The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Yorzhik]

:chuckle: I'm still totin' around a .38 J-frame Smith so it should be right up my alley.

I've never been a big AR fan myself. Given my druthers (in 5.56 anyway) I'd rather have the mini. :think:


....Or an AK.

I have the same .38 J-frame, but I wish the trigger was like the Ruger LCR out of the factory. If I want to change the trigger I have to spend a bigger chuck of money than I want and I'm thinking I'll just sell it and buy the Ruger instead.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Bad analogy. Could you find a better one? I don't think you can. Here is why your analogy doesn't work:
"Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a "right to free speech" instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes's contention that no one has the right to shout "Fire" falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of "public policy."3 And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.4

For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner's property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights." - Rothbard

All that really says is that free speech rights are trumped by property rights.

 

[TomO]

I have the same .38 J-frame, but I wish the trigger was like the Ruger LCR out of the factory. If I want to change the trigger I have to spend a bigger chuck of money than I want and I'm thinking I'll just sell it and buy the Ruger instead.

I've heard the LCR has a better trigger but I've never tried it. :think:


I think you'd be better off with that too. lain:

 

[Ktoyou]

Well, they are not quite the same; most persons use their car everyday, so, the danger is higher. Look at a fair unbiased comparison of gun shootings, other than suicide with respect to auto fatalities.

Say you believe a gun is more dangerous, and used in suicide more often? I think one would have to be a moron to shoot oneself with a gun, A car will kill without violence, had one be so disposed, a car left running in a garage will kill.

Insurance is also a silly idea, once you think out the meaning. Same with inspections.Health requirements are debatable, as to used with car registration; I was never asked about my state of health when registering a vehicle. I do agree with criminal background checks and including mental health. Maybe we should consider that with cars, huh?

Not let anyone with mental illness drive, who knows, they might purposely have a head-on collision? You believe there are no incidents for using vehicles as weapons?

The truth on the matter is we are not talking about a measure of lethal, we are talking about social attitudes; no one wants to make major restrictions on vehicles because almost everyone uses them. Guns are associated with a less communal lifestyle and social conformists always want everyone to be the same.

Training for CC, I agree, and all CC weapons have to be registered, or if used, there can be trouble. There is no rational reason to have to pay a gun registration each year, anymore than there should be a pedestrian tax, guns do not use roads.

 

[Granite]

A cavalier attitude towards firearms is no longer acceptable.

Part of the Newtown "truther" movement based their argument on the fact that the killer was able to kill as many victims as he did in such a short amount of time. In other words, skeptics were baffled or in outright denial that a single person could wreak that amount of carnage so quickly. Well you can't have your cake and eat it too: You can't on the one hand demand a .223 carbine with all the trimmings, then act shocked, shocked, when it operates precisely as it was designed.

 

[ok doser]

A cavalier attitude towards firearms is no longer acceptable.

Part of the Newtown "truther" movement based their argument on the fact that the killer was able to kill as many victims as he did in such a short amount of time. In other words, skeptics were baffled or in outright denial that a single person could wreak that amount of carnage so quickly. Well you can't have your cake and eat it too: You can't on the one hand demand a .223 carbine with all the trimmings, then act shocked, shocked, when it operates precisely as it was designed.

it was designed to be used by a mentally disturbed person to murder children?

cite?

 

[Yorzhik]

All that really says is that free speech rights are trumped by property rights.

Quite. And the right to life trumps property rights.

So, can you come up with a better analogy? or are you not even going to try?

 

[ok doser]

A cavalier attitude towards firearms is no longer acceptable.

did you stamp your foot when you typed that, for emphasis?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Quite. And the right to life trumps property rights.

So, can you come up with a better analogy? or are you not even going to try?

Based on what you just said, my analogy is accurate. Yelling fire in a crowded theater could result in the loss of life in the ensuing panic to get out of the theater. Similarly, carelessly executing your right to bear arms could result in the loss of life.

 

[CabinetMaker]

it was designed to be used by a mentally disturbed person to murder children?

cite?

I twas designed to operate in a particular fashion regardless of who picks it up and uses it.

 

[ok doser]

I twas designed to operate in a particular fashion regardless of who picks it up and uses it.

i suspect it was designed to fire bullets

that's what my guns were designed to do

 

[CabinetMaker]

Well, they are not quite the same; most persons use their car everyday, so, the danger is higher. Look at a fair unbiased comparison of gun shootings, other than suicide with respect to auto fatalities.

Say you believe a gun is more dangerous, and used in suicide more often? I think one would have to be a moron to shoot oneself with a gun, A car will kill without violence, had one be so disposed, a car left running in a garage will kill.

Insurance is also a silly idea, once you think out the meaning. Same with inspections.Health requirements are debatable, as to used with car registration; I was never asked about my state of health when registering a vehicle. I do agree with criminal background checks and including mental health. Maybe we should consider that with cars, huh?

Not let anyone with mental illness drive, who knows, they might purposely have a head-on collision? You believe there are no incidents for using vehicles as weapons?

The truth on the matter is we are not talking about a measure of lethal, we are talking about social attitudes; no one wants to make major restrictions on vehicles because almost everyone uses them. Guns are associated with a less communal lifestyle and social conformists always want everyone to be the same.

Training for CC, I agree, and all CC weapons have to be registered, or if used, there can be trouble. There is no rational reason to have to pay a gun registration each year, anymore than there should be a pedestrian tax, guns do not use roads.

Guns are designed to kill. That is their primary function and they are VERY good at it. Even if it doesn't kill a person it is likely forever to alter their quality of life. It is not a tool that should be used lightly. I think it is foolish to regulate something that results in death primarily due to accidents and leave use of a tool specifically designed to kill virtually unregulated.

 

[ok doser]

Guns are designed to kill.

mine must be defective

 

[CabinetMaker]

i suspect it was designed to fire bullets

that's what my guns were designed to do

My .45's are designed to deliver bullets. I must pull the hammer back each and every time I want to fire. A 1911 is designed to deliver bullets as fast as I can pull the trigger. Don't play stupid.

 

[CabinetMaker]

mine must be defective

Better test it then. Load it up, point it at a living thing and pull the trigger. Please let us know the results of your test.

 

[ok doser]

My .45's are designed to deliver bullets.

fedex delivers bullets

your 45 fires them

Better test it then.

i have, many many times

hasn't killed anybody yet :idunno:

maybe i should return it to the factory and have it looked at?

 

[Ktoyou]

My .45's are designed to deliver bullets. I must pull the hammer back each and every time I want to fire. A 1911 is designed to deliver bullets as fast as I can pull the trigger. To play stupid.

I think you need to give it a rest. Your two statements are in contradiction. You pull the hammer to **** the 1911 Springfield, then it shoots automatically. You don't have to pull back the hammer each time.

It fires fast because you do not have to pull back the hammer each time!

 

[CabinetMaker]

fedex delivers bullets

your 45 fires them

I used the terms you used.

i have, many many times

hasn't killed anybody yet :idunno:

maybe i should return it to the factory and have it looked at?

So you have pointed your loaded gun at a living being and pulled the trigger. I think you are lying.

 

[ok doser]

So you have pointed your loaded gun at a living being and pulled the trigger.

why would i point my loaded gun at a living being and pull the trigger?


is that what you do with your 45s?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I think you need to give it a rest. Your two statements are in contradiction. You pull the hammer to **** the 1911 Springfield, then it shoots automatically. You don't have to pull back the hammer each time.

It fires fast because you do not have to pull back the hammer each time!

That is the point. Both guns are designed to fire bullets. The Colt action requires a deliberate pull of the hammer before each and every shot. That is how it was designed. The 1911 only requires the hammer to be pulled back once and then it can fire repeatedly.

Which goes to Granite's point. There are a lot of guns on the market today that are designed to fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. They are so good at it that one person can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time.