Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in other words, "shut up about the second amendment and let us antigunners rule the day so we can finaly get rid of the second amendment, and thus all your guns."
I believe his point was restricted to the guy surmising his target AND backstop misses were automatically deemed harmless because they were after all, out in the woods! With noting that attitude did more harm than good to support the, 2nd.
And you continually ignoring my point of more guns in the hands of private citizens making you less safe is countered, and making you more credible how exactly by this link from the single biggest lobby group for the firearms manufacturers?
Lets put another 5 million guns out there; increasing the deaths of citizens by another 8,000 per year but somehow that is totally countered by another 660 folks claiming to have defended themselves successfully with a firearm.
The proliferation of firearms makes you less safe regardless if a significant number are held by licensed owners or not. The most insane concept of all is to think you put out a fire by adding more fuel to it.
Yours is the first world developed country with the problem of firearm related deaths exceeding all others. why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a moment to call Wayne for a concise answer as to how MORE firearms will equate to less firearm deaths.
There are no comprehensive records kept of incidents where guns are used in self-defense, so the only way to know is to ask people. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest that a gun is used in self-defense about 60,000 to 120,000 times each year. Several other surveys confirm this estimate. By comparison, each year about a million violent crimes involve guns. This means guns are used to commit a crime about 10 times as often as they are used for self-defense."
I don't think quoting studies by a cardiologist in New York about nation wide gun use is your best bet.
From your link
A study by two New York City cardiologists
Not to mention how they combine suicide, self defense homicide use and criminal homocide all together as "gun related death". Your article is disingenuous at best, completely lieing to arrive at a preconceived notion at worst.
And you continually ignoring my point of more guns in the hands of private citizens making you less safe is countered, and making you more credible how exactly by this link from the single biggest lobby group for the firearms manufacturers?
Lets put another 5 million guns out there; increasing the deaths of citizens by another 8,000 per year but somehow that is totally countered by another 660 folks claiming to have defended themselves successfully with a firearm.
The proliferation of firearms makes you less safe regardless if a significant number are held by licensed owners or not. The most insane concept of all is to think you put out a fire by adding more fuel to it.
Yours is the first world developed country with the problem of firearm related deaths exceeding all others. why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a moment to call Wayne for a concise answer as to how MORE firearms will equate to less firearm deaths.
There are no comprehensive records kept of incidents where guns are used in self-defense, so the only way to know is to ask people. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggest that a gun is used in self-defense about 60,000 to 120,000 times each year. Several other surveys confirm this estimate. By comparison, each year about a million violent crimes involve guns. This means guns are used to commit a crime about 10 times as often as they are used for self-defense."
Putting firearms in the hands of law abiding licensed people is not adding fuel to the fire. It is helping put out the fire. Again, you cannot distinguish between the law abiding and the criminals.
Up to 70% of gun crime is committed by people that have been in prison previously. We know who is responsible for the gun violence stats, and it's not the legal licensed CCW carrier.
The anti gun folks keep saying that "more guns" are not the answer. I agree. Firearms in the hands of licensed law abiding citizens is a different story though.
Putting firearms in the hands of law abiding licensed people is not adding fuel to the fire. It is helping put out the fire. Again, you cannot distinguish between the law abiding and the criminals.
Up to 70% of gun crime is committed by people that have been in prison previously. We know who is responsible for the gun violence stats, and it's not the legal licensed CCW carrier.
The anti gun folks keep saying that "more guns" are not the answer. I agree. Firearms in the hands of licensed law abiding citizens is a different story though.
It's the same with anything. Allowing people to buy computers, so they can shop online, communicate with each other, should not be halted simply because some people buy a computer to create child porn sites, hack other computers, commit fraud, and perform other unlawful acts.
It seems like everywhere I look and see, I'm being pressured to buy a gun...not just one gun, multiple ones. Gun shows all over the place, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and non-stop talk about guns on TV and the radio.
It's like American culture expects me to be carrying around a gun 24/7, and that if I don't own multiple firearms, I'm somehow a second class citizen. Anyone else tired of this?
Mexico banned all guns a while ago and now the country is owned and controlled by Drug Cartels and corrupt government officials. Is that the win win you want for the United States?
You mean those public woods where the public has a right to be?
This type of willfull stupidity gives those of us who recreationaly target shoot on public lands a bad name. Could you support the Second Amendement by not making any more pro gun posts?
What part of private property did I say that you didn't understand? I said he is NEAR a state forest! Near does not mean on the state forest. Where the backstop is at on his land does NOT butt up to the state forest! Furthermore, he owns 10 acres in which that land goes all the way back to a stream! The forest is down the road, and on the other side of the road! The forest does NOT touch that side of the property! Furthermore, if someone is coming up from the woods from the direction where we have the target stand and the backstop they are trespassing on PRIVATE PROPERTY!! Furthermore, I'll post whatever the hell I want in supporting the 2nd Amendment! Don't like it? Don't read it!
I believe his point was restricted to the guy surmising his target AND backstop misses were automatically deemed harmless because they were after all, out in the woods! With noting that attitude did more harm than good to support the, 2nd.
Well. The area is pretty remote, so chances are slim that anyone will get hit. And given that none of the state land is in the direction of where the stand and the backstop is, on the slim chance someone is coming up from the woods from that direction they are then trespassing! At any rate that is the reason why the stand is in that direction. On the other side of his road is someone elses property, so no way in hell are we shooting in that direction.
in other words, "shut up about the second amendment and let us antigunners rule the day so we can finaly get rid of the second amendment, and thus all your guns."
no... Dont think like:
- I know that my back stop is not stopping all my rounds
- I know that the area behind the back stop is public property and that there might be other people back there doing any number of lawful activities.
But.... I"ll keep shooting anyways. Scaring people away makes me look tough. If I kill somebody, I"ll just blame them for coming to close to my property.
Furthermore, I'll post whatever the hell I want in supporting the 2nd Amendment! Don't like it? Don't read it!
I beleive you. At least I dont want your guns though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Did some of the bullets get past the back stop? Sure. But I guarantee you we didn't have to worry about anyone being in the woods near his land.
Yikes, I misunderstood and though that there was public land behind the back stop. Lets look at what you said: we didn't have to worry about anyone being in the woods near his land
Is there any chance that those in the woods near your buddy's land have a right to be there? It does not really matter whether or not if the people in question are on public land or private land. If it is private land, they might be the owner or be there with his permission.
At the end of the day, knowing that the back stop is not catching all the rounds and that there maybe people there, and that these people could well be there lawfully is not "cool" or "tough"- it is at the very least mildy dumb.
How dumb the shooting is is dependent on the totality of the circumstances. Which, as you clearly and accurately stated, I dont know. Therefore, I apologize for the "willfull stupidity" part of my comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
I believe his point was restricted to the guy surmising his target AND backstop misses were automatically deemed harmless because they were after all, out in the woods! With noting that attitude did more harm than good to support the, 2nd.
And of course, nobody ever goes into the woods- right? Maybe the scenario is not as bad as I pictured. His flippant atitude about the stray rounds irked me though.
It seems like everywhere I look and see, I'm being pressured to buy a gun...not just one gun, multiple ones. Gun shows all over the place, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and non-stop talk about guns on TV and the radio.
It's like American culture expects me to be carrying around a gun 24/7, and that if I don't own multiple firearms, I'm somehow a second class citizen. Anyone else tired of this?
Since Progressives are ALWAYS trying to force everybody to do things they support, you seem to assume that gun-rights advocates want to force you to do as they do--owning or using firearms responsibly.
We don't want you to do anything, other than STOP trying to force everyone to do things that undermine the nation. We support your right to simply beg for mercy and trust in the inherent goodness of the criminal that breaks into your home or place of business. We know that you will be useless when a Hitler-like tyrant grabs the reins of power and starts herding anyone who objects into a gas chamber. And we understand, even if you don't, that the mere possibility of armed revolt is one of the few things that tempers Government's insatiable lust for money and power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With noting that attitude did more harm than good to support the, 2nd.
