Time for a new Political Debate

[jsanders]

If you want to think of us as a state within Europe - which is just sooo wrong - then by comparison if a police officer is killed in Florida or New York State or California would everyone in that State know about it. Would it be headlines in the newspapers for a week and on whatever passes for TV that covers the whole state for a week?

TS

News coverage is about money and the news organization pretty much no how long to milk a story.

Coverage, or not, of shootings, is less of a sin than our blatant disregard for traffic law.

A better question would be.

Why do so many Americans appose the cameras at intersections?

Over 5000 people die each from red light runners and the federal government wants to redirect the police to look for terrorist.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

I don't know why this thought never occurred to me before, but to those who argue against government-run health care by saying "that's what insurance is for": insurance companies make a profit, the government does not. Simply by virtue of that, a well-managed governmental system would be far less expensive than a well-managed insurance-based system. We currently have neither.

I never got an alert to say you replied; bit of a late reply!

I'm not entirely sure that a Government could provide a Health Service cheaper than the Private sector. In England of course there is a much greater wealth of resources in the National Health Service than in Private Health care; indeed I would imagine the majority of Private Health care staff came directly from the Public Sector. However, I do not think a Health Care service run on market economics is a good thing, for many reasons.

Thanks for the objective reply

 

[jsanders]

I never got an alert to say you replied; bit of a late reply!

I'm not entirely sure that a Government could provide a Health Service cheaper than the Private sector. In England of course there is a much greater wealth of resources in the National Health Service than in Private Health care; indeed I would imagine the majority of Private Health care staff came directly from the Public Sector. However, I do not think a Health Care service run on market economics is a good thing, for many reasons.

Thanks for the objective reply

Although an interesting statistic (which there are many ways to interpret this one for sure) is that Americans spend a greater percentage of our GDP on health care than do the British. And they live 1.5 years longer than us.

Of course we live more than them, when we're alive. hehehe

 

[jsanders]

Actually the term "Assault Rifle" is quite misused. It was pretty much termed by the Anti-Gunners for almost any semi-automatic, military looking rifle. Today a lot of target rifles are designed on the military based rifles, and used in target compations and not designed for assaulting anything but paper targets. Same with varmit rifles, it turns out the military rifle base is great for making an acurate rifle out of, but most would not want to assault anything with them as the are not designed for that.

So let’s say it’s a 223 or a 22-250 and it holds 24 rounds in a banana clip.

Would that be an assault rifle?

 

[FoFa]

So let’s say it’s a 223 or a 22-250 and it holds 24 rounds in a banana clip. Would that be an assault rifle?

Hard to tell, just bcause it takes the same MAGAZINE as an assault rifle, does not make it an assault rifle. The Camp 9mm RIFLE takes a certain magazine. The S&W 9mm handgun takes the same magazine. Does that make the handgun a rifle or the rifle a handgun? BTW the .223 and 22-250 are VARMIT rounds, and many people think the .223 and 5.56 mm are the same, close, but not the same. Check here if you care. It is typically not legal to use high capacity magazines for hunting or target shooting.

 

[FoFa]

Tell me, would washing machines still be legally sold if ONE million people had been killed by them even if say 100million hadn't?

See, that depends, if just walking by a washing machine killed you, probably not. How ever if someone else took the washing machine and killed you with it, they would still be sold.
But let me ask you this, of those statistics, how many actual guns did they pull from the bodies? I mean, if guns killed, they would be pulling guns from the bodies left and right, yet I don't hear a word about a gun being pulled from within someone. (Ok a trick question I know, and has no real bearing, but it struck me as funny so there )

 

[jsanders]

Hard to tell, just bcause it takes the same MAGAZINE as an assault rifle, does not make it an assault rifle. The Camp 9mm RIFLE takes a certain magazine. The S&W 9mm handgun takes the same magazine. Does that make the handgun a rifle or the rifle a handgun? BTW the .223 and 22-250 are VARMIT rounds, and many people think the .223 and 5.56 mm are the same, close, but not the same. Check here if you care. It is typically not legal to use high capacity magazines for hunting or target shooting.

My parent owned a sporting goods store so I guess I have a little knowledge

A 223 may be a varmint rifle but it still spits them out at roughly 3000 fps
When a 55 or 65 grain bullet hits a human with that velocity, 5.6mm or 22/100ths of an inch really doesn’t make much difference.

What makes it dangerous to society, is the kill rate, the reload rate and its ability to point. Why are you bantering semantics.

Is it that all guns should be legal no mater what the configuration? Lets just bring back the Tommie Gun or better yet lets make 3 burst weapons legal, that way when a wacko gets a hold of one he can kill 75 or 80 people instead of just 15.

 

[jsanders]

It is typically not legal to use high capacity magazines for hunting or target shooting.

So why should they be legal to own?

 

[FoFa]

What makes it dangerous to society, is the kill rate, the reload rate and its ability to point. Why are you bantering semantics.

Because of your mis-information.
A gun has a zero kill rate. Do you see those guns jumping off the shelves and killing people, I mean if your parents owned a sporting goods store, those killer guns must have wasted a customer or two, it is so hard to keep them still on the shelf, after all they are just itch'n to kill someone aren't they? Just the other I read in some sporting goods store two handguns managed to unlock the cabinet they were in from the inside, jump over to the ammo, load themselves and shot 3 customers.

 

[FoFa]

So why should they be legal to own?

Why should they not?

 

[jsanders]

Because of your mis-information.
A gun has a zero kill rate. Do you see those guns jumping off the shelves and killing people, I mean if your parents owned a sporting goods store, those killer guns must have wasted a customer or two, it is so hard to keep them still on the shelf, after all they are just itch'n to kill someone aren't they? Just the other I read in some sporting goods store two handguns managed to unlock the cabinet they were in from the inside, jump over to the ammo, load themselves and shot 3 customers.

I own guns.

I just don’t buy into this theory that if we give up a little then they’ll take a lot. Fully automatic weapons were made illegal 50 years ago and people still hunt all over the country.

I am certainly not an advocate of relinquishing the right to bare arms. I am saying as Kraj said earlier that neither end of this debate is correct.

And guns have a fire rate and that translates to a kill rate. You certainly would be glad that I had limited fire power if I ever went berserk.

 

[jsanders]

I used to own a 22-250 which is hotter than a 223, 223 mag, or a 224.

I had a Reminton 700bdl with the ebony tip. At 200 yards I could stack the bullets on top of each other (with a rest). Later a friend let me shoot his Stier Rifle (made in Austria) You would not believe how well that gun points, it was actually scary. Within 2 hours I could have anyone off the street hitting kill zones 90% of the time.

They make it easy for wackos to kill.

How would you like it if the gangs were armed with these?

 

[FoFa]

And guns have a fire rate and that translates to a kill rate. You certainly would be glad that I had limited fire power if I ever went berserk.

Only if the bullets strike something like a person. But since full auto's are pretty much unobatainable, and converting them is pretty much illegal, where is your point. Sounds like more strick punishment for those law breakers might be a bigger soution, which has not been the real push in the past due to the anti-gunners, you see, it is not in their best interest, it's a power thing.

 

[FoFa]

I had a Reminton 700bdl with the ebony tip. At 200 yards I could stack the bullets on top of each other (with a rest). Later a friend let me shoot his Stier Rifle (made in Austria) You would not believe how well that gun points, it was actually scary. Within 2 hours I could have anyone off the street hitting kill zones 90% of the time.

So now we do away with handguns and all hunting rifles, which leaves us with what? Shotguns, shoot just move to the UK if it bothers you that much.

 

[Rich]

So now we do away with handguns and all hunting rifles, .

That's the first sensible suggestion you've made so far. How many more innocent lives have to be lost before you see a need for change, will you feel so generous towards what can only be described as a private army if one of your kids gets blasted to bits by a whacko?

 

[jsanders]

The Stier rifle is an assault rifle. A Remington 700 is a hunting rifle.
Assault = kill people
Hunting = hunt animals

What I don’t understand is why would any regular hunting enthusiast advocate making assault rifle legal? What’s the point?

And don’t try to confuse others that are reading this thread, we both know what we’re talking about.

 

[FoFa]

That's the first sensible suggestion you've made so far. How many more innocent lives have to be lost before you see a need for change, will you feel so generous towards what can only be described as a private army if one of your kids gets blasted to bits by a whacko?

So why are the guns to blame and not the wacko?

 

[Rich]

So why are the guns to blame and not the wacko?

Cause they give whackos the ability to kill, why is it that the first thing your cops do when wanting to defend themselves is reach for their gun?

 

[jsanders]

So why are the guns to blame and not the wacko?

It's attitudes like that, that make many people want total gun control. Thank God there are powerful lobies on both sides.

 

[FoFa]

The Stier rifle is an assault rifle. A Remington 700 is a hunting rifle.
Assault = kill people
Hunting = hunt animals
What I don’t understand is why would any regular hunting enthusiast advocate making assault rifle legal? What’s the point?
And don’t try to confuse others that are reading this thread, we both know what we’re talking about.

Scoped rifle = sniper rifle = kill people
assult?, No semi-automatic rifle with a military look.
As I said before, these are used mostly today in target shooting. Sure they are fun for plinking, and other then they look scary, are no different than any other semi-automatic rifles. I have freinds that use SKS's for deer hunting. They say they are great in the brush.