Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 20:57:28 GMT
aka ideologies Semantics! Semantics are a choice of words. Ideology is the philosophy of use, or intent.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 20:59:10 GMT
A hunter shoots to kill the prey, not maim the prey. I think we are beyond simple semantics here and have entered bantering about ideology. One can dig a hole using either guns or spoons. In all humor youse guys being silly A hunter shoots to kill an animal. A police officer shoots to kill a criminal. A battlefield infantryman shoots to maim the enemy. A marksman shoots paper.
Same tool. 4 completely separate purposes.
Agree with you points but wish to clarify that police shoot to stop/incapacitate criminals, though the potential for death is quite significant (see my posts today on the subject). Firearms are certainly an item that involve potential lethality when used against fellow men; as you pointed out, they are used for many things and in many different ways (hunting, sports, defense, etc...).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 21:14:51 GMT
So semiauto firearms are no dangerous device? (sip) Naturally, everything is potentially dangerous. A van was used to murder 100 people in France a few years back. Dangerous device is a technical term used to (I believe) describe something that is (please forgive me as I'm simplifying) dangerous to society while having minimal defensive application. Nothing says "Houston, we have a problem" like firing a bazooka at (your sleepy eyes believe) a shadowy figure in front of your kids bedroom in the dark. Naturally, Andi, I know your not really comparing a .38 snubby with a Hydrogen bomb. I guess the real debate to the entire subject is the question of what the proper level of regulation is, and I guess that comes down to individual tastes and beliefs. Everything needs some form of regulation, yet there are instances where over regulation runs amok and you get an Orwellian society. One thing I believe should be utterly illegal is the shooting at containers of fine alcohol. Gulp.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 21:17:52 GMT
Yup! (sip) What was the firepower when 2A was made?
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 21:34:21 GMT
A hunter shoots to kill an animal. A police officer shoots to kill a criminal. A battlefield infantryman shoots to maim the enemy. A marksman shoots paper.
Same tool. 4 completely separate purposes.
Agree with you points but wish to clarify that police shoot to stop/incapacitate criminals, though the potential for death is quite significant (see my posts today on the subject). Firearms are certainly an item that involve potential lethality when used against fellow men; as you pointed out, they are used for many things and in many different ways (hunting, sports, defense, etc...). Out here in Cali, they shoot until the threat stops (read: dump the mag into the bad guy and execute him.) Happens over and over again. Recently a couple of bystanders have been caught up in the shoot and killed.
I still don't think the purpose of any weapon is to kill. It goes way beyond that. The five foot view is that it is to kill, but the 60,000 foot view paints a completely different picture.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 21:35:04 GMT
Yup! (sip) What was the firepower when 2A was made? The state of the art military firepower.
AR-15=Modern Musket.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 21:36:59 GMT
cannons?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 21:55:43 GMT
Yup! (sip) What was the firepower when 2A was made? In most states, todays American citizen has the same equivalent firepower as your average police officer, that being Semiauto rifle, handgun, shotgun. Present time equivalency is the relevant measure, as everyone equally wielded rocks and sticks 40 thousand years ago.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 21:58:55 GMT
Yes please!
I actually got out of .44 mag a while ago so I no longer have any cannons.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 22:08:43 GMT
Agree with you points but wish to clarify that police shoot to stop/incapacitate criminals, though the potential for death is quite significant (see my posts today on the subject). Firearms are certainly an item that involve potential lethality when used against fellow men; as you pointed out, they are used for many things and in many different ways (hunting, sports, defense, etc...). Out here in Cali, they shoot until the threat stops (read: dump the mag into the bad guy and execute him.) Happens over and over again. Recently a couple of bystanders have been caught up in the shoot and killed.
I still don't think the purpose of any weapon is to kill. It goes way beyond that. The five foot view is that it is to kill, but the 60,000 foot view paints a completely different picture.
In Cali, you have my sympathy, as they seem to be all over the place regarding laws. Lawful citizen defending home, soldier, police officer, hunter, sportsman, etc... Lots of different subjects to chew on. Hunters want to kill animals as quickly and humanely as possible, but that's animals. I get what your saying on your "wounding" theory (vs killing) as to increase logistical expense on the enemy, but I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject. I do know that some military concepts of the past emphasized body counts on both troops and citizenry by thinking that it would bring the leadership of the opposing side to the negotiating table. This is one of the HORRORS of war and why war should be the last option between nations.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 22:12:21 GMT
Where would you draw the line between the weapons every not ill or criminal person should have the right to have or banned arms?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 22:13:00 GMT
Only to be used by citizenry with blanks during the last song of an AC/DC concert. "For Those About To Drink...WE SALUTE YOU!" FIRE!
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 22:14:57 GMT
(swallow)
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 22:19:06 GMT
Where would you draw the line between the weapons every not ill or criminal person should have the right to have and banned arms? My personal line is semiauto, Andi, but you might not be directing the question to me. You become a danger to self, family, society with negligible or no benefits defensively when damage potential increases. Congers up images of Commander Kong on that bomb at the end of "Dr. Strangelove". WAAAAHOOOO!
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 22:30:51 GMT
The pure essence of my precious bodily fluids might be influenced by influences I admit!
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 22:44:24 GMT
Where would you draw the line between the weapons every not ill or criminal person should have the right to have or banned arms? If this is directed to me:
I think fully auto weapons are fine if you're a stable, responsible and mature person. For me, that is what it comes down to for pretty much all small arms. Stable, responsible and mature. Feeding a full auto gun might make you not want to own one after the first range trip, but if you have the dough, go for it. There are lots of full auto guns owned by civilians, and rate they are used in crimes is so low I don't think the FBI even bothers to publish the stats.
The problem lies in the fact that, to a large extent, those are subjective terms, especially to those that feel they are stable, responsible and mature but the majority of society does not.
Without opening a massive can of worms: full auto anything, short barreled rifles and shotguns, high cap mags, etc, are all fine by me if you are a stable, responsible and mature individual.
I don't think anyone needs to own a rocket launcher, mortar, missiles or AA guns. But if they can prove a need, and meet the above criteria, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 22:50:48 GMT
How to find out if a person is stable, responsible and a mature individual? Permanent psychoanalysis for weapon owners?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 22:53:08 GMT
The pure essence of my precious bodily fluids might be influenced by influences I admit! Ah, pure grain alcohol and non fluoridated spring water...the breakfast of homicidal maniacs the world over...we salute you...FIRE! Gulp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 22:53:34 GMT
Where would you draw the line between the weapons every not ill or criminal person should have the right to have and banned arms? My personal line is semiauto, Andi, but you might not be directing the question to me. You become a danger to self, family, society with negligible or no benefits defensively when damage potential increases. Congers up images of Commander Kong on that bomb at the end of "Dr. Strangelove". WAAAAHOOOO! Major Kong
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 22:54:22 GMT
It's a long way to the top ...
|
|