Active Users:410 Time:10/11/2024 10:16:14 PM
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 1532 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 985 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 913 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 860 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1016 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1171 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 527 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 847 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 856 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 897 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 843 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 870 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 929 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 1057 Views
So much for serious conversation - 22/12/2012 05:09:08 PM 860 Views
Oh I'm certainly bowing out - 22/12/2012 06:07:11 PM 859 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 863 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 915 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 834 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 825 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 882 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 862 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 849 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 874 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 856 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 897 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1061 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 785 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 846 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 761 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 926 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 979 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 558 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 797 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 493 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 906 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 706 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 873 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 932 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 883 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 806 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 881 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 806 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 579 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 902 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 875 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 815 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 791 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 775 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 791 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 497 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 784 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 482 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 977 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 774 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 781 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 502 Views

Reply to Message