U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

Doesn't mean they don't enjoy them.

....or, coitus....

That's "I bang it and it makes me shoot".

Last one I promise.

Or, dopamine?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotle ... f-the-gun/

Oh bull corn.What on earth would I do with a penis?The hydraulics go out on them as they age.I don't have to worry about that with my equipment.

You're basing your entire argument to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions of people on 3 deaths during one shooting that you can't even prove were the result of the availability of large magazines, but you call straw man on me characterizing that argument as "if it just saves one life/for the children!"? Declare whatever you want, you've been debating guns for years without proving anything besides your own uncritical acceptance of gun control tropes; I mean you don't even know the gun laws in your own state, can't provide a factual justification for your beliefs, and yet want to dictate regulations for the rest of us?

Please!
Being around firearms periodically, probably mostly while hunting, doesn’t give you much knowledge or experience with them. In my defense, guns are my aspie obsession and has always been. Unless yours is as well or you’re in the firearms business you simply don’t have anywhere near my knowledge. Period.


Even the few, comparatively very few, that I’ve heard ranting about black helicopters, the UN, Obama, exc. at the range weren’t exactly loud enough to call it loud by rational standards. But then again I’m merely an RO so what do I know of what goes on at shooting ranges?


In an earlier post in THIS thread you said they show up and rarely ever actually shoot, they just rant.

Or is it you that's afraid you'll lose it and shoot them?


I have been shooting several times at places other than a shooting range, north and south, but not where I live now.
Most of the property here is posted and trespassing with a firearm is a felony. It’s getting harder and harder to find places off the beaten path to shoot in the more populated eastern and midwestern states.


You talk like they all carry a bullhorn around and holler into it with the volume cranked up to the max. Get a grip.

After all this shooting range/no shooting range BS, you still can't justify the additional gun control you want to shove down our throats.

Well I am tempted to just go with the factious response that points to how well that worked out for the Indians... However, it would also be a good idea to point out that your first paragraph is not reconcilable with the second. Firearms obviously make people more effient killers, a more advanced firearm also makes you a more efficient killer. Which is why my grandfather served using an SMLE and I use an F88 Styer. However, if you think that the skill of shooter is the only component of the efficiency, then by all means, defend your house with the bow and arrow...

However, if you want to flat out makes statements like this to keep your weapons that sort of makes my argumetn for me that at its core you love your guns more than you do logical argument. The biggest worry an outsider has when discussing firearms regulation is that both sides have made their decisions and taken on stances that are not open to reason, the discussion has become a failure, because I suspect, some people want it that way. By refusing to compromise you will be pushed to the margins of the political discussion and when the legislation comes, you will overrun by a tide of pent up frustration.

I picked this section because the rest of it does not engage in any way with my point. All I can see is the ramblings of a person who is basing their decision on something like paranoia and nothing close to logic. I cannot follow your argument as to why you think weapons rights are important nor do I take that statement as obvious or as granted. I remain utterly unconvinced and if you were the person at the microphone defending the second amendment, I suspect you would do a better job of convincing people to stand against it than I would.

Well, I don't know that I would go as general as to call it "more efficient" - more advanced weaponry primarily improves in three respects: lethality (aerodynamics, stopping power, tissue damage, etc), reliability, and rate of fire. I haven't seen a new weapon introduced that significantly raised the reliability bar in basically 30 years - manufacturers certainly still make crappy guns, but no one has made a gun that clearly raises the bar for everyone else in terms of reliability for quite some time. And I wouldn't characterize rate of fire as a meaningful contributor to efficiency outside full auto weapons, which are generally unavailable to civilians and so outside the scope of this discussion. So, you're left with one main characteristic that changes in weapon systems that could be tied to efficiency, and that would be the lethality of the round itself.

Since we don't have those fancy bullets that you see in sci-fi movies that track targets around corners and such, you still have to be an accurate shot for any of the lethality benefits of the round to take effect.



No offense to you Raptor, but I have to agree with his point here - I don't think you've been doing a very good job phrasing your argument with sonofghandi. I think you have the right position, but it comes off like an attack, without even pausing to try to understand the point they're making.

The meaning clearly is that the user of the weapon has a greater bearing on the outcome than the weapon itself does and I think you know that. Just because the government, in its infinite wisdom, doesn't allow for its people to possess an AUG doesn't mean someone with a mind to commit a massacre simply won’t do it with a lesser but legal weapon. Moreover, it doesn't mean that the government, in all its power over the masses, is successful at ensuring that all those dangerous black weapons with hi-cap magazines are kept out of everyone’s hands.
BTW, it’s spelled Steyr, not Styer.


What makes you think I’m trying to keep what’s already mine? If it's mine then it stays mine, regardless of legislation.
Then you follow with more pointless talk of compromise.


Yet you persist in trying to get me to see things your way when your way is utterly nonsensical to the core, not to mention socially and lawfully dangerous.
I'm simply not interested in a social contract with you or to be part of what you call the civilized world.
This concludes my involvement in this discussion with YOU.

I've taken considerably more time to patiently explain and illustrate to sonofghandi than he has with me in this thread and on other one last year. I won't lose sleep if yo cannot (or refuse to) see that. That's all I have to say about that.

It's not really about patience, it's about the overall tone/phrasing. You come off very abrasively, which tends to provoke a defensive response, which prompts you to get defensive and consequently more abrasive.

I get that you're trying, I'm just trying to give you constructive criticism.

When we bring up the obvious truth that guns are phallic symbols, the gun-toting gents invariably become testy (or is that teste?) and defensive, which would seem to betoken a sense of shame with their sexuality.

The ladies take it all in stride.

I have no problem with my sexuality, and I'll wear the pink shirt to prove it.

Now, can we *please* get back on whatever track we were going down before Freud came into the picture?

so now you are defining normal? what is normal, some people say having a gun at all isn't normal, others find bolt action normal, more find handguns with 17 round mags normal
in my area seeing jeeps and prisus are normal go east and its more normal to see VWs or BMWs

there is a good amount of people that use the legal 37mm flare launcher, which is really just a grenade launcher as some Europeans use 37mm for their grenades. there are all kinds of specialized flares for it that aren't in the regular cheap emergency flare gun as they serve different purposes.

as for non lethal. it gives quick access to non lethal as it is attached to my rifle under hand guard, i can easily take my hand back a inch and use non lethal vrs in a shotgun you would have to rack the action back, dump 1-2 rounds load the NL round in. this could lead to mistakes where you then shoot the threat with buckshot cause in the rush you didn't clear it properly

more so its not illegal to own and people with class 3 can own the live explosive type grenades(idk where they get more when they run out, maybe there's a way to reload idk) i don't want a grande/flare launcher but i will fight for the right of others to have them. Just cause i don't need it don't mean someone else doesn't.


as for the 2nd thing it was on cnn, and fox news in the mid 90s to late 90s so i have no source as i wasn't in the habit of recording the news 24/7 for the slight possible chance of needing it 20 years later to back up my statement
and on that note if i was to say have 1000s and 1000s of tapes wouldn't i look crazy lol
and google i hate it, as i can't find articles i read 4 days ago on it or anything on it, it either hates me or i don't speak google right

Well at risk of splitting the discussion into two parts, let me first say that I completely agree with that statement. I would draw your attention to the comparison I made between the 303 and the F88 that I use in the military. In Australia we essentially made the decision to heavily restrict ownership of any handgun, pump action and semi-automatic rifles. There has not been all that much change in the basic capability of the soldier's individual weapon in the last 30 years but there is a massive difference between the weapons I chose to make my point.

On the other subject I would point out that full auto is pretty over rated in terms of an efficiency dividend. The only weapon that a soldier can carry that is quite accurate on full auto is the F89 Minimi, which is actually a problem because it is actually less capable of producing effective covering fire than the weapon it replaced (which is why whenever platoon commanders can get away with it in the Aussie Army, we switch them out with the Mag 58).

The real efficiency dividend in the last 60 years has come through changes to just about everything except the assault rifle. As a general rule, each military generation of 50 or so years ensures that the platoon carries the same firepower as the company preceding it. That rule is pretty much true today but it was achieved by bringing two machine guns and GLAs to the section level (along with a bunch of additions that can be added to augment a front line commander). When I trained alongside the South Koreans I got a real good look at the next gen of firepower in their new semiautomatic section level grande launchers. That being said, there is massive room for improvement in the individual soldiers weapon, the two biggest attempted changes in our weapons were the bullpup design and intermediate round, neither has really worked out as well as intended (most Aussie solders will flat out tell you they would prefer to be using the FN-FAL that we used to). Unfortunately major changes stopped with NATO standardization, it makes it so much more difficult to change things now.



Well its a lesser weapon, that's the point. If the guy has an arbalest he could still kill people... but he would be much less efficient with it.



Well I would be happy if kids could not get them from their parents... sure it is always possible to get something but making it less obtainable certainly has worked in Australia. Probably one of the best laws we have here is the mandatory lockup rule that requires gun owners to have locked storage for the weapons and only the licence holder can have the key or combination. Making people partial legally culpable for anything that happens to a weapon they own would be a good start. If you want to own it, sign a contract saying you will be responsible for it at all times. If it ends up on the black market or a kid uses it in a shooting, then you should be in serious trouble.



Ahh, not really.