quade 4 #51 October 17, 2011 QuoteBut imagine the crime rate if we didn't punish people by putting them in jail. Now imagine the crime rate if a criminal knew for sure his victim was unarmed. Ok, I'll do that and you imagine every loony on the planet armed with a nuke. Can you see a problem there?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut imagine the crime rate if we didn't punish people by putting them in jail. Now imagine the crime rate if a criminal knew for sure his victim was unarmed. Ok, I'll do that and you imagine every loony on the planet armed with a nuke. Can you see a problem there? I'm not advocating that every looney on the planet have a nuke. In fact, I'd like to see every country get rid of their nukes. Nukes are not used for personal protection. A gun is. Big difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #53 October 17, 2011 >Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #54 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteMy guess is, you can't really think for a minute that every country on earth should be allowed to have atomic weapons . . . can you? I can think for hours everyday about how to protect every country from atomic weapons if every country had atomic weapons.... Yep, it's called M.A.D. and it's worked well for well over half a century. It might work if both parties have similar desires to live.... ADD a religious component to it where martyrdom comes into play.... and it no longer works for all parties. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #55 October 17, 2011 Quote>Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #56 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuote>Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #57 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Seems to work in third world shitholes.... and since we are on our way there.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 October 17, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote >Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Seems to work in third world shitholes.... and since we are on our way there.... You take all the fun out of my attempts at being subtle. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #59 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo have you got anything to add? Yeah . . . the entire argument of "guns don't kill people" is specious. A gun has never gotten pissed off over a drug deal gone bad then shot someone. It takes a human to squeeze the trigger. I don't think he understands why. Oh I absolutely understand why some people think it's a good argument, it's just that I don't. If you make the argument that "guns don't kill people" then you're forced to take that argument to the conclusion of "atomic weapons don't kill people." My guess is, you can't really think for a minute that every country on earth should be allowed to have atomic weapons . . . can you? And here's the thing, you can't even use the argument that they should only be used by "sane" countries either, because of the thousands of nuclear weapons ever made, the only two that have ever been used against people, well . . . you get the drift. Atomic weapns don't kill by themselves either. They also need human intervention otherwise they just sit there like a bump on a log. Take away a weapon and the criminal will just find, or make, another. Take away the user and weapons will just sit there, like a bump on a log.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #60 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Yes, in certain situations it most definitely would be used for personal protection. Suppose there was a large terrorist attack, or natural disaster, would you rather have a .22 pistol or an AK47? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #61 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Yes, in certain situations it most definitely would be used for personal protection. Suppose there was a large terrorist attack, or natural disaster, would you rather have a .22 pistol or an AK47? Let's look back to the Rodney King riots in LA. When groups of people intent upon Wealth Redistribution came seeking donations, two scenarios played out. 1) "Shit, ain't nothin' but a .22. I been shot by one o' them befo' - no biggie" 2) "Yo, he got him a mothafuckin' AK-47! Feets don' fail me now!" Your pick. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #62 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt's always about the details. Nobody has ever suggested that someone who is mentally unstable should have a gun. I beg to differ. We've have a number of people in this forum suggest that very thing. Who?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #63 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuote Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Yes, in certain situations it most definitely would be used for personal protection. Suppose there was a large terrorist attack, or natural disaster, would you rather have a .22 pistol or an AK47? hell, if I was out on my neighbor's ranch I'd want a rifle over my 1911. Hogs can be nasty!!-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #64 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>Nukes are not used for personal protection. Well, neither are AK-47's. But mention that and you'll get called a gun-o-phobe by our favorite pollster here. I doubt you know what different people consider the appropriate weapon for personal protection. Hint: Hand guns have their limitations. Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Read up a little on the aftermath of Katrina. Military-style rifles were very appropriate to that situation. It all depends on the situation."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #65 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Yes, in certain situations it most definitely would be used for personal protection. Suppose there was a large terrorist attack, or natural disaster, would you rather have a .22 pistol or an AK47? hell, if I was out on my neighbor's ranch I'd want a rifle over my 1911. Hogs can be nasty!! Interesting how when you say a gun is for personal protection, they gun-o-phobes automatically assume it's for personal protection against other human beings. I suppose it's because they think everyone is a City-Slicker like them. They don't realize some people live in rural areas where there can be feral dogs, coyotes, mountain lions, bears, feral hogs etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 October 17, 2011 Quote Are you saying an AK-47 is an appropriate weapon for personal protection? That generally you'd carry one around with you at all times if you could? Only you would impose the artificial restriction of "all times." An intelligent person would use the AK-47 at home and in some outside circumstances, and where not viable, settle for the inferior handgun. A nuke never works for self defense- seems rather obvious (in Amazon's language, goat fuck stupid obvious) as the blast radius means the user gets it too. Only the Israelis fully accept the Sampson Option. On the angle of nukes or guns killing people, the issues of radioactivity is a bit more serious (threatening) than lead poisoning, which is unlikely to be fatal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #67 October 17, 2011 QuoteMe. I'm thinking the entire incident proves why some people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Actually it shows why some people should not have swords..... You planning on supporting sword bans and registration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #68 October 17, 2011 QuoteActually guns DO kill people. Lots of them. No, they actually DON'T kill people. I have a bunch of guns.... None of them have ever killed anyone. A gun is an inanimate object and can't do anything. Once you stop trying to make a gun out as something evil and instead look at it as an object... Then and only then can you actually engage in logical discussion about the topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertAttorney 0 #69 October 17, 2011 Quote Quote Actually guns DO kill people. Lots of them. No, they actually DON'T kill people. I have a bunch of guns.... None of them have ever killed anyone. A gun is an inanimate object and can't do anything... I have a 1931 Soviet Mosin Nagant that's probably killed Nazis, an American M-1 Garand that's likely killed Nazis, and a Mauser K98k that has likely killed Soviets and Americans... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #70 October 17, 2011 QuoteI have a 1931 Soviet Mosin Nagant that's probably killed Nazis, an American M-1 Garand that's likely killed Nazis, and a Mauser K98k that has likely killed Soviets and Americans... Do you also have a car that drives drunk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertAttorney 0 #71 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteI have a 1931 Soviet Mosin Nagant that's probably killed Nazis, an American M-1 Garand that's likely killed Nazis, and a Mauser K98k that has likely killed Soviets and Americans... Do you also have a car that drives drunk? Bought it used from a Mormon friend of mine, so I doubt it. :) Your sarcasm meter INOP today? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #72 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteI have a 1931 Soviet Mosin Nagant that's probably killed Nazis, an American M-1 Garand that's likely killed Nazis, and a Mauser K98k that has likely killed Soviets and Americans... Do you also have a car that drives drunk? My car runs on 10% ethanol. That is like table wine. Even if you take into account body mass, the amount of liquor it's wolfing down at highway speeds is substantial. I don't happen to drink, but my vehicles are routinely snockered. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #73 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo have you got anything to add? Yeah . . . the entire argument of "guns don't kill people" is specious. So when talking about violence, you think using the argument that "guns kill" and blaming the gun is acceptable. By that logic, spoons make people fat, and plungers and broomsticks rape people. Knives kill. Cars kill. Bathtubs and swimming pools kill. Baseball bats kill. Pens kill. OK, so in your mind "guns kill." So what?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #74 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo have you got anything to add? Yeah . . . the entire argument of "guns don't kill people" is specious. So when talking about violence, you think using the argument that "guns kill" and blaming the gun is acceptable. By that logic, spoons make people fat, and plungers and broomsticks rape people. Knives kill. Cars kill. Bathtubs and swimming pools kill. Baseball bats kill. Pens kill. OK, so in your mind "guns kill." So what? Well, that would make sense since he seems to think a killer could grab a knife from the kitchen and shoot two victims with it.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
