If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foreign Policy)   The NRA is too busy trying to export its agenda to other countries to address the real-life outcomes of that same agenda at home   (foreignpolicy.com) divider line 308
    More: Obvious, political agenda, no compromise, gun ownership, gun registry, small arms, end runs, overly broad, exports  
•       •       •

1312 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 8:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



308 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 10:59:10 AM

qorkfiend: What were guns designed for, if it's not weapons? Don't say target shooting, and don't say manufacturers. You know that is not the question being asked.


I'm not sure that line of argument will go anywhere meaningful.
If you discount all the alternative uses of a thing and leave only law breaking applications, there are many things in this world that humans should probably not own. Like combat knives or fast cars.

Do you think we would we stop speeding by banning fast cars?
Do you think murder and madness end because of a weapons ban?

Its a pointless direction because the problem is we have dangerous people.
If you know there are dangerous people out there, you might want protection from them.
If you think that giving up your weapon and depriving everyone else of theirs will stop an attack, you are underestimating human creativity.

dl.dropbox.com

/Yes, maybe they wont have battlefield quality guns.
/Unless they import them, but how likely is a drug dealer to import an AK-47?
/Or Maybe crazy people will use a suicide bomb vest, like they do overseas.
/This direction still doesn't help us.
 
2012-07-24 10:59:29 AM

dlp211: I hate this line being trotted out time after time. I know plenty of people that are knowledgable about weapons that interchange clip with magazine, but never the other way around. A clip of ammo goes inside a magazine, saying that a gun accepts a 100 round clip is not as wrong as you make it out to be.


A clip doesn't go inside a magazine. A weapon will accept ether a clip or a magazine or neither. Clips pretty much fell out of fashion after WW2.
 
2012-07-24 11:00:12 AM

HotWingConspiracy: The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people.


hurrrr hurrrrhrurhrurhrurrrrrrrr

HotWingConspiracy: They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


Wow, you discovered that guns designed for home defense are advertised for their capacity in that role. Up next, you'll discover that guns designed for competitive sport shooting aren't designed or advertised for their stopping power. Truly, an insightful comment.
 
2012-07-24 11:01:59 AM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people.

hurrrr hurrrrhrurhrurhrurrrrrrrr

HotWingConspiracy: They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

Wow, you discovered that guns designed for home defense are advertised for their capacity in that role. Up next, you'll discover that guns designed for competitive sport shooting aren't designed or advertised for their stopping power. Truly, an insightful comment.


I also shiat all over your assertion that it's a military thing. Sorry to ruin your narrative.

I hope you don't get angry and go on a spree killing.
 
2012-07-24 11:02:07 AM

the_geek: So, it should go without saying that most peoples' hunting rifles are more powerful than the typical AR. So what is it about an AR-15 that should make it illegal exactly?


You need to know that most compound hunting bows are more powerful than ARs and even many hunting rifles. I can put an arrow clean through a sandbag that will stop a 30-06 bullet.

The key is sustained rate of fire.
Machines that spit bullets are, aptly named, machine guns.
Semi-auto weapons are simply slow machine guns and everyone who has ever fired one understands this in his brain stem.
High capacity magazines simply enable rate of fire, because without the ability to load the machine gun quickly, it can't fire quickly. A lower rate of fire is what would make any given gunman vulnerable to neutralization by civilians or police.

Ban assault weapons and high cap mags.

/And hell, I'm even a shooter and have been all my life. Never used a 100-round mag, even in the military, and never needed one.
//If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.
 
2012-07-24 11:03:09 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

When the assault weapon ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, there was 66% reduction in those 19 weapons showing up in crimes.


A 66% decline in the fraction of one percent of crime in which assault weapons are used?
 
2012-07-24 11:04:19 AM

Graffito: Please show your work. Be more specific.


What I mean is, the argument between you is a silly waste of time. Both sides are both right and wrong depending on how you want to look at it.

You still call it a car even if it has no engine. However, when you are sitting in it, you are not driving so it is not technically a vehicle.
 
2012-07-24 11:05:36 AM

L82DPRT: A 66% decline in the fraction of one percent of crime in which assault weapons are used?


Yes, the ban was successful.
 
2012-07-24 11:06:58 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: //If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.


12/70
 
2012-07-24 11:07:37 AM
Rate of fire is critical.
That's why you go to jail if someone catches you bump-firing a Glock or whatever on the range.
That's also why you go to jail if your AR malfunctions and goes off in a burst.

/Hints: Google "Olofson case;" Google "bump fire"
 
2012-07-24 11:07:56 AM

Khellendros: There are amendments that have been changed, but the Bill of Rights has been considered generally separate. Sacred, even. Sure, we could attempt to reinterpret them, or write something that alters it, but the spirit of its intent is quite clear. I don't see a practical way getting that legislation through. Not in the next 50 years


We've allowed bribes to politicians to be called "free speech." I'd say the spirit of the Bill of Rights is just as open to interpretation as any other part of it. On a side note, does anybody ever worry about the spirit of the Third Amendment?
 
2012-07-24 11:08:21 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: /If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.


Not if your target is a movie audience
 
2012-07-24 11:09:05 AM

L82DPRT: HotIgneous Intruder: //If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.

12/70


/More like 97/100.
//Competitive shooter.
///Do not suck with a rifle.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:11 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: L82DPRT: A 66% decline in the fraction of one percent of crime in which assault weapons are used?

Yes, the ban was successful.


If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.

Hi-cap mags became more expensive so if you're looking to take those out of the hands of the 99% but not the 1%...

Why do hate the 99%?
 
2012-07-24 11:13:33 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

When the assault weapon ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, there was 66% reduction in those 19 weapons showing up in crimes.


From what, 4.8% of gun crime to 1.6%? Unamusingly enough, the general gun crime rate didn't drop accordingly - people just used other guns.

HotWingConspiracy: I also shiat all over your assertion that it's a military thing.


You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people? Are you intentionally being stupid?

HotIgneous Intruder: Ban assault weapons


BAN BAYONET MOUNTS AND BARREL SHROUDS

THIS IS IMPORTANT

HotIgneous Intruder: Rate of fire is critical.
That's why you go to jail if someone catches you bump-firing a Glock or whatever on the range.
That's also why you go to jail if your AR malfunctions and goes off in a burst.


The reason that's critical is because anything higher than one shot per trigger pull is a class III destructive device.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:36 AM
Clip is now interchangeable with magazine. At least according to Merriam Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip
2 Clip (noun)
1 : any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook
2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
 
2012-07-24 11:14:50 AM

L82DPRT: If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.

Hi-cap mags became more expensive so if you're looking to take those out of the hands of the 99% but not the 1%...

Why do hate the 99%?


Jesus dude. Ease back on the throttle a bit.
 
2012-07-24 11:14:59 AM

sprawl15: You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people?


That isn't what you said.
 
2012-07-24 11:15:52 AM

L82DPRT: If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.


Yup. And then there were problems in that you had to use a similar definition, if a person owned a gun that was classified as an "assault weapon" because it had a pistol grip and collapsible stock replaced the stock with a solid one then knocked over a store, it's no longer an "assault weapon" and wouldn't have been classified as such for the police reports.

Same with models that were designed to get around the specific naming in the law.
 
2012-07-24 11:18:34 AM

sprawl15: From what, 4.8% of gun crime to 1.6%?


I don't know. But I like that decline.
 
2012-07-24 11:19:30 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: L82DPRT: HotIgneous Intruder: //If you need 100-rounds to hit a target, you suck as a rifleman.

12/70

/More like 97/100.
//Competitive shooter.
///Do not suck with a rifle.


12/70 are Batboy's numbers. May he burn in Hell.
 
2012-07-24 11:20:48 AM

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people?

That isn't what you said.


Lets review:

sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Are you shiatting on the part where the military are provided guns designed to kill people? Or are you shiatting on the part where some guns are ever designed specifically to kill people?
 
2012-07-24 11:23:50 AM
No matter what anyone says, for me it always returns to the basic question "What are guns built to do?"

Guns do not exist to make friends, they exist to kill or cause extreme harm very easily.

I don't see how it is unreasonable to want less of them around no matter the situation.
 
2012-07-24 11:25:22 AM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: You're shiatting on the assertion that weapons marketed towards the military are tailored for killing people?

That isn't what you said.

Lets review:sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military. Are you shiatting on the part where the military are provided guns designed to kill people? Or are you shiatting on the part where some guns are ever designed specifically to kill people?


Please try to keep your bullshiat straight. You also want to omit the word "normally" from your new whine, which is what I was addressing. It is perfectly normal for average Moe's to have guns designed to kill humans.

Also, remain calm, we don't need another shooting.
 
2012-07-24 11:26:06 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: From what, 4.8% of gun crime to 1.6%?

I don't know. But I like that decline.


It's a stupid number for a whole pile of reasons. The primary driving force of the assault weapons ban was a few high profile massacres, which didn't occur during those years. It would be like if Columbine made TEC-9's illegal immediately following the school shooting, then saying the rate of TEC-9 related crime plummeted because of the ban. It's not so much that the ban has that effect, but rather that the spike was an artificial high.

Kind of like how the GOP manipulates gas price numbers to attack Obama - at inauguration, gas prices were TOTALLY LOWER, BRO! Well, yeah, but that's a meaningless statistic.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:15 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.


He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."
 
2012-07-24 11:28:41 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hi-cap mags became more expensive so if you're looking to take those out of the hands of the 99% but not the 1%...

Why do hate the 99%?

Jesus dude. Ease back on the throttle a bit.


I think he's onto something.
How come the 1% are all armed up with security guards/mercs/paramilitaries and the like, and we serfs get to eat dirt?
High-capacity magazines FOR THE RICH, right?

It wouldn't surprise me to find some trolls out here defending the rights of the one percenters. Because really, what recourse do you have if the sheriff/national guard/state police/Army drive up in armored vehicles and demand your weapons?
None. Nada. Zero.
Scream about the 2nd Amendment all you want, but you cannot kill the government.
It will kill you like crushing a bug. Just stop paying your taxes to see how that works.
So who benefits from these loose weapons laws? The people with the most money and therefore the most to lose -- the one percenters. The rest of us are effectively powerless against them, but allowing us to argue about owning weapons most of us cannot even afford just gives them cover.
Having or not having assault weapons makes no difference in the context of defense against tyranny, since we're already full up.

But keeping deranged doofuses from killing people in theaters would be one of the initial advantages of banning THE SALE OF assault rifles and hig-cap mags.
Our theater shooter obtained his weapons through legal, legitimate purchasing.
Maybe he should not have been able to do that.
Just maybe.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:41 AM

sprawl15: The primary driving force of the assault weapons ban was a few high profile massacres, which didn't occur during those years. It would be like if Columbine made TEC-9's illegal immediately following the school shooting, then saying the rate of TEC-9 related crime plummeted because of the ban. It's not so much that the ban has that effect, but rather that the spike was an artificial high.


I don't understand this. Bans don't work because the numbers before the bans were artificially high? Or maybe they weren't.
 
2012-07-24 11:30:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Please try to keep your bullshiat straight.


Scroll up. It's a direct quote. It's called 'reading'. Top to bottom, left to right, a group words together is called a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches and Midol for any cramps.

HotWingConspiracy: You also want to omit the word "normally" from your new whine, which is what I was addressing.


Ah, so it's abnormal for the military to be provided guns designed to kill people. Fascinating, tell me more.

HotWingConspiracy: Also, remain calm, we don't need another shooting.


You can tell when someone's losing an argument, because they have to act like the person they're arguing against is TOTALLY FURIOUS at their TOTALLY EFFECTIVE arguments.

"hurdururur"
"that's dumb"
"U MAD BRO U MAD U MAD BRO"
 
2012-07-24 11:30:54 AM

give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: Civilians have no need to own or possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

End of story.

He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."


According to the precedent of law, he had two, at least.
Read 'em and weep.
 
2012-07-24 11:30:55 AM

sprawl15: L82DPRT: If by success you mean the ban spurred domestic production of banned imports then yes otherwise it was a colossal failure.

The weapons were changed in a superficial cosmetic fashion ONLY.

Yup. And then there were problems in that you had to use a similar definition, if a person owned a gun that was classified as an "assault weapon" because it had a pistol grip and collapsible stock replaced the stock with a solid one then knocked over a store, it's no longer an "assault weapon" and wouldn't have been classified as such for the police reports.

Same with models that were designed to get around the specific naming in the law.


I celebrated the sunsetting of the AWB by purchasing an assault weapon.

It's the only one I own marked LEO

Perlin Noise: Guns do not exist to make friends, they exist to kill or cause extreme harm very easily.


Yet the overwhelming number of firearms in private hands never do either.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:21 AM

give me doughnuts: He only had one of these things, and it wasn't the one that starts with "ass."


Have you ever fired an AK? I promise you, no matter how slowly it fires, it is an assault weapon. Made for one sole purpose, to kill or severely injure many people quickly.

If you paint it purple and plant it in your yard for decoration, it is still an assault weapon. Man, I totally don't get these semantic arguments.
 
2012-07-24 11:34:48 AM

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


Most popular home defense firearm I thought was a 12 gauge pump shotgun....
 
2012-07-24 11:34:49 AM
Here it is for the developmentally disabled readers here (if any):

If people (particulary pre- or post-diagnosis mentally ill people) can't buy high-rate-of-fire weapons and magazines, it will be harder for them to obtain and use them to kill us.

That is all.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:20 AM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: Please try to keep your bullshiat straight.

Scroll up. It's a direct quote. It's called 'reading'. Top to bottom, left to right, a group words together is called a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches and Midol for any cramps.


Yes, I saw where you're now trying to say that "marketing" and "providing" are the same thing. Does that make any sense to you?

HotWingConspiracy: You also want to omit the word "normally" from your new whine, which is what I was addressing.

Ah, so it's abnormal for the military to be provided guns designed to kill people. Fascinating, tell me more.


I never said that. You implied it was a normal situation for the military, so it's easy to see that you're implying it's abnormal outside of the military. Which is wrong, and I pointed it out.

HotWingConspiracy: Also, remain calm, we don't need another shooting.

You can tell when someone's losing an argument, because they have to act like the person they're arguing against is TOTALLY FURIOUS at their TOTALLY EFFECTIVE arguments.

"hurdururur"
"that's dumb"
"U MAD BRO U MAD U MAD BRO"


Take Tylenol for any headaches and Midol for any cramps.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:44 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

/Maybe there has been to some of the halfwits in this thread, but legislatively, it's been done.
//Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned and mandatory federal felony prison time attached to their possession.
///Also: Assault weapon owners, who are you gonna fight and kill with your superguns? The government? Please let me know how that shiat turns out.


Now I know you are trolling.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:41 AM

L82DPRT: Yet the overwhelming number of firearms in private hands never do either.


That's an interesting observation, however, I don't understand how it is relevant. I'm not trying to be a jerk, could you elaborate your point? From my perspective, it sounds like you are saying there are a lot of totally unnecessary guns out there.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:55 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: The primary driving force of the assault weapons ban was a few high profile massacres, which didn't occur during those years. It would be like if Columbine made TEC-9's illegal immediately following the school shooting, then saying the rate of TEC-9 related crime plummeted because of the ban. It's not so much that the ban has that effect, but rather that the spike was an artificial high.

I don't understand this. Bans don't work because the numbers before the bans were artificially high? Or maybe they weren't.


Pretty much. If you live in a neighborhood and don't have crime for 10 years, then someone comes and breaks into your house one night, you can put a scarecrow in your front lawn and more likely than not you won't have crime at your house again for another decade. That doesn't mean the scarecrow is preventing crime.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:27 AM

sprawl15: Pretty much. If you live in a neighborhood and don't have crime for 10 years, then someone comes and breaks into your house one night, you can put a scarecrow in your front lawn and more likely than not you won't have crime at your house again for another decade. That doesn't mean the scarecrow is preventing crime.


If someone breaks into your house with an assault weapon and then assault weapons are banned and that doesn't happen again I believe it's safe to say that ban had something to do with it.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:51 AM

give me doughnuts: HotIgneous Intruder: Assault weapons have been defined quite effectively.

/Maybe there has been to some of the halfwits in this thread, but legislatively, it's been done.
//Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned and mandatory federal felony prison time attached to their possession.
///Also: Assault weapon owners, who are you gonna fight and kill with your superguns? The government? Please let me know how that shiat turns out.

Now I know you are trolling.


Oh no. Not at all.
Who are you going to fight with your assault weapon?
Imaginary al qaeda or tyrants?
You gonna shoot down a Hellfire missile you won't even hear coming?
You gonna shoot down an AC130 as it orbits your subdivision?
Really, tell me.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You implied it was a normal situation for the military, so it's easy to see that you're implying it's abnormal outside of the military.


'Easy to see' = 'I made up this strawman'

DORMAMU: Most popular home defense firearm I thought was a 12 gauge pump shotgun....


Yup. Shot is particularly good since it's much less likely to penetrate walls.

HotIgneous Intruder: According to the precedent of law, he had two, at least.
Read 'em and weep.


"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."

So he owned...zero. Last I checked, zero was not more than two.
 
2012-07-24 11:41:25 AM

HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.


I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:07 AM
So the law banning assault weapons expiring also expired the existence of the definition of an assault weapon?

Neat
 
2012-07-24 11:42:53 AM

Epoch_Zero: You know as well as I do that every firearm is just a physical manifestation of american large penises. Anyone else is just admitting they have a small penis and don't love freedom.


While I don't share your obvious desire to fantasize about and discuss the penile properties of other people, I would still defend your right to do those things.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:58 AM

sprawl15: HotWingConspiracy: You implied it was a normal situation for the military, so it's easy to see that you're implying it's abnormal outside of the military.

'Easy to see' = 'I made up this strawman'


You are the king of the strawfolk, you've yet to craft a reply without one.

You said something dumb and I pointed it out. Don't go all James Holmes over it, it's just Fark.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:01 AM

sprawl15: So he owned...zero. Last I checked, zero was not more than two.


Jefferson owned slaves before slavery was banned, too.

Who you gonna fight with your semantically altered rapid fire weapon?
The gubmint?
Do tell, Mr. Rambo.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:28 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: Pretty much. If you live in a neighborhood and don't have crime for 10 years, then someone comes and breaks into your house one night, you can put a scarecrow in your front lawn and more likely than not you won't have crime at your house again for another decade. That doesn't mean the scarecrow is preventing crime.

If someone breaks into your house with an assault weapon and then assault weapons are banned and that doesn't happen again I believe it's safe to say that ban had something to do with it.


No, it wouldn't. Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that. If someone breaking into your house is a statistically unlikely event, then specifics like what weapon was used to break into your house would have no statistical significance from comparing two events.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:34 AM

DORMAMU: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.


Ok. I'm glad you survived your hike.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:35 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: sprawl15: So he owned...zero. Last I checked, zero was not more than two.

Jefferson owned slaves before slavery was banned, too.


holy shiat you're stupid

You really don't understand that 'assault weapon' is a arbitrary definition that only has meaning in a specific legal context that doesn't exist any more? Do you think state 'assault weapon' bans' definitions meet exactly the federal 'assault weapon' definition?

HotWingConspiracy: You are the king of the strawfolk, you've yet to craft a reply without one.


ITT: directly quoting myself and asking for clarification is a strawman argument.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:45 AM

HotWingConspiracy: DORMAMU: HotWingConspiracy: sprawl15: Some guns are designed specifically to kill people. Those are the ones normally provided to the military.

Or your average homeowner. The only thing a handgun and the ammo it uses is designed to do is kill people. They tout stopping power for a reason, and it has fark all to do with target practice.

I forgot to add:

I use to hike alot in the mohave desert mountains. Carried my handgun with snake/bird shot as first round and hallow points for the rest.

Used the snake shot once on a snake that got too close while I was resting (rattler slid right next to me & I couldnt stand up without risking a bite.)

Ran into a cougar? (big freaking cat) and fired a warning shot, scared it off.

Ok. I'm glad you survived your hike.


Without weapons, it could have gone down much differently.

/No wildlife would have been killed.
//I've hiked thousands of miles in desert and non-desert environments and never carried a firearm nor needed to. Your brain is your most important weapon. Oh. Sorry.
 
Displayed 50 of 308 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report