Guns don't kill people, gun owners kill people.

schuylaar said:
now i'm going to have nightmares considering a man's body is a temple..
Click to expand...

what? i didnt even post a Minaret, cuz im classy as fuck yo.

i got a celebrity double myself.

people always tell me i look a lot like one of the Beattys

sadly it's Ned Beatty.


tve1191-19840930-239.gif


and this is why i drink.
 
schuylaar said:
tasersssssssss
Click to expand...

on the real cherie,

if you carry a Taser or Stun Gun and believe it will disable an attacker, it WILL NOT

some perople. (like myself) are not nearly as vulnerable to electrical shock as others.

i have had a stun gun used on me in an attempted robbery, and it didnt do SHIT. i kicked a mudhole in that dude's ass and then stomped it dry.

i even got tased by a cop for a demonstration of their "non-lethal" secret weapon against crime.

i was supposed to "come at him" and i was able to take the thing right from his hand despite his repeated jolts. the little darts were more painful than most of the shocks

i have been shocked by too many ignition coils to even give a shit about electrical voltage any more, and physical mass greatly reduces the effect of electrical shock devices as weapons.

if you dont want a gun, get some Top Quality capsicum pepper spray, the "Bear Mace" type. not the weak ass hot-sauce dispensers most women carry.
 
Dr Kynes said:
thats is specious. none of the licensing or registration of automobiles has anything to do with preventing vehicular homicide.

you may as well claim the IRS is just reducing our "disposable income" so we dont blow it all on candy and junk food so "it's for our own good"

people have been killing people with "vehicles" for centuries, or do you porpose that "war horses" were not dangerous, or Hannibal's Elephants were properly licensed and registered thus, harmless?
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? I said virtually the only thing that could be as efficient at killing people as guns are vehicles. Given the right situation you could run over a lot of people, but they're still not as proficient as firearms. I don't have any idea why the fuck you're talking about the IRS, it has nothing to do with the conversation and is a strawman at best.

if one is of a mind to do some killin, even the magical disappearance of all firearms from the face of the earth would not dissuade them.
Click to expand...

I agree! If someone is straight up out to kill someone, they'll probably do it regardless of what's available. A lot of crimes are crimes of passion though, and happen because of things that are readily available.

you lefties make a HUGE DEAL about how "guns make killin easier for muderers" but the REAL utility in firearms is that it makes their deployment in DEFENSE much faster and easier than previous playing field leveling measures, while their use in OFFENSE remains largely the same as a sword among a population of unarmed japanese peasants was 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

You are such a dumbass. You can use a firearm readily available to the public offensively out to...2200 meters? lol The primary usage of firearms has always been offense.

the use of a sword, a spear a club or even a knife against unarmed victims is a huge advantage for the assailant, but when the victims are similarly armed, the advantage goes to those most proficient in the weapon available.
those who made a living by the use of a sword were ALWAYS better at the use of said weapon than the guy who kept his great grandfather's sword over the mantle and never used it, but against the average bandit, it was sufficient.
Click to expand...

It takes much less skill and practice to proficiently use a firearm than it does a sword.

likewise, a pistol close to hand is more than adequate for defense against a similarly armed asailant, but the LACK of a pistol against an assailant armed with even a kitchen knife or baseball bat rapidly swings the advantage to the attacker.
as the attacker is the INSTIGATOR of violence, he has the automatic advantage of preparation, while the victim remains blissfully unaware of this assailant's intentions until the moment of the attack.
Click to expand...

I agree. Having an easily accessible firearm is the best defense against an unknown intruder. Personally I have a Remington Model 870 with a 12" barrel and an adjustable stock with pistol grip. It has a flashlight too. When it's not in use or ready for immediate use, it has a trigger lock on it.

your proposition of hurdles and justifications and explanaitions and requests and pleadings before anyone can own a gun simply moves the advantage even further to the attacker's side, while leaving the ever growing victim pool at the mercy of the criminal element.
Click to expand...

If you're extremely lazy it could. You over exaggerate to the point of absurdity and it really makes your arguments weaker. On this particular issue you have some good points, just don't be stupid about them. "Growing victim pool".... lol Drama Queen...

nobody should have to explain why they should be allowed to have a gun, the only time this needs any explanation is after somebody gets shot.
THAT'S your "due diligence" after you shoot somebody, you have to justify it, if you fail to justify your shooting you go to prison and never get to own a gun again.
Click to expand...

You don't need to give a reason why you want a firearm, but you should know how to use it before you're allowed to purchase it. Why not require gun merchants to take a small training course and upon the sale of the first firearm to someone, the customer needs to take a 30 min training course, sign a paper that says they took the course (which would include safe storage methods) and be on their way? Just an idea, not set in stone... There's lots of things that can be done to help ensure people are safe with firearms that don't hinder the customer, or at least keep the hindrance so minute that only the biggest cunts would possibly complain. Feel free to komplain Kynes.

demanding proof that your gun WONT be used to commit a crime is the cheapest, stupidest and least intelligent argument of the gun control lobby, but because it makes people FEEL like they might be safer, they foolishly accept this faulty premise quite easily, just as you have.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? If your guns get stolen and you call the police and they show up and ask you where they were stored, and you point to a hook on the wall next to a broken window, you're a fucking idiot.

If your gun is stolen and you call the police and they show up and your gun safe is broken into, or you tell the police you had trigger locks on them, you're not an idiot.

The entire point to what I was saying is that crimes can be avoided by making sure people are responsible with their firearms. Not taking them away, not creating mandatory inspections, not making a firearms gestapo, or any other ridiculous absurdity you want to dream up.
 
Dr Kynes said:
what? i didnt even post a Minaret, cuz im classy as fuck yo.

i got a celebrity double myself.

people always tell me i look a lot like one of the Beattys

sadly it's Ned Beatty.


tve1191-19840930-239.gif


and this is why i drink.
Click to expand...

you may get a few deliverance ..skeel like a pig comments from others


but i loved him in babe
 
Beefbisquit said:
You are such a dumbass. You can use a firearm readily available to the public offensively out to...2200 meters?
Click to expand...
I am moved to ask ... which firearm can be routinely used to such distances? N.b. My home state bans fifties, the only arm I've heard might be useful to that distance. That moots "readily available" from my perspective.
lol The primary usage of firearms has always been offense.
Click to expand...
The primary, indeed sole, use of any weapon has always been purely offensive. Defensive tools are collectively called armor.
 
Beefbisquit said:
What the fuck are you talking about? I said virtually the only thing that could be as efficient at killing people as guns are vehicles. Given the right situation you could run over a lot of people, but they're still not as proficient as firearms. I don't have any idea why the fuck you're talking about the IRS, it has nothing to do with the conversation and is a strawman at best.
Click to expand...

HORSESHIT!
here's exactly what you said:
Beefbisquit said:
Vehicles are typically more expensive than guns and also require licensing, insurance, and have other checks and balances to help prevent accidents/homicides.
Click to expand...


and even this ridiculous statement was a retrenchment and retreat from the "unprecedented" hazard of firearms.


Beefbisquit said:
I agree! If someone is straight up out to kill someone, they'll probably do it regardless of what's available. A lot of crimes are crimes of passion though, and happen because of things that are readily available.
Click to expand...

so the potential victim should be as defenseless as possible in these spur of the moment attacks, by the careful use of gun safes, gun locks and in the case of washington DC, the disassembly of the firearm to ensure that it cannot "accidentally" put itself back together, jimmy the lock on the gun safe, creep across the house to the second locked ammunition safe, load itself, crawl surreptitiously up Carl Rowan's leg, climb into his hand and then "accidentally" go off when he discovers some teenagers are skinny dipping in his pool...

you lefties really do care so deeply about the victims of "gun violence".*

*some exclusions apply


Beefbisquit said:
You are such a dumbass. You can use a firearm readily available to the public offensively out to...2200 meters? lol The primary usage of firearms has always been offense.
Click to expand...

and which handgun would that be?

you are such a dumbass.

unless you have just had a lover's quarrel with a USMC Scout Sniper, over the phone, while he is on manuevers, with a hot loadout, in line of sight of your position, and have also pissed off his spotter, the risk of this scenario coming to fruition is extremely remote.



Beefbisquit said:
It takes much less skill and practice to proficiently use a firearm than it does a sword.
Click to expand...
against an unarmed opponent, no. it does not.

even the most braindead of gimps can kill an unarmed victim with a penknife

and now you will boast of your 3 blackbelts, and the decades you spent as a SOG operative in the cambodian jungle, and your 436 confrimed kills...

lets just skip the bullshit and go back to the real issue.

weapons of ANY sort make it easier to kill an unarmed assailant or victim. the attacker is ALWAYS at the advantage based on his foreknowledge of the attack, thus leveling the playing field is essential, particularly for women and old people who dont have the advantage of you 400Kg bench press ability or your 16 inch penis, which i assume you have outfitted with an armour piercing steel glans cover.

when attacked you simply point your pelvis at the assailant and think about the movie Roadhouse, then *Kachunk!* they are dead. impaled on your Swayze Boner.


Beefbisquit said:
I agree. Having an easily accessible firearm is the best defense against an unknown intruder. Personally I have a Remington Model 870 with a 12" barrel and an adjustable stock with pistol grip. It has a flashlight too. When it's not in use or ready for immediate use, it has a trigger lock on it.
Click to expand...

but you are SPECIAL, so you can be trusted with this ILLEGAL shotgun...
(the 1968 omnibus crime act requires than no shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches be owned possessed or transferred by any person without a special tax stamp, background check and a licensing fee.)



Beefbisquit said:
If you're extremely lazy it could. You over exaggerate to the point of absurdity and it really makes your arguments weaker. On this particular issue you have some good points, just don't be stupid about them. "Growing victim pool".... lol Drama Queen...
Click to expand...

so the continuing expansion of various "Gun Free Zones" and the neverending push by HCI and people like you to increase gun restrictions everywhere, in every way possible hasnt reduced the ability of ordinary people who are not Special Forces Gorrilla Warrior Jeet Kun Do Masters with 263 confrimed kills and a penis registered as a deadly weapon to defend themselves from the ever increasing criminal element, who coincidentally are enabled and encouraged by people (not so coincidentally) like you who promulgate the ridiculous "Socio-Economic Status" defense when any crime occurs?

cool story bro, but dont bother telling it again.


Beefbisquit said:
You don't need to give a reason why you want a firearm, but you should know how to use it before you're allowed to purchase it. Why not require gun merchants to take a small training course and upon the sale of the first firearm to someone, the customer needs to take a 30 min training course, sign a paper that says they took the course (which would include safe storage methods) and be on their way? Just an idea, not set in stone... There's lots of things that can be done to help ensure people are safe with firearms that don't hinder the customer, or at least keep the hindrance so minute that only the biggest cunts would possibly complain. Feel free to komplain Kynes.
Click to expand...

ANY impediment to the ownership of a firearm can soon become an impassible hurdle. first, "take a class" then it's "Take this SPECIAL CLASS" then it's "Take this 6 week course taught by ONE GUY once a twice a year, with a class size of twenty. heres the 12 year long waiting list." then it's "Take this class. we will call you the next time we hold the class..."

save it for the suckers at Code Pink.



Beefbisquit said:
What the fuck are you talking about? If your guns get stolen and you call the police and they show up and ask you where they were stored, and you point to a hook on the wall next to a broken window, you're a fucking idiot.

If your gun is stolen and you call the police and they show up and your gun safe is broken into, or you tell the police you had trigger locks on them, you're not an idiot.
Click to expand...

if my guns get stolen i cant call the police, since ill be dead.
further, what will the cops do? shit their panties throw their arms in the air and run about screaming in terror because 8 New Deadly Killer Guns Hungry For The Flesh Of The Innocent are on the street tonight?

you propose registration so if my gun is used in a crime i can be "Held Accountable" but thats stupid. if i wish, i can report my guns stolen, sell them to my homies, buy more guns, rinse and repeat.

the real purpose of gun registration is to prepare for gun siezure. nobody believes otherwise.


Beefbisquit said:
The entire point to what I was saying is that crimes can be avoided by making sure people are responsible with their firearms. Not taking them away, not creating mandatory inspections, not making a firearms gestapo, or any other ridiculous absurdity you want to dream up.
Click to expand...

no. crime cannot be "avoided" thats stupid. crime can be REDUCED, but not by attacking gun owners, but it CAN be reduced by locking up those who commit crimes for significant periods, and preventing the irresponsible idiots who promulgate the "SES" defense from flapping their meat holes about how rough life is for the "victims of the system" (which is Reverse-Correct Info-Speak for "Perpetrators Of Crime")
 
UncleBuck said:
so many slippery slopes in there, good thing i wore my golf cleats.
Click to expand...

it is ONE slippery slope with many paths of traverse. but you know that, anyone who can read knows that, but you love to flap your gums and make snarky comments. imma have to put you back on ignore and lock it down.
 
Dr Kynes said:
it is ONE slippery slope with many paths of traverse. but you know that, anyone who can read knows that, but you love to flap your gums and make snarky comments. imma have to put you back on ignore and lock it down.
Click to expand...

can't have anyone pointing out the nonsense you babble on about.

best to put me on ignore so you don't have to be reminded so often when you try to tell a lie, make a logical fallacy, or state something extremely racist (see my sig).
 
An unloaded gun is a worthless gun. I see way too many people buy expensive guns and put cheap bullets in them. Get the Blue Glaser bullets. The 40 cal puts out 34% more muzzle energy than a 45...not to mention it unloads all of its energy into the target. Ultimately the people that I have found that hate guns the most are people who break into homes, cars , ect... they really get pissed that someone would take their worthless life because they choose to be a parasite.
 
redzi said:
An unloaded gun is a worthless gun. I see way too many people buy expensive guns and put cheap bullets in them. Get the Blue Glaser bullets. The 40 cal puts out 34% more muzzle energy than a 45...not to mention it unloads all of its energy into the target. Ultimately the people that I have found that hate guns the most are people who break into homes, cars , ect... they really get pissed that someone would take their worthless life because they choose to be a parasite.
Click to expand...
We have a rule here, one in the perp, one in the wall.

"But your honour, I fired a warning shot and he still came at me".
 
Dr Kynes said:
on the real cherie,

if you carry a Taser or Stun Gun and believe it will disable an attacker, it WILL NOT

some perople. (like myself) are not nearly as vulnerable to electrical shock as others.

i have had a stun gun used on me in an attempted robbery, and it didnt do SHIT. i kicked a mudhole in that dude's ass and then stomped it dry.

i even got tased by a cop for a demonstration of their "non-lethal" secret weapon against crime.

i was supposed to "come at him" and i was able to take the thing right from his hand despite his repeated jolts. the little darts were more painful than most of the shocks

i have been shocked by too many ignition coils to even give a shit about electrical voltage any more, and physical mass greatly reduces the effect of electrical shock devices as weapons.

if you dont want a gun, get some Top Quality capsicum pepper spray, the "Bear Mace" type. not the weak ass hot-sauce dispensers most women carry.
Click to expand...

citation required..let's use mine:mrgreen:
 
cannabineer said:
I am moved to ask ... which firearm can be routinely used to such distances? N.b. My home state bans fifties, the only arm I've heard might be useful to that distance. That moots "readily available" from my perspective.The primary, indeed sole, use of any weapon has always been purely offensive. Defensive tools are collectively called armor.
Click to expand...
Fired at around 45 degrees I think you'll find a large proportion of guns capable of causing harm at such distances

As to how "useful" that is depends on your intentions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top