Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®

[Otis Da HousKat]

Issues of government tyranny and standing militias aside, I am pro-gun and firmly in the, "When seconds count police are minutes away," camp.

I feel like most people's dads don't start hanging out with a bunch of illiterate tweakers who come busting into your house for a quick score because they know he carries a lot of cash on hand, but if they did trust me you'd be glad to have a shotgun on hand.

[Ad Bot]

[Zloff]

So in a self-defense situation, wouldn't most engagements be within 20 yards?

think of the reasons why spec-ops units use carbines over pistols for close-quarters and urban combat

much easier to manipulate and ensured stopping power along with reliability

I've used both carbines and pistols in routines and I assure you I'd take the rifle every time. Pistols, as fun as they are to shoot, are designated "sidearms" for a reason. Not to mention handguns have steeper learning curve and are in some cases even easier to disarm than carbines

[Donro98]

much easier to manipulate and ensured stopping power along with reliability

I've used both carbines and pistols in routines and I assure you I'd take the rifle every time. Pistols, as fun as they are to shoot, are designated "sidearms" for a reason. Not to mention handguns have steeper learning curve and are in some cases even easier to disarm than carbines

Then I would raise the question of why a civilian would NEED a carbine instead of a pistol? Sure, they have a steeper learning curve and are easier to disarm in some cases, but a civilian should know their weapon inside and out anyways, and if someone is close enough to disarm you you are probably dead regardless.

Do civilians need a more malleable weapon? Do civilians need more ensured stopping power since the goal should be incapacitation, not necessarily death?

[KickFlow]

gas stoves, unlike guns, are not designed and created to kill people

News to me, didn't know guns were designed to kill people

at the very least these things are illegal, while, as far as I know, there's absolutely nothing illegal about just leaving a loaded gun on your kitchen counter

Wait did you just say kids cars and alcohol are illegal?

[sir dooble]

Wait did you just say kids cars and alcohol are illegal?

No, he said drinking irresponsibly, failing to take responsible care of your children, and driving irresponsibly are illegal.

[·::Kishgal::·]

No, he said drinking irresponsibly, failing to take responsible care of your children, and driving irresponsibly are illegal.

And so's shooting people (without good reason). Whoa, wacky.

[Nonnel]

...didn't kill people with stoves. they did it with guns and poison

they put sick and weak people into the furnace so that's debatable

[Foxscotch]

News to me, didn't know guns were designed to kill people

well that's your own fault, really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

And so's shooting people (without good reason). Whoa, wacky.

how convenient is it that we aren't talking about people shooting other people

[Legodude77]

Relevant video that everyone should at least watch. I believe this was posted on the last gun debate.

[Ragequit]

gas stoves, unlike guns, are not designed and created to kill people

guns were designed to put a projectile at high velocity to hit your intended target
yes, it could be a person, but people shoot for sport and hunting as well.

[Harm94]

It's like we should make murder illegal or something.

[Zloff]

1. Then I would raise the question of why a civilian would NEED a carbine instead of a pistol?
2. Sure, they have a steeper learning curve and are easier to disarm in some cases, but a civilian should know their weapon inside and out anyways, and if someone is close enough to disarm you you are probably dead regardless.

1. Do civilians need a more malleable weapon?
3. Do civilians need more ensured stopping power since the goal should be incapacitation, not necessarily death?

1. is the heightened effectiveness worth infringing my American right to own a weapon like a carbine? So weapons like a semi-auto mk18 should be banned completely because they are more effective? What if I WANT the extra security and reliability, or a better edge in competition shooting? Am I, as a mentally sound, law-abiding citizen, any more of a potential threat to the general public because I legally posses such a gun? Your average teenager with a driving permit is more of a threat than someone like me with a semiautomatic firearm. What you're asking could be compared to a question such as "why would a civilian NEED a dodge challenger hellcat instead of a chevy cruze?" After all, cars kill more people a year in the US, so shouldn't we ban the ones that are "over-the-top" in unneeded performance that could make it a more effective killing tool? "but cars aren't meant for killing people" bitch stfu there's not even anything about cars in the constitution but the document DOES grant US citizens the right to bear arms, with no limits like "but only pistols tho lmao"
2. that's hard to predict
3. if you don't kill you can get sued by the guy you shot. Disturbing but that's how it works here in the USA

[Harm94]

gas stoves, unlike guns, are not designed and created to kill peopleat

So was the knife, the axe, the spear, and the bow

[Ragequit]

It's like we should make murder illegal or something.

wtf no that's gay

[KickFlow]

how convenient is it that we aren't talking about people shooting other people

We were? At least it was implied? Want to inform me on what it is we're talking about?