GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve

Supporter
You don't have to drink alcohol to socialize at an establishment. Smoking is largely banned at bars now

Alcohol in moderation (i.e. red wine) is actually healthy for you. But no worries, more Bordeaux for me!

Maybe, but they'll make it your problem real quick

I use that exact description to liberals frequently. Their response usually reinforces the description further. Sorry your sensibilities were offended, but if you spend much time outside the wealthy bay area, you'll find gun ownership/hunting/conservation is a way of life for many US citizens. The vast vast majority are responsible gun owners. Changing the Constitution to serve your sensibilities at the expense of your fellow citizens is problematic.

Spending 14 years in higher education in no way makes me or anyone else similarly educated "elite". That would be arrogant. In fact, I'm always disappointed at the arrogant elitism on display by friends and acquaintances (often in coastal urban areas) when referring to those less educated. My welding instructor is smarter and harder working than some of my partners.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 70, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I use that exact description to liberals frequently. Their response usually reinforces the description further. Sorry your sensibilities were offended, but if you spend much time outside the wealthy bay area, you'll find gun ownership/hunting/conservation is a way of life for many US citizens. The vast vast majority are responsible gun owners. Changing the Constitution to serve your sensibilities at the expense of your fellow citizens is problematic.
I count myself among that group...have 4 different weapons, all the way from a .22 rifle up to a .410 single shot and a 12 gauge pump shotgun, and finally a .38 revolver that my great grandmother bought in the late 1800's because the family was experiencing some "losses" in the chicken house at night. The perp was use to being able to come and go with little more than just a slight increase in the clucking from all those roosting hens, but that next night after the gun was obtained when the "clucking" seemed to get louder she went out towards the hen house with her new .38 pistol and gave that thief a scare that kept him away from her hen house forever-after.

Would she have shot the perp? My G-GM was a very compassionate person and I doubt she had any such intentions...but there was no need to tell the chicken thief that! There was no need to shoot him...if there had been, I think my grandmother would have stopped short of that severe action, but there was no need for the perp to know that. He never returned, or so the story goes.

Responsible gun ownership and use isn't the problem...we all know that. The trick will be to develop some sort of a "pre-test" that is adequately discriminatory to identify those who are bad risks so they can be referred to further "hunters' education" courses before they are allowed to buy a weapon with the accuracy and the lethal capability our guns possess these days.

Would that make a big difference? I guess not if you're a disenfranchised young 17 year old boy who has an axe to grind with the way he's been treated at school in the past...but for the "normal" (if there is such a category any more) gun owner that extra required "instruction" in the "hunters' education" classes might make the difference between someone innocent getting shot...or not.

Myself? I had to clean every one of those chickens I raised when I lived on a farm...plucking them was a terribly unpleasant task, but I overcame that problem by just skinning them and then freezing all the guts, etc for fish-bait (there's nothing catfish like more than they like chicken guts). About the only thing wasted was the skin...and for the "showy" varieties of chickens, even the feathers were used for tying fishing flies after the skins were desiccated with 40-mule team Borax.

IMHO it all comes down to which you feel is more valuable in your life, that VCR or the idea that we treat each other with compassion rather than aggression.

Doug
 
Smoke from other "exterior" areas of bar can and does invade one's nostrils inside the bar. And there's vaping, etc. Also, socializing with people who have had alcohol, when you're not drinking, is wierd.

There are health risks to red wine too. And you can certainly get the same heart -healthy benefits, anti-oxidants, from other foods. But hey, we're all different. To me, alcohol is just wasted calories.

If I'm having an open an honest discussion about gun ownership with a Marine, and he or she wants to fight, then that proves my point. Also, if she or she wants to beat me up, then I'll sue them for everything they own. :thumbsup:

Having said that, I've compete(d) against former military personnel all the time in various sport events and everyone of them have been super nice people who are easy to talk to about alot of issues. BTW, former military personnel are attracted to this sport.

Changing the Constitution is not to serve MY sensibilities, but to reduce and maybe even someday eliminate gun deaths. The greater good. And I just don't agree with the position of shooting animals for sport or conservation. As for food, if one lives in the wilderness and there are no other sources of food nearby, like a local grocery store or Amazon doesn't deliver there, then use a bow and arrow or a knife or sword. More sporty that way. :laugh:

Shooting an animal standing in a field from 50 feet away is not sport to me. If they're looking for a sport, then take up tennis or golf, or even curling. :laugh:

The doctors that I know or meet here in the SF Bay Area or elsewhere don't act elitist, for the most part. And it's one thing for them to think they're elite, it's another for us non-doctors to know they've worked extremely hard all their lives in order to help others become healthy or healthier. Nurses, military, fire, EMT and police too. For me, that's elite in my book.
 

Randy V

Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Rod -If you make one more disparaging remark about a member here, whether it be directly or by your version of classification - you will get a vacation from this place which may end up permanent. There is no back and forth on this as it is final.

All — keep to the subject at hand and argue your points to your heart’s content, but do NOT make this personal in any way.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Meanwhile in Australia.....
Mass Shooting in Australia Leaves a Tiny Community in Shock and Grief - The New York Times

Apparently gun control there is different from what many of us believed it was..
'Appears so...

'Same ole, same ole. 'Makes no diff in what country a loon may reside, he's going to do what he's going to do - laws or no laws.

If that 'whackazoid' hadn't had a firearm he'd have used something else (poison - whatever. Maybe run 'em all over with a van)...buuuut, let's just flat-out ban all gun ownership by anybody & everybody everywhere anyway so we can ALL be 'safe'. Let's make the whole planet a "gun-FREE zone". After all, history tells us no one has ever been shot/killed inside one of those. They're the personal self-defense equivalent of the "Iron Dome" missile defense...only far, faaar 'more gooder'.

"If it saves just one life..."
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 70, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
How can you call it saving a life if it takes one (isn’t that the purpose of a gun)?

:idea:

Doug
 
The primary purpose of guns - Killing? Nope.
The statement is often made by gun control advocates that guns are made for killing, period. Or, that anything else guns are used for (such as sport/target shooting) are secondary to killing. However, logical analysis and statistics clearly show this to be opinion, not fact.

Now that's not to say that designers of some firearms didn't intend their weapons to be used for killing. Some of them did. Certainly some firearm designers have built some guns specifically for sport (Such as competition target rifles and handguns), Others are designed to kill varmints or pests, and there actually are some guns that were designed and manufactured specifically to kill a person.

However, the general utility of almost all firearms lends them to much more purposes than killing.

Consider the actual function of almost any firearm: To load a cartridge to fire a bullet (or multiple projectiles from a shotgun) with a specified degree of reliability, accuracy, and power.

That capability (firing a lead projectile very very fast) can be used for multiple purposes. Remember that purpose is how a person uses the tool to accomplish a goal. If that goal is to try and punch a hole in a piece of paper at 100 yards, or send a can flying, or shatter a clay target in mid-air, that obviously has nothing at all to do with a purpose of killing.

Now by its nature, a firearm can be used as a weapon, and in that use it has more utility than actually using its designed function. The threat alone of using a weapon on someone can accomplish the goal of the user, whether it's to coerce a victim to hand over their wallet, convince a criminal suspect to get out of the vehicle with their hands in the air, or to scare a violent criminal into stopping their attack and running away. The fact that in most firearm-related crimes, and in the overwhelming majority (over 95%) of defensive gun uses, no shots are even fired. In the majority of times firearms are used to commit crimes, or by police, or in self defense, the THREAT of using the firearm accomplished the goal, and thus fulfilled the purpose of the user.

There's further proof that weapons can be used without using their actual function. Consider the biggest weapons of them all, Nuclear weapons. Their designed function is to create a massive explosion. It has a capability of being used for the purpose of killing people if that is the purpose of the person using it. However, a nuclear weapon's most common purpose by far is as a defensive deterrant - the THREAT of using it if we are attacked or threatened - purely defensive.

Studies show that self defense is the third most common use of a firearm in this country (behind hunting and sport/recreational shooting). Considering that in the US, people purchased 12 billion rounds of ammunition in 2009, compared with roughly 30,000 firearm-related deaths, that is absolute evidence that killing people with a gun is just about dead last on the list of purposes it's used for in this country.

So where is the logic in claiming that guns are only made to kill? There is no reason behind the suggestion that killing is the primary designed purpose of firearms when over 99% of the time they're used for other purposes than killing. It merely shows ignorance of all the the facts and a personal bias against firearms.

As always, comments are encouraged.

...Orygunner...
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Supporter
I fully understand the concept of deterrence, but numbers show it is extremely unlikely that you'll ever use your weapon (civilian use) for self-defense. I think if the gun crowd would just admit it "feels good" to fire off your weapon, you'd get a better response than by an arguable interpretation of the Constitution. Ironically, the irrational response by some gun proponents, to the slightest idea of rational or sensible gun control, is reason enough to own one. Why would someone wanting to justify the ownership of a gun, then threaten with death someone with an opposing point of view. So the irrationalism is on both sides.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
How can you call it saving a life if it takes one (isn’t that the purpose of a gun)?

:idea:

Doug

You misinterpreted what I was getting at by that quote.

"If it saves just one life..." is the standard 'go-to' talking point used by the anti-gun crowd to 'justify' passing whatever anti-gun law comes down the pike. It's a b.s. argument that equates the further infringement on law-abiding people's gun rights with changing the behavior of crooks and loons...thereby "saving a life/saving lives". I was being sarcastic.




Oh, BTW, as to your question:

How can you call it saving a life if it takes one...?
Easy. The life that's saved in a self-defense situation is USUALLY that of an actual or potential victim...and his life is the more valuable one in that situation.

Would you prefer the odds were 100% that the vic would be the one killed should it come to that? ('Rhetorical question...)
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...numbers show it is extremely unlikely that you'll ever use your weapon (civilian use) for self-defense.

"Numbers" show much the same thing regarding home fire extinguishers...but, I still have more than one of them in my house, too.

Guns and fire extinguishers are identical in one respect. 'Far better to have 'em and not need 'em than need 'em and not have 'em.

;)
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, what constitutes “infringe”?

One more time:


"Infringe" (compilation from multiple dictionaries):

CONTRAVENE, VIOLATE, transgress, break, breach, disobey, DEFY, flout, fly in the face of, DISREGARD, IGNORE, LIMIT, RESTRICT, CURB, CHECK, overstep, exceed, infract, ERODE, PREEMPT, SUPPLANT, DISPLACE, CUT OUT, USURP..."


Show me a gun law that doesn't do at least one of those.

I'll wait...
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry thinks 15 year old felons can own bazookas. Just accept that, accept he is batshit crazy, and move on.

Didn't you just get a 'come upins' about name calling and personal insults a short time ago, Counselor?

LEARN.


(I'd sure like to know what mouthing off in a courtroom like you do would net you.)
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
you say no infringe, ever, anyhow, anyway. Hence, 15 year old felons get bazookas. That makes you batshit crazy.

I'm just talking the truth here. No name calling or insults.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
you say no infringe, ever, anyhow, anyway. Hence, 15 year old felons get bazookas. That makes you batshit crazy.

I'm just talking the truth here. No name calling or insults.

Yeah, right...

So, tell me counselor...what WOULD the consequences be if you were to spew your usual name calling, insults, f-bombs and assorted expletives in court? 'Betcha you make darned sure to avoid doing that there, don'tcha.

How 'bout extending that same courtesy here?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Is this court? No, it's an e-forum where someone -- you -- are spouting an insane interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that, literally, means bazookas for everyone.

That's just a fact. I'm just stating a fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top