if i gave you an impression of intimidation i apoligise,brag! about what ,however you judge it as you see it, juries come and go so we’ll leave them to it.
Yes i’m reasonably efficient on guns(not hand guns) I know a little but i would not class myself as an expert on any type of gun, except the consequences of the uses’ thereof.
Are you familiar with guns by necessity? sorry but i won’t answer that question
I’m new here is right…my personality is not…and if i feel insulted,belittled or attacked.in anyway …then to the other person i’d say just tread carefully…my first post was quite innoxious i thought, ,in fact it was more observations, but i got blitzed…sorry no one has or will do that to me with impunity and walk away. This is not intimadation but fact , treat me with respect and i will return the same.
Although i believe respect has to be earned and not given as a right,this applies as much to me, or to anyone.
All i have got in this forum is complete crap…no answers…plenty of criticism of my grammar…well if thats all they can put to me…it’s quite funny for the ones who do, there’s is not much better…in fact worse. i never knew AMERICA had so many linguistic intellects,yet so ineffective in the use of words.
lastly If ‘friend’ offended you i apoligise, i know i used it with sarcastic intent.
I’LL reply witout further quotes,You,i believe are trying to rationalise the irrational…maybe you will succeed. You are polite and i thank you for that,however i don’t share your optimism,and it is obvious you have a diplomatic tendency,you would have noticed i don’t…my idea of diplomacy…is to tell someone to go to hell,and hope they enjoy the journey.
So we are different,but that should not make us enemies. I dont think we could go fishing together. But thats no big deal as i hate fishing anyhow.
Oh dear not a DUB…no DALE CARNEGIE i don’t think could work with me ,although i did read his book(does that warrant any brownie points) I live near Sligo But i am from BELFAST,SLIGO is my heartland,the land of YEATS,and i love this part of IRELAND. Now don’t you be callin this lad a cullchie muck… :smack:
You know i believe i’m becoming somewhat of a politican.My motto now is ‘Errors have been made but feck it Others will be blamed.’ CHARLES.J.HAUGHEY.
slan
Another reason why you’ve always had a gun culture was to make good and sure that the indigenous inhabitants didn’t kick you out of their country, not so?
And possibly the reason the Irish didn’t was because the evil British overlords had made it damned difficult for them to legally own weapons since before the fucking gun was invented.
Educate me. What did you do to pro-British friends and neighbours during the War of Independence? Make them a nice cup of best Boston Harbour?
As though there is the least danger of that in the present day.
This tired tripe again? Lemme ask you a question. What features of a gun enhance its lethality? Now lemme answer that. Large caliber and perhaps a high capacity.
So, if guns were designed only to kill, doesn’t it stand to reason that overwhelmingly they’d be designed so to kill as efficiently as possible - meaning the vast majority of them would be of large caliber and high capacity? What of the hundreds of designs that are of small caliber? How the recent massive gain in popularity of the .17 caliber cartridge here in America? It’s no bigger than the projectile of a lousy pellet gun. Designed to kill? Nope. Designed to go faster than stink and punch holes in paper. And those of low capacity? Many guns are designed with a capacity of one. Can you think of another so-called by you “single purpose” invention of man, that is not continually optimized towards that single purpose? Many types of firearms fall into this category. So is it reasonable to say that guns “were designed to kill,” when many of them are they’re inherently very inefficient at it? Nope, that would not be a rational conclusion at all.
Nope. A loaded gun still isn’t dangerous. Millions upon millions of man-hours (and dollars) of engineering and testing have gone on for hundreds of years towards making guns safe. Your loaded weapon still requires a human to misuse it before danger appear. I’ve got a loaded .357 magnum in my nightstand. Had it there for at least 15 years now. Never once has it threatened my life - or anyone else’s. Not until I pick it up, and misuse it by disregarding basic firearms safety, is there any danger. To anyone.
A loaded gun under my bed is slightly more dangerous than a baseball bat in that if the bed catches fire the gun would explode whereas the baseball bat would just lie there in flames.
I suppose the flintlock is dangerous to an idiot even when it’s unloaded as one could cut oneself with the sharp flint.
No I won’t. The other option is not to read you because I can’t parse your fucking sentences and honestly have only a vague idea of what in god’s name you’re feebly attempting to express.
It’s a Bushmaster that I got a good deal on because it is one that the dealer didn’t move before the ban lapsed. Accordingly, it has no bayonet lug and the muzzle isn’t threaded. It does have a 24" heavy barrel and an AK-type compensator which is pinned in place. A little informal playing around with it at the range shows that, thanks to the extra barrel weight and compensator, there is nearly no movement of the sights when the gun is fired. I was hammering the daylights out of a steel ram at 200 yds about as fast as I could pull the trigger. It is a regular A-2 style upper, no detachable carry handle, but I have a Delta-type cheekpiece and scope that I attached last night. If time permits, I’ll go to the range and sight the scope in this evening.
I’m not too concerned about the lack of a bayonet lug, as with the longer than standard barrel a bayonet couldn’t be mounted anyway. I may have the AK-compensator removed and get the muzzle threaded so I can attach a Vortex flash hider though.
This is the second Bushie for me. I also owned a couple Colts some years back, when that company was a little more vigorous and a lot more friendly to the civilian consumer market. The Bushmasters are as good or better.
The whole point of discussing whether guns are in themselves dangerous, or perhaps bullets, or speed, is moot. If you have any understanding of guns, you know that discussion is moot. I for one wouldn’t so much criticise your understanding of guns, as of people.
If there is a round in the chamber, that round would probably “cook off” and discharge out the muzzle in the normal way. Rounds in the magazine would most likely just split and vent a lot of hot gas. Unless they are confined in the chamber of a gun, cartridges don’t build up any great amount of pressure if they are ignited. Modern propellants don’t explode, in any case.
Why? That’s the entire issue. The issue is about people, and you want to make it about inanimate objects. You said to catsix earlier:
Why? Seriously, why? I’ve read everything catsix has said about guns in this thread and a lot of what she’s written in many other threads, and I wouldn’t feel the tiniest, teeniest bit of nervousness or sense of increased danger living next door to her because she owns weapons. I wouldn’t feel threatened in the least if my law abiding neighbor had a CCP and carried a .38 in a shoulder holster everywhere he went. Why are glad she’s not your neighbor?
Your first post to me was probably the least respectfull thing written in this whole thread. I never insulted you or even directed any response to you. Respect indeed.
Bolding mine.
Just as I thought. I knew I should have taken that ‘bet’.
Scumpup has addressed this quite satisfactorily; I have nothing to add to his remarks.
I’m not trying to be snotty, or smug, so I hope this doesn’t come off that way , but can I take the above to mean our arguments that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous have led to a change of mind? You previously stated: “I think the question shouldn’t be wether or not guns are dangerous - I think both sides might actually agree on that one . . .” I’m not sure your latest assessment is compatible with the previous. Or maybe I’m just not fully understanding your position.
I would also like to respectfully request that you address my other points rebutting you. Specifically, why do you feel that a gun has less potential for dire consequences when owned by someone in a rural area than one owned by a person in an urban setting. I’m not following that at all. Could you expound?
I think we have a different definition of dangerous. To me, a loaded gun is dangerous in that I wouldn’t leave a child alone with one. The same can be said of a large dog, or a swimming pool, or a sharp knife. All of these things are inherently dangerous. And I hardly think pointing out that guns are designed by and large to fire lethal projectiles is “tripe”. Just because not all guns are designed to kill does not make the primary use of all guns one of target shooting. Improving aim will also enhance a guns lethality, not just large caliber and capacity.
I will agree that they are a tool which can be misused or used properly, I will not agree that they are safe, or “not dangerous”. Anything you wouldn’t leave alone with a young child, that you need safety regulations for, is dangerous, including “the car in your garage”. I believe also that there is a scale on which we can put dangerous things, and that guns get a pretty high rating on that scale. No amount of disingenuous rhetoric will change that.
Whoa, dude–back up there. There’s usually not such a concentration of people in a rural setting–no crowded sidewalks, no street corners for people to hang out on, kids picked up and let off schoolbuses individually, etc.–so I don’t think stuff like this happens out there.
This is exactly the sort of gun violence that I don’t see an easy solution to–why should this idiot be allowed to have a gun? He shot next to a SCHOOL THAT HAD JUST LET OUT and HIT A LITTLE GIRL!
What I’ve said is that guns are one of the most effective and lethal means for people to do certain stupid things with. That doesn’t mean that the inherent problem isn’t caused by humans, but guns are a facilitator to that problem (30.000 dead each year, ok? That is still a small city, in case you’ve been losing perspective.).
Because if you think you know a lot about guns, I think I know a lot about people. People do stupid things, for all sorts of reasons, by accident, medical, emotional, etc. and guns give them a nice opportunity to amplify their stupidity.
There has never been a change of mind here. All you’ve achieved is acknowledged that we are both aware of the philosophical matter of guns requiring someone to operate them before they are actually dangerous (barring things like ammo boxes blowing up in fires or something).
The latter. You see, after settling on the philosophical point above, we return to the discussion where you have to reasons why some people want to carry a gun, reasons related to the properties a gun possesses, and the reason others don’t like people carrying guns around is related to those exact same properties. You like a gun because you believe the properties we could classify as dangerous make a gun a good defense weapon, just as they make a gun a good offense weapon.
I have rebutted that point already, but I’ll restate again that if you live in an environment where a gun obviously brings more safety than danger, the risk of carrying a gun is a worthwhile one. I am, however, also arguing that this benefit does not exist for the majority of most highly urbanised Western countries.
Mehitabel understands the distinction.
And for those who like shooting, I respect that. I like shooting - I’ve shot airguns at fairs and I have several editions of Time Crisis 2 (which includes a very fun shooting range simulation), and I’m sure I would enjoy shooting a real gun. Just keep it at the shooting range. Yes, the gun too.
OK, “we” had a revolution. Unlike the oh so “civilized” betters back on the “continent”, we did not embark on any “ethnic cleansings” or “relocations”. We even occasionally allowed the defeated the dignity of keeping their equipment and arms, etc provided they agreed to surrender and leave. We had another “misunderstanding” in 1812. We had to once again “convince” the “civilized” Europeans that we were not interested in knuckling under to them. How and why was this possible? Because of our evil habit of owning weapons. The British could not simply destroy some military / gun factories and beat us - all the weapons were already everywhere. Then we had a Civil War. While it was in some instances as bad as “you” say, there were no government sanctioned concentration camps or exterminations or “ethnic cleansing”. Eventually, things settled down. So, even with our record of wars, we have had fewer wars, they were generally less brutal, and they were less destructive than what our “betters” in Europe would have done. To really learn how to wipe out, pillage, butcher, destroy and oppress, one need look no further than Europe. So don’t any of you “superior people” dare preach to us.
Meh. You’re all full of shit with your self righteous “we know what’s best for you” anti-gun attitude, thinking you have the right to put your noses in other people’s business. Look in the mirror first. And then mind your own business.
