Forum Moderators: open
[sptimes.com...]
At right around a thousand bucks you can hunt bear with a pistol. ;)
lawman
[smith-wesson.com...]
Jim
I don't understand the interest in what is effectively a killing machine.... or am I missing something?
According to the article, at just under a thousand bucks apiece, with limited ammo available, and it not being very practical to boot, they expect mostly collectors to buy them.
Some people admire guns for their beauty and potential danger . . . the way you might admire a beautiful woman. :)
Oh, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
lawman
<edit>correct type</edit>
[edited by: lawman at 6:16 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2003]
Low Ready
Holding a gun pointed downrange and angled downward 45 degrees.
Had to look that one up jd . . . I guess I've seen too many walk and draw westerns on TV. :)
lawman
[edited by: andreasfriedrich at 6:35 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2003]
Some people admire guns for their beauty and potential danger . . . the way you might admire a beautiful woman. :)
Now that is a very strange comparison if I ever heard one! Weapons are build, sold, bought and used solely for the purpose of killing! It is not just some side effect (as could be argued for cars, airplanes, etc.), but the intended use. I find it rather strange that tabacco companies are held responsible for damaging their customers´ health while weapon manufacturers are not held responsible for all the deaths that are caused by their products (At least I haven´t heard of such a case).
Andreas
Odd, I have a whole case filled with them that I haven't killed a thing with unless you count clay pigeons and paper targets. There are a couple in the case that have never been fired but were purchased because they reflect the epitome of the gun maker's art and a few that are just oddities, like the double barrel, custom made 8 gauge shotgun.
Now that is a very strange comparison if I ever heard one! Weapons are build, sold, bought and used solely for the purpose of killing! It is not just some side effect (as could be argued for cars, airplanes, etc.), but the intended use. I find it rather strange that tabacco companies are held responsible for damaging their customers´ health while weapon manufacturers are not held responsible for all the deaths that are caused by their products (At least I haven´t heard of such a case).
I see you've learned the lawyer's Jedi mind trick andreas; to wit: if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if neither is on your side, argue like hell.
I've been known to use that tactic myself. Doesn't work too good on other lawyers though. ;)
lawman
BTW switching to a meta level is a nice trick to avoid getting into messy arguments lawman. Nice trick too if one believes that there is nothing to be gained from it and much to be lost ;).
Doesn't work too good on other lawyers though. ;)
With that comment you spoiled the affect on everybody else as well ;).
Andreas
Presumably because of their own inadequacy....
as I said, we don't have guns in the UK :)
I think where there is history involved they are fascinating, but modern guns are often (not always) the obsession of a disturbed mind. They represent power over others, and we are better off without them.
as I said, we don't have guns in the UK :)
There's no need to be so smug about it! I'm a Brit and I very much regret the way things have gone in the UK. The results of an ill-informed chattering class who know nothing about guns, but consider they know best.
Now even target shooting with handguns at gun clubs is banned. And we can be sure that some do-gooder has his/her eyes set on banning the humble shotgun.
And the result? A criminal can still get a gun as easy as pie.
"A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."
Source: BBC(i) July 16, 2001
40% increase in gun use is not because of the ban. It is because of the availability of guns has increased from Europe due to the relaxation of EU trade restrictions. It is easier for someone to hop on a ferry and buy a gun in France and smuggle it home. It could be argued that this figure may have been higher without the ban.
Many killings seem to be done by a member of a familly who had access to the gun, not by the more responsible owner. There seems to be no quarantee that a gun will not get into the wrong hands. I live in the wilds of Scotland and my wife has a .22 rifle, semi automatic, silencer etc. We conform to all the regulations but all said and done, that gun could get into the wrong hands, I am very uneasy about it, because all we use it for is shooting rabbits.
Humble shotgun? The shot gun is a barbaric weapon and very inefficient. Injury is a high probability so it is just plain cruel. If you have to shoot something, one should be able to do it properly or not at all. Shooting birds is very much a hit or miss affair and the use of a shot gun is a very innefficient way of doing it.
A country that has guns becomes a country at war with itself. Numbers killed in Vietnam pales into insignificance when you look at the number of people shot in the streets year after year, but noone bats an eyelid.
At least the chattering classes have some good arguments, whats the case for the other side?
...it was a mixed marriage. She was from LA and he was from New York.
I'm quite partial to a .454 pistol with a scope... dead accurate up to two hundred yards and will knock a deer into next week. (checks neck... yep, it's red)
With that comment you spoiled the affect on everybody else as well wink.
Umm... don't you mean "effect"? I think "affect" is a psychological term having to do with sensation/expression of emotion. I.e., "loss of affect" is a common side-effect of psychotropic drugs.
As for gun collecting as opposed to the more obvious purpose of guns to kill, maim, break, and threaten - I tend to agree with Andreas. I just can't quite figure out how to reconcile that with my appreciation of fine cutlery. There's really not much to be said in favor of a basket-hilt saber in the way of non-violent utility. I swear that my four and five-eights inch lockblade pocket knife is a tool, not a weapon, and can even see the argument for a longer fixed-blade knife as a potentially constructive tool. But I can't for swords and I like them anyway.
Apparently the UK is - the crime statistics just released in January show that you are 6 times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. And those are crimes without a gun.
"It is easier for someone to hop on a ferry and buy a gun in France and smuggle it home.."
And that right there shows why gun control will always fail. You can stop the honest citizens from having one, but not the criminals.
"6 times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. And those are crimes without a gun. "
That's interesting, but this is mixing the issues, isn't it? Being mugged isn't fun, but I suspect its better than being shot. If the muggers had guns, more people will loose their lives, rather than just their wallet. This is what the statistics shows in New York.
"You can stop the honest citizens from having one, but not the criminals." Yes, organised crime will always have access to guns. However am I not correct in saying that the more guns around, the more crimes will be comitted with them? In the States a burgular will take a gun with him because he has one, in the UK the average burgular won't have access to one. The possible outcome of a crime in the States is a shooting, while in the UK it is less likely someone will get killed.
The bottom line is the number of deaths due to crime, and in the UK this is much lower.
You shoot squirrel? Why not just go fishing: [eecs.harvard.edu...]
Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
;)
lawman
Never bring a fishing rod to a squirrel shoot. ;)
Just so all of you know guns dont kill people I do :) Not really. lawman and digitalghost keep your powder dry, shoot straight and accurate.
