Hey stupid fucking cunt lip, I rubbed nonamericans noses in their hypocrisy, only a dipshit feminist could get confused on that.

You might be wrong about that.
Why expanding background checks would, in fact, reduce gun crime - The Washington Post

I am not a gun guy and don't know anything about owning a gun. I've fired a .22 when I was a kid and a 12 Guage once (and only once, ouch), and fired a pistol a few times at a shooting range. Forgive me if I confused clips with magazines. There is no need to insult me or call me ignorant. This is just a discussion after all.


My point is, is that maybe these terrible crimes could have been prevented if it was harder to get guns, ammo and magazines for them. Just maybe.

Updated Pistol: Arsenal SAM7K-03 - The Firearm Blog

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...AM7K03rtai.jpg

Here is a nice "hunting pistol" imported to the USA from Bulgaria.

I just dont understand what you are all so scared of.

Canadian have guns too -- and legally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir8t3S9z03Y

Here is a nice rifile for deer season this year ...
DPMS Panther Arms DPMS RFLR-AP4 .308Win Carbine 40Rd 16 .308 Win

.308Win is a hunting round -- medium to larger game

http://pictures.gunauction.com/24780...thumbnail0.jpg

DPMS Panther Arms DPMS RFLR-AP4 .308Win Carbine 40Rd 16 .308 Win For Sale at GunAuction.com - 13282141

I'm not obsessed with guns in America but I came across this and found it to be relevant:

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square


.

you know, most of the people in the whole world care about the rest of the world, they are reading newspapers and are interested what is going around the planet, just most americans dont even know there is another world outside of usa, and if they know, why to care, we are america, we are the world, fuck the rest ... :upsidedow

how many americans heard about refugees from africa, about crisis in greece, russia and putin, things that are very important for europe, but hey, i bet you dont even have those topics in your local news :winkwink: :upsidedow

1: I'm not wrong about it. It's been proven time and time again that background checks create more problems and do not prevent crimes.

2: Which is exactly why your voice carries no weight on the topic.

3: Um....But none of these recent crimes have been committed by "High power assault rifles" so why are you even mentioning them?

Yes, because that photo clearly shows a 40 round magazine. Even so, that gun would be perfectly legal to hunt with deer and elk in most states. What's the problem? Does it scare you or something? :1orglaugh

You lost the argument a long time ago - That's why you continue with this pedantic nonsense...

By 'you' of course I mean gun lobbyists - Not you in particular.....

You might be wrong about that

From your article:
Special report: Examining the state of gun research | PolitiFact

Look up the word AGENDA, here I'll do it for you


And maybe not
The existing law requiring background checks for gun purchases is know as the Brady Bill
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

See below :thumbsup

The simple fact is people who hate us are going to be trying to kill as many Americans as possible in the coming days, I don't think anybody disputes that.
Our best defense against being attacked on the street or in the shopping malls is for as many Americans as possible to be armed and able to defend ourselves because frankly, the police can't be everywhere.

WWII Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto may not have actually uttered the quote that is often attributed to him:
But you cannot deny the truth of it.


(damn I made a Mark Prince style endless multi-quote post, I must be bored today)

LOL This comment is a prime example of why non-Americans shouldn't be concerned with our gun laws. You obviously have no clue WTF you are talking about.

All your argument's seem to be based on pedantic rebuffs - For example the guy who didn't know his clip from a magazine - That is the sort of shit that lost you the case...

BTW, I haven't insulted you. Yes, I've called you ignorant because...Well..You are exactly that. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word? If you find it insulting then maybe it's time for you to stop making ignorant posts. :2 cents:

Personally, I find it insulting that you think people can't hunt with a .308 if it's black, has a 16" barrel, uses magazines, is semi-auto and has an adjustable stock. NONE of those features make it any less of a hunting firearm.

This rifle is a .308 semi-auto that takes magazines. In the wrong hands, it's capable of the EXACT same kind of destruction as the other you posted. Why are you not crying like a little girl about it being used for hunting as well? What if we paint it black? Is it evil then?

http://picturearchive.gunauction.com...thumbnail0.jpg

Model 7400? Autoloading Centerfire Rifle

My "pedantic rebuffs" are to show the ignorance of others. If you don't know WTF you're talking about then you shouldn't be engaged in the conversation. You sir, have no idea WTF you're talking about nor does ANY of it concern you.

There's a reason this country fought a war to be free from your type. What makes you think that you can force your opinions on us 200 years later? <-----That's a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical questions are often used to direct an argument rather than end one - Anyway, I am not forcing anyone here to do anything. I am just stating my point of view...

The second amendment is outdated BS.....

Nobody wants your opinion....Informing you of that is pretty much he purpose of this thread. :321GFY

You will get it anyway - That's pretty much the idea of this forum:thumbsup...

Neither those make it better one for hunting. Hunting firearms are usually different kinds as military firearms, as the purpose is different and different characteristics are required. And on the other hand, for example our legislation starts from the suitability point of view; it suits for the purpose and it doesn't have unnecessary amount of firepower, etc. If you apply for a firearm to hunt squirrels, you won't get fully automatic elephant gun, and if you want some sort of elephant gun, you gotta give some plan about hunting the elephants. Which is not that hard as you can go to safaris, but anyways, at least you have to lie about your plans if you want to hunt squirrels with elephant gun, or you want to use it for another purpose altogether.

Good hunting firearms are camo or dull in color, have long barrel for increased accuracy (as you hunt at outdoors) and can be handled well for steady shooting.

Even if you can do all the same with military firearms, why you should get one? Using hunting firearm for hunting is no way away from you, you lose nothing.

that being said, looking at how the UK went about banning guns and comparing it to the current drive in the US is a very interesting read.

however, when you have stuff like this:

The U.K. Political Pedophile Ring Scandal is Just The Tip of the Iceberg - The Full Story is Much More Disturbing [UPDATED] | SCG News

one can understand why a government feels a need to disarm it's populace, by any means necessary

People hunt with bows and handguns proving that a longer barrel isn't needed for hunting, especially for anything under 300 yards which most hunting kills are made within. A shorter barrel allows for easier transportation, lighter weight, and getting in and out of vehicles and hunting stands safer.

Why would I get one? They sell regular hammers so why would anybody need a nail gun?

Um, yeah, you have. It's ok, don't worry about it.


MKUltra:

Thanks for the info. So then let's agree that some say increasing gun control will make a difference, and others say it won't.

If you were in charge and could do anything to reduce gun violence, what would it be?

Bow isn't firearm, so it doesn't have a barrel. Secondly, hunting with handguns is even illegal where I live. Of course you can hunt with an artillery too, but just someone using it doesn't make it that good hunting weapon.

Even in 300 yards accuracy matters and with regular sized hunting weapons the length of the barrels isn't a problem. Especially as I meant with the "long" barrel a regular length barrel that is long compared to many military firearms. Why you would need to get out of the vehicle with gun in your hand? Haven't heard about trunk or getting out of the vehicle and then picking up the weapon? And how is shorter weapons safer in those instances? You do it with loaded gun? Hopefully not.

Yes, why you would get one? Nail guns and hammers are for different purpose, so that comparison doesn't match. To what you need your military firearm, so that hunting firearm isn't enough, assuming you use it to hunting? If you need hammer, why you would buy nail gun or vice versa?

a post directed at me by that dumbfuck canaduhian from another thread, yet here he is in my thread yapping his fuckwad trap about shit he knows nothing about.


then he wonders why everyone thinks he makes ignorant posts.

I am obsessed with big tits in Poland.

What is in their water?

LOL Why would I be worried? :1orglaugh

Obviously a bow isn't a gun but if a hunter can kill an elk within 100 yards with a bow then they can do the same with an SBR let alone a 16" barrel. The fact remains that a long barrel isn't needed.

Your words are like those of somebody who has never hunted a day in their life. If you need somebody to explain why a shorter barrel is safer and easier to manipulate then you don't belong owning a gun in the fist place. :2 cents:

It's ok, don't worry about it. :glugglug

Isn't needed? No, but it is better. As having barrel altogether.

About the rest; it is just regular bullshit when someone hasn't valid counterargument. I have hunted about 20 years and I posses firearms. But it doesn't even matter, you are just out of arguments; other than "you are so great and I know nothing"-bullshit.

So, please explain how shorter barrel is safer? Easier to manipulate regarding what situation? We are talking about hunting and it doesn't happen in very confined environments. And even if your barrel clings to some object, it isn't dangerously. Actually, the shorter barrel the easier you shoot yourself. What comes to getting out of a stand, car, getting over fence, etc., all safety instructions tell you to do it with unloaded gun. So, the only dangerously part is you managing to hit yourself with your own gun, or just stumbling in general. What comes to the safety of shorter barrel, as I have been in military service I can tell something about that; especially one guy without front teeth and a half of a lip can tell you that shorter barrel is not that safe when stumbling (he fell when skiing downhill).

You have ZERO valid counter argument and based on your posts, you know fuck all about guns. I'm not here to educate you. Research the topic on your own.

You must be hunting on the open plains of Africa or some shit. Around here, many of the outdoor spaces are definitely confined environments.

You want to talk about gun safety then tell me about a guy who was skiing with a loaded gun. Yeah....OK. Great example. :thumbsup

i'm just rubbing it in real good.

:upsidedow

Regular sized hunting gun is just fine even in thickest woods, you just point the barrel forward or straight up. There is not that much shooting in those situations anyways. Or if the barrel length is problem, buy short barreled hunting gun. Why you need to buy short barreled military firearm?

What comes to that skiing accident; the gun wasn't loaded, the muzzle hit him in the mouth when he fell. Besides, it was in the army, so having loaded gun wouldn't be that unheard. At least in the war time the guns are surely loaded when skiing. I am sure you know why.

The main point I was trying to make is don't put your faith in a study paid for by somebody with an agenda, will more gun laws reduce gun crime? I really doubt it.
There will always be those who abuse something, I for one don't blame the shovel for the hole.

The left has been working the "just a little bit more restriction... just a few more laws and this whole problem goes away" angle for generations even though it doesn't seem to have worked so far, the problem persists.

The fact that it seems to be only the left that are trying to remove guns from the hands of citizens tells me that the 2nd amendment is working as planned and that an armed population is making them just a little bit nervous. :1orglaugh

#1- Ban Canadians

#2- From the statistics it seems that the huge per capita majority of gun crimes happen in the cities, let me tell you a little story...

I got my first shotgun when I was around 12 or 13 years old, a single-shot .410, my father used to let me go into the large water percolation area next to our farm to hunt with it when I went out to the farm with him on Saturdays.

One day a jackrabbit jumped from behind a tumbleweed and started running away from me, without thinking I aimed and fired.
When the dust cleared the rabbit was bouncing up and down and his legs were still trying to run, but the back of his head was missing.

I had this immediate, overwhelming feeling of "what have I done?" Feelings of horror and grief that I can still feel to this day.

That jackrabbit had done nothing to deserve this.

My father had taught me about gun safety and gun handling before he ever let me out on my own but nothing he taught me prepared me for what it felt like to kill something with a gun. Shooting birds with a bb gun doesn't even come close.

I never really respected the lethal power and finality of a gun until that moment, and that respect has never waned even though I continued to hunt varmints that caused damage to our crops and shot dove and pheasant to eat.

Kid in the cities never have experiences like that, they never have their fathers teach them to respect and be safe with guns, all they learn is what they see on tv and the movies.
Guns make you a badass.
Guns make the other guy fall down and you win.
Guns give you power.
Guns are cool.

So when they get older and have the pressures from poverty and gangs getting a gun becomes a no-brainer for them, they don't experience what it's like to kill with a gun until it's too late. :(

But of course if anybody suggests teaching gun safety and education in the schools the left goes into convulsions with blood squirting from their ears at the very idea. :helpme

Would teaching kids gun safety and respect solve the problem on it's own? No.
Would it help? I think in time,Yes.

Wrong,

It was designed to wound not to kill. A wounded enemy needs help, which takes more enemies out of the fight. A dead enemy needs no imediate help.

Secondly a 5.56 round is like half the size and weight than the 7.62 x 51, (which is what the 5.56 replaced) when the army went from the M-14 to the M-16, thus enabling soldiers to carrry twice the ammunition.

As far as damage, the .30 cal 7.62 x 51 NATO round which had a 150.5 gr projectile traveling at 2750 fps will flat out fuck some shit up.

The 22 .cal 5.56 NATO round with a 62 gr projectile at 3000 fps is nothing to sneeze at but nowhere near the damage done as the heavier .30 cal 7.62 traveling almost as fast.

It's a huge hunk of lead that does MASSIVE damage.

Most sniper rifles still use 7.62 x 51 to this date because it's Bad Ass, you will never see a 5.56 sniper rifle because they really suck in comparison.

You can't build a zoo if the monkeys are armed.

I have friends & family across the States. I live 10 mins from the border and frequently travel the east coast. Not obsessed over America's gun culture...but I pay attention and have opinions. The U.S. is not an isolationist society. Their issues and affairs have far-reaching effects.

The existence of USA contradicts this. :)















..Sorry, it was too good to pass. I don't really mean it.