Active Users:1068 Time:22/11/2024 09:58:34 AM
Re: Well I appreciate your calling it pedantic when you aren't an expert, thanks for correcting me TheCrownless Send a noteboard - 22/12/2012 09:35:38 AM
Wrong is wrong, hunting is a major purpose guns are used for, thus many manufacturers label specific firearms, and modify them sometimes, to be more suitable to that goal. Jack to do with operations, what kills a deer will typically kill a man as easily.

If the underlying point is correct then yes, of course, or at the very least not act like the point is invalid based on a disagreement you have with the terminology used, especially when it's as pedantic as yours is. You can argue all you want about there being no such thing as a hunting rifle, nobody will take you seriously when a quick google image search gives you an unqualified answer as to what a hunting rifle might mean to a layperson.


If your point is that we can separate 'hunting' weapons form other types, then you literally knew less than nothing about guns, and it is disgustingly arrogant to assert otherwise. Next you can tell me why special relativity and the laws of thermodynamics are flawed, that is literally how absurd your points are to me, and I can't cushion that to be polite.

And what might kill one deer easily doesn't necessarily have to be able to kill 20 school children in a short space of time. You have admitted your background with fire arms, if you had to pick a weapon up off a rack holding an AR-15, a semi-automatic handgun of your choice or a Remington Model 700 to kill 20 children as quickly as possible at short range what would you opt for?


The choice is silly to me, and I'm sorr ybut makes you seem ignorant of the subject. My weapon of choice is the M16, as I've been heavily trained with it, thus I pick it, or its weaker variation, the AR-15.. You seem to think for the implied mission there's a meaningful difference... there is not. All would be sufficiently fatal, none require a significant timespan relative to other actions to get the next round ready. If I had to train someone form scratch specifically for that, I would pick the shotgun for a heftier slower individual and the pistol for a more dexterous person and the Ar-15 for neither though it would be my own choice and I'd consider the choice fairly minor.

Actually, as a grounded and informed individual it probably doesn't matter what you think as we have a nice bank of evidence that shows the nutters have made that decision already.


We haven't had enough spree killing to make any scientific assertions about them.


So not the 3-5 round bolt action then? Yeah I figured as much... you can carry on with this drivel if you want, we both know you're just waffling for the sake of it.
Come to the dark side, We have candy!

I'm Israel, he's Palestine, its more fun when you pick sides.
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1538 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 991 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 920 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 865 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1022 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1177 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 529 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 852 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 860 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 906 Views
I'm also an expert at math and physics, should I be more forgiving about those too? - 22/12/2012 12:38:45 AM 848 Views
Re: I'm also an expert at math and physics, should I be more forgiving about those too? - 22/12/2012 01:00:18 AM 875 Views
Well I appreciate your calling it pedantic when you aren't an expert, thanks for correcting me - 22/12/2012 01:15:08 AM 933 Views
Re: Well I appreciate your calling it pedantic when you aren't an expert, thanks for correcting me - 22/12/2012 09:35:38 AM 1067 Views
So much for serious conversation - 22/12/2012 05:09:08 PM 868 Views
Oh I'm certainly bowing out - 22/12/2012 06:07:11 PM 865 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 870 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 921 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 842 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 831 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 890 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 868 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 855 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 880 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 863 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 903 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1068 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 795 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 853 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 767 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 931 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 985 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 560 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 806 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 495 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 914 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 715 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 877 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 940 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 890 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 812 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 891 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 812 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 581 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 908 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 881 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 821 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 796 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 783 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 797 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 499 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 790 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 484 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 984 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 780 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 787 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 503 Views

Reply to Message