Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Why not read what I wrote? Rapid fire pistol shooting is a sport derived from fighty shooting. A pistol is usually pretty useless for shooting your dinner, unless you fancy Kentucky Fried Rat, perhaps. BTW, great (as in rubbish) attempt at diverting the argument, yet again. I notice that it's something you do a lot.
OK then if you think standing stationary directly facing your target for half a minute before you start shooting would be a good way to conduct a real gunfight, then I wish you the best should you ever be unfortunate enough to actually be in one. As for handguns being useless for hunting, I will quote from a hunting website, which took around 15 secs on Google to find:
"When pistols evolved into revolvers, hunters on the Great Plains started using the large cap-and-ball US Army Colts, which had more power than many of the cartridge rifles of the time, to ride up on horseback and kill buffalo. With the development of the .44-40 cartridge in the 1870s, hunters could carry both the Winchester Model 1873 and the Colt Frontier Six-Shooter chambered in this round, offering the convenience of having a rifle and a handgun that used the same ammunition. Improved rifle cartridges made the .44-40 obsolete, or at least antique, and so most hunters’ handguns became .22s for use on the trail when they didn’t want to disturb the surroundings with the blast of a large-caliber rifle or tear up what they might be shooting for supper. And the .22 was just plain fun to plink around with during down times on the hunt.
IF you don't like guns because they can kill and you think they should be banned, just say that. It is a reasonable argument, even if recreational shooters disagree with it. Saying there is no sporting use for semi-automatic guns so they should be banned, when semi-automatic shooting is in the Olympics just makes you look silly. Pistol shooting has been in the Olympics since the first modern Olympics in 1896 and it is a major stretch of the imagination to say this is related to gunfighting.
Breadvan72 said:
You can shoot game or pest animals with a single shot rifle or single or double barrelled non pumpy shotgun. Why would anyone want a semi auto rifle or a pump action shotgun or a multi shot pistol, especially one of the heavier ones, save as an anti person weapon?
Australia has unnecessarily strict gun laws which make semi-automatic rifles tricky to get. But do you know one of the specific reasons why you can be licensed for a semi-automatic rifle in Australia while others are denied? That reason is you are a primary producer and you use it to shoot pests or game. Like I said, if you don't like guns just say so. Instead of showing what you don't know and performing, shall we say, a foot shot.Edited by creampuff on Sunday 4th October 20:01
creampuff said:
Breadvan72 said:
Why not read what I wrote? Rapid fire pistol shooting is a sport derived from fighty shooting. A pistol is usually pretty useless for shooting your dinner, unless you fancy Kentucky Fried Rat, perhaps. BTW, great (as in rubbish) attempt at diverting the argument, yet again. I notice that it's something you do a lot.
OK then if you think standing stationary directly facing your target for half a minute before you start shooting would be a good way to conduct a real gunfight, then I wish you the best should you ever be unfortunate enough to actually be in one. As for handguns being useless for hunting, I will quote from a hunting website, which took around 15 secs on Google to find:
"When pistols evolved into revolvers, hunters on the Great Plains started using the large cap-and-ball US Army Colts, which had more power than many of the cartridge rifles of the time, to ride up on horseback and kill buffalo. With the development of the .44-40 cartridge in the 1870s, hunters could carry both the Winchester Model 1873 and the Colt Frontier Six-Shooter chambered in this round, offering the convenience of having a rifle and a handgun that used the same ammunition. Improved rifle cartridges made the .44-40 obsolete, or at least antique, and so most hunters’ handguns became .22s for use on the trail when they didn’t want to disturb the surroundings with the blast of a large-caliber rifle or tear up what they might be shooting for supper. And the .22 was just plain fun to plink around with during down times on the hunt.
IF you don't like guns because they can kill and you think they should be banned, just say that. It is a reasonable argument, even if recreational shooters disagree with it. Saying there is no sporting use for semi-automatic guns so they should be banned, when semi-automatic shooting is in the Olympics just makes you look silly. Pistol shooting has been in the Olympics since the first modern Olympics in 1896 and it is a major stretch of the imagination to say this is related to gunfighting.
Not sure hunting can be raised as an argument to be honest in this case as the population was reduced from many millions to a few hundred until common sense raised it's head. That's not hunting that was another case of slaughter.
Just shows again the power of the gun.
OpulentBob said:
I didn't realise we could have unlimited semi auto 22 rimfires. I used to plink away with those in my mates garden (his father was the local gamekeeper and we used to go rabbiting on his land all the time), along with 410 shotguns. Although you've got to admit they're piss-weak and struggle to down a mixy rabbit, let alone a fully grown person! 
A .22 was one of Derek Bird's weapons of choice. They'll kill you dead very effectively, thinking anything else is dangerous IMO. Also, one of these is completely legal here if you have a shotgun slot on your FAC: http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/firearms_vepr12.ht...
TBH I'm surprised they are (no mag limits either). Stick some slugs or buckshot in than and it's the perfect rampage weapon really.
Good fun in a sporting setting though (practical shotgun) but I find a regular tube mag shotgun more rewarding and harder to master.
The fact is ALL guns are lethal and limiting certain features will not change that.
Clearly something needs to change in the USA but I'm damned if I know what would be workable and make a real difference. I get the sense that at its core the gun culture related to the sense of self reliance that is more prevalent there. Therefore guns are seen as a defensive tool by the mainstream and while that is true easy access to guns will exist. Doesn't matter if Dad has had to be assessed to get a license if anyone in the household can gain easy access to firearms.
Matt Harper said:
Psychological evaluation is also a potential mitigating strategy - but also fraught with difficulty. I'm not clinically qualified to know if this is even possible, but I would support removal of firearms from everyone, who has ever been diagnosed with a psychological disorder, temporary, transient or otherwise.
Any other suggestions?
Maybe introducing minimum prices or taxes that increase the price of guns by a lot and then implementing a buyback programme at 2x the minimum price or a lot more than market value.Any other suggestions?
This would hopefully have the effect of restricting the flow of new guns onto the market and removing guns without having to 'take' them.
5ohmustang said:
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.
We'll take the disarming and have a murder rate one fifth as high as the "free non-socialist a paradise", thanks. I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.I also like the freedom people have over here not to be put at unnecessary risk of being shot due to irrational and stupid reasons.
creampuff said:
Australia has unnecessarily strict gun laws which make semi-automatic rifles tricky to get.
Is that unnecessary strict i.e. can't just have one because you want one? creampuff said:
But do you know one of the specific reasons why you can be licensed for a semi-automatic rifle in Australia while others are denied? That reason is you are a primary producer and you use it to shoot pests or game. Like I said, if you don't like guns just say so. Instead of showing what you don't know and performing, shall we say, a foot shot.
Not so strict as to allow those who actually need one to have one, then? Similar to over here. cookie118 said:
Maybe introducing minimum prices or taxes that increase the price of guns by a lot and then implementing a buyback programme at 2x the minimum price or a lot more than market value.
This would hopefully have the effect of restricting the flow of new guns onto the market and removing guns without having to 'take' them.
True enough. You'll never take guns away from people. The only way is to make buying and transferring them harder, and selling them back to the government easier. I'm sure they can find an insurgent group somewhere to irresponsibly sell the excess arms to...This would hopefully have the effect of restricting the flow of new guns onto the market and removing guns without having to 'take' them.
I don't think it's about banning guns in the US. There are countries with high rates of gun ownership without the issues. Switzerland, for example. It's about trying to figure out what needs to be done to decrease gun deaths and start to implement those things.
The problem is this debate can never get off the ground because it's swallowed in BS like "We must have guns to stop the government that has drones taking over the country it already runs" etc.
The problem is this debate can never get off the ground because it's swallowed in BS like "We must have guns to stop the government that has drones taking over the country it already runs" etc.
5ohmustang said:
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist sthole.
I don't agree with any of the pro-gun arguments in this thread but at least the other 'pro' posters are trying to explain their thinking, you just seem to be in a state of permanent and uncontrollable rage. You're a prime example of someone who shouldn't be armed with anything more deadly than a fork. Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.Chlamydia said:
I don't agree with any of the pro-gun arguments in this thread but at least the other 'pro' posters are trying to explain their thinking, you just seem to be in a state of permanent and uncontrollable rage. You're a prime example of someone who shouldn't be armed with anything more deadly than a fork.
A fork might be a bit...pointy.Chlamydia said:
I don't agree with any of the pro-gun arguments in this thread but at least the other 'pro' posters are trying to explain their thinking, you just seem to be in a state of permanent and uncontrollable rage. You're a prime example of someone who shouldn't be armed with anything more deadly than a fork.
We should ignore these types of posters with their huge chips on their shoulders. I'm starting to feel a bit weird about posting on these threads with such people contributing to them to the point I might just ignore the whole forum from now on 
Chlamydia said:
5ohmustang said:
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist sthole.
I don't agree with any of the pro-gun arguments in this thread but at least the other 'pro' posters are trying to explain their thinking, you just seem to be in a state of permanent and uncontrollable rage. You're a prime example of someone who shouldn't be armed with anything more deadly than a fork. Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.Gandahar said:
Matt Harper said:
Equally, I understand why some possess them solely for defense of themselves and their sanctuary.
Defence of themselves and their sanctury? How do you defend your sanctury if you are at work most of the day, or doing the shopping etc? Or do you just stay at home 24/7? It's a really poor argument if you think about it. I have a gun so can defend my homestead, but only the times I am there. Which is not often, I'm at work or down the bar, or doing the shopping. Most people are shot, in the their "sanctury" by themselves, their relations, their friends or neighbours. Lets just gloss over that though.
Well done for pointing out that you can't defend property when you are not there - who'd have thought? I do not advocate the use of deadly force in the defense of goods and possessions. I do advocate the use of deadly force in the defense of me and my wife, particularly within my home. Perhaps that explanation is easier for you to process.
Your last sentence is complete and utter b
ks, by the way, so gloss over it all you like. OpulentBob said:
5oh, yesterday
I like it. Lets ban knives too. http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/10/while-media-...
Matt Harper said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I would like to see every gun being kept in a secure gun safe when not in use, preferably with ammunition in a separate safe.
My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.
Absolutely no utility in personal or home defense of course. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - but the whole point of a firearm as a defensive weapon (rather than a sporting tool) is that it be accessible and ready for use.My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.
Nor did I feel the need to have a weapon with me when out and about in the city, though at the time it wouldn't have been legal anyway as it was just before the concealed carry law was passed.
I understood why the government of the day passed the law virtually banning handguns in Britain, but I think it was unneccessary, and there isn't a chance that any government will overturn that law.
creampuff said:
Australia has unnecessarily strict gun laws which make semi-automatic rifles tricky to get. But do you know one of the specific reasons why you can be licensed for a semi-automatic rifle in Australia while others are denied? That reason is you are a primary producer and you use it to shoot pests or game. Like I said, if you don't like guns just say so. Instead of showing what you don't know and performing, shall we say, a foot shot.
You say the laws are unnecessarily strict, because they make semi-automatic rifles tricky to get, then go on to explain how people with a valid reason can get one? Edited by creampuff on Sunday 4th October 20:01
Incidentally pests here include wild boar, asiatic buffalo and camels.
Regarding defense of loved ones / self / property, I leave that up to the Army & Police. That's what civilised societies do.
5ohmustang said:
OpulentBob said:
5oh, yesterday
I like it. Lets ban knives too. http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/10/while-media-...
The stories on their homepage are... interesting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff