swingset

I still can't get over why some folks don't understand the flawed logic in the bike/car/knife/any other object is the same as a gun and should be treated the same.

If someone had ill intentions... I don't believe they thought, "I need to get a motorcycle/car/knife so I can quickly kill multiple people... those are definitely the appropriate tools for that."

There's nothing flawed my logic, it is sound and tenable. You and Magz are the ones demonizing one object over another, because 800 years ago someone invented a weapon that works on the same principle. Guns are used for all manner of things totally unrelated to killing, and conversely cars and knives are used for murder or breaking the law every day accounting for many many times more deaths than so-called assault weapons. Intent and the user determine injury or malice, just as they do with a bike, or a gun, or a pair of boxcutters.

You're politicizing and emotionalizing this idea of design, just as all anti-gunners do.

If I wanted to kill a shit ton of people, I wouldn't choose a gun. Requires commitment, aim, and presence. A lot of risk, too. A bomb is much better at the job, and can be done without me even being there. Diesel (not a weapon) + fertilizer (not a weapon) plus a detonator and I can kill hundreds while I'm removed from the action.

I can just veer my truck into a long line of people outside a bar or movie theater, and kill 10-20 pretty easily. Probably a better chance of surviving that than trying to shoot 10-20 in a crowded mall.

In fact, I'd say that to kill en masse I would almost certainly not choose a gun. And, if I were to choose a gun, I could patiently kill people all day long from a safe distance using a single-shot bolt gun in a large hunting caliber. In fact, it's a superior weapon than an AR-15 in regards to power and lethality.

The AR has many real-world, practical uses. It's a wonderful light and accurate utility rifle, and I've taken small game with it and I compete at Camp Perry in matches with mine. But, even if it had no such uses, it's still precisely the kind of weapon the 2nd was written to protect - the same guns as those which can be brought against us or can be attacked by (to include criminals, the police, mobs, and even foreign invaders as unlikely as that may be).

Again, apples and oranges. My bikes don't fire lethal projectiles -- at least they shouldn't or weren't designed to.

And your bikes aren't listed as a constitutionally protected right, either....but I see you fall back on Magz retard argument about design.

My guns are designed to fire projectiles, but I determine whether they're lethal or punching holes in paper. Just as you decide whether your bike goes 55mph legally and safely, or 175mph as it was designed to do....and then veers into traffic when you lose control and cause death or injury.

Design doesn't restrict a thing developed from good from being misused, and it doesn't guarantee a thing designed as a weapon will be used as such.

That's why you don't stab people with your steak knives, I don't shoot people with my guns, and your bike is exactly like an AR15 in the context of ownership.

I really don't care either way, but people are making a big deal over this are the silly ones. He was using it in a dramatic manner for news purposes, not in the offense of committing a crime.

And if you were there, in possession of a high cap magazine and were caught with one, no matter what your excuse or activities, you'd be prosecuted for it.

This is about the hypocrisy of the law and the media, and the absurdity of it, not that what this guy was bad.

thought you guys were proud of it.. who knew you are shameful of it. you should have to register like sex offenders too. with the little blue dot on your house and all.

Your character is showing.

Then the anti-gun nuts will realize how prevelant responsible gun owners are.

You mean people like Magz? You can't reach people who have an emotional, visceral reaction to the mere mention of guns.

If you have one, you're not responsible just by virtue of ownership...you're a ticking time bomb. A nut. Violence waiting to happen. Every shot is as he says "practicing for murder".

Can't reach the hysterical with logic.

Common human ignorance to think because you see an animal with a bad reputation or without to think OMG it needs killed they're over populated. Flat fish comment on they devastate rabbit and squirrels, I disagree, unless they actually are over populated and even then good ground cover prevents this. Saw a billion squirrels and hunted a bunch of rabbits on my property this year and there is no noticeable change. Beagle also ran all night amidst the howls and yipping of the coyotes and even when Ill living outside 24/7 they didn't eat it. I'm not some kind of coyote hugger, just saying sightings don't mean over population and things need done in moderation. Nice kill by the way.

I'll address this, since you seem to be countering what I said. I'm not ignorant of coyotes, and I'm not shooting their reputation....I learned first hand and in my own back yard what their presence means.

And I'm for fuck's sure not ignorant of the population of game or the lay of my own land which I hunt and set foot on every single day. When the coyotes moved in, within a year our rabbit population went from abundant to just a few around my house and that's it. Turkeys went from fresh tracks in every run and creek to non-existent. Fields with 50 head every morning weren't seen again.

And you mention ground cover. Funny that, cause I'm in 44 acres of pure briars and dense foilage....you couldn't dream better rabbit or turkey country, yotes still made quick work of them.

We found 3 dens in 2 years, nightly sightings and once the pets, chickens and shit started getting killed then it's time to act. It's interesting that since we started driving them, this summer and fall we started seeing turkeys again. I'm sure it's just coincidence.

Nice shoot.

We've been driving and killing them around here too...started to really wipe out our rabbit and turkey populations, and we've lost pets to them in our area too so it was time to get them under control.

I found a beagle with a collar and tags still on, all tore up in our woods last winter and found the owner. She let her dog out to pee, it barked and took off and was gone...probably baited by lone female back to the pack. Clever fuckers.

Snipped endless babbling about why guns are icky and armed guards don't work.

So what's your plan? Gun bans?

I would be the first to agree armed guards, teachers or cops aren't a panacea, just as all the guns and controls on inmates can't completely cure the violence and contraband in a prison....but it sure beats just tearing the fence down and letting them roam.

What's your plan?

Many say, "This entire problem is all due to one thing - easy access to assault weapons."

That's provably wrong, and it bugs the shit out of me that people are so unwilling to think it through.

75 years ago you could mail order a machine gun through Sears and Roebuck. No background check, no nothing.

People generally didn't keep guns under lock and key, ownership was high, and kids often took rifles to school for rifle club, for hunting, even for show and tell.

School shootings were very rare, gun violence much lower.

Access was as easy as it has ever been, the power of the weapons just as awesome as today (more, actually), and restrictions barely existed.

It's not the guns, or the access...that's a matter of historical record.

It's why my "political" views differ from my "personal" views when it comes to guns. though it's kind of a tricky subject because guns make it a split second decision for anyone to immediately and permanently infringe on another's most basic right, and that is the right to live.

It's not tricky at all, if you're logical and not politicizing and emotionalizing the issue.

It's also a split second decision whether to rape someone, swerve your car into a crowd, or slash someone's throat at the smorgasbord with your steak knife.

What's tricky for you is that you so completely long to see guns banned, but lack the honesty to just come out and say it. You fear and loathe them and feel they are imbued with more evil energy than other commom place items that kill and harm every day....including penises, and hands, and because of this magical power (that you admit is inherent in their design, as "weapons of offense") they compel people to act out....which is why only .0038% of all the guns in this nation were used for crime last year.

No one is fooled by you, practically the entire forum mocks your belief on this issue, wouldn't it just be easier to own your opinion rather than mask it in a transparent cover story about libertarianism you don't actually believe in?

I am not the NRA.

About 10,000 people decided to be today, so you're forgiven.

I just don't need a gun.

Trust me, we all agree.

Two stripper clips on the enfield and you're back in business in a few seconds. If the delay in reloading is supposed to give people time to flee or attack the gunman then even an enfield can be reloaded with one stripper clip in seconds.

Always had a soft spot for the .303 as my first firearms training was on an Enfield. Then an SLR (FAL), then an SA80.

I have a soft spot for them too.

I do realize that these are weapons of war, still being used by militaries around the world and no one should have access to a bolt action rifle, but sue me....they're just so fun.

From the FBI crime statistics:

Magz, your hands and feet are responsible for more death than my semi auto rifles are, by the numbers. In fact, I'd wager throughout history millions more have died by hands and feet than by rifles. They are offensive weapons, with no legitimate use.

I suggest you cut yours off, before you snap or they're taken and used against an innocent person.

You won't be able to post as much, either.

DI for me. Nothing wrong with piston guns, but AR's don't need them to run reliably.

Good on Kasich for signing it.

Was that an adult or a kid who did the shooting?

Wasn't gunplay, and I have no idea of their ages.

The news programming back then sucked major donkey balls. Took 3 weeks to get the CNN wagon to the scene.

Most of the mass shootings in the last 20 years were not perpetrated by children.

So are we now just going to move the goalposts and focus on kids so that the video game influence looks more damning?

The first school massacre was in 1764. 1 teacher and 10 children killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_Rebellion_school_massacre

I wonder if the killers were playing Call of Duty or GTA??

Probably all of the anti-depressents, or violent movies and rap records.

I dunno.

No wait, it was the pervasive gun culture that glorified non-existent assault weapons.

Bingo!!!

Dunno why embedding is fucking up? Anywho...good song.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/481613_386416344779144_1280661517_n.jpg

Yeah, but cars weren't designed as weapons.

Well, wait, no that's not true. This one was....

See, if a car runs you down and the driver meant to do it, you're not even hurt or killed...because only guns designed for offensive murder can actually harm you.

And thus, they are special evil...the kind of evil that makes normal people bad people.

Just got word my SR9c arrived at the dealer....panic buying rules.

Since the introduction of these video games these types of crimes have occurred.

Correlation does not equal causation. Not all spree shooters have been gamers, and even those that were there's no evidence of it being a driving stimulus.

There was in increase in mass murders and spree shooters happening well before the modern FPS.

Give a crazy kid violent video games, or Ozzy albums, or horror movies, or whatever...and it can fuel nasty thoughts. But then, we had psychopaths and violent nutters before there there any of those things.

So what is the (real world) application of a military designed rifle...

Planting corn?

No, it has a designed purpose.

Sure you can use a block of C4 as play dough, that doesn't make it a practical application...

Design intent MEANS something...

Yes the first club was "designed" as a weapon, baseball bats are "designed" to propel a baseball as far as possible within the regulations of the game.

A knife can be used as a weapon, but it's "designed" for cutting meat or vegetables, fileting a fish or opening boxes... depending upon how it's "designed"

You can misuse anything from a pillow to a telephone to kill someone but it wasn't "designed" specifically for the purpose...

Even if I accepted your logic, which is twisted and goofy, we're left with "who fucking cares"??

That's all it is, Magz. Who fucking cares if a gun was designed to slaughter babies and old people? If I don't use it for that, then it it's not a weapon. If I use it as a paperweight, it's a paperweight.

And, if I use fertilizer to blow up a preschool, then it's weapon.

The design doesn't mean anything. The intent doesn't mean anything.

It only means something to people like you, because you vilify one object over another, out of fear and hatred.

Yes, because corvettes are designed with the purpose of killing... Oh wait, no, that's guns... I can see how that might be confusing...

Gun =/= Car

get over yourself.

Fucking imbecile. How many times do you need schooled on this?

You determine the application of any device, from a knife (originally invented as a weapon), to a baseball bat (clubs originally invented as weapon) to a rock on the ground (perhaps the first weapon ever).

It's origins are irrelevant. If I pick up your anus-shaped fleshlight and beat you to death with it, it's a deadly weapon. If I use my AR15 to compete in matches, it's a target rifle.

You're a fucking imbecile, puking out anti-gun talking points.

Did I mention you're a fucking imbecile?

Here is a dedicated, purpose built, designed for one thing and one thing only target rifle:

It's also an AR15

Let's talk abut nun-chucks. Classified by most people as a weapon. Origins were wheat threshing tools, which were used as weapons when the Chinese were outlawed the use of traditional swords, knives, etc and developed weaponry from sticks, agriculture tools, etc.

So, are they now not a weapon because they were not invented to be so? Or, are they a weapon because they have been re-purposed as a weapon?

If I thresh grain with them, are they their origins? Or a weapon? How about if I beat a toddler with them? Not a weapon because they are for threshing wheat?

It's easy to figure all this out, unless you're a fucking imbecile.

Ummmmmm considering we didnt demonstrate our nuclear power until well after Pearl Harbor how does this support your point?

It's like arguing with a child, isn't it?

We didn't demonstrate nukes until Japan was completely unable to project force at the death-throes of their military and Navy and Japan's only military options were how to train old men and kids to fight with punji sticks when we invaded. They were issuing last-ditch rifles to troops at that point in the war.

Magz is a fucking retard.

Before Pearl Harbor even happened Japanese leadership asked planners for invasion possibilities. There is no hard evidence of Yamamoto cautioning about our gun ownership, in fact it's probably bogus, but there is no doubt that invasion was strategized. He would have most certainly have been part of those plans or been instrumental in their devlopment, but importantly it was ultimately decided against at the height of their arrogance and power. It's not unreasonable at all to believe they considered the strong and undeniable resistance that would have been met by civilians (among other reasons it was a stupid idea).

They landed and fought in the Aleutian Islands...which were largely uninhabited...that's as far as invasion got.