Ratboy Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 We wouldn't have this problem if we armed all the . Take that, cracked. Quote
Off_White Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Greg W said: As others have said here, many states require training before a CWP is issued. So, yes, those people are somewhat educated on safety. Yep. Thank god the concealed weapon permit is so severely regulated. For instance, if you were involuntarily committed to a mental institution for 14 days you would not be elegible. If it was for 13 days, or any number of days voluntarily committed you would be okay to carry. Yessiree, that CWP sets the bar pretty high in this state. That said, having Greg or Gotterdamerung or Will Strickland carrying a weapon when they're out and about doesn't much concern me. It seems like we're all essentially in agreement, shooting a guy dead for his out of control dogs is just poor gun control on the part of the armed individual. Like Gotterdamerung said, shoot the dogs, reason with the individual. If it had been my unarmed ass on the trail, to be sure I'd have gone all troglodyte and picked up a handy rock to deal with the dogs as best I could. Again, I think everyone here is on the same page: uncontrolled dogs really suck. There isn't really a gun control issue involved in this event, it's more about inappropriate response, and the one jerk shouldn't have killed the other jerk, but it sounds like they're both jerks. As far as carrying guns goes, I guess I agree with Greg (the conservative fucktard) that it's a matter of choice. I think the banter about who is more afraid is just rhetoric, but we all make choices about what risks we take. I've never once in 45 years placed myself in a situation where I wished I had a gun, but I'm willing to accept that it may be a matter of luck and the choices I've made, rather than assume that guns are always inappropriate and should be banned. I don't personally see the need to be armed on trails around here, but I sure understand Will's desire to be armed up in Alaska. Frankly, it would be a mistake to put a gun in my hands, my utter lack of training would make me a risk to myself and all others involved. Quote
JoshK Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 I can certainly see the logic in carrying a rifle in grizzly country. That is a lot different than toting on around in the cascades. I guess it's about the chances...I am much more likely to get struck by some shitass seattle driver than attacked by an angry cougar that I can't deal with in any way other than a gun. I have a question for greg et all...where should the line be drawn? The NRA doesn't want any gun restriction because they see any regulation as the beginning of the end. Let's say I am fine with people carrying handguns...where does stuff like military machine guns and 12-shot "streetsweeper" shotguns come in? It seem at some point you have to draw a line. Should I be able to arm myself with an RPG? If I get assaulted by a group of 10 people with guns, I think the only reasonable way to defend myself would be to take them all out at once with an RPG. I'm legitimately looking for opinions. Quote
Off_White Posted June 2, 2004 Posted June 2, 2004 Hmm, it just occurred to me to point out that my use of the terms "everyone" and "we all" doesn't include Fat Teddy. Quote
willstrickland Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Josh, the short answer is that there are existing regulations that "draw the line" so to speak. You cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon without a specific federal firearms license. You cannot legally own RPGs. Magazine capacity on shotguns is more or less irrelevant. It only takes one shot from a 12 gauge to put someone down. That said, 99% of the shotguns in the hands of the public have a maximum 5 shell magazine, and most of these have the removable plugs in the magazine to limit them to 3 (certain game seasons in some states limit your mag size...quail and dove season for example). If I need 11 shots at my disposal I can reload or carry multiples. I can't think of any situation where I'd need more than 5 personally. I believe (not certain on this one) that there is also a minimum barrel length that is legal for shotguns to limit "sawed off" type weapons (which is silly because any asshole can buy a hacksaw or cutting torch and do the job in five minutes). Clinton signed a law that limited the mag size on handguns. Before the ban you could buy Glocks that would hold around 17 rounds (depending on model/cal). Now it's 11 unless you can get ahold of some of the pre-ban magazines. There are lots of existing restrictions. NRA uses the slippery slope argument and I feel it's valid to an extent. You need hardcores on both sides of any issue if you truly want a middle ground solution. Quote
Skeezix Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 OK. I'm convinced. I'm going to get a gun. And a pair of camo cargo pants. And a monster truck. And vote for Bush. And support NASCAR in Marysville. And snap into a Slim Jim. Cowboy Up, everybody! Quote
olyclimber Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Skeezix, that isn't going to cut it. Everyone else is getting RPGs. Quote
marylou Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Whatever, I'm blowing up your little sissypants RPG with the big gun thinger on the front of my tank. Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 I'll hire a few suicide bombers to take out your tank. Quote
cracked Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Actually, Marylou, RPGs are very effective anti-tank weapons. VERY effective, even though armor that defeats them is being developed. It'll take an M1 Abrahms to survive a good RPG attack. Quote
marylou Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Well, whatever. It's a really big tank, and I feel very safe in it. Quote
olyclimber Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Well, whatever. It's a really big tank, and I feel very safe in it. Marylou, them there tanks thingys aren't very safe anymore. Quote
JoshK Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Magazine capacity on shotguns is more or less irrelevant. It only takes one shot from a 12 gauge to put someone down. That said, 99% of the shotguns in the hands of the public have a maximum 5 shell magazine, and most of these have the removable plugs in the magazine to limit them to 3 Are you kidding me!? More than 1 shot is great if you are looking to kill a bunch of your coworkers or engage in a school shotting. You can take a whole crowd out pretty easily; hence the name street sweeper. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Magazine capacity on shotguns is more or less irrelevant. It only takes one shot from a 12 gauge to put someone down. That said, 99% of the shotguns in the hands of the public have a maximum 5 shell magazine, and most of these have the removable plugs in the magazine to limit them to 3 Are you kidding me!? More than 1 shot is great if you are looking to kill a bunch of your coworkers or engage in a school shotting. You can take a whole crowd out pretty easily; hence the name street sweeper. Josh, Respectfully, I believe you are buying into some common misconceptions... myths even, about the capabilities, uses, and legalities of firearms in general, and shotguns in particular. Quote
JoshK Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 What misconception is this? I've seen the gun I am referring to...it basically looks like a cross between a tommy-gun and a shotgun. I'm just not clear what useful purpose this serves besides killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. Quote
cracked Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Josh, quit being so abrasive. You're almost worse than Martlet. Are finals getting to you? Quote
Fat_Teddy Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 What misconception is this? I've seen the gun I am referring to...it basically looks like a cross between a tommy-gun and a shotgun. I'm just not clear what useful purpose this serves besides killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. The Striker Street Sweeper is classified as an assault rifle. It's banned. What are you crying about? Quote
JoshK Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 What misconception is this? I've seen the gun I am referring to...it basically looks like a cross between a tommy-gun and a shotgun. I'm just not clear what useful purpose this serves besides killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. The Striker Street Sweeper is classified as an assault rifle. It's banned. What are you crying about? Thanks to Clinton. the NRA fought this tooth and nail... Quote
Fat_Teddy Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 What misconception is this? I've seen the gun I am referring to...it basically looks like a cross between a tommy-gun and a shotgun. I'm just not clear what useful purpose this serves besides killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. The Striker Street Sweeper is classified as an assault rifle. It's banned. What are you crying about? Thanks to Clinton. the NRA fought this tooth and nail... What difference does it make? It's banned, but you're STILL crying about it. Quote
JoshK Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Cause there are plenty of other ways to efficiently kill people that aren't banned. I'm done with this anyway, I got better shit to go do... Quote
Fat_Teddy Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Cause there are plenty of other ways to efficiently kill people that aren't banned. Then why are you crying about the ones that ARE banned? Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Hi guys! I just got back from another great day at the office. 30+ cutthroat on the dry fly... two 18inchers that are currently on the barbieQ. Hope you had fun calling me an idiot and making fun of me for being afraid of being alone in the woods covered in blood. P.S. got in some sweet bouldering in the felties Quote
JoshK Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 So do you actually have a job fishing, or are you just using the expression? My buddy is a fly fishing guide up in Alaska. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.