RedBull
Registered
Non-lethal rounds ,
interesting never
heard about that .
Thanks for that heads up
I will study the issue .
GUN CONTROL........ hahaha
- Thread starter ali123
- Start date
Well I get your point Capt. but I don't think one wrong can be justified by another. I am absolutely for banning alcohol, I don't drink and I've had 3 friends killed on their bikes by drunk drivers. I myself narrowly dodged a truck driven by a drunk, sustaining a lot of bruises and a broken shoulder. I am a gun owner, and I don't have any real wisdom to share on this. I just don't want to get caught with a knife if a gun fight breaks out.
I would beg to differ, ride that 540lbs bike at 100 mph into a crowd and see what happens... How far will inertia and momentum carry the old girl, just a slow in comparison very large bullet. How much room would a guy need to hit that speed?
My point is simply that one person's convictions can only go so far.. if we are talking about saving lives then let's start with the easy stuff first that isn't a constitutional right. If we want to collectively talk about getting serious because we care about people and lives then let's practice together our solidarity where there is no questions or debate about the number of deaths caused by alcohol or drugs. When we are able to get those issues down to a reasonable number then folks can start talking about coming after the guns and changing the constitution.
Texas Tarnation
Registered
Service is just that, I couldnt/wouldn't do it
Your really comparing a bike at 100mph into a crowd vs a semi rifle? I can guarantee a bike might get 8 people or so, a well armed rifle is no comparison. Only see history for an example.
Texas Tarnation
Registered
Sorry that didnt go through, I couldnt/wouldn't do it without the support of my family and friends!
Mr Brown
Registered
Some good discussion, and some genuine concern for fellow humans. Interesting to see law enforcement and military personnel perspectives, and the variety within those groups. Some pm conversations have been enlightening as well, keep up the good discussion. Nice to see cap involved as well.
Let’s not forget, rifles kill less people a year than hands, feet, clubs, hammers, etc. Why are we discussing rifles when handguns are the killers? Why no talk about banning hammers? And before anyone says it, rifles especially the most common rifle in use today have purposes other than killing. They are not designed solely for the offensive killing of humans. If that is the reason then why do the police have them? To just kill?
Agreed, but I don't think most are talking about saving lives. I think the big difference here is that drunk driving deaths are inherently random, while some gun violence has a terror element to it. I think this raises the priority of it in many people's minds (right or wrong). What is happening in this country in terms of gun ownership is essentially an arms race, and that has never ended well historically.
It really all boils down to, the Dems and their buddies, want to take all guns away from everyone no matter who you are. The problem with that is, you will never get them away from criminals, you will never get them away from law abiding citizen, so in essance you will have made law abiding citizens criminals now. Once the "criminals" out number you dems and all the politicians we will have anarchy on our hands. Look south. You really want that? You want teh government for the people to become your slave master? Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!
piratediverjefff
Registered
Dougyp333
Registered
Many people lobby against "assault rifles" because it makes them feel like they are doing something good. It makes them feel like they can make a difference. They are wrong but that fact doesn't occur to them because they are blind to their bias.
To use schools as an example, if we really want to make them safer then we need to make them a hard target instead of a soft target. Controlled points of entry with armed guards and metal detectors as a start.
When you broaden the conversation to all violent crime with guns the answers get much harder and more complicated. They need to be implemented at a local level by local people because every location is different. This is hard work that takes time and effort. It's much easier to make a sigh and yell some slogans with like minded people. (feel good rather than do good)
To use schools as an example, if we really want to make them safer then we need to make them a hard target instead of a soft target. Controlled points of entry with armed guards and metal detectors as a start.
When you broaden the conversation to all violent crime with guns the answers get much harder and more complicated. They need to be implemented at a local level by local people because every location is different. This is hard work that takes time and effort. It's much easier to make a sigh and yell some slogans with like minded people. (feel good rather than do good)
First, I replied to your post before I read the rest of the thread, so I see where you explained yourself better - and yes there are plenty of people that don't know the difference. Second, guess what, I wore the uniform too - for 26 years - so why did you call a AR an Assault Rifle? Then you should also understand better than the regular citizen why the 2A exists and why we both took a blood oath to support it...
I don't want to sound cruel, but do you want to calculate the above body count vs. the body count IF the citizenry is disarmed? There's plenty of history out there should you care to read about it...some of it even going on right now...
"with great power comes great responsibility"
How else you gonna get them out of civilian life other than taking them away? You say you wouldn't PERSONALLY do it, but you sure sound willing to let someone else do it for you...Californistan is already doing it, sending police out to confiscate weapons without due process.
On another post: Non-lethal rounds: If you are in my house, then you are a danger to me and my family. Non-lethal is like in the movies when you shoot the bad guy, then turn your back on him before you are sure he's out of the action..sorry, when it comes to the bad guy or my daughter I'm not taking any chances.
I'll tell you why - and you already know the answer - because people are being manipulated with emotion into voluntarily giving up their MOST important right - to defend themselves from criminals and/or an overreaching government or foreign invader..the 2A protects ALL the others...Most people can't see the big picture - only what is in front of their noses.
Chicago comes to mind....
Texas Tarnation
Registered
I wasnt getting into what I know about guns, I was talking about gun control, and what certain weapons shouldn't be allowed. I did take an oath, an oath to protect my country and our citizens from our country, which is what the 2nd ammendment is about. The 2nd ammendment wasnt about burglars, it was about protecting yourself against tyranny from our government. I am all for protection but if the US military comes into town I highly doubt my little old rifle will do sqaut. So why do we have people killers just hanging out in our house? Everyone here has stated a hand gun is just as dangerous, if it is then why do we need semi rifles with 30 round mags?
I could(but Never would) do as much damage(if not more) with 2, 9mm handguns with 16 round magazines as 1 AR with 30 rounds(in an active shooter situation, indoors or busy sidewalks surrounded by buildings, not long distance).
As well as conceal them easier.
Sniper shootings are extremely rare, as most active shooters aren't that skilled, so the whole scary AR arguement is just more smoke and mirrors.
As well as conceal them easier.
Sniper shootings are extremely rare, as most active shooters aren't that skilled, so the whole scary AR arguement is just more smoke and mirrors.
