What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[*Robert* 2]

Ask the cops in Orange City, FL who got shot at with a variety of military assult weapons, including a .50 cal. I know they enjoyed the rush for sure!

Too bad the guy killed himself before an all out war broke out!

don't tell me you're using that vague term too

What would you call a .50 caliber sniper rifle and a .308 sniper rifle?

sniper rifles. or good bear hunting guns (since i don't care to get within a mile of a bear).

Chicken!!!

It was the new on TV that reported the guns as being "military assult weapons". When I went and read several articles, those were the only two guns they mentioned. I agree that the term used above was a little vague.

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

Ask the cops in Orange City, FL who got shot at with a variety of military assult weapons, including a .50 cal. I know they enjoyed the rush for sure!

Too bad the guy killed himself before an all out war broke out!

don't tell me you're using that vague term too

What would you call a .50 caliber sniper rifle and a .308 sniper rifle?

sniper rifles. or good bear hunting guns (since i don't care to get within a mile of a bear).

Chicken!!!

i have a healthy respect for them critters

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

Ask the cops in Orange City, FL who got shot at with a variety of military assult weapons, including a .50 cal. I know they enjoyed the rush for sure!

Too bad the guy killed himself before an all out war broke out!

don't tell me you're using that vague term too

What would you call a .50 caliber sniper rifle and a .308 sniper rifle?

sniper rifles. or good bear hunting guns (since i don't care to get within a mile of a bear).

Chicken!!!

It was the new on TV that reported the guns as being "military assult weapons". When I went and read several articles, those were the only two guns they mentioned. I agree that the term used above was a little vague.

to me, a military assault weapon is something like this:

(russian sp air assault gun, 85mm).

pic from wiki, more info on the above weapon here.

[justashooter 430]

The stooping here is realizing that the entire gun control movement has a very strong support base: those that have lost family and friends due to gun violence. Perhaps you need to realize this by losing a loved one? I certainly hope not.

If that is unreasonable for you to comprehend then perhaps reason isn't clicking all that much with you at all.

so cut to the chase, Hal. How many family members or close friends have you lost to murder with a gun as the weapon used in the crime? my money says you'll have to answer "none".

death involving a firearm is so rare in this country that most people don't know anyone who has been murdered or accidentally killed by a person using a firearm. the stats look low even at face value, but when you take out drug related crime, fall almost to zero.

no problem. let the drug dealers kill each other. give them bullets, even. most of the rest of us are completely unaffected.

[HAL 9000 96]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

The stooping here is realizing that the entire gun control movement has a very strong support base: those that have lost family and friends due to gun violence. Perhaps you need to realize this by losing a loved one? I certainly hope not.

If that is unreasonable for you to comprehend then perhaps reason isn't clicking all that much with you at all.

so cut to the chase, Hal. How many family members or close friends have you lost to murder with a gun as the weapon used in the crime? my money says you'll have to answer "none".

death involving a firearm is so rare in this country that most people don't know anyone who has been murdered or accidentally killed by a person using a firearm. the stats look low even at face value, but when you take out drug related crime, fall almost to zero.

no problem. let the drug dealers kill each other. give them bullets, even. most of the rest of us are completely unaffected.

My father you dumbSh!t.

[justashooter 430]

My father you dumbSh!t.

well that explains your emotional response. was he murdered, or shot himself? if the latter, was it intentional or accidental?

[HAL 9000 96]

My father you dumbSh!t.

well that explains your emotional response. was he murdered, or shot himself? if the latter, was it intentional or accidental?

Seriously, go #### yourself.

[*Robert* 2]

My father you dumbSh!t.

well that explains your emotional response. was he murdered, or shot himself? if the latter, was it intentional or accidental?

#######?!

That is so far out of line its not even funny.

[Ban Hammer 14,635]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

[justashooter 430]

My father you dumbSh!t.

well that explains your emotional response. was he murdered, or shot himself? if the latter, was it intentional or accidental?

Seriously, go #### yourself.

sorry to hear you aren't even able to talk about it. my parents have been dead since i was 20, so i may be more analytical than sympathetic. the question remains.

speaking from experience, having witnessed a few close friends shot to death in performance of their occupation, talking about it is the first step in healing. been there and bought the tee shirt. if you wanna talk about it you can PM me, or i'll send you a phone number, if you want.

if your dad was killed by someone and drugs were not involved, the fact is, his death is a statistical anomoly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"I don't have sympathy but PM me anyway to talk about it"

Are you for real?

[HAL 9000 96]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

Like I implied-

When gang-bangers start using their wheels to ram into people drive-by style, then we'll talk about your example making some sense.

Also like I told you- México has it gun problem directly related to their cartels being able to buy weapons up here.

Funny you mention morality, using emotive excuses to FAIL at rationalizing a right to bear arms against a non-existent government and social plot to take all of your guns away while ignoring the criminals having access to the same weaponry you might have at home. Morality indeed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

[justashooter 430]

"I don't have sympathy but PM me anyway to talk about it"

Are you for real?

an analytical perspective is indication that the psyche has recovered from the damage inflicted by the trauma. maybe someday you'll get there. hal appears unready, as well.

[justashooter 430]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

there was a story on here last week about a driver of a car that was shot 20 times by police in a traffic stop, who claimed that he endangered their lives with his car. explain?