Pelican Parts Forums
Page 27 of 43 « First « Prev 17 25 26 27 28 29 37 Next » Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   recent mass shootings what's going on ??? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1036487-recent-mass-shootings-whats-going.html)

wayner 08-06-2019 07:52 AM
Here is an honest question that I have:

Why are ducks better protected than humans?

It used to be that shotguns used for duck hunting were single shot.
Fancy double barreled shotguns made it easier to shoot more ducks faster.

Then pump action shotguns came along and they could hold many shells and reload quickly with a pump action.
BUT they held too many shells. The ducks didn't stand as much of a chance, so, hunting regulations, at least where I live require a plug to be present only allowing the gun to hold three shells at a time before being out.

Do they have these hunitng limitations where some of you live?
If so do you agree with it?

and if so, then I ask again:
Why are ducks better protected than humans?

island911 08-06-2019 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549114)
..
Why are ducks better protected than humans?
False premise.

Do we give licenses to go hunt Walmart shoppers?

Also, it's possible to fish with TNT. - oh look, fish are more protected...

wayner 08-06-2019 07:56 AM
your being an idiot.

Im trying to open an honest discussion.

Sooner or later 08-06-2019 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549114)
Here is an honest question that I have:

Why are ducks better protected than humans?

It used to be that shotguns used for duck hunting were single shot.
Fancy double barreled shotguns made it easier to shoot more ducks faster.

Then pump action shotguns came along and they could hold many shells and reload quickly with a pump action.
BUT they held too many shells. The ducks didn't stand as much of a chance, so, hunting regulations, at least where I live require a plug to be present only allowing the gun to hold three shells at a time before being out.

Do they have these hunitng limitations where some of you live?
If so do you agree with it?

and if so, then I ask again:
Why are ducks better protected than humans?
Any migrating bird. Same limit for dove.but no limit for quail.

The gun is being used for a specific task, hunt duck. The plug can be removed when hunting quail.

I guess we can say we havs a no cartridge law when hunting innocent humans.

island911 08-06-2019 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549122)
your being an idiot.

Im trying to open an honest discussion.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1565107681.jpg

Nothing sez open an honest discussion like a false premise.

Your post was idiotic. You know it. So you project.

cabmandone 08-06-2019 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by berettafan (Post 10548990)
Look at the entire post from which I quoted if you like. If anything it makes my point even more clear. You quoted Corgi's article in which a Dr. compared handgun wounds to .223 wounds and said what I quoted.

I'm a certified gun nut but a careful reading of some of Corgi's posts will show a reasonable point of view. Perhaps not one you agree with but reasonable just the same. When you go off on a tangent about how there are more deadly calibers it undermines your entire argument. Ballistics wars are for basement dwelling mall ninjas, not adults. You know better and can do better. As a gun nut I see this issue reaching a critical mass and frankly if the response is a never ending 'nope, nope, I can't hear you' from us then at some point that response is going to get tuned out and a Prez like Trump, WHO HAS ZERO PERSONAL AFFECTION FOR FIREARMS, is gonna do what he wants with no concern for what we think.

TLDR- quit the Rain Man bull**** and own up to the fact that mag fed rifle calibers are far more deadly and efficient than any handgun or shotgun so we can move on with the discussion.
We should get together and do some hunting. You bring an AR with 5 rounds and I'll bring a 12ga. semi auto with 5 00 rounds. Let's see who does better. We both know who the winner will be though. It's not that I can't hear (or see in this case) what he's saying. I'm saying to imply that by getting rid of the AR platform you'll somehow make any real, measurable difference in mass shootings is simply wrong. The same outcome can be... and has been achieved using handguns and shotguns. To say the AR is somehow the most lethal or most efficient tool is dishonest and is designed to make people believe something that simply isn't true.

Tervuren 08-06-2019 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549114)
and if so, then I ask again:
Why are ducks better protected than humans?
False premise.

Do we have a licence and regulation where people can sign up to hunt humans for sport and/or food?

It is illegal outside of self defense to kill humans be it with a double barrel shotgun, a single barrel shot gun, or a magazine shot gun.

I'd say humans are better protected than ducks.

What your example misses is that you are using an example of limited sport kill of ducks and comparing it to completely illegal sport killing of humans. All of the methods approved for killing ducks for sport are not approved for killing humans for sport.

If we follow your analogy, it will OK to go on mass sprees of shooting humans in the U.S. if we licence it and you use a double or single barrel shotgun; but not a magazine shot gun that isn't plugged to restrict it to no more than three shells.

svandamme 08-06-2019 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549114)
Here is an honest question that I have:

Why are ducks better protected than humans?

It used to be that shotguns used for duck hunting were single shot.
Fancy double barreled shotguns made it easier to shoot more ducks faster.

Then pump action shotguns came along and they could hold many shells and reload quickly with a pump action.
BUT they held too many shells. The ducks didn't stand as much of a chance, so, hunting regulations, at least where I live require a plug to be present only allowing the gun to hold three shells at a time before being out.

Do they have these hunitng limitations where some of you live?
If so do you agree with it?

and if so, then I ask again:
Why are ducks better protected than humans?
It's not an honest question is it.

It's illegal to shoot humans.
There is only 1 exception , that is self defence.

It's legal to shoot ducks , even when they are not attacking you.
There may be some limitations on types of guns or shot used. But you are legally allowed to shoot ducks.. They need not attack you, and they don't even have to insult you or look at you in a funny way.
They maybe minding their own business.. flying along with their hubby or wife..

And you can shoot them.

So no, ducks are NOT protected more by the law. That's absolute, utter nonsense.
At best if you shoot a duck out of season with the wrong kind of gun, in the wrong location.
You'll get a fine, or maybe a very short time in jail if you did something that damaged property and did something unsafe.

There's no chance you get off that easy if you intentionally shoot a human that was minding his own business.

It's this kind of childlike arguments (on both sides) that prevent progress towards less public random shooting incidents.

Sooner or later 08-06-2019 08:29 AM
If laws were the same as for ducks.

Humans can only be taken from Feb 1st through May 1st.
A maximum 3 rounds can be held in the gun.
Cartridge size must be larger than a .22 but smaller than a 50 cal. Rimfires are not allowed.
Only 5 humans allowed to be taken each day. Only one blonde or redhead per day.

wayner 08-06-2019 08:32 AM
I find it unbelievable that so many of you have missed the point of my question entirely.

Let me restate it:

Why do so many people who like guns agree that a limit for ducks is reasonable, yet no other controls seem even remotely reasonable, in fact, they seem offensive, as in, not even up for an honest discussion.

Why is that?

island911 08-06-2019 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549161)
I find it unbelievable that so many of you have missed the point of my question entirely.

Let me restate it:
...
LMAO!

oh my...

svandamme 08-06-2019 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549161)

Why is that?
If you ask BS questions you will keep getting BS answers.
Even after restating it's BS.

wayner 08-06-2019 08:37 AM
As a gun enthusiastmyself of many years with quite a variety, I am just dumbfounded by the attitudes of some.

svandamme 08-06-2019 08:39 AM
I'm sure you get that a lot.

john70t 08-06-2019 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 10548837)
The solution would be one of the victims having concealed carry...and capping his sorry arse when he walked in,
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 10548885)
Then just saddling up and riding into the sunset.
That ending is always the best ending. [close curtains]

Well actually he'd get life in prison in the blue states for stopping a mass murder.
Because racism/sexism/antiLGBTQ.

varmint 08-06-2019 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549161)
I find it unbelievable that so many of you have missed the point of my question entirely.

Let me restate it:

Why do so many people who like guns agree that a limit for ducks is reasonable, yet no other controls seem even remotely reasonable, in fact, they seem offensive, as in, not even up for an honest discussion.

Why is that?


The founding fathers did not need guns to rebel against a tyranny of ducks.

Sooner or later 08-06-2019 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549161)
I find it unbelievable that so many of you have missed the point of my question entirely.

Let me restate it:

Why do so many people who like guns agree that a limit for ducks is reasonable, yet no other controls seem even remotely reasonable, in fact, they seem offensive, as in, not even up for an honest discussion.

Why is that?
There are controls. It is illegal to shoot innocent humans with any gun with any capacity. I would say that is pretty strict.

People get busted for hunting duck with more than three shells. They get busted for hunting out of season. They get busted for hunting duck with lead shot. The law doesn't stop everyone.

The guy planning a mass shooting ain't gonna say "Damn, i have to plug my gun because it can only hold 5 rounds."

cabmandone 08-06-2019 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayner (Post 10549161)
I find it unbelievable that so many of you have missed the point of my question entirely.

Let me restate it:

Why do so many people who like guns agree that a limit for ducks is reasonable, yet no other controls seem even remotely reasonable, in fact, they seem offensive, as in, not even up for an honest discussion.

Why is that?
We don't necessarily agree that a limit on game is reasonable, the limit is determined by the DNR. But the same gun you put a plug in to limit the number of rounds can be made to carry more rounds for game that has no limits set by the DNR.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this question.
And I think Sooner hit the nail on the head with his comment regarding poachers.

manbridge 74 08-06-2019 08:47 AM
Because the limit on hunting humans is zero. The point about ducks is nonsensical.

cabmandone 08-06-2019 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by manbridge 74 (Post 10549189)
Because the limit on hunting humans is zero. The point about ducks is nonsensical.
I think his point might be that so many people seem adverse to putting a limit on magazine capacity.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:16 AM.
Page 27 of 43 « First « Prev 17 25 26 27 28 29 37 Next » Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.