreled 16Ga 1800's relic from my grandfather, and a 12Ga used for pest and waterfowl. I will never intend to use my rifles as a means to aggravate, terrorize, or bluff my way through any situation. They sure as hell wont ever be pointed at anyone unless SERIOUSLY unwanted on my property and threaten to harm my family or myself.

And here is the dénouement to my long a$s rant. A lot of people think that guns are used for targets, for shooting, for killing, and for intimidation or compensation. However, not a single damn person that I know of, the media included, has ever brought up the fact for collectibles. I have a neighbor who has never shot a gun, never intends to, and doesnt even own ammo, but he has more than me. He collects guns, buys and sells guns, and scraps guns for parts. There is a difference between a rampage and the love of the engineering of a gun. Rifles from WWII are being replicated secretly within some of the worlds most notorious rifles today. The German K98 Mauser is probably the first most noted rifle, ever. Its action is used in every single American bolt action weapon there is for companies that make bolt actions. It was German innovation that led us here today believe it or not. Good or bad on how you have been taught about the war, I will always look at Germany as a motto for a country. They brought themselves out of the worlds worst depression, out of hyperinflation and all. Managed to bring production levels beyond possible today, (legally standing) and yet have a moral that defeats all (pun not intended). A country learns a lot when they go to war. What other countries are doing, and what to do to "out" do them. It is whether or not it should be allowed by world laws...

We have clubs that are made for people who like cars. Clubs for people who like camo. Clubs for people who like Star Wars, Star Trek, candies and TV shows. Whatever you name it, theres a club for it. Guns too. So why just regulate this? Why not regulate candies that can kill people with diabetes, cars that go over the speed limits, movies that depict too much violence, camo that is too hard to differentiate? Because someone will always have their foot in to say no, why not this...

And that my fellow GTP'er is how I was raised by myself. Not peer pressured into liking who I am, but who I actually am. People like me, who know their facts over a hotly debated ideology and people like you who assume for the behalf of, well apparently two nations, will always win because we have been doing it a lot longer than you have. As soon as the next major shooting comes out I can guarantee you that there will be thousands of converts for your side, and thousands will rally up for mine, but that is okay by me, because I am not a fool who will want to participate with either sides. I will sit back in my chair, sip my tea, and watch two snobs spit in each other's faces over a topic that was already settled before.

 

[FoolKiller]

With no line to be drawn? So you don't mind me moving to the US and sporting my flamethrower? Just for sports purposes of course. I may have to carry it to and from my sporting arena, on the bus, and through streets etc. I look forward to this freedom thing you speak of.

It's almost as if you've never seen me in the Opinions Forum.

Bring your flamethrower out. I've seen one used before. That was pretty cool. I trust that you are a sane, peaceful individual with no desire to misuse your flamethrower, so I won't treat you as if I suspect you of being a criminal.

So you're OK with my freedom to possess a few kilos of plutonium then? At last, a kindred soul in my quest for world domination!

Nice try with the hyperbole. Projectile weapon vs WMD. Arguably different. But...

Assuming you can access it, have the proper containment to not pollute or damage other people or their property, and don't kill yourself in the process, sure. And if you use it to turn a DeLorean into a time machine...even better. I also trust that you are a sane, peaceful individual with no desire to misuse your plutonium, so I won't treat you as if I suspect you of being a criminal.


I do think both of you kind of miss the point about my freedom comment, though. While, yes, it is important to me that anyone be allowed to buy and own a gun for whatever reason they deem necessary, so long as they do not violate the rights of others, that is not the main freedom gained by owning a gun. The main freedom is freedom in general. All laws are enforced by gunpoint at some level. Every time a new regulation is passed a gun is ready to enforce it. With so many potential guns pointed at me, and the number just keeps freaking growing, why shouldn't we have our own guns?

And if you think I am being paranoid, why? What reason have I been given to trust my government in the last year? They spy on me. Police brutally beat a mentally ill homeless man to death on video and get away as innocent. A mentally ill teen has police called by his parents, to assist getting him to a hospital, but he is tased, pinned down, and then shot. Recently video came out of a man being shot by police with his hands in the air. If you buy the wrong two household goods at the same time, you have DHS officials questioning you the next day. I can't fly without getting treated like a suspected criminal. New York residents are "randomly" stopped and searched based on their appearance. This quit meaning something a while back, and has frequently been completely ignored for the better part of 13 years now. I don't want to see what happens if we lose our guns.

 

[Imari]

Nice try with the hyperbole. Projectile weapon vs WMD. Arguably different. But...

Assuming you can access it, have the proper containment to not pollute or damage other people or their property, and don't kill yourself in the process, sure. And if you use it to turn a DeLorean into a time machine...even better. I also trust that you are a sane, peaceful individual with no desire to misuse your plutonium, so I won't treat you as if I suspect you of being a criminal.

Your point was more freedom is always better. My point is the freedom in general is a good thing, as long as it doesn't endanger other people's freedom to enjoy things like living and breathing.

Guns are generally fine. Atomic weapons are generally not. Somewhere in between there's a line to be drawn where a reasonable person says "you're not going to do anything sensible with that much firepower, this is only going to end badly". I strongly suspect that the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line.

 

[Swagger897]

Your point was more freedom is always better. My point is the freedom in general is a good thing, as long as it doesn't endanger other people's freedom to enjoy things like living and breathing.

Guns are generally fine. Atomic weapons are generally not. Somewhere in between there's a line to be drawn where a reasonable person says "you're not going to do anything sensible with that much firepower, this is only going to end badly". I strongly suspect that the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line.

See that's just not true.... Some people go to the range, just to have fun blowing stuff up. Some people just want a wall hanger, but whatever one does with that, it isn't easy (mostly all the time) to obtain weapons that shoot that fast..

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Your point was more freedom is always better. My point is the freedom in general is a good thing, as long as it doesn't endanger other people's freedom to enjoy things like living and breathing.

Guns are generally fine. Atomic weapons are generally not. Somewhere in between there's a line to be drawn where a reasonable person says "you're not going to do anything sensible with that much firepower, this is only going to end badly". I strongly suspect that the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line.

I generally agree with you and FK, but I have to side with FK on this, their are tons of barriers in place to make sure that those who own such weapons like war memorabilia (tanks, fighters, general purpose machine guns). No ones freedom is at jeopardy any more than it would be if those people with tons of money to own them didn't have them. This includes the flamethrower idea. In reality aside from remarks, people do own them legally. I'd say that does extend to more freedom, anyone with the money and the desire and the legal record can own nearly any weapon they want, even to Peirs Morgan's misinformed dismay.

@LMSCorvetteGT2 and @Swagger897 ; my point was that other members don't like me making the generalization that most Americans would oppose stricter gun control, and most Europeans (myself included); support strict gun control.

I think you're confused on this topic, most people don't want you contributing on a subject that you clearly didn't research and aren't correct on. That's what members don't like, studies show that there are a good number of American's that couldn't care less about guns and wouldn't mind stricter gun control. In other words most people don't care for things that don't have any "personal" worth to them and thus most people don't want stricter guns.

I didn't prove this generalization of mine with all kinds of stats (my bad), but clearly you 2 fellas here are an example of Americans opposing stricter gun control rules in the nature of what we have here in Europe AKA can't carry a gun on the streets.

Obviously, it's a bit rhetorical in nature to state this...

There will be exceptions (Americans hating guns and wanting them gone from the streets, and vice versa Europeans liking the right to stroll around with them), but I think that's what the majority of people on our 2 continents would agree on.

...You still didn't answer my question, I'm not here to make a compromise I'm here to devour your soul!!!

I'm kidding of course, but I would like you to answer my question about the blanket ban of guns outside homes.

 

[mister dog]

I think you're confused on this topic, most people don't want you contributing on a subject that you clearly didn't research and aren't correct on. That's what members don't like, studies show that there are a good number of American's that couldn't care less about guns and wouldn't mind stricter gun control. In other words most people don't care for things that don't have any "personal" worth to them and thus most people don't want stricter guns.

Well this isn't university hall, so I'm not gonna research everything and write a thesis before i dare to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects on this here videogames forum

I did say i thought "most" americans; so in that sense i still have a point here, same as with "most" Europeans.

...You still didn't answer my question, I'm not here to make a compromise I'm here to devour your soul!!!

I'm kidding of course, but I would like you to answer my question about the blanket ban of guns outside homes.

I missed that question (scrolled down the last pages but couldn't bring it home), but feel free to phrase it again and i'll answer it for you

 

[Imari]

See that's just not true.... Some people go to the range, just to have fun blowing stuff up.

With atomic weapons?

The point was that each individual has their own limit where they'll say "now hang on just a moment, that's a bit much". It's going to be different for each person, but it exists. It's not even necessarily only about what weapons can be possessed, but how they can be possessed. Major stuff like tanks can generally be owned, if they're deweaponised. It's just a fancy tractor then.

People who believe that everyone should have absolute access to anything with no restrictions are called anarchists. That's maximum freedom, and it's also a pretty scary state to live in if you don't have a community of very trustworthy people around you.

 

[Famine]

People who believe that everyone should have absolute access to anything with no restrictions are called anarchists. That's maximum freedom, and it's also a pretty scary state to live in if you don't have a community of very trustworthy people around you.

Freedom isn't freedom if only one person has it.

Freedom is when everyone* has it.


*Except those who seek to obstruct others' freedom

Well this isn't university hall, so I'm not gonna research everything and write a thesis before i dare to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects on this here videogames forum

I did say i thought "most" americans; so in that sense i still have a point here, same as with "most" Europeans.

Your opinion doesn't need to be researched. It's a good idea to, so you don't look like an idiot, but if you wish to think, believe and state the most unsupportable rubbish in the universe, you can go right ahead.

When you're claiming to know the opinions of other people, you need to research it. You're free to be an idiot yourself, but you're not free to make other people look like idiots without any evidence that they actually are.


Incidentally, citing the existence of laws as evidence of social mindset is foolish. Spain's age of consent laws that allow sexual relations that would be considered paedophilic in almost all other nations don't entitle me to say "Most Spanish people are fine with paedophilia". Governments, at the best of times, don't represent a majority nor even a plurality of their citizens - our previous government in the UK was voted for by only one in FIVE people (21.6%) and our present one was voted for by absolutely no-one, with the Coalition that now forms it attracting one in three votes split between the two parties (23.4% Conservative, 14.9% Liberal Democrat). The laws these people pass do not represent a majority mindset in our nation.

 

[mister dog]

When you're claiming to know the opinions of other people, you need to research it. You're free to be an idiot yourself, but you're not free to make other people look like idiots without any evidence that they actually are.

Incidentally, citing the existence of laws as evidence of social mindset is foolish. Spain's age of consent laws that allow sexual relations that would be considered paedophilic in almost all other nations don't entitle me to say "Most Spanish people are fine with paedophilia". Governments, at the best of times, don't represent a majority nor even a plurality of their citizens - our previous government in the UK was voted for by only one in FIVE people (21.6%) and our present one was voted for by absolutely no-one, with the Coalition that now forms it attracting one in three votes split between the two parties (23.4% Conservative, 14.9% Liberal Democrat). The laws these people pass do not represent a majority mindset in our nation.

1: Don't call me an idiot.
2: Although you have a point that laws don't necessarily represent the mindset of people; I do still believe a majority of Europeans agree with how gun laws work in this continent, and as such would oppose a more liberal type of gun law like Americans have, where one can go out in public with a concealed weapon. Maybe this is not your mindset, but i think it would be silly for you to deny this, seeing that you've lived on this continent long enough to know how people feel about the subject in general.

 

[Famine]

1: Don't call me an idiot.

I didn't - and wouldn't.

2: Although you have a point that laws don't necessarily represent the mindset of people; I do still believe a majority of Europeans agree with how gun laws work in this continent, and as such would oppose a more liberal type of gun law like Americans have, where one can go out in public with a concealed weapon.

You are most welcome to believe that.

However, you cannot state it as factually as you have done so without any evidence.

Maybe this is not your mindset, but i think it would be silly for you to deny this,

I have no evidence to either claim or deny it.

seeing that you've lived on this continent long enough to know how people feel about the subject in general.

I've only lived in one part of the continent - and as I'm sure you know, Europe is not exactly homogenous. It would be foolish for me to pretend that my small sphere of anglophonic acquaintances represents the single prevailing mindset of the entirety of Europe's vastly different cultures.

 

[Exorcet]

With atomic weapons?

The point was that each individual has their own limit where they'll say "now hang on just a moment, that's a bit much". It's going to be different for each person, but it exists. It's not even necessarily only about what weapons can be possessed, but how they can be possessed. Major stuff like tanks can generally be owned, if they're deweaponised. It's just a fancy tractor then.

I don't think that anything should be outright out of the question to own, but some things do require more caution than others. An atomic weapon, even in the hands of someone with no ill intentions at all can still wipe out a city and severely damage an entire country. The question becomes, how do you make it safe to own one?

I feel the same applies to guns. Weapons don't inherently kill, so having them around isn't really a bad thing. There are conditions where weapons can lead to injury/death though and laws should be focused on preventing those situations, not outright disallowing people from acquiring or using things at all.

 

[mister dog]

Another highpoint for humanity; the R.I.P. bullet:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/28/georgia-maker-bills-new-bullet-one-shot-manstopper/

That's gonna be fun...

 

[FoolKiller]

Your point was more freedom is always better. My point is the freedom in general is a good thing, as long as it doesn't endanger other people's freedom to enjoy things like living and breathing.

<re-reads my comment on you owning plutonium> Yeah. That's what I said, in a roundabout way.

Assuming you can access it, have the proper containment to not pollute or damage other people or their property, and don't kill yourself in the process, sure.

Guns are generally fine. Atomic weapons are generally not.

Plutonium or atomic weapons? While the uses of plutonium are few, I am sure some enterprising physicist can find non-weapon uses for plutonium. He could change the world for the good. Not that we will ever know, since the government and individuals like yourself want it locked down and treated as just a weapon.

Somewhere in between there's a line to be drawn where a reasonable person says "you're not going to do anything sensible with that much firepower, this is only going to end badly".

That is exactly what I say about governments who wish to remove the citizens' rights to defend themselves against our growing militarized police force. It's what I say about our president.

I strongly suspect that the upper end of handheld weapons is getting pretty close to that line.

Based on what? Gun laws are stricter now than when I was a kid. There used to be an army surplus store in a town near me where you could get all kinds of functional, cool weapons (RPGs, flamethrower, fully automatic assault rifles, etc). Most of those are no longer legal to buy/sell unless they are disabled.

And you think handheld weapons are getting to be too much? They are becoming less.

People who believe that everyone should have absolute access to anything with no restrictions are called anarchists.

No restrictions on owning? No it's not. No restrictions on use? Yes, it is. But no one has proposed that.

But I love this constant jump from freedom-loving to anarchist that people make. It's like some people are so used to being restricted that they are scared of being treated like an adult. Case in point:

That's maximum freedom, and it's also a pretty scary state to live in if you don't have a community of very trustworthy people around you.

Justifying restricting individual rights with fear.

Before you go around labeling people anarchists, keep in mind that no one suggests known criminals or the mentally ill, that are a danger to themselves and/or others, be allowed weapons. No one suggest that you can own a gun and fire wildly into a crowd, or even on private property that you don't own. No one thinks we should be in a lawless state where we have shoot outs.

People just don't want innocent, law-abiding people to have their rights taken away because some are too scared of an inanimate object (due to nothing more than media sensationalism) to understand when it becomes dangerous.

 

[Famine]

Another highpoint for humanity; the R.I.P. bullet:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/28/georgia-maker-bills-new-bullet-one-shot-manstopper/

That's gonna be fun...

Even if it was true - which it isn't - 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.

 

[mister dog]

Even if it was true - which it isn't - 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.

Here's another article (with videos included):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...need-released-single-women-protect-homes.html

So it's not true, but if it is you wouldn't mind it's existence? Good for you.
At least it will spare hospitals the effort of having to try saving someone's life after a gunshot wound 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

Another highpoint for humanity; the R.I.P. bullet:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/28/georgia-maker-bills-new-bullet-one-shot-manstopper/

That's gonna be fun...

What's wrong with a bullet designed to be effective at home defense, but not penetrate the armor worn by law enforcement?

Better yet, how is a bullet designed to be effective when not shot accurately worse than an accurately shot bullet?

 

[Famine]

Here's another article:

You know it's serious when there's a Daily Mail link instead of an answer.

Bullets designed to put someone down first shot already exist. What's the problem with it? Folk who believe guns are designed to kill think ALL bullets are supposed to do that...

 

[Exorcet]

At least it will spare hospitals the effort of having to try saving someone's life after a gunshot wound 👍

But it's better to increase the chance of a successful home break in or murder?

Also consider that the bullet doesn't even need to be fired to do its job. If a potential criminal knows that one shot will lead to death, do you think that will weight in on the likelyhood of committing to the crime? If the bullet makes someone change their mind, you've protected everyone's life.

 

[Danoff]

@Imari

The old tired atomic weapon hyperbole is absurd. Comparing something that cannot possibly be used to defend your own rights without violating the rights of thousands of innocent people to something that absolutely 100% can is just ridiculous. You're arguing that there is a slippery slope to weapons, but I don't see it. Weapons of Mass Destruction (it's in the name) kill indiscriminately - something that is not at all consistent with defending your own rights while ensuring that the rights of those around you are intact.

The DC vs. Heller opinion went into a great deal of detail about what the 2nd amendment is about - and it's not about owning firearms for the sake of owning firearms, or even overthrowing the government - it's about self defense. It's not about self offense, warfare, regional takeovers, or anything similar. It's about defending yourself, your loved ones, your property, and the innocent.

 

[Zenith]

There are many people on this thread that know too much about firearms to be fooled by the articles you posted. I would consider this fact next time you link to some collection of ignorance and fear mongering that's trying to pass off as news.

 

[mister dog]

There are many people on this thread that know too much about firearms to be fooled by the articles you posted. I would consider this fact next time you link to some collection of ignorance and fear mongering that's trying to pass off as news.

So what is your expert opinion about this bullet then mister arms expert? Please enlighten me.

Also consider that the bullet doesn't even need to be fired to do its job. If a potential criminal knows that one shot will lead to death, do you think that will weight in on the likelyhood of committing to the crime? If the bullet makes someone change their mind, you've protected everyone's life.

Well a bit the same way a nuclear weapon works no? Mostly as a repellent.

 

[Swagger897]

Well this isn't university hall, so I'm not gonna research everything and write a thesis before i dare to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects on this here videogames forum

I did say i thought "most" americans; so in that sense i still have a point here, same as with "most" Europeans.


I missed that question (scrolled down the last pages but couldn't bring it home), but feel free to phrase it again and i'll answer it for you

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.

With atomic weapons?

The point was that each individual has their own limit where they'll say "now hang on just a moment, that's a bit much". It's going to be different for each person, but it exists. It's not even necessarily only about what weapons can be possessed, but how they can be possessed. Major stuff like tanks can generally be owned, if they're deweaponised. It's just a fancy tractor then.

People who believe that everyone should have absolute access to anything with no restrictions are called anarchists. That's maximum freedom, and it's also a pretty scary state to live in if you don't have a community of very trustworthy people around you.

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.

And there should not be absolute access to anything. Not to immigration, not to food and water, and not even to help/welfare itself. You should put your efforts forth as to what you can contribute, before you moan and groan to someone else whose job that isnt.. It is then sad to see people abuse things meant to help others. People in America with a part time job and who live on welfare can make more money than a person with a full time job at the same place of employment. That is where it becomes sad...

1: Don't call me an idiot.
2: Although you have a point that laws don't necessarily represent the mindset of people; I do still believe a majority of Europeans agree with how gun laws work in this continent, and as such would oppose a more liberal type of gun law like Americans have, where one can go out in public with a concealed weapon. Maybe this is not your mindset, but i think it would be silly for you to deny this, seeing that you've lived on this continent long enough to know how people feel about the subject in general.

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.

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.

Another highpoint for humanity; the R.I.P. bullet:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/28/georgia-maker-bills-new-bullet-one-shot-manstopper/

That's gonna be fun...

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. I could care less about it, because I don't want to have it in my guns.

And once again, the media took it in the direction as if it is only meant for destroying property and killing people, not for hunting or types of target shooting...

Here's another article (with videos included):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...need-released-single-women-protect-homes.html

So it's not true, but if it is you wouldn't mind it's existence? Good for you.
At least it will spare hospitals the effort of having to try saving someone's life after a gunshot wound 👍

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...

 

[Zenith]

So what is your expert opinion about this bullet then mister arms expert? Please enlighten me.

It is irresponsible and inaccurate to market any cartridge as a "one shot stop" because of how varied the target will be, how varied the shot placement will be, and how inexpensive the round must be to be mass produced.

The way the inventor of this product speaks makes it clear that he really doesn't have a strong grasp on ballistics.

Honestly though, all of this is besides the point. A gun with cheap ammunition and a gun with more expensive and effective ammunition can be treated the same way for the purposes of the discussion we're having.

 

[Swagger897]

So what is your expert opinion about this bullet then mister arms expert? Please enlighten me.


Well a bit the same way a nuclear weapon works no? Mostly as a repellent. Doesn't change the fact that it's a dangerous thing.

Ill throw my 2 cents if you dont mind. People will see the price for a box of these, and turn around. It will only be the preppers and the reviews I believe who we will find actually using these. There is no point to buy a $50 dollar box of these, when a $15 dollar box can do the same job.

Well, at least that's my opinion, not the "majority" for my nation or any part of Europe. That's why I bought a Mosin and use it the most. With each shot being just under 25 cents, i could shoot all day long compared to 30-06 or .308 it's similar competitors. And i have to clean my gun too after each time I shoot it, which will only make it even better in appeals and functionality...

 

[Parker]

So what is your expert opinion about this bullet then mister arms expert? Please enlighten me.


Disregard this post.

 

[Danoff]

And once again, the media took it in the direction as if it is only meant for destroying property and killing people, not for hunting or types of target shooting...
...
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...

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.