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.
The problem is that by having a gun in your home you increase risk the probably of being killed. The gun offers nothing more then a false sense of security.
A study in Philadelphia found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Also to be noted. A majority of murder victims know their killer personally. You are more likely to have your gun be used by a love one to murder you then for it to be used to defend your home from a criminal.
Ohhhh, for me personally this is not even close. Wow,,,laughable even. So some band of bespectacled, John Denver looking clowns in Philly Think my personal weapons put me in danger by their mere presence. One of my loved ones will probably kill me with one of them. Seriously?
I can't even think clearly how to respond to that. Some study in Philly knows everybody's life well enough to say that our own guns, lets be more general and say weapons because most of us have more than firearms, will more than likely be used against us by a loved one.
That infuriates me. I only have three loved ones and one friend who lives far away as does one of my loved ones leaving two who are in the same area. There was a fourth loved one. The one who was the closest to me.
She would be the reason that "study" enrages me so. All I can say is it's a load of rank dairy dung the odor of which would gag an outhouse rat.
Ohhhh, for me personally this is not even close. Wow,,,laughable even. So some band of bespectacled, John Denver looking clowns in Philly Think my personal weapons put me in danger by their mere presence. One of my loved ones will probably kill me with one of them. Seriously?
I can't even think clearly how to respond to that. Some study in Philly knows everybody's life well enough to say that our own guns, lets be more general and say weapons because most of us have more than firearms, will more than likely be used against us by a loved one.
That infuriates me. I only have three loved ones and one friend who lives far away as does one of my loved ones leaving two who are in the same area. There was a fourth loved one. The one who was the closest to me.
She would be the reason that "study" enrages me so. All I can say is it's a load of rank dairy dung the odor of which would gag an outhouse rat.
when they see my awesome weapon? well sometimes they react with a sort of stand-offishness. Every once in a while they may kick back or whinney a little bit. But I usually start to slow them down with a little light brush with my 357 magnum. Then they calm a little bit. And I slowly ease them in with a little bit of my 44 magnum. Now they may bray and fuss at that point, but then I bring them in for landing with my AR15.
The sad part is, that had to pass through editors before making its way to be broadcasted.
Lol!! That’s what happens when people who know nothing about firearms comment on them as if they were authorities (much like a number of posters in this thread).
Google “the shoulder thing that goes up” for more hilarity.
Here’s some beloved politicians demonstrating their ignorance. These are people that are creating and passing gun legislation. For those of you following this thread who don’t really know much about firearms, everything in the following video is pretty much the equivalent of claiming that automobiles are powered by unicorn farts - it is all complete nonsense.
There has never been an StG 44 used in a shooting incident in the US, nor has any civilian used an as designed or as modified automatic weapon in 20 years for a known crime. They've all been semi-automatic.
There are no equivalent firearms to a golf cart except a single barrel muzzle loader. All modern firearms regardless of action are equivalent to 250mph supercars. If all cars are 250mph supercars the only factor which determines the winner of a race is the driver. That's what you fail to comprehend. All drivers of supercars are the limiting factor, all Shooters of guns are the limiting factor.
Do you think the fact that they are heavily regulated has anything to do with it?? Or just mere coincidence?
when they see my awesome weapon? well sometimes they react with a sort of stand-offishness. Every once in a while they may kick back or whinney a little bit. But I usually start to slow them down with a little light brush with my 357 magnum. Then they calm a little bit. And I slowly ease them in with a little bit of my 44 magnum. Now they may bray and fuss at that point, but then I bring them in for landing with my AR15.
Interesting methodology. I get the impression you use this on mules? Horses don't bray. Never trained a mule myself but I've trained a couple horses for gunfire up to field artillery circa 1860's. Started with just caps myself. And kept a treat handy. With my favorite horse it was green apples.
Before I knew it we were galloping at hand speed or better blasting away with my 1860 Army Colts. But NEVER with live ammunition from the saddle.
Can't say as I've ever packed an AR horseback. That's my truck gun. 200+ yard coyotes no problem. As an aside when my mare got her green apple treat she would toss her head up ad down and sling slobbers on my hat just terribly pleased with herself. Those slobber stains still decorate my hat. : )
But no civilian in 20 years has used an automatic rifle (or smg) for criminal enterprise in the US.
No what I'm saying for the apparently mentally challenged is that if you're in a Ferrari 488 and I'm in a Lamborghini Aventador the limiting factor is not the hardware, but the driver.
The same would apply to an 1895 Winchester and a Winchester 700 rifle, the limiting factor is the user not the hardware. Miculek can achieve 16 rounds fired from a 6 shot revolver the same as anyone can own in 4 seconds. How can you argue your 6 shooter does not have the capability to achieve 16 rounds in 4 seconds when there is video evidence that this is possible? If this is possible then how can you argue that it is the capability of the gun that causes problems?
I have no idea what you're trying to say about a 200mph hot rod with no driver, it's probably non-sequitur or straw man as typical.
I have bolded the obvious and true statement in your comment above...
Best leave it at that, because I'm pretty well spent on trying to explain any further or any different than I already have. Hopefully onward doesn't also mean downward...
What should be the maximum allowable number of rounds that can be fired through a weapon in one minute?
I described the methodology I might consider in a prior comment, to come up with the appropriate number of rounds, but I'm not going to bother finding it or repeating myself. Doesn't matter anyway, because I'm not of the opinion that the exercise or the ban would be effective or productive anyway. Again, as explained before, this is strictly academic for me, inspired mostly by my interest and curiosity regarding the analytical manner in which to arrive at such numbers.
Again, also like what tax rates are appropriate and effective. A subject your moniker suggests you might also be interested in...
No two people will necessarily agree on the same rates or even the reasons for them, let alone two members of Congress, but when the focus is on what matters, by way of objective critical thinking, the answer(s) can be derived as required, and as such, that's what our elected representatives are then called upon to judge, and vote "yea" or "nay."
To my way of thinking, we're a far cry away in this forum/thread from the ability to understand or take on the full process I would think appropriate to arrive at such numbers in a methodical and intelligent manner, or so it seems to me from all the push-back I have encountered simply to explain where a fundamental starting point would need be in terms of focus.
Excellent post. There is presumption amongst a large portion of the American public that the only way to stop or overthrow a tyranny is with violence. Almost every nation in Europe is now a democracy and at one point almost all of them were a monarchy of some sort. The transition of power from monarchy to democracy came through votes and legislation in the case of Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Sweden. Also noting that these changes came about from a generally unarmed populace.
The only tyrannical government in American history to ever hold any power was the Confederacy. Which was often formed of gangs of armed "law abiding" citizens. The notion that an armed civilian population could not be used to install a tyrannical government is extremely naive.
Also an excellent post. Agreed, although we all know what makes for a democratic system of government versus otherwise depends on many factors, and true as well that America is unlike other countries just like other countries are also unique. All with their/our own "good, bad and ugly."
Why I often argue we are all better off to consider "best in class" when it comes to the right or wrong of public policy, to determine who is doing what best, how and why. That approach surely serves everyone better than mindless nationalistic populace notions having little to do with what really works best for all concerned.
A short comment about a very long and complex subject...
I described the methodology I might consider in a prior comment, to come up with the appropriate number of rounds, but I'm not going to bother finding it or repeating myself. Doesn't matter anyway, because I'm not of the opinion that the exercise or the ban would be effective or productive anyway. Again, as explained before, this is strictly academic for me, inspired mostly by my interest and curiosity regarding the analytical manner in which to arrive at such numbers.
Again, also like what tax rates are appropriate and effective. A subject your moniker suggests you might also be interested in...
No two people will necessarily agree on the same rates or even the reasons for them, let alone two members of Congress, but when the focus is on what matters, by way of objective critical thinking, the answer(s) can be derived as required, and as such, that's what our elected representatives are then called upon to judge, and vote "yea" or "nay."
To my way of thinking, we're a far cry away in this forum/thread from the ability to understand or take on the full process I would think appropriate to arrive at such numbers in a methodical and intelligent manner, or so it seems to me from all the push-back I have encountered simply to explain where a fundamental starting point would need be in terms of focus.
You know. When you're saying something and you're in a minority of one that agrees with it. Rather than determine you are expressing ideas that are valid but incomprehensible to those others you expressed it to, you might want to go back and reconsider your original argument. It may just be that you're not really saying what it is you think you are, in your heavy defense of a false premise.
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.
One of my loved ones will probably kill me with one of them. Seriously? 
