Bruno@MT
Senior Master
That is correct, but the 'sort them' phrase was derived from the statement 'God knows his own'. The ethymology I mentioned was valid.
Do you believe in guns?
- Thread starter Thesemindz
- Start date
That is correct, but the 'sort them' phrase was derived from the statement 'God knows his own'. The ethymology I mentioned was valid.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
I don't disagree, but it is patently false that gun ownership by definition makes for a safer society. And I proved that with my previous example. Whether people in a society have guns or not is statistically irrelevant to whether people get killed or not
Doesn't work. The middle ages proved that.
Death penalty in any form does not work as a deterrent.
I don't mean to be rude, but I have no clue at all what you mean with that paragraph.
Wow.
Are you serious? And I've always thought you had elephants in alaska (ok we really need a sarcasm tag if spelling and grammar are becoming optional).
No I meant that perhaps, just perhaps, ammo that can kill a bull elephant is overkill. I know from a marksman that if ammo is too powerfull, you get bad 'flinch reflexes' that make accurate shooting much more difficult. To me, it looks like you try too much like Charles Bronson.
Uhh...Bruno?
They've got these:
And that fella there isn't even near record size. I might wanna big ole cannon as well.....Have a look here
Last edited:
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
Ok. But in that case I hope you agree with me that that is most definitely not a self defense round. Because not only will it go right through the assailant without stopping, but also through the wall, through little susie who just happened to pass by, through little susies baby sister, and finally susies dog before burrying itself deep in the pavement.
Yeah, but for once I almost completely understood what he said:
Master Dan said:
Not sure how much good those would do for a grizzly under hand shaking,terrifying circumstances, but it's better than nothing....heck, the best defense is still knowing ursine behavior.
I think someone else made a better point related to hard statistics but its not that point if more of the right people owned guns and were properly trianed and willing to use them it woud improve. First crime goes down when more officers are added to any crime zone hard fact! do they walk around like Bobbies with only a whistle and club no! they have guns and use them and even more when it was found out that they were out gunned by the criminals they tooled up!
Now folks we are comming to real changes in America with budgets law enforcement and even saftey are going to get cut criminals study that and take advantage of that. I agree it is your personal choice and you have a right to that. Our society has changed to a hunter prey and I also said do all you can that is legal with the law for your area. I strongly believe in prevention more than anything which in the hunter prey relation will make you look less atractive to be Eaten!
Getting back to large caliber amo there is specific custom made self defense loads and other stuff but as deterent related to noise and shear concushion factor knocks things over just getting close. Acurate? that is why I suggest the 4 inch barel with fire suppression cuts way down on recoil and acuracy is improved 100%
I will admit the feeling of having that bad boy is like Crockadile Dundee now thats a knife. Being able to crack an engine block and shoot through things is nice when needed. My Marlon uses 500 grain loads was my original cannon for bear but I found that it was accurate at 200 yards gee I could actually hunt with this but just not fast enough to pull off your shoulder if you have 2 seconds to react and heavy to carry all day.
The reason death penalty does not work (jump in guys) is that it is not a death penalty most will die of old age before they get executed its the same death penalty everyone has we know we are going to die just not when?
Not for all cases but the killing of unarmed inocent people should be followed by death in 30 days. Data can be resorted or presented in any fashion but you do not have the quantative data to prove your point and the dark ages only proved that dictators and monarchy ruled by the rich and powerful abused the underprivlaged. You cannon compare that to a fair democracy and republic?
There was a reason that our founders put the laws in to bear arms not arm Bears?
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
Thousands of people got hung in England of yesteryear, using th eshort drop method, meaning that the people hanging by their neck didn't die instatly, but spent a good time squirming before they died. And then they also had hangin, drawing and quartering, where you were first hung until you passed out, then cut down and revived, then were disemboweled, and had your arms and limbs hacked off.
That didn't work as a deterrent either.
That didn't work as a deterrent either.
Archangel M
Senior Master
It doesn't matter if you believe in guns.
They believe in you.
They believe in you.
They believe in you.
They believe in you.
Noah_Legel
Blue Belt
This topic is very old and can be debated in both directions for eternity. I will simply state that I can't hit an assailant from 5 feet away with my hands when they have a gun, but I can shoot them. Having the ability to both defend myself with my body and defend myself from a distance with a gun is good.
All that was proven in the middle ages was the gratuitous, torturous deaths were not a deterrent, and that is because people become terrified of being accused of something and put to death in a horrible, painful, disgraceful way that they rebel. Nowadays we have forensic sciences that make it much less likely (not impossible, mind you, but much less likely) that you will be sentenced to death for something you didn't do, and we have methods of putting people to death that are about as humane as killing someone can be. I tend to be of the mind that if someone is convicted of purposefully murdering a person outside of a self-defense situation should be put to death quickly and humanely--being put in prison for the rest of your life while you continually appeal the decision without any new evidence doesn't exactly put fear into people considering murder, but I would believe that if they knew that getting caught and proven guilty would result in lethal injection within a few months' time then it MIGHT be a deterrent. That said, murderers are insane so that may not hold true
All that was proven in the middle ages was the gratuitous, torturous deaths were not a deterrent, and that is because people become terrified of being accused of something and put to death in a horrible, painful, disgraceful way that they rebel. Nowadays we have forensic sciences that make it much less likely (not impossible, mind you, but much less likely) that you will be sentenced to death for something you didn't do, and we have methods of putting people to death that are about as humane as killing someone can be. I tend to be of the mind that if someone is convicted of purposefully murdering a person outside of a self-defense situation should be put to death quickly and humanely--being put in prison for the rest of your life while you continually appeal the decision without any new evidence doesn't exactly put fear into people considering murder, but I would believe that if they knew that getting caught and proven guilty would result in lethal injection within a few months' time then it MIGHT be a deterrent. That said, murderers are insane so that may not hold true
WC_lun
Senior Master
Personally, I don't like guns. I think too many chuckleheads get a god complex when holding a gun. Too many of these same chuckleheads have no training and are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member if they actually had to use one for self defense. However, I'm not an advocate of taking guns away from people ..well unless they are felons. I think some mandatory training or a test of some sort should be administered for gun ownership though. We require and age limit and a test to drive, but to operate a tool which has only the purpose of destruction, we ask for nothing. I also think felons in posession of guns, in particular violent felons, get harsh sentences.
<sarcasm>SOF: Bastion of Ethics and Morality</sarcasm>
Uhh...Bruno?
They've got these:
And that fella there isn't even near record size. I might wanna big ole cannon as well.....Have a look here
Uh... according to its source, it was.
But wow. That story's impressive.
http://www.impactlab.net/2006/11/21/the-worlds-record-largest-bear/
Uhh...Bruno?
They've got these:
And that fella there isn't even near record size. I might wanna big ole cannon as well.....Have a look here
They can run as fast as a horse for 50 yards comming from the brush and your average high power rifle will not even phase them its said that not even a heart shot will keep them from doing damage to you before they fall over. You need to hit the brain becasue that stops motor skills. Everything else just pisses them off. I don't like to kill anything I would not eat and try to plan ahead to prevent supprising one.
When I traveled by boat six thousand nautical miles researching village to village where I would eventually stop and live and teach we stopped at an Island famous for large bears like this one they told us wear a bell on your back pack it will scare them away? yeh right sounds like a dinner bell to me I made the deck hand were it and walk in front.
Up here if you don't like someone you rub them with bacon greese and leave them. Its also said just carry a 22 pistol not for the bear but shoot your friend in the leg then run. Humor is a little different here.
In the late 90's I had a grant for equipment for my students on an Island in the Bering Sea deadliest catch just 40 miles from Russia Unlike Sara Palin I can see Russia on a clear day. I landed a week before Christmas and had alot of stuff for the children the agent refused to load my gear and I refused to leave it to get on the snow machine and leave it. It was 30 below and 30 mph winds and they told me the school would send a ride for me.
I looked down the runway and two Polar Bears were eating something or someone? I am alive becasue the Eskimo Elders had taught me about bear I had nothing and wind chill of 80 below was life threatening even with winter gear. Polar Bears are the only animal in the world that can smell you from 30 miles and hunt you following you tracks and have no fear what so ever we are food. I survived becasue the Eskimo Elders had taught me about the bears like a T Rex thier sight is based on movement so I became a statue for 1 hour and the wind was from them to me they could not smell me.
The School atendant showed up to load me and my stuff with tears in his eyes he only just found out I was there and he had found a body of a man 30 feet from where I was standing we got inside and he told me I was so lucky in their tradition the bears belong to me now and I said I don't really care I am just glad I was not their Christmas Dinner?
That's not "the source," and it's almost entirely wrong:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp
Ted Winnen, the man who shot the bear, was in the Air Force, and not a Forest Service worker.
At 10'6". and 1200 lbs., the bear was quite large, but not a world record.
There's no evidence it had eaten anyone.
Scott T
Brown Belt
Personally, I like guns, but when it comes to killing people (in a non-military/police role), I believe them to be the weapons of choice for cowards. Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'll be turning off the main power breaker -- located outside my bedroom door -- and bringing out the axe.
Back to the bear article, does this strike anyone else as a peculiar final sentence to casually tack on to the end of an article?
You'd think the hunters would want to take more credit for making the forest a little safer. Their priorities seem a little weird ... but that's just me, and I freely admit that I've never hunted.
On topic, personally I made a decision that I don't want to have guns in my life. A lot of it has to do with a family tragedy a few years back. There are pragmatic aspects to my decision as well. I agree that there are good practical uses for guns, but it's not for me.
You'd think the hunters would want to take more credit for making the forest a little safer. Their priorities seem a little weird ... but that's just me, and I freely admit that I've never hunted.
On topic, personally I made a decision that I don't want to have guns in my life. A lot of it has to do with a family tragedy a few years back. There are pragmatic aspects to my decision as well. I agree that there are good practical uses for guns, but it's not for me.
My only issue with the Above is that Cars arent constitutionally guaranteed rights, so I disagree that its a similar argument. Also, The wording of the constitution regarding weapons is clear: The Right of the People To Keep And Bear Arm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That does not say The Right of the People To Keep And Bear Arm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UNLESS WE DON'T LIKE THE LEVEL OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE, OR FEEL THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY POSE A RISK BY OWNING A WEAPON, OR HAVE NOT PAID US A FEE TO DO IT, OR WE THINK THE WEAPON IS SCARY LOOKING OR DANGEROUS.
One can argue, in the face of the recent slew of news stories regarding cyberbullying related deaths, that we need to impose background tests, age restrictions licensing, and waiting periods to use freedom of speech. After all, just like Weapon ownership, all that regulation comes down to fear of a small overall percentage of rotten apples spoiling the bunch... and a small number of people executing their 1st amendment rights in a dangerous way is leading to the deaths of our youth... just like a small number of weapon owners are using them to cause the deaths of their fellow man.
That being the case, both need to be regulated for our safety. Now, send me what you want to say, and If after your 3 day "cool down" period, if its safe to say I'll let you go ahead and post it.
WC_lun
Senior Master
I can appreciate your stance on this, but I don't agree with it. The internet is not a tool used primarily for bullying. A gun has only one use, and that is killing. Times were a lot different when this country was founded and guns were a necessary for a majority of the citizenry. Now, guns are a necessity for only a small minority of people. I'm not saying take guns away. I don't think that would be even remotely a good answer. What I am saying is if a person is going to take the responsibility of owning a gun, then they know and understand what that responsibility is, and they are trained enough to use the tool as it is meant to be used. Just owning a gun does not give the skill set to use one. Trying to use a gun when you do not have the skill set to do so is dangerous to both the user and anyone within range of the gun.
Personally, I think this is a moot point, as a gun, knife, sword, spear, shuriken, etc... are only as dangerous as the intentions of the person using them. Punishing EVERYONE because a few people may use them incorrectly is IMO both wrong and outside of the intentions of the framers. The internet may not be designed to be used as a weapon, but it is being used as thus, and therefore I see it as the same, based on the stupid arguments most of the Anti Gun people make.
Again, that argument can be applied to other Amendments as well. The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate when they granted us freedom of speech, that millions of people all over the world would have the ability to hear what is said about what you did, and to ridicule you from everywhere on the internet.
I disagree on the necessity for a small minority of people. Well, ok, maybe not disagree so much as I do recognize the number of people who will ever NEED to use one is rather small, but the idea that the Police and the state as a whole has no obligation to protect us, means we do NEED the ability to protect ourselves should the occasion arise. And by making it all but impossible (as they have done here in Illinois) leaves us with very few options for doing so.
We are in agreement here, I think people NEED to know their weapon, whether it be a stick, a sword, or a Gun. But doing so was NOT, nor is it, specified in the Constitution regarding keeping and bearing arms.
It can, or it can not. Not having any skill with a gun, someone responsible can still pick one up, point it down range and pull the trigger and not kill anyone. Or point it at someone and Kill them, intentionally. Or they can have an accident. But using one is not rocket science. Using one well might be, and yes, I think people ARE better off if they are trained. I'll never disparage the idea of training, until the idea of that training starts bordering on the ludicrous to get a permit, when the intention of the founding fathers was clear...
We should all have the ability to be armed.
And this also doesn't even address stupid restrictions and bans on NON-firearm related weapons.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-
-
-
-
-
