Guns on your boat

I only read the last page of posts, because I was curious why this thread had so many replies.

I am still confused as to why people can't have a different opinion, without being attacked..and 5th grade name calling.

it is starting to play out like a Republican Debate. Are we going to hear about personal length measurements next?
 
Billfletcher said:
I only read the last page of posts, because I was curious why this thread had so many replies.

I am still confused as to why people can't have a different opinion, without being attacked..and 5th grade name calling.

it is starting to play out like a Republican Debate. Are we going to hear about personal length measurements next?
Click to expand...

Greetings Bill,

You and Humph are quite correct. I saw someone behaving less than appropriately, and then I dove in and did the exact same thing.
Not that it has any place, but this certainly is not it.

My apologies to you both and the rest of CSR.

-Mike
 
In Canada we do not carry guns in our trucks any more. When I moved west in the early 70ies the place was mostly ranchers and oil workers. I became an oil person. Not too much office stuff. Most of us had a rifle rack in our pickup and had a gun for hunting and varmints. The people in the office in our capital felt guns were dangerous in the trucks because they would hit you in the back of the head so we put them in the seat pouch behind our legs and put our fishing pools in the gun rack. That was OK as fishing pools did not hurt if you got hit in the back of the head. But the government people felt we could damage the back of our legs if we stopped quickly so we put the guns behind the seat. That was not good for the gun as it got dusty and scratched so we got gun cases for them. The government felt we were not in control of our guns so we got trigger locks. At that point we mostly stopped hunting and then we had too many critters crossing the roads and we hit them with our trucks. Just waiting for the next solution from the government.
My parents lived through 2 world wars. One thing they always said “He who hesitates is lost”. In my father’s case it meant shot first.
 
Woody said:
What juggernaut posted is pretty similar to what happens here in the US. One on one shootings commonly by someone you know and often a family member.
Click to expand...

These are mostly suicides and gun crimes by gang members and criminals. The anti-gun establishment likes to group crime statistics in the "gun violence" statistics to push their agenda. If you read the fine print, "gun violence" statistics also include justifiable use of a firearm by police and law-abiding people. They got caught with their thumbs up their asses when they named Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a victim of "gun violence." Understand what you are reading, the source of the information, and the motives of the authors.
 
JV II said:
These are mostly suicides and gun crimes by gang members and criminals. The anti-gun establishment likes to group crime statistics in the "gun violence" statistics to push their agenda. If you read the fine print, "gun violence" statistics also include justifiable use of a firearm by police and law-abiding people. They got caught with their thumbs up their asses when they named Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a victim of "gun violence." Understand what you are reading, the source of the information, and the motives of the authors.
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you think that gun violence during crime should not be included in 'gun violence' statistics? Take a look at the total gun deaths, remove suicide which is the majority....what you’re left with is 'homicide', for this purpose death at the hands of another with a gun. Not all homicides are crimes, some are justifiable, some are accidental....remove those. What's left is murder, certainly criminals are included in this(if the person wasn’t a criminal before he certainly is after), but I think if you read and understand you'll be surprised how many of them are committed by people known to the victim, often family members.

The main fodder for the gun debate is ‘gun deaths’. Tamerlan Tsarnaev certainly wasn’t a ‘victim’ I agree but it was a homicide, and even though justifiable it still was a ‘gun death’. If the discussion starts with ‘gun deaths’ why not recognize what the total is. As the ‘total’ is classified I doubt either side pro or con could/should have a problem with his death being justifiable. Could justifiable homicides regardless if by law enforcement or private citizen be an effective tool for the anti gunners…I doubt it.
 
Woody said:
Why on earth do you think that gun violence during crime should not be included in 'gun violence' statistics? Take a look at the total gun deaths, remove suicide which is the majority....what you’re left with is 'homicide', for this purpose death at the hands of another with a gun. Not all homicides are crimes, some are justifiable, some are accidental....remove those. What's left is murder, certainly criminals are included in this(if the person wasn’t a criminal before he certainly is after), but I think if you read and understand you'll be surprised how many of them are committed by people known to the victim, often family members.

The main fodder for the gun debate is ‘gun deaths’. Tamerlan Tsarnaev certainly wasn’t a ‘victim’ I agree but it was a homicide, and even though justifiable it still was a ‘gun death’. If the discussion starts with ‘gun deaths’ why not recognize what the total is. As the ‘total’ is classified I doubt either side pro or con could/should have a problem with his death being justifiable. Could justifiable homicides regardless if by law enforcement or private citizen be an effective tool for the anti gunners…I doubt it.
Click to expand...

In fact, the murder rate in the US is one of the lowest in the world. People don't just get killed by guns. Eliminate the half a dozen worst liberal controlled and gun controlled Hell holes in the US and we are Utopia. So, what is all this talk of gun control?

If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because a 14 year-old gang member in Detroit left his stolen 50 year-old gun on the coffee table and his 6 year-old brother shot his friend, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because some drug dealer in Chicago shot the child of another drug dealer with a stolen gun in revenge, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because Tamerlan Tsarnaev needed to be put down after killing a police officer, shooting at cops chasing him, and throwing bombs at them, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me my guns and use should be controlled further because the ATF allowed Mexican drug cartels to procure firearms that were subsequently used to kill thousands of innocent Mexicans and a border control agent, I'm going to disagree with that. It is wrong to use these situations to make it more difficult for me to buy and use guns for all lawful purposes when I have an inalienable God given right to bear arms.

The armchair quarterbacks here are offering their uninformed erroneous opinions against law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment God given rights. The uninformed armchair quarterbacks are making inaccurate assumptions and statements about law abiding citizens in their bearing of arms and drawing parallels between their peaceful Utopian societies and the conditions in the US. The armchair quarterbacks are proposing that I and other law abiding, gun owning Americans are somehow responsible and need to be controlled for the unlawful behavior of criminals and the mentally ill. It is equally wrong to prop up gun violence statistics FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUN CONTROL THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with incidents where lives were saved using firearms. Justifiable homicides have been used to prop up "gun violence" statistics toward the motive to disarm law abiding citizens. Until nobody can have guns, everybody has the right to have guns (at least in the US), whether or not that is agreed upon.
 
Last edited:
JV II said:
In fact, the murder rate in the US is one of the lowest in the world. People don't just get killed by guns. Eliminate the half a dozen worst liberal controlled and gun controlled Hell holes in the US and we are Utopia. So, what is all this talk of gun control?

If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because a 14 year-old gang member in Detroit left his stolen 50 year-old gun on the coffee table and his 6 year-old brother shot his friend, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because some drug dealer in Chicago shot the child of another drug dealer with a stolen gun in revenge, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because Tamerlan Tsarnaev needed to be put down after killing a police officer, shooting at cops chasing him, and throwing bombs at them, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me my guns and use should be controlled further because the ATF allowed Mexican drug cartels to procure firearms that were subsequently used to kill thousands of innocent Mexicans and a border control agent, I'm going to disagree with that. It is wrong to use these situations to make it more difficult for me to buy and use guns for all lawful purposes when I have an inalienable God given right to bear arms.

The armchair quarterbacks here are offering their uninformed erroneous opinions against law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment God given rights. The uninformed armchair quarterbacks are making inaccurate assumptions and statements about law abiding citizens in their bearing of arms and drawing parallels between their peaceful Utopian societies and the conditions in the US. The armchair quarterbacks are proposing that I and other law abiding, gun owning Americans are somehow responsible and need to be controlled for the unlawful behavior of criminals and the mentally ill. It is equally wrong to prop up gun violence statistics FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUN CONTROL THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with incidents where lives were saved using firearms. Justifiable homicides have been used to prop up "gun violence" statistics toward the motive to disarm law abiding citizens. Until nobody can have guns, everybody has the right to have guns (at least in the US), whether or not that is agreed upon.
Click to expand...

+1

if your in my neck of the woods.. i'd like to buy you a beer
 
JV II said:
In fact, the murder rate in the US is one of the lowest in the world. People don't just get killed by guns. Eliminate the half a dozen worst liberal controlled and gun controlled Hell holes in the US and we are Utopia. So, what is all this talk of gun control?

If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because a 14 year-old gang member in Detroit left his stolen 50 year-old gun on the coffee table and his 6 year-old brother shot his friend, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because some drug dealer in Chicago shot the child of another drug dealer with a stolen gun in revenge, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because Tamerlan Tsarnaev needed to be put down after killing a police officer, shooting at cops chasing him, and throwing bombs at them, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me my guns and use should be controlled further because the ATF allowed Mexican drug cartels to procure firearms that were subsequently used to kill thousands of innocent Mexicans and a border control agent, I'm going to disagree with that. It is wrong to use these situations to make it more difficult for me to buy and use guns for all lawful purposes when I have an inalienable God given right to bear arms.

The armchair quarterbacks here are offering their uninformed erroneous opinions against law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment God given rights. The uninformed armchair quarterbacks are making inaccurate assumptions and statements about law abiding citizens in their bearing of arms and drawing parallels between their peaceful Utopian societies and the conditions in the US. The armchair quarterbacks are proposing that I and other law abiding, gun owning Americans are somehow responsible and need to be controlled for the unlawful behavior of criminals and the mentally ill. It is equally wrong to prop up gun violence statistics FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUN CONTROL THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with incidents where lives were saved using firearms. Justifiable homicides have been used to prop up "gun violence" statistics toward the motive to disarm law abiding citizens. Until nobody can have guns, everybody has the right to have guns (at least in the US), whether or not that is agreed upon.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Hey down under.... I'll see your can of Foster's and your Kangaroo, and raise you a Glock and a German Shepherd :grin: :smt089:


20160308_202855_zpsww04nis7.jpg
 
Last edited:
As Crocodile Dundee would probably say......"That's not a gun".:grin:

Can't say I've ever fired a gun that small before - but I guess that's why you need a German Shepherd. :smt001

For the record I can't stand Fosters - Corona is where its at.
 
Last edited:
JV II said:
What is the suicide rate in the US, Australia, and the UK? With all the guns in America, it should be wildly out of control. Let me know when you find out.
Click to expand...

Curious why you think it should be wildly out of control - anyone that wants to commit suicide will find the means to do so. I've personally known two people to do so and neither was with a gun.

PS - you win - the US has the highest rate out of the countries you mentioned. But based on the stats I previously posted which shows Australia leads the way with suicide rates by guns - what does this say about Australian gun owners or their families with access to the guns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
 
Last edited:
JV II said:
In fact, the murder rate in the US is one of the lowest in the world. People don't just get killed by guns. Eliminate the half a dozen worst liberal controlled and gun controlled Hell holes in the US and we are Utopia. So, what is all this talk of gun control?

If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because a 14 year-old gang member in Detroit left his stolen 50 year-old gun on the coffee table and his 6 year-old brother shot his friend, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because some drug dealer in Chicago shot the child of another drug dealer with a stolen gun in revenge, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because Tamerlan Tsarnaev needed to be put down after killing a police officer, shooting at cops chasing him, and throwing bombs at them, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me my guns and use should be controlled further because the ATF allowed Mexican drug cartels to procure firearms that were subsequently used to kill thousands of innocent Mexicans and a border control agent, I'm going to disagree with that. It is wrong to use these situations to make it more difficult for me to buy and use guns for all lawful purposes when I have an inalienable God given right to bear arms.

The armchair quarterbacks here are offering their uninformed erroneous opinions against law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment God given rights. The uninformed armchair quarterbacks are making inaccurate assumptions and statements about law abiding citizens in their bearing of arms and drawing parallels between their peaceful Utopian societies and the conditions in the US. The armchair quarterbacks are proposing that I and other law abiding, gun owning Americans are somehow responsible and need to be controlled for the unlawful behavior of criminals and the mentally ill. It is equally wrong to prop up gun violence statistics FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUN CONTROL THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with incidents where lives were saved using firearms. Justifiable homicides have been used to prop up "gun violence" statistics toward the motive to disarm law abiding citizens. Until nobody can have guns, everybody has the right to have guns (at least in the US), whether or not that is agreed upon.
Click to expand...

JV take this thread for what it is. Its a collection of thoughts, ideas and experiences from both sides of the pond (you've even got your own detractors) and exploring those expressions further. Some comments have been lighthearted and some comments have been more robust. You are passionate for what you believe in and I admire that. But certainly nothing I say, or anyone else who has contributed this thread, says, is probably going to change gun laws in your country anytime soon.

By the way the US is ranked 98 in the world homicide rates out of 218 countries (Iran is ranked at 100) - nothing to preach about and holler from the rooftops - so when you say it has one of the lowest murder rates in the world - I'm going to disagree with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
 
Last edited:
JV II said:
In fact, the murder rate in the US is one of the lowest in the world. People don't just get killed by guns. Eliminate the half a dozen worst liberal controlled and gun controlled Hell holes in the US and we are Utopia. So, what is all this talk of gun control?

If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because a 14 year-old gang member in Detroit left his stolen 50 year-old gun on the coffee table and his 6 year-old brother shot his friend, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because some drug dealer in Chicago shot the child of another drug dealer with a stolen gun in revenge, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me that my guns and use should be controlled further because Tamerlan Tsarnaev needed to be put down after killing a police officer, shooting at cops chasing him, and throwing bombs at them, I'm going to disagree with that. If someone tells me my guns and use should be controlled further because the ATF allowed Mexican drug cartels to procure firearms that were subsequently used to kill thousands of innocent Mexicans and a border control agent, I'm going to disagree with that. It is wrong to use these situations to make it more difficult for me to buy and use guns for all lawful purposes when I have an inalienable God given right to bear arms.

The armchair quarterbacks here are offering their uninformed erroneous opinions against law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment God given rights. The uninformed armchair quarterbacks are making inaccurate assumptions and statements about law abiding citizens in their bearing of arms and drawing parallels between their peaceful Utopian societies and the conditions in the US. The armchair quarterbacks are proposing that I and other law abiding, gun owning Americans are somehow responsible and need to be controlled for the unlawful behavior of criminals and the mentally ill. It is equally wrong to prop up gun violence statistics FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUN CONTROL THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS with incidents where lives were saved using firearms. Justifiable homicides have been used to prop up "gun violence" statistics toward the motive to disarm law abiding citizens. Until nobody can have guns, everybody has the right to have guns (at least in the US), whether or not that is agreed upon.
Click to expand...
we should go drinking and shooting...at different times.
 
I would like to mount a turret on my bow for our gatling gun... has anyone here done this? Are drywall screws through the surface okay or should I bolt through the fiberglass and wood and reinforce it w/ steel backing. Any help would be much appreciated. I carry a Glock on my side, an enclosed hammer revolver on my ankle and my AK-47 pistol strapped to my back, but I'm looking for something that will help with long range defense. Should I get rid of the gatling gun and get a mini gun? I can, if I choose too, because it's my right as a law abiding, American citizen! If you don't want to help, that's fine too, your choise! Yaaaay America!



Cheers













Lol
 
Strypes said:
I would like to mount a turret on my bow for our gatling gun... has anyone here done this? Are drywall screws through the surface okay or should I bolt through the fiberglass and wood and reinforce it w/ steel backing. Any help would be much appreciated. I carry a Glock on my side, an enclosed hammer revolver on my ankle and my AK-47 pistol strapped to my back, but I'm looking for something that will help with long range defense. Should I get rid of the gatling gun and get a mini gun? I can, if I choose too, because it's my right as a law abiding, American citizen! If you don't want to help, that's fine too, your choise! Yaaaay America!



Cheers













Lol
Click to expand...

Well God said you could so it must be OK. :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,182
Messages
1,428,060
Members
61,088
Latest member
SGT LAT
Back
Top