|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time.
Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite.
I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties.
I'll leave the thread now.
For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's.
Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon.
|
On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon.
You own an M-4 select-fire assault rifle? Really now?
|
On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon.
You don't own an M4. That would be illegal. Maybe you are making shit up, or maybe you are intentionally misrepresenting facts by suggesting an AR-15 is the same as an M4. Who knows...
For the record, I don't own any guns, and have no plans of owning guns. That is the truth, btw.
|
On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now?
There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models.
|
On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others.
Alcohol fits a lot better than smoking because people can kill themselves by abusing it and can kill others by being a colossal ass hole and drinking and driving. People can and will contest that second hand smoking will kill others and needs to regulated. It's hard to say that drinking and driving doesn't need to be banned out right.
About the statisticaly higher rate of "harm" from gun ownership comes from suicides any ways (6.7 out of the 10.1/10,000 in the US iirc) because the US has a big problem with it's mental health care. If you mean business when you try to kill yourself you jump, hang yourself or shoot yourself or another practically unstoppable method. People who cut themselves or try to overdose are more of a cry for help. Taking guns from these people wont really help when all you need to kill your self is a plastic bag.
The shooter in the Fireman shooting earlier was a convict. Gun control failed in this instance because he was a convicted killer and should not have access to weapons of any kind.
|
On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities.
[quote]
More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models.
Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16.
|
On December 25 2012 14:37 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic:
You say: "I have a right to defend myself"
I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun."
Statistics prove this, without question.
Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models. Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16.
Totally agree. I wasn't aware of any civilian legal M4's either, until I checked Wikipedia. I think they're de-mil'd versions, basically you take a military M4, disable the full-auto setting, lengthen the barrel, and make any other changes I'm forgetting, and you've got a civilian legal M4.
I think it's more likely that he thinks anything with rails and painted black is an M4.
|
On December 25 2012 14:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:37 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models. Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16. Totally agree. I wasn't aware of any civilian legal M4's either, until I checked Wikipedia. I think they're de-mil'd versions, basically you take a military M4, disable the full-auto setting, lengthen the barrel, and make any other changes I'm forgetting, and you've got a civilian legal M4. I think it's more likely that he thinks anything with rails and painted black is an M4.
US military M4's aren't full auto. Troops were going through their ammo to fast in fire fights so they limit them to 3 round bursts.
|
LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4.
Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
|
On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
LOL at people who don't know that you can't own an M-4.
Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
I live in Florida and can legally buy a firearm from a guy in a parking lot. I probably wouldn't just because it feels kinda shady, but if I were to so desire I could.
|
United States24747 Posts
On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4.
Why is that funny? You were surprised that not everyone is an expert on every model of rifle and whether or not it can be obtained in civilian model? Jeesh.
Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
Did you buy it from a friend/acquaintance? If not, then I believe it was technically in violation of federal law, although it happens all the time.
|
Sales of select-fire or full automatic M4s by Colt are restricted to military and law enforcement agencies.
So myname, is your weapon selective-fire with three round burst or not? If it is, it is illegal. If not, it is not an M4, it is an CAR-15
|
On December 25 2012 14:53 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4. Why is that funny? You were surprised that not everyone is an expert on every model of rifle and whether or not it can be obtained in civilian model? Jeesh. Show nested quote +Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
Did you buy it from a friend/acquaintance? If not, then I believe it was technically in violation of federal law, although it happens all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Utah
It was legal, and it was advertised on a website similar to craigslist.
I find it funny because even pro-gun advocates think an M-4 is illegal, which is not the case.
|
On December 25 2012 14:56 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:53 micronesia wrote:On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4. Why is that funny? You were surprised that not everyone is an expert on every model of rifle and whether or not it can be obtained in civilian model? Jeesh. Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
Did you buy it from a friend/acquaintance? If not, then I believe it was technically in violation of federal law, although it happens all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_UtahIt was legal, and it was advertised on a website similar to craigslist. I find it funny because even pro-gun advocates think an M-4 is illegal, which is not the case.
You cannot legally own a select fire M4. It would have to be registered pre-automatic weapons ban, but I don't even think the M-4 was manufactured then.
|
|
|
On December 25 2012 14:46 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:42 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:37 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger.
The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others.
Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models. Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16. Totally agree. I wasn't aware of any civilian legal M4's either, until I checked Wikipedia. I think they're de-mil'd versions, basically you take a military M4, disable the full-auto setting, lengthen the barrel, and make any other changes I'm forgetting, and you've got a civilian legal M4. I think it's more likely that he thinks anything with rails and painted black is an M4. US military M4's aren't full auto. Troops were going through their ammo to fast in fire fights so they limit them to 3 round bursts.
3 round burst is still not civilian legal if I'm not mistaken, so most of the de-mil'ing I was talking about is still legitimate.
On December 25 2012 15:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Mine is semi.
Ok, like we said. We all said you couldn't own a military spec'd M4, which you don't.
|
On December 25 2012 15:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:46 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 14:42 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:37 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking.
In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models. Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16. Totally agree. I wasn't aware of any civilian legal M4's either, until I checked Wikipedia. I think they're de-mil'd versions, basically you take a military M4, disable the full-auto setting, lengthen the barrel, and make any other changes I'm forgetting, and you've got a civilian legal M4. I think it's more likely that he thinks anything with rails and painted black is an M4. US military M4's aren't full auto. Troops were going through their ammo to fast in fire fights so they limit them to 3 round bursts. 3 round burst is still not civilian legal if I'm not mistaken, so most of the de-mil'ing I was talking about is still legitimate. Ok, like we said. We all said you couldn't own a military spec'd M4, which you don't.
I never said anything about my gun, other than I bought it without registering it, without a background check, and without a waiting period, and it was 100% legal.
|
On December 25 2012 15:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 15:04 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:46 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 14:42 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:37 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one. It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS. Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models. Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16. Totally agree. I wasn't aware of any civilian legal M4's either, until I checked Wikipedia. I think they're de-mil'd versions, basically you take a military M4, disable the full-auto setting, lengthen the barrel, and make any other changes I'm forgetting, and you've got a civilian legal M4. I think it's more likely that he thinks anything with rails and painted black is an M4. US military M4's aren't full auto. Troops were going through their ammo to fast in fire fights so they limit them to 3 round bursts. 3 round burst is still not civilian legal if I'm not mistaken, so most of the de-mil'ing I was talking about is still legitimate. On December 25 2012 15:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Mine is semi. Ok, like we said. We all said you couldn't own a military spec'd M4, which you don't. I never said anything about my gun, other than I bought it without registering it, without a background check, and without a waiting period, and it was 100% legal.
you said you owned an m4. you don't. you own a replica. which is basically an ar-15,
|
On December 25 2012 16:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 15:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 15:04 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:46 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 14:42 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:37 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:34 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:32 WTFZerg wrote:On December 25 2012 14:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS.
Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties. I'll leave the thread now. For the record I own an M-4 and two .22's. Thank God that gun laws will be tightening soon. You own an M-4 select-fire assault? Really now? There are semi-auto civilian-legal M4 models. Unless there's a model I'm unaware of, not really. Well, maybe, but that's like saying an AR-15 is a civilian legal M16. It isn't really. They're similar, but the select fire nature of the weapon is what makes it an M16. Totally agree. I wasn't aware of any civilian legal M4's either, until I checked Wikipedia. I think they're de-mil'd versions, basically you take a military M4, disable the full-auto setting, lengthen the barrel, and make any other changes I'm forgetting, and you've got a civilian legal M4. I think it's more likely that he thinks anything with rails and painted black is an M4. US military M4's aren't full auto. Troops were going through their ammo to fast in fire fights so they limit them to 3 round bursts. 3 round burst is still not civilian legal if I'm not mistaken, so most of the de-mil'ing I was talking about is still legitimate. On December 25 2012 15:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Mine is semi. Ok, like we said. We all said you couldn't own a military spec'd M4, which you don't. I never said anything about my gun, other than I bought it without registering it, without a background check, and without a waiting period, and it was 100% legal. you said you owned an m4. you don't. you own a replica. which is basically an ar-15,
Why split hairs on Christmas?
By the way, Merry Christmas Gun Law Thread!
|
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
