U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,657 posts, read 1,979,435 times
Reputation: 1701

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
Okay, Reb, getting a little weary of this conversation right now. Check in with you later.
Gun grabbers always hate it when people ask them why it's OK for the government to be armed, but not the people.

It's their authoritarian streak coming out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:17 PM
 
10,586 posts, read 6,391,647 times
Reputation: 5889
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
Then lets go after the rifles that account for 2%. I'm all for that. No hunter I ever talked to was concerned about car/deer collisions. However, I do think there are a lot of deer that need to be culled in areas.

Since fists are used more in deaths yearly , than rifles, should we come up with some sort of restriction on those ?


You , just like all of us want to see an end to these mass shootings and the violence in the inner cities, but it has to be done logically. Knee jerk reactions and restrictions will do nothing... which is proven because we still have the violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:21 PM
Status: "She was warned yet STILL she persisted" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,848 posts, read 4,443,477 times
Reputation: 10576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Do you realize that the rifles you are going after account for somewhere around 2% of gun deaths?
If you eliminate hunting rifles the deaths from car/deer collisions will be more people than die in the shootings? Or do you not care how many die but only gun deaths?
The answer to that one would be "NO!" Why do you think the states have Fish and Wildlife Departments? The professional wildlife biologists do a much better job of controlling deer populations than a bunch of gun nuts with bad cases of buck fever ever will. I would love to be able to go to the mountains in the fall and not have to cover myself in dayglo orange in case some idiot mistakes me for a deer or an elk.

Or do you not care about all the people killed or injured in hunting accidents?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:23 PM
 
Location: USA
18,830 posts, read 9,202,415 times
Reputation: 14165
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Since fists are used more in deaths yearly , than rifles, should we come up with some sort of restriction on those ?


You , just like all of us want to see an end to these mass shootings and the violence in the inner cities, but it has to be done logically. Knee jerk reactions and restrictions will do nothing... which is proven because we still have the violence.
Many women and liberal Men believe the EMOTION the Media generates over these things. No need to bring in pesky facts. They need to FEEL like they're DOING SOMETHING.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:25 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,247 posts, read 34,245,521 times
Reputation: 14484
Only Tyrants want you unable to be able to defend yourself... Not against your neighbor, but against them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:34 PM
 
7,334 posts, read 2,600,545 times
Reputation: 3748
My guess is that firearms with large capacity magazines will be targeted, not Grand Pappy’s deer rifle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
10,046 posts, read 5,594,846 times
Reputation: 8490
I sort of get a kick out of this "missile exchange" for here we are talking about sniper rifles yet almost all of our mass shootings seem to be by people who are engaging an extremely close range and are probably not aiming at all.

So what is the concern on the table?

You know, minimal shooting range is something like 15-20 yards for at that distance, if someone is coming for you, they can be atop of you before you have a chance to react.

My current best over iron sights (no scope) in standing is 100 yards; that's the limit of my range and I am almost perfect. So what might this mean?

It could mean that between 20 and 100 yards, I could be shooting maritime style warning shots, "shots across their bow" to tell someone approach no closer. Granted, it could only be used in break down or disaster situations for use by civilians is generally done without an intended impact area of the round and that is wrong. To precisely put the round down in an intended location as a warning, however, has its purposes.

So.....are we looking to throw out the baby with a bath water that we see touches a lot with some of that touch being bad?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
My guess is that firearms with large capacity magazines will be targeted, not Grand Pappy’s deer rifle.
OOoooooo, what a pun!

But, three things. A: This time.........

B: You know, before police SWAT became organized, often times the sniper was armed with a deer rifle.

C: My father's Mauser 8mm deer rifle, which is a slight bit bigger than the M40 system, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_rifle , is described as a military style hunting rifle.

I wouldn't put it past them to go for the deer rifles, sooner or later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:49 PM
Status: "She was warned yet STILL she persisted" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: CO/UT/AZ/NM Catch me if you can!
4,848 posts, read 4,443,477 times
Reputation: 10576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Many women and liberal Men believe the EMOTION the Media generates over these things. No need to bring in pesky facts. They need to FEEL like they're DOING SOMETHING.
Just because you allow ultra conservative "news" sources to influence your emotions doesn't mean everyone else does. As a HUMAN BEING I felt both grief and outrage over the deaths of small children at Sandy Hook, at Columbine, at all the other mass shootings you worshippers of the Second Amendment inflict upon us. And the fact is no one needs to be running around with semi-automatics other than law enforcement and the military.

What have all you "responsible" gun owners done to address the issue of mass shootings? Let's see - go into hysterics at the very idea of background checks; donate your every last spare dime to the NRA so that they can buy off members of congress; run down to your local gun dealer in a fit of hysterics after every single mass shooting to ensure that there will still be plenty of guns and rounds of ammunition to kill children with - no matter what. No need to point out these pesky facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Only Tyrants want you unable to be able to defend yourself... Not against your neighbor, but against them.
Yeah, you and your local posse comitatus against the largest, best equipped, most experienced and most skilled military in the world. In case you haven't noticed, things have changed since the Constitution was written in the 1700's. Those who would oppose tyranny in today's world had better be resourceful enough to do something other than a hopeless attempt to play David and Goliath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:53 PM
 
10,105 posts, read 4,729,914 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
Then lets go after the rifles that account for 2%. I'm all for that. No hunter I ever talked to was concerned about car/deer collisions. However, I do think there are a lot of deer that need to be culled in areas.
One of the reasons to cull them is there are too many and causes collisions with cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:54 PM
 
10,586 posts, read 6,391,647 times
Reputation: 5889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Many women and liberal Men believe the EMOTION the Media generates over these things. No need to bring in pesky facts. They need to FEEL like they're DOING SOMETHING.

Exactly. And when I presented logical questions to that poster... I got absolutely zero in return. Facts just don't compute to those that run on emotion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top