BF2S Forums 3 Bullsh*t Arguments from Pro Gun Fraternity

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Not if you still have rifles and shotguns. Killing someone isn't the point of self defence.

Homour me.

Where would one shoot someone, with a shotgun, without the intention of killing or seriously maiming them?

bob_6012 wrote:

@McMinty. I don't have a problem with regulation saying I should keep different parts of a firearm separate that's fine, except for the non-bolt action firearms I have. I have pressed my semi-auto into hunting, primarily varmint, because it is the only precision rifle I have that is capable of doing what I need it to. However I never load a full 20 rounds into because there is no way I'll ever need that many even in one day. On the constitution, yes I keep saying it's our right (or privilege, however you care to look at it) because it is, that's all. Yes we could change it but I seriously doubt we ever will, even if there is an attempt the NRA and all of the pro-gun groups have such a big push on Capitol Hill that it will never come to fruition.

Fair enough point there.


And yes, I was being stupidly optimistic in my suggestion that the constitution could be changed.



Mcminty.

mcminty wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Not if you still have rifles and shotguns. Killing someone isn't the point of self defence.

Homour me.

Where would one shoot someone, with a shotgun, without the intention of killing or seriously maiming them?

bob_6012 wrote:

@McMinty. I don't have a problem with regulation saying I should keep different parts of a firearm separate that's fine, except for the non-bolt action firearms I have. I have pressed my semi-auto into hunting, primarily varmint, because it is the only precision rifle I have that is capable of doing what I need it to. However I never load a full 20 rounds into because there is no way I'll ever need that many even in one day. On the constitution, yes I keep saying it's our right (or privilege, however you care to look at it) because it is, that's all. Yes we could change it but I seriously doubt we ever will, even if there is an attempt the NRA and all of the pro-gun groups have such a big push on Capitol Hill that it will never come to fruition.

Fair enough point there.


And yes, I was being stupidly optimistic in my suggestion that the constitution could be changed.



Mcminty.

That's fine, I really don't want to piss anyone off by constantly saying it's out right to bear arms because I just think it breeds trouble. And on the shotgun, maybe in the foot? From 100 yards away? That might work, I don't know maybe we should ask Dick Cheney.

Last edited by bob_6012 (2007-04-18 05:24:19)

Vernedead wrote:

possibly used as a tool of intimdation, loaded with a non-lethal catridge or in a limb.

as an aside guns are not illegal in the UK despite what some posters appear to believe they are merely regulated to the point were ownership is largely impractical and expensive. pistols are totally banned, but shotguns and rifles can still be owned civily.

Nor are guns illegal by definition in Australia.  But they are only available to those who have a valid use/need (farmers, basically).

Fun fact: up until recently, paintballs were considered a firearm in Victoria.  Yeah, our government went a little too far .

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

So, you're going to wander down the street with a rifle in case you get robbed?

No, not that I wouldn't look really badass carrying one.

I'm too tired to get into it. Let's just say I would like to keep people's rights to own firearms without giving them access to overlypowerful ones.

So, a rifle is less powerful than a handgun?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-04-18 05:26:45)

Bubbalo wrote:

Vernedead wrote:

possibly used as a tool of intimdation, loaded with a non-lethal catridge or in a limb.

as an aside guns are not illegal in the UK despite what some posters appear to believe they are merely regulated to the point were ownership is largely impractical and expensive. pistols are totally banned, but shotguns and rifles can still be owned civily.

Nor are guns illegal by definition in Australia.  But they are only available to those who have a valid use/need (farmers, basically).

Fun fact: up until recently, paintballs were considered a firearm in Victoria.  Yeah, our government went a little too far .

I actually got shot in the leg in a drive-by paintballing.

There are a lot of bullshit arguments from gun nuts. One is the constitutional right, so fucking what, it's legislation it can be changed - so that's not really a valid point at all. Secondly, the argument that guns are usefull for self defence - which has been shown to be untrue, since gun owners are far more likely to be killed than non gun owners as a result of crime (as many studies have shown), so are their famillies.

The whole argument of "people are killed with knives too, should we ban them too?" is just silly. Knives have a proper purpose (loads of purposes actually - just ask Ray Mears), guns are used to kill - that's it. Killing someone with a knife is also much more difficult, dangerous and more gruesome - because of the close proximity and feeling the knife penetrating flesh - it's a lot more involved than pulling a trigger.
The hunting argument makes sense, but guess what? Hunting is quite popular in rural areas of the UK - you don't need handguns for hunting or fully automatc weapons, you need shotguns or bolt action rifles which are the only sort of guns that should be allowed and even then under strict controls.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

It is commonly accepted that the Bill of Rights was largely inspired by the English Bill Of Rights.  This formed the basis of laws we have in the UK today and include things like the right to petition the King/Queen etc.  However it also included these two: -

“Freedom for Protestants to carry arms for defence”
“Freedom from fines or forfeits without trial”

I’d like to see you try and carry a sawn-off shot gun around wearing a “Jesus Loves You” T-Shirt without a Police Gun Unit being called out to shoot your ass down.  As for the second one, well you don’t seriously think that we don’t have fines in the UK do you?

Of course we have fines in the UK. But we also have the right to question these fines and go to trial instead (but if you lose you have to pay much more) - which is what the bill of rights brought about. Both of the rights you have listed are still valid today - you just missed a bit off the end of the first one:

“Freedom for Protestants to carry arms for defence as allowed by law"

Which is still in effect today, except there are laws preventing anyone from carrying guns (or knives) and discrimination laws preventing it applying only to Protestants.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-18 06:25:09)

wow, did i miss alot since last night!!  lets get a few things straight
1) never ever shoot to injure, if you shoot to injure it shows that you are not proficient in firearms and thus your ccw permit can be taken away.  always shoot to kill, whether it's an animal or a human, never let them suffer.

2) do i think private citizens should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons, no, there is no need for this.

3) semi-automatics for hunting big game, no thanks i'll take a bolt action anyday, they are just more accurate.

i can see why some anti-gun people don't like guns, but they can usually don't see the pro-gun side of the story, why is this?  My wife for example didn't like guns (except shotguns for hunting, she didn't mind those), until she met me.  she said that they are made just for killing, and basically she's right, but i educated her on the usefulness of weapons for hunting and personal protection, and now she doesn't mind them as much, she actually enjoys going out and shooting with me now, just the handguns though, i won't let her shoot my 12 gauge or my .308, do to the fact i know that she can't handle the recoil, and i don't want to see her cry and then be scared of guns.  some people are just negative towards guns, and that will probably never change.  but what i want to know is why people from other countries are so concernd about our problems here in the States, mind your own damn business!

you can use .50 cal to hunt with, it just depends on the ammo that you use.  i would love to own a .50 cal rifle, then i would go to camp perry for the 1000 yard shoots.

klassekock wrote:

Miller wrote:

Invaderzim wrote:

I give up, I can't make you see sense so I wont try.

Good, give up.  Get over that we like to have our own protection.  The more you try to get is to see something that isn't true the more we will argue with you.  I am still getting over the .50 sniper being banned in california... There has been one record of it ever being used, honestly: who robs a store with a giant sniper?

And why the hell would you you want to own a 50 cal. sniper rifle anyway? I don't know much about guns but i do know one thing, that it can't be used to hunt with since the impact would destroy most of the meat.
So what exactly are you gonna use it for except killing someone? Are you a pro hitman by any chance?

There are a handful of big game hunters that use .50 cal's. They use it for the long distance they can shoot at and the impact force of the round itself, I believe I saw a moose taken with one from around 700 yards. I don't endorse nor condone it, I personally think it's really neat but to each his own. If I had the money for a .50 and some place to actually shoot it I would buy one.

Bubbalo wrote:

So, you're going to wander down the street with a rifle in case you get robbed?

Defending yourself against petty crimes like muggings by using a gun is an example of a $20 solution to a $10  problem if ever I heard one.

Your repsonse is going to be yeah but what if they have a gun because they're a criminal isn't that unfair to the law abiding citizens (because the same argument has been made a thousand times here already).  Well two things

1) Been said loads already but, he'll have the advantage because he's already got his gun out and he is ready whilst you're taken by suprise.  Odds are in 90% of case the mugger wins.

2)  If you have tight enough controls and harsh punishments then no mugger is going to run the risk of obtaining a gun for petty crime, the ends wouldn't justify the means.  Burglars and Muggers just don't carry guns (except in vary rare cases) in the UK; I don't what that says about the state of your country and it's affliation with guns.

In the UK we have guns in criminal hands of course, but those people are always:-

Gangland criminals who use their guns on other gangland criminals

Wanna ganstas in specific parts of London again shooting other wannabe gangstas (which incidentally is being branded as US gang culture polluting the UK, it couldn't be that the culture is derived from the accessibility to firearms in the US could it?)

Armed robbers who in every case would beat you anyway in a gun fight because they take you by suprise(and I'm pretty sure the US have a higher armed robbery rate than us anyway so moot).

Now the only one that I could possibly be involved is a victim is an armed robbery (or very unlucky accident in the other two) and the chances of me being involved in an armed robbery are millions to one and thus don't justify why I should carry one on me at all times.  It'd be like wearing a gask mask all the time on the off chance that there is a dirty bomb attack. 

I was watching Crime Watch last week and this case was shown.  Now I want someone to tell me where owning a gun would have helped the victim...

Crimewatch website wrote:

On Monday 16 July, businessman James Chambers was at his partner Jackie's home in Rainham, Essex, with her and her two children. At around 12.45am (the early hours of Tuesday morning), Jackie heard the sound of a vehicle pulling up and looked out to see a large white van outside the house.

James answered the door and three men (one black, two white) dressed in Metropolitan Police uniforms, balaclavas and gloves stormed in and knocked him to the ground. They were carrying a black handgun with a silencer, and smaller silver pistol with a brown wooden handle.

They threatened him repeatedly, demanding to know where the safe was where he kept all his money (there wasn't one in the house). The robbers handcuffed James and used silver duct tape to gag and blindfold him. The first offender, a white man with ginger hair, repeatedly kicked, punched and pistol-whipped him. The second offender, a black man (see e-fit below) went upstairs and held Jackie and her 12-year-old daughter captive.

Jackie's four-year-old son remained asleep throughout this, despite his mother and sister being held captive in his bedroom. The third (white) man didn't play as big a part in the violence.

Jackie was taken downstairs to see how badly they'd beaten James - in an attempt to get her to tell them where the safe was. When she confirmed there wasn't a safe in the house - but there was one at James' office - the first white offender pistol-whipped her as well, before gagging and binding her with duct tape, too.

The robbers decided to take James to his timber yard office in Stratford, East London. So they called a fourth man to 'babysit' Jackie and the children. He arrived half an hour later, dressed in a distinctive orange T-shirt, beige knee-length shorts and white Nike trainers. On arrival, he was clearly shocked that children were involved and apologised to Jackie.

The three robbers bundled James into the back of their white van and drove him to his place of business. They didn't need to ask for any directions to the premises, and on the way there the conversation suggested some kind of familiar knowledge - for example, they talked about James' mum.

At the timber yard, the robbers stole £50,000 from the safe and ransacked the office. They also stole four valuable watches from the family home.

They left James at his office - cuffed, gagged, blindfolded and severely injured. He lost four teeth and needed extensive hospital care.

Now firstly, let me remind you that no one ended up dead at the end of this and $50,000 would be replaced by insurance.  So now if he had a gun I can think of two possible outcomes to how this may have turned out

1) He sees they are police, thinks they've got the wrong house so doesn't take a weapon with him to answer the door - same events entail.

2) He has a gun, ignores their police uniforms and takes his gun with him and has it drawn when he opens the door - They have two guns so shoot him when they see his "piece" or he drops it and again the same events entail.

Now I could be accused of cherry-picking an example to fit my opnion above but I really struggle to think of a situation where a gun is a definate advantage and their is no or little possibilty that the criminal wins.  In all situations I can think of the criminal has at least a 50% of beating you and when you both have guns one of you is going to shoot and one of you is going to get hurt or killed.  If only the criminal has a gun he is unlikely to shoot a defensless person who is cooperating with them.

Just to let you know that I was mugged once and if anything my resolve for a gunlesss society is stronger than it was before.  I was only young and group of older kids saw me and recognised that I had a pager so they cornered me and basically gave the usually mugger spiel "Give me your f*cking pager or I'll do you" etc and do you know what I did?  I simply handed it over and politely said "there you go guys" and they just walked off because I gave them no reason to hurt me.  I wasn't threating them or challenging them to a shoot off.  I informed the Police and they all subsequently got done and I claimed the pager as it was insured.  Not a scratch on me and I didn't lose anything financially either, you can imagine the possible outcomes if we'd both had guns.

I have concentrated on robbery because of the amount of people saying what if I get robbed in the street and I haven't got a gun?  Obviously sometimes it may not be material possesions that they want like rape, but then isn't Mace advised as the primary defense weapon against that?

Vernedead wrote:

and if we don't want to be defenceless and cooperative?

Then you have more ego than sense.  Do you think being a victim of mugging makes you a "sissy" or somehow less of a man?  If you do then to me you have some real self importance issues.   

But then I guess this kind of helps me understand a lot of the US foriegn policy of war over dialogue.

Vernedead wrote:

or possibly I happen to like my property and find the police to be, at best, unreliable on such issues.

I like my property too which is why it is insured, that is my defense against being robbed.  But as much as I value my possesions I value my personal safety and moreover life as infinitely more precious.  Two people with a gun in a heated situation = one death and thus a 50% it'll be you and not the criminal.

I heard it's illegal here in the US to sell parts to make a semi-auto gun automatic, but, one guy can sell you 95% of the parts and tell you where to go to buy the other 5%.

Fucking ridiculous.