Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
edjr

Police: Boy, 7, shot to death at Pa. gun store

Recommended Posts

And don't you believe that would create a black market and that crime would go UP subsequently?

Look at Countries that have banned handguns.....their violent crimes go through the roof.

 

Freedom always comes with a pricetag. If you don't like it, you're FREE to move elsewhere.

 

 

I'm not exactly a 'ban all guns' kind of guy. I think it's great that a man can still help 'put food on his family' (thank you GWB) by going out and killing a deer, elk, negro or whatnot.

 

However, the one REALLY poor argument that I hear from pro-gun types that I have to argue against strictly from a logic standpoint is reflected in your comments above:

 

Would more strict gun control eliminate ALL gun deaths? Hell no, but that's not a viable argument against gun control. Do speed limits save lives? Sure. Do they stop ALL automobile deaths? Hell no. Doesn't mean we should abolish all speed limits though.

 

I posted a video snippet a while ago. (Roughly paraphrasing) The U.S. has as many gun deaths every few days (probably being generous) than the next ten developed western countries combined have - ALL YEAR.

 

That right there has to tell you something. Do I have the answers? No. Do I think stats like that should spark a lot of questions and discussion? Definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gun ownership pros <<<< gun ownership cons

 

:huh:

Have gun and not need it >>>> Need gun and not have it

 

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An unarmed citizenry cannot rise up against a well armed government.

An armed citizenry cannot rise up against a modern army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An armed citizenry cannot rise up against a modern army.

That's very true, but they can make it expensive in human lives and by sheer numbers make it more difficult.

 

Unarmed citizens are nothing more than sheep being led to slaughter.

 

If the government attacked someplace internally with stealth bombers and drones, the citizens don't stand a chance. But, because of an armed citizenry, they would be forced to a actually attack. You would hope that at some point before that happened, somebody with some authority in the military would be :huh: and not go through with those orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trigger safety on my Glock is what I'm talking about. IIRC, Glock literature says they have like 7 or 9 safety mechanisms built into the gun, including the trigger safety. I'm with you, I don't call any of them safeties. The gun is basically point and click with a round in the chamber and a 5.5 pound trigger pull.

 

As for the Sigs, yes, it's because of the double action first pull. Subsequent pulls all have very short travel and only take about 2 pounds to break. I don't consider the heavy first pull any sort of safety and totally agree that any child old enough to pick it up could pull the trigger.

 

I think we're both on the same page. I was simply pointing out to Wiffle that several guns exist that don't have any safeties on them. :cheers:

 

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An armed citizenry cannot rise up against a modern army.

 

 

Do you know how many people are in the US Military (total)?

Rougly 1.4 million, including all support roles, with 1.4 in reserves (National Guard, etc)

 

There are over 100,000,000 gun owners.

 

Ever get into a 100 vs 3 fight? Even if you have the best weapons, what do you HONESTLY think your chances are?

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be ugly and brutal and very unrealistic. I'm just saying that argument doesn't really hold up.

 

Not to mention that MANY of those personnel would NOT fire on US Citizens. In fact, many would SUPPORT those defending against tyranny.

 

Yamamoto knew he could not invade the US in WWII because he knew the US population was armed. That creates a VERY large army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government attacked someplace internally with stealth bombers and drones, the citizens don't stand a chance. But, because of an armed citizenry, they would be forced to a actually attack.

 

 

Um, please 'splain that part to me?

 

 

General: Okay, we're going to throw out the constitution and whatnot. So, we're going to kill everyone in Little Rock.

 

Corporal: Why Little Rock sir?

 

 

General: Why not? Did you know Bill Clinton was from there?"

 

C: Oh, um, okay.

 

G: So, get the ChairForce to load up their planes with MOABs, Fly the Forking AC-130 gunships and clean 'em up with Helos and Drones.

 

C: Right! Yes Sir!

 

C: "Um, General? I just thought of something..."

 

G: "Yes?"

 

C: "Well, some of those people have GUNS. They bought them at Wal-Mart - you know, that's where they started out." :unsure:

 

G: "Good thinking soldier! Okay, well, I guess we can't use WMD's and air power, let's outfit our guys with carbines and bayonets."

 

- WTF? How does what you said make any sense? Again, not arguing for or against GC, it's just what you said - well, - The only way what you said makes any sense is if you assume everyone has 2-mile deep, concrete reinforced bunkers instead of double-wides.

 

HUH to WizHUT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to mention that MANY of those personnel would NOT fire on US Citizens. In fact, many would SUPPORT those defending against tyranny.

 

Yamamoto knew he could not invade the US in WWII because he knew the US population was armed. That creates a VERY large army.

 

Okay, this is just getting weirder and weirder. - The two paragraphs are completely contrary to each other. Are you talking about the US gubmint trying to kick the shiit out of its populace or a foreign power?

 

Let's say the former first:

 

1) Agreed. We'd have a civil war on our hands. Not military vs. civilian. No argument there.

 

2) But your 100M figure is a) Probably too high and 2) Spurious. The reality is, that doesn't mean 100M gun owners, probably less than half that - and even then, that's being generous for the sake of discussion. The average gun owner owns multiple guns - still, you only have to kill him once.

 

3) Doesn't matter. Air Power and Bombs would fock the shiit out of the civilians in a hearbeat.

 

4) How do I know this? Every household in Iraq is allowed to have an AK or equivalent. - Legally allowed under occupation law. There are 32 million Iraqis. Let's say 10 peoople live in every house to be AGAIN VERY generous. Let's assume only one in three households were anti-occupation. How'd that work out?

 

5) Face it, guns are the opiate of the massess when it comes to the tinfoil hat crowd. Tell me they're good to have around if some crackhead whacked out on Zombie dust breaks in, yeah, I'll fully support that. But even levelling the firepower playing field, I'll take Mungwater and 2 of his soldiers over 20 scared crapless Toby Keith, NRA loving wannabees - and trained soldiers would win every focking time.

 

 

SO: That leaves a foreign invasion: Face it stud, this ain't Red Dawn - and never will be. Given the technology, ain't NO country going to try to storm the beaches of Santa Barbara. If a foreign power EVER wants to actually try to oppress the Amurican Whey of Strife - ICBM's all focking day for about 2 straight weeks.

 

- Let me know how effective your Glock is against that. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, please 'splain that part to me?

 

 

General: Okay, we're going to throw out the constitution and whatnot. So, we're going to kill everyone in Little Rock.

 

Corporal: Why Little Rock sir?

 

 

General: Why not? Did you know Bill Clinton was from there?"

 

C: Oh, um, okay.

 

G: So, get the ChairForce to load up their planes with MOABs, Fly the Forking AC-130 gunships and clean 'em up with Helos and Drones.

 

C: Right! Yes Sir!

 

C: "Um, General? I just thought of something..."

 

G: "Yes?"

 

C: "Well, some of those people have GUNS. They bought them at Wal-Mart - you know, that's where they started out." :unsure:

 

G: "Good thinking soldier! Okay, well, I guess we can't use WMD's and air power, let's outfit our guys with carbines and bayonets."

 

- WTF? How does what you said make any sense? Again, not arguing for or against GC, it's just what you said - well, - The only way what you said makes any sense is if you assume everyone has 2-mile deep, concrete reinforced bunkers instead of double-wides.

 

HUH to WizHUT?

My statement was meant to point out that with an unarmed populace, simply the threat of attack would generally be enough to gain compliance from the masses. If the populace is armed, the simple threat prolly wouldn't be enough to convince people they should do as told, so they would have to actually use force. Once force was employed, I'm betting that more than a few militaristic types wouldn't fire on US citizens.

 

And BLS and I are both countering a point made by GobbleDog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement was meant to point out that with an unarmed populace, simply the threat of attack would generally be enough to gain compliance from the masses. If the populace is armed, the simple threat prolly wouldn't be enough to convince people they should do as told, so they would have to actually use force. Once force was employed, I'm betting that more than a few militaristic types wouldn't fire on US citizens.

 

And BLS and I are both countering a point made by GobbleDog.

 

 

Thanks for the response. Is it true you are half vampire and black? Or am I confusing you with someone else? :unsure:

 

You know who had really strong gun-control laws?

 

+ The Soviet Union.

+ Romania especially.

+ Also, the Roman Empire.

+ And: China.

+ And: Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. Is it true you are half vampire and black? Or am I confusing you with someone else? :unsure:

 

You know who had really strong gun-control laws?

 

+ The Soviet Union.

+ Romania especially.

+ Also, the Roman Empire.

+ And: China.

+ And: Ireland.

:lol:

 

Nope, not me. I'm neither black nor a vampire, although I used to work nights so I would post at all sorts of odd hours.

 

That's pretty funny, though. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
' date='10 December 2012 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1355172620' post='4920748']

:huh:

 

Sorry, I guess "negro"is outdated.

 

I should have used the more appropriate term: "Criminal American".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×