CNN: "Is Gun Control The Answer?" Here We Go Again.

reply to post by SeesFar


Ever seen a bear run when it is pissed? For such a big and clumsy looking animal, they are incredibly fast. Surprised the hell out of me the first time I see a bear run. In theory you could take a bear with a 22 if you could hit it in the eyeball a few times. I prefer a gun with some real stopping power myself.

Also another thing to think about, us hunters are generally humane when it comes to killing. Sure I could kill something with a small caliber by shooting it a lot. That's not very humane though.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i don’t think anyone needs a gun bigger than necessary to protect themselves from a bear. get caught w anything bigger like an ar-15 like the one the Colorado shooter used = automatic jail time. anyone caught w a gun w out proper gun license = automatic jail time. people should also have yearly mental health screenings if they want to own guns.

OMG - you really think an AR-15 is a "big gun".

Listen I don't opine on nuclear physics because I know jack and #e about it. Perhaps you should follow this line of caution?

Oh, and will the same government who listed "people who are veterans, value liberty and fear the government be the ones who set the standards for who is "mentally healthy".

Wow! All I can think of is Wow!

If you want to live somewhere it is more difficult to get a gun and a carry permit please move to Chicago and or NYC. I think they have really low gun crime rates to let you revel in how well that all works out.

However, since I am fine with the residents of NYC and Chicago making the laws they like through the elected officials they like how bout they extend the same courtesy and let us poor uneducated rednecks in the flyover decide what we like and what works for us.

That is what America is about.

America is about each State and locality deciding for themselves the laws they want to live by. It is not for the large urban, liberal fringe to dictate to the rest of the country how we should live.

Strict gun regulation doesn't work in NYC and or Chicago - it won't work out here. If they want that crap so they can feel good - fine. Leave the rest of us alone.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

I could take out just as many unarmed people if not more with my .22......
Caliber is not really an issue.

if u can wound and kill that many people in 2 minutes w that gun it should be illegal. the only way i think you have a reason to have that kind of gun is if we are being invaded. in that case you should have a extra special permit proving that you are properly trained and not crazy.

reply to post by conspiracy nut



Ok, y'all hear that? We need to give up our .22's until we are invaded folks. Wow......

It's .223

Go to a page that shows rifle bullets and compare a .223 to a .22 and to a large caliber such as .308 or 30-06



3. 22LR
8. .223
14. .308
15. 30-06

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Darkrunner

You assume that the US military would fire on it's own people, in order to disarm them. When I was in the Marines (1994-1999) we were given a survey to fill out. Ten questions regarding the willingness of us to fire on American citizens, should the need arise. No names required, just fill it out and drop it in a box. We talked amongst ourselves afterwards about it, why we would be given a survey like this, and no we would not fire on American citizens, for any reason.

Are you 100% sure about that?

I was also in the U.S. military, both the Marines and the Navy as an aircrewman (AW) and I am not so sure.

It is easy for every soldier/Sailor/Marine to say they would not fire upon civilians when there is no pressure, but when the chain of command tells you that you will be dishonorably discharged, that they will make sure you never get a government, or civilian job, and never get any government assistance, not even for your family, that you would be imprisoned for a very long time, and that you would be simply replaced with another soldier/Sailor/Marine that would follow orders to open fire, are you sure every soldier/Sailor/Marine will not open fire when ordered to do so?...

I would say probably at least about 40% - 70% of military personnel would open fire when ordered to do so under pressure.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i think u guys are missing my point, i think its ok to have a gun big enough to take down a bear if u live in bear country. i dont think its ok to have a gun capable of killing and wounding 71 people in the span of 2 minutes. i dont think its ok for an individual to have enough arms to take on a small army.

Actually, I believe it is you misunderstanding the point. The point your posts virtually scream is that you believe you have a right to decide who may or may not ("should" or "should not") have something.

Do you believe that I or anyone else on this site or in this Country has the right to tell you what you "should" have? THAT'S the point I'm trying to make. Or one of them, anyway. 1) The Second Amendment IS what keeps us from tyranny; 2) No one citizen has the right to tell another citizen what they may/may not have; 3) "Gun" does not equal "crime" or "radical" or "evil" or any other scary/bad word; 4) A gun is an inanimate object, just as a knife or crowbar or a ball bat or pencil. None of those objects go racing off, willynilly, on their own to commit mayhem. PEOPLE commit mayhem. 5) You cannot legislate sanity, morals or responsibility no matter how strong your OPINION of the matter may be.

I don't know much about guns, but I can tell you right now that I've never seen anyone load, shoot, eject, reload and repeat as quickly as my grandfather could with his old .22 squirrel hunting gun. It held one bullet at a time. He and the other old geezers would have friendly competitions down in the bottoms and, please believe me when I say, it was IMPRESSIVE! Though that memory goes back some 45 years, I truly believe my old Grampa could have made that many shots in 2 full minutes - his hands were a blur and his competition was stiff! They were ALL that good - a bunch of old men would pick out a 4" or so sapling and by the time they finished, that tree was down AND in pieces. Very exciting to watch as a child ~ the noise was better than 4th of July.

Ever watched a good competitive shooting competition? Those are some very talented people who know what they are doing and I believe some of them could do it blindfolded and in their sleep. Those rifles (right word?) are absolute extensions of themselves.

I don't meant this disrespectfully, but I don't think you have even as good an understanding of guns as I do and my understanding is *very* limited.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be trying to prove a point for which you lack the education to make solid and, if you'll excuse the poor phrasing (no pun intended), you're shooting blanks.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Ever seen a bear run when it is pissed? For such a big and clumsy looking animal, they are incredibly fast. Surprised the hell out of me the first time I see a bear run. In theory you could take a bear with a 22 if you could hit it in the eyeball a few times. I prefer a gun with some real stopping power myself.

Also another thing to think about, us hunters are generally humane when it comes to killing. Sure I could kill something with a small caliber by shooting it a lot. That's not very humane though.

edit on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:19:27 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Nope and I don't wanna, either. *LOL* I'm down in east Texas and I've seen some ENORMOUS feral hogs move faster than a car and I'm not joking. I've watched enough nature shows to know that bear are much more agile than hogs, so I have made a decision to just avoid all places that might harbor bears. And do my best to avoid feral hogs, too.

For such a big head, they appear to have quite small eyes, so hitting one multiple times in one eye would seem quite a feat to pull off.

My Uncle up in Canada can tell some hair-raising stories, though. He was a tracker and guide for bear hunters for a long time, which is the main reason I know what little I do know about them. One of his friends got eat to death. Tragic.

Yeah, after a little education on here, I'm thinking an elephant or rhinoceros gun would be more suitable.

And, no, multiple shots would not be very humane ~ I was thinking more of an emergency type situation when I posted that. My Grampa was a very humane hunter. It is our way to be respectful to the things we take for food.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i think u guys are missing my point, i think its ok to have a gun big enough to take down a bear if u live in bear country. i dont think its ok to have a gun capable of killing and wounding 71 people in the span of 2 minutes. i dont think its ok for an individual to have enough arms to take on a small army.

Strange that a fan of the "Matrix" movies would claim so, but then again the humans that Neo and his friends kill with guns are supposedly "controlled by machines". It is still strange a fan of the Matrix would claim so when they use several firearms in the movies including when they used a GATLING GUN, nonetheless a GAU-17/A, a weapon that could kill at least 100-600 times as many people in the time it took the shooter to kill 12 people, I do find it wierd that you would claim "big guns are not needed"... A gatling gun such as a GAU-17/A can shoot 6,000 rounds per minute, and that's a medium size firearm...

First of all, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. This means it fires only one round per finger pull on the trigger. This weapon is not "BIG" with today's standards on firearms...

Second of all, in an enclosed environment, such as a theater, you can harm many people with a few bullets simply because they are so close together. One bullet could hit one person, go through that person, and hit another, and hit yet another, which I am almost sure is part of what happened in this incident.

Also, I have to wonder how many people were harmed simply because everyone was in a panic mode and were shoving, hitting, and even running over each other in order to escape the shooter.

Third of all, with today's technology you can reload a revolver, and even two with enough practice, almost at the same time that you can reload an AR-15, so you can hit almost as many people with a revolver or two, as with an AR-15 in an enclosed environment.

Not to mention that the killer had several weapons, so if he just bought several handguns without the need of reloading, he would have done the same damage or even more since handguns are easier to control, and less cumbersome to shoot with in an enclosed environment than an AR-15 and a shotgun...

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

I could take out just as many unarmed people if not more with my .22......
Caliber is not really an issue.

if u can wound and kill that many people in 2 minutes w that gun it should be illegal. the only way i think you have a reason to have that kind of gun is if we are being invaded. in that case you should have a extra special permit proving that you are properly trained and not crazy.

Now I'm just bumfuzzled. You're conducting an argument about guns and who "should" or "should not" have them and you don't even know what a .22 is? Really?! Even I, in my extreme ignorance of the subject, know what a .22 is!

Lord daisy, my Grampa let me shoot with his .22 when I was a 6 year old girl. I don't think I knew a boy over the age of 7 that didn't have his own .22; they went hunting alone by the age of 10 and had their own deer rifle by the time they were 12. And they were taught responsible gun skills by their Daddies and Grampas. Not a one of them ever shot themselves or anyone else.

I may well be wrong, but I now envision you as someone who has never set foot outside a big city; wouldn't know the south end of a bull from the north end of a mare and you likely think everyone between New York City and southern California (except Chicago and Detroit) is an uneducated bumpkin. You've never caught a fish, much less scaled, gutted and filleted one; you'd jump if you saw an egg pop out of a chicken IF you could bring yourself to get that close to a chicken. Any food you've ever put in your mouth has come from a grocery store in neat packages and cans and you'd mess yourself if a snake skimmed over the tip of your foot. Bless your heart.

You don't even know what a little ol' snake charmer is, yet you think you know enough about the subject of guns to not only opine on it but to set limitations on others? Do wonders ever cease?

Please stop now. I just feel so SAD for you.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Ok, y'all hear that? We need to give up our .22's until we are invaded folks. Wow......

Kinda hard to take in without makin' your head hurt, isn't it?

Bless his heart. I really do feel sorry for him ... or could be a her ... my apologies if I've mistaken the gender.

All 7 year old boys in the South report in to hand over your squirrel plinkers. I don't want to laugh, but it's just damned impossible not to.

Originally posted by roadgravel
It's .223

Go to a page that shows rifle bullets and compare a .223 to a .22 and to a large caliber such as .308 or 30-06

3. 22LR
8. .223
14. .308
15. 30-06

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 7/22/2012 by roadgravel because: add photo

edit on 7/22/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

Thank you! Yes, I do see the difference (easily). I want to say my Grampa hunted deer with a "30 aught 6" (that's how I recall him saying it), though I could be wrong. It's been a long time. Looking at the photo, though, the .22 is not very much smaller than the .223, is it?

Appreciate you!

An individual with mental issues who wants to kill other's doesnt need a gun to get the job done. If they dont have a gun, they will find another way.

Consider this! If Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman would have had a gun, they most likely would be alive today! They could have protected themselves from the evil mind that stabbed them to death.

It's not the guns that need to be taken off the streets folks. It's fricken mental cases that do!

Image how many may have been killed if it were not for this 71 year old dude who had a gun.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

reply to post by SeesFar


Not to mention that by today's gun-grabber standards anyone who thinks they need to have their firearms to keep their freedom would be considered crazy by gun-grabbers...

Since gun-grabbers are the ones wanting to implement gun control they would be the ones to decide who is "crazy" or not, which by their standards at least 50 million Americans, and possibly much more are crazy...

reply to post by SeesFar


It's a bit smaller but the major difference is the size of the cartridge and power load. In my state, large game animals like deer cannot be hunted with a .22.

Originally posted by Kituwa
Image how many may have been killed if it were not for this 71 year old dude who had a gun.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Good video. You can see that even this old man had the mentality to shoot at the criminals only when he had a clear shot that would not injure innocent people...

I find it ironic how gun-grabbers in here claim that if everyone had a firearm in that theater they would all be shooting at each other, when that's simply not so.

People who own firearms are not just "craving to shoot at anyone whenever they have a chance", by the time people draw their weapons they would know who the shooter is, instead of just blindly shooting at everyone they see with a gun.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by SeesFar

 

It's a bit smaller but the major difference is the size of the cartridge and power load. In my state, large game animals like deer cannot be hunted with a .22.

Except an expert who is EXTREMELY lucky I doubt anyone could bring down a deer with a .22. Most of the time the deer would be only wounded and would run away which would cause the hunter to hunt the deer for several miles, IF he/she can find the deer's trail.

a poster mentioned that he could kill and wound as many people as the colorado shooter did with his .22 that is the reason i brought it up. something should be done, way too may idiots and criminals out there shooting people. i dont wish the government to take away any of you law abiding gun supporters guns away. its the idiots and criminals that need their guns taken away. i would start w stricter gun laws and even drug tests and mental evaluations for those that want to lawfully pack heat. if you are not a drug using, gang banger, criminal and or idiot and want guns to protect yourself then pass all the tests. cant pass the tests and get caught with a gun = automatic jail time.

and to the poster that mentioned my avatar, i am not a huge matrix fan, the avatar for me is used as a metaphor to explain the red state blue state political scam going on in our government.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i would start w stricter gun laws and even drug tests and mental evaluations for those that want to lawfully pack heat. if you are not a drug using, gang banger, criminal and or idiot and want guns to protect yourself then pass all the tests. cant pass the tests and get caught with a gun = automatic jail time.

Even if we had a ridiculous law like mental evaluations in place i don't think it would have stopped what happened in colorado. As sick as this guy was he seemed very smart and could have BS'd his way through it and got a gun anyways. Nothing you can do to stop someone who is determined to do what these people do.