What's your opinion of gun control?

[craked5]

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

Thank you. Self defense equipment isn't a problem.

But why taking the lethal self defense?

[1714219452]

1714219452

[1714219452]

1714219452

[tvbcof]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

When one gets to the point of needing self defense, the situation is utterly serious and it would be unwise for most people to be making less than a 100% effort to defend themselves.  Bonking a home intruder on the head with a frying pan makes for good comedy on TV but has a very good chance of working out poorly for the defender in real life.

Arguments for less-than-lethal ammo can be made both ways (and have on this thread.)  I personally still keep that as an option, but it is mostly because my biggest threats are against large animals which I don't normally wish to kill, and I can switch over in less than one second.  As long as I can keep my head together in an emergency situation which hopefully I'll never be in.

[craked5]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

When one gets to the point of needing self defense, the situation is utterly serious and it would be unwise for most people to be making less than a 100% effort to defend themselves.  Bonking a home intruder on the head with a frying pan makes for good comedy on TV but has a very good chance of working out poorly for the defender in real life.

Arguments for less-than-lethal ammo can be made both ways (and have on this thread.)  I personally still keep that as an option, but it is mostly because my biggest threats are against large animals which I don't normally wish to kill, and I can switch over in less than one second.  As long as I can keep my head together in an emergency situation which hopefully I'll never be in.

Yeah better make it legal to own lethal weapons. It will help the whole population and make it easier both for criminals and good citizens to kill each other. Great.

[bitsmichel]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

When one gets to the point of needing self defense, the situation is utterly serious and it would be unwise for most people to be making less than a 100% effort to defend themselves.  Bonking a home intruder on the head with a frying pan makes for good comedy on TV but has a very good chance of working out poorly for the defender in real life.

Arguments for less-than-lethal ammo can be made both ways (and have on this thread.)  I personally still keep that as an option, but it is mostly because my biggest threats are against large animals which I don't normally wish to kill, and I can switch over in less than one second.  As long as I can keep my head together in an emergency situation which hopefully I'll never be in.

Yeah better make it legal to own lethal weapons. It will help the whole population and make it easier both for criminals and good citizens to kill each other. Great.

Lethal weapons? People own knives and other tools. Why should guns be any different?

[valta4065]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

When one gets to the point of needing self defense, the situation is utterly serious and it would be unwise for most people to be making less than a 100% effort to defend themselves.  Bonking a home intruder on the head with a frying pan makes for good comedy on TV but has a very good chance of working out poorly for the defender in real life.

Arguments for less-than-lethal ammo can be made both ways (and have on this thread.)  I personally still keep that as an option, but it is mostly because my biggest threats are against large animals which I don't normally wish to kill, and I can switch over in less than one second.  As long as I can keep my head together in an emergency situation which hopefully I'll never be in.

Yeah better make it legal to own lethal weapons. It will help the whole population and make it easier both for criminals and good citizens to kill each other. Great.

Lethal weapons? People own knives and other tools. Why should guns be any different?

Simply because killing with a knife is incredibly more difficult than with a gun.

[valta4065]

Ban guns and upgrade our baseball bats to make them more lethal weapons. Everyone will be entitle to one baseball bat per household. Cops will have the more lethal version with spiked 6" nails protruding like a death wish. Students will have a less deadly version but can still justify a few broken bones if needed.

I don't see the use of lethal weapons really. Do you really need to blow someone's head off or would a few broken bones suffice?

When one gets to the point of needing self defense, the situation is utterly serious and it would be unwise for most people to be making less than a 100% effort to defend themselves.  Bonking a home intruder on the head with a frying pan makes for good comedy on TV but has a very good chance of working out poorly for the defender in real life.

Arguments for less-than-lethal ammo can be made both ways (and have on this thread.)  I personally still keep that as an option, but it is mostly because my biggest threats are against large animals which I don't normally wish to kill, and I can switch over in less than one second.  As long as I can keep my head together in an emergency situation which hopefully I'll never be in.

Yeah better make it legal to own lethal weapons. It will help the whole population and make it easier both for criminals and good citizens to kill each other. Great.

Lethal weapons? People own knives and other tools. Why should guns be any different?

Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

[Spendulus]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

[criptix]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

Because these are the reasons why we should make (half) automatic weapons legal

Hunting weapons are legal in pretty much every country of the world there are just some minor special cases like the US where every idiot can buy a (half)automatic mp...

[yugo23]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

And you stop with the false arguments. Owning guns for such reasons is perfectly legit and you have every right to own a rifle especially if you don't live in a city.

What do you think? That Europeans have no guns? Of course we do! Hunt is still a national sport in France and the 25% of the population not living in the city most of the times own at least one rifle for the family.

But that has nothing to do with the situation. The question is what is better? Make owning no weapon the rule and owning rifles because you want to hunt or simply because you feel you need it for security reasons the exception or the contrary?

[yugo23]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

Because these are the reasons why we should make (half) automatic weapons legal

Hunting weapons are legal in pretty much every country of the world there are just some minor special cases like the US where every idiot can buy a (half)automatic mp...

Yeah, well you gotta have no problem fighting your bear with an AK-47 xD

[Spendulus]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

Because these are the reasons why we should make (half) automatic weapons legal

Hunting weapons are legal in pretty much every country of the world there are just some minor special cases like the US where every idiot can buy a (half)automatic mp...

But none of my examples involve hunting, do they?

Get real please.  

Look, I'm not even saying Abandon your point of view and take my point of view.  I'm just saying get logical with your arguments.

[criptix]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

Because these are the reasons why we should make (half) automatic weapons legal

Hunting weapons are legal in pretty much every country of the world there are just some minor special cases like the US where every idiot can buy a (half)automatic mp...

But none of my examples involve hunting, do they?

Get real please.   

Look, I'm not even saying Abandon your point of view and take my point of view.  I'm just saying get logical with your arguments.

Oh my bad.

So you want to own a (half) automatic mp for the case that you are walking in an ambush of bears, rattlesnake or rabid dogs?

Just in case i understood you wrong again please try to elaborate.

Edit

I think im pretty good in using logic

[yugo23]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

Because these are the reasons why we should make (half) automatic weapons legal

Hunting weapons are legal in pretty much every country of the world there are just some minor special cases like the US where every idiot can buy a (half)automatic mp...

But none of my examples involve hunting, do they?

Get real please.  

Look, I'm not even saying Abandon your point of view and take my point of view.  I'm just saying get logical with your arguments.

And none of our argument were limited to hunting.

You can own a gun or a rifle if you fear for your security. But what's the point of an automatic rifle?

And it's simply better to say "nobody has a gun except they go through police recording" IMHO.

[Spendulus]

...
Oh and the gun/knife analogy is flawed from the beginning because guns are single use while knifes are multi use. Knifes are used on a daily basis to cut food or other things while guns have nothing but single purpose: to kill.

Hence you can't really compare them. You want to make legal to own guns? Then why not also making it legal to own missiles, chimical weapons, flamethrowers, tanks...

Obviously you have never been face to face with a bear, or a rattlesnake, or a rabid dog.

Get real please.

Because these are the reasons why we should make (half) automatic weapons legal

Hunting weapons are legal in pretty much every country of the world there are just some minor special cases like the US where every idiot can buy a (half)automatic mp...

But none of my examples involve hunting, do they?

Get real please.   

Look, I'm not even saying Abandon your point of view and take my point of view.  I'm just saying get logical with your arguments.

Oh my bad.

So you want to own a (half) automatic mp for the case that you are walking in an ambush of bears, rattlesnake or rabid dogs?

Just in case i understood you wrong again please try to elaborate.

Edit

I think im pretty good in using logic

Could be you are simply ignorant about the subject, then.

It's pretty common for guides to carry a 1911 45 automatic, when in bear country.  A shot fired into the air makes the bear go away.  A bear that does not go away is extremely dangerous.

Your question about a  "Half automatic mp" does not make any sense.  The 1911 45 is also gas operated semiautomatic pistol.  I can only guess that you find whatever you refer to as "mp" somehow in a category of "scary gun" and therefore "bad."

That's a common mistake made by people ignorant of these technologies.  What is dangerous, lethal, etc is a chunk of lead fired at 800 to 2000 feet per second.  Makes no difference what fired it, could be a piece of pipe, a rubber band and a nail.

[yugo23]

Oh my bad.

So you want to own a (half) automatic mp for the case that you are walking in an ambush of bears, rattlesnake or rabid dogs?

Just in case i understood you wrong again please try to elaborate.

Edit

I think im pretty good in using logic

Could be you are simply ignorant about the subject, then.

It's pretty common for guides to carry a 1911 45 automatic, when in bear country.  A shot fired into the air makes the bear go away.  A bear that does not go away is extremely dangerous.

Your question about a  "Half automatic mp" does not make any sense.  The 1911 45 is also gas operated semiautomatic pistol.  I can only guess that you find whatever you refer to as "mp" somehow in a category of "scary gun" and therefore "bad."

That's a common mistake made by people ignorant of these technologies.  What is dangerous, lethal, etc is a chunk of lead fired at 800 to 2000 feet per second.  Makes no difference what fired it, could be a piece of pipe, a rubber band and a nail.

Sure. No difference at all. I mean that's why the army works only with old 19th muskets. Because there is no difference, the important is the bullet

[criptix]

Im talking about these:

[yugo23]

Im talking about these:

Pff, get real!

Those are not important. no difference with a rubber. It's the bullet that kills not the gun (I think I've never heard this one before Spendulus xD)

[Spendulus]

Im talking about these:
.....
Those are not important. no difference with a rubber. It's the bullet that kills not the gun (I think I've never heard this one before Spendulus xD)

Yes, it is the bullet that kills.  The exception would be if you attach your bayonet and charge at that bear or snake with it.  Or if you choose to beat the rabid dog to death with the butt of your deadly looking assault rifle.

The AR15 is the most popular hunting rifle in the USA.  It's the most popular rifle, period.

The picture of the "mp" pistol, that's not something that I see as having much utility or use.  The reason is that it's difficult to holster and carry.  There's certainly an argument that the "mp" is designed to look "bad ass scary," but I am not sure where you go with that.  If you go in the direction of "let's ban scary looking guns" you are a fool.

[valta4065]

Im talking about these:
.....

Those are not important. no difference with a rubber. It's the bullet that kills not the gun (I think I've never heard this one before Spendulus xD)

Yes, it is the bullet that kills.  The exception would be if you attach your bayonet and charge at that bear or snake with it.  Or if you choose to beat the rabid dog to death with the butt of your deadly looking assault rifle.

The AR15 is the most popular hunting rifle in the USA.  It's the most popular rifle, period.

The picture of the "mp" pistol, that's not something that I see as having much utility or use.  The reason is that it's difficult to holster and carry.  There's certainly an argument that the "mp" is designed to look "bad ass scary," but I am not sure where you go with that.  If you go in the direction of "let's ban scary looking guns" you are a fool.

Bullets kill but saying the riffle that shot it isn't relevant is as dumb as saying that who fires it is irrelevant.

[Spendulus]

Im talking about these:
.....

Those are not important. no difference with a rubber. It's the bullet that kills not the gun (I think I've never heard this one before Spendulus xD)

Yes, it is the bullet that kills.  The exception would be if you attach your bayonet and charge at that bear or snake with it.  Or if you choose to beat the rabid dog to death with the butt of your deadly looking assault rifle.

The AR15 is the most popular hunting rifle in the USA.  It's the most popular rifle, period.

The picture of the "mp" pistol, that's not something that I see as having much utility or use.  The reason is that it's difficult to holster and carry.  There's certainly an argument that the "mp" is designed to look "bad ass scary," but I am not sure where you go with that.  If you go in the direction of "let's ban scary looking guns" you are a fool.

Bullets kill but saying the riffle that shot it isn't relevant is as dumb as saying that who fires it is irrelevant.

Sure, okay then.  Go ahead and argue against those "Scary looking rifles" and look like a total dumb ass.  Be my guest.  While you are at it, argue against "Scary knives" and be sure to say that "butcher knives are okay."  Hell, extend it to "scary people."