Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345567 times)

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1150 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1151 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 #1152 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: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1153 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 #1154 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 #1155 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: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1156 on: June 10, 2016, 05:10:56 PM »
Indeed.   Canada is much nicer than Texas.   Except in January.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1157 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 #1158 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 #1159 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1160 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 #1161 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 #1162 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1163 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 #1164 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 #1165 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1166 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 #1167 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 #1168 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: 322
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1169 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: 125
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1170 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: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1171 on: June 11, 2016, 11:26:39 AM »
Not me...

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1172 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: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1173 on: June 11, 2016, 01:44:34 PM »
I *thought* that sounded familiar

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1174 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: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1175 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1176 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: 589
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1177 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: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1178 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: 589
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1179 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: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1180 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: 293
  • Age: 44
  • Location: USA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1181 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1182 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: 589
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1183 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1184 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1185 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

EMP

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1186 on: June 13, 2016, 09:12:22 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.

I don't know if should be asking what the deer did to you or wondering about your apparent lack of hunting skills. 

ETA not trying to be shitty, just a little facetious. The skilled hunters on our place have gone to black powder or archery.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 09:19:32 AM by EMP »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1187 on: June 13, 2016, 09:20:26 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.

I don't know if should be asking what the deer did to you or wondering about your apparent lack of hunting skills. 

ETA not trying to be shitty, just a little facetious. The skilled hunters on our place have gone to black powder or archery.

Very common to hunt with a .30-06 which is much more powerful than a wimpy AR.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1188 on: June 13, 2016, 09:43:11 AM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1189 on: June 13, 2016, 09:49:28 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1190 on: June 13, 2016, 09:52:48 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Which is one of the many reasons the AR-15 is the choice for slaughter.  Really?  This guy was interviewed by the FBI several times and we still couldn't "infringe" upon his rights to get hold of this gun?  Crazy.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1191 on: June 13, 2016, 09:56:55 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1192 on: June 13, 2016, 10:01:18 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Which is one of the many reasons the AR-15 is the choice for slaughter.  Really?  This guy was interviewed by the FBI several times and we still couldn't "infringe" upon his rights to get hold of this gun?  Crazy.

Except Steve is wrong about the rate of fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

In addition, this TERRORIST used a glock pistol as well to the evil AR-15 rifle.

If you want to have a discussion about banning semi-automatic weapons and rounding up all the ones in circulation, that might make this type of thing harder (I disagree with the concept, but that's beside the point). 

If you are arguing that banning the AR-15 would have any impact on a situation like this, you don't know what you are talking about.

Lastly - Maybe the FBI should do follow up's with people on their secret lists when they buy guns?  No constitutional infringement by checking up on people.  We could free up some agents by legalizing marijuana and retasking the FBI/DEA wasting their time on that.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 10:03:15 AM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1193 on: June 13, 2016, 10:01:57 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1194 on: June 13, 2016, 10:03:34 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1195 on: June 13, 2016, 10:04:29 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

I bought mine from the CMP.  They get theirs via donation from the US govt.  To promote marksmanship.  Mine's a 1944 used in the Greek civil war.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1196 on: June 13, 2016, 10:04:58 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

I hunt with a semi-auto (.308 Winchester).  It has a 4-round magazine, due to hunting regulations.  You can buy bigger magazines for it, just like you can for the .30-06.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1197 on: June 13, 2016, 10:12:50 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

There will be some gun nut that claims that semi-auto is required for hunting in case you wound, blah, blah, blah.  Generally these are the fat guys who spend most of their time in the cabin telling stories and are poor shots.  Growing up hunters in my family made it clear - practice your craft so it takes one shot.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1198 on: June 13, 2016, 10:13:42 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.

I don't know if should be asking what the deer did to you or wondering about your apparent lack of hunting skills. 

ETA not trying to be shitty, just a little facetious. The skilled hunters on our place have gone to black powder or archery.

You should be researching laws before you make silly statements.  In some areas (e.g. Alberta, Canada) it's illegal to hunt deer with a .223 because it is not powerful enough.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1199 on: June 13, 2016, 10:18:49 AM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

There will be some gun nut that claims that semi-auto is required for hunting in case you wound, blah, blah, blah.  Generally these are the fat guys who spend most of their time in the cabin telling stories and are poor shots.  Growing up hunters in my family made it clear - practice your craft so it takes one shot.

Northwestie - Are you in Canada?

Assuming so - In the US, the vast majority of guns sold are semi-auto.  I suspect the majority of guns in circulation are semi-auto.  If the argument is semi-auto's are vastly more dangerous than bolt actions, that genie is out of the bottle.  There are 300m+ guns in the US.  If 1/2 of them are semi-auto, banning the AR-15 won't impact this situation in a material way unless you intend to round up all the ones already out there (which isn't happening).

By the way, AR's are restricted in California.  That didn't stop the San Bernadino shooter from using one.

I'm about preventing this type of action in the future.  Banning the Ar-15 will cause the shooter to use a different mechanism (9mm pistol for example).    Banning/restricting AR-15's is a knee jerk/feel good reaction.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 10:22:06 AM by Midwest »