Only the Police and the Military Should Have Guns

TFLYTSNBN wrote:You are so bigoted that you claim that anyone who owns " to much" ammo is crazy.

Wow, if I am bigoted for such a simple observation, then almost every single person in America must be bigoted for their own outlooks.

Also, too much ammo as I listed it would be a not inconsiderable portion of the rounds fired by the US Army. If anyone has that much firepower in their basement, then the question of why they decided they needed it should be ringing alarm bells across the state.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:On a typical day at the range (at our home) the wife, kids and I will shoot hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition.

...double wow. Your accuracy must suck worse than the A-team if you waste that much. And think about the lead poisoning you are inflicting on the area. Lead poisoning builds up in the brain and reduces intelligence. I hope that you have mains water, if you rely on filtered runoff... the neurological consequences could be rather unfortunate. Or there's the probability of toxic levels of lead build-up in plants... I hope you don't have an orchard (or fruit/veg garden) anywhere near your gun range.
Then there's the cost of the ammo itself. You must burn through more than enough to otherwise hire an adequate lawyer to solve your renter issue...

TFLYTSNBN wrote:If any of you had ever had to identify the body of your brother after he had been intentionally ran over with a Dodge can, you might have a clue as to what the real issues should be.

Tfly, for that, you have my condolences. Losing a family member is always traumatic, especially to something as pointless as a traffic incident. I hope the driver was found and charged.

Michael Everett wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:You are so bigoted that you claim that anyone who owns " to much" ammo is crazy.

Wow, if I am bigoted for such a simple observation, then almost every single person in America must be bigoted for their own outlooks.

Also, too much ammo as I listed it would be a not inconsiderable portion of the rounds fired by the US Army. If anyone has that much firepower in their basement, then the question of why they decided they needed it should be ringing alarm bells across the state.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:On a typical day at the range (at our home) the wife, kids and I will shoot hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition.

...double wow. Your accuracy must suck worse than the A-team if you waste that much. And think about the lead poisoning you are inflicting on the area. Lead poisoning builds up in the brain and reduces intelligence. I hope that you have mains water, if you rely on filtered runoff... the neurological consequences could be rather unfortunate. Or there's the probability of toxic levels of lead build-up in plants... I hope you don't have an orchard (or fruit/veg garden) anywhere near your gun range.
Then there's the cost of the ammo itself. You must burn through more than enough to otherwise hire an adequate lawyer to solve your renter issue...

TFLYTSNBN wrote:If any of you had ever had to identify the body of your brother after he had been intentionally ran over with a Dodge can, you might have a clue as to what the real issues should be.

Tfly, for that, you have my condolences. Losing a family member is always traumatic, especially to something as pointless as a traffic incident. I hope the driver was found and charged.

I was wondering what a Dodge can was until it occurred to me that TFLY's typo should have been van... Don't mind me. I'm slow.

I'm sure that TFLYs bullets are Copper jacketed to insulate him from lead poisoning...even though the number expended does sound a bit excessive. Maybe he's training to do spray and pray with the Marines...

My condolences to TFLY upon the loss of his brother. Accidents are always tragic, and if a dwi was a part of it, criminal as well.

Don

-

If you are an avid shooter; hobby or professional, you will burn through a lot of ammo quite easily.

The whole thing about limiting the amount of ammo a person can have is a bit silly IMHO, unless you regulate it in such a way that it's hinged on how much you can store safely.

I'm not against people owning guns, I'm against guns being available to people who are totally unsuited for it and that people who want to buy and a gun should have to prove their "eligibility", even when privately sold.

Joat42 wrote:If you are an avid shooter; hobby or professional, you will burn through a lot of ammo quite easily.

The whole thing about limiting the amount of ammo a person can have is a bit silly IMHO, unless you regulate it in such a way that it's hinged on how much you can store safely.

I'm not against people owning guns, I'm against guns being available to people who are totally unsuited for it and that people who want to buy and a gun should have to prove their "eligibility", even when privately sold.

Amen!!!

Don

-

Joat42 wrote:If you are an avid shooter; hobby or professional, you will burn through a lot of ammo quite easily.

The whole thing about limiting the amount of ammo a person can have is a bit silly IMHO, unless you regulate it in such a way that it's hinged on how much you can store safely.

I'm not against people owning guns, I'm against guns being available to people who are totally unsuited for it and that people who want to buy and a gun should have to prove their "eligibility", even when privately sold.

Very well said.

We do long range rifle shooting that uses may be 100+ rounds per hour. Ranges 100 yards to 1,000 yards.

We also do trap and skeet shooting that is usually about 200+ rounds per session, limited by how tough your shoulder is.

We also do practical pistol, rifle and shotgun. (This is stylized combat practice.) Multiple human sillouette targets with multiple rounds per target. "Spray and Pray" is may be 3 to 6 rounds fired per second with a 90+% hit rate. A common practice scenario includes a "bad guy" holding a hostage. Shoot the bad guy in the head with out hitting the hostage, quickly because you have half a dozen other targets to engage.

I am getting old, arthritic and slow. I shoot may be 3 rounds per second in practical pistol, but I'm still accurate. However; if you break into my house, you will die. There is a good chance that it will be my wife rather than I who kills you. Her "House Cleaning" gun is a Heckler and Koch PS90. She also has a Glock and an AKS-47.

As for my children, don't even go there. One of my children by other parents is a nationally ranked practical pistol shooter. He is also a police officer.

I am with you about background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We have that in America, including private sales at gun shows. Background checks are not so effective when you have Cities such as Chicago where nearly 90% of murders are never solved. The clearance rates are even lower for other violent crimes. The Liberal Democrat solution is highly restrictive, discretionary licensing that denies gun permits to everyone except those who are wealthy, white and politically connected.

Michael Everett wrote:Of course, limiting ammunition would be a slightly less hot-button way of controlling gun crime. If someone is found to have more than a pre-determined amount in their house at any given time, a fine or jail sentence could be applied to give out the message that stocking up walls of ammo leads to loss of liberty.

And somehow you know exactly what a hundred million people NEED, when you know nothing about any of them. Your conceit is disgusting.

As with most commodities, ammunition is much less expensive when purchased in bulk. People who shoot as a sport can use up 1,000 rounds in a couple of weeks.

You propose to punish millions of people who have never done anything wrong, with measures that would be completely ineffective at preventing crime.

Michael Everett wrote:allowing people to stock up their sperm substitute levels to that which they wished to fire from their compensatory equipment

Why do anti-gun leftists ALWAYS go there? What sort of bizarre mental disorder causes you to project your sexual insecurities onto inanimate objects, which you then fear and hate?

You transfer that hate and fear onto the people who own those symbols of your anxiety. Do you feel compelled to take their guns away because they remind you of your fear? That won’t help you feel better about yourselves. Other people’s guns are not the cause of your personal problems.

Sex and guns are no more related than sex and frying pans, except inside your heads.

Joat42 wrote:I'm not against people owning guns, I'm against guns being available to people who are totally unsuited for it and that people who want to buy and a gun should have to prove their "eligibility", even when privately sold.

Do you know how to implement such a program without violating people’s rights? Without punishing people who have never committed a crime? Without leaving it open to abuse, providing a handy way for those in power to strike at their political enemies? WIthout allowing rabidly anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats to arbitrarily deny approval to everybody? Because if it can be abused, it will be.
———————————
You can't have the government take away the freedom of only the people you hate.

Imaginos1892 wrote:And somehow you know exactly what a hundred million people NEED, when you know nothing about any of them. Your conceit is disgusting.

Are you saying that a third of all US citizens do absolutely need access to unlimited, cheap ammunition for their guns?

I get that your country is all sorts of fucked up when it comes to guns, gun ownership and gun usage, but I was under the impression that responsible gun owners do not go through hundreds of rounds per day. Do correct me if I'm wrong though!

As with most commodities, ammunition is much less expensive when purchased in bulk. People who shoot as a sport can use up 1,000 rounds in a couple of weeks.

You know what's even cheaper than you buying in bulk? A gun club buying in bulk for its entire membership, for use in the gun club's facilities and included in the membership dues. That's basically how our gun clubs around here operate, which is safer and less expensive for everyone involved (because ammo kept in a club's safe is ammo you don't have to keep in a safe in your own home).

You're trying to make an argument about how limiting the supply of ammo a civilian can hold would ruin recreational or sports shooting, but that's obvious nonsense. Why don't you come back with a better argument?

You propose to punish millions of people who have never done anything wrong, with measures that would be completely ineffective at preventing crime.

How is it punishing to only be able to fire your gun dozens or hundreds of times before needing to go to the store to buy more cartridges? What are you missing out on?

Why do anti-gun leftists ALWAYS go there? What sort of bizarre mental disorder causes you to project your sexual insecurities onto inanimate objects, which you then fear and hate?

you really need to read up on some pretty basic psychology, methinks. Specifically, how "gun ownership" and "manliness" are very deeply intertwined in gun culture; American masculinity includes gun ownership and proficiency with guns as a definite cornerstone, as I am sure you will demonstrate in your response to this.

Sex and guns are no more related than sex and frying pans, except inside your heads.

Again, there's some very basic psychology you seem completely unaware of regarding the deep connections between sex and violence.

Because if it can be abused, it will be.

You mean like guns are?

Oh no, wait, killing people efficiently is literally a design goal for guns.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Do you know how to implement such a program without violating people’s rights? Without punishing people who have never committed a crime? Without leaving it open to abuse, providing a handy way for those in power to strike at their political enemies? WIthout allowing rabidly anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats to arbitrarily deny approval to everybody? Because if it can be abused, it will be.

Are a weapon-owners rights more important than other peoples rights for pursuing life, liberty and happiness?

Joat42 wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Do you know how to implement such a program without violating people’s rights? Without punishing people who have never committed a crime? Without leaving it open to abuse, providing a handy way for those in power to strike at their political enemies? WIthout allowing rabidly anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats to arbitrarily deny approval to everybody? Because if it can be abused, it will be.

Are a weapon-owners rights more important than other peoples rights for pursuing life, liberty and happiness?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much ammo a responsible gun owner has on hand. He can have enough to fill his basement and blow up his house. It doesn't matter.

I do care that he is responsible and law abiding In light of that we need...

Background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, convicts and I will add, people on terrorist watch lists.

Closure of the gun show loophole.

A national registry of guns that permits law enforcement personnel to trace guns used in criminal activity back to their owners

Don

-

Background checks sbould also grab domestic violence situations.

That sort of stressful circumstance is just rife for shootings to occur.