PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Gun Myth #1

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 8:23 PM on April 30, 2006 :
Sad thing is, you may be right.  I won't go so far as to say "the majority" but way too many parents don't bother to teach them much of anything anymore.  Sex education.  Social behavior.  There was a time when schools just had to teach the 3 Rs (not that I have anything against science, history, or other "skills" classes (workshop, auto, etc)) but these days teachers have to spend half their time teaching kids things that parents should be responsible for.  :P


increadable- something we agree on. actually there are probably more, considering that you classify your self as a liberal, and while I don't fit into any catagory, I have a lot of beliefs that side with the liberals too.

Quote from florida3006 at 9:25 PM on April 30, 2006 :
Even for the ten years that the Brady Bill Assault Weapon Ban was in place, you could still buy the same gun and just put the bayonet lug and folding stock on as after-market accessories.

Not quite. in addition to banning particular weapons, the ban also illegalized the making magazines greater than ten rounds and folding aftermarket stocks. however, it is true that throughout the entire life of the ban it was possable to buy these items as preban items. so while it was not legal to make these items, because a large stock of them was made before the ban was passed, you could take your mini-14 and add a folding stock, ventalated hand guard, flash hider, and a 40 round magazine. they also sold post ban folding style stocks, but they were welded so as not to fold.

Quote from florida3006 at 9:25 PM on April 30, 2006 :
Do you understand now why your howitzer analogy is completely useless?  Howitzers are illegal and inaccessible, bayonets are not.


Exactly my point

(Edited by tempestv 4/30/2006 at 9:55 PM).
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 9:52 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you could get them easily, that was my point.  they were legal to purchase and sell, and there was such a surplus as to make the ban on manufacture irrelevant.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 11:07 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

chuckle, I'm actually a conservative Republican, but Ok.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:10 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:10 PM on April 30, 2006 :
chuckle, I'm actually a conservative Republican, but Ok.  


that favors hardline dems postion on gun control- intresting.

I thought I had seen something that you wrote that said that you were a liberal. I must have been wrong. I still probably have other things that I agree with you on.

(Edited by tempestv 4/30/2006 at 11:42 PM).
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 11:40 PM on April 30, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doubt it, most of my posts are under the Religion and Creation boards (although I've dabbled a bit under Abortion, Civil Rights, etc)...  Then again, there's so many people and so many posts I'd be surprised if anyone can remember everything everybody said (some people {not aimed at you} can't even remember what THEY'VE posted ).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:19 AM on May 1, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, I was thinking of a different gun control nut with just as outlandish of ideas on the forum who claims that he is a liberal christian. my bad. so what, you agree with all the Republican stuff, except firearms?
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 03:36 AM on May 1, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:10 PM on April 30, 2006 :
chuckle, I'm actually a conservative Republican, but Ok.  



from what i can tell, you use 'chuckle' to say 'I have nothing substantive to say in response.'

Emeyers, why are you here?  You have obviously spent absolutely no time researching anything related to guns or gun control.  You don't understand the laws that are currently in place.  You don't understand anything about the differences between different types of guns.   You don't understand even the most basic background of the debate....
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:35 AM on May 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, I say chuckle when I find something humorous.  But I'm sure you knew that.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:25 AM on May 1, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

repeat:

Emeyers, why are you here?  You have obviously spent absolutely no time researching anything related to guns or gun control.  You don't understand the laws that are currently in place.  You don't understand anything about the differences between different types of guns.   You don't understand even the most basic background of the debate....
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 6:05 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not, at anytime, been debating about whether or not firearms should or should not be banned.  I've simply pointed out that certain arguments (such as the bayonet lug that you brought up) are ludicrous in the light of day.  I've used an M-16 myself.  However, you will never find one in my house.  Statistics can't be ignored.  For every ONE incident of self-defense, TWENTY-TWO incidents of suicide, homicide, stupidicide (yes, I coined a word) are committed.  Statistically, my children are less likely to be the victims of gun violence because I DON'T have a gun in my house.  You can twist 'em anyway you like, but it doesn't change 'em.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:34 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You didn't even comprehend the bayonet argument at the time you were arguing against it.  Again, changing the subject to hide your grossly ill-informed argument.


Of course, it is no surprise that you would quote one of the most famously disproven gun-control statistics in support of your argument.

You are free to have a gun-free home.  As an American, that is a choice you are free to make.  In fact, I would rather you not own a gun, as you have proven yourself to be both irresponsible, in spreading misinformation, and lazy, in being too slack to become informed before you form your opinions.  I would prefer that lazy, irresponsible people go unarmed.  However, don't hide behind the assertion that you haven't argued that firearms should be banned when you have expressed the opinion that civilians should not be able to own handguns, and should be restricted to owning only one rifle.  


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:48 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you still haven't answered my question:

why do you feel the need to be here when you obviously do not feel the need to read up on the basic issues involved in the gun control debate?
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:57 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You really do read into anything that is thrown your way, don't you?  I asked questions.  I mentioned that no one uses a handgun to go hunting.  I stated that no one needs more than one rifle (I've seen very few people who could fire two rifles at one time accurately).  At no time have I said that guns SHOULD be outlawed.  I've pointed out flaws in certain arguments (which I assume is the reason behind your fuming).  Feel free to go back and read through the posts.  At no time have I PROPOSED any changes to the current gun regulations.  I've simply pointed out statistics and my own personal beliefs on the matter.  I'm unsure why exactly you are taking this so personally.  I've spread no misinformation.  Unless you are accusing the CDC, the Department of Justice, and the FBI of submitting bogus numbers.  Personally, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but to each his own.  My arguments against the NEED for a bayonet, automatic weapons, etc. were based strictly on logic, backed up by government research.  For me, this is not an emotional debate.  I'm unsure why this is for you, but I'm sure you have rational reasons that you wish for these things to be accessible to you.  If not, I wouldn't be worried about me owning a gun.  I'd be worried about you.  I would be interested in what study you've done to categorically prove that people who have a gun in their house are NOT more likely to kill or be killed by a gun.  Please point me to this well-hidden study and I will be happy to peruse it.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:02 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:02 PM on May 1, 2006 :
 At no time have I PROPOSED any changes to the current gun regulations.  



You don't even know what the current laws are, you have made that clear.

Can you tell I am emotional be the nature of my font, or is that something that you are assuming?  If I got emotional based on one person's misunderstanding and lack of work ethic, I couldn't go out in society without crying hysterically.  The sad truth is that people like you are not the minority, but the majority.  It is easer to be ignorant than informed, so you are.

What exactly is the point of opining on what people do or don't need, if that has no consequence?



(Edited by florida3006 5/1/2006 at 11:16 PM).
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 11:13 PM on May 1, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:02 PM on May 1, 2006 :
You really do read into anything that is thrown your way, don't you?  I asked questions.  I mentioned that no one uses a handgun to go hunting.  I stated that no one needs more than one rifle (I've seen very few people who could fire two rifles at one time accurately).  



wow, you are uninformed
1.) the 500 s&w pistol round was developed specificly for hunting pourposes, and has sold tens of thousands of guns chambered in this caliber, and that is only one manufaturer and one caliber. if no one hunts with a pistol, do you think S&W would spend money on a pistol for hunting purposes?
in fact, this round, and other hunting pistol rounds such as the .454 casull, .480 Ruger, 475 Linebaugh, .460 mag, and most recently, the .50 Wyoming Express have been used to take down everything from deer to cape buffalo in africa. Many of these hunting revolvers are desined to carry a scope, and Leupold even makes a line of scopes for pistols.
here is someone that will convert a ruger blackhawk to fire 475linebaugh, along with a picture of a scoped revolver and a photo of a cape buffalo taken with such a gun:
http://www.mgarmsinc.com/custo.htm
These people make pistols in hunting calibers up to 45/70 gov't that are desined for scope mounting:
http://www.tcarms.com/TC_HTML/TC_G2_Pistol_Home.htm
Here is a review on Savage's BOLT ACTION PISTOL- I should say that this one is also sold in .308 chambering, the same round fired by the M-14, FN FAL, and G3 assalt rifles:
http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/guns/category16/8.html
I guess that your claim that  there is no pistol hunting is also shot down by the fact that in Montana (I don't know about other states, I only read the hunting regs where I am hunting)  there is a season for pistol hunting, and regs in the rule book about what constituts a pistol that can be used for hunting.

2.) Only having one rifle is fine as long as long as you only hunt one kind of game, and always in the same conditions. if I am hunting gophers (not to eat but rather because they are pests that distroy fields), I am going to use a small round- 22LR or .17hmr are the most common, but for long range, 22-250 is quite popular. for varments, I am going to want a heavier gun- say a .223win. .223 is popular, although by some accounts, a little light for deer. for deer, you want a .243 win, 30-30win, .270win, maybe even a 308win, 30-06springfield, or 7mm, although these last three are perhaps overkill, could perhaps distroy more meat than is nessicary. .270 the starting point for elk, with 308, 30-06, or 7mm quite popular, and even moving up into 300mag, 338mag, and sometimes 45/70 govt, or 450marlin, with the powerful rounds being good if hunting in an area where you stand a chance of running into a bear intent on doing you harm. If you are going to africa to hunt the real big stuff, the larger rounds are the starting point with a whole host of magnum rounds such as the nitro rounds, which go on up the .700 nitro, which is fired from from a gun that will cost close to $100,000 and fire rounds that cost $100 each. So now that you have calibers all picked out, you have to decide what kind of gun you want. bolt actions are popular hunting rifles, although, if you hunt off horseback, lever actions are more popular, do to their generally more compact shape. or do you want the thrill of going after game with a single or double shot break-open? or if you hunt in areas near houses, perhaps a rifled shotgun would be better, as the round does not carry as far. as a result, often, many guns are owned, and everyone of them has a purpose seperate from all the others.

before spouting off about something that you know nothing about, how about doing the most basic of research to find out something about your topic.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please point me to this well-hidden study and I will be happy to peruse it.



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:41 AM on May 2, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what study are you looking for?

I would also like to know how you decided that no one hunts with a pistol, or that a hunter only needs one rifle.

(Edited by tempestv 5/2/2006 at 10:11 AM).
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 10:08 AM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:02 PM on May 1, 2006 :
 I would be interested in what study you've done to categorically prove that people who have a gun in their house are NOT more likely to kill or be killed by a gun.  Please point me to this well-hidden study and I will be happy to peruse it.


This is a very simple concept that for some reason gun-control activists cannot understand: there is nothing inherent about a gun that makes it categorically different from all other inanimate objects.  I do not have to prove that I am categorically safer with a gun than without, for the same reason that you do not have to prove that you are categorically safer driving a Volvo than an Accord.  It is a decision I am free to make, for now.  As an adult, a citizen, and an individual I am free in this country to weigh the options and act accordingly.

I would say that it is highly likely that people owning guns would be more likely to kill or be killed, for the shear fact that people who anticipate being killed are more likely to own guns.  People owning cars are more likely to cause a car accident, see the correlation?  Also, I don't know why we are suddenly including 'kill' as well as 'be killed.'  There are circumstances in which it is perfectly legal to kill; have you ever heard of justifiable homicide?  Self-defense?  I would say that it is all but certain that a gun-owner would be more likely to kill in those situations, a non-gun-owner would be more likely to simply be beat, robbed, raped, murdered...whatever the circumstance happens to be.  

 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:54 AM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you are talking about where I said 'famously disproven,' I posted that source in the other thread where you posted the same statistic.  

Also, you still haven't answered my question:

why do you feel the need to be here when you obviously do not feel the need to read up on the basic issues involved in the gun control debate?
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 11:14 AM on May 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) I've stated more than once what my arguments were and why they were made.  I'm not sure I can think of a more mundane way to express it.

2) Yes florida, you said that the "22 times more likely" information was disproven.  I'm still looking for any study that categorically proves that people are, statistically speaking, NOT "22 times more likely".  I'm sure you have it bookmarked.  Please, let the rest of us in on your top secret information.

3)  I've never seen anyone go hunting for food with a glock.  Of course, I suppose you could go elephant hunting with a howitzer if you really wanted to, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.  And the average "for food" hunter hunts the game in his area and could get by on one rifle.  I don't know of anyone, personally, who carries multiple rifles with them to go hunting.  Of course, most of the people I know bow hunt since it causes less damage to the meat.  I do know, however, quite a few "people" (if you can call them that) in the city who carry multiple weapons at all times, but they aren't looking for anything you'd be willing to eat.  Carried an M16 once, but I wasn't looking for duck.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:03 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Copied and pasted from the other thread, since you are too lazy to go read it over there.  (this information was found in 'More guns, less crime,' a book that compiles and analyzes statistics on gun control, by professor John Lott):

that "22 times more likely" number is way off.

I read an article on that study, and in making that calculation the author merely compared domestic homicide, suicide, and unintentional shootings among people who owned guns and people who did not own guns.  In other words, the author of the study assumed that anyone who lived in a gun-owning-home that was killed by a firearm was killed by the firearm that was in that home.  Out of the 444 incidents analysed in that study, in only 8 was it actually shown that the victim was killed by a firearm that was actually stored in the home.  

So, all that study shows, if anything, is that people who own guns are more likely to killed by a gun.  These variables are not mutually exclusive.  Many variables go into this equation, the most obvious being that people who know they are likely to be attacked are more likely to own a gun.  Someone who expects that they may be attacked by an abusive partner, someone who has a stalker, someone who lives in a bad neighborhood, someone who is a member of a gang, or someone who deals drugs are all more likely to own a gun than your average citizen because they know they are likely to be attacked.

Second, a large portion of that data is suicide, which cannot be attributed to the gun.  Because the author didn't establish that the gun was actually stored in the home, you cannot show that someone with a gun is more likely to commit suicide, via the common assertion that a gun makes suicide easier.  It is entirely possible, indeed probable, that many of these suicides involved people going out and buying guns specifically for that, or borrowing a gun.  Lastly, you cannot say that if they didn't have the gun they wouldn't have committed suicide.

(Edited by florida3006 5/2/2006 at 2:32 PM).

(Edited by florida3006 5/2/2006 at 2:33 PM).
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 2:29 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 2:03 PM on May 2, 2006 :
1) I've stated more than once what my arguments were and why they were made.  I'm not sure I can think of a more mundane way to express it.



No, actually you haven't.  You haven't explained why you are arguing against the 'need' for guns if you don't care to change existing law, and you haven't explained why you are arguing at all without a minimal understanding of the issues.  


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 3:06 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 2:03 PM on May 2, 2006 :
3)  I've never seen anyone go hunting for food with a glock.

so, because you haven't seen people hunt with one brand of one style of pistol, you can claim that there does not exist people who hunt with  pistols? for that matter, I have never seen anyone murdered with a firearm. I guess it just doesn't happen.
Quote from EMyers at 2:03 PM on May 2, 2006 :
Of course, I suppose you could go elephant hunting with a howitzer if you really wanted to, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.  And the average "for food" hunter hunts the game in his area and could get by on one rifle.  I don't know of anyone, personally, who carries multiple rifles with them to go hunting.  

I do. if they are going out for a few days and might go after both elk and deer, it is not uncommon to bring both a deer gun and an elk gun. since my rifle is a .243, it is a good deer gun, but a bit light for elk, which means that I will have to get an elk gun before hunting season rolls around again, and will have two seperate rifles for hunting. I am also thinking of getting a plinking gun that fires cheap rounds such as a .223 Mini-13 or a 7.62x39mm sks for Varments and what not. both could also be used as a deer rifle. that would make three rifles that I own, all having a valid reason for existance, and I don't need to go anywhere to have uses for them.
you apparently do not know anything about hunting, yet you act as though you are some kind of expert in the field. if you don't know what you are talking about, just shut up and stop making a fool out of yourself.


 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 3:29 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

florida, I read that.  I'm still not seeing your categorical proof that people with guns in the house are NOT (can you see that word) more likely to kill or be killed by a firearm.  I'm still waiting for it.

tempest, I've done a little research and I'm still not seeing the necessity of all these rifles you talk about when there are plenty of people that can take down any of the above with a simple bow and arrow.  Can't figure out how we survived before gunpowder.  It's a miracle.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:13 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:13 PM on May 2, 2006 :
florida, I read that.  I'm still not seeing your categorical proof that people with guns in the house are NOT (can you see that word) more likely to kill or be killed by a firearm.  I'm still waiting for it.


you aren't reading these posts from Florida or myself are you? the point is that statisticly, those that live in homes with guns are more likely to be shot at some point. however, this is a corrolation, not a cause and effect. the survey that Florida posted showed that it is true that those with handguns are statisticly at more risk, however, the risk has nothing to do with the firearm. it is because those that are at risk of violence- people that feel they are being stalked, those with violent estranged spouses, those in bad neighborhoods are the ones most likely to buy a gun. the risk comes from the enviroment that they are in, not the gun that they bought. the same is true about security alarms- the people that are most likely to buy them are those most at risk to home invasion. as such, people with security systems statisticly have a higher likelyhood of someone breaking into their home. are you going to claim that  someone shouldn't buy a security system because it increases their likelyhood of having their house broken into?
Quote from EMyers at 4:13 PM on May 2, 2006 :
tempest, I've done a little research and I'm still not seeing the necessity of all these rifles you talk about when there are plenty of people that can take down any of the above with a simple bow and arrow.  Can't figure out how we survived before gunpowder.  It's a miracle.


you apparently have not done enough research on wildlife managment.
it is true that you can kill most game with a bow and arrow, particularly modern compound bows that cost as much as a cheap rifle.  however, it is considerably harder, which means that less game is harvested. before you claim that that is good, consider that many of elk and deer's natural preditors have disappeared. as such, if we do not kill enough deer or elk every year, the populations will pass the carrying capacity of their habitat. if this happens, then the forage will be eaten to quickly, and many elk will starve to death. in addition, high population density from under hunting can cause disease spread that could kill all of the species. if all that was allowed was bow hunting, there is a decent chance that these harvest numbers could not be reached, which would cause overcrowding. allowing a rifle hunting season means that many times more deer and elk are killed, yet it is still often required to extend the season, due to the fact that not enough game has been killed.



 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:46 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:13 PM on May 2, 2006 :
 I'm still not seeing your categorical proof that people with guns in the house are NOT (can you see that word) more likely to kill or be killed by a firearm.  I'm still waiting for it.



And what makes you think I have to prove that?  

Second, what does hunting have to do with gun-control or civilian gun ownership?



 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 6:13 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from florida3006 at 6:13 PM on May 2, 2006 :
Second, what does hunting have to do with gun-control or civilian gun ownership?

Hunting is an important use of civilian firearms becuase it is necissary to keep the animal populations in check.


 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 6:16 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from tempestv at 4:46 PM on May 2, 2006 :

you apparently have not done enough research on wildlife managment.
it is true that you can kill most game with a bow and arrow, particularly modern compound bows that cost as much as a cheap rifle.  however, it is considerably harder, which means that less game is harvested. before you claim that that is good, consider that many of elk and deer's natural preditors have disappeared. as such, if we do not kill enough deer or elk every year, the populations will pass the carrying capacity of their habitat. if this happens, then the forage will be eaten to quickly, and many elk will starve to death. in addition, high population density from under hunting can cause disease spread that could kill all of the species. if all that was allowed was bow hunting, there is a decent chance that these harvest numbers could not be reached, which would cause overcrowding. allowing a rifle hunting season means that many times more deer and elk are killed, yet it is still often required to extend the season, due to the fact that not enough game has been killed.






I don't understand why you even went down this road.  Hunting has absolutely nothing, NOTHING to do with civilian gun ownership or gun control.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 6:16 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from tempestv at 6:16 PM on May 2, 2006 :
Quote from florida3006 at 6:13 PM on May 2, 2006 :
Second, what does hunting have to do with gun-control or civilian gun ownership?

Hunting is an important use of civilian firearms becuase it is necissary to keep the animal populations in check.





Hunting is an activity that is peripheral, at best, to gun ownership.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 6:21 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Emyers asked why hunters needed guns, why they couldn't just use bows, so I explained why guns were so inportant to hunting, due to it's use in wildlife management
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 6:40 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not that I disagree with you, but with anti-gunners a common tactic is to distract people from the real issue, or to assert that gun rights are dependant on hunting rights.

Wildlife management is necessary for the well being of both people and animals, and guns (more than one) are necessary for wildlife management, but hunting has nothing to do with the rights of civilians to own guns.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 7:21 PM on May 2, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:34 PM on May 1, 2006 :
I have not, at anytime, been debating about whether or not firearms should or should not be banned.  I've simply pointed out that certain arguments (such as the bayonet lug that you brought up) are ludicrous in the light of day.  I've used an M-16 myself.  However, you will never find one in my house.  Statistics can't be ignored.  For every ONE incident of self-defense, TWENTY-TWO incidents of suicide, homicide, stupidicide (yes, I coined a word) are committed.  Statistically, my children are less likely to be the victims of gun violence because I DON'T have a gun in my house.  You can twist 'em anyway you like, but it doesn't change 'em.


I don't know where you are getting your statistics those satistics are of only deaths from someone defending them selves. But I don't under stand how you can be so naive to beleave that only deaths are the only result for a law abiding citizen defending them selves with a gun. What about the millions that defend them selves every year with out firing a single shot. Also I find it sad that you and your wife can't be trusted to have a gun in your house with out turning it on your kids or be able to safely store it. Actualy I want to commend you, you are a bigger man than I there is no way that I could watch as a murdering rapist, raped and killed my wife and kids. I would have to defend them. As far as the M-16 if you were not in the military I highly doubt that you have even seen one in the flesh. Yes I do agree with your statement that your children are less likley to be victums of gun violence since 75% of all homicides are done by repeat offenders ( unless you are one?)I would say that the majority that are left are just starting out. One other thing you have neglected is that you don't under stand is the nature of someone who would commit a murder or suicide you forget that the object of the exercize is the end result, how you achieve that result is irrelivent. It is naive to think that only a person with a gun will murder or commit suicide. Your assumtion in an earlier post that for a law abiding gun owner to go up against a criminal with a gun was suicide is wrong. A lawful gun owner has had years of practice as a criminal has usualy had none and will run when confronted. The only criminal that will stand his gound is almost always high on drugs and will pay the price. Sir I want you to know that I refuse to be a victim and I will use any advantage I can get to protect my family you can say any thing you wish about me  but one thing I am not is a coward.      

(Edited by TRIGGER 6/16/2006 at 8:29 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 6/16/2006 at 8:31 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 6/16/2006 at 8:33 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 6/16/2006 at 9:50 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 6/16/2006 at 10:03 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 8:27 PM on June 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any advantage?  Where do you think most criminals get their weapons?  Most were stolen.  Quite often from the people they are attacking.  Thank you for supplying them with more weapons.  Also, I'm not sure what criminals you have in your neighborhood, but I think you're naive to think that most "gun-owners" have more experience using them than most criminals and that the criminal will turn tail and run if you have a gun.  If the criminal did have a gun, he's going to shoot you.  If he didn't, then he probably wasn't there to murder you (or is woefully prepared) in the first place.  Personally, I feel much safer with a security system and some top of the line locks, doors, and windows than I ever would with guns.  

(Edited by EMyers 6/17/2006 at 07:19 AM).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:14 AM on June 17, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 07:14 AM on June 17, 2006 :
Any advantage?  Where do you think most criminals get their weapons?  Most were stolen.  Quite often from the people they are attacking.  Thank you for supplying them with more weapons.  Also, I'm not sure what criminals you have in your neighborhood, but I think you're naive to think that most "gun-owners" have more experience using them than most criminals and that the criminal will turn tail and run if you have a gun.  If the criminal did have a gun, he's going to shoot you.  If he didn't, then he probably wasn't there to murder you (or is woefully prepared) in the first place.  Personally, I feel much safer with a security system and some top of the line locks, doors, and windows than I ever would with guns.  

(Edited by EMyers 6/17/2006 at 07:19 AM).


Sir again I don't know where you get your facts. Most guns that criminals get are from someone who is selling them usualy from a straw purchase or are stolen from a gun dealer and there are some that disapear from police prop. rooms and even some come from buy back programs and the one's that are stolen from the public are stolen from an unoccupied house where the gun's are not locked up. Very few criminals will break in to an occupied house, unless they are there to perpitrate a personal attack, rape etc. or are on drugs. And the main reason they prefer an empty house is that they don't run the risk getting shot in the process. Criminals are alot smarter than you think. One other thing that you may not have thought of is if the supply of guns to criminals were to dry up, do you not think that this would create a black market for guns? Then drugs would not be the only thing that would be smuggled in to the US. All those things you mention are all good ways to be safe, and most gun owners do all those things, what you don't realize is that the gun is always your last resort. When all else fails the gun is the last resort. Also you do need to go out of your house ocasionaly.    


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 3:17 PM on June 17, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TRIGGER at 3:17 PM on June 17, 2006 :
Quote from EMyers at 07:14 AM on June 17, 2006 :
Any advantage?  Where do you think most criminals get their weapons?  Most were stolen.  Quite often from the people they are attacking.  Thank you for supplying them with more weapons.  Also, I'm not sure what criminals you have in your neighborhood, but I think you're naive to think that most "gun-owners" have more experience using them than most criminals and that the criminal will turn tail and run if you have a gun.  If the criminal did have a gun, he's going to shoot you.  If he didn't, then he probably wasn't there to murder you (or is woefully prepared) in the first place.  Personally, I feel much safer with a security system and some top of the line locks, doors, and windows than I ever would with guns.  

(Edited by EMyers 6/17/2006 at 07:19 AM).


Sir again I don't know where you get your facts. Most guns that criminals get are from someone who is selling them usualy from a straw purchase or are stolen from a gun dealer and there are some that disapear from police prop. rooms and even some come from buy back programs and the one's that are stolen from the public are stolen from an unoccupied house where the gun's are not locked up. Read this link.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html




Very few criminals will break in to an occupied house, unless they are there to perpitrate a personal attack, rape etc. or are on drugs. And the main reason they prefer an empty house is that they don't run the risk getting shot in the process. Criminals are alot smarter than you think. One other thing that you may not have thought of is if the supply of guns to criminals were to dry up, do you not think that this would create a black market for guns? Then drugs would not be the only thing that would be smuggled in to the US. All those things you mention are all good ways to be safe, and most gun owners do all those things, what you don't realize is that the gun is always your last resort. When all else fails the gun is the last resort. Also you do need to go out of your house ocasionaly.    






-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 3:26 PM on June 17, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TRIGGER at 3:17 PM on June 17, 2006 :

One other thing that you may not have thought of is if the supply of guns to criminals were to dry up, do you not think that this would create a black market for guns? Then drugs would not be the only thing that would be smuggled in to the US.


Just  look at what happened in England- since most guns were banned, gun smuggling has risen dramaticly. In fact, the british army has been having problems with gun thiefs stealing military weapons including squad automatic machine guns to be sold on the street.  it is beleved that many of these thiefs operate on a by order basis- tell the thief what you want and he goes on to the miltary base and steals the weapon.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:45 PM on June 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well of course gun smuggling has risen dramatically.  It didn't have to be smuggled before.  If you outlaw Pepsi in the US, then Pepsi smuggling will rise dramatically.  :P


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:12 PM on June 23, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and what it proves is that limiting legal access does not limit access. the sources just go underground. the war on drugs is a good example of this.
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 5:26 PM on June 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right.  Let's legalize everything.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:29 PM on June 23, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:29 PM on June 23, 2006 :
You're right.  Let's legalize everything.


Great lets do that. I agree with you 100%.





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 3:18 PM on June 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course.  That means if I kill you I won't be in trouble.  Murder is legal.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:20 PM on June 24, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:20 PM on June 24, 2006 :
Of course.  That means if I kill you I won't be in trouble.  Murder is legal.  


Not if I get you first. I assumed you ment arms. Not everything just arms.



(Edited by TRIGGER 6/24/2006 at 9:41 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 9:38 PM on June 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 5:29 PM on June 23, 2006 :
You're right.  Let's legalize everything.





Great lets do that. I agree with you 100%.

how can you claim not to know what I meant when you c&p'd it right before your response?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 01:41 AM on June 25, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not a claim fact these threads are about arm's and thought thats what you ment you didn't specify. I have no reason to misslead you.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 12:02 PM on June 25, 2006 | IP
AV9

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers, I have never seen someone contradict themselves so blatantly on an internet forum. Congratulations.

First you argue to learn to defend yourself "without a gun." Then you argue that compliance, such as the compliant passengers on the flights involved in 9/11, is a poor choice. So, now armed defense is bad along with compliance.

Then you put the final nail in your coffin of logic with the statement "during a gun fight you would be safer to not have brought a gun."

The pure idiocy in itself is really quite a monument to your beliefs.

You strike me as someone who is too afraid to handle a firearm, probably for fear of harming yourself because the weight of responsibility is too much- in which case I completely agree you shouldn't own a gun. Just have fun waiting for the police to arrive. I mean after all, "If the attacker intends to kill, they will kill you whether or not you have a gun."

Makes sense.


In all seriousness, does anyone else think this guy has a few screws loose?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:00 AM on July 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, if you use your head, you can see that all my comments do agree with each other.  Even with your cherry picking they make sense.  Learn to follow a thread of logic from beginning to end, it might help.  Also, if you've been reading my posts you should know that I have handled a gun before.  That hardly undermines my position, in fact it should lend credence to it.  Good luck.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:38 AM on July 7, 2006 | IP
turboflamer

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, guns are used much more often to save lives then taking them. A federal study estimates that average number of US civilians are involved in successful defense involving a firearm each year is over 2 million. In over 90% of those cases, a shot was never fired.  A criminal usually backs off or surrenders at just the sight of a gun.

So, yea we are going to use guns to defend ourselves if it is necessary. We don't want to get killed by some psycho/robber/serial killer while we wait for the police to arrive (if we have a chance to call them). And if he is armed with a gun and all you got is a baseball bat, well, your just screwed.

just look at britain, they banned guns, then stun guns, then pepper spray, now working on banning knives.

The only "self defense" technique that the government is supporting there is "personal alarms". If your in britain and someone attacks you then you can try to annoy him away with the loud beeping noise. "don't make me ring it!"

Britain is a prime example of civilians having to defend themselves against criminals while not having access to guns, and they really aren't doing too good as violent crime has been skyrocketing since the ban.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:07 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***warning, the next question is off-topic... if you do not like off-topic questions, please skip to the next post***

I just gotta ask... what is a turboflamer?  A gay guy with a hemi?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:44 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
turboflamer

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lol I have no idea, just made it up but its kinda funny when people try to guess. I think it sounds pretty cool if it wasn't for the "flamer" thing. I guess i forgot to think about that.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 02:31 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only people that should be restricted in the kind of gun that a person can have should be criminals. By restricting things like bayonets folding and stocks only restricts people that can all ready get a gun, but has no effect on law abiding citizens.

Just in case you didn't know EMyers a "law abiding citizen" is some one that has not committed any crime yet.

Also if the government doesn't trust me to have a M240 why should I one.

EMyers, you made a comment some time back a bout grabbing a M61A1 to shoot a deer. I would not recomend it because there would be no deer left, and even if you could lift it and fire it, you would be shot backwards by the recoil. In case you didn't know a M61A1 is used exclusively on aircraft and on a anti-aircraft version of the M113 armored amphibious transport used in Vietnam. It would have shown more intelligent for you to have mentioned the slightly lighter version the M61A2 used in the F/A-16,. however you would have experienced the same results, and if you have one I hope that you have a lot of ammunition, because it runs through 100 rounds a second.

You seriously need to do some gun research before you go against guns. When you take away guns you only take them from the good guys, because the criminal factions in America are not about to fork over their guns. So you windup with a lot of armed criminals, in the unarmed population. You do the math.

finally on last note. you would not want to really on the police to protect you. It takes them between 5-10 minutes to get to most people homes after being sent. it takes 30 seconds for a criminal to knock down your bedroom door. an 1 second to shoot you dead.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:49 AM on January 7, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.