Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That’s where the owner of the firearm needs to be held responsible. If your going to own a firearm you need to be responsible enough to keep it locked up so that no one can use it.@dogs4 And they don't til it's too late
Personally I’d prefer an AK, it’s better for shooting thru brush. I’ve hunted with a lever action and lost a couple elk because I couldn’t get another shot off in time. You do realize that even with a semi automatic that your only going to get maybe 1 shot per second if your a really good shot right? For me it’s more like 1 shot every 3 seconds to get back on target.Yeah, sorry for making that statement. But, I still feel that an AK or AR is not necessary for hunting deer. It is an excuse for guys (or gals) to show off.
Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.Personally I’d prefer an AK, it’s better for shooting thru brush. I’ve hunted with a lever action and lost a couple elk because I couldn’t get another shot off in time. You do realize that even with a semi automatic that your only going to get maybe 1 shot per second if your a really good shot right? For me it’s more like 1 shot every 3 seconds to get back on target.
The fact that there are millions of semi automatic rifles in circulation and less than a handful of incidents each year should be evidence that they actually cause less deaths than cars.The assault weapons ban lasted ten years has lapsed for twice that by now and with so many millions out there good luck rounding them up and some people will tell you even if you try ( those that are not on the black market it would get real violent real quick and some of the "good guys" military and police would not help and many people ( even if they do not own any would not rat. I remember and this is in a rural county in the south the sheriff one time ( who I do not like for a number of reasons, but anyway asks people to report weed they saw growing SEVERAL people told him plainly look it is illegal so if you find them arrest them, but I am not helping you. Now, even if G was gong to try something like that if people in this rural coumty will not report weed a usually liberal issue how many do you think would rat on people for having guns? Even though, it is well known you break-in in this county there is a good chance the coronor will be coming with the police as most households do own at least one gun and nothing is thought of gun shots with all the hurting and target practicing.
The use of lethal violence in self-defense is perhaps not as morally gray as we might think. The 6th Commandment is "Do not murder." When, then, does taking another life constitute murder?So we are, at least in part, talking about using the weapons in the video to kill human beings.
1. The use of lethal violence in self-defense is a morally gray area. We balance the imperative of loving our neighbors (even if they are enemies) against the practical need to make moral compromises as we make our way through a broken world. I do not have an easy answer, and the church has not found a single, easy answer, despite centuries of debate.
Using one of those weapons on a human is pretty far into the morally-dark-grey zone, but I suppose I can allow that a reasonable person might sometimes make that choice, especially since:
2. We live in a multicultural, multi-religious society, where I live alongside people whose religious and philosophical beliefs are different from mine. I can't expect my neighbors to be Quakers.
This brings us to the civil society point:
3. Regardless of our religions and philosophies, here in the US we need to reduce the danger posed by widespread gun ownership. Truly, I don't know what the best remedy is. Options I've see suggested are: arm everyone; arm no one; require strict licensing and screening; or restrict the weapons that can be sold. I'd like to see more data, a better analysis of what works and doesn't work, empirically, to reduce violence. Until we understand better what make a gun owner cross the line from shooting targets to shooting humans, I don't think we really know what we're screening for.
I'll conclude with a couple of positive points I've seen from the gun owners in this discussion:
4. If you must own a gun, then (as @Tuur observed) thorough training and excellent discipline make a big difference, especially in reducing accidental injuries.
5. Returning to the OP, I agree that some of our gun laws are clumsily written. Evidence-based legislation (perhaps written by knowledgeable gun owners themselves?) would be better.
The point was that they are often too young to legally proccess the gun even if they were doing nothing like a school shooting with it.@dogs4 And they don't til it's too late
If I could I would winner that a million times.The fact that there are millions of semi automatic rifles in circulation and less than a handful of incidents each year should be evidence that they actually cause less deaths than cars.
Yes fine. Your culture is the peoblem but that doeant mean that limiting guns is not a solution.Ever heard of mass stabbing incidents? Maybe we shouldn't have access to knives too?
Iceland have high gun ownership but far lower homicide rate that compared to USA. Mass shootings are unheard of in Iceland.
Guns and knives are not the problem but the American culture of espousing social inequality, bullying, and the love of money.
Never quite understood what argument. Less deadly than cars? So what?The fact that there are millions of semi automatic rifles in circulation and less than a handful of incidents each year should be evidence that they actually cause less deaths than cars.
You do not hear people saying let's ban cars and yet they kill more people a year than AR-15s do by a mile.Never quite understood what argument. Less deadly than cars? So what?
Ah, no. Like it or not, most type of firearms, from flintlocks all the way up to AR-15, have been used by militaries. The 45-70 hails from a 19th Century military round. That ended up a popular cartridge for lever actions. Lever actions have been used in war, but flat tipped bullets have terrible ballistics compared to pointed tipped bullets, and center fire pointed tipped bullets aren't safe in a tube magazine. There have been lever action vertical magazine rifles used in war, but you have to have room to work the lever, not ideal when your stomach's flat on the ground, and here bolt actions have an advantage. The venerable .30-06 started as a bolt action round and was used in US bolt action rifles in World War I. The .30-06 is also a good hunting round, as was the 45-70. .30-06 saw used in the M1 Garand, the US battle rifle of WWII, and was replaced by the .308, a shorter round that's practically equivalent (and it's kissing cousin the 7.62 x 51- no they're not the same) saw use in the US military's M14 rifle. It also sees use as a hunting caliber, again because it's close to the .30-06. It also saw use in the AR-10. That's the one that catches my eye because you can fire a round in .308 capable of handling bear and hog. The AR-10 for us civilians is strictly semi-automatic, where as the military version had automatic and burst of three as well as semi-automatic. There were issues I'll leave to the ones well versed in firearms to explain (I'm not well versed by any means) which led to the AR-15. That's the one that fires a .223 or it's kissing cousin the 5.56x45 (no, they aren't the same). It's a smaller round round that the .308 and I just don't trust it for bear and hog. But I had an uncle who liked the .223 for deer hunting, and it's a good round for game like coyotes (consult local laws before hunting with the round).Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.
Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.
@All I'm outta here. Please do not reply to me any further in this thread.How do you know it's overkill if you've never done it? If you don't know how to put down an animal how would you know what's required?
Do you apply the same logic to food? Are you a vegetarian and restrict your consumption to locally produced foods grown organically? Or do you vote with your wallet or what's available? Crops and livestock undergo far more than an animal being hunted by a skilled marksman.
~bella
OTOH, you do see/hear broad support of increased safety measures to prevent injuries and death(s). Licensing (with a written and road test prior) is a requirement, as is registration with an annual renewal. At the minimum there's liability insurance.You do not hear people saying let's ban cars and yet they kill more people a year than AR-15s do by a mile.
My Sheriff in a county I once lived in told me that more people are murdered with cars in his county than with guns. I said he must be using the wrong terminology, that there are more homicides by cars than by guns. He told me no, and that he very well understands the distinction. He expanded on that and said that it was the weapon of choice of women who want to murder their husbands.You do not hear people saying let's ban cars and yet they kill more people a year than AR-15s do by a mile.
What is the purpose of cars?
When I used to elk hunt I used a lever action 30/30 which is actually a smaller round than most people use. An AK47 is a 30cal which is very close to the same caliber and damage. So it’s not overkill, it doesn’t do more damage, it just gives you an advantage by being able to take another shot quicker if you missed. When you’re hunting in the forest most animals move so fast that you’re lucky if you get a chance for a second shot. Using a traditional hunting rifle either lever action or bolt action you can’t chamber another round without taking your eyes off the target. So the likeliness that you’ll be able to get a second shot off is very slim. With a semi auto you can get a second shot off much quicker because you don’t have to take your eyes off the target to chamber another round.Well, I do not hunt, so I can not make any comments. But yeah, if you want to use a military weapon to hunt elk, I'm not gonna stop you, but it is a little overkill. Sometimes, patience is a virtue. Anyways, I will step out of here, cos I am not a fan of auto/semi-autos being allowed for civilians.
It seems like only the people who actually own guns realize how many millions of guns in the US have never killed anyone even tho this should be common knowledge. I don’t believe that these people don’t know this fact, they just ignore it because they’ve never been in a situation where they actually needed one. The folks in Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church know how many lives an AR can save when it’s in the right hands.If I could I would winner that a million times.
The chiefs had a meeting; and they decided to outlaw volcanoes; because too many virgins were being cast into the volcanoes; but it was the chiefs who were casting most of the virgins into the volcanoes.Yes fine. Your culture is the peoblem but that doeant mean that limiting guns is not a solution.
But perhaps it would also make sense to limit guns......for people In that culture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?