Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 426932 times)

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1100 on: June 10, 2016, 08:41:10 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.

Man, you are so spot on with the bolded part above.

We in the west live in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. It is a historical anomaly. It won't last. But so many seem to think that because things are rather nice now, and they have been rather nice for a few decades, they always will be rather nice. That's why they say ridiculous stuff like "these gun nuts stockpiling guns for an imaginary zombie outbreak." Because anything bad happening in their little bubbles is so far outside of the realm of possibility as to be science fiction.

Amazing lack of perspective.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but are you implying that personal ownership of firearms in the US would in way deter an invasion of the US or armed civilians be able to overthrow a despotic us government.  The nature of warfare is changed and all those rifles and handguns wouldn't mean anything in an actual combat scenario.  Self Defense against criminals, yes, self defense against a military....laughably no.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1101 on: June 10, 2016, 08:45:45 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.

Man, you are so spot on with the bolded part above.

We in the west live in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. It is a historical anomaly. It won't last. But so many seem to think that because things are rather nice now, and they have been rather nice for a few decades, they always will be rather nice. That's why they say ridiculous stuff like "these gun nuts stockpiling guns for an imaginary zombie outbreak." Because anything bad happening in their little bubbles is so far outside of the realm of possibility as to be science fiction.

Amazing lack of perspective.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but are you implying that personal ownership of firearms in the US would in way deter an invasion of the US or armed civilians be able to overthrow a despotic us government.  The nature of warfare is changed and all those rifles and handguns wouldn't mean anything in an actual combat scenario.  Self Defense against criminals, yes, self defense against a military....laughably no.

I'm going to take a guess and say that you have never served in the armed forces.  Because if you had, as many of us have, you'd know that that is bullshit.  And if you had read this thread before spouting this nonesense, you'd also know that we have thoughly debunked this fallacy about nine pages ago. 

TL;DR,  The rifleman is the core of the modern, 4th generation warfare, military.  He cannot be replaced, no matter how expensive your vehicles nor how big your bombs.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1102 on: June 10, 2016, 08:49:17 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.

Man, you are so spot on with the bolded part above.

We in the west live in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. It is a historical anomaly. It won't last. But so many seem to think that because things are rather nice now, and they have been rather nice for a few decades, they always will be rather nice. That's why they say ridiculous stuff like "these gun nuts stockpiling guns for an imaginary zombie outbreak." Because anything bad happening in their little bubbles is so far outside of the realm of possibility as to be science fiction.

Amazing lack of perspective.

I'm pretty sure that's called "normalcy bias".

OK, I'll bite.  What was the big event 25 years ago that America desperately needed to overcome on US soil with small arms and determined freedom fighters?

If we're talking about normalcy bias, what is the imminent danger/disaster that is about to happen?

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1103 on: June 10, 2016, 08:56:20 AM »

They are. You don't get freedom without sacrifice. There is no having your cake and eating it too. I'd take those numbers any day over the numbers committed through democide, genocide and invasion.

Like I said - given the evidence of the impending R.J. Rummel democide, genocide via the South vs. North Round II, invasion by Canada, and the coming storm that is the zombie apocalypse -- yes, absolutely.

It's disrespectful to the people who have fought and died for your freedoms, some using the very weapons you want to take away, to make light of their trials.

The people who fought and died for Northwestie's freedom fought and died so that he could question rules that seem arbitrarily wrong.  They fought and died so that he would be free to masturbate into an American flag while reading the Communist Manifesto.  It's ironic that you are attempting to silence his right to speech while invoking their names, and quite disrespectful to their sacrifice.

GuitarStv logic: Ignore evidence, find something to focus on away from evidence, twist that thing, claim superior position. You really suck at this. I admire some of your contributions on this forum but sometimes you really out do yourself on jerking off in the mirror.

When someone shits on the American flag it's disrespectful. Yes, our forefathers fought for your rights, the right to perform such heinous actions is included in them, it doesn't make it any less disrespectful. But, you know that. I was pointing that out, he was attempting to use sarcasm about bullshit situations because he, like you are under the impression that human beings only have roughly 25 years of total history to apply to opinions and laws. It's clear you're ignoring 170,000,000 people who are dead because of people like you. It's really easy for you to do, they're so quiet in their mass graves and whenever someone mentions them you pull some bullshit 3rd grade debate tactics.

Man, you are so spot on with the bolded part above.

We in the west live in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. It is a historical anomaly. It won't last. But so many seem to think that because things are rather nice now, and they have been rather nice for a few decades, they always will be rather nice. That's why they say ridiculous stuff like "these gun nuts stockpiling guns for an imaginary zombie outbreak." Because anything bad happening in their little bubbles is so far outside of the realm of possibility as to be science fiction.

Amazing lack of perspective.

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but are you implying that personal ownership of firearms in the US would in way deter an invasion of the US or armed civilians be able to overthrow a despotic us government.  The nature of warfare is changed and all those rifles and handguns wouldn't mean anything in an actual combat scenario.  Self Defense against criminals, yes, self defense against a military....laughably no.

I'm going to take a guess and say that you have never served in the armed forces.  Because if you had, as many of us have, you'd know that that is bullshit.  And if you had read this thread before spouting this nonesense, you'd also know that we have thoughly debunked this fallacy about nine pages ago. 

TL;DR,  The rifleman is the core of the modern, 4th generation warfare, military.  He cannot be replaced, no matter how expensive your vehicles nor how big your bombs.

Actually I am in the military and have been for almost 18 years.  I'm not stupid and know the rifleman is an integral part of the military, what I'm saying is a  bunch of disorganized hicks and civilians toting handguns and hunting rifles will not defend against a trained equipped military.  IF you want to run into the mountains and fight a guerilla wolverines battle, see how long you life expectancy is.  The dreams that an armed populace can defeat a professional military with only small arms has not been true since long before this country was founded.  The US only defeated the British in the revolution because of the assistance from other professional armies/states.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1104 on: June 10, 2016, 09:26:01 AM »

Actually I am in the military and have been for almost 18 years.

Good lord, doing what?

Quote
I'm not stupid and know the rifleman is an integral part of the military, what I'm saying is a  bunch of disorganized hicks and civilians toting handguns and hunting rifles will not defend against a trained equipped military.

We didn't say that either.  But if you actually gave a damn about what we had to say, you would have at least scanned the prior thread before reviving this bullshit.  There are many reasons why, in an actual civil war, it wouldn't be a bunch of disorganized hicks.  The US military is the world champion in 4 generation warfare, and so are the veterans they trained.  There are more veterans, by a wide margin, and they are often better equipt & better supplied then active duty soldiers are today; because they buy their gear themselves.  And the veterans know, for the most part, what the army can actually do to them; and how they are likely to go about it.  The army has better communications, but small groups of veterans wouldn't need much in the way of coordination.  And a 4th generation war is asymmetric, in part, because the US military has to get it's resources from the people of the United States, so attacking anyone on US soil would potentially cut of supplies.  Our military knows this, BTW.  I'm not claiming that the "hicks" would win in any conventional way, but instead that they don't have to win.  Much like the Afganis didn't have to "win" in the 1980's to functionally defeat the invasion of the Soviet Union, they only had to bleed them dry till they gave up.  It's a different kind of victory.

Quote
IF you want to run into the mountains and fight a guerilla wolverines battle, see how long you life expectancy is.  The dreams that an armed populace can defeat a professional military with only small arms has not been true since long before this country was founded.  The US only defeated the British in the revolution because of the assistance from other professional armies/states.

Again, a conventional victory is not necessary.  You have some study to attend to.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1105 on: June 10, 2016, 09:33:01 AM »
The Afghanis in the 80's were were well trained by the CIA.  They were also given cash, supplies, explosives, grenades, etc. by the US.  You keep forgetting that their 'victory' was entirely due to American intervention.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1106 on: June 10, 2016, 09:38:20 AM »
The Afghanis in the 80's were were well trained by the CIA.  They were also given cash, supplies, explosives, grenades, etc. by the US.  You keep forgetting that their 'victory' was entirely due to American intervention.

They were well trained.  Some of them.  And yes, they did get support, including some shoulder fired surface to air missiles in order to deal with the helicopter gunships.  But the vast majority of Afghani fighters were simple riflemen, usually toting around AK-47's someone picked up from a dead Russian.  And they never won a battle, in any conventional sense.  Yet, the Soviet Union left, didn't they?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1107 on: June 10, 2016, 09:58:17 AM »
The Afghanis in the 80's were were well trained by the CIA.  They were also given cash, supplies, explosives, grenades, etc. by the US.  You keep forgetting that their 'victory' was entirely due to American intervention.

They were well trained.  Some of them.  And yes, they did get support, including some shoulder fired surface to air missiles in order to deal with the helicopter gunships.  But the vast majority of Afghani fighters were simple riflemen, usually toting around AK-47's someone picked up from a dead Russian.  And they never won a battle, in any conventional sense.  Yet, the Soviet Union left, didn't they?

Sure, the Soviet Union gave up and left.  And soon the US will give up and leave (aside from regular drone strikes, which will never stop).

1.5 million civilians dead, million of people just left their homes and went to Pakistan or Iran, no public services, no rule of law, few buildings larger than huts, medical care not existent, life expectancy one of the lowest in the world . . . can you really look at the state of Afghanistan and tell me that they're a victorious people?  And this was with a foreign government giving them all kinds of shit.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1108 on: June 10, 2016, 10:10:32 AM »
The Afghanis in the 80's were were well trained by the CIA.  They were also given cash, supplies, explosives, grenades, etc. by the US.  You keep forgetting that their 'victory' was entirely due to American intervention.

They were well trained.  Some of them.  And yes, they did get support, including some shoulder fired surface to air missiles in order to deal with the helicopter gunships.  But the vast majority of Afghani fighters were simple riflemen, usually toting around AK-47's someone picked up from a dead Russian.  And they never won a battle, in any conventional sense.  Yet, the Soviet Union left, didn't they?

Sure, the Soviet Union gave up and left.  And soon the US will give up and leave (aside from regular drone strikes, which will never stop).

1.5 million civilians dead, million of people just left their homes and went to Pakistan or Iran, no public services, no rule of law, few buildings larger than huts, medical care not existent, life expectancy one of the lowest in the world . . . can you really look at the state of Afghanistan and tell me that they're a victorious people?  And this was with a foreign government giving them all kinds of shit.
So...before the 80's, Afghanistan had public services, rule of law, huge buildings, competent medical care, and high life expectancies?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1109 on: June 10, 2016, 10:40:08 AM »
Yea, I'm thinking the 19,000 gun suicides, 800 accidental shootings, and 12,000 gun homicides (the vast majority by handgun)  are quite an acceptable carnage to trade for our liberty and to fend off the tyranny of our government.  How could it be any other way?

How many of those murders and homicides would be committed using other means?  If someone dies from suicide, they are just as dead with carbon monoxide or pills as via shooting.  If someone is murdered with a knife, they are just as dead as with a gun.

I quickly looked at Australia as a model and saw a number of studies that firearms suicides dropped.   That's not surprising since with less firearms people tend to kill themsevels using other tools.

There is a lot less data, however, on suicides in general.  i did come across this indicating a recent rise in the AU suicide rate.  Despite the guns laws in AU, suicides are up.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/young-women-and-middleaged-australians-drive-rise-in-national-suicide-rate-20160308-gnd6qy.html

In summary banning guns entirely would not save 32,000 lives as you seem to infer.  Especially with regard to suicide (representing 2/3's of the deaths), there's conflicting evidence if it would save many at all.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4328
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1110 on: June 10, 2016, 10:55:41 AM »
Yea, I'm thinking the 19,000 gun suicides, 800 accidental shootings, and 12,000 gun homicides (the vast majority by handgun)  are quite an acceptable carnage to trade for our liberty and to fend off the tyranny of our government.  How could it be any other way?

How many of those murders and homicides would be committed using other means?  If someone dies from suicide, they are just as dead with carbon monoxide or pills as via shooting.  If someone is murdered with a knife, they are just as dead as with a gun.

I quickly looked at Australia as a model and saw a number of studies that firearms suicides dropped.   That's not surprising since with less firearms people tend to kill themsevels using other tools.

There is a lot less data, however, on suicides in general.  i did come across this indicating a recent rise in the AU suicide rate.  Despite the guns laws in AU, suicides are up.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/young-women-and-middleaged-australians-drive-rise-in-national-suicide-rate-20160308-gnd6qy.html

In summary banning guns entirely would not save 32,000 lives as you seem to infer.  Especially with regard to suicide (representing 2/3's of the deaths), there's conflicting evidence if it would save many at all.
Actually methodology of killing is one reason men commit suicide at a higher rate than women.  The attempt rate is not statistically different but the "success" rate is.  And the difference is methodology, men use guns at a higher rate than women.  This also is seen is mass assaults, take Sandy Hook vs the knife attack in Japan.  Both were people attacking a large group, but in one case (the gun) more died than the other because you have a greater ability to retreat or defend against a knife.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1111 on: June 10, 2016, 11:07:05 AM »
Yea, I'm thinking the 19,000 gun suicides, 800 accidental shootings, and 12,000 gun homicides (the vast majority by handgun)  are quite an acceptable carnage to trade for our liberty and to fend off the tyranny of our government.  How could it be any other way?

How many of those murders and homicides would be committed using other means?  If someone dies from suicide, they are just as dead with carbon monoxide or pills as via shooting.  If someone is murdered with a knife, they are just as dead as with a gun.

I quickly looked at Australia as a model and saw a number of studies that firearms suicides dropped.   That's not surprising since with less firearms people tend to kill themsevels using other tools.

There is a lot less data, however, on suicides in general.  i did come across this indicating a recent rise in the AU suicide rate.  Despite the guns laws in AU, suicides are up.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/young-women-and-middleaged-australians-drive-rise-in-national-suicide-rate-20160308-gnd6qy.html

In summary banning guns entirely would not save 32,000 lives as you seem to infer.  Especially with regard to suicide (representing 2/3's of the deaths), there's conflicting evidence if it would save many at all.
Actually methodology of killing is one reason men commit suicide at a higher rate than women.  The attempt rate is not statistically different but the "success" rate is.  And the difference is methodology, men use guns at a higher rate than women.  This also is seen is mass assaults, take Sandy Hook vs the knife attack in Japan.  Both were people attacking a large group, but in one case (the gun) more died than the other because you have a greater ability to retreat or defend against a knife.
 

Gin:

All shootings are terrible and yes the success rate at Sandy Hook was higher due to the weapon used.  Before someone says then lets ban assault weapons - I mean specifically gun versus knife.  With the exception of a single shot rifle/shotgun/pistol, almost any firearm commonly used in the US could inflict mass casualties.  The 30 round magazine had little impact in that situation.   With regard to mass shootings, they are a statistically small populations of the murders in the US.

With regard to suicide, a) the results in Australia are inconclusive on the point with regard to suicide as a whole b) Even if some suicides were prevented via gun laws, it't nowhere near the 19k lives quoted by the OP.  A large proportion would die via other means w/o firearms and c) I don't believe my rights should be limited for another intentional infliction of death upon themselves.


MW
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 11:10:13 AM by Midwest »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1112 on: June 10, 2016, 12:29:12 PM »
The Afghanis in the 80's were were well trained by the CIA.  They were also given cash, supplies, explosives, grenades, etc. by the US.  You keep forgetting that their 'victory' was entirely due to American intervention.

They were well trained.  Some of them.  And yes, they did get support, including some shoulder fired surface to air missiles in order to deal with the helicopter gunships.  But the vast majority of Afghani fighters were simple riflemen, usually toting around AK-47's someone picked up from a dead Russian.  And they never won a battle, in any conventional sense.  Yet, the Soviet Union left, didn't they?

Sure, the Soviet Union gave up and left.  And soon the US will give up and leave (aside from regular drone strikes, which will never stop).

1.5 million civilians dead, million of people just left their homes and went to Pakistan or Iran, no public services, no rule of law, few buildings larger than huts, medical care not existent, life expectancy one of the lowest in the world . . . can you really look at the state of Afghanistan and tell me that they're a victorious people?  And this was with a foreign government giving them all kinds of shit.

See, this is what I mean.  Bad faith. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1113 on: June 10, 2016, 01:31:57 PM »
You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some untrained cowboys guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- were trained by the CIA
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Maybe you could have picked a better example.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1114 on: June 10, 2016, 01:39:59 PM »
You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some untrained cowboys guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- were trained by the CIA
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Maybe you could have picked a better example.

And you're ignoring the 21.8 million veterans that are in the US right now. At least argue with some semblance of fairness...

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1115 on: June 10, 2016, 01:45:17 PM »
You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some untrained cowboys guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- were trained by the CIA
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Maybe you could have picked a better example.

And you're ignoring the 21.8 million veterans that are in the US right now. At least argue with some semblance of fairness...

Actually, that's a valid point.  I will retract the bit about training:

You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some potentially-partly-trained cowboys with guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1116 on: June 10, 2016, 02:36:08 PM »
You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some untrained cowboys guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- were trained by the CIA
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Maybe you could have picked a better example.

And you're ignoring the 21.8 million veterans that are in the US right now. At least argue with some semblance of fairness...

Actually, that's a valid point.  I will retract the bit about training:

You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some potentially-partly-trained cowboys with guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

As one of the world leaders looking for the next country to invade for resources and land, you can choose country A: the one with a small unarmed population but a hell of a lot of land and a ridiculous amount of natural resources or country B: the one with a decent sized population that basically has a gun for each person to use should you invade said country also with a rather ridiculous amount of land and resources, just a little warmer climate. Which do you choose?

As the leader of a country you want to start democide in this little state over here with 10% of your country's population, would it be harder to commit the democide if the entire population had small arms or if the entire population had no small arms?

In the recent terrorist attacks in India, the group specifically designated to respond to the terrorists didn't know how to fire their own weapons because they weren't trained with them and weren't allowed to train with them by their leaders. Where I work right now, a transportation company, I could walk up to at least 15 people and hand them those same rifles and watch them with glee pursue anyone who felt like killing unarmed innocent people.

I love living in my culture. I trust the people around me because they trust me. The more guns/tools they have, the better. There are boogy men out there but I'm not going to let them frighten me into feeling like the people around me need their freedoms restricted.

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1117 on: June 10, 2016, 03:40:30 PM »
Hey, are you suggesting that Murica is going to invade Canada?

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1118 on: June 10, 2016, 03:51:20 PM »
Hey, are you suggesting that Murica is going to invade Canada?

Not even a little bit.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1119 on: June 10, 2016, 03:54:33 PM »
Hey, are you suggesting that Murica is going to invade Canada?

No, but he might be saying that a future dictator working from Mordor on the Potomic might choose a barely armed, lightly populated Canada over the much warmer but heavily armed Republic of Texas.  It's something to think about.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1120 on: June 10, 2016, 05:10:56 PM »
Indeed.   Canada is much nicer than Texas.   Except in January.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1121 on: June 10, 2016, 05:16:11 PM »
You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some untrained cowboys guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- were trained by the CIA
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Maybe you could have picked a better example.

And you're ignoring the 21.8 million veterans that are in the US right now. At least argue with some semblance of fairness...

Actually, that's a valid point.  I will retract the bit about training:

You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some potentially-partly-trained cowboys with guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

As one of the world leaders looking for the next country to invade for resources and land, you can choose country A: the one with a small unarmed population but a hell of a lot of land and a ridiculous amount of natural resources or country B: the one with a decent sized population that basically has a gun for each person to use should you invade said country also with a rather ridiculous amount of land and resources, just a little warmer climate. Which do you choose?

As the leader of a country you want to start democide in this little state over here with 10% of your country's population, would it be harder to commit the democide if the entire population had small arms or if the entire population had no small arms?

In the recent terrorist attacks in India, the group specifically designated to respond to the terrorists didn't know how to fire their own weapons because they weren't trained with them and weren't allowed to train with them by their leaders. Where I work right now, a transportation company, I could walk up to at least 15 people and hand them those same rifles and watch them with glee pursue anyone who felt like killing unarmed innocent people.

I love living in my culture. I trust the people around me because they trust me. The more guns/tools they have, the better. There are boogy men out there but I'm not going to let them frighten me into feeling like the people around me need their freedoms restricted.

I think that the level of armament of the populace wouldn't play nearly as much importance in my planning as figuring out the strength of their military, and determining if it's likely that their allies will help out.

Look at what happened in the Ukraine.  Common small arms ownership, legal open carry, pretty permissive laws regarding the types of firearm that can be owned . . . and yet Russia invaded without too much problem.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1122 on: June 10, 2016, 05:19:11 PM »
Indeed.   Canada is much nicer than Texas.   Except in January.

Didn't Canada just legalize sexual acts with animals that don't involve penetration? I make fun of Texas.. but wow. Canada is a whole new level.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1123 on: June 10, 2016, 05:25:31 PM »

Look at what happened in the Ukraine.  Common small arms ownership, legal open carry, pretty permissive laws regarding the types of firearm that can be owned . . . and yet Russia invaded without too much problem.


Ukraine has 6.6 firearms per 100 citizens in civilian control....

The US has 88.8.

Edit: For contrast Canada has 30.8
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 05:29:56 PM by Cyaphas »
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1124 on: June 10, 2016, 05:27:33 PM »
Indeed.   Canada is much nicer than Texas.   Except in January.

Didn't Canada just legalize sexual acts with animals that don't involve penetration? I make fun of Texas.. but wow. Canada is a whole new level.

Sounds like it's time to buy an adventurous octopus. . .


:D

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1125 on: June 10, 2016, 05:30:20 PM »
Indeed.   Canada is much nicer than Texas.   Except in January.

Didn't Canada just legalize sexual acts with animals that don't involve penetration? I make fun of Texas.. but wow. Canada is a whole new level.

Sounds like it's time to buy an adventurous octopus. . .


:D


But... THE BEAK!
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1126 on: June 10, 2016, 05:34:58 PM »
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Canada? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for 'Murica, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That death by firearms, while tragic, probably saved lives. And weapons of war, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a country who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to Canada.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1127 on: June 10, 2016, 05:38:10 PM »
canada legalize sex acts with animals
Look at what happened in the Ukraine.  Common small arms ownership, legal open carry, pretty permissive laws regardithe inclination to explain myself to a country who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to Canada. ng the types of firearm that can be owned . . . and yet Russia invaded without too much problem.


Ukraine has 6.6 firearms per 100 citizens in civilian control....

The US has 88.8.

Your numbers are out of date.  The US has 112.6 firearms per hundred residents.  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/)  The gun situation in the US is a bit of an oddity, at almost twice the rate of the number two country (Yemen) and more than twice the rate of the number three country (Yemen).

That aside, are you really going to claim that a lack of small arms was the reason that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine worked so well?


Indeed.   Canada is much nicer than Texas.   Except in January.

Didn't Canada just legalize sexual acts with animals that don't involve penetration? I make fun of Texas.. but wow. Canada is a whole new level.

Sounds like it's time to buy an adventurous octopus. . .


:D


But... THE BEAK!

That's what makes it exciting!

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1128 on: June 10, 2016, 05:43:43 PM »

That aside, are you really going to claim that a lack of small arms was the reason that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine worked so well?


Are you claiming that it would've not helped them? Everyone has a voice, people are more apt to listen to it if it's behind a loaded gun.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1129 on: June 10, 2016, 05:48:51 PM »
You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some untrained cowboys guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- were trained by the CIA
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

Maybe you could have picked a better example.

And you're ignoring the 21.8 million veterans that are in the US right now. At least argue with some semblance of fairness...

Actually, that's a valid point.  I will retract the bit about training:

You were claiming that it's necessary for small arms to be freely available because some potentially-partly-trained cowboys with guns are all that is needed to defend a nation/country/city.  Then as an example of this you gave a group of Afghan men who:
- received supplies, money, and a great number of weapons (other than, as well as including small arms) from the US for nearly the entire time that they were fighting
- failed miserably to defend their country . . . which is why it's such a shitty place to live right now

As one of the world leaders looking for the next country to invade for resources and land, you can choose country A: the one with a small unarmed population but a hell of a lot of land and a ridiculous amount of natural resources or country B: the one with a decent sized population that basically has a gun for each person to use should you invade said country also with a rather ridiculous amount of land and resources, just a little warmer climate. Which do you choose?

As the leader of a country you want to start democide in this little state over here with 10% of your country's population, would it be harder to commit the democide if the entire population had small arms or if the entire population had no small arms?

In the recent terrorist attacks in India, the group specifically designated to respond to the terrorists didn't know how to fire their own weapons because they weren't trained with them and weren't allowed to train with them by their leaders. Where I work right now, a transportation company, I could walk up to at least 15 people and hand them those same rifles and watch them with glee pursue anyone who felt like killing unarmed innocent people.

I love living in my culture. I trust the people around me because they trust me. The more guns/tools they have, the better. There are boogy men out there but I'm not going to let them frighten me into feeling like the people around me need their freedoms restricted.

I think that the level of armament of the populace wouldn't play nearly as much importance in my planning as figuring out the strength of their military, and determining if it's likely that their allies will help out.

Look at what happened in the Ukraine.  Common small arms ownership, legal open carry, pretty permissive laws regarding the types of firearm that can be owned . . . and yet Russia invaded without too much problem.

Russia didn't invade, they were already there.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1130 on: June 10, 2016, 05:51:32 PM »

That aside, are you really going to claim that a lack of small arms was the reason that Russia's invasion of the Ukraine worked so well?


Are you claiming that it would've not helped them? Everyone has a voice, people are more apt to listen to it if it's behind a loaded gun.

Yeah.

How would having more small arms would have helped them against the tanks, RPGs, and mortars?  There were plenty of privately owned weapons available to mount a sizeable resistance, but it turns out that few people in a developed country will willingly choose to risk their lives, everything they own, and the lives of their families in an invasion scenario.  I don't think throwing a few more rifles into the mix would have changed that at all.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1131 on: June 10, 2016, 06:00:52 PM »

How would having more small arms would have helped them against the tanks, RPGs, and mortars?  There were plenty of privately owned weapons available to mount a sizeable resistance, but it turns out that few people in a developed country will willingly choose to risk their lives, everything they own, and the lives of their families in an invasion scenario.  I don't think throwing a few more rifles into the mix would have changed that at all.


Every single elite fighting force in the world, every single standing infantry in the world, are all armed with guns (small arms.)

You tried to point out earlier how Ukraine had such liberal gun laws, that are actually restrictive and apparently that has effected how many guns they own. After that being pointed out you're now trying to say that well, my earlier point was wrong but even if it weren't, guns wouldn't be able to deter an invading army that ironically was also wielding..... guns... But because they had some other stuff those guns wouldn't matter?

If guns are so feeble, why are they still being trained with and wielded by our militaries?

Did I get all of that right?
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1132 on: June 10, 2016, 06:03:36 PM »
How would having more small arms would have helped them against the tanks, RPGs, and mortars?  There were plenty of privately owned weapons available to mount a sizeable resistance, but it turns out that few people in a developed country will willingly choose to risk their lives, everything they own, and the lives of their families in an invasion scenario.  I don't think throwing a few more rifles into the mix would have changed that at all.

You'd be surprised. Tanks need maintenance and are expensive assets. In the last hundred or so years we've seen significant victories by smaller, lightly armed forces that don't present a clear target for organized police and military forces. Give someone a gun and tell him to kill a soldier in his off-time when he's at home rather than waiting until he's inside a tank or inside a bunker. Look at Mao Tse-tung's revolution in China. Or the actions of the FLN in liberating colonial Algeria from France.

You go for the weak points instead of attacking them in strength. Destroy their ability to wage war by targeting supply chains, infrastructure, and their public support base. Destroy their aircraft by targeting the pilots, maintenance crew, parts supply, fuel shipments, or destroy them while they sit at the airfield. When they comes after you, hide among the supportive elements in the populace and if you get arrested, they most likely won't have the resources to lock you up and give you a trial even if they have compelling evidence.

The Russians took over Crimea with such ease not because the populace wasn't armed, but because the populace supported Russia more than they supported the 'illegitimate' government that ousted and replaced their elected leader.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1133 on: June 11, 2016, 12:42:01 AM »

Mordor on the Potomic

At least one positive thing has come of this discussion.

Driftwood

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1134 on: June 11, 2016, 08:40:00 AM »
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Canada? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for 'Murica, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That death by firearms, while tragic, probably saved lives. And weapons of war, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a country who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to Canada.

Did you order the Code Red?!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 04:59:17 AM by Driftwood »
*Nothing I post should be taken too seriously*

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1135 on: June 11, 2016, 11:26:39 AM »
Not me...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1136 on: June 11, 2016, 11:52:25 AM »
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Canada? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for 'Murica, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That death by firearms, while tragic, probably saved lives. And weapons of war, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a country who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to Canada.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1137 on: June 11, 2016, 01:44:34 PM »
I *thought* that sounded familiar

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1138 on: June 13, 2016, 05:13:14 AM »
Hey, are you suggesting that Murica is going to invade Canada?


Only during the summer months.  It gets too cold up there in winter.


On the other hand, I've recently read two books (thriller types) that state the US did have plans to invade.  Once during WWII (if GB had fallen) and once during the argument over who owns Oregon.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4328
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1139 on: June 13, 2016, 06:47:01 AM »
Please explain to me why your ability to have AR-type rifle is so much more important than these people's death?  Please.  More people died because he had access to this rifle than one that was slower on shooting AND reload. 
"The AR-15 was used by the couple in San Bernardino, California, who killed 14 people at a workplace holiday party in December. Similarly, the man who mowed down 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 was armed with an AR-15.
And the man who killed 20 first-grade children and six school staff members at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut, in 2012 used the same kind of weapon."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-gunman-kind-assault-rifle-popular-mass-shooters/story?id=39804742
Why not have guns that require more training, that are slower to reload and don't allow you to shoot your entire magazine in one shot?   Why is your rights to these types of guns more important than all the lives lost?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8537
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1140 on: June 13, 2016, 07:02:27 AM »
- The king of England (or worse, Muslim socialist Obama and his health care henchmen) could invade your living room tomorrow, and without this type of weapon you would be forced to turn to your collection of shotguns, bolt action rifles, and hand guns.  Requiring someone to reload will totally reduce the number of bad guys you can kill.
- Mass shootings don't happen that often, and someone with a knife or hammer would do just as much damage.  Requiring someone to reload more often won't reduce the number killed.
- What's really needed is a law requiring everyone to carry an AR-15 all the time, that way things would be much safer.
- Constitution, 2nd amendment, only the interpretation that I have of this document is valid.
- AR-15s look cool and gun owners like to have them.  The right to own guns trumps the right to not be shot.
- Requiring someone to be trained to own a gun is just plain wrong.
- Preventing someone who is on a terrorist watch-list from getting a gun is just plain wrong.
- The problem is mental illness, not guns.  No, there should not be any check of the mental facility of someone who is buying a gun.


There, did I miss any of the standard responses?

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1141 on: June 13, 2016, 07:16:57 AM »
Please explain to me why your ability to have AR-type rifle is so much more important than these people's death?  Please.  More people died because he had access to this rifle than one that was slower on shooting AND reload. 
"The AR-15 was used by the couple in San Bernardino, California, who killed 14 people at a workplace holiday party in December. Similarly, the man who mowed down 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 was armed with an AR-15.
And the man who killed 20 first-grade children and six school staff members at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut, in 2012 used the same kind of weapon."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-gunman-kind-assault-rifle-popular-mass-shooters/story?id=39804742
Why not have guns that require more training, that are slower to reload and don't allow you to shoot your entire magazine in one shot?   Why is your rights to these types of guns more important than all the lives lost?

The tragic event that took place yesterday in Orlando a automatic assault rifle was used.  103 lives changes forever.... just the victims. Never mind the family of the victims and the countless other in the LGBT community that are now afraid.  If there were laws in place to limit these crazy assault rifles, and the shooter brought a different, hunting rifle.  Yes this would still be a tragedy, but we would be talk 10 people hurt maybe, not 103.

I hope this can start a conversation about realistic weapon control in the US.   

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1142 on: June 13, 2016, 07:18:15 AM »
This was a terrorist action by a extremist ISIS sympathizer/participant.  My sympathies to the victims and their families.

Are you arguing against semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 specifically?

If the AR-15, why do you believe it substantially more deadly than the pistol he also used?

One idea being floated on this that I would actually agree with - If the FBI has suspicions about a subject (this guy was investigated) and they purchase weapons, check up on them.  Same thing could apply to the no fly list.  No ban, just follow up.  Would this have prevented this - Who knows?  But it seems like a good first step that doesn't trample on constitutional rights.

Related question - How did this guy keep his job at a security firm while being investigated by the FBI?  Was he trained?

To add - The media and the the poster above refer to an automatic assault rifle that shoots 700 rounds minute with one trigger pull.  Unless this was an illegal weapon, it is highly likely it was not fully auto.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 07:30:30 AM by Midwest »

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1143 on: June 13, 2016, 07:34:18 AM »
This was a terrorist action by a extremist ISIS sympathizer/participant.  My sympathies to the victims and their families.

Are you arguing against semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 specifically?

If the AR-15, why do you believe it substantially more deadly than the pistol he also used?

One idea being floated on this that I would actually agree with - If the FBI has suspicions about a subject (this guy was investigated) and they purchase weapons, check up on them.  Same thing could apply to the no fly list.  No ban, just follow up.  Would this have prevented this - Who knows?  But it seems like a good first step that doesn't trample on constitutional rights.

Related question - How did this guy keep his job at a security firm while being investigated by the FBI?  Was he trained?

To add - The media and the the poster above refer to an automatic assault rifle that shoots 700 rounds minute with one trigger pull.  Unless this was an illegal weapon, it is highly likely it was not fully auto.

All guns are deadly in the wrong hands.  The difference is completely that the hand gun could hold 10 or 15 rounds.  The automatic rifle, many many more.  If he had only the handgun, there may have been a chance to rush him during reload and stop the carnage way before 103 were shot.

Make no mistake ISIS or not, this was an attack on the LGBT people.  It took place at a gay bar, and it has been widely reported that the American born shooter was upset because he saw two men kissing in the days prior to this.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1144 on: June 13, 2016, 07:41:51 AM »
This was a terrorist action by a extremist ISIS sympathizer/participant.  My sympathies to the victims and their families.

Are you arguing against semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 specifically?

If the AR-15, why do you believe it substantially more deadly than the pistol he also used?

One idea being floated on this that I would actually agree with - If the FBI has suspicions about a subject (this guy was investigated) and they purchase weapons, check up on them.  Same thing could apply to the no fly list.  No ban, just follow up.  Would this have prevented this - Who knows?  But it seems like a good first step that doesn't trample on constitutional rights.

Related question - How did this guy keep his job at a security firm while being investigated by the FBI?  Was he trained?

To add - The media and the the poster above refer to an automatic assault rifle that shoots 700 rounds minute with one trigger pull.  Unless this was an illegal weapon, it is highly likely it was not fully auto.

All guns are deadly in the wrong hands.  The difference is completely that the hand gun could hold 10 or 15 rounds.  The automatic rifle, many many more.  If he had only the handgun, there may have been a chance to rush him during reload and stop the carnage way before 103 were shot.

Make no mistake ISIS or not, this was an attack on the LGBT people.  It took place at a gay bar, and it has been widely reported that the American born shooter was upset because he saw two men kissing in the days prior to this.

Dycker - Modern semi-auto hand guns hold 16+ rounds with the standard magazine.  If you get the extended mags, they hold more.  The rifle holds 30 with the standard mag.  Unfortunately, I think these have similar killing capacity against unarmed drunken targets by a trained marksmen.  I suspect this guy was trained as he worked for a global security firm.

It is highly unlikely this was a legally acquired automatic rifle.  You don't go into the store and buy one of those.

Lastly, I completely agree that gays were targeted.  ISIS (not Muslims in general) hate gays.  The difference between ISIS being involved (or motivating him) and this being some dipshit that hates gay people is that ISIS is an organized group who is targeting Americans and western culture.

dandypandys

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
  • Age: 41
  • Location: USA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1145 on: June 13, 2016, 07:47:15 AM »
I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1146 on: June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 AM »
I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

First off, the AR-15 is not a "military grade assault rifle".  Military grade weapons have a select-fire switch to fire automatically (ie, hold down the trigger, stream of bullets come out).  This rifle has a one-bullet-per-trigger-pull capability, it's NOT military grade.

Second off, remember how you gun control freaks keep telling us "you morons, no one is coming for your gun?"  Well, here you are, coming for my gun. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1147 on: June 13, 2016, 08:17:57 AM »
I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

First off, the AR-15 is not a "military grade assault rifle".  Military grade weapons have a select-fire switch to fire automatically (ie, hold down the trigger, stream of bullets come out).  This rifle has a one-bullet-per-trigger-pull capability, it's NOT military grade.

Second off, remember how you gun control freaks keep telling us "you morons, no one is coming for your gun?"  Well, here you are, coming for my gun.

Remember how 103 people were just shot.  I am fine with guns, but time to may let a little bit go.  A rifle for hunting is one thing.  I live in Canada and allow rifles for hunting, with a 5 shot clip.  If you cannot hit the animal you intend to in 5 shots...

Ban the unrealistic weapons.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1148 on: June 13, 2016, 08:19:15 AM »
I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

First off, the AR-15 is not a "military grade assault rifle".  Military grade weapons have a select-fire switch to fire automatically (ie, hold down the trigger, stream of bullets come out).  This rifle has a one-bullet-per-trigger-pull capability, it's NOT military grade.

Second off, remember how you gun control freaks keep telling us "you morons, no one is coming for your gun?"  Well, here you are, coming for my gun.

Remember how 103 people were just shot.  I am fine with guns, but time to may let a little bit go.  A rifle for hunting is one thing.  I live in Canada and allow rifles for hunting, with a 5 shot clip.  If you cannot hit the animal you intend to in 5 shots...

Ban the unrealistic weapons.

It's fun to watch the goal posts move. 


If the shooter had used the rifle I hunt for deer with, it would have been even more deadly. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1149 on: June 13, 2016, 08:27:49 AM »
Related question - How did this guy keep his job at a security firm while being investigated by the FBI?

How does Hillary get to run for President while being investigated by the FBI? 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason