It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An honest unusual discussion about firearms

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kryties

We should make cats get their claws licensed.


I just clip my cats nails, and he spends the week going full retard trying to jump onto things and sliding back off. Needless to say I get a few death stares.




posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Well, if you’re going to take that position, no need for hunters either! Let’s be honest, most of us hunt and fish at our grocery store of choice.

So the logical argument is guns only for military, police, and criminals. All other law-abiding citizens have no reason to own a gun whatsoever. This should bring deaths by gun to an immediate halt!

At least I think that’s what you’re trying to say in your OP.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

If a concerted effort was put in place to eliminate firearms, then even in urban areas, the death rate would surely decrease.

There would still be multiple issues regarding inner cites, but deaths by firearms would be reduced.



How so, 99% of the firearms used in those crimes are already illegally owned. Your surely don't think gang members and thugs are going to voluntarily turn in their illegally owned firearms do you? Are you planning to go house to house to confiscate?


Firearms are a tool. Without bullets, then they become nothing more than paperweights.


A person can "pistol whip" somebody...



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kryties

We should make cats get their claws licensed.


I just clip my cats nails, and he spends the week going full retard trying to jump onto things and sliding back off. Needless to say I get a few death stares.


We get the same from the dogs. Nail clipping day isn't their favorite. One has a misshappen set of dew claws, so its not negotiable to get them trimmed monthly.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flatcoat

And to get a hunting license, you have to jump through quite a few hoops. Written permission from a land owner demonstrating the need for hunting among other things. I think your ammunition is also very tightly controlled. Also the firearm has to be unloaded, with the bolt removed until your actually ready to shoot. But the biggest problem is that you have to be on the property before you can use it, so if I just want to go down the creek to do a bit of camping, I can't carry the firearm because I'm not on the designated hunting property.


You only really need permission from a landowner in the initial stages of getting your license. You don't have to submit a new form every time you want to hunt on someone elses property. As long as you have obtained their verbal permission you're fine. It's only when you first go for your license that you need proof that you have permission somewhere to hunt.


True, but as I said, I'm not to keen on hunting for fun. The thing is, when we go camping, we go to places like Arakun, The Gulf...middle of nowhere sort of stuff, and we've had huge crocs come into camp in the middle of the night...we even had a mob of pigs absolutely destroy our camp one night. So I really appreciated having the old SKS on hand. The thing is now all I have is a crowbar.


Surely you could obtain permission from the local Aboriginal people to bring a gun for safety/pests in those regions. In fact, if you had a license already I wouldn't think you'd need permission to shoot in those areas you listed.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kryties

We should make cats get their claws licensed.


I just clip my cats nails, and he spends the week going full retard trying to jump onto things and sliding back off. Needless to say I get a few death stares.


We get the same from the dogs. Nail clipping day isn't their favorite. One has a misshappen set of dew claws, so its not negotiable to get them trimmed monthly.


Yeah dogs claws can get pretty nasty if they get infected or are left untreated for years. If the nails aren't clipped they tend to curl back around and start pushing up into the bottom of the paw pads.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

I thought it seems a bit excessive. Just was going by the other guy saying "bolt has to be installed when your ready to shoot".
Not sure how things work in Australia, but here in the states I could def see a politician making a law that states you could only load your gun after you see the animal.
Our politicians here are pretty stupid.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Kryties

Our politicians here are pretty stupid.


I think most people from around the world would say that ALL politicians are stupid, no matter what country they are from



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flatcoat

And to get a hunting license, you have to jump through quite a few hoops. Written permission from a land owner demonstrating the need for hunting among other things. I think your ammunition is also very tightly controlled. Also the firearm has to be unloaded, with the bolt removed until your actually ready to shoot. But the biggest problem is that you have to be on the property before you can use it, so if I just want to go down the creek to do a bit of camping, I can't carry the firearm because I'm not on the designated hunting property.


You only really need permission from a landowner in the initial stages of getting your license. You don't have to submit a new form every time you want to hunt on someone elses property. As long as you have obtained their verbal permission you're fine. It's only when you first go for your license that you need proof that you have permission somewhere to hunt.


True, but as I said, I'm not to keen on hunting for fun. The thing is, when we go camping, we go to places like Arakun, The Gulf...middle of nowhere sort of stuff, and we've had huge crocs come into camp in the middle of the night...we even had a mob of pigs absolutely destroy our camp one night. So I really appreciated having the old SKS on hand. The thing is now all I have is a crowbar.


Surely you could obtain permission from the local Aboriginal people to bring a gun for safety/pests in those regions. In fact, if you had a license already I wouldn't think you'd need permission to shoot in those areas you listed.


Possibly, but I was informed by the police that I could only carry the firearm to pre-approved hunting zones. But when we go we stop at a lot of places on the way...it's not just a straight trip, so legally I can't use the firearm in those places.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flatcoat

And to get a hunting license, you have to jump through quite a few hoops. Written permission from a land owner demonstrating the need for hunting among other things. I think your ammunition is also very tightly controlled. Also the firearm has to be unloaded, with the bolt removed until your actually ready to shoot. But the biggest problem is that you have to be on the property before you can use it, so if I just want to go down the creek to do a bit of camping, I can't carry the firearm because I'm not on the designated hunting property.


You only really need permission from a landowner in the initial stages of getting your license. You don't have to submit a new form every time you want to hunt on someone elses property. As long as you have obtained their verbal permission you're fine. It's only when you first go for your license that you need proof that you have permission somewhere to hunt.


True, but as I said, I'm not to keen on hunting for fun. The thing is, when we go camping, we go to places like Arakun, The Gulf...middle of nowhere sort of stuff, and we've had huge crocs come into camp in the middle of the night...we even had a mob of pigs absolutely destroy our camp one night. So I really appreciated having the old SKS on hand. The thing is now all I have is a crowbar.


Surely you could obtain permission from the local Aboriginal people to bring a gun for safety/pests in those regions. In fact, if you had a license already I wouldn't think you'd need permission to shoot in those areas you listed.


Possibly, but I was informed by the police that I could only carry the firearm to pre-approved hunting zones. But when we go we stop at a lot of places on the way...it's not just a straight trip, so legally I can't use the firearm in those places.


I'd look into it mate. Don't just trust what the cops told you. If you obtain permission there would be no problem.

Otherwise, if you're remote enough, then what the cops can't see/hear can't hurt them or you ****wink wink nudge nudge****



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Yeah, I'd have to be pretty bloody unlucky, but I think what hurt me the most about the gun laws was handing in the SKS. As i said before, when that friggin great croc came into camp, I was damn happy to have the semi-auto instead of having to crank the old .303.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Especially when suicides are included in the list.
Like using a gun was worse than using a razor blade.


Time related.

I don't want to go into gruesome details... I suspect it's against T & C's.

A well placed bullet is instant KO usually, an overdose can take days, other 'traditional' methods are not exactly foolproof either.

My point is it's near impossible to reverse the damage done by a bullet, I've known a few people survive an attempt, serious attempts and eventually regret it.

I was going to mention this earlier but didn't want to risk going off-topic. Basically a nation can have the best mental health services in the world but ultimately pride and the lack of humility often gets in the way.

Whether it's by bullet or blade suicide is actually a bigger problem than medical intervention. It's a societal problem as much as a family problem too.

Many have an issue with sharing... I'm guessing it's not off-topic either since suicide by gun is actually a big part of the US statistics.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

I'll be honest and admit I think they went a little too far banning ALL semi-autos without special permission. Maybe for target shooters yes, they really only need one shot at a time, but hunting and pest control kind of do need semi's sometimes.

Having said that, I find it an enjoyable challenge to take a shot then reload as fast as possible to take the next if trying to shoot a moving target. It's all in the way you move your wrist.




posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

If a concerted effort was put in place to eliminate firearms, then even in urban areas, the death rate would surely decrease.

There would still be multiple issues regarding inner cites, but deaths by firearms would be reduced.



How so, 99% of the firearms used in those crimes are already illegally owned. Your surely don't think gang members and thugs are going to voluntarily turn in their illegally owned firearms do you? Are you planning to go house to house to confiscate?


Firearms are a tool. Without bullets, then they become nothing more than paperweights.


A person can "pistol whip" somebody...

And don't forget that rifles can have bayonets so they're basically short spears.

In other words, the solution is to put long bayonets onto handguns just in case you run out of bullets. If bayonets were good enough for the founding fathers' soldiers, then why aren't they good enough for today's gun owners? Sounds like today's gunowners are a little uppity and elitist to me...



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, base logic states that if you have less of any object it well be used less. So straight up, if your intention is to lower gun deaths, then lowering access will complete that task. The flaw here is that it is not addressing the problem it is treating a symptom.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


Looks like you made the mistake of assuming I'm a non-gun owner.


Did I?


I used to have a license and a gun, sold the gun when I needed some money a while back and let the license lapse. Now I intend to go get it again.


So you're not a gun-owner, are you?


hese things have been said multiple times before in multiple threads. I'm sorry it flies against you're deeply held fantasy that we live in some sort of dystopian nightmare down here where all guns are totally banned and non-existent.


I'm equally as sorry you have to resort to making things up, pretending I've said them, and then attacking your own straw man in an effort to feel good about yourself. At least I imagine that's the reason, because surely you're not so inept at putting together an argument that you think it's actually a viable tactic in a debate.

Right?



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Some people seriously have a notion --- not necessarily mine --- That without the availability of guns...the inner city gangs who control the illegal drug market, will have a harder time killing each other off; which would be a bad occurrence in the mind of people who believe in that kind of notion.
edit on 11-5-2018 by Erno86 because: added a word



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: enlightenedservant

More gunz is always better, cuz gunz are awesome!


Yeah but so are Challenger MKII tanks and Apache Longbow attack helicopters.

Not only should these be given to citizens (US can use their own stuff) but we should hold a massive instruction manual and instructor burning whilst they are given out!

Or just lobotomise the instructors... Don't want to sound inhumane.




posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

/sigh

You're getting desperate aren't you? Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.



posted on May, 11 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Flatcoat

I'll be honest and admit I think they went a little too far banning ALL semi-autos without special permission. Maybe for target shooters yes, they really only need one shot at a time, but hunting and pest control kind of do need semi's sometimes.

Having said that, I find it an enjoyable challenge to take a shot then reload as fast as possible to take the next if trying to shoot a moving target. It's all in the way you move your wrist.



I usually have a grand ole time...while shooting my semi auto --- AK's & AR's --- with rapid fire at inanimate targets at the gun range.




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join