Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jubb Jubb said:
Hah, no got me there, but still a sport just for the joy of killing an animal to me does not make sense.

Are the animals eaten after they are killed? Mind you I have never hunted and know nothing really about hunting.
Click to expand...

You should watch a movie called Food Inc. If you saw where the meat you eat comes from and how it was raised you may never eat again.
 
ktmrider said:
If you want to own a gun for home defense, why not a shotgun most of which have 4 round magazines. The sound of chambering a round on a Remington 870 has an amazing effect as a psychological deterrent, just ask any police officer.
Click to expand...

Chambering a round when you have an unknown threat about to case you harm is nonsense. Do cops load their gun when they see a bad guy coming?

ktmrider said:
Again, I see no reason not to regulate assault weapons and high capacity magazines. By law, a shotgun for hunting can't hold more then 3 rounds plus one in the chamber. And from a technical point a variant of the AR15 for home defense is not the best choice as the .223 round will go through both the bad guy and several layers of wallboard.
Click to expand...

5.56/.223 is less prone to exit through sheet rock than handgun rounds.

Using a semi auto rifle with a 30 round mag will allow me to get quick and accurate rounds out to stop the threat. One round is not always enough to stop a threat.

ktmrider said:
The question becomes which is more harmful for society: the freedom to own anything you want or regulation of certain types of weapons to prevent mass shootings. I come down on the side of reasonable regulations and restrictions on the types of firearms and high capacity magazines which can be sold. Remember, until the late 1930's you could buy fully automatic weapons from Sears by mail. Anyone want to go back to those times?

Actually, I should not have asked the last question as I am sure there are people in the US who would like to buy machine guns, hand grenades, and other fun toys by mail.
Click to expand...

There are way more law abiding citizens than criminals somehow are able to get full auto weapons?

Society will never be violence free unless there are less than two people on earth.
 
Great and Civil Discussion

Great and Civil Discussion

Actually, I find this discussion very civilized compared to some of the other forums I frequent. I have to do a little bit of digging to come up with my statement about frequency of shootings in the South but I will post it. It is something I read about a year ago.

Again, we can all have different opinions on this subject and arriving at the "reasonable man" standard is what politics and rational discussion is all about.

Of course, by my definition I am the ultimate "reasonable man" and others views are built on bs and superstition (just kidding). This issue, like many others, is complex and does not have a bumper sticker answer like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." or "When guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns."

Personally, I don't think this will ever be totally resolved as there are nuts that slip through the cracks. Until psychology becomes a totally predictive science, we just have to keep soldiering on and doing the best we can.

I just finished a pretty good article on this subject and will go back and find a link. It basically states that neither gun control or having more concealed carry permits really affects the crime rate or murders so neither is a totally effective policy. Don't know why my friends call me a moderate.
 
ktmrider said:
It basically states that neither gun control or having more concealed carry permits really affects the crime rate or murders so neither is a totally effective policy. Don't know why my friends call me a moderate.
Click to expand...

The purpose of a CCW permit is so that you can carry a gun to protect your life or the life of others.
 
Don't Need to Argue Ballistics

Don't Need to Argue Ballistics

Most police agencies I am familiar with (including CBP and the FBI) require transporting shotguns with an empty chamber so yes, they chamber a round when they are within range of the bag guy.

And, my knowledge of ballistics is based on 15 years as the firearms instructor for a federal law enforcement agency so I stand by my statement about over penetration of the .223 round. It also goes an awful long way. If you need to defend your home, a shotgun with double aught buck is the answer.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
The problem with the 'lunatic' arguement is that there are lunatics everywhere that have these thoughts. Mental health is definitely a big part of the problem, but the bigger part is the access to weapons. Take away the weapons and you just have a lunatic.

If the U.S. does not take action on this, then they are bound to continually have these events happen over time. And to the rest of the world, it looks like they've learnt nothing.
Click to expand...

How far did Adam Lanza have to drive from his home to school? Why are we allowing lunatics to drive?
If he didn't drive he would have had to walk or take a bus with all his weapons to the school.

We need to ban vehicles to limit shooting deaths. Agree?
 
cosmonaut said:
I think the answer is more security at the schools. There are around 270 million guns in the US and a huge number un registered. I would imaging rounding them up would be a job. Not to mention the cost of Gov't buying them all up.
Click to expand...

Unregistered doesn't mean the guns are illegal. Up until around 1990, firearm purchases between people did not have to go through a dealer in California which means one can own a gun and not have it registered.
 
google "Fast & Furious" & read how the Obama administration supplied mexican drug cartels with automatic weapons which was used to murder a US Border Patrol Agent.
 
tunalegs said:
The real problem isn't the "loonies". They might have a shooting spree every few years, but the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S. have nothing to do with shooting rampages. So far as I know most gun injuries and deaths in the U.S. are accidental. Basically people playing or fiddling with guns. This guy killed 20 children, well around 100 children on average are killed in the U.S. each year due to accidents involving guns. So where's the outrage over that?

I think the biggest problem is that people in the U.S. have no respect or appreciation for guns. When you don't even have to register your weapons, or pass some sort of proficiency or safety test - then why would anybody have any respect for the weapons? Imagine what the roads would be like if nobody had to register their car or take a driver's test. Yeah, pretty awful. Yet we're cavalier towards killing machines, and the NRA spends millions of dollars to defend gun owners "rights" to be stupid and careless.

I'd also add that the kind of rampages we see, like with Virginia Tech, and here in Connecticut, would not be possible with a shotgun or a normal revolver. You just cannot kill that many people that quickly unless you had them all lined up. We need to put our heads on straight here instead of sticking our heads in the sand. While some guns have legitimate uses, some do not, and should not be available to the general public (let alone a general public with no appreciation for the safety of others or themselves).
Click to expand...

I have a California driver license and I am allowed to drive in all 50 states yet I can only buy guns in my state?

Why do we make cars that go faster than the speed limit? We should also limit the range of a car to a few miles. This way there will be no high speed and long distance car chases.

A skilled person can use a shotgun or revolver to great effect. Hello moon clips or speed loaders. Revolver rounds tend to have more killing power than semi auto pistols.
 
apostasiometritis said:
Mind you, a couple of days before this happened another nutter armed with a knife/machete did the same in China, though apparently Chinese kids don’t matter that much (another story, apologies).

So, I believe that the emphasis has to be put on *who* is allowed a weapon, not what weapon that will be.

Against most people who are caught unaware any kind of weapon is lethal.
Click to expand...

Fascinating that you point out that story. I assume you mean the man in China that stabbed an elderly woman, then ran to a primary school and stabbed 22 children.

Absolutely horrific.

Interesting distinction though: none dead. None. Nine children admitted to the hospital, two injured severely.

Everyone survived. If you want to compare anecdotes, Chengping vs Newtown does not show well for folks making the argument "guns aren't especially bad, anything can be lethal." There is a difference.
 
tunalegs said:
Yes but you can kill people with a car. But a car has legitimate uses outside of running over people on sidewalks.

One can rationally justify the use of a shotgun, but I cannot think of any logical argument for selling semi automatic assault rifles over the counter to the general public.
Click to expand...

The way you use your logic towards guns and hunting, you should be against people owning cars. Murder is murder is murder, right?
 
I don't know, DPreview threads sometimes only take 7 posts before the personal attacks, this one is at 7 pages, and may be on the edge, but it hasn't gone over yet. :)
 
Jubb Jubb said:
There is nothing safe about guns. Period.
Click to expand...

How so? Guns have never killed a single person..it's the finger pulling the trigger that kills..

Jubb Jubb said:
I just can't get around why people feel that by carrying a lethal weapon, they are safe. It is an object that has been designed to end life. That is it's primary purpose, not protection.
Click to expand...

Better to end someone else's life then to let them end yours..that's called self defense..

Jubb Jubb said:
I've started reading news sites comments, articles, the National Rifle Associations facebook page (and comments from people that have liked it) and it completely frightens the sh*t out of me that a lot of people still will not act on banning guns.
Click to expand...

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer....should we ban fertilizer?

What about the man who slashed 22 people with a knife....should we ban knives?

If we want to stop killings then we need to ban anything and everything that can be used as a weapon.

England has some of the strictest gun laws in the world but their crime rate involving guns has skyrocketed.(do a google search) some estimates put this rate at between 35% and 55%...
 
digitalintrigue said:
I don't know, DPreview threads sometimes only take 7 posts before the personal attacks, this one is at 7 pages, and may be on the edge, but it hasn't gone over yet. :)
Click to expand...

True - I guess I'm tired of it not moving forward - for every comment there seems to be a rebuttal which seems just inane as the initial comment.

Like I said about 4-5 pages ago, I don't think this issue will be solved by anyone here regardless of how hardline they are on one side or the other.

Dave

P.S. I did say I was going didn't I? *LOL* :D
 
Perpetrators of 911 used box cutters. Not a gun was used & over 3000 people were murdered. So do we need to outlaw box cutters? Look, use common sense. Maniacs will always find a method for killing people. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer & a rental truck at the Oklahoma City bombing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top