by Simon 616 Replies latest members politics
Having a law that allows people to own guns without properly enforced safeguards is a recipe for disaster. Gun ownership proliferates because people feel a need to protect themselves from other people with guns. There is also the issue that someone may appear perfectly sane and rational at the point of purchase but may later suffer some form of breakdown making them dangerous.
It will take courage to change the philosophy of the USA but how many more massacres will it take?
Headlines for todays guns deaths - what? a problem with guns? Noooooooooo....
Baseball bats are dangerous , too!
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/27/las-vegas-man-admits-killing-father-baseball-bat-p/
http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/181132491.html Police believe he beat his father to death with a baseball bat
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/060c97ea8e5e41989184e581c1a8fc8e/PA--Baseball-Bat-Killing
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x76663207/Two-convicted-in-gruesome-double-murder-to-be-resentenced "stabbing the couple with a knife and beating them with a baseball bat,"
In Canada, we use baseball bats for baseball. ;)
If I take up arms against my government due to it being totalitarian, I guarantee you at least 75% of our armed forces will be standing side by side with me.
Fear and Loathing in the Basement
How to Defend Your Wagon Against the Apache War Party or any Air Cavalry Brigade with Orders to Sweep and Clear Domestic Insurgents.
Who is this guy, seriously, lol
Frankie,
You still haven't explained how cognitive dissonance has anything to do with what you posted.
<<<<That is why i think you made the meaningless statement to the effect that if giving up all your guns would save just one life, but then make the negative assertion that it would not so you in effect won't have to give up your guns. Which amounts to a meaningless statement, such as "I would help if I could but I can't so I won't".>>>>
How ironic it is that you found my post to be "meaningless," yet you responded by using words that you don't know the meaning of. Feel free to fix the "conundrum" you have created for yourself by explaining how cognitive dissonance has any relation at all to either of your posts.
After the 9-11 airliner terrorist hijackings the Govt authorized armed pilots and sky marshalls- there has not been one hijacking since this was implemented. In like manner, it's now time to realize that armed guards and armed school administrators will need to be installed to prevent another school invasion and shooting.
What do you think would happen, if banks were "gun-free" zones and they didn't have guards?
If I take up arms against my government due to it being totalitarian, I guarantee you at least 75% of our armed forces will be standing side by side with me.
Ohhhh somebody was listening to Glenn Beck show this morning.
What do you think would happen, if banks were "gun-free" zones and they didn't have guards?
Yes good point, and how much more precious/valuable are the children are then some money that's not even worth the paper it's printed on?
I think one or two armed personal could be implemented effectively in schools. The guns don't have to be in plain sight for the kids to see, they can be concealed under a suit coat. This way the potential perp has no way of knowing where the counter attack is going to come from to stop him -- a good deterrent .
Dear Rub a Dub
In all due respect you just proved my point. Let me explain. I’ll start by explaining why the shotgun (sometimes nic named RIOTGUN) is preferred in the prisons for riot control.
You said:
“The major difference however is that the shotgun is typically limited to 5 shots based on the physical size of the shotgun shell. There is no quick way that I am aware of to reload a shotgun other than stopping and loading the shells one by one into the gun. Assault-type rifles and some handguns typically have magazines / clips that you pre-load and can hold up to 15 or so bullets (some even more) and typically just snap in and out of the gun. Empty the gun, snap the old magazine out, stick in another, and start shooting again.”
First, every time I pull the trigger of my shotgun with 00buck, NINE .357cal pellets come out of the end of my gun. When I pull the trigger of my M4 ONE .223 comes out, so I would need to pull the trigger 9 times to keep up with the shotgun. Now, even if you are right about your shotgun having only 5 rounds (some can be loaded with a 10 round drum mag which can be changed as quickly as the M4's) 5x9=45, that means the M4 has some catching up to do, and typically has a 30 round mag, which means you have to do a mag change in the process. (see where I’m going with this).
Second
You said:
IMO, it would be difficult to shoot more than 15 shots in a miinute with a shotgun. With a rifle/handgun, you could easily do 50 to 100 (or more).
I don’t mean to insult you, but your opinion is not a very educated one when it comes to firearm tactics.
Without many hours at the practice rage, I could probably teach YOU how to easily get 50 shells through a shotgun in less than a minute, and make hits. That comes to 450 .357cal pellets in under a minute.
Thirdly. That shotgun is very versatile. At any time I choose I can load a rifled slug into my gun and shoot a head size target at 100 yards, practically as easily as that M4.
I will admit that out beyond 100 yards the tables would turn quickly to the M4’s favor. But that’s not an issue in this case… is it?
I believe that we do not have the right to own guns,,, England has that rule & after a terrible crime there
Now they have the least killings anywhere I believe .I could be corrected if I am wrong
