just a thought on gun control

[emptystep]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

So tell me if a round is designed to be non lethal to a 60 lb kid how well would it stop a 200 lb guy?

 

[chikenwing]

News flash!! Social engineers trying to figural out why clubbings and stabbings are on the rise.

Official's baffled by latest crime statistics.

 

[emptystep]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

So tell me if a round is designed to be non lethal to a 60 lb kid how well would it stop a 200 lb guy?

Six rounds of 'non-lethal' ammo would bring a Somalian to his knees. I didn't say it would not be able to pierce the skin. I didn't say it had to be under .45. All I suggest is rounds sprayed randomly will put people in the hospital, but they would get out of the hospital standing up, not laying down. How powerful can a round be to stop someone but not piece a child's skull?

 

[emptystep]

News flash!! Social engineers trying to figural out why clubbings and stabbings are on the rise.

Official's baffled by latest crime statistics.

So are mass shootings. Officials know why, or at least what weapons they are using.

 

[California Girl]

You are correct about one thing... you don't think very much.... emptyheaded would be a great username for you.

You're welcome.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

News flash!! Social engineers trying to figural out why clubbings and stabbings are on the rise.

Official's baffled by latest crime statistics.

So are mass shootings. Officials know why, or at least what weapons they are using.

There is ZERO evidence mass shootings are on the rise, that is a lie, one you either support or are to stupid to understand is not true. As to ammo, guess what? If weapons are protected under the 2nd so is the ammo to use them.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Only Government and Military should own and use guns. Make Society safe.

 

[emptystep]

Sorry Somalians. It was Filipinos. Sorry to the Filipinos also.

Filipino American History

There was even a special gun designed to kill Filipinos, the Colt.45 1902 "Philippine Model", where only 4,600 were made. This is the real American history that historians, academicians, and scholars forgot to tell us. Soon after the War, William Howard Taft, who later became President of the United States, became governor of the Philippines. American school teachers, called 'Thomasites', came to the Philippines to establish a public school system similar to American public schools.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

So tell me if a round is designed to be non lethal to a 60 lb kid how well would it stop a 200 lb guy?

Six rounds of 'non-lethal' ammo would bring a Somalian to his knees. I didn't say it would not be able to pierce the skin. I didn't say it had to be under .45. All I suggest is rounds sprayed randomly will put people in the hospital, but they would get out of the hospital standing up, not laying down. How powerful can a round be to stop someone but not piece a child's skull?

Who cares about a skull how about soft tissue damage?

You don't want a round to be able to kill a small child that means it can't hit very hard.

BTW a "non lethal" rubber bullet fire by a cop killed a girl in Boston not too long ago

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/editorial/documents/01730795.htm

So according to your parameters even rubber bullets could not be used

 

[emptystep]

News flash!! Social engineers trying to figural out why clubbings and stabbings are on the rise.

Official's baffled by latest crime statistics.

So are mass shootings. Officials know why, or at least what weapons they are using.

There is ZERO evidence mass shootings are on the rise, that is a lie, one you either support or are to stupid to understand is not true. As to ammo, guess what? If weapons are protected under the 2nd so is the ammo to use them.

The mass shootings on rise was more a response than a numerical claim. I don't know the statics off the top of my head. They may be up, down, or unchanged. Whatever it is doesn't mean it is not time for a change. Technology and all that you understand.

Please don't make me go through the 2nd amendment explanation again. Just because Obama wimped out and did not pick that up does not change the fact of what it is.

 

[emptystep]

So tell me if a round is designed to be non lethal to a 60 lb kid how well would it stop a 200 lb guy?

Six rounds of 'non-lethal' ammo would bring a Somalian to his knees. I didn't say it would not be able to pierce the skin. I didn't say it had to be under .45. All I suggest is rounds sprayed randomly will put people in the hospital, but they would get out of the hospital standing up, not laying down. How powerful can a round be to stop someone but not piece a child's skull?

Who cares about a skull how about soft tissue damage?

You don't want a round to be able to kill a small child that means it can't hit very hard.

BTW a "non lethal" rubber bullet fire by a cop killed a girl in Boston not too long ago

Editorial |

So according to your parameters even rubber bullets could not be used

Pencils kill too but I still think they should be allowed in schools. You can jump all over how this is undoable and infringes on 2nd amendment rights and anything else you can think up, which is endless I am sure, that does not mean it is not a good idea. And is doable.

 

[emptystep]

You are correct about one thing... you don't think very much.... emptyheaded would be a great username for you.

You're welcome.

NNNNooooo! Not the 'emptyhead' comment. I must admit that is only the second time I have got that since being on this board, maybe third. I alway enjoy it so much. Considering what emptystep refers to it is actually a high complement.

[edit] I just noticed you said 'your welcome'. How did you know I was going to say thank you? Your so smart. [/edit] (No there is not really an HTML tag 'edit'.

 

[emptystep]

Only Government and Military should own and use guns. Make Society safe.

I would complement you on your wisdom if you weren't so dang sarcastic that is.

 

[SuMar]

Only Government and Military should own and use guns. Make Society safe.

So NO guns would make society safe?

 

[Trajan]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

do I get to enjoy an over a 40 oz beverage while I pop off my rounds trying to bring down a guy who weighs 250, may be drugged up, and is dead set on taking my shit to the point where in he broke into my home?

 

[emptystep]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

do I get to enjoy an over a 40 oz beverage while I pop off my rounds trying to bring down a guy who weighs 250, may be drugged up, and is dead set on taking my shit to the point where in he broke into my home?

Seriously man, just let him have the refrigerator and you will be fine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

do I get to enjoy an over a 40 oz beverage while I pop off my rounds trying to bring down a guy who weighs 250, may be drugged up, and is dead set on taking my shit to the point where in he broke into my home?

Seriously man, just let him have the refrigerator and you will be fine.

So one should never ever protect their property or loved ones? Moron, as for statistics mass murder is not ON THE RISE. In fact murder over all is declining and has been for 20 years. And the percentage of people murdered with firearms is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population. But we should remove rights cause you are an idiot? Right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Six rounds of 'non-lethal' ammo would bring a Somalian to his knees. I didn't say it would not be able to pierce the skin. I didn't say it had to be under .45. All I suggest is rounds sprayed randomly will put people in the hospital, but they would get out of the hospital standing up, not laying down. How powerful can a round be to stop someone but not piece a child's skull?

Who cares about a skull how about soft tissue damage?

You don't want a round to be able to kill a small child that means it can't hit very hard.

BTW a "non lethal" rubber bullet fire by a cop killed a girl in Boston not too long ago

Editorial |

So according to your parameters even rubber bullets could not be used

Pencils kill too but I still think they should be allowed in schools. You can jump all over how this is undoable and infringes on 2nd amendment rights and anything else you can think up, which is endless I am sure, that does not mean it is not a good idea. And is doable.

It's not a good idea.

All you have to do is get a hunting license and buy the real ammo or do what a lot of gun owners do and load your own.

 

[OKTexas]

I haven't this much thought, how very typical of me.

I read the thread about Carolyn McCarthy, all one post of it, and her day at the range with an AR-15 . It got me thinking about the Sig Sauer I rented a couple months back. What is the one think that made that gun so dangerous, besides my damn good aim that is? It was the ammunition. Presumably rounds could be made where they are non-lethal or at least a little less likely to kill. Ammunition would be controlled. With a valid hunting license which would require a safety class, hopefully a psych eval, one could buy a box of ammo a month, or what ever is reasonable, of the biggest damn shells known to man. That way hunters can kill, homeowners can shoot people, and a school would end up with a lot of seriously wounded children but not so many dead ones. That way one could shot just about any weapon with as big a magazine one wanted and what is or is not an 'assault weapon' is solved.

It's pretty clear you don't understand the deterrent value of a bad guy thinking he may not survive a crime. If you remove that deterrent you give them the advantage, is that really what you want to do? Do you think they will follow your rules? I think you should give it some more thought.