Non-knife people worry me.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think of one thing after reading this thread. Why was the assault rifle developed? Surely not for personal defense out of war time. Wouldn't a shotgun be sufficient?
 
Slicey said:
I think of one thing after reading this thread. Why was the assault rifle developed? Surely not for personal defense out of war time. Wouldn't a shotgun be sufficient?
Click to expand...

Thats why civilian models typically come with semi-auto only (as if that's less dangerous, or something. :rolleyes:)
 
Slicey said:
I think of one thing after reading this thread. Why was the assault rifle developed? Surely not for personal defense out of war time. Wouldn't a shotgun be sufficient?
Click to expand...

The "assault rifle" was developed for war. Similar civilian models are extremely popular for a variety of reasons, including accuracy, reliability, ease of customization, and a large number of military and ex-military personal who are already familiar with them.
 
Grease said:
Thats why civilian models typically come with semi-auto only (as if that's less dangerous, or something. :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

The army recommends singe fire for their Army/marine men.
Automatic is not quite accurate, and becomes more of a spray and pray.
 
These threads make me sad. It reminds me we are surrounded by many people with irrational phobias of anything sharp or goes bang. They are the ones most likely to trample old people and babies in a crisis situation. Even before I started to "collect" knives, they were always tools for cutting things either in the kitchen or at work, like opening boxes, cutting carpet, or surgery. Now that knifemakers have convinced me into thinking knives can be "pretty" too, I now own too many knives. Dang, they got me.

Unklfranco
 
Remember the guarantee to keep and bear arms wasn't established to guarantee your right to hunt. It was established
So that if your government was no longer representative of the will of the people, we could change it. Would
You really want to face the % of the armed forces who forgot that we swear to support and defend the constitution
Of the united states of america against all enemies forgein and DOMESTIC with only a bolt action rifle? For anyone
Who says this could/would never happen, would you bet your freedoms on it? I know this is a little strong for my first post but
Also keep in mind 1/2 my life had been spent in defense of the U.S. Constituion, and I continue to serve. I
Have seen other forms of governance first hand and we have the best thing going.
 
I believe most individuals, including those in "power", have an appropriate level of civility, reason, well to do and logic to live my life without fear of government anarchy, fear of random death, etc. Every day is a risk, we cannot allow these risks to consume our lives, and warp our perspective.
There are those whom may have a more cynical cut and dry perspective in life, but that type of drastic perspective leads to extremes.
You have people whom believe those who kill should be killed (NRA Vice president said it best "a good man with a gun will stop a bad man with a gun"), but if you get down to it is that really a solution to the problem? No, it is a simple animal, barbaric knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. You kill my child, I kill you. It does NOT solve the problem, and it does nothing but make a tragedy worse.
There must be a stand for reason, logic, and civility if we as humans are to thrive, and so far I think we've done just that in our existence. (obviously population of humans is rising not decreasing). This alone is proof that humanity can be trusted.

We should not be so quick to turn to violence as a solution. If we do that, we're no better than uncivilized barbarians, no matter how heinous the criminal, or how hard it is for an individual to swallow his emotions, and rage for the good of the many.
This bigger picture perspective is something that is hard to do, specially when you are the victim. One can become blind sighted to the bigger picture, and loose sight of reason.
 
Rick said:
Respectfully, it is if you appreciate ludicrous false equivalency over relevant discussion. This is the sort of nonsense that routinely makes the gun manufacturer shills at the NRA look so foolish; e.g., "driving fatalities are far more numerous than shooting fatalities. Should we ban cars?" (I'm a gun owner, BTW.)
Click to expand...

Gun owners need to stick together. Otherwise, you're not a gun owner.
 
...
Decided not to participate in this seriously scary thread.
 
Last edited:
Luis G. said:
I believe most individuals, including those in "power", have an appropriate level of civility, reason, well to do and logic to live my life without fear of government anarchy, fear of random death, etc. Every day is a risk, we cannot allow these risks to consume our lives, and warp our perspective.
There are those whom may have a more cynical cut and dry perspective in life, but that type of drastic perspective leads to extremes.
You have people whom believe those who kill should be killed (NRA Vice president said it best "a good man with a gun will stop a bad man with a gun"), but if you get down to it is that really a solution to the problem? No, it is a simple animal, barbaric knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. You kill my child, I kill you. It does NOT solve the problem, and it does nothing but make a tragedy worse.
There must be a stand for reason, logic, and civility if we as humans are to thrive, and so far I think we've done just that in our existence. (obviously population of humans is rising not decreasing). This alone is proof that humanity can be trusted.

We should not be so quick to turn to violence as a solution. If we do that, we're no better than uncivilized barbarians, no matter how heinous the criminal, or how hard it is for an individual to swallow his emotions, and rage for the good of the many.
This bigger picture perspective is something that is hard to do, specially when you are the victim. One can become blind sighted to the bigger picture, and loose sight of reason.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone is advocating guns to kill someone after they have killed others. The you killed my child I kill you, that you spoke of. People want to be able to protect themselves and be able to shoot someone before they kill people. To be able to stop something before it starts.

If everyone carried a gun, how many people do you think would walk into a mall and start shooting people? How many people would try to car jack someone or break into a house? A gun will make most people pretty darn civil.
 
FlaMtnBkr said:
I don't think anyone is advocating guns to kill someone after they have killed others. The you killed my child I kill you, that you spoke of. People want to be able to protect themselves and be able to shoot someone before they kill people. To be able to stop something before it starts.

If everyone carried a gun, how many people do you think would walk into a mall and start shooting people? How many people would try to car jack someone or break into a house? A gun will make most people pretty darn civil.
Click to expand...

Okay so let me get this straight... If we all carry guns, and someone DOES indeed start shooting at innocent civilians, what do we do with our guns? Pistol whip him? Tickle him? No you shoot him, and you more than likely will kill him.
What you just said makes no sense.

If you look at the massacres that have happened most of the killers were dead at the end. Whether they killed themselves or police killed them. I don't think death is a strong deterrent, after all look at the death penalty.

Also if this were to occur in a mall, where many people will be running around... Wouldn't that be a no no situations for the "good men" to use their guns, after all they could shoot an innocent bystander. Even the police do not fire at a bad man when there are bystanders near by.

I would really love to hear how you think it would go down if we all did carry guns.
 
kyleairborne said:
Remember the guarantee to keep and bear arms wasn't established to guarantee your right to hunt. It was established
So that if your government was no longer representative of the will of the people, we could change it. Would
You really want to face the % of the armed forces who forgot that we swear to support and defend the constitution
Of the united states of america against all enemies forgein and DOMESTIC with only a bolt action rifle? For anyone
Who says this could/would never happen, would you bet your freedoms on it? I know this is a little strong for my first post but
Also keep in mind 1/2 my life had been spent in defense of the U.S. Constituion, and I continue to serve. I
Have seen other forms of governance first hand and we have the best thing going.
Click to expand...

Deleted. I don't want to initiate a political argument.
 
Last edited:
Luis G. said:
I am with you there, I strongly support the right to bear arms.

The statistic is nothing more than an estimated guess.

Until the ATF and CDC (which did research on gun related deaths, which included information regarding gun control) both are allowed to release or research gun related deaths (weapons used, calibers, ammunition spent, where, why how), most gun/death statistics are taken from anecdotal sources (newspapers, publishing, etc) and are not accurate. Many say gun control does nothing for a society in terms of violent crimes with firearms involved, but no one knows for sure since all factual knowledge has been tucked away under the Tiahrt amendment and an additional budgetary amendment against the CDC, preventing it from researching ANYTHING regarding gun control.


The Tiahrt amendment was brought forth by Todd Tiahrt, and started/lobbied by the NRA.
The obvious reason behind this were impart by two legislations passed: The Automatic firearms ban, and the Assault rifle ban. When companies like Bushmaster (and others) realized they could sell the AR 15 variants by changing out everything except the barrel, they began to sell what they marketed as "assault rifles" to the public until the Assault Rifle ban. The reason for this change in weapons manufacturers to deal with civilians is partly due to the decreased sales.

When anti-gun supporters gathered in Congress, they could easily provide statistics and factual information (provided by the ATF) regarding these "assault rifles", information which negated all arguments by the NRA and gun supporters.
In response, the NRA had Todd Tiarht slip in an amendment prohibiting ATF from publishing or releasing statistics. Later on the CDC conducted it's own research regarding gun deaths (same way the ATF did), and once again legislation was passed.

Rick,
So what does this leave us with? No way for either gun supporters, or anti gun supporters to have a civil, logic driven, factual, and adult conversation regarding gun control. NRA's plan all along.
Click to expand...


its not possible to have a "civil, logic driven, factual, and adult" conversation regarding gun control, because as soon as the firearms advocates disagree with the anti gun crowd, they (the antis) suddenly take the moral high ground and everybody that doesn't agree with them is a gun nut or a violent animal.

Tom Diaz, (you know who that is, you spit out 2 paragraphs of his book) has his own agenda just like everyone else. except his is to pass on lies and misinformation to people that don't know any better. if enough people say it and type it, it becomes as good as the truth, but its not.

I don't believe you support my right or anyone else's right to bear arms, unless they are the arms that you and the rest of the anti gun crowd think we should have.

Merry Christmas
 
Last edited:
I'll keep carrying my gun to protect me and mine, anyone who doesn't wish to do so is absolutely free not to.

Not getting further into this, it's not the place for it.
 
Luis G. said:
Also if this were to occur in a mall, where many people will be running around... Wouldn't that be a no no situations for the "good men" to use their guns, after all they could shoot an innocent bystander. Even the police do not fire at a bad man when there are bystanders near by.
Click to expand...
Study up on police procedure. Because that is exactly what the police will do, and have done. If the police see a person in a shopping mall shooting other people, they will MOST CERTAINLY shoot at that person. Even if there are innocent civilians standing behind the gunman. It is a simple yet harsh matter of "risk management" designed to minimize casaulties as best as possible. How else are they supposed to stop the shooter, say "Pretty please"?

And it doesn't even need to be a guy shooting a gun. Recently in New York City (as anti-gun a place as you can find), cops opened fire on a guy in the street who was running around with a knife (and he never actually harmed anyone). The cops opened fire on a street crowded with bystanders. The officers who fired their weapons were following NYPD guidelines and received no disciplinary action. Not even a reprimand from Mayor Bloomberg.
 
Last edited:
"Next time you are at the computer get on the Internet and go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in ‘Japanese Americans 1942′ you’ll find out all about your precious f****** rights...Just when these American citizens needed their rights most, the government took them away. And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, a bill of TEMPORARY privileges." - George Carlin
 
I pulled out a PM2 to whittle some kindling the other day and my campmates (who all knew I collected knives) collectively almost crapped themselves. What the hell is wrong with people?
 
Luis G. said:
I would really love to hear how you think it would go down if we all did carry guns.
Click to expand...

Okay, here's one.

This year Pike Place Market in Seattle had an Open Carry day. Hundreds of people were out and about seattle carrying everything from 22s to ARs. You know how many crimes happened that day in view of the public? Not one.

There just aren't any people that stupid or crazy. Even the psychotic mass killers want to die and take a bunch of people with them. That doesn't work if you get riddled with bullets after your first shot, and anyone with the brains to find and use a gun can figure that fact out.

killgar said:
Study up on police procedure. Because that is exactly what the police will do, and have done. If the police see a person in a shopping mall shooting other people, they will MOST CERTAINLY shoot at that person. Even if there are innocent civilians standing behind the gunman. It is a simple yet harsh matter of "risk management" designed to minimize casaulties as best as possible. How else are they supposed to stop the shooter, say "Pretty please"?
Click to expand...

Yep... simple math answers the "should we shoot" question. Let the guy live and he'll shoot as many people as he has bullets. Shoot him and you risk hurting a couple people, but it's not a guarantee.
 
Last edited:
Simply put, yes, the best way to end violence in these noted situations is to respond with violence. And if you have the means you should respond with overwhelming violence. Not out of vengence but to stop innocent bloodshed. The world is an ugly place and humans are the most evil species on it, get used to it.

Luis G. said:
You have people whom believe those who kill should be killed (NRA Vice president said it best "a good man with a gun will stop a bad man with a gun"), but if you get down to it is that really a solution to the problem? No, it is a simple animal, barbaric knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. You kill my child, I kill you. It does NOT solve the problem, and it does nothing but make a tragedy worse.
There must be a stand for reason, logic, and civility if we as humans are to thrive, and so far I think we've done just that in our existence. (obviously population of humans is rising not decreasing). This alone is proof that humanity can be trusted.

We should not be so quick to turn to violence as a solution. If we do that, we're no better than uncivilized barbarians, no matter how heinous the criminal, or how hard it is for an individual to swallow his emotions, and rage for the good of the many.
This bigger picture perspective is something that is hard to do, specially when you are the victim. One can become blind sighted to the bigger picture, and loose sight of reason.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top