EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
veGGen
Norway62 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:37 ImAbstracT wrote: Again, please tell me what this magic attachment is that makes an AR full auto legally. I suspect he's talking about things like Hellfire. I know the video is pretty goofy, but it displays the product pretty well. It's basically a bump-firing aid. So not truly fully-automatic, just very fast semi-auto. On July 27 2012 01:41 veGGen wrote: Only with license.. What USA is doing is fucking crazy In nice neighborhoods, gun crime is no more common here than it is in a similarly nice neighborhood in any other country. Our gun crime rates are pretty skewed because we have places like Detroit, or the slums in Texas with the Mexican drug cartels. I don't know if Norway has its own "Detroit", but if you did, crime there would be just as rampant. Gun crime might be lower because of how few guns are available in Norway, but it doesn't make much of a difference, since the overall crime-rate would still be sky high. What difference does it make if the thug holding up that convenience store is doing it with a knife or a gun? Either way, the store-clerk is still dead when the robbery takes a turn for the worse. Removing guns won't stop crime, it will just mean those same crimes will be committed with other weapons. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
Again, it does not make it fully auto no more than that horrible bump fire stock. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On July 27 2012 03:44 ImAbstracT wrote: A hellfire is just spring that aides in bump firing. A full auto rifle fires more one than bullet when the trigger is depressed. The spring just helps the trigger reset faster. Again, it does not make it fully auto no more than that horrible bump fire stock. Yeah, I know, that's what I said. But it fires fast and someone not aware of such a thing would assume its full auto. Though really, besides the horrible inaccuracy, what difference does it make if its truly full auto or just bump firing? | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On July 27 2012 03:55 Millitron wrote: Yeah, I know, that's what I said. But it fires fast and someone not aware of such a thing would assume its full auto. Though really, besides the horrible inaccuracy, what difference does it make if its truly full auto or just bump firing? Well I can not put myself in the mind of a killer. I can only think about why I would never use it. Fully automatic guns are not just simply automatic, but also single fire. In 99% of times single fire is all you will ever need, but if you need to go back and forth between the two firing modes it is as easy as flicking a selector with your thumb. Once one of these bumpfire devices are installed you are stuck with one horrible setting. Full auto isn't as cool or as scary as everyone thinks it is. Take it from a guy who has shot some weapons like that before. It is just a really expensive way to waste ammo. | ||
|
Bojas
Netherlands2397 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:52 Millitron wrote:What difference does it make if the thug holding up that convenience store is doing it with a knife or a gun? Either way, the store-clerk is still dead when the robbery takes a turn for the worse. Removing guns won't stop crime, it will just mean those same crimes will be committed with other weapons. I disagree with this, it's entirely possible to defend yourself versus a knife and you can't kill someone as easy in a split second using a knife. So making a wrong impulsive decision as a robber happens way less oftenly. Also the problem with gun control on the shopkeeper's side is that with robberies thugs will always make sure their arms are a level above the shop keeper. That coupled with the fact that the chance of non-material damage becomes smaller is enough of a reason for me to keep gun control or weapon control in general at a minimum. Edit: fixed quote lol | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 27 2012 01:52 Millitron wrote: [QUOTE]On July 27 2012 01:37 ImAbstracT wrote: [quote] I can see how much you know about weapon systems. Im not even from the US and know that you can buy an attachment to beef up an AR-15. And its actually not 400 dollars, but 315. The fact that you had "smithing work" done on them both, instead of just modify them with a simple attachment (dunno if it works on AKs, guess not because theyre manufactured in texas). Again, legally. Google it yourself, weapon expert. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]On July 27 2012 01:41 veGGen wrote: Only with license.. What USA is doing is fucking crazy [/QUOTE] What difference does it make if the thug holding up that convenience store is doing it with a knife or a gun? Either way, the store-clerk is still dead when the robbery takes a turn for the worse.[/QUOTE] I disagree with this, it's entirely possible to defend yourself versus a knife and you can't kill someone as easy in a split second using a knife. So making a wrong impulsive decision as a robber happens way less oftenly. Also the problem with gun control on the shopkeeper's side is that with robberies thugs will always make sure their arms are a level above the shop keeper. That coupled with the fact that the chance of non-material damage becomes smaller is enough of a reason for me to keep gun control or weapon control in general at a minimum. Edit: fixed quote[/QUOTE] Knife fights are horrible. Want to know the number one rule of a knife fight? Everyone gets cut. In a city that has the 2nd highest rate of HIV per person, no thank you. If you pull out a knife within 21 feet of me, well, that is your mistake. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 27 2012 04:24 ImAbstracT wrote: Knife fights are horrible. Want to know the number one rule of a knife fight? Everyone gets cut. In a city that has the 2nd highest rate of HIV per person, no thank you. If you pull out a knife within 21 feet of me, well, that is your mistake. Sure knife fights are horrible, the point that it's easier to kill with a gun if we're talking about the mental issues of killing someone still holds true. And I'm pretty sure that's what he was referring to. It's "harder" to kill someone with a spoon than trying a knife as well, although that's not the point. You've got to be pretty damn sure you know what you're doing if you're trying to kill someone with a spoon because that probably takes some time and doing the same thing over and over again, aka stabbing someone with a spoon. If you want to kill someone with a knife that still takes more "action" from your part than simply pressing a button. In close combat knifes are easily more dangerous than guns so obviously they're not a bad choice to kill someone either but you're more involved mentally that way and it's harder to accidently pull the trigger with a knife. Not to mention that knives have a purpose other than killing so it's clearly judging wether the advantages of a knife are bigger than the downsides, while a gun has no purpose other than culture. | ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
| ||
|
Phant
United States737 Posts
I do think that in order to obtain a gun you should have to go through a training session on how to use them, similar to a driver's liscense. Right now you can get a gun without going through that. I always want a means to defend myself from someone. Imagine if during WW2, all the homes of the people being attacked by soldiers had weapons, I think the situation would have been a lot better (though still horrible). Instead, they just walked right into their houses free to do whatever they pleased because the people had no means to defend themselves. You cannot rely on the police or the government to save you when you are being attacked, you need to take matters into your own hands. | ||
|
Froob
United Kingdom342 Posts
| ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote: + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote: Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1070 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote: Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? I'd like to know as well. It's a bit funny how the politicians mostly responsible for actions like this happening, are the ones being mostly super pro 2nd amendment. Freeeeeedom! (but not when it comes to "terrorism") edit: To the post above mine, what do you think of the PATRIOT act? Your freedom definately got limited by this law. Is it a good compromise concerning stopping "BAD people" while limiting the rights/freedom of "GOOD people"? Or is everything bad, your government does? On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote: History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Have you ever heard of Ghandi? Martin Luther King? Do you have friends serving in the US Army? Do you think they would just just kill their fellow countrymen (friends/family) if there would be a revolution? The 2nd amendment was a good thing 200 years ago maybe, if you still believe you need weapons to protect you from your government nowadays, you're either paranoid or brainwashed. | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote: It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. I think it's going to be very hard for someone to seriously argue that America is the least oppressive 1st world country, yet they have way more guns than almost everyone else. Plus, you remember that you live in a 1st world democratic country, and not a 3rd world dictatorship right? | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1087 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote: It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=US I give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On July 27 2012 01:35 ImAbstracT wrote: Besides to protect themselves from the criminals who have semi-automatic rifles. It all depends what your view of rights and liberties are. I believe every American has the right to own whatever firearm they choose, until they do something stupid enough to lose that right. It seems the majority of people here think no one has the right to own a gun, it is a privileged the state should be able to give and take at will. Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians. Alexander Hope bahahahah protect ourselves from the criminals with semi-automatic rifles... the reason people want to take guns away is to save human lives because every single study has shown that an increase in gun regulation leads to less people dying every year. you think owning your gun is worth even 1 dead person? you sound like you follow alex jones... | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1070 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote: Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. That's why people need to have .50 BMG rifles, full-auto rifles, RPGs, explosives, etc. Imagine how safe the US would be with everyone having an arsenal like this!  On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote: ...false sense of security. This counters most of the arguments made in this thread. Of course situations can and will happen, where a gun will safe the day, but the negative aspects of a fully armed population predominate by far imho. | ||
|
Yeld
Austria106 Posts
A) I need a gun in order to be able to oppose a suppresive gouvernment. Like RenSc2 pointed out right above this post. You can not fight a modern gouvernment with just a firearm. It only lends you a fake sense of power. At worst you could get yourself killed and at best you could kill someone else. There is nothing to gain. I have nothing much to add to this point, but I do want to discuss the other big reason in detail: B) I need a gun in order to protect myself and my family from criminals. A burglar breaks into your house, you realize this in time and have your gun available to you at the time. You proceed to shoot and kill the person before he can comit a crime against you. Please consider the actual chance of this happening. Here are some other scenarios: Someone else uses your weapon. They don't handle it properly and injure themselves. You use your weapon, but injure an unintended target, like a family member. You use your gun to threaten a burglar, resulting in a firefight with collateral damage and casulties amongst your family. This fight would not have taken place had you not threatened the intruder. Under the effect of drugs, alcohol or psychological conditions, someone uses the gun to cause damage to himself and others. Damage he would not have caused had he not had a gun available. These are just random examples, but you will see that the probability of just one of them occuring is much higher than the probability of the first 'heroic' scenario. | ||
| ||
