Now, is the shooter moving in the direction of the conveyor belt, or against it, or not at all? If the conveyor belt was moving backwards at the muzzle velocity of the bullet, would the bullet drop to the ground? Hah! Mythbusters suggestion box here I come.
True, but you can kill someone with a screwdriver too. The inability of rogerbox to imagine several uses for an object seems to be an intellectual failing. “Screwdrivers=construct” for him, but they can also take things apart, open paint cans, pierce a chest wall, etc. rogerbox sees a gun and the only thing he can imagine is killing someone with it, while that’s never been an issue for me.
Fair enough. But the other extreme isn’t accurate, either. They’re not purely tools, like a screwdriver. The law recognizes that guns are different from other tools. The 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to screwdrivers, for instance.
In the state of Illinois, any time somebody who carries a gun as part of their employment discharges a gun in the scope of their job, they have to file a report.
They are different from screwdrivers.
My vote for “most ignorant post of the month”.
Are you honestly this deficient? Have you ever had a hobby in which excellence is the goal? How many hunters did you poll to determine that “sport” is the leading driver of hunting? Have you ever hunted with a bow? What is your education in wildlife management?
Fuck it, I’m done with trying to use reason in a thread where “guns=KILL KILL HOLY FUCK THEY KILL PEOPLE” and anyone who owns a firearm is a “gun fetishist”, “gun stroker”, “gun nut”, or “insane”.
If all you can think of in regard to guns is killing people, then go see a fucking psychologist because you’re warped. I’ve handled somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 firearms in my lifetime and I can honestly say not one of them has caused me to think “I should go kill someone with this”, and that includes M-16s and M-60s while in the military!
So you’re really gonna suggest that people today who hunt do so because they so badly need the meat? And that it is more affordable for them to purchase guns, ammo, and hunting gear, hunting permits where necessary, and take time off of work to go kill an animal, and then bring it to a local butcher who will charge him to prepare the meat?
I’ve got no bones with hunters. Hunters in my family provide yummy deer sausages each year. However - to say it is anything other than sport is foolish. When is that last time you spoke to someone who honestly needed to hunt, and his need was so great that he was unable to do so with a bow? Subsistence lifestyles across the globe do not require guns…
Then you clearly missed the point of the item you were holding…
The guns didn’t make you want to kill. But that’s still the point of their existence. That’s the point in my post - the idea that we can have a non-violent society without removing the most deadly weapons is foolish. Guns exist for violence’s sake, whether to promote it or to defend yourself from it.
Them’s just the facts - it’s got nothing to do with demonizing the people who use them. It’s a point which stands on its own. You cannot remove violence from guns.
After reading this thread, there is only one thing to do…report.
For the most part, hunting is an expensive recreational sport and not a cost effective way of getting meat. However, that doesn’t apply to everyone in the U.S. There are plenty of people spread out from Louisiana to Alaska who depend subsistence hunting using firearms as a tool. Bows and arrows don’t cut it when you are hunting alligators or moose. The only costs over their normal lifestyle are the minimal costs of bullets and the in-state hunting license and for them, it is the cheapest way of getting meat on the table by far.
Remember that any new regulations being proposed are at the federal level. As tolerant as some people in the cities think they are, they have a really hard time understanding that the vast majority of the U.S. by land area is not urban or even suburban. Most of it is rural and much of it is downright remote with little to no quick police protection and you are on your own to deal with any immediate threats that show up. Those ‘reasonable’ restrictions that someone who never leaves Manhattan support are anything but that if you live in the Alaskan bush. That is the problem with using a really big hammer of law that applies equally to everyone.
If everyone else has four, I’d better get five.
Some pro-gun arguments are reasonable, some are misinformed and some are downright wacko, but that’s the most arrogant bit of reasoning I’ve seen yet.
Don’t you guys get it yet?
It doesn’t matter what you say. You could be 100% correct, we could concede today that we have small penises and we jerk off thinking about killing people with our metal phalluses that exist only to massacre small children, and you still will not be able to do anything about it. They are not going away. They will probably not even be banned by law, almost certainly not by this Congress. They are a fact of life, and of law.
I’m to the point now where I read these threads and I find nothing but entertainment. All this flailing about, tearing up gun owners, saying that the law isn’t actually the law, wishful thinking about gun bans and law changes and courts overturning this and that… it’s like when I tell my son he can’t have something and he starts crying and yelling “FINE!” and screaming at me. Exactly like that.
You lost. You lost a long time ago. What’s more, you know you did. Yet you persist. And you will continue to persist, even as you quote this post and rip it all up as if it will change anything. Petulant children crying is at times amusing, boring and angering, but in the end it’s all for naught.
That’s preposterous. People hunt with bows largely to make it harder, to add sport and chellenge to it.
If bows were just as easy to hunt with as guns, hunters would not have overwhelmingly switched to guns.
Wouldn’t this make all the panic buying of guns as stupid as the OP says it is?
It doesn’t matter. Three simple words.
No, I actually recreationally shoot myself. But the PURPOSE of guns is to kill someone, that’s why they were invented in the first place.
I’m well aware of that and have pointed it out repeatedly. We all know that. The human sacrifices to your fetishism will continue indefinitely.
Of course; gun owner = amoral sadist, pretty much universally as far as I can tell.
The majority of gun fetishists however don’t appear to know it.
So why does it matter for gun control advocates? They’re both reacting to the same thing in equally futile ways in your POV, right?
You know, these debates coincidentally spring up after there’s been a mass shooting somewhere. That’s what motivates discussions about gun control, because we are disturbed by these events and put forth solutions, many of which are ill-conceived, illegal and/or impractical, to stop such events from happening in the future.
Don’t you think it’s a bit harsh to characterize people disturbed by mass shootings as “petulant children crying”?
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that if there were no gun violence in the US, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about your guns or anyone else’s. Gun violence is a problem, and we’re all just looking for solutions beyond “Welp, that’s life!”
He’s a gun fetishist; the dead people don’t matter because they aren’t guns. If a bunch of guns got melted down, then he’d be all understanding and sympathetic I’m sure.