Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Ducimus]

I'm not understanding of why firearms/guns being weapons is an issue to be skirted around or affirmed. Yes, all guns can be employed as weapons (as can kitchen knives and baseball bats). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. However, lawful defense of self and others isn't their only purpose, and even if it was their only purpose, I fail to see what the big deal is. I have every right in the world to defend myself or the ones i love, and i want the best firearm i can get for that purpose. When it comes to defense and preservation of life, i have no intention of "playing fair", and Ill take any advantage i can get.

Now aside from that, Target shooting is no less an art then Archery, and you don't hear anyone badmouth archery. Ive done both. I shot archery every day when i was in high school. I was lucky enough to live on the edge of town with a wooded area. I shot every day with a compound hunting bow, instinctive - which means no sights. (odd i know, you'de expect a recurve bow) At my peak i was able to hit something the size of a rabbit at 50 yards 5 out of 6 shots. Target shooting is very similar in the physical, mental discipline, even a sense of zen. Both are hobbies, and its an art forms unto themselves. Considering that firearms provide this AND a means of self defense, id say that its an invaluable skill in life. One that everyone should have a grasp for the basics for in my opinion.


So, aside from 3 shotguns (two for bird hunting, one for defense), here's the other weapons in my house.

The top rifle and handgun is mine.
- The rifle is a Springfield armory M1A, and is my pride and joy. The civilian version of the M14 rifle, and is arguably one of the most versatile rifles you can own. It shoots a 7.62 X 51 NATO, or 308 caliber, and is great for deer and elk. Seen in this picture with a 20 round magazine, of which I have several if the metaphorical excrement ever hits the fan. 7.62 NATO has been turning cover into concealment for 50 plus years. And I have few 5 round mags for hunting. I also use it for target shooting and its lots of fun. The funny thing is, this rifle is A LOT more firepower then the "evil black rifles" and yet it looks almost like "grandpas deer rifle".

- Handgun is an M9A1. chambered in 9MM. Used for target shooting every weekend and is loaded for home defense when not at the range.

The bottom rifle and handgun is my Wife's. Yes, my wife's, who i am proud to say, is a practicing Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
- Smith & Wesson M&P 15 sport.Semi automatic sporting rifle. Its perfect for my wife. Shoots a 5.55 X 45 NATO, or 223 caliber. Its lightweight, low recoil, and fits her length of pull with the adjustable stock. While your not going to be hunting deer with it, it can be used for varmints. In fact, the 223 caliber is one of the (if not the) most popular varmint hunting rounds used. In any event my wife uses it for target shooting and again if the metaphorical excrement hits the fan, and for whatever reason im not around, I have the peace of mind knowing that my wife can defend herself efficiently.

- Handgun is a PX4 Storm Compact. Also chambered in 9MM, and also used for target shooting every weekend and is also loaded for home defense when not at the range.

All these guns, including the 3 shotguns not pictured have their own purposes. And Yes, it's true, ALL are weapons, but they haven't jumped up on their own and harmed anyone. If they had, i think I would have noticed.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'm not understanding of why firearms/guns being weapons is an issue to be skirted around or affirmed.

It came from Cybermat's posts here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...1&postcount=79

And August's reply here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=81

However, lawful defense of self and others isn't their only purpose, and even if it was their only purpose, I fail to see what the big deal is.

In terms of rights and pivileges, it isn't. My argument was that you can't claim the weapon for defense of person and rights and then try to disown those same properties that make the weapon desirable for defense when it does not suit the argument.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The nuts target me. I am weak because I do not own or carry a firearm. You did not use the two words that I quoted, and for that you have my sincere apology, but your intent was the same. I cannot remember the full details of all of your insults. You issue so very many of them. However, this one does dovetail into the discussion nicely.

I never used the word weak either. You do however seem quite eager to don the mantle of victimhood here so if it floats your boat do continue.

And yet, if the issue is biathlon shooting, why is there an AR 15 in your signature?

Why is there some Samurai dude in your avatar? Do these things somehow mean I'm not permitted to talk about anything else?

I can hold your hand through this argument all you want, but I cannot open your eyes for you, nor can I make you drop the fallacious arguments. You gave a narrow answer to my posts because you saw that acknowledging the entirety of it would lead to an obvious conclusion, and you didn't like it.

There is no forum rule that one has to address every point in a post and it's hypocritical of you to even demand it seeing as how you haven't mentioned word one about gun collecting.

Besides, I thought Platapus and Ducimus have done a fine job in answering that issue. No need for me to repeat their arguments.

Ultimately, it's my fault for responding to it in the first place. I knew what you were trying to do, but I bit anyway. I should have let it go and continued to respond to others, saving the forum from being subjected to this silliness, but evidently I've still got a lot to learn.......

Apologies to the other members. Let's get back to it.

Uh huh.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over...

It is never a better thing to give in to the government just because they say so.

...and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

And if that didn't work? We would already have given up the most effective weapons.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

We already know where I stand on the issue, so I feel no guilt about taking a different stance on this statement. The anti-gun people do have a point that can't be denied. While most guns are never used in that way, it really can't be denied that the sole purpose for the existence of a gun is to kill. Target shooting is for practice killing. The purpose of hunting is to kill, whether for food or for sport. Skeet shooting was created to practice bird hunting. Yes, guns are made for killing and nothing else.

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

[Armistead]

It's the same old same old with anti gun people, create more laws to deal with the illegal use of guns. In areas with strict gun laws, not a problem has been solved, gun crime, murder with guns, etc...still rise. You think they would learn criminals don't care about the law.

[August]

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
- Edward R. Murrow

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We already know where I stand on the issue, so I feel no guilt about taking a different stance on this statement. The anti-gun people do have a point that can't be denied. While most guns are never used in that way, it really can't be denied that the sole purpose for the existence of a gun is to kill. Target shooting is for practice killing. The purpose of hunting is to kill, whether for food or for sport. Skeet shooting was created to practice bird hunting. Yes, guns are made for killing and nothing else.

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

Sole purpose it is now? When this started it was "main" purpose.

But what about collecting? That's not practice for killing.

What about commemoration pieces like this one.

Made for killing?:


This was not made with the intention of killing anyone or anything except perhaps someones wallet.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Sole purpose it is now? When this started it was "main" purpose.

I fixed it.

But what about collecting? That's not practice for killing.

No, but you're collecting killing machines that are significant to you. The guy who collects cars may or may not drive them, but they were originally built for driving, not collecting.

What about commemoration pieces like this one.

Okay, somebody makes a special gun meant to be collected and not fired. How many? One in one-hundred thousand? Making a special version just to seduce collectors and make money doesn't negate the original purpose of the machine. The point is that you can't eat your dinner with a gun, and you can't use it to drive to work. It was made with one purpose in mind.

This was not made with the intention of killing anyone or anything except perhaps someones wallet.

But the one in your sig certainly was.

As I said, I'm fine with that. I'm just honest about it.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about hunting and self defence here.

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

The guy is running his mouth off without any thought. .

You could make a long running TV show of "politicians say the stupidest things" , but you havn't found one yet who says what you need them to say to make the claim in question true.
You would have thought that the NRA with their legions of "dedicated followers" repeating their catchphrases would have been able to find a politician of some description who had backed up their claim of what they say politicians want.
The complete lack of any evidence of it does suggest that the claim has no actual foundation doesn't it.

Ok, he owns the smallest shotgun and the second smallest rifle and pistol as far as cartridge size is concerned.

Size isn't everything

What he doesn't seem to realize is that an AR-15 bullet is nearly the same size as a .22 yet he goes on to say that...
.30-06 is a common hunting round and is significantly larger than his .22 does he want weapons banned that fire that as well? At best his comments are ambiguous, at worst completely uneducated on the subject

.22 covers a wide range of ammunition of very varied capabilities, you would not say that a .22LR is the same as the 5.56 woud you? They are both .22 rounds, hell even an airgun pellet comes in a .22 version but it isn't the same is it.
As for the .30-06 thats a well established issue when it comes to self defence, nothing quite like shooting a neighbour in the house down the block after the round has gone through your burglar and your wall and their wall.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by August

Well what you consider the first mass shooting spree and what I might may be two different events so if you have a point to make go ahead and make it without the homework assignments if you please.

August. I'm glad to see you entered the debate and that you hit the ground running. Thank you for the rest of your post it is very informative, much more articulate than 'molon labe'

However, your abrasive demeanor lends no credence to anything you say. Like you say, who cares what a novelist thinks, and heaven forbid people check their history - who cares what you think, sir? not I for one.

You want to bite me over arguments you put in my mouth?

Go do your homework August.

What arguments have I made in this thread? What questions did I ask?

I was very tempted to go through your verbose reply, and highlight every argument you project upon me or Mr King, but it would be a waste of time instead I'll just say, you're arguing with your own monologue.

/ignored

[August]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I was very tempted to go through your verbose reply, and highlight every argument you project upon me or Mr King, but it would be a waste of time instead I'll just say, you're arguing with your own monologue.

/ignored

Whatever. Not like you have a dog in this hunt anyways.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We already know where I stand on the issue, so I feel no guilt about taking a different stance on this statement. The anti-gun people do have a point that can't be denied. While most guns are never used in that way, it really can't be denied that the sole purpose for the existence of a gun is to kill. Target shooting is for practice killing. The purpose of hunting is to kill, whether for food or for sport. Skeet shooting was created to practice bird hunting. Yes, guns are made for killing and nothing else.

On the other hand I find this a good thing.

I agree with the point, guns are made to kill, except guns don't kill people, no more than knives, arrows, baseball bats, etc.. 99% of people don't buy guns to kill, the legal purpose of guns is defense, sporting and hunting, the illegal purpose is murder.

Like stupid Pierce Morgan stating the fact that certain nations suicide rates went down when guns were outlawed, but someone nicely pointed out that why gun suicides went down, suicides didn't, people just turned to other means of death.

[Oberon]

First things first, Ducimus, love that M1 I do like the M14s, there's something about them that the modern rifles just don't have, perhaps it's that wooden stock.

Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?
Not trying to put anyone into a trap or anything, just curious and I think that there will be a polarised reply depending upon political views, however I could equally be wrong.