In a curious turn of events, Iowa grants permits for blind people to carry guns in public.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Not G. Ivingname:

Abomination:

No, he lived in a world with automatic firearms.

Really? Someone should probably have told that to the revolutionaries. Probably would have saved them the whole lining up and shooting at each other with smoothbore, flintlock muskets every 20-40 seconds until the French arrived.

May I present to you, the Puckle Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun

The Continental Congress almost did buy some kind of semi-auto rifle, called the "Belton Flintlock," ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock ) but the Congress just couldn't afford the high price Belton put on his rifles. Sadly, not only did none of the few prototypes (which by all accounts worked) but also the designs for them as well.

It was also the equivalent as to a piece of artillery that would require a team to operate.

So I mean, if you ignore the fact that it didn't actually see battle, required a team to operate, is the equivalent to a tripod mounted minigun, was outrageously expensive, suffered from serious performance issues and never actually set foot on the American continent... sure, I guess an "automatic" weapon existed at the time.

Abomination:
Not at all, because you're in a grocery store trying to purchase groceries, an item that nobody has any problem with someone else possessing because groceries can not be employed in a lethal manner very effectively.

Perhaps you should try thinking out of the box. After all, people accidentally kill themselves every day.

Anyway, my point was that as a consumer it is irrational to want to wait for your goods when you get nothing out of it.

It's not about what you want, it's about what the public wants. And they want security in knowing that not just anyone is going to be handed a firearm.

Allowing a person to go through a background check once every 5 years is not about just handing it to someone. It is about efficiency.

Also, apparently the public wants CHLs to be used that way. Other than you guys I have never heard a single complaint about it.

A gun's function is that when you pull the trigger a projectile is fired from the device that will damage anything organic, and many inorganic things, in its path.

And a car driving down the road (its primary function) will damage anything organic, and many inorganic things, in its path.

I am not calling it an immoral device - but it most certainly is a WEAPON.

It is a tool.

If it's such an issue I would suggest taking up a hobby that doesn't deal in dangerous devices then.

Or, I can keep my tools and you can jump off your high horse. What exactly is the point in making me drive to and from a gun store in order to get my purchase? Give me one damn good reason to do that.

BTW do you like eating? My family is made up of farmers and ranchers. We need firearms to kill pests. Would you care to take our place and try and kill this (below) with just kind words?

I think not.

And that's exactly what the check is for - to ensure the "master" of the item isn't someone who is going to use the item for harm.

But why do I have to do the check every single time I buy a firearm? Why not once every 5 years?

Bullets fired from a gun cause harm.

So do many things. That does not make that its purpose.

A deranged individual isn't going to be able to keep a "loaded car" in their pocket. The avenue for using a car to kill people is significantly more limited than using a gun.

Either you live in a very poor country or you really need to go outside. Let me highlight some of the areas that a car can be used to kill people-

And on.

Never knew someone who was able to kill someone else with a license at 30 yards.

You have obviously never worked for the US government.

Really? Someone should probably have told that to the revolutionaries. Probably would have saved them the whole lining up and shooting at each other with smoothbore, flintlock muskets every 20-40 seconds until the French arrived.

They did tell them. They also told them that those firearms cost roughly the equivalent of an artillery piece and were made primarily in Britain. Bit of an issue. Not has the links.

They are automatic firearms. Your point is invalid

farson135:

Abomination:
Not at all, because you're in a grocery store trying to purchase groceries, an item that nobody has any problem with someone else possessing because groceries can not be employed in a lethal manner very effectively.

Perhaps you should try thinking out of the box. After all, people accidentally kill themselves every day.

It's hard to think outside the box when the box involves the idea that purchasing a gun is being compared to the same as purchasing a loaf of bread.

Anyway, my point was that as a consumer it is irrational to want to wait for your goods when you get nothing out of it.

Of course a consumer would want the product they seek to purchase as soon as possible. Hell, I work in the courier business... my entire occupation is based on that premise.

The thing is we still don't ship dangerous goods. Firearms are considered dangerous goods.

It's not about what you want, it's about what the public wants. And they want security in knowing that not just anyone is going to be handed a firearm.

Allowing a person to go through a background check once every 5 years is not about just handing it to someone. It is about efficiency.

Yes, it's about efficiency. What happened in Washington DC recently again?

Also, apparently the public wants CHLs to be used that way. Other than you guys I have never heard a single complaint about it.

Considering you don't live in an urban area I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

A gun's function is that when you pull the trigger a projectile is fired from the device that will damage anything organic, and many inorganic things, in its path.

And a car driving down the road (its primary function) will damage anything organic, and many inorganic things, in its path.

A car's primary function is transportation, not projecting a deadly and dangerous piece of metal. You've already said you're poor at analogies, it's best you don't try and use them as they are all suffering from false equivalence.

I am not calling it an immoral device - but it most certainly is a WEAPON.

It is a tool.

I am sorry, but a firearm is most assuredly considered a weapon in both law and by essentially every other commercial classification. It can certainly be a weapon AND a tool, but it is ALWAYS a weapon.

If it's such an issue I would suggest taking up a hobby that doesn't deal in dangerous devices then.

Or, I can keep my tools and you can jump off your high horse. What exactly is the point in making me drive to and from a gun store in order to get my purchase? Give me one damn good reason to do that.

BTW do you like eating? My family is made up of farmers and ranchers. We need firearms to kill pests. Would you care to take our place and try and kill this (below) with just kind words?

Not at all. I would suggest you use a firearm to do that. You know the correct procedure in place for acquiring one, correct?

And that's exactly what the check is for - to ensure the "master" of the item isn't someone who is going to use the item for harm.

But why do I have to do the check every single time I buy a firearm? Why not once every 5 years?

Because, unfortunately, the bureaucracy has not been established in the most efficient manner (in fact gun lobbyists have been ironically doing their damndest to ensure it is never efficient). The goal isn't to inconvenience you, it's to protect the public.

Bullets fired from a gun cause harm.

So do many things. That does not make that its purpose.

It is when the primary function of the item is to project that very thing. Or are you saying when you pull the trigger and fire a shot what comes out of the end isn't something that's deadly? The only reason you've given me as to you needing one is to kill things.

A deranged individual isn't going to be able to keep a "loaded car" in their pocket. The avenue for using a car to kill people is significantly more limited than using a gun.

Either you live in a very poor country or you really need to go outside. Let me highlight some of the areas that a car can be used to kill people-

And, as I said, a gun can be used in all the areas between those areas, as well as in those areas. It can also be employed there far more easily.

Never knew someone who was able to kill someone else with a license at 30 yards.

You have obviously never worked for the US government.

No, I'm quite certain that even the most experienced clerk isn't going to be able to throw a plastic card with the accuracy and force required to kill an individual 30 yards away.

Really? Someone should probably have told that to the revolutionaries. Probably would have saved them the whole lining up and shooting at each other with smoothbore, flintlock muskets every 20-40 seconds until the French arrived.

They did tell them. They also told them that those firearms cost roughly the equivalent of an artillery piece and were made primarily in Britain. Bit of an issue. Not has the links.

They are automatic firearms. Your point is invalid

Actually they had automatic artillery, which if you were to keep to the sprit of the discussion, is outside the realm of items you are considering purchasing. So perhaps if B.F. lived in an age where an individual could purchase a rifled, semi-automatic assault weapon in a nation no longer at war with a foreign empire and suffering from incredible urban sprawl with a population over 200 million... you can see how the scenario is somewhat different.

Abomination:
It's hard to think outside the box when the box involves the idea that purchasing a gun is being compared to the same as purchasing a loaf of bread.

Perhaps this explains everything. Here in the US a grocery store is Wal-Mart or HEB or Kroger. That is, stores that seek to be one stop shops. Perhaps you simply do not understand how convenient shopping in the US is. That or you just do not understand the lethal potential of household cleaning supplies.

Of course a consumer would want the product they seek to purchase as soon as possible. Hell, I work in the courier business... my entire occupation is based on that premise.

Then why are you complaining over my wanting my good faster?

The thing is we still don't ship dangerous goods. Firearms are considered dangerous goods.

And that should change our wants why?

Yes, it's about efficiency. What happened in Washington DC recently again?

The states failed to communicate properly with the Federal Government causing a tragedy. You know, the thing that the NRA has been calling on the US to fix for years. Instead people want to ban m1 Garands.

Considering you don't live in an urban area I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

I do. My home is in a rural area. I live in the city of Austin (college).

A car's primary function is transportation, not projecting a deadly and dangerous piece of metal.

Transportation that involves driving several hundred pounds of metal down a road at 60 MPH.

You've already said you're poor at analogies

Citation.

Not at all. I would suggest you use a firearm to do that. You know the correct procedure in place for acquiring one, correct?

Yes. A procedure that you want to make more complex and expensive. Thanks. It is not like we non-big agro farmers are poor or anything.

Because, unfortunately, the bureaucracy has not been established in the most efficient manner (in fact gun lobbyists have been ironically doing their damndest to ensure it is never efficient).

Actually the NRA has been calling for overhauls for years. It is the gun control lobby that will never allow any real debate.

The goal isn't to inconvenience you, it's to protect the public.

Then why don't you prove that there is a good reason to make me drive an extra 60 miles to get a gun.

Or are you saying when you pull the trigger and fire a shot what comes out of the end isn't something that's deadly?

Depends on the round. A 2mm round (yes that is a real bullet that is fired out of a gun) is not deadly to anything aside perhaps an ant (probably not even then).

Also, deadliness depends on placement.

The only reason you've given me as to you needing one is to kill things.

Because you did not ask for any other reason. Do you care?

I am a competitive marksman. I use firearms every day. I do not kill something every day.

And, as I said, a gun can be used in all the areas between those areas, as well as in those areas.

And so can a car. Do you know how often people are killed when a drunk driver crashes into a house?

It can also be employed there far more easily.

Except when it doesn't work and/or people stop the shooter. That happens all the time. You can't stop a car from the outside very easily and cars rarely malfunction in the same way that firearms do.

No, I'm quite certain that even the most experienced clerk isn't going to be able to throw a plastic card with the accuracy and force required to kill an individual 30 yards away.

The power of an ID is amazing-

Actually they had automatic artillery, which if you were to keep to the sprit of the discussion, is outside the realm of items you are considering purchasing.

Are you sure about that? I inherited most of my firearms. The reason my friend gave me his firearms when he died was because I am a historian and he knows that I respect the historical value of his collection. A Puckle Gun would fit in perfectly with my collection. If you are talking about modern stuff, that stuff is illegal anyway so of course it is off my list.

So perhaps if B.F. lived in an age where an individual could purchase a rifled, semi-automatic assault weapon in a nation no longer at war with a foreign empire and suffering from incredible urban sprawl with a population over 200 million... you can see how the scenario is somewhat different.

Yes. He would pick up a rifle and begin shooting down drones with the best of them.

As a non-American I do not expect you to understand this but Benjamin Franklin was a fucking badass.

That or you just do not understand the lethal potential of household cleaning supplies.

Seanchaidh:

That or you just do not understand the lethal potential of household cleaning supplies.

Hey man, I could also just drive a car up that hill and run them over!

Abomination:

Seanchaidh:

That or you just do not understand the lethal potential of household cleaning supplies.

Hey man, I could also just drive a car up that hill and run them over!

They'll never see it coming.

Seanchaidh:

That or you just do not understand the lethal potential of household cleaning supplies.

That and further. In fact, I can kill someone from the other side of the planet using poisons. Can't do that with a rifle- http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/11/16/2003076057
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/12/17280948-health-ministry-51-killed-hundreds-poisoned-by-homemade-alcohol-in-libya?lite

That and further. In fact, I can kill someone from the other side of the planet using poisons. Can't do that with a rifle-

Interesting. Sounds like something that should be regulated.

Seanchaidh:

That and further. In fact, I can kill someone from the other side of the planet using poisons. Can't do that with a rifle-

Interesting. Sounds like something that should be regulated.

Since that has so well in the cases mentioned. Still, go ahead. Stop bugging me and go lobby for increased controls on potential poisons. See how far you get trying to increase regulations on rat poisons.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:

That or you just do not understand the lethal potential of household cleaning supplies.

That and further. In fact, I can kill someone from the other side of the planet using poisons. Can't do that with a rifle- http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/11/16/2003076057
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/12/17280948-health-ministry-51-killed-hundreds-poisoned-by-homemade-alcohol-in-libya?lite

Since when do illegal rat poisons and moonshine qualify as "household cleaning supplies"?

Since that has so well in the cases mentioned. Still, go ahead. Stop bugging me and go lobby for increased controls on potential poisons. See how far you get trying to increase regulations on rat poisons.

Saying that "poison" is the problem in those cases is like saying that "metal" is the problem with getting shot.

The article about China says that they are increasing regulation of the rat poison in reaction to these killings.
The article about Libya is about people voluntarily drinking illegal substances-- so you can kill people in Libya if they really, really want a drink. Congratulations.

In both cases people are (unknowingly) cooperating in their own deaths, which is the only reason the "range" is so high.

Zeconte:
Since when do illegal rat poisons and moonshine qualify as "household cleaning supplies"?

You and I both know that household cleaning supplies can be poisons. I picked the top 2 non-repetitive examples on my search for, poison murder -ricin

Seanchaidh:
The article about China says that they are increasing regulation of the rat poison in reaction to these killings.

The poison has been heavily regulated since the 90s (as it said in the article).

The article about Libya is about people voluntarily drinking illegal substances-- so you can kill people in Libya if they really, really want a drink. Congratulations.

Do you really not know about how often people are killed with homemade alcohol in a consumer bottle? I know it happened a lot in Vietnam. Bars would drain the good liquor out of bottles for their location and then refill and reseal the bottles and sell them to troops on base.

In both cases people are (unknowingly) cooperating in their own deaths, which is the only reason the "range" is so high.

First of all, moonshine/radiator whiskey/white lightning/Jump/Hooch/etc. is very common in the US and I have sampled plenty in my time in Europe.

Second of all, that disproves my point how?

Second of all, that disproves my point how?

You haven't really specified a point, so it's hard to say.

Abomination:

Not G. Ivingname:

Abomination:
Really? Someone should probably have told that to the revolutionaries. Probably would have saved them the whole lining up and shooting at each other with smoothbore, flintlock muskets every 20-40 seconds until the French arrived.

May I present to you, the Puckle Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun

The Continental Congress almost did buy some kind of semi-auto rifle, called the "Belton Flintlock," ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock ) but the Congress just couldn't afford the high price Belton put on his rifles. Sadly, not only did none of the few prototypes (which by all accounts worked) but also the designs for them as well.

It was also the equivalent as to a piece of artillery that would require a team to operate.

So I mean, if you ignore the fact that it didn't actually see battle, required a team to operate, is the equivalent to a tripod mounted minigun, was outrageously expensive, suffered from serious performance issues and never actually set foot on the American continent... sure, I guess an "automatic" weapon existed at the time.

Fair enough. Still, you ignored the belton flintlock.

Seanchaidh:

Second of all, that disproves my point how?

You haven't really specified a point, so it's hard to say.

His point was there is no reason to make items harder to get for no reason. Then Abom just kinda started picking nits at tangents instead of giving a sufficant answer and here we are. Thank you for joining us.

Not G. Ivingname:
Fair enough. Still, you ignored the belton flintlock.

That nobody adopted due to the thing being so expensive and/or prone to failure and essentially requiring a clockmaker to repair.

There's a reason why 'Bess lasted so damn long. Cheap, reliable, uniform ammunition.

Shame about the 40 second relaod time and terrible accuracy.

Shadowstar38:

Seanchaidh:

Second of all, that disproves my point how?

You haven't really specified a point, so it's hard to say.

His point was there is no reason to make items harder to get for no reason. Then Abom just kinda started picking nits at tangents instead of giving a sufficant answer and here we are. Thank you for joining us.

Tangents?

The "item" in question is a fucking gun. The tangent is trying to apply to rules of guns to other items.

If anything I'm trying to steer the conversation back to what it's actually about - guns.

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

Seanchaidh:

You haven't really specified a point, so it's hard to say.

His point was there is no reason to make items harder to get for no reason. Then Abom just kinda started picking nits at tangents instead of giving a sufficant answer and here we are. Thank you for joining us.

Tangents?

The "item" in question is a fucking gun. The tangent is trying to apply to rules of guns to other items.

If anything I'm trying to steer the conversation back to what it's actually about - guns.

Okay. We'll apply the rules of just guns.

They're legal to buy provided you're X age and pass a background check.

An ID and a permit provides both of these.

So gun people get to go back home with their weapons and the public get the same amount of protection they had before.

Do you have some kind of delima with this system?

farson135:

Zeconte:
Since when do illegal rat poisons and moonshine qualify as "household cleaning supplies"?

You and I both know that household cleaning supplies can be poisons. I picked the top 2 non-repetitive examples on my search for, poison murder -ricin

Everything can be a poison, it's just an issue of dosage, even water or oxygen can be poisonous under the right conditions, so your point is fairly irrelevant. Just because household cleaning supplies can be poisons doesn't justify you using one of the most deadly poisons in existence and a substance that people intentionally and knowingly consumed because it was meant to be, but wasn't made right because it is an illegal substance in the country in question and therefore, the proper ingredients and process to properly combine them is hard to come by as examples.

You also blatantly ignore the fact that you can hold a gun, stand in place and kill someone 1000 yards or more away, whereas with a poison, someone has to deliver the substance to the person you intend to kill with it and either force or trick them into ingesting enough of it for it to successfully kill them.

All-in-all, your counterargument failed to hold any real relevance to the argument it was meant to counter.

Shadowstar38:

Abomination:

Shadowstar38:

His point was there is no reason to make items harder to get for no reason. Then Abom just kinda started picking nits at tangents instead of giving a sufficant answer and here we are. Thank you for joining us.

Tangents?

The "item" in question is a fucking gun. The tangent is trying to apply to rules of guns to other items.

If anything I'm trying to steer the conversation back to what it's actually about - guns.

Okay. We'll apply the rules of just guns.

They're legal to buy provided you're X age and pass a background check.

An ID and a permit provides both of these.

So gun people get to go back home with their weapons and the public get the same amount of protection they had before.

Do you have some kind of delima with this system?

Of course, I'm staunch anti-guns so the idea of civilians being able to purchase them easily is something I find abhorrent.

My main concern is to what exactly a "permit" requires and if it's a live system rather than a registration card that is what needs to be presented.

If someone's permit can be revoked in real time and all purchases are tied to that permit then I'm all for it. If not? I got an issue.

farson135:

How about because you are not allowed to discriminate against a person based on their disability. Once again, do not attack people who work with the system they have.

This is not about discrimination, it's about endangering others. Blind people aren't allowed to drive a car either. Now, if they are just legally blind and can prove they can still handle a weapon few people would complain.

lapan:

This is not about discrimination, it's about endangering others. Blind people aren't allowed to drive a car either. Now, if they are just legally blind and can prove they can still handle a weapon few people would complain.

Blind people need merely be held to the same standard as anyone else. They can surely carry a gun as easily as anyone, as merely carrying such a weapon does not pose undue hazards to anyone. They may even reasonably be able to use one in self defence.

The requirements for responsible use of firearms dictate that risks to innocents should be minimised. A blind man should, like anyone else, be required to adequately identify justifiable targets. This simply means that in circumstances they should not shoot where people with good sight can. If they do shoot, they should be held legally accountable for recklessness and/or any resultant adverse consequences.

Abomination:

Not G. Ivingname:
Fair enough. Still, you ignored the belton flintlock.

That nobody adopted due to the thing being so expensive and/or prone to failure and essentially requiring a clockmaker to repair.

There's a reason why 'Bess lasted so damn long. Cheap, reliable, uniform ammunition.

Shame about the 40 second relaod time and terrible accuracy.

Which still does not change the fact that they existed and that the Founding Fathers knew of these weapons. Another example of a repeating rifle known by the founding father was the Girandoni Rifle which fired a .46 cal ball (with a velocity slightly faster than modern .45 ACP bullets), had a 21 round magazine, and compared to standard firearms was almost silent. The Lewis and Clark expedition actually took one of these rifles with them, and is credited with deterring any native American tribes from attacking them due to the amazing amount of firepower they possessed.

JSF01:
Which still does not change the fact that they existed and that the Founding Fathers knew of these weapons...

These guns existed around the time of the founding fathers. They were nearly all one or more of curios, only just designed, not suitable for individuals, and with significant practical problems. There is no particular reason any politician should have known of most of them because it's not their area of professional expertise. For instance, I would bet you a huge proportion of modern Western politicians couldn't tell you the current standard assault rifle of the Russian army is, never mind a curio or prototype 4000 miles away.

The core argument really being how likely it is that the Founding Fathers forged gun laws in an expectation everyone could be running round with weapons of modern - or even mid-20th century - lethality. The answer to that is very unlikely, irrespective of a handful of repeating shooters being around at the time. People mostly fought with muskets and had done for centuries, and that's almost certainly what they were thinking on. It's not like they envisaged a whole host of far more important political and legal developments the USA has been through in the last 240 years.

They might of course not have objected to the idea of all their citizens running round with machine guns, bazookas and whatever else, but the only way you're going to find that out is to invent a time machine.

Seanchaidh:
You haven't really specified a point, so it's hard to say.

Actually I did. Poisons are lethal at any range because you do not have to be there in order for it to work. Kind of like bombs. So your point is irrelevant.

Zeconte:
Everything can be a poison, it's just an issue of dosage, even water or oxygen can be poisonous under the right conditions, so your point is fairly irrelevant.

Just because you do not want to admit that you were wrong does not make my point irrelevant.

Just because household cleaning supplies can be poisons doesn't justify you using one of the most deadly poisons in existence

And that analogy works on firearms how? Are you trying to compare the humble rifle to an artillery piece?

You also blatantly ignore the fact that you can hold a gun, stand in place and kill someone 1000 yards or more away

Stand? You would have to be a much better shot than me to be able to do that effectively.

whereas with a poison, someone has to deliver the substance to the person you intend to kill with it and either force or trick them into ingesting enough of it for it to successfully kill them.

And? I have over 600 examples just in the two incidents I mentioned.

All-in-all, your counterargument failed to hold any real relevance to the argument it was meant to counter.

In your opinion perhaps but you have yet to prove anything.

lapan:
This is not about discrimination, it's about endangering others. Blind people aren't allowed to drive a car either. Now, if they are just legally blind and can prove they can still handle a weapon few people would complain.

Plenty of people here are complaining.

First of all, nowhere in the article does it say that a fully blind person got a license. It says that the potential exists but it never showed an example.

Second of all, you have to remember that these licenses provide lots of extra protections beyond the right to carry. As such you cannot deny a person access to those rights based on their disability.

Third, you can teach blind people how to shoot. A "permit to carry" in Iowa protects the open carrying of rifles and shotguns as well as the concealed carry of pistols. That means that a person is protected carrying their firearms from one place to another openly. At the same time, there is absolutely no reason why a person would have to carry that firearm for the purpose of self protection. They can go to the range and still get the same protections. Keep in mind, the transportation of firearms can be problematic but a license does away with many of those problems.

BTW when it comes to discrimination, talk to the US government not to me. It is there laws that the people are citing.

Agema:
These guns existed around the time of the founding fathers.

The Puckle Gun existed before the Founders and the Lewis and Clark Expedition was set by Jefferson.

They were nearly all one or more of curios, only just designed, not suitable for individuals, and with significant practical problems.

The Girandoni Rifle was used by the Austrian Army for a couple of decades. Yes it had problems but so do all firearms.

There is no particular reason any politician should have known of most of them because it's not their area of professional expertise.

You do realize that many of our founders were well traveled not to mention were experts in theoretical discussions of the art of war as well as more practical discussions right? That was a part of the problem for Washington. Just about every member of the Continental Congress had their own idea of how to fight to war.

For instance, I would bet you a huge proportion of modern Western politicians couldn't tell you the current standard assault rifle of the Russian army is

I can almost guarantee you that they would at least name what the Russian army has used from the past 50 years. The only thing antis seem to be able to remember is the AK47. For Russia the most modern assault rifle they have is the AN94 which looks almost exactly like a AK74 (the current primary assault rifle) which looks like a stretched AK47-

The core argument really being how likely it is that the Founding Fathers forged gun laws in an expectation everyone could be running round with weapons of modern - or even mid-20th century - lethality. The answer to that is very unlikely, irrespective of a handful of repeating shooters being around at the time.

No, the answer is likely. I understand that you never immersed yourself in the time period so I will forgive it. But the talk of repeating firearms was very common in those days. The Prussian high command and the French talked about issuing repeating arms to skirmishers like the Austrians did. The Brits never got around to that but they were looking into breach loading artillery (Brits always preferred their Navy). Mass produced semi-automatic firearms never really came about because the principle technological leap had not been made yet. True interchangeable parts. Without that semi-automatic firearms were just too expensive. But they were around and they were on the minds of military men of the day.

They might of course not have objected to the idea of all their citizens running round with machine guns, bazookas and whatever else, but the only way you're going to find that out is to invent a time machine.

Or we can look at their writings and see that they felt that citizens must be armed in the same way as the military. I highly doubt Jefferson, Lee, and Franklin would think well of our current government. Hell, Jefferson would probably ask why we are taking this shit and not rebelling.

Oh brother, this could go wrong on so many levels.

If they were legally blind, then this won't be an issue.

If totally blind, then damn.

Berny Marcus:
Oh brother, this could go wrong on so many levels.

If they were legally blind, then this won't be an issue.

If totally blind, then damn.

It's totally blind.
Saw a clip of a completely blind man buying themselves a pistol with concealed carry license for protection.
Said that he can just "point and shoot" because "he can hear where people are".

I swear that when first person ends up being shot by a blind person, i will fucking laugh.

On lighter news, two idiots shoot each other on a parking lot

nyysjan:

Berny Marcus:
Oh brother, this could go wrong on so many levels.

If they were legally blind, then this won't be an issue.

If totally blind, then damn.

It's totally blind.
Saw a clip of a completely blind man buying themselves a pistol with concealed carry license for protection.
Said that he can just "point and shoot" because "he can hear where people are".

I want to see that clip.

For close range, and home defense I would say yes, but only if they live alone. I think they can know where people are at, but only at close range, and not to mention... It takes allot of skill to hit targets even without blindness, I would do the Joe Biden thing, and have them carry shotguns, rifles& pistols however are a no-no.

Gergar12:
It takes allot of skill to hit targets even without blindness, I would do the Joe Biden thing, and have them carry shotguns, rifles& pistols however are a no-no.

Er...why? Why is a shotgun better for them than a rifle or pistol?

Unless you mean the simplicity of it, which is fair enough.

farson135:

nyysjan:

Berny Marcus:
Oh brother, this could go wrong on so many levels.

If they were legally blind, then this won't be an issue.

If totally blind, then damn.

It's totally blind.
Saw a clip of a completely blind man buying themselves a pistol with concealed carry license for protection.
Said that he can just "point and shoot" because "he can hear where people are".

I want to see that clip.

Don't remember where i saw it first, might have been Rachel Maddow show but not sure, couldnot find it there, happily, youtube came to rescue.
0;42 and forward

nyysjan:
0:42 and forward

For a brief second, I thought he was demoing the flashlight attachment, which kind of seems unnecessary in his case.

The Gentleman:

nyysjan:
0:42 and forward

For a brief second, I thought he was demoing the flashlight attachment, which kind of seems unnecessary in his case.

Hey now, if he points the flashlight at people in the dark, then he'll blind them as well, and everyone can start the shootout on equal footing.

nyysjan:

farson135:

nyysjan:

It's totally blind.
Saw a clip of a completely blind man buying themselves a pistol with concealed carry license for protection.
Said that he can just "point and shoot" because "he can hear where people are".

I want to see that clip.

Don't remember where i saw it first, might have been Rachel Maddow show but not sure, couldnot find it there, happily, youtube came to rescue.
0;42 and forward

You paraphrased quite a bit out of that. Include the fact that he appears to be purchasing the firearm for both him and his (I assume) wife. In fact he is implying that if necessary he can use it (which he can) but that is not the primary purpose. They are talking about going to the range, not self defense. He even said that she can use it if she wants. Hell, it appears that he is buying a .22LR pistol. Sure you could use that for self defense but it definitely is not preferred. However, it is a preferred introductory pistol.

Very different from what you said.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked