• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ho hum, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
This isn't about you!
I told you that other bans exist, such as big bore guns, and you said 'No'.

Sorry if I don't consider 2-3 man 250lbs + cannons as "guns".

You were wrong.
Simple as.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

And there you are, comparing a 1lb punt gun top something else, all about your own little world. You're just narrow focused.

I'll take a .22 LR over your punt gun any day. Just as deadly with a trained marksman like myself.

And if you're using a gun uninsured, then you need you to mature somewhat, imo.

Opinions are like a-holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink, imho.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'll take a .22 LR over your punt gun any day. Just as deadly with a trained marksman like myself.
You're giving yourself away.
You're showing that you have no real idea about guns in general.

When somebody tries to compare a gun used for one purpose over a gun used for something specific and different, you can bet that they're not very wise about guns.

You've also shown that you have little knowledge about past gun bans in your country.

And the rounds that you use interest me somewhat.
Although I don't think that the US signed any Geneva Convention, those bullets are outlawed by the Convention as inhumane even in warfare.

And for a country to allow unwarranted possession of them by lay-people is very strange. That introduces a whole new field that your future governments could address as totally unsuitable for civilians to possess.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You're giving yourself away.
You're showing that you have no real idea about guns in general.

You have no idea how wrong you are there pumpkin.

When somebody tries to compare a gun used for one purpose over a gun used for something specific and different, you can bet that they're not very wise about guns.

Uh huh. You don't know anything about force multipliers do you?

You've also shown that you have little knowledge about past gun bans in your country.

No need to retain knowledge of obsolete useless weapons I wouldn't use even if they were legal.

Although I don't think that the US signed any Geneva Convention, those bullets are outlawed by the Convention as inhumane even in warfare.

I can't tell if your bluffing, ignorant, or just trolling.

Show me where any calibre I mentioned is illegal.

I'll wait.

And for a country to allow unwarranted possession of them by lay-people is very strange. That introduces a whole new field that your future governments could address as totally unsuitable for civilians to possess.

Call the U.N and send em on over to take em from us then. ;) They won't get past the rednecks in Kentucky.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I don't believe that.
That looks like total dis-information to me.

If a householder is of good character, trains, is tested, is insured, has good home security..... nobody would deny them a gun if they wanted one.

That's just hyper bull-dust.
We have gone around this rodeo other times.

You want unconstitutional hoops. You think they are reasonable, I think they are not. You throw some comment about fine people will keep dying. It really goes nowhere. Why not join me in pursuing meaningful reforms on which we both agree?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
This isn't about you!
I told you that other bans exist, such as big bore guns, and you said 'No'.

You were wrong.
Simple as.
Except i don't think they were ever banned. I think using them for hunting is what was banned. You could buy one for a small chunk of change if you wanted today.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I'll bet a few manslaughters happen that way.
Hysterical nuts clinging to guns.
I'm fairly certain that for every case of legitimate "he broke in, past the security screen, with explicit intent to do harm, and my gun was the only thing that saved me" cases, we can probably find several cases of people being shot for "walking down the street while looking suspicious" type over reactions.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I reckon that a lot of nuts are obsessed with their gun's power and how it can enable their egos, and half a chance to pick it up and see its effect upon others is just too much of a temptation.
It's a fact; guns make you feel cool and powerful. I own 5 restricted weapons, and several more unrestricted ones. I know how seductive weapons can be. But I make a point to practice and maintain the self awareness to recognise them for what they are. IMHO, the "but I need my gunz for self defence!" argument is nothing more than an ad hoc rationalisation by people for whom gun ownership is nothing but a crutch to compensate for various insecurities. The insidious thing is that for many gun fetishists, they've internalised the argument to such a degree, they really believe it, they want to believe it, and making well reasoned, logical arguments against the idea only triggers their cognitive dissonance, because, ultimately, their sense of self relies on the fact that they own a gun. It makes them feel empowered, and gives a sense of control and security in an uncertain world. Threatening their unrestricted gun ownership threatens their very sense of self, hence you get all these ridiculous "yeah, but what if..." ad hoc justification scenarios.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You have no idea how wrong you are there pumpkin.

Uh huh. You don't know anything about force multipliers do you?

No need to retain knowledge of obsolete useless weapons I wouldn't use even if they were legal.
There you are.... You've shown us that you have no real interest in guns or their history. I think it's all about you and your ego..... true?

I can't tell if your bluffing, ignorant, or just trolling.

Show me where any calibre I mentioned is illegal.

I'll wait.

Call the U.N and send em on over to take em from us then. ;) They won't get past the rednecks in Kentucky.

Clearly your comprehension was wobbly when you read my last post.
Such bullets as you boast about were once banned by the Geneva Convention, but as I already told you, I don't think that the US signed it. :shrug:
There...... your wait is over.

But to compare what your gun could do against a punt gun shows a level of ignorance about guns which is gobsmacking.

Enough said, I think.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We have gone around this rodeo other times.

You want unconstitutional hoops. You think they are reasonable, I think they are not. You throw some comment about fine people will keep dying. It really goes nowhere. Why not join me in pursuing meaningful reforms on which we both agree?
Excepting that you don't see thge common sense of mandatory 3rd part public liability insurance for all gun users.

You would if you got your leg blown off by some idiot who couldn't pay the damages awarded to you by a Court. You'd be a believer then, for sure.

And you wrote:-
Except i don't think they were ever banned. I think using them for hunting is what was banned. You could buy one for a small chunk of change if you wanted today.
True..... they were banned for their designed use.
I have seen one fired on Pawn Stars (!) only it was clamped to a bench.

I was just mentioning a ban on a gun's use, is all.
I think that many guns are banned in the US but they just seem obvious.

Could @Kangaroo Feathers keep his tank in his back yard and take it out to practice with occasionally? ...... if he was a US citizen? :D
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm fairly certain that for every case of legitimate "he broke in, past the security screen, with explicit intent to do harm, and my gun was the only thing that saved me" cases, we can probably find several cases of people being shot for "walking down the street while looking suspicious" type over reactions.
One writer on this thread has boasted that he nearly blew a large hole in a man who was advancing upon him, but then the man backed off. That man could not have been holding a gun, just from the description, and the post writer NEARLY FIRED!

So..... yep....... I reckon you're right.

And why are those homes wide open? I can understand open homes in the deep South 'back in the day', but you shut the place up and turn on the air-con today, don't you?
Hell...... you're in Oz...... do you have air-con?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
It's a fact; guns make you feel cool and powerful. I own 5 restricted weapons, and several more unrestricted ones. I know how seductive weapons can be. But I make a point to practice and maintain the self awareness to recognise them for what they are. IMHO, the "but I need my gunz for self defence!" argument is nothing more than an ad hoc rationalisation by people for whom gun ownership is nothing but a crutch to compensate for various insecurities. The insidious thing is that for many gun fetishists, they've internalised the argument to such a degree, they really believe it, they want to believe it, and making well reasoned, logical arguments against the idea only triggers their cognitive dissonance, because, ultimately, their sense of self relies on the fact that they own a gun. It makes them feel empowered, and gives a sense of control and security in an uncertain world. Threatening their unrestricted gun ownership threatens their very sense of self, hence you get all these ridiculous "yeah, but what if..." ad hoc justification scenarios.
You put that better than I could.

I gave up serious salt-marsh wildfowling 50 years ago, and sold my last gun in 1977ish, a very dangerously thin Belgian hammer shotgun which was hanging over the fireplace, to a door-to-door antiques dealer who must have thought it was English and special ( :D)

But when my gamekeeper father died in 1983 I had to sort out a bunch of rifles and guns in his home. It was too upsetting a time for me to worry about a best deal, so I just got a gunsmith mate of Dad's to come round and take the lot away. They had been good mates so I expect Dad would have approved.

Since then I have spent many hundreds of hours learning about the simple sling the atl-atl and the bow. I used to be able to hit a door at 40 yards with heavy wrist-sling and a half brick but I'm not taking the bloody thing outside to challenge the postman or double glazing salesman.... that's for sure. I'll just lock the bloody door. :)
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Could @Kangaroo Feathers keep his tank in his back yard and take it out to practice with occasionally? ...... if he was a US citizen? :D
Just before we bought our house, there was a Centurion tank offered for sale near me. I suggested to my wife it would be a better use of our funds, but she wouldn't be in it. Later this story came out Bought a Tank & Found $2.6 Million in Gold Bullion Inside and I still give her crap about not buying a tank, since they come with $4 million AU worth of gold in the guts. She still hasn't let me get one though :(
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Just before we bought our house, there was a Centurion tank offered for sale near me. I suggested to my wife it would be a better use of our funds, but she wouldn't be in it. Later this story came out Bought a Tank & Found $2.6 Million in Gold Bullion Inside and I still give her crap about not buying a tank, since they come with $4 million AU worth of gold in the guts. She still hasn't let me get one though :(
Love it!

A real Kelly's Heroes story!
On a somewhat smaller scale an old bloke who lives here has an old military combination motorcycle, beautifully restored, and since it has a bracket for a rifle he rides around town with an old LeeEnflield No1 thrust in to the bracket. Obviously deactivated. Another military collector 50 yards away keeps a bloody great military truck on his tiny driveway filling it to the inch.

I don't think that track laying vehicles are allowed on our roads unless they are fitted with rubber pads on every track.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Excepting that you don't see thge common sense of mandatory 3rd part public liability insurance for all gun users.
No. I don't.
You would if you got your leg blown off by some idiot who couldn't pay the damages awarded to you by a Court. You'd be a believer then, for sure.
I am sure you imagine that if some tragic, that would undoubtedly instill many with bias, befell me, then I too would see the light. I do not think fear is a good way to push agenda: "you should agree with me lest some insufferable poor person causes damage beyond their means."

We are never likely to agree on this issue. I will continue to challenge what I see as unconstitutional. You will continue to argue for what you see as reasonable. Consider, in the mean time that there are other ways to reduce the homicide numbers and anytime a "look how bad the U.S. is because A shot B" thread pops up, Gun control or restrictions on guns needn't be the only thing discussed.

And you wrote:-

True..... they were banned for their designed use.
I have seen one fired on Pawn Stars (!) only it was clamped to a bench.

I was just mentioning a ban on a gun's use, is all.
I think that many guns are banned in the US but they just seem obvious.
It is true that many guns are effectively banned in the U.S. This has been done through the commerce clause. It is illegal for citizens to own new automatic or burst fire guns. The exception is for people who deal with weapon sales. These individuals are allowed to own one model for educational purposes. Once they are no longer a dealer they must sell their model.

Could @Kangaroo Feathers keep his tank in his back yard and take it out to practice with occasionally? ...... if he was a US citizen? :D
Honestly, i would have to research the legality of tank ownership to answer this question. If so, I imagine there would be a lot of hoops to jump through.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
There you are.... You've shown us that you have no real interest in guns or their history. I think it's all about you and your ego..... true?

:facepalm:

Projection to the max.

Such bullets as you boast about were once banned by the Geneva Convention, but as I already told you, I don't think that the US signed it.

Still waiting for you to specify which calibers you asserted as banned.

The U.S. signed the Geneva convention. So show me where and exactly which calibers are supposedly illegal?

Or will it be just more huff and puff more like usual?

But to compare what your gun could do against a punt gun shows a level of ignorance about guns which is gobsmacking

I think you don't have enough knowledge to counter the argument is all.

Punt guns were banned because they were used to kill large quantities of ducks.

That set aside, the weapon is obsolete and has no other practical uses. Not for self defense or war. Which I've tried to demonstrate but you lack the knowledge to provide a reasonable counter argument so we get this. The mindless droning of a sore ego that can't keep up with the debate.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Still waiting for you to specify which calibers you asserted as banned.

The U.S. signed the Geneva convention. So show me where and exactly which calibers are supposedly illegal?

Or will it be just more huff and puff more like usual?
More ignorance.
The issue is not with calibres but with bullets that fragment (dum dum) and unencased lead bullets. The USA did not sign this section of the GC.

Here.... educate yourself.
International law has condemned dum dum bullets because of types of injuries and inevitability of death. ... The United States is not a party to the agreement prohibiting the use of expanding bullets or “dum-dums”, signed at The Hague, July 29 1899.

I think you don't have enough knowledge to counter the argument is all.
See above. Read and learn.

Punt guns were banned because they were used to kill large quantities of ducks.

That set aside, the weapon is obsolete and has no other practical uses. Not for self defense or war. Which I've tried to demonstrate but you lack the knowledge to provide a reasonable counter argument so we get this. The mindless droning of a sore ego that can't keep up with the debate.
But you were wrong. You now admit that such guns were banned for use.
I just wait for you to acknowledge that I was right after all, is all.
You wrote that I was wrong about very large bores being banned.

You think you know it all, and you don't know any of it.
All you can write about is how well your gun can kill, and how you've pointed it at somebody who clearly did not have any gun.

Very wobbly, imo.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
More ignorance.

Yes I see yours is quite expansive.

The issue is not with calibres but with bullets that fragment (dum dum) and unencased lead bullets.

Oh well guess you just s.o.l then.

Here.... educate yourself.

Doesn't apply to me.

See above. Read and learn

Irrelevant info

But you were wrong.

Nope, the weapon was banned because it was used to kill large amounts of ducks at once. Not a general ban.

You now admit that such guns were banned for use.

Yes, banned from duck hunting.

I can still legally own one and use it. So long as I don't use it for hunting.

See how your "knowledge" is slowly being whittled down by someone with a much greater understanding. Death by a tiny thousand paper cuts. This will continue as long as you want to continue embarrassing yourself by replying with bluffs and huff puffery.

I just wait for you to acknowledge that I was right after all, is all.

You was wrong from the start pumpkin. ;)

You wrote that I was wrong about very large bores being banned.

You were wrong sweetheart. :kissing:

You think you know it all, and you don't know any of it.

I think I've proven I know more.

All you can write about is how well your gun can kill, and how you've pointed it at somebody who clearly did not have any gun.

I never said I pointed it at anyone. More evidence of your lack of knowledge. I said I've only drawn it once. Drawing your weapon doesn't automatically mean pointing it. I drew my weapon and place it on the dash of my car, so the crackhead could see it, to scare him away, and behold it worked with no violence issued.

Very wobbly, imo.

Yes your whole argument has been from the start.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes I see yours is quite expansive.

Oh well guess you just s.o.l then.

Doesn't apply to me.

Irrelevant info

Nope, the weapon was banned because it was used to kill large amounts of ducks at once. Not a general ban.

Yes, banned from duck hunting.

I can still legally own one and use it. So long as I don't use it for hunting.

See how your "knowledge" is slowly being whittled down by someone with a much greater understanding. Death by a tiny thousand paper cuts. This will continue as long as you want to continue embarrassing yourself by replying with bluffs and huff puffery.

You was wrong from the start pumpkin. ;)

You were wrong sweetheart. :kissing:

I think I've proven I know more.

I never said I pointed it at anyone. More evidence of your lack of knowledge. I said I've only drawn it once. Drawing your weapon doesn't automatically mean pointing it. I drew my weapon and place it on the dash of my car, so the crackhead could see it, to scare him away, and behold it worked with no violence issued.

Yes your whole argument has been from the start.

I don't think you help the gun rights movement much.
You're more helpful to the Gun-Controls movement.
 
Top