Is that the way You read this?
Then You’ve read it wrong. ( Also do I really seem like ANTI-gun? )
And You know something about guns?:rolleyes:
What spreading guns around? Even in states with Shall-Issue carry, typically only a few percent of the eligible population have carry permits, and presumably not all of them carry regularly. Right now the only people who routinely go armed are police and security guards, criminals, and a handful of pro-gun advocates. We’ve never actually tried having the majority of the public go armed. More people carried revolvers and pocket guns in the 1890’s than do so now.
ETA: If an air gun is powerful enough to stop an assailant, isn’t it deadly enough for people to want to ban it?
Yes.
No, you are not being clear. Explain what I read wrong. And yes you do seem ANTI-gun.
I do. If armed with an air rifle, it really does not matter where you aim because no hit will take a person down. It was a silly question.
Oh, sure, hit them in the eye and you are going to severely incapacitate someone, but the rules for self defense say to shoot for center mass. Again, no hit from a modern air rifle will take someone down if shooting at center mass. If they are in a heavy coat, it may not even hurt.
Fine, even if You misunderstood that, how the hell could You misunderstand this:
You really should drop this air gun hijack, 'cause frankly, You are doing pretty crappy job with it.
I asked you to clarify. What did I misunderstand?
You started it with - “I’m all in favor of down grading recreational guns to air guns. And I think that a well aimed lead pellet will stop a burglar effectively enough.” You are wrong. The only thing that’s ‘crappy’ is you misunderstanding of the resiliency of the human body and the power (or lack thereof) of today’s high powered air rifles.
That I was suggesting getting air guns for self defense. I did not do that, because
I meant ( pretty clearly to My eyes anyway ) that they could be used same way like chairs or bag of chili powder or anything that’s within a reach.
Whatever, if You’re right and I’m wrong, it makes no difference - look that previous part. And You may not even need to shoot with it to get rid of a burglar. Also if somebody shoots an air rifle pellet to My hand, I’ll drop anything I have, may that be a gun or a gold bar. But like I said, You didn’t get what I meant in the first place.
So I’m really trying to clarify this to You for good ( although I know it’s hopeless with Your kind of people ): “I’m all in favor of down grading RECREATIONAL guns to air guns.”
Can You see it this time? If not, please tell Me why ( but don’t expect Me to explain it anymore ).
What you said was -
Yes, it would be stupid. #1 you would not be helping the anti-gun folks agenda if they are as equaly as powerful. And #2, they don’t exist.
Yet no where in that post did you mention using a chair or chili powder. At least now you seem to agree that an air gun is just not a good substitute for a real weapon.
And the idea of shooting the person in the hand, or leg or whatever (with an air gun or real gun) is very uninformed and has been covered here multiple times.
People like me indeed. :rolleyes:
#1 why are You still pointing this to Me after all I’ve said? #2 So You are saying that the most powerful air gun is weaker than the weakest fire arm? Can You cite, please? ( You don’t have though, because like I said, it doesn’t matter in this conversation. )
Read that part again and You ( hopefully ) see that mentioning chili powder wouldn’t make any sense in that context - it was about air guns.
And the idea of attacking a burglar with chili powder is pretty much similar. What are We arguing here?
I see You didn’t quote the most important part of that posting. Your kind of people, indeed :rolleyes:.
Once again: RECREATIONAL GUNS! Don’t make Me to pit You.
There are relatively few fatal firearm accidents in the US. Even if every single one of them were actually a carefully-orchestated murder plot, they wouldn’t move the number of firearm murders all that much.
The same could be said of sports cars or motorcycles.
Yep. I had recently been looking at getting another air gun for target shooting. Either in .177 or .22. The velocity is up there but the weight of the pellet makes a huge difference.
There is absolutely no reason that you could not have made a comparison right there.
Now that you clarified that which you had made no previous reference to before your post about using airguns for SD, nothing. Except chili powder might be more effective. Unless you use the air gun like a club.
Actually, I quoted more than you did. :rolleyes: right back atcha.
Go right ahead. You’ve been unclear, and plainly wrong. I was not and had not commented on the recreational gun aspect, but I completely disagree with that to. I’ve shot plenty of air rifles and ‘real’ guns. The difference is night and day.
And swimming pools…
And I was talking only about them all the time and made it perfectly clear many times!
I’m done with You, don’t bother to reply.
Except for when you said that an air gun could make a good defensive weapon. We would have saved a lot of time if you just retracted that foolishness.
It is called context. We were talking about overthrowing an overbearing Federal government and you cite the Whiskey REBELLION as if it were an out and out revolution. It was some distillers who thought they were being taxed unfairly and decided not to pay. Hardly the CONTEXT of overthrowing the government.
Also, your “makes no more sense” part, makes no sense. If you are attempting to overthrow an oppressive regime (think Cuba under Castro, not America under LBJ) then shooting the army makes sense. They are the ones oppressing you!
Which they are able to do because they vastly outgun you. Shooting them doesn’t make much sense if you’re interested in living.
But anyway, the army is made of people too, people who know and love the country and their families as much as you. They can be convinced to come over to the side of a rebellion if they get pissed off enough at what the dictatorship is doing and think the rebels would do better; that stage happens in most revolutions. But you have to be alive to do the convincing.
Where do I say you did?
Cite? Gun control advocates have a habit of pretending that anyone who supports gun rights considers any infringement an unconstitutional infringement. They frequently want to pretend anyone that doesn’t agree with them is a gun nut. Sure gun nuts exist but not everyone who supports gun rights is a gun nut, are they?
Where do I support people having machine guns?
No. Like in the parts of the country that have the lowest robbery rates. Or do you think that guns don’t act as an effective deterrent?
Why wouldn’t I. If taxpayers want their tax dollars spent on gun buybacks, I don’t see the infringement of any right going on, assuming its a voluntary buyback.
Who do you think should keep and bear arms?
White landowners once also thought that “certain Americans” should keep and bear arms.
No kidding. My wife was shocked when she found out that my swimming pool was more likely to kill my kid than my guns. It put things in perspective for her though.
Yes, that is what happened in Cuba that I gave as an example. The army got pissed off at Castro and overthrew him…That is how we got the drink to celebrate…the Cuba Libre…right
What makes you think that?
No, I’m citing the Whiskey Rebellion to show that constitutionally, even tax resistance is “insurrection” if it takes the form of organized armed force, and Washington did the right thing, constitutionally, in using the Army to put it down.
And I keep pointing out that a few people not liking something and getting out their guns is not “a general uprising of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government”. So, to keep pointing out the Whiskey Rebellion, Waco, Ruby Ridge, a few people who don’t want a road or railroad put through, etc is not “a general uprising of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government” and hence irrelevant.
I took it from this:
But fair enough, I guess I was a little too jumpy over all that abusing of #208.
Oh, I think You know well why I did put th;)at kind of sentence right there. See above.
But over all I don’t see anything wrong with Your latest reply, so I guess We can drop this.
The next is for enipla. And as it is not about the real topic here, but about that RECREATIONAL air gun hijack/train-wreck, I put it in a spoiler, so others can easily skip it.
[spoiler]
Enipla: If You are going to reply this, read it all and take it as an entirety. You may point out factual errors and I’ll learn from those. But don’t start any meaningless strawman nitpicking any more. If You disagree with something, be sure that it is something that I have actually said, before You start Your attack.
You actually made Me to check out RECREATIONAL from a dictionary, not just once but twice, because Your blindness to it made Me to think I have used a wrong word. I didn’t, so I guess it’s Your turn to check it out.
So:
I never said people should get air guns for self defense.
I never said people should get chili powder for self defense
And I never said people should get chairs for self defense.
I didn’t even say that people should down grade their DEFENSIVE fire arms to DEFENSIVE air guns.
I said
If You had understood this meaning that I wanted all RECREATIONAL fire arms to be down graded to RECREATIONAL air guns, then fine. I can see that interpretation, although I didn’t even mean exactly that either. I would’ve taken the blame for that misunderstanding and explained better. But that wasn’t what happened here.
So once again. The point of My comment was: I think that RECREATIONAL guns tend to be too lethal.
And unluckily I also digressed by saying that those down graded RECREATIONAL guns could be used for self defense too, if needed, even when they are not obtained as DEFENSIVE guns in the first place - not as effectively as those pre-down grading RECREATIONAL guns, but they’re not totally useless. And if I’m right, a little wrong or totally wrong, it doesn’t matter here, as I have many times pointed out. I was not talking about DEFENSIVE guns, or DEFENSIVE chairs, or DEFENSIVE chili powder - I was talking about RECREATIONAL guns ( and later I mentioned RECREATIONAL chairs and RECREATIONAL chili powder… ). And with My 30+ years old memories of air rifles. Like I already said, I may misremember details. Maybe I’m totally wrong with the effectiveness of a powerful air rifle. To a kid some things seem more powerful than they really are. Even Lumpy and Kable made better job pointing that out.
I’m not sure how much I have said about DEFENSIVE fire arms in this thread, but somewhere in this board I have said a lot and I repeat it here: I don’t oppose DEFENSIVE fire arms. If someone has a pistol in his house, I have no problem with that. If someone has two pistols, I might ask why one isn’t enough. If someone has three, I might even want an answer and so on. DEFENSIVE fire arms are not My problem here.
My problem is with RECREATIONAL fire arms.
It’s been noted many times over that most gun crimes are done with short guns and I believe that. Also most DEFENSIVE guns are short, if I’m not mistaken. However many, if not most long guns are RECREATIONAL.
And when somebody is gunned down in a rampage, I think that usually RECREATIONAL fire arms are involved, and sometimes they may have been solely used ( may they be long or short ). I believe that is the reason why ‘gun grabbers’ focus on long guns - many of those are obtained for fun and people having fun with fire arms make ‘gun grabbers’ suspicious.
Someone here said something like that it’s no use to close the stable doors when the horses are gone. And it is difficult to get those horses back. True. However, I don’t think there is this ‘national stable door’. I think everybody have their own stable door. If You take Your kid to RECREATIONAL target practicing with an air gun, the ‘door’ may still be shut, but when You upgrade it to AR15, the door is open, and one can’t blame society for that. Also it’s difficult to get that horse back to the stable - to down grade back to an air gun, that is.
However, if You take Your kid to DEFENSIVE target practicing, then fine. I have no problem with that, on the contrary. The kids should be taught that fire arms are serious business. Teaching the kids that guns are toys to play with is not a good idea IMHO.
So, enipla, once again, I was talking about RECREATIONAL guns. Don’t anymore reply Me talking about DEFENSIVE guns. It makes You look like You can’t argue with the things that I actually have said, but instead You have to build a strawman. In fact, I have said nothing in this spoiler that I haven’t already said, some of it even many times, so if I should make a psychological evaluation based on Your writings here, I wouldn’t let You have a gun.[/spoiler]
So MODS, please, keep this thread on topic. Here’s My small contribution.
Is uprising ( big or small ) legal? - I don’t see how. It might be justified, though.
Would one start over gun control? - I don’t see any general uprisings in a modern western society. At most some extremist groups here and there, but they would be suspicious even about each others. Most likely there would be just some individuals, but that really isn’t an uprising. And sometimes they would end up shooting each others.
Would it be successful? - With those small groups and loners, I don’t see how it could be.
Disclaimer: I’m a human being, so I could be wrong.