assault weapons

[LaMidRighter]

A guns sole purpose is to be a weapon. Yes? I don't know how you can disagree with that. It's not like when gunpowder was being toyed with the inventor was like, "you know we could get alot of clay pigeons with this stuff ehh?" No. It's a weapon. Not a fun maker/weapon. It's a weapon. Especially an ASSAULT WEAPON. Who shoots pigeons with an assault rifle. Someone who can't read. That's who.

Anything used to harm is a weapon regardless of the created purpose. Like I said, the only thing a gun is designed to do is fire a projectile at high velocity, what you do with it is only relevant when it destroys an innocent humans life. And there is no argument that a gun should be banned because it may be used to injure, that would be like pre-emptively banning a car because the driver may eventually drive drunk(to borrow others analogies) without prior precedence, or to ban a typewriter because someone may type an offensive novel.

I don't know if I it's that I don't understand your statement or don't remember what you are referring to. Refresh my memory for me?

I believe that was about the dog statement

Throw them

. that's not what I meant, I meant that the wild dogs are moving targets so you need an accurate gun and sometimes over large distances, if the target is mobile enough i.e. a rabid or aggressive canine, sometimes you need a backup shot or two.

Go to the arcade and play Jurassic Park and Area 51. It's about 50 cents, and it's loads of fun. That's actually cheaper than the cans depending on if you're a gourmet soup kind of guy or not.

Any soup is fine, but seriously, I already play video games to relax and we are talking about self defense, and sport shooting, not one or the other. You wanted legitimate uses for these guns, and I believe that many debators have given you ample examples.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Anything used to harm is a weapon regardless of the created purpose. Like I said, the only thing a gun is designed to do is fire a projectile at high velocity, what you do with it is only relevant when it destroys an innocent humans life. And there is no argument that a gun should be banned because it may be used to injure, that would be like pre-emptively banning a car because the driver may eventually drive drunk(to borrow others analogies) without prior precedence, or to ban a typewriter because someone may type an offensive novel.

A handgun is made with the purpose of being a weapon. A car is made with the purpose of transportation. I didn't say ban guns. I said ban assault weapons.

I believe that was about the dog statement

Now that we're both confused let's ignore that.

. that's not what I meant, I meant that the wild dogs are moving targets so you need an accurate gun and sometimes over large distances, if the target is mobile enough i.e. a rabid or aggressive canine, sometimes you need a backup shot or two.

Rabid animals don't advance when they are being in an extremely painful situation like getting shot. They are reduced to primitive Stage 1 thinking : owwy = bad. If they're at a distance that you don't think you can hit them. Wait a second. Unless you're using a six shooter you really shouldn't have to worry about not having a backup shot or two.

Any soup is fine, but seriously, I already play video games to relax and we are talking about self defense, and sport shooting, not one or the other. You wanted legitimate uses for these guns, and I believe that many debators have given you ample examples.

Killing roaming animals is the only example I can recall at the moment and I don't find that to be legitimate. Can you think of a few. I suggested arcade games to increase accuracy. It was mostly a joke.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Rabid animals don't advance when they are being in an extremely painful situation like getting shot. They are reduced to primitive Stage 1 thinking : owwy = bad. If they're at a distance that you don't think you can hit them. Wait a second. Unless you're using a six shooter you really shouldn't have to worry about not having a backup shot or two.

Rabid animals don't have any capability of rationalization, they go mad when they have that, problem is, you don't have the luxury of letting them get close enough to assess the case when they are attacking you or your family,pets, etc. The backup shot argument is great, if you are facing one dog, problem is, the cited example involved a pack of wild dogs, big difference, potentially huge problem.

Killing roaming animals is the only example I can recall at the moment and I don't find that to be legitimate. Can you think of a few.

I mentioned a few of the ones used earlier, exhibition shooting, the self defense thing was mentioned, there is also showing, collecting(I believe that one was used), criminal deterrent, and also speculating(that is, holding a rare gun to see if the value will increase, for re-sale). Here's a side question, how many legitimate uses does a car have?, a pencil?, a typewriter? Paperweight?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Rabid animals don't have any capability of rationalization, they go mad when they have that, problem is, you don't have the luxury of letting them get close enough to assess the case when they are attacking you or your family,pets, etc. The backup shot argument is great, if you are facing one dog, problem is, the cited example involved a pack of wild dogs, big difference, potentially huge problem.

John Woo style? No, I don't think that's needed. Seriously though, a 9mm berretta has a 15 shots to it. Rabid dogs still feel pain and have a sense of pain avoidance. Do you realize the longer we've talked about dogs themore hypothetical the situation has gotten?

I mentioned a few of the ones used earlier, exhibition shooting,

With an assualt rifle?

the self defense thing was mentioned

You don't need an assault rifle to defend your home unless you are a Branch Davidian.

there is also showing, collecting(I believe that one was used),

Wah. Jefferey Dahmer was collecting livers and kidneys, we still seemed to have a problem with that.

criminal deterrent, and also speculating(that is, holding a rare gun to see if the value will increase, for re-sale).

Criminals don't like being around any guns not just assualt rifles when commiting felonious acts. Holding on to a rare gun to see if the value will increase? That's not even a reason.

Here's a side question, how many legitimate uses does a car have?, a pencil?, a typewriter? Paperweight?

I've never heard of a teenager killing 12 classmates with a typewrite.

 

[LaMidRighter]

John Woo style? No, I don't think that's needed. Seriously though, a 9mm berretta has a 15 shots to it. Rabid dogs still feel pain and have a sense of pain avoidance. Do you realize the longer we've talked about dogs themore hypothetical the situation has gotten?

then we should probably just call the dog thing a wash.

With an assualt rifle?

I think that was in regards to exhibition shooting, and yes, there are exhibitions and events that encorporate these weapons, people want to see them fired as much as those who want to fire them want to pull the trigger, these shows also include machine guns and every once in a while, explosives.

You don't need an assault rifle to defend your home unless you are a Branch Davidian.

not completely true, what if, and let's pray none of us are in this situation, a bounty hunter gets a bogus adress and he is real gung ho about getting his man(bounty hunters basically don't get paid unless the target is apprehended) and charges your house, I know you guys are going to think I am a conspiracy theorist right, wrong, this happens more than you would think and these guys aren't usually packing pea shooters, try shotguns, hand canons, and other weapons. Why not just use a handgun you say, fine, if you want a shootout, be my guest, but if you prove to a bounty hunter that he is outgunned, peace talks can resume, it's a deterrent.

Wah. Jefferey Dahmer was collecting livers and kidneys, we still seemed to have a problem with that.

Dahmer didn't ask first, joking aside, there is a huge difference between murdering someone for their body parts and owning a weapon that will just sit in your closet till the next time you go sport shooting.

Criminals don't like being around any guns not just assualt rifles when commiting felonious acts. Holding on to a rare gun to see if the value will increase? That's not even a reason.

Law of basic economics, supply and demand, even living things such as people among other animals are subject to depreciation and apreciation in price, as far as criminals committing felonious acts, normally, you are right, but don't forget that this is not an absolute rule, some criminals are just insane, and some are so heavily drugged out that they are beyond rational thought, sometimes even beyond pain and even many instances so effed up on drugs that it takes more shots or a larger caliper shot to take them down.

I've never heard of a teenager killing 12 classmates with a typewrite.

No, but I have heard of stabbings with pencils, lawn darts, pick a knife and it's been used(including carving, butcher, and even butter), frying pans, etc.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I think that was in regards to exhibition shooting, and yes, there are exhibitions and events that encorporate these weapons, people want to see them fired as much as those who want to fire them want to pull the trigger, these shows also include machine guns and every once in a while, explosives.

How about if they were to be rented at gun ranges? Not for open sale to the public.

not completely true, what if, and let's pray none of us are in this situation, a bounty hunter gets a bogus adress and he is real gung ho about getting his man(bounty hunters basically don't get paid unless the target is apprehended) and charges your house, I know you guys are going to think I am a conspiracy theorist right, wrong, this happens more than you would think and these guys aren't usually packing pea shooters, try shotguns, hand canons, and other weapons. Why not just use a handgun you say, fine, if you want a shootout, be my guest, but if you prove to a bounty hunter that he is outgunned, peace talks can resume, it's a deterrent.

If they don't get paid unless the target is apprehended, let him arrest you. If you are innocent and this douche bag had the wrong address, you're off scott free and his happy little ass is in trouble. No harm done. Unless of course you're a criminal and evading arrest. I really fail to see how this trained proffessional bounty hunter who lives with guns will go to peace guns if he thinks he's out gunned.

Dahmer didn't ask first, joking aside, there is a huge difference between murdering someone for their body parts and owning a weapon that will just sit in your closet till the next time you go sport shooting.

That's not really collecting is it? What does an AK47 do to Bambi?

Law of basic economics, supply and demand, even living things such as people among other animals are subject to depreciation and apreciation in price, as far as criminals committing felonious acts, normally, you are right, but don't forget that this is not an absolute rule, some criminals are just insane, and some are so heavily drugged out that they are beyond rational thought, sometimes even beyond pain and even many instances so effed up on drugs that it takes more shots or a larger caliper shot to take them down.

A hand gun can still do the job. Even is he's so far gun on PCP, a handgun can do it.

No, but I have heard of stabbings with pencils, lawn darts, pick a knife and it's been used(including carving, butcher, and even butter), frying pans, etc.

Butter knives, lawn darts, pencils, frying pans, are all not made with the sole purpose of being a weapon. A gun is. An AK47 is made to expell many lethal rounds with more accuracy. It is made with the purpose of being a deadly weapon. Assault rifles were designed for military purposes, not for killing deer, not for killing stray dogs, not for collecting, not for being a hat rack. It was made to kill things at a great efficiency rate.

A butter knife was designed to put butter on to a piece of toast. Do you see the difference?

 

[LaMidRighter]

How about if they were to be rented at gun ranges? Not for open sale to the public.

Already happens, but why not just own one and save over the long run?

If they don't get paid unless the target is apprehended, let him arrest you. If you are innocent and this douche bag had the wrong address, you're off scott free and his happy little ass is in trouble. No harm done. Unless of course you're a criminal and evading arrest. I really fail to see how this trained proffessional bounty hunter who lives with guns will go to peace guns if he thinks he's out gunned.

Problem is not all bounty hunters are that well trained, there have already been cases of innocents being killed by bounty hunters firing at will.

That's not really collecting is it? What does an AK47 do to Bambi?

this was in response to sport shooting. You are talking about sport hunting in that response, big dif.

A hand gun can still do the job. Even is he's so far gun on PCP, a handgun can do it.

yeah, a hand cannon, but anything smaller than a .357 will not, unless you can pump like 30-40 rounds in the criminal.

Butter knives, lawn darts, pencils, frying pans, are all not made with the sole purpose of being a weapon. A gun is. An AK47 is made to expell many lethal rounds with more accuracy. It is made with the purpose of being a deadly weapon. Assault rifles were designed for military purposes, not for killing deer, not for killing stray dogs, not for collecting, not for being a hat rack. It was made to kill things at a great efficiency rate.

A butter knife was designed to put butter on to a piece of toast. Do you see the difference?

Lawn darts were meant to pierce the ground, butter knives were meant to cut through butter, guns of all types are meant to fire a projectile, guns are tools like anything else and can be misused like any other tool. Apparently you see too much difference.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Already happens, but why not just own one and save over the long run?

Because those weapons are too dangerous to be left in the public's closet.

Problem is not all bounty hunters are that well trained, there have already been cases of innocents being killed by bounty hunters firing at will.

Why am I arguing with this retarded hypothetical situation?

this was in response to sport shooting. You are talking about sport hunting in that response, big dif.

Examine this line of dialogue.

ME: Wah. Jefferey Dahmer was collecting livers and kidneys, we still seemed to have a problem with that

You: Dahmer didn't ask first, joking aside, there is a huge difference between murdering someone for their body parts and owning a weapon that will just sit in your closet till the next time you go sport shooting.

ME: That's not really collecting is it? What does an AK47 do to Bambi?

It wasn't my intention to bring sport shooting into it. That's why I didn't do it.

yeah, a hand cannon, but anything smaller than a .357 will not, unless you can pump like 30-40 rounds in the criminal.

Why am I arguing with this retarded hypothetical situation?

Lawn darts were meant to pierce the ground, butter knives were meant to cut through butter, guns of all types are meant to fire a projectile, guns are tools like anything else and can be misused like any other tool. Apparently you see too much difference.

"Guns are meant to fire a projectile" No, no. That's what they do. What they are meant to do is to be a weapon, to injure or kill, especially in the case of assault rifles.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Because those weapons are too dangerous to be left in the public's closet.

But they aren't too dangerous to rent? At least in a closet(preferably a locked gun cabinet rather than a closet) the gun will not be fired, your logic does not compute.

Why am I arguing with this retarded hypothetical situation?

If it already happened, it is not a hypothetical situation, it is a real occurance.

Examine this line of dialogue.



It wasn't my intention to bring sport shooting into it. That's why I didn't do it.

:spin: You equated hunting with sport shooting, that's why I corrected it.

Why am I arguing with this retarded hypothetical situation?

Sport shooting is an event, not a hypothetical situation.

"Guns are meant to fire a projectile" No, no. That's what they do.

Because that is what they are designed for. :doh

What they are meant to do is to be a weapon, to injure or kill, especially in the case of assault rifles.

The intent of the user is not related to the design of the tool. I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this, however, you really didn't counter any of my points.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

But they aren't too dangerous to rent? At least in a closet(preferably a locked gun cabinet rather than a closet) the gun will not be fired, your logic does not compute.

My logic does not compute? Renting a gun for a set period of time while the location of the gun is always known and not sitting around waiting for trouble makes sense to me. When rented at a gun range, people are aware of what you are shooting at and can hence always be aware of the users intention of the gun.

If it already happened, it is not a hypothetical situation, it is a real occurance.

It is a hypothetical situation. For one, bounty hunters only kill people in Star Wars. How often does this crazy crap happen? Bounty Hunters getting the wrong addresses...? That's hypothetical. It's crazy.

Sport shooting is an event, not a hypothetical situation.

I wasn't talking about sport shooting I was talking about PCP crazed criminals breaking into houses. If you live in a neighborhood where such a thing is legitmate threat, you probably can't afford to blow money on an assualt rifle anyway. Maybe a few locks. A big dog maybe. Name him Gandhi.

Because that is what they are designed for. :doh The intent of the user is not related to the design of the tool. I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this, however, you really didn't counter any of my points.

This is where you are mistaken: An assault rifle is not a tool, it is a weapon. An assault rifle is incapable of being a tool.

About countering your points: I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't know how to sound nice about this. I haven't seen any points.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I knew I shouldn't have gotten into this, and I'm done after this.

My logic does not compute? Renting a gun for a set period of time while the location of the gun is always known and not sitting around waiting for trouble makes sense to me.

As opposed to a locked gun cabinet at a registered addressed where it sits and will not be fired at all. Your logic does not compute.

When rented at a gun range, people are aware of what you are shooting at and can hence always be aware of the users intention of the gun.

unless of course the user decides to turn it on the public, what's to stop him if these things are so dangerous? All scenarios must be examined to understand a gun.

It is a hypothetical situation. For one, bounty hunters only kill people in Star Wars. How often does this crazy crap happen? Bounty Hunters getting the wrong addresses...? That's hypothetical. It's crazy.

Bounty hunters are humans and subject to error, they are hired by a bail bondsman to collect when someone runs from their contract, they are real and provide a real service every day, and yes, they sometimes have to use deadly force. Getting the wrong address only has to happen once if it's your house.

I wasn't talking about sport shooting I was talking about PCP crazed criminals breaking into houses. If you live in a neighborhood where such a thing is legitmate threat, you probably can't afford to blow money on an assualt rifle anyway. Maybe a few locks. A big dog maybe. Name him Gandhi.

I was talking about uses for the gun, you equated sport shooting with hunting, therefore we were talking about the subject, PCP crazed criminals could break into any house, I didn't realize they only localize to the slums of town, where there is no money to steal, you really must be enlightened if you figured that one out :roll: criminals are a threat to anyone, anywhere, that is the nature of humanity, some are lost. And I would not name a guard dog ghandi; maybe killer, tyson, dahmer, or even fluffy(don't ask, I'll never have enough time to explain).

This is where you are mistaken: An assault rifle is not a tool, it is a weapon. An assault rifle is incapable of being a tool

. A nailgun performs a task, it uses compressed air to drive a nail through an object, a hammer does the same job, but it uses leverage, same use, one just performs the same function in a different way. A gun uses a mechanism to set into motion the desired use, all a burst fire or automatic option does is to cause multiple shots per compression of the trigger, same principle, same purpose, different operation. we can play this semantics game all day, but the argument will not change.

About countering your points: I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't know how to sound nice about this. I haven't seen any points.

And also not to be rude, open your eyes, I have been making very valid points and you have chosen to take the other path, I'm just saying is all.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

As opposed to a locked gun cabinet at a registered addressed where it sits and will not be fired at all. Your logic does not compute.

Not be fired at all? If it is not to be fired at all... why do you have it? A gun range could have a registered address and a gun cabinet. Is the logic starting to compute?

unless of course the user decides to turn it on the public, what's to stop him if these things are so dangerous? All scenarios must be examined to understand a gun.

While surrounded by other gun nuts at a gun range? Go ahead. Try it.

Bounty hunters are humans and subject to error, they are hired by a bail bondsman to collect when someone runs from their contract, they are real and provide a real service every day, and yes, they sometimes have to use deadly force. Getting the wrong address only has to happen once if it's your house.

How many times does this happen? Honestly. I googled "Bounty Hunter Kills innocent," "Bounty Hunter Wrong House," both google news and web and I got Star Wars for the web and nothing on the news. I want to see a source for this crazy, rare, irrational, fear of bounty hunters and their human error.

I was talking about uses for the gun, you equated sport shooting with hunting, therefore we were talking about the subject, PCP crazed criminals could break into any house, I didn't realize they only localize to the slums of town, where there is no money to steal, you really must be enlightened if you figured that one out :roll: criminals are a threat to anyone, anywhere, that is the nature of humanity, some are lost. And I would not name a guard dog ghandi; maybe killer, tyson, dahmer, or even fluffy(don't ask, I'll never have enough time to explain).

I would like a source for this drugged up criminal who you need an assault rifle to take down. Handgun.

A nailgun performs a task, it uses compressed air to drive a nail through an object, a hammer does the same job, but it uses leverage, same use, one just performs the same function in a different way. A gun uses a mechanism to set into motion the desired use, all a burst fire or automatic option does is to cause multiple shots per compression of the trigger, same principle, same purpose, different operation. we can play this semantics game all day, but the argument will not change.

You're the one playing semantics. You know what a gun is designed to do. It is designed to be a weapon. Period. You know what an assault rifle is designed to do. It is designed to be an efficient weapon that can frag many many targets. It is a weapon too dangerous to the public, in my opinion.

And also not to be rude, open your eyes, I have been making very valid points and you have chosen to take the other path, I'm just saying is all.

I don't see valid points. I see hypothetical situations that are rare at best and you dancing around what a gun, at it's essence, is. It fires a projectile, yes. It is a projectile weapon.

 

[LaMidRighter]

McGraw Hill edition of Websters dictionary
Weapon - 1. any instrument or device used for attack or defense in a fight or in combat. 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary or victim the weapon of satire 3. any part or organseving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
-v.t. 4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons.

websters
any- 7. a single one or ones; an unspecified thing or things; etc,

This is why you cannot use the gun is a weapon argument in a definitive sense, because it is a tool and is not always used as a weapon, even less so illegally.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another

When is an assault rifle not used to injure, defeat, or destroy?

When is an assault rifle used as a tool?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Pretty much the same thing, and we've done this dance enough, read back and see all of the examples provided.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

So... never?

It isn't used as a weapon when it's a part of a collection... That's about all I can think of that doesn't cause it to fall into the above definition of "weapon." I still don't think the "because I can" is a good reason to own such a lethal weapon.

Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to "collect" nuclear weapons?

 

[LaMidRighter]

So... never?

It isn't used as a weapon when it's a part of a collection... That's about all I can think of that doesn't cause it to fall into the above definition of "weapon." I still don't think the "because I can" is a good reason to own such a lethal weapon.

Should North Korea and Iran be allowed to "collect" nuclear weapons?

Or shooting cans, or clay pigion(targets) shooting, or exhibition shooting, like I said, I've given enough examples, this really needs to be the last dance.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Last dance? Okay. It doesn't take an assault rifle to take down those deadly cans. Hence, the public doesn't need assualt rifles.

 

[swampkritter]

Do I have some sort of reputation for lying or fallicies?

This is from my uncle, a sergeantwith the Mansfield, Texas police department. He is also on the SWAT team. At my graduation yesterday, I asked him, "On the SWAT team, what kind of assault rifles do you use? AR15... M16...?" He told me that for entry they use an AR15 or an M4. For containment they use alot of things including an M16. He also told me that most SWAT teams were moving more towards the AR15 over the M4.

He also had this to say about assault rifles. "They're only good for war, and causing trouble."



:moon:

I hate baby animals. They make me sick. When I see one I just can't help but think, "Man I want you dead. I want to shoot you between your adorable little eyes and watch you brain ooze out the entry wound."

Then I truly don't believe you.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't know how to gain your trust or force you to put faith into what I say.

I guess if I'm a liar, there's no point in debating this.

 

[CSA_TX]

question posted earlier Who shoots pigeons with an assault rifle.

I do:gunner:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

It's a piece of clay. You don't need a semi automatic weapon for a piece of clay.

 

[CSA_TX]

you do when you have multiple thowers tossing the clay. And the bottom line is it is my right to use my assault weapons any damn way I want as long as I'm not infringin on anyone elses rights. They are leaglly owned firearms so quit your your wanking on assault weapons.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Forgive my "wanking."

But you know, when you gotta wank, you gotta wank.

I don't have a problem with you owning a weapon. I really don't. I have a problem with you, a citizen, being equipped as well as our military and SWAT teams. This isn't an issue about whether or not you can own guns. This is an issue about where the line should be drawn concerning the word "arms."

I think that assault rifles are too dangerous for them to be owned by anyone willing in the general population.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Protecting yourself from your country might be a good reason...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian

I know that in both situations these people had broken the law. By the same token I think our government went overboard. 1) the Branch Davidians were not the problem; David Koresh was, & we had opportunities to get him without the big confrontation. 2) Our government sent in the National Guard to get Randy Weaver & his family & a friend. A total of 6 people (civilian Americans)...against the National Guard.

So many people think that our government now is oppressive...so why do we want to give the opportunity to be even more so by unarming our general population.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
--Alexander Hamilton

http://www.youdontsay.org/Quot2004.htm