New Bullets Mean Certain Death

[Lakhota]

You simply can't answer the question, can you? It's ok because smarter liberals than yourself have avoided the question too.

There is no simple answer for such a broad question. I could also ask the following: Would universal background checks not have saved any lives?

For universal background checks to be effective, there must be effective coordination between federal and state governments. They're not there yet - and probably won't be in my lifetime. No one is suggesting that shooting deaths can be legislatively eliminated - but they can be greatly reduced. I certainly feel safer when I'm on the highway, knowing that there are enforceable laws and penalties that help protect me from unauthorized and unsafe drivers. Otherwise, the highways would just be an unregulated nightmare.

It was a simple question. The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.


As for your question.........few, if any.

There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject. Would you rather have our highways unregulated?

 

[Meister]

There is no simple answer for such a broad question. I could also ask the following: Would universal background checks not have saved any lives?

For universal background checks to be effective, there must be effective coordination between federal and state governments. They're not there yet - and probably won't be in my lifetime. No one is suggesting that shooting deaths can be legislatively eliminated - but they can be greatly reduced. I certainly feel safer when I'm on the highway, knowing that there are enforceable laws and penalties that help protect me from unauthorized and unsafe drivers. Otherwise, the highways would just be an unregulated nightmare.

It was a simple question. The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.


As for your question.........few, if any.

There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject. Would you rather have our highways unregulated?

Apples and oranges.
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you. Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.

 

[Lakhota]

It was a simple question. The problem is that the answer is not what you want to hear.


As for your question.........few, if any.

There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject. Would you rather have our highways unregulated?

Apples and oranges.
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you. Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

 

[Meister]

There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject. Would you rather have our highways unregulated?

Apples and oranges.
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you. Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

I'll just say....."background checks". Now you connect the dots.

 

[Lakhota]

Apples and oranges.
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you. Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

I'll just say....."background checks". Now you connect the dots.

In other words, you have no answer. "Background checks"? It would only take ONE universal background check to purchase a gun - whereas, highway and vehicle regulations are ONGOING.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no answer that anyone could give you that would open your closed mind on this subject. Would you rather have our highways unregulated?

Apples and oranges.
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you. Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.

You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.

But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?

Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?

Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?


What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly. Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.

And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.

Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads. If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property. I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.

I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads. I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.



So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties? And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?

 

[Lakhota]

Apples and oranges.
Still no answer to the question that was presented to you. Like I said, smarter liberals didn't answer it either.

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.

You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.

But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?

Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?

Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?


What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly. Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.

And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.

Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads. If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property. I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.

I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads. I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.



So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties? And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?

Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts. NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.

BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?" Holy shit...

 

[WinterBorn]

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

Ok, why don't we take your comparison to the logical conclusion.

You say you "feel safer" because of the regulations.

But can you honestly say that you believe that someone without a license cannot buy a car and drive on the highways?

Can you honestly say that you believe that all drivers on the road at any given time are sober and not influenced by drugs?

Can you honestly say that, if someone wanted to run into you with a car, the regulations actually make any real difference?


What is really happening on our highways is that most drivers conform to the laws willingly. Just as most gun owners currently follow the laws willingly.

And given that these laws rely, almost entirely, on the law abiding citizen following them willingly, creating new laws has little effect on your actual safety.

Plus, the vehicle laws only apply when the vehicle will be operated on public roads. If I have had my license revoked, I can still own a car and operate it on private property. I can own a car that is unregistered and unlicensed, as long as I transport it to and from the private properties without using it on public roads.

I can own a car that violates all the safety laws, as long as I do not drive it on public roads. I can transport it via a trailer on the public roads.



So why not allow gun owners to only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties? And as long as they transport them in a safe manner, allow them to be taken from private property to private property?

Apparently you didn't read one of my previous posts. NO ONE is saying that universal background checks will totally eliminate gun shootings - any more than highway and vehicle regulations totally eliminate all violations - BUT THEY SURE AS HELL REDUCE VIOLATIONS AND IMPROVE SAFETY.

BTW, are you suggesting that felons and assorted mental nuts be allowed to legally purchase guns and "only be regulated when they are using or carrying their guns on public properties?" Holy shit...

Felons and assorted mental nuts are already prohibited from owning firearms. I am not suggesting that this law be changed.

Do you suggest that having more gun laws will actually stop someone from obtaining a firearm?

 

[Meister]

Apples and oranges? How so? Would you feel safer if our highways and vehicles were unregulated?

I'll just say....."background checks". Now you connect the dots.

In other words, you have no answer. "Background checks"? It would only take ONE universal background check to purchase a gun - whereas, highway and vehicle regulations are ONGOING.

You didn't connect the dots.

What background checks were made on the I-5 freeway?
What background checks were made with a Pontiac?


Still, background checks wouldn't have stopped the mass shootings as the guns were stolen from friends or family.

 

[WinterBorn]

More background checks would not do nearly as much as forcing the mental health professionals to report their crazy patients to the NICS database.


But I'm still not sure what background checks have to do with the hysterical post about "new" fragmenting bullets causing instant death in all shootings, as if the previous generations of fragmenting bullets did not.

 

[earlycuyler]

Riiiiiight.

Let's go snipe hunting...you can hold the bag and the flashlight, and we'll flush 'em right to ya.

Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt. I remember my first one. As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt. Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.

My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.

My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.

My first snipe hunt was in Cleveland Texas. Weapons were a paper sack (to contain the snipers) and the bait was a hot dog. You had to tap the paper sack with the hot dog and between the smell of the dog and the sound you lured in the snipes. My Dad felt so bad over how easely I fell for that that he took me to Tennessee to hunk wood cocktail the following year. The gun was my grandfather's Browning sweet 16 and while the action was slow, when it happened it was pretty darn fun. It you want some challenging wing shooting I highly recommend wood cock. They will make you cuss more then dove. I also suggest you budget for lots of ammo. You will burn it up.

 

[WinterBorn]

Aw, yes, the old snipe hunt. I remember my first one. As you know, snipe really exist, but are notoriously hard to hunt. Hence, reportedly the origin of the word sniper.

My first snipe hunt at 15 years old I shot 24 out of 25. Never forget that day.

My second was an arranged hunt for my nephews who I sent into the bush of the Texas hill country banging rocks together and saying "whodee who,whodee who" Needless to say they didnt nab shit.....Oh yeah,they were from Minnesota.

My first snipe hunt was in Cleveland Texas. Weapons were a paper sack (to contain the snipers) and the bait was a hot dog. You had to tap the paper sack with the hot dog and between the smell of the dog and the sound you lured in the snipes. My Dad felt so bad over how easely I fell for that that he took me to Tennessee to hunk wood cocktail the following year. The gun was my grandfather's Browning sweet 16 and while the action was slow, when it happened it was pretty darn fun. It you want some challenging wing shooting I highly recommend wood cock. They will make you cuss more then dove. I also suggest you budget for lots of ammo. You will burn it up.

My first snipe hunt was great fun!! It was planned during the week and it was scheduled for a friday night. I was about 12 years old. My older brother heard me talking about it and decided to have some fun. He explained the reality of this kind of snipe hunting and came up with a great plan. The guys taking me hunting drove me out to the pre-planned location, and dropped me off. My brother was waiting on a dirt road just a little ways thru the woods. I walked there and we drove home. It was early the next morning that my "friends" finally called my house, panicked, because they had spent the entire night searching for me and couldn't find me.

We still laugh about it, and it has been over 40 years since we cured those guys of such games.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

 

[Warrior102]

Hopefully they will make this round in a .380
Although I own many weapons, I prefer to carry the .380 due to the small size. One thing that bothers me is the round. One round, unless placed squarely between the eyes or behind the ear, will unfortunately not kill the bad guy. I would undoubtedly have to empty the entire clip into him - and with ammo prices these days - this is a costly take-down.
Better to have one round that's a guaranteed kill.
Thanks for the informative OP, nutsack. I'll look into it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ducks have never been known to shoot back.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, I'll move on from the wingnut circular logic.

Here is something else that boggles my mind: Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines - when even duck hunters are limited in magazine capacity. Aren't people more important than ducks?

I only have high capacity magazines for my Ruger .22 rifle. I like them for the convenience.

But since you disagree with high capacity magazines, tell us how many rounds will assure safety in all defensive situation?

Also, the reason for limitations for duck hunters is not out of an attempt to save the individual ducks. It is to assure that the population survives. I don't think the human race is in any danger of extinction.

Also, if a 10 round magazine is ok, but a 15 round magazine is not, aren't you saying that it's ok to kill 10 people, but it's a moral outrage to kill 15?

 

[WinterBorn]

Hopefully they will make this round in a .380
Although I own many weapons, I prefer to carry the .380 due to the small size. One thing that bothers me is the round. One round, unless placed squarely between the eyes or behind the ear, will unfortunately not kill the bad guy. I would undoubtedly have to empty the entire clip into him - and with ammo prices these days - this is a costly take-down.
Better to have one round that's a guaranteed kill.
Thanks for the informative OP, nutsack. I'll look into it.

This is why I prefer my .45 ACP. The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.

 

[Warrior102]

This is why I prefer my .45 ACP. The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.

Agree - nothing stops/maims like a .45 ACP -I own one as well. Just prefer the .380, especially when out on the motorcycle. Very nice concealed wep.

 

[Warrior102]

Why would any legal and sane civilian gun owner want such massive high-capacity magazines -

What business is it of yours?
Why would a President take six $5.8 million (each) vacations to Hawaii on taxpayers expense? Did you question that??
Of course not.
You're a fucking stooge.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is why I prefer my .45 ACP. The gun is a larger, but still fairly slim, and the round packs a wallop.

Agree - nothing stops/maims like a .45 ACP -I own one as well. Just prefer the .380, especially when out on the motorcycle. Very nice concealed wep.

You have a good point. A small .380 is an excellent concealed weapon. In the past it was said to be underpowered, but the newer ammunition has brought it up considerably.