Gun Control / Nerd Fight

ioynerien said:
I have never been to the US, so I can't comment on how things work over there.
But.. Why do people need guns for their private use? Sport, Hunting, Defense and I thinks that's about it. So you'll only need two types of guns: pistols/revolvers (handguns) versus rifles. (I can see absolutely no point in a person owning a M16 or AK47 for their personal use.) Only rifles require actual lethal ammunition, since they are ment to kill animals. So why can't people be denied to purchase lethal ammunition for handguns? Can't they use plastic/rubber alternatives? (fyi I know those can also be lethal when used at close range) Is the point of home protection not to scare away intruders in stead of killing them (or at least control them until the authorities arrive)?

In my opinion handguns should only be used and owned by the authorities.
If people do own them, they should at all time be kept in a gunrack, with a trigger lock and the bullets stored in a different place (to prevent accidents).
Click to expand...
Why do people need Ferraris and Porsches and Lambos and any kind of sportscar? There's no use on the roads, you aren't supposed to break the traffic laws and a geo metro will get you around just fine, so why allow people to have sportscars? Why not make it so if you want to drive fast you have to buy a racecar and park it in a garage at a track? There's no purpose for you to be driving a ferrari on a normal road unless you plan on breaking the law. Why can't they make cars that look like ferraris but only go 65MPH? You'll only break the speed limit and crash into other cars and kill people otherwise.

same logic, see how it doesn't work?

EDIT: Just a few small changes here and there to your original post:

But.. Why do people sportscars for their private use? Racing, driving fast and I thinks that's about it. So you'll only need two types of cars: Commuter cars and commercial vehicles. (I can see absolutely no point in a person owning a Ferrari or Zonda for their personal use.) Only commercial vehicles require actual powerful engines, since they are ment to haul things. So why can't people be denied to purchase powerful engines for cars? Can't they use 3 cylinder diesels?

In my opinion sportscars should only be used and owned by the racing teams.
If people do own them, they should at all time be kept in a garage, at a track and never allowed elsewhere (to prevent accidents).
 
Last edited:
AND it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that you have the right to "keep and bear cars."
 
Not to mention that cars generally kill more people than guns.
 
Easy guys, don't give the crazies in congress any ideas.
 
point taken

But that doesn't explain why people shouldn't be restricted to only buying rubber/plastic bullets. Those can stop a person temporary (time to flee or call the police or restrain that person) and you will still have the actual weapon to wave around.

About bullets, I just read that the weirdo who killed all those people intentionally used hollow point bullets, beacuse they do more damage.
That I find to be really horrific / sickening, the fact that a person can choose a bullet with no other purpose then to really really hurt / kill someone. (Please tell me if there are other reasons why those bullets might be used)

PS: Note that hollow point bullets are banned from military use because they are weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable (St.Petersburg Declaration, The Hague Convention)
 
As far as hallow points go, iirc, they're the typical load out for a pistol. They blunt out and have stopping power, where as a FMJ type would just penetrate. FMJs can be more devistating if they start bouncing around your bones, though.

Also, I think hallow points tend to be cheaper ammo than the FMJs. I know when I went to the firing range with my dad, the 9mm we used had hallow points. Though our .22 was FMJ.

All things considered, I'm surprised (and thankful) he didn't do the trick of capping off the hallow point with glycerin. Causes the shell to literally shatter on impact.
 
ioynerien said:
point taken

But that doesn't explain why people shouldn't be restricted to only buying rubber/plastic bullets. Those can stop a person temporary (time to flee or call the police or restrain that person) and you will still have the actual weapon to wave around.

About bullets, I just read that the weirdo who killed all those people intentionally used hollow point bullets, beacuse they do more damage.
That I find to be really horrific / sickening, the fact that a person can choose a bullet with no other purpose then to really really hurt / kill someone. (Please tell me if there are other reasons why those bullets might be used)

PS: Note that hollow point bullets are banned from military use because they are weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable (St.Petersburg Declaration, The Hague Convention)
Click to expand...

Not that it matters because modern rifle rounds are designed to tumble once they strike a person which causes even more damage. FMJ can penetrate body armor which hollow point cant and when it first enters the body the copper cladding starts to flake off and spread through the body with the momentum causing even more trauma.

The reason civilians use hollowpoints is not because they are more deadly, but because they are safer. Without someone wearing body armor an FMJ can over penetrate and come out the back of the target and hit someone else. A hollowpoint will go in and stay there, reducing the risk of collateral injury. It's a way of making sure the only one who gets shot is the one who deserves it. It's also good for cops who wear body armor, hollowpoint rounds won't penetrate Kevlar the same way FMJ will.
 
ioynerien said:
point taken

But that doesn't explain why people shouldn't be restricted to only buying rubber/plastic bullets. Those can stop a person temporary (time to flee or call the police or restrain that person) and you will still have the actual weapon to wave around.
Click to expand...
In the meantime, the intruder shoots your and your family with REAL bullets and you die.

The point of having a gun for self defense isn't to spook people into running away or hold them untill the police arrive, it's to stop them in thier tracks from hurting or killing you. If I'm entering your home and you shoot me with something that doesn't incapaciate or kill me, I'm going to shoot you right back, and you can damn well bet that I'll have real bullets in my gun.
 
Applicable Firefly Quote:

If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
 
I've been trying to stay out of this discussion as long as I can, especially after the events of this week.

I'm a gun owner, I have a hand gun, a rifle and a shotgun. I would NEVER put plastic or rubber bullets into any of the weapons I own, for the simple fact that heat + plastic = damage to the weapon. I value the weapons that I own, and would rather not have them destroyed. Weapons are not cheap.

I typically use FMJ ammo for the shooting range, but I do have some hollowpoints that are for home protection for the reasons Blind_IP mentioned above.

As for Gun control in general, while I agree the murderer on monday shouldn't have had access to purchase a weapon (because of his mental health), I do not believe keeping guns out the hands of those who are responsible will solve anything or prevent these catastrophes.
 
hokiethang said:
As for Gun control in general, while I agree the murderer on monday shouldn't have had access to purchase a weapon (because of his mental health), I do not believe keeping guns out the hands of those who are responsible will solve anything or prevent these catastrophes.
Click to expand...
+1

I think a licensing system would solve a lot of problems and keep everyone happy. This way you KNOW anyone who legally owns a gun has proper training and knows how to use it and how to avoid misuse, and has a proper place to store it(there are quick access safes that allow you to open it in a matter of seconds for things like home defense, so you can still keep your gun away from anyone who doesn't need to have access to it but still be able to get it quicky if need be).

IMO the type of training and clearance you need for a CCP(at least a Colorado or Utah type, I dunno how it's done in other states) should be mandatory for all handgun owners. Then there should be a separate training for rifle, assault rifle, etc. types and different licenses for each class of firearm. You already need training to hunt(hunter's safety) and carry a concealed weapon, and if you need a license to drive a car you should have one to own and operate a firearm as well, IMO.

There should also be a requirement to show that you own a proper lockbox or gunsafe to make sure you are the only one who has access to your firearms.

Of course this should be done state by state, each state tailoring it's requirements to the needs of it's population, but I think this would be a good idea for the country overall. That way law-abiding citizens have thier freedom to bear arms, and those who choose not excercise this right can take comfort in knowing that those who do are properly qualified.
 
Ask and ye shall receive. Here is a run-down on the Concealed Carry laws: http://www.packing.org/state/
I also know that some state do not even require you to demonstrate proficiency in shooting a weapon. There is a course on firearms safety and the law then you have to show you know how to load and unload your weapon. Other states (California for one) requires an applicant to draw and fire his weapon at a target at a specific range and hit the target a certain number of times.

Guns don't transport people
Click to expand...
What's your point? Jet Skis transport people and are responsible for deaths, we should ban those and make everyone use nice safe rowboats.
 
Blind_Io said:
Ask and ye shall receive. Here is a run-down on the Concealed Carry laws: http://www.packing.org/state/
I also know that some state do not even require you to demonstrate proficiency in shooting a weapon. There is a course on firearms safety and the law then you have to show you know how to load and unload your weapon. Other states (California for one) requires an applicant to draw and fire his weapon at a target at a specific range and hit the target a certain number of times.
Click to expand...
Problem is, I don't see that helping you in a tactical situation, which was my point. :) There's a reason why a highly trained US Marine with a 9mm will probably kill an untrained recruit carrying an M4 when he enters a room.

And then there's the issue of actually fireing. As research has shown, without training in the issue of actually fireing a gun at someone, even in war, is quite hard. Only 2 percent fireing at the enemy. This has been dealt with through training, and during the Falklands war, 92 percent were fireing.

Actually shooting at someone, is f*cking tough, even if they are threatening your life, or someone you love, or your country. :)

What's your point? Jet Skis transport people and are responsible for deaths, we should ban those and make everyone use nice safe rowboats.
Click to expand...
My point is that the car is basicly an invention made for transporting people and stuff from a to b, which happens to kill people.

A gun is basicly an invention made for killing someone. There is a bit of difference between a car and a gun. :)
 
Last edited:
I never said it helped in a tactical situation. Some states require more training, others trust the gun owner to practice and hone his skill. The fact is that even police and the FBI only train at 7 yards because over 90% of shooting occur within that range. Well who the hell can't his a person size target at 7 yards? (I know these ranges because I used to work with the police department and I shot at the police range. My dad is also a range officer and has his CCP. He took an advanced tactical training course taught by the police department. He's also ex-military.)

Excellent point! Please justify motor sports, motor cycles, and any car that goes faster than 55 MPH or has less than 4 seats.
 
Blind_Io said:
I never said it helped in a tactical situation. Some states require more training, others trust the gun owner to practice and hone his skill. The fact is that even police and the FBI only train at 7 yards because over 90% of shooting occur within that range. Well who the hell can't his a person size target at 7 yards? (I know these ranges because I used to work with the police department and I shot at the police range. My dad is also a range officer and has his CCP. He took an advanced tactical training course taught by the police department. He's also ex-military.)
Click to expand...
But when the average Joe gets a burglar in his house, and if that guy is armed, taking him out might turn very difficult even with a gun, since you might get shot before you even get to use your gun. And who knows, do you think you could shoot someone in the face?

Excellent point! Please justify motor sports, motor cycles, and any car that goes faster than 55 MPH or has less than 4 seats.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent point. But a sports car can still transport two persons, and their use is still not primarily to take lives. It is a difference.
 
But when the average Joe gets a burglar in his house, and if that guy is armed, taking him out might turn very difficult even with a gun, since you might get shot before you even get to use your gun. And who knows, do you think you could shoot someone in the face?
Click to expand...

:

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder

WAYNESBURG, Ky. - Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.

Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.

After winning the pageant with her singing, dancing and comedic talents, Ramey sold war bonds and her picture was adorned on a B-17 that made missions over Germany in World War II, according to the Miss America Web site.

Ramey lived in Cincinnati for several years and was instrumental in helping rejuvenate Over-the-Rhine historic buildings. She returned to Kentucky in 1990 to live on her farm.

"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/brave_beauty_queen
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top