It's exactly what you are....embrace it, meat....it's your modus vivendi,Trying to run others lives for them
Then why are they making new firearms? Are you all being duped into buying them? Newsflash: a firearms use is to shoot animals or humans, a new and improved firearm will shoot animals and humans more efficiently. Its called technology.
The issue is, you took the bait hook line and sinker. Essentially you have revealed you know very little about firearms, and are telling others what they should and shouldn't be allowed to own. So if you know very little about the subject, why is anyone educated on the subject going to take you seriously? Why even mention the myth in the movies? What movies? I am well aware of what shotgun are capable of, and my idea of a shotguns capability is far removed from tiny holes with tiny scars. Again, my information that arises from the usage of firearms. I am not trying to be rude, just stating the obvious.
Ayuh,... So what do you have against technology.... Btw,... I shoot at Alota things,... All Non-human, many Non- animal...
Lets take into consideration two of the firearms I own. A .22 target rifle and a WWIII battle rifle. If I use the .22 target rifle, its original purpose being target shooting on paper targets, for hunting, what meaning is the original purpose? None. If I use the WWII battle rifle, its original purpose being killing other human beings, for target shooting on paper targets, what meaning is the original purpose? None. The "original intent" argument is one of the most shallow and irrelevant arguments to enter the gun control debate.
The technology hasn't changed much, especially in the weapons used in drive-by shootings. The improvements are generally small details, not significant changes to operation. Consider the most popular military assault weapon in the world. They are using the same technology developed in 1947. They only change minor details in the type of stock or handles. The changes to revolvers are basically just improved safety mechanisms - to prevent accidental firing. The changes to automatic handguns improve reliability and smoothness of function, but the same size bullets come out at about the same rate. In fact many of the modern firearms people buy are actually the same firearms that were produced thirty years ago, they are just making more to meet demand. There have been a few attempts to create new technology that would be more effective at killing, but those guns are not popular and are not the ones involved in drive-by shootings.
The only field in small arms technology that I can see as making people more efficient shooters that has progressed significantly in the last several decades is optics. Compact, reliable scopes with reticles that allow for range estimation and bullet drop compensation have come a long way but I doubt you'll see any gang members shelling out $1200+ for one. Manufacturing technology has progressed and with advances in CAD/CAM/CAE has allowed makers to bring more variety to suit particular people's needs and allowed for less compromise in reliability, ergonomics, and precision.
Even the law abiding amongst us can't afford many of the firearms accessories.... I would love to have Trijicon scope.... but $1,500+ is a bit steep.
Are bullets any more deadly now than they were 100 years ago? Why is the 1911 still one of the most popular handguns among shooting enthusiasts? You are being disingenous confusing technological improvements on ergonomics with improvements on killing efficacy. Also, improving a firearm by making it less likely to jam does not make the bullets any more deadly.
Do you realize gun control advocates are trying to ban bayonets too? Do you realize that to have a drive by shooting you need: 1) a criminal 2) a gun 3) a car Ban just one of those and you don't have a drive by shooting? Two of those are protected by the Constitution. Can you tell me which one is the sensible one to ban?
I am pretty sure there were ZERO bayonet attacks in the last 50 years. Why are gun control advocates trying to ban them?
This is more of an immigration problem. More immigration will mean more low-income minorities which will mean more gun related crimes.
So do you find it ironic that you mock bayonets, yet gun control advocates are trying to ban them? Can we agree that there are probably ZERO bayonet attacks in the last 50 years? So why ban them? <I will give you a little hint that your not going to like. The same logic and reasoning to ban bayonets is the same logic and reasoning trying to ban guns>
What are you talking about? I haven't mentioned bayonets. And I certainly haven't said anything about banning bayonets.
Yes, there is a need to actually. If you make an accusation about someone you need to back it up with some evidence (unless of course, you're a troll). So, show me a post where I'm "Trying to run others lives for them". You made the accusation, now back it up.
I am hitting the same thing in the other thread - it is all tied up with "my cold dead hands" That piece of genius advertising instilled in the American gun owning society a belief that discussing the possible adverse effects of gun legislation was tantamount and equivalent to storming people homes and ripping guns from their hands - and it started a buying frenzy and is still responsible for buying frenzies every time someone starts a discussion There is clear division between how Americans see guns and how people outside of America see guns and it is this spin doctoring that is behind a lot of it.
a 1. There's no mention of banning bayonets in it. Absolutely none. 2. Nobody discusses banning any weapon, of any sort in the video. 3. The video is about littering. The suggestion is that one should not litter. 4. It seems you didn't watch the video at all. . .
I didn't make an accusation...it was my opinion, from observing your attitude..... You can't even run your own life,I'll be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you'll run mine, to paraphrase the old song.