Personal Firearms Ownership.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I meant that you need an open mind, like a child.

I was trying to be helpful.

[quade 3]

Quote

I meant that you need an open mind, like a child.
I was trying to be helpful.

Being helpful would be to simply state the reason and be done with it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I meant that you need an open mind, like a child.
I was trying to be helpful.

Being helpful would be to simply state the reason and be done with it.

Swiiiiiiing and a miss.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Thanks for the entertainment Paul.

You have several posters laughing very hard at home.

[quade 3]

Quote

Thanks for the entertainment Paul.

You have several posters laughing very hard at home.

Yes. I'm sure you're right. I'm certain posters around the world are riveted to this thread watching to see your every ever move. They hold you in such high regard and me in such contempt it's simply impossible for them to tear themselves away for a moment. They probably have their computers set up to twitter them every time one of us posts so they can see how you've once again won the war of wits.

Get the fuck over yourself. You're simply not that important.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[warpedskydiver 0]

PAUL!!! calm the fuck down and realize it is a simple WORD game.

People are not laughing AT you, they are laughing about personal knowledge about ME.

It is not all about YOU.

Sheesh, I am a nobody.


You are a mighty greenie

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Have you actually read the link Quade provides?

Your turn - tell us how that is applicable here. It's not.

Yes, I read it. I also offered a counterexample of how more led is considered a good thing outside the military too.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, I read it. I also offered a counterexample of how more led is considered a good thing outside the military too.

No, you just noted that cops fire a lot of bullets when they think (incorrectly) that a suspect is armed. They're not leaving it up to chance.

Not the same as one guy, who perhaps has no fear of dying, going after a group of people he knows to be unarmed.

The real conclusion from SALVO, which both of you seem to miss, is the lighter rounds are just as effective as heavy rounds, so better to outfit the soldiers with .223 rounds that they can carry more of.

It still has no bearing on magazine capacity, though I think your argument lends more credence to the idea that it's unconscionable to deprive citizens of regular capacity magazines. If cops and crooks can have them, why can't we? Citizens are least likely to be carrying more than one mag.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No, you just noted that cops fire a lot of bullets when they think (incorrectly) that a suspect is armed. They're not leaving it up to chance.

You should really read an entire post before you reply to it. That's not the point I made.

Quote

Not the same as one guy, who perhaps has no fear of dying, going after a group of people he knows to be unarmed.

Nor is that the only possible scenario outside of the military, as T.A. stated the scenario to be.

Quote

The real conclusion from SALVO, which both of you seem to miss, is the lighter rounds are just as effective as heavy rounds, so better to outfit the soldiers with .223 rounds that they can carry more of.

Did you read the article? It certainly doesn't say what you claim it says. Project SALVO was established to try to find a way to send more rounds down range in the same amount of time. It did not compare 5.56 mm rounds to 7.62 mm rounds. It tested multi-bullet/flechette cartridges and multi-barreled guns.

A new study, Project SALVO, was set up to try to find a weapon design suited to real-world combat. Running between 1953 and 1957 in two phases, SALVO eventually suggested that a weapon firing four rounds into a 20 in (508 mm) area would double the hit probability of existing semi-automatic weapons.
In the second phase, SALVO II, several experimental weapons concepts were tested. Irwin Barr of AAI Corporation introduced a series of flechette weapons, starting with a shotgun shell containing 32 darts and ending with single-round flechette "rifles". Winchester and Springfield offered multi-barrel weapons, while ORO's own design used two .22, .25 or .27 caliber bullets loaded into a single .308 Winchester or .30-06 cartridge.

It was known before Project SALVO that lighter rounds would be necessary if fully automatic weapons were to be issued to all infantrymen. There was no need for a four year study to figure that out.

Quote

It still has no bearing on magazine capacity, though I think your argument lends more credence to the idea that it's unconscionable to deprive citizens of regular capacity magazines. If cops and crooks can have them, why can't we?

I didn't comment either way with respect to whether regulating magazine capacity is a good idea. However, Quade made a valid point with respect to lower magazine capacities decreasing a gun's overall rate of fire compared to higher magazine capacities, all else being equal.

Quote

Citizens are least likely to be carrying more than one mag.

Have you ever heard the expression Two is one, and one is none? If a citizen feels the need to carry a gun, but lacks the training/intelligence/foresight to carry a spare magazine (and/or spare gun), that person is setting him/herself up for failure. Higher capacity magazines won't fix stupid.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jumperboy357 0]

Personally I wouldn't care if I was only able to own a single shot firearm. I only use firearms for hunting/shooting sports and enjoy the heritage my family shares together. I find it so interesting when the topic of firearms comes up....especially lately! I hear all the anti's out there condemning the ownership of firearms. Last year alone almost 16,000 americans lost their lives in alcohol related automobile accidents. Billions of dollars are spent every year on smoking related diseases. Why don't we just go after alcohol and tobacco companies right now? I work in health care and rarely have I seen gunshot wounds, but everyday I have patients or families whose lives have been ruined due to alcohol or tobacco. I recently had a patient that was raped by a man who drank himself out of control. Perhaps rape victims should start suing alcohol producers. Just some food for thought.

[Rookie120 0]

But, But, it's for the children!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[skybill 19]

Quote

Does anyone here truly want to state why they believe I should not be able to own firearms?.

I really want to have an open and honest dialog with someone willing to actually address what is being asked and why they are against it.

Feel free to opine if you can stay civil and actually have something pertinent to say.

Hi Warpy,
Why do you ask??? As far as "other people" are concerned, from the end of the spectrum where reside the "Latte' Lipping Liberals" they don't want you or anyone else for that matter to own, possess or even contemplate possession of "firearms!!" Why? Because they are scared sheep!! On the other end of the spectrum are all the "Gun people." who could probably care less if you want or want not to wrap your warpped paws around a Walther or a Weatherby!! The decision to own, operate, possess, like, dream about, fantasize about and or even think about GUNS is yours and yours alone.

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Personally I wouldn't care if I was only able to own a single shot firearm. I only use firearms for hunting/shooting sports and enjoy the heritage my family shares together.

Do you want to preserve the right of other gun owners to choose differently from yourself?

[jumperboy357 0]

Hey John, I do want to preserve the rights of others that enjoy their right to bear arms. That's why I'm a proud NRA member. The problem with discussions like this is people are to far on the left or right. There aren't really responsible gun owners out there that voice their beliefs enough. It seems the only ones we hear from are the gun toting, right winging extremists that give us responsible gun owners/sportsman a bad name. It's just more cannon fodder for the anti's. You and I both know that if they outlaw firearms the bad guys will still have them.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Hey John, I do want to preserve the rights of others that enjoy their right to bear arms. That's why I'm a proud NRA member. The problem with discussions like this is people are to far on the left or right. There aren't really responsible gun owners out there that voice their beliefs enough. It seems the only ones we hear from are the gun toting, right winging extremists that give us responsible gun owners/sportsman a bad name. It's just more cannon fodder for the anti's. You and I both know that if they outlaw firearms the bad guys will still have them.

Tell me what kind of gun toting extremists you speak of, I can introduce you to a lady who is in her 90's that carries a 1911 in .45ACP.

It is just like the one she carried in WWII

[billvon 2,402]

>Tell me what kind of gun toting extremists you speak of . . .

Richard Poplowski would be a good example.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>Tell me what kind of gun toting extremists you speak of . . .

Richard Poplowski would be a good example.

Incorrect, he would be a CRIMINAL, now would you like to infer anyone carrying a gun or owning one is also?

[billvon 2,402]

> he would be a CRIMINAL . . .

Yes. He would be a criminal. He is also a gun toting, right winging extremist who gives responsible gun owners/sportsman a bad name.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Yes. He would be a criminal. He is also a gun toting, right winging extremist who gives responsible gun owners/sportsman a bad name.

Do drunk drivers give good drivers a bad name?

Should you, as a good driver, feel shame because of the actions of irresponsible drunk drivers?

[billvon 2,402]

>Do drunk drivers give good drivers a bad name?

Yes, to some degree. That's why even good drivers are pulled over at sobriety checkpoints. The drunks result in suspicion being cast on all drivers.

>Should you, as a good driver, feel shame because of the actions of
>irresponsible drunk drivers?

Shame? I don't think so, unless you have driven drunk yourself. Should you do what you can to prevent drunks from killing people? Yes. Because:

1) it's the right thing to do.
2) the laws passed to try to keep drunks from killing people might affect you, even if you are a good driver who never drives drunk.
3) you share the same roads they do.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

> he would be a CRIMINAL . . .

Yes. He would be a criminal. He is also a gun toting, right winging extremist who gives responsible gun owners/sportsman a bad name.

Bill, in your view, which is the issue? The fact that he's a criminal, or the fact that he's a gun toting right winging (does that mean he's shooting at right wings?) extremist?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,402]

>Bill, in your view, which is the issue?

?? I was replying to an earlier post in which Jumperboy said:

"It seems the only ones we hear from are the gun toting, right winging extremists that give us responsible gun owners/sportsman a bad name."

Warped then asked for an example of an extremist that gave responsible gun owners a bad name. I gave him one. No big issue.

[quade 3]

I can't speak for billvon, but as I've stated elsewhere, this guy was mentally unstable and violent. He shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

There are some that would say he's not entitled to gun ownership only AFTER he's killed cops. Really? How about we tighten that up just a little bit?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 25]

I'm going to mix generalities and specifics in bad form, here, I'm afraid.

The problem I see with too much prior restraint, is that I am pretty much a gun owning extremist. I'm realistic enough to recognize that my views are way out on the fringes of modern US politics. I own firearms. I am not a criminal, and aside from a strange urge to fling myself from highrises I'm fairly sane.

My question is this: what system could we concoct that would have disarmed this particular criminal before his little rampage, but would not result in armed men confiscating my property?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[quade 3]

Quote

I'm going to mix generalities and specifics in bad form, here, I'm afraid.

The problem I see with too much prior restraint, is that I am pretty much a gun owning extremist. I'm realistic enough to recognize that my views are way out on the fringes of modern US politics. I own firearms. I am not a criminal, and aside from a strange urge to fling myself from highrises I'm fairly sane.

That last bit is huge. It's what separates you from him. Well, that and hopefully all the neo-nazi crap the guy was into.

Quote

My question is this: what system could we concoct that would have disarmed this particular criminal before his little rampage, but would not result in armed men confiscating my property?

Oh, I completely understand where you're going with this. You're saying that a "shoot out" was inevitable the moment a court order would have come down. However the major difference is that he would have at least been given the opportunity to peacefully surrender the weapons first and failing that could have been arrested for non-compliance. Of course, when the arrest warrant was going to be served the SWAT team would still be needed, but at least they'd be there from the very start and it could have happened happened on their terms . . . say . . . with a "cop knock" at 3 am.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver