Gun control discussion

[Edwina's Secretary]

AR-15s are highly accurate and are used for hunting coyotes

So it takes a weapon that shoots what - 20 - 30 bullets a minute - to take out a coyote???? Really?

I guess that is why the call him Wiley. The coyote that is. Certainly not the "marksman!"

And yes Karen - there may be 40 states where gun deaths don't yet outnumber auto deaths. Just give the NRA time.

When you consider the number of people exposed to autos vs the number of people exposed to guns...well...it is embarrassing, isn't it?

Of course there is this...once again...the irrefutable fact - a vehicle that kills is not being used as it is designed. A gun that kills is being used as it is designed.

[Lady's Human]

So it takes a weapon that shoots what - 20 - 30 bullets a minute - to take out a coyote???? Really?

I guess that is why the call him Wiley. The coyote that is. Certainly not the "marksman!"

No, it doesn't take that many rounds to "take out" a 'yote. However, the .223 is an excellent round for coyote hunting, as it has an extremely flat trajectory, and the AR-15 is an extremely accurate platform. Combine the two and you have an excellent tool for removing problem varmints from long range, and you don't normally get close to a coyote.

And yes Karen - there may be 40 states where gun deaths don't yet outnumber auto deaths. Just give the NRA time.

When you consider the number of people exposed to autos vs the number of people exposed to guns...well...it is embarrassing, isn't it?

Given that there are 270 million firearms in the US, and the number of automobiles is a fraction of that, which one is statistically more likely to do you harm over the tool's lifetime?

Besides, with concealed carry permits, how do you KNOW how many firearms you are within range of on any given day?

Of course there is this...once again...the irrefutable fact - a vehicle that kills is not being used as it is designed. A gun that kills is being used as it is designed.

It's not irrefutable. A HMMWV (hummer, for those in the civilian world) is designed for the military, hence, by extension, designed to kill. The same goes for the ever popular Jeeps. A firearm is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high speed. What one does with that projectile is entirely the decision of the person pulling the trigger. There are rounds with absolutely scary velocities that are absolutely useless outside of the target range. It's a tool. Period.

[Edwina's Secretary]

No, it doesn't take that many rounds to "take out" a 'yote. However, the .223 is an excellent round for coyote hunting, as it has an extremely flat trajectory, and the AR-15 is an extremely accurate platform. Combine the two and you have an excellent tool for removing problem varmints from long range, and you don't normally get close to a coyote.

Besides, with concealed carry permits, how do you KNOW how many firearms you are within range of on any given day?



It's not irrefutable. A HMMWV (hummer, for those in the civilian world) is designed for the military, hence, by extension, designed to kill. The same goes for the ever popular Jeeps. A firearm is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high speed. What one does with that projectile is entirely the decision of the person pulling the trigger. There are rounds with absolutely scary velocities that are absolutely useless outside of the target range. It's a tool. Period.

Somehow I cannot help but believe you do not need an assault weapon to kill a coyote. Native Americans were able to do it rather well without. Sounds like shooting wolves from helicopters to me.

I suppose a gernade would be an "excellent tool" for getting rid of possums as well. But that doesn't mean I need gernades to do it.

Thank you for making my point about concealed carry. I do not know how many firearms are within my range on any given day. And I think that is a terrible shame. And morally wrong.

It is so very kind of you to translate HMMWV to English for poor people who do not have your military linguistics. But your logic is about as faulty as it can be. Because something is designed for the military does not in any way shape or form means it is designed to kill. To use your logic Ready to Eat Meals are designed to kill. (Insert joke here) Medals for valor are designed to kill. John Phillip Sousa music was designed to kill.

Irrefutable. Vehicles are designed to move goods or people from one place to another. When used correctly they do not cause death. Gun, rifles, firearms are designed to kill people. When used correctly they cause death. Indded a tool. A tool to kill.

[Karen]

One does not NEED a gun to kill a coyote, any more than one NEEDS a fork to eat his or her food. They are both just tools that let the person accomplish the task more efficiently, with less mess.

[Edwina's Secretary]

One does not NEED a gun to kill a coyote, any more than one NEEDS a fork to eat his or her food. They are both just tools that let the person accomplish the task more efficiently, with less mess.

You are kidding right? That an assault rifle kills a coyote with "less mess"??? An animal killed with multiple bullets is "less mess" than an animal killed with one or even two clean shots. It seems to me if someone is not good enough shooter to kill the animal without "mess", they should find some other form of recreation - or occupation.

Even I, not closely tied to anyone who shots animals...can't buy that one!

Anymore than I can buy that jeeps and HMMWV were designed (although adapted would be the better word) to kill. These are vehicles designed to move people or goods from place to place - albeit those people may be involved in killing other people. Tanks are vehicles designed to kill people. (I know this because, during WWII, my dad was involved in designing and testing tanks.) Perhaps your brother has confused them.

Although I have had a bit of fun with the visual of a jeep being used to kill the enemy. I imagine folks at Camp Pendleton practicing killing people with jeeps. Very fun. Silly, but fun!

[Karen]

You are kidding right? That an assault rifle kills a coyote with "less mess"??? An animal killed with multiple bullets is "less mess" than an animal killed with one or even two clean shots. It seems to me if someone is not good enough shooter to kill the animal without "mess", they should find some other form of recreation - or occupation.

You don't seem to realize that these weapons being talked about in the press can (and often are) be used to fire a single shot at a time. Not everyone who uses them just holds down the trigger until a clip runs out. And being able to kill a predatory animal accurately, with one clean shot, is way less messy. So you think farmers, ranchers, or other defending their animals should come up with another "occupation" if they cannot kill the predator neatly, but don't think they should be allowed to use an accurate weapon? You are contradicting yourself.

Just saying ...

[blue]

Does wood furniture on an AR make it less scary?



Maybe girly it up a little.





Should bolt action ARs be regulated?

[Lady's Human]

You are kidding right? That an assault rifle kills a coyote with "less mess"??? An animal killed with multiple bullets is "less mess" than an animal killed with one or even two clean shots. It seems to me if someone is not good enough shooter to kill the animal without "mess", they should find some other form of recreation - or occupation.

Even I, not closely tied to anyone who shots animals...can't buy that one!

That is because your logic, as usual, is nonexistent. An AR is a highly accurate platform. As such, you don't need more than one or two shots to put down a coyote. However, like most predatory canines, they move in packs. You may need to shoot more than one. My neighbor raises horses. He uses a semi automatic rifle to eliminate problem animals as he isn't a professional sniper. Sometimes it takes more than one shot to eliminate the animal. Should he give up farming because he doesn't meet your bar as a marksman?

Anymore than I can buy that jeeps and HMMWV were designed (although adapted would be the better word) to kill. These are vehicles designed to move people or goods from place to place - albeit those people may be involved in killing other people. Tanks are vehicles designed to kill people. (I know this because, during WWII, my dad was involved in designing and testing tanks.) Perhaps your brother has confused them.

No, I haven't confused anything. One of the requirements for WW2 jeeps was that they would be able to use various and sundry weapons in several different types of mounts. Hence, they were designed to kill. HMMWVs mount several different types of weapons from different weapons stations as well. They were, in fact, designed as killing machines. I know a little bit about both weapons systems, I've used both. First hand, not what my father told me at the kitchen table. Gunnery table 8 exists for a reason.

Although I have had a bit of fun with the visual of a jeep being used to kill the enemy. I imagine folks at Camp Pendleton practicing killing people with jeeps. Very fun. Silly, but fun!

Again, various gunnery tables involve the use of jeeps with ring mounted weapons (when they were still in the system) and HMMWVs. Not silly at all, except in your mind.

[Lady's Human]

Blue, if you add wooden furniture and take away that evil, evil bayonet lug, they are definitely less scary. Just ask Sen. Feinstein!

[Edwina's Secretary]

That is because your logic, as usual, is nonexistent. An AR is a highly accurate platform. As such, you don't need more than one or two shots to put down a coyote. However, like most predatory canines, they move in packs. You may need to shoot more than one. My neighbor raises horses. He uses a semi automatic rifle to eliminate problem animals as he isn't a professional sniper. Sometimes it takes more than one shot to eliminate the animal. Should he give up farming because he doesn't meet your bar as a marksman?



No, I haven't confused anything. One of the requirements for WW2 jeeps was that they would be able to use various and sundry weapons in several different types of mounts. Hence, they were designed to kill. HMMWVs mount several different types of weapons from different weapons stations as well. They were, in fact, designed as killing machines. I know a little bit about both weapons systems, I've used both. First hand, not what my father told me at the kitchen table. Gunnery table 8 exists for a reason.



Again, various gunnery tables involve the use of jeeps with ring mounted weapons (when they were still in the system) and HMMWVs. Not silly at all, except in your mind.

Keep on paddling. At least you may convince yourself! Guns are good. Guns are good. Guns are good. Close your eyes and repeat...guns are good...

But insulting my father? Really, really low. He knew more about machines than you could ever, ever know. I guess his 32 patents don't compare to your exalted knowledge. Really, really low. A pity your father didn't tell you about decency at the kitchen table. Mine did.

[cassiesmom]

We are only nine days into 2013 and there have already been 13 murders in Chicago. Mostly on the South Side and mostly gang-on-gang shootings. I hope the task force headed by VP Biden looks at the reasons why young people join gangs and obtain guns. I don't think they can address gun violence without also looking at other issues like poverty, education, stability of the family, and just creating a better future for young people than gang membership, prison, or early death. Mayor Emanuel announced that he wants the community policing program in the city administered on a local level instead of by the department central administration, so they can try to do more in their immediate communities where the police are working. VP Biden, I'm sure Chicago is not the only big city dealing with gangs, drugs and gun violence. HELP!

[mon]

C'mon folfs, you can but an illegal firearm in Canada B.C. whenever u please. All ya need is the balls to go downtown and buy 1 off a freaky criminal. You can also legally get 1 easily. Just sayin'.

[mon]

All I am saying is that people break laws. No matter what they are, if they feel like it. Make all the gun control laws you please. Dude wants a gun, Oh I'm pretty sure he or she will finf one.

[Lady's Human]

Thank you for making my point about concealed carry. I do not know how many firearms are within my range on any given day. And I think that is a terrible shame. And morally wrong..

You being harmed by a person with a concealed carry permit is almost a zero probability event.

You being harmed by someone with a vehicle is almost a statistical certainty.

However, you rail and gnash your teeth about the near-zero probability event, and blithely ignore the statistically certain event?

Then you have the gall to accuse another person of using no logic?

[blue]

You being harmed by a person with a concealed carry permit is almost a zero probability event.

You being harmed by someone with a vehicle is almost a statistical certainty.

However, you rail and gnash your teeth about the near-zero probability event, and blithely ignore the statistically certain event?

Then you have the gall to accuse another person of using no logic?

Logically, you are more likely to encounter a mass murder in a gun free zone.

Logically, gun crimes occur more in areas with high gun restrictions.

Logically, more gun crimes occur in high population areas.

Logically you are safer in sparse population areas with few firearm restrictions.

Common link with mass shootings, what drugs where they taking?

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant...ook-reporting/

ETA: Logic matters very little if at all to those who live in fear. I know people who refuse to ride a bus without a helmet.