questionmark Posted September 30, 2013 Author #51 Share Posted September 30, 2013 like trolling much?? No, there are hundreds of very capable riflemen hunting with a black powder gun. If you just have one shot you just have one shot. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted September 30, 2013 #52 Share Posted September 30, 2013 trolling is bad, mkay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted September 30, 2013 #53 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Yes, it does sound crazy. Murderers and rapists don't even get life in prison or the death penalty most of the time and you want that sort of punishment for a non-violent crime. With rabid logic like that don't expect to be taken seriously. Like I said, if you had an illegal gun under the circumstances I proposed, it couldn't be for anything but commiting some sort of crime. Yes, perhaps even rape or murder. Also, I don't make the laws in this country, so perhaps murder and rape should be punishable under the circumstances I proposed. trolling is bad, mkay. Sounds like that's what you're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted September 30, 2013 #54 Share Posted September 30, 2013 No, there are hundreds of very capable riflemen hunting with a black powder gun. If you just have one shot you just have one shot. Simple. and then the wounded animal runs off and dies a slow, painful death, and/or mauls you if your aim isn't perfect... but minor details... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted September 30, 2013 #55 Share Posted September 30, 2013 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted September 30, 2013 #56 Share Posted September 30, 2013 How completely and utterly deceitful. If you were to treat drunk driving like you treat gun control, then there would be no laws against driving above a certain blood alcohol content and only those who crash their cars and injure others because of their drunk driving would get punished. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted September 30, 2013 #57 Share Posted September 30, 2013 All completely irrational, and contribute nothing to solving the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted September 30, 2013 #58 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Elementary my dear Watson, but if you want to have a gun control discussion it should not be what gun to control but what to do about irresponsible, incapable and brain amputated. A competition in lack of empathy (as at the beginning of this thread) is little helpful. And that is the crux of the matter. Penalties. Mandatory firearm training classes with an experienced instructor.. A little field instruction from a professional goes a long way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVeryFirstDinosaur Posted October 1, 2013 #59 Share Posted October 1, 2013 How many of those defending the Constitution as if it is religious scripture that is inerrant and permanent, also support WBC's literal interpretation of some of the bible's scripture? Hm, I haven't met any. Pretty ignorant thing to say. WBC is a entire monstrosity of itself that needs to be exterminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted October 1, 2013 #60 Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) and then the wounded animal runs off and dies a slow, painful death, and/or mauls you if your aim isn't perfect... but minor details... This is true, but if you're a hunter that's a risk you should be willing to take. Scores of animals probably already die this way due to hunting, and being mauled by a dangerous animal will inevitably always be a part of it. In some instances, of course. Edited October 1, 2013 by andy4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 1, 2013 #61 Share Posted October 1, 2013 This is true, but if you're a hunter that's a risk you should be willing to take. Scores of animals probably already die this way due to hunting, and being mauled by a dangerous animal will inevitably always be a part of it. In some instances, of course. it looks like you never hunted in your life, may be you should not give advices on it, or talk as you know anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted October 1, 2013 #62 Share Posted October 1, 2013 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted October 1, 2013 #63 Share Posted October 1, 2013 and then the wounded animal runs off and dies a slow, painful death, and/or mauls you if your aim isn't perfect... but minor details... "I don't want to be mauled by a bear or p***ed off moose" does not mean "I want to hunt with a bazooka". I seem to recall people carrying guns around polar bears expressly to shoot anyone being attacked, not the bear because the gun wouldn't slow it down. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy4 Posted October 1, 2013 #64 Share Posted October 1, 2013 it looks like you never hunted in your life, may be you should not give advices on it, or talk as you know anything about it. Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. I wasn't giving "advice", I was just giving a counterpoint to the post I had quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 1, 2013 Author #65 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Penalties. Mandatory firearm training classes with an experienced instructor.. A little field instruction from a professional goes a long way. I could subscribe to that at any minute. Your problem is that the NRA will be in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeWitz Posted October 1, 2013 #66 Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) It would be interesting to hear from someone who could explain how A) having firearms in the house for home/self/family defense is important, and, guns and ammunition must ways be stored separately in locked boxes/safes in the home--- are compatible. Doesn't "B" cancel out the immediacy needed for "A"? Edited October 1, 2013 by szentgyorgy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmike1 Posted October 1, 2013 #67 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Ok, here's my full solution to the problem, no holds barred. Guns for hunting; if you use your guns for hunting, that's great, more power to you. I see nothing at all wrong with this. If you enjoy hunting, a one shot muzzleloader should be plenty effective enough, and you'd get to practice hitting a target knowing you only have one shot. I'd imagine one would be very proficient at shooting at that point. You should also have to prove that you hunt in a certain given time, if hunting is what you like to do. So basically, a hunting license. Check people in when they go hunting, to verify that's what they are using it for. You must also prove that your gun is locked in a very secure location, so that the layman thief won't have access to it. Violate this, your hunting right is revoked. Home defense; make those tasers that shoot darts 20 feet legal for home protection. It's just as effective as a gun, and is substantially less lethal. This is where I'd agree that education would be effective. Even if all aren't listening, it's considered non- lethal, so very few deaths would occur if an accident does happen. If you have children, you must prove that the child has zero access to it, kind of how children aren't allowed to live in unsuitable conditions in everyday life. If you misuse the taser in any form, your right to have one is revoked for life. Illegal guns; if you get caught with an illegal gun you have two options; life imprisonment or a death penalty. I guarantee you nobody in their right mind would want to be caught carrying one at that point. That may sound crazy to some, but it would seem like it would be very effective. You wouldn't have to worry about someone with an illegal gun breaking into your house or robbing you, because it would be insane to be caught with one. Sure some may still have them, but your chances of this occurring would be significantly lower than what it currently is. If you want to collect guns, that's fine. However it must be rendered ineffective, and if you want to hunt with it or go to a gun range, you have to bring it somewhere to render it to be able to shoot with. Also, if you get caught with a gun, wouldn't that be considered possibly wanting to commit a muder anyways? Or some other type of hard crime? If they were illegal in this scenario, you wouldn't have it for show. They are used to kill, after all. That is my honest opinion on what should be done, and I also know that it is just that, an opinion. I'm just giving what I feel would be the best option for the current problem. Wow! so basically your solution to the problem, which won't work in anyway shape or form, is for the government to gain more control of your life. Sir, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I am entitled to think yours is moronic. First of all, how are you going to fund all of these people that are going to check, and verify, and make sure of all of this? Lot of people in this country, going to take a lot of man power. Second of all how to you suppose we keep the people that don't give a chit about the laws from using these weapons? Death penalty, oh I guess you forgot about the ACLU. They would have a field day with that. Also, don't we already have the death penalty for crimes such as murder, and don't people still commit these crimes at alarming rates? Sure lets start a war on guns, because the war on terror, and the war on drugs has worked so well up until now. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted October 1, 2013 #68 Share Posted October 1, 2013 This is true, but if you're a hunter that's a risk you should be willing to take. Scores of animals probably already die this way due to hunting, and being mauled by a dangerous animal will inevitably always be a part of it. In some instances, of course. Or you have a weapon that can fire more then one shot in a quick amount of time and eliminate this occurance more often then not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted October 1, 2013 #69 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Or you have a weapon that can fire more then one shot in a quick amount of time and eliminate this occurance more often then not. Only a callous, cruel person would not finish off a mortally wounded animal. The majority of hunters want a clean kill, but it doesn't always happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 1, 2013 Author #70 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Only a callous, cruel person would not finish off a mortally wounded animal. The majority of hunters want a clean kill, but it doesn't always happen. I always feel bad if I don't make a one shot instant kill. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted October 1, 2013 #71 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Only a callous, cruel person would not finish off a mortally wounded animal. The majority of hunters want a clean kill, but it doesn't always happen. Thats what i am getting at. With a black powder rifle, it takes time to load a second shot if the first one doesn't do the job. Whereas with a bolt action rifle (or lever, etc), you can put a second round into the chamber in a second... I'm all for not making animals suffer as much as humanly possible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent0range Posted October 1, 2013 #72 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Oh, so you need an AK-47 to protect yourself from the government? And how much do you think that would help your cause? A single company could run through an entire town armed with AK-47s in less than an hour. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted October 1, 2013 #73 Share Posted October 1, 2013 "I don't want to be mauled by a bear or p***ed off moose" does not mean "I want to hunt with a bazooka". I seem to recall people carrying guns around polar bears expressly to shoot anyone being attacked, not the bear because the gun wouldn't slow it down. When I was in the Arctic we had Rangers with their service rifle (.303 Lee Enfield) and some had shotguns. They were for killing bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted October 1, 2013 #74 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Oh, so you need an AK-47 to protect yourself from the government? And how much do you think that would help your cause? A single company could run through an entire town armed with AK-47s in less than an hour. A company of what? Tanks? Sure. Mechanize Infantry, might take more than an hour. Dismounted infantry? Defiantly take the better part of a day or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted October 1, 2013 #75 Share Posted October 1, 2013 A company of what? Tanks? Sure. Mechanize Infantry, might take more than an hour. Dismounted infantry? Defiantly take the better part of a day or more. The exact time is a detail; the point is the futility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now