Time to ban hammers and clubs

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

And while guns are designed to kill people, clubs are not.

actually, I think clubs are



they are just a more scary club if you put a folding handle on it, or a bayonet

at least a dumbass can't really hold a club sideways - but if he did, it's less likely to jam

(jamb?)

Don't forget, they are all semi-automatic.

Whether they come with the extended magazine or not.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,111]

>But clubs and hammers kill more every year

So do cars. So did nuclear weapons, at least when they were being used. But people don't use cars to go on driving rampages where they kill dozens. Nor do they use nuclear weapons to kill kids at an elementary school. They use guns.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But clubs and hammers kill more every year

So do cars. So did nuclear weapons, at least when they were being used. But people don't use cars to go on driving rampages where they kill dozens. Nor do they use nuclear weapons to kill kids at an elementary school. They use guns.

Which perfectly illistrates the point that to the banners it is more about emotion than logic or what will work

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>Which perfectly illistrates the point that to the banners it is more about emotion than
>logic or what will work

?? Banning guns would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting. Banning hammers would not have. Thus if your goal is to prevent school shootings, banning guns is logically more effective than banning hammers. If you have different goals then your implementation would likely be different.

(And note - I am not suggesting banning guns; the only people talking about that on this forum are right wingers.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Which perfectly illistrates the point that to the banners it is more about emotion than
>logic or what will work

?? Banning guns would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting. Banning hammers would not have. Thus if your goal is to prevent school shootings, banning guns is logically more effective than banning hammers. If you have different goals then your implementation would likely be different.

(And note - I am not suggesting banning guns; the only people talking about that on this forum are right wingers.)

No
banning guns will not stop this from happening
That is the fallacy of the emotional argument

Therfore, the argument to ban has nothing to do with logic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 379]

oK Marc, since Regulator seems to be distracted by his fixation on Hilary Clinton I'll ask you. SUrface to air missiles are, according to the logic in this thread, simply designed to propel a projectile into the air. I guess if the were intended to bring down planes they would be called "surface to plane missiles", right? Also, I am not aware of a SAM missile being used to commit a single murder in the USA. So is the ban on owning or selling SAMs only based on emotion? ShouLd American citizens be allowed to freely own SAMs? If not, why not?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[havoc996 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps I missed it but has anybody brought up the fact that parts of the original ban are STILL in effect in Conn? You are not allowed to have a collapsible stock in Conn. Theoretically this is to increase the overall length of the weapon and make it less concealable. This however was not at all effective given the shooter at Sandy Hook didn't care about hiding the weapon. You also have to have whatever muzzle device is on your rifle permanently attached.

The ban is not going to solve anything. Education and laws regarding securing firearms is a much more important area to look at. Homes are not adequate for securing firearms in and of themselves. A deadbolt is a joke and only serves as a deterrent. If you don't believe this ask any MIL/LEO/Firefighter and they will surely tell you just how quickly a deadbolt can be defeated. A safe is a necessity and one that is not easily moveable.

Below are LAWS currently in effect and it should be noted that one of the few states with stricter laws than the majority is the state where the Sandy Hook MASSACRE happened. That added scrutiny did absolutely nothing to protect those people and children.

For the record I would be happy to explain the difference between a CLIP and a MAGAZINE or answer any other questions regarding firearms that I am able. Educating the public is the first way to begin to tackle this problem. PM me if anyone has any questions regarding proper terminology or exactly what something is. I have seen so much misinformation pumped out of ALL news agencies lately and it is only fueling a fire that is dividing the country while the problem is getting none of the attention it so desperately needs.

CALIFORNIA:
fixed (Bullet Button) magazine configuration, and 10-Round Magazines

CONNECTICUT:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock

HAWAII:
10-Round Magazines

MARYLAND:
20-Round Magazines

MASSACHUSETTS:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

NEW JERSEY:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

NEW YORK:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

WASHINGTON:
- No Short Barreled Rifles (SBR’s), or barrels less than 16.1” in total length.

Good post

I had forgotten this

The type of ban the antis want already existed in CO
yet Sandy Hook still happened

And I gotta ask

What makes one type of muzzel device makes a weapon more dangerous

I'm interpreting your question because it didn't make much sense but I believe you mean what makes one muzzle device more lethal than another?

There are muzzle devices made to do the best possible job at reducing the signature of the muzzle flash and making the shooter harder to pinpoint. this in military terms equates to soldier survivability.

There are others that drastically reduce the recoil and keep the weapon on target for a more accurate and rapid follow up shot. You often see these type of muzzle devices on competition rifles. These types of devices do very little if anything to reduce the shooters signature though.

There are some muzzle devices that claim to do both but most are fairly ineffectual at either job.

That is the short answer.

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

oK Marc, since Regulator seems to be distracted by his fixation on Hilary Clinton I'll ask you. SUrface to air missiles are, according to the logic in this thread, simply designed to propel a projectile into the air. I guess if the were intended to bring down planes they would be called "surface to plane missiles", right? Also, I am not aware of a SAM missile being used to commit a single murder in the USA. So is the ban on owning or selling SAMs only based on emotion? ShouLd American citizens be allowed to freely own SAMs? If not, why not?

Don

If a sane person has the money? I dont care

Same could go for nukes

Again
The person who owns or uses them is the issue

Not the tool or weapon

the only difference is the amount of damage that can be done

That is the argument for the magazine or rifle ban

But that in and of itself does not change the argument

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps I missed it but has anybody brought up the fact that parts of the original ban are STILL in effect in Conn? You are not allowed to have a collapsible stock in Conn. Theoretically this is to increase the overall length of the weapon and make it less concealable. This however was not at all effective given the shooter at Sandy Hook didn't care about hiding the weapon. You also have to have whatever muzzle device is on your rifle permanently attached.

The ban is not going to solve anything. Education and laws regarding securing firearms is a much more important area to look at. Homes are not adequate for securing firearms in and of themselves. A deadbolt is a joke and only serves as a deterrent. If you don't believe this ask any MIL/LEO/Firefighter and they will surely tell you just how quickly a deadbolt can be defeated. A safe is a necessity and one that is not easily moveable.

Below are LAWS currently in effect and it should be noted that one of the few states with stricter laws than the majority is the state where the Sandy Hook MASSACRE happened. That added scrutiny did absolutely nothing to protect those people and children.

For the record I would be happy to explain the difference between a CLIP and a MAGAZINE or answer any other questions regarding firearms that I am able. Educating the public is the first way to begin to tackle this problem. PM me if anyone has any questions regarding proper terminology or exactly what something is. I have seen so much misinformation pumped out of ALL news agencies lately and it is only fueling a fire that is dividing the country while the problem is getting none of the attention it so desperately needs.

CALIFORNIA:
fixed (Bullet Button) magazine configuration, and 10-Round Magazines

CONNECTICUT:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock

HAWAII:
10-Round Magazines

MARYLAND:
20-Round Magazines

MASSACHUSETTS:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

NEW JERSEY:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

NEW YORK:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

WASHINGTON:
- No Short Barreled Rifles (SBR’s), or barrels less than 16.1” in total length.

Good post

I had forgotten this

The type of ban the antis want already existed in CO
yet Sandy Hook still happened

And I gotta ask

What makes one type of muzzel device makes a weapon more dangerous

I'm interpreting your question because it didn't make much sense but I believe you mean what makes one muzzle device more lethal than another?

There are muzzle devices made to do the best possible job at reducing the signature of the muzzle flash and making the shooter harder to pinpoint. this in military terms equates to soldier survivability.

There are others that drastically reduce the recoil and keep the weapon on target for a more accurate and rapid follow up shot. You often see these type of muzzle devices on competition rifles. These types of devices do very little if anything to reduce the shooters signature though.

There are some muzzle devices that claim to do both but most are fairly ineffectual at either job.

That is the short answer.

I have a brake that reduces flash very well

The WCI brake

I have is on both my 5.56 and my 6.5 Grendel
I would argue that one does not do both well

But to the point

The rifle's ability is not increased or decreased by having a removable device

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>banning guns will not stop this from happening

I didn't say that. I said it would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, since the woman he took the guns from obtained them legally. If she had not been able to get them legally he could not have stolen them. So for THIS EXAMPLE banning guns would have worked.

Thus if your goal is preventing more Sandy Hooks that is a logical way to do it.

And again, I don't think that banning guns is worth it; the gains will not be worth the losses. But that is a value decision based on the demonstrable good and bad on both sides of the equation. Ignoring half the equation does not do the gun lobby any good; indeed, it is hurting them severely.

[havoc996 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Perhaps I missed it but has anybody brought up the fact that parts of the original ban are STILL in effect in Conn? You are not allowed to have a collapsible stock in Conn. Theoretically this is to increase the overall length of the weapon and make it less concealable. This however was not at all effective given the shooter at Sandy Hook didn't care about hiding the weapon. You also have to have whatever muzzle device is on your rifle permanently attached.

The ban is not going to solve anything. Education and laws regarding securing firearms is a much more important area to look at. Homes are not adequate for securing firearms in and of themselves. A deadbolt is a joke and only serves as a deterrent. If you don't believe this ask any MIL/LEO/Firefighter and they will surely tell you just how quickly a deadbolt can be defeated. A safe is a necessity and one that is not easily moveable.

Below are LAWS currently in effect and it should be noted that one of the few states with stricter laws than the majority is the state where the Sandy Hook MASSACRE happened. That added scrutiny did absolutely nothing to protect those people and children.

For the record I would be happy to explain the difference between a CLIP and a MAGAZINE or answer any other questions regarding firearms that I am able. Educating the public is the first way to begin to tackle this problem. PM me if anyone has any questions regarding proper terminology or exactly what something is. I have seen so much misinformation pumped out of ALL news agencies lately and it is only fueling a fire that is dividing the country while the problem is getting none of the attention it so desperately needs.

CALIFORNIA:
fixed (Bullet Button) magazine configuration, and 10-Round Magazines

CONNECTICUT:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock

HAWAII:
10-Round Magazines

MARYLAND:
20-Round Magazines

MASSACHUSETTS:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

NEW JERSEY:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

NEW YORK:
pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines

WASHINGTON:
- No Short Barreled Rifles (SBR’s), or barrels less than 16.1” in total length.

Good post

I had forgotten this

The type of ban the antis want already existed in CO
yet Sandy Hook still happened

And I gotta ask

What makes one type of muzzel device makes a weapon more dangerous

I'm interpreting your question because it didn't make much sense but I believe you mean what makes one muzzle device more lethal than another?

There are muzzle devices made to do the best possible job at reducing the signature of the muzzle flash and making the shooter harder to pinpoint. this in military terms equates to soldier survivability.

There are others that drastically reduce the recoil and keep the weapon on target for a more accurate and rapid follow up shot. You often see these type of muzzle devices on competition rifles. These types of devices do very little if anything to reduce the shooters signature though.

There are some muzzle devices that claim to do both but most are fairly ineffectual at either job.

That is the short answer.

I have a brake that reduces flash very well

The WCI brake

I have is on both my 5.56 and my 6.5 Grendel
I would argue that one does not do both well

But to the point

The rifle's ability is not increased or decreased by having a removable device

One may do both ok but not as well as ones specifically designed for the purpose of reducing flash or reducing muzzle climb. the fsc5.56 does a fairly good job at both also.

The only way a removable device or the ability to remove the device would in any way make a rifle more lethal is you could change them to tailor for the job the rifle is being used for. I however completely agree with you on this point. a pinned and welded FSC5.56 is no less lethal than a removable one.

My offer on here was to educate those who are against firearms without knowing what it is they're against other than BAD BLACK GUNS. I assumed you knew what you were talking about with regard to firearms based on the way you were speaking in a previous post but a question is a question and I will answer it. We are arguing the same point I think, I hope however by reading the dialog between us maybe someone will learn something.

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> But people don't use cars to go on driving rampages where they kill dozens. Nor do they use nuclear weapons to kill kids at an elementary school.

actually, both of those are true also

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,111]

>actually, both of those are true also

Fair enough. And if your goal were to stop driving rampages, then banning cars would be logical (though likely not worth the tradeoff.) Similarly, banning nuclear weapons would reduce the odds they are used to vaporize cities. Again, that might be worth the tradeoff, and might not be.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>?? Banning guns would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting. Banning hammers would not have. Thus if your goal is to prevent school shootings, banning guns is logically more effective than banning hammers.

Absolutely - Banning hammers would have prevented the Sandy Hook hammering.

Silly BillVon - Hammers don't shoot. (Not yet, but I'm working on something)


Nuclear powered projectile hammer. I'm just not certain if the hammer is the projectile, or just used to fire the projectile.

Edit: Patent Pending

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[regulator 0]

Nobody is responding to your post because its completely assinine. And there is just as much of a chance hilary clinton shoots a snuke out her snatch as there is a civilian killing someone with a scud.

[havoc996 0]

And what is this constant comparison to nuclear weapons and cars?

Use nuclear power to run machines or cities. OK

Use nuclear power to deter invasion. OK

Use nuclear power to invade and conquer. EVIL

Use a car to drive to work. OK

Use a car to transport kids and family on vacation. OK

Use a car to try and run over a person. ATTEMPTED MURDER

Use a gun to hunt. OK

Use a gun for competition. OK

Use a gun to defend yourself. OK

Use a gun for murder. EVIL

Any one of these objects has the ability to enrich and preserve life when used properly. They also have the ability to kill. I don't see how the comparison is at all relevant to the issue of a PSYCHOPATH killing school children. The PSYCHOPATH is the issue not the method with which he killed.

How anyone can disagree with this doesn't make sense. If a pedophile lures children to meetings with a computer and then rapes and kills them we don't blame the computer. We shouldn't be blaming the gun.

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[billvon 3,111]

>And what is this constant comparison to nuclear weapons and cars?

I agree that it's pretty bizarre. Cars, guns, nuclear weapons, spoons, clubs etc are all very different. Trying to regulate them the same way is nuts.

>Use nuclear power to run machines or cities. OK . . . .

You do realize you just compared nuclear weapons to guns and cars, right?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Use nuclear power to invade and concur. EVIL

I'm not sure exactly what this means.

But I guess I better agree with it.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I agree that it's pretty bizarre. Cars, guns, nuclear weapons, spoons, clubs etc are all very different. Trying to regulate them the same way is nuts.

not so fast there -

we could draft a law that says by 2016, all guns have to get at least 40 miles per gallon of gas. Or be solar powered.

(not that I'd surprised to see one from this Congress)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,111]

>we could draft a law that says by 2016, all guns have to get at least 40 miles per >gallon of gas. Or be solar powered.

And spoons need breathalyzer interlocks. Souping while drunk can lead to all sorts of nasty injuries.

[havoc996 0]

Quote

Quote

Use nuclear power to invade and concur. EVIL

I'm not sure exactly what this means.

But I guess I better agree with it.....

Forgive my misspelling it has been corrected. The point I was trying to make was that all of those things can be used for good or evil. It is the person behind the object that dictates how the object is used.

Since Adam obtained the guns he used ILLEGALLY what good is another law?

Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And there is just as much of a chance hilary clinton shoots a snuke out her snatch as there is a civilian killing someone with a scud.

Mainly because civilians are banned from owning scuds.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Use nuclear power to invade and concur. EVIL

I'm not sure exactly what this means.

But I guess I better agree with it.....

Forgive my misspelling it has been corrected.......

I was really hoping for a few more people to get my gag. This forum needs a narrator.

it was funnier the other way - Friday posting is the only posting worth it in SC.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

And there is just as much of a chance hilary clinton shoots a snuke out her snatch as there is a civilian killing someone with a scud.

Mainly because civilians are banned from owning scuds.

that's right, Hillary could do it if she wanted to

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If a pedophile lures children to meetings with a computer and then rapes and kills them we don't blame the computer.

No but we do regulate how and when the computer would be used and install software to try and prevent this from happening.

Proper parents would certainly start regulating the usage of the tool used. Very few parents would do absolutely nothing and say: can't blame the computer. The latter case we would probably call bad parenting...