U.S. House kills gun proposal

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun prop

How so?

How so what?

This would, naturally, render it useless for suburban owners. Agree?

No.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Mockery"? I'm serious! I would love the chance to rid you of your ignorance regarding firearms...

But you wouldn't do it by sniping people?

Well, I sure as hell am not going to use a slingshot!

Again, demonstrating "need" is not a requirement...

That may be so. But it doesn't answer the question.

 

[CFLarsen]

How so what?

How do you determine that someone entered your sizeable property it with intent to give you harm?

No.

Then, we are back to the question:

Who could any person, in this case, a suburban home owner, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance? Use the gun for sniping, that is.

 

[merphie]

The US is the worlds largest arms exporter.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030210-071004-9188r

Maybe guerillas tend to use AK-47 and RPGs and stuff because they're cheap and rugged. At least, that's what our prejudices tend to make us believe: when we imagine a guerrilla fighter, we imagine a guy with a beard holding an AK47. I don't really know if this is generally true, and I'm willing to bet that it changes from country to country. Also, if I'm not mistaken, AK-47s are now produced in all kinds of places by all kinds of people, right?

Yes, they make them in China, Yugoslavia, Russia, Romania. (That's all I can think of.)

Most of these "terrorist" use the AK-47 because it's cheap and more rugged than the AR-15 (M-16). They are not as accurate. The AK-47 in the USA cost $240. The AR-15 cost $1200.

The US is the largest importer. As far as I know there is no gun like the AK-47 manufacturered here. They are all imported. However I believe the government is responsible for most of the weapon exports.

 

[CFLarsen]

A snipe hunt is not shooting people. A snipe hunt is going out and hunting snipes.

Thank you for correcting my English which stinks.

It doesn't address my question, though.

 

[Kodiak]

Just so we are all on the same page:

Sniping
to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage
(Webster)

Who could any person, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance? Use the gun for sniping, that is.

Anyone?

Get bent, Claus.

I brought up sniping, so you don't get to set the parameters.

Snipe (-ping)
to fire shots from hiding, usually at long range (Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 8th edition)

Now feel free to rant about your inane and irrelevant question. (Have you ever seen 'Red Dawn', Claus?...)

 

[Grammatron]

How do you determine that someone entered your sizeable property it with intent to give you harm?

Many way to do it(threats, prior actions and activity), but we are moving away from the topic at hand

Then, we are back to the question:

Who could any person, in this case, a suburban home owner, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance? Use the gun for sniping, that is.

I've told you already that it's not the weapons only purpose and answered your hypothetical question. What's so confusing here?

 

[Kodiak]

But you wouldn't do it by sniping people?

That may be so. But it doesn't answer the question.

Stick your stupid question.

You're being an idiot Claus...

 

[merphie]

Stick your stupid question.

You're being an idiot Claus...

You should know better. Getting a debate out of him is impossible.

His process is the "Larsen method". Contradict and insult.

 

[CFLarsen]

Many way to do it(threats, prior actions and activity), but we are moving away from the topic at hand

No, we are actually staying on topic. But your example is a bit unusual for most people (since they don't have huge tracts of lands and have lots of enemies).

I've told you already that it's not the weapons only purpose and answered your hypothetical question. What's so confusing here?

Ahhhhh.............

So, there are many uses to this type of gun, sniping (which I assume is generally unacceptable for civilian use) being just one of them. A bad one, as it is. Highly criminal, as Malvo and Muhammed can testify to. But, there are some other uses, perceived as good ones.

When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you to think it should be banned?

It's not just this specific type of gun. It could also be heroin: Heroin gives people a tremendous high, but is also very bad for you. Same with crack. Pedophilia? Well, it must be nice for the perps, although not so nice for the children. Cannibalism? Hannibal Lecter enjoyed the liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti, but it wasn't a pleasant experience for his victims.

See where I am going?

 

[CFLarsen]

Stick your stupid question.

You're being an idiot Claus...

You pointed to sniping as an accepted use for civilians (and on civilians), not I.

 

[Grammatron]

No, we are actually staying on topic. But your example is a bit unusual for most people (since they don't have huge tracts of lands and have lots of enemies).

So? Most people won't own this gun either.

Ahhhhh.............

So, there are many uses to this type of gun, sniping (which I assume is generally unacceptable for civilian use) being just one of them. A bad one, as it is. Highly criminal, as Malvo and Muhammed can testify to. But, there are some other uses, perceived as good ones.

You can snipe at paper targets for recreation.

When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you to think it should be banned?

When it's wide-spread enough.

It's not just this specific type of gun. It could also be heroin: Heroin gives people a tremendous high, but is also very bad for you. Same with crack. Pedophilia? Well, it must be nice for the perps, although not so nice for the children. Cannibalism? Hannibal Lecter enjoyed the liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti, but it wasn't a pleasant experience for his victims.

See where I am going?

Ok a gun is the same as Heroin, Pedophilia and Cannibalism, I see where you going though. I believe it's called a strawman argument.

 

[CFLarsen]

So? Most people won't own this gun either.

That's not the issue. The issue is, they can.

You can snipe at paper targets for recreation.

No, you can target shoot at paper targets for recreation. You snipe when you kill people from a distance.

When it's wide-spread enough.

Be specific.

Ok a gun is the same as Heroin, Pedophilia and Cannibalism, I see where you going though. I believe it's called a strawman argument.

Not at all. I am comparing this type of gun to the said examples. All have benefits and disadvantages.

 

[Otther]

Am I the only one that doesn't think sniping necessarily means killing?

 

[merphie]

Am I the only one that doesn't think sniping necessarily means killing?

This is a classic Larsen argument. Don't take him seriously.

 

[Grammatron]

That's not the issue. The issue is, they can.

Not to me.

No, you can target shoot at paper targets for recreation. You snipe when you kill people from a distance.

That's not how I understand it, perhaps you need to learn more about common usage of words in English.

Be specific.

89%

Not at all. I am comparing this type of gun to the said examples. All have benefits and disadvantages.

What are adventages of Pedophilia and Cannibalism, be specific.

 

[Ed]

How do you determine that someone entered your sizeable property it with intent to give you harm?

That's the easy part:

The one Grammatron has is like this but has his name on the sides in big letters.

Unfortunately Hellfire Missles are restricted to those that hold a Destructive Devices permit, hence the need for a .50 long range scary to liberals sniper rifle. Unless, of course, you have said permit.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Ruger makes a dandy .44 mag. rifle.

Yep, I have one, Ruger .44 Magnum carbine. W/ hollow points, it makes an impressive splash when shooting into water. It's jammed now, I have to get it fixed.

BTW, I've only done that in drainage ditches in farm fields, so there was little chance of the slug skipping away.

 

[Beerina]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Where, in the 2nd Amendment, does it say anything about sniping?

It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a restriction on powers of the government, not the people.

More accurately, it grants powers to the government. The Bill of Rights is technically a redundancy, for safety, against encroachment by the government on the people.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. House kills gun proposal

Who could you, as a civillian, legally kill at a distance?

Joe Deer, Fred Moose, and Quentin Elk.