• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:55
CEST 21:55
KST 04:55
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting4[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO65.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)73Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition325.0.15 Balance Patch Notes (Live version)119
StarCraft 2
General
5.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8) The New Patch Killed Mech! TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting Ladder Impersonation (only maybe) Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO
Tourneys
LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Tenacious Turtle Tussle WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers Mutation # 492 Get Out More
Brood War
General
BW caster Sayle BW General Discussion Pros React To: BarrackS + FlaSh Coaching vs SnOw ASL20 General Discussion [ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Semifinal B [ASL20] Semifinal A [ASL20] Ro8 Day 4
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Siegecraft - a new perspective TvZ Theorycraft - Improving on State of the Art
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread Dawn of War IV Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640} TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
Inbreeding: Why Do We Do It…
Peanutsc
From Tilt to Ragequit:The Ps…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1378 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 607 608 609 610 611 891 Next
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.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23411 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-14 23:57:37
June 14 2016 23:56 GMT
#12161
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?


Like I said you won't get any pushback from me on making it more difficult to get more devastating weaponry. The problem is that most people trying to sell the legislation (lord knows who's actually writing these bills) don't have a clue what they are talking about. Similar to when they were trying to legislate ATM fees but several openly admitted that they either had never used one or could count how many times on their fingers. They had no clue that for people with 25 bucks in their bank account it was costing them $5 just to get their own $20 back.

Besides having no concept of what being that broke is like, they didn't even really understand what ATM's do or what would be a fair vs exorbitant fee, same with guns. They have no idea what they are trying to regulate so when people push back they end up sounding like idiots and no one wants a gun law (even if it's actually good) if the person trying to convince them to support it sounds like a clueless moron.

As I've said a few times now, the reason we're "stuck" is because this limbo is money in the bank for the people who sponsor both sides of the aisle.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
superstartran
Profile Joined March 2010
United States4013 Posts
June 15 2016 00:06 GMT
#12162
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.
thePunGun
Profile Blog Joined January 2016
598 Posts
June 15 2016 00:15 GMT
#12163
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.

Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself."
Blitzkrieg0
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States13132 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 00:26:22
June 15 2016 00:25 GMT
#12164
On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.

Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...


Like GreenHorizons is saying, people would do a lot better in these conversations if they had half a clue what they were talking about. When your car breaks down do you go to the mechanic and chastise him about how he is using the wrong terminology for the engine and tires and you have better definitions? It is alright that you don't know everything about guns, but don't pretend that you do and then get mad at people when tell you that you're wrong.
I'll always be your shadow and veil your eyes from states of ain soph aur.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23411 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 00:32:05
June 15 2016 00:28 GMT
#12165
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.


There are plenty of ignorant gun owners, but it is a red flag.

On June 15 2016 05:41 m4ini wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 15 2016 03:49 m4ini wrote:
On June 15 2016 03:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Pistol rounds aren't as devestating as rifle rounds and he would have to reload the pistol more often, leaving him vulnerable more times.


Nah he wouldn't have to reload more often, you just take multiple pistols with you. On top, you can get extended mags.

You're right with the damage though - a rifle is certainly deadlier. Everyone trying to argue that it isn't, is a deliberate liar. Especially in packed crowds where a single round can and will easily hit and penetrate multiple people, whereas a pistol won't.


Simply being a "pistol" doesn't make it less deadly. There are other aspects one has to consider. See video for an example of a pistol that easily could have done more damage, though not as a result of rounds passing through victims.

+ Show Spoiler +


or if one thinks shotguns by nature are less dangerous than something like a AR 15

+ Show Spoiler +


You may understand the nuance (I don't know) but some people just think pistols and shotguns are less dangerous than AR-15's because they believe the hype without having any context beyond battlefield or movies.



Did you just show videos of fully automatic weapons as an argument as to why pistols and shotguns are not less deadly than an assault rifle, because it's semi-automatic? Why not add a minigun, a 50cal machine gun and a 120mm smoothbore to that comparison?

Would make as much sense.


@m4ni well the shotgun isn't automatic and is completely legal in many states (I don't know about Florida off hand). The point was that simply being a pistol doesn't make something safer than an AR-15 so I don't know what you're trying to say? The video doesn't show the potential devastation as clearly but here's a completely legal semi auto pistol.

+ Show Spoiler +


On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.

Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.


Now if only politicians on the left were capable of realizing that.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18834 Posts
June 15 2016 00:29 GMT
#12166
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.

Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
dontforgetosmile
Profile Joined April 2012
87 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 00:50:44
June 15 2016 00:43 GMT
#12167
On June 14 2016 13:39 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:
On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night.


You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose.


I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people.


you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself.

you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened".

i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way.

I think the jist of the argument has more to do with the fact that the benefits of cars are massive, if not absolutely ridiculously astronomical. By comparison, AR15's are fun toys which also happen to be potentially disastrously deadly.

It doesn't really compare at all. Cars are a tradeoff. You get amazing benefits that translates to massive wealth for the entire population of a country, but you also get the deaths, the pollution, etc. With semi-automatic rifles, you only get drawbacks, and the benefits border on irrelevant.

this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.

On June 14 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:
On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night.


You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose.


I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people.


you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself.

you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened".

i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way.


Where I think this argument breaks down is that the left isn't appropriately looking at what the causes of gun violence and then acting on reducing those factors, the right is accurately pointing that out until the left does try to get at a real problem then they prevent it yelling about the second amendment or spending.

Again (and this should be getting more and more obvious), it's because the whole point is to keep fighting about it, not to do anything real to stop it. It's hard to believe Democrats in the senate (more importantly, their advisers) are still as clueless about guns as they sound every time they talk about regulations, if they aren't intentionally giving Republicans red meat to point at and say "SEE! They have no idea what they are trying to regulate" they are far too incompetent to be trusted to "write" the legislation anyway.

partisan stuff aside, i actually agree with you and agree that better regulations need to be passed.

i mentioned these a few times in my previous posts as examples of useless legislation.
1. microstamping
2. bullet button
3. .50 BMG
4. assault weapons ban
5. attempted ban on "armor piercing" ammo


i don't think a single person has actually addressed the above, and yet everyone continues to rant about how we need more regulation. we don't need more regulation that essentially results in (whether by design or not) banning firearms because they look/sound scary. we need better, more effect regulation that make sense while not infringing on peoples' rights.


On June 15 2016 00:20 Ayaz2810 wrote:
It won't chamge. Gun culture is like religion. Children are indocrinated early, and then are so loaded up with propaganda, that they just follow in the family footsteps without the critical thinking skills or both sides of the story needed to not be a fuckwit.

see, this kind of stupidity is why i do the whole car culture vs gun culture thing. i don't do it to compare approaches to policy.
dontforgetosmile
Profile Joined April 2012
87 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 01:19:45
June 15 2016 00:49 GMT
#12168
i'll just put this here instead of triple posting.

On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.

Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.

assault rifle is a legal term, so knowing the difference is actually important because assault rifles have already been made extremely difficult to obtain.

what you are describing are "assault weapons" which is another legal term that describes arbitrarily lumped together cosmetic and ergonomic modifications on a weapon.

On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.

Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...

these last few pages have been really bad.

owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.
thePunGun
Profile Blog Joined January 2016
598 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 01:53:33
June 15 2016 01:46 GMT
#12169
owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.

My Kimber was a birthday present from my (older) sister 12 years ago. She's been a police officer for the S.P.D. (Seattle) for almost 2 decades, so the guns are registered for obvious reasons.
She taught me and my gf everything there is to know about the guns we own, how to handle and store them properly.
I may not know a lot about rifles, but I have seen the damage a rifle like that can do first hand and trust me it's terrifying and for me that's the most important part there is to know.
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself."
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18834 Posts
June 15 2016 01:50 GMT
#12170
On June 15 2016 09:49 dontforgetosmile wrote:
i'll just put this here instead of triple posting.

Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.

Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.

assault rifle is a legal term, so knowing the difference is actually important because assault rifles have already been made extremely difficult to obtain.

what you are describing are "assault weapons" which is another legal term that describes arbitrarily lumped together cosmetic and ergonomic modifications on a weapon.

Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.

Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...

these last few pages have been really bad.

owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.

Can you point to a federal law or regulation that defines "assault rifle"?
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Belisarius
Profile Joined November 2010
Australia6232 Posts
June 15 2016 01:58 GMT
#12171
Are you seriously trying to claim it's negligent to use the common-parlance rather than the legal definition of an assault rifle?
dontforgetosmile
Profile Joined April 2012
87 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 02:06:45
June 15 2016 02:04 GMT
#12172
On June 15 2016 10:50 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 09:49 dontforgetosmile wrote:
i'll just put this here instead of triple posting.

On June 15 2016 09:29 farvacola wrote:
Dear lord, the endless debates over what "assault rifle" means need to go back to the 90s. Reasonable gun regulation doesn't need to use the term and it serves as nothing more than a distraction. Additionally, knowing what is or isn't an assault rife is in no way a meaningful basis for establishing an individual's knowledge of guns.

Improved background checks and the closure of loopholes are far more useful concepts to debate.

assault rifle is a legal term, so knowing the difference is actually important because assault rifles have already been made extremely difficult to obtain.

what you are describing are "assault weapons" which is another legal term that describes arbitrarily lumped together cosmetic and ergonomic modifications on a weapon.

On June 15 2016 09:15 thePunGun wrote:
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:
On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.

But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial?



I'm gonna call bullshit on this.


If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.

Here we go again with the nitpicking....a semi-automatic assault rifle is still an assault rifle to me....and quite frankly how does owning a gun equal knowledge?? Just because I own a car does not mean I can fix an engine or change a tire...

these last few pages have been really bad.

owning a gun should mean you know about guns. not doing so is negligence. and if that's not dangerous for the people around you, it might be for you due to the plethora of gun laws that you may unknowingly break and thereby become a felon.

Can you point to a federal law or regulation that defines "assault rifle"?

nope. because the legal term is actually machine gun. mistakes were made.

On June 15 2016 10:58 Belisarius wrote:
Are you seriously trying to claim it's negligent to use the common-parlance rather than the legal definition of an assault rifle?

that wasn't directed towards his lack of knowledge, but his attitude towards it.
thePunGun
Profile Blog Joined January 2016
598 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 02:06:54
June 15 2016 02:05 GMT
#12173
On June 15 2016 10:58 Belisarius wrote:
Are you seriously trying to claim it's negligent to use the common-parlance rather than the legal definition of an assault rifle?


I'm not, but tell me again the name of that rifle, that guy from Port Arthur used and what Australia's response was after that massacre?
I can't seem to remember...
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself."
Belisarius
Profile Joined November 2010
Australia6232 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 02:11:22
June 15 2016 02:08 GMT
#12174
Of course I know my country's own response. Why is that relevant?

EDIT: wait I'm pretty damn sure I was supporting you but whatever
thePunGun
Profile Blog Joined January 2016
598 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 04:53:13
June 15 2016 02:12 GMT
#12175
It is relevant because that guy used a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine to execute 35 innocent people and wound 23 more that day! Australias reponse was what any sane nation would do, there was no gun lobby blocking any attempt on legislation. That's why it is relevant!

EDIT: wait I'm pretty damn sure I was supporting you but whatever

Sorry bud, it's been a long day, I might have misread your post, but Port Arthur was a turning point for your country...and ...here we are discussing gun legislation in the U.S....again
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself."
Belisarius
Profile Joined November 2010
Australia6232 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 02:20:10
June 15 2016 02:14 GMT
#12176
EDIT: alright perhaps we're both just misunderstanding each other.

Yes, I'm aware that Port Arthur was an AR-15. Yes, I'm aware that other countries' various adventures with gun control are relevant to the US's situation.

But it's rarely helpful when an outsider comes into any of these threads and posts a sermon on why X solution that worked in their country is going to work in the US, so I'm not planning on doing so.
SK.Testie
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
Canada11084 Posts
June 15 2016 02:43 GMT
#12177
Throughout social media, there has been a sudden increase in the number of "shots fired" at Republicans because of the (tragic) shots fired inside the gay club.

And rightly so. Republicans need to take responsibility for perpetuating the hatred of LGBT and other minorities, which in turn helps create an environment where they're targeted and killed. No new bills, no new proposals, no new reactions besides "thoughts and prayers lulz". The core principle of prejudice is found in both religious fundamentalism and the modern Republican Party. And the death toll increases every day because of it.


The evil Republican party. Which does not currently target gay people nor hate Ellen, or Neil Patrick Harris, and even loves their own homosexual named Milo. You have a gay Muslim democrat in Florida, and it is the Republicans fault. Ah yes, all that rhetoric towards gay people made him marginalized and thus he really wanted to kill some people. Amazing that his shot selection was at other gays, and not at the Republicans he hated so much that vilified him so. Oh yes, it's their rhetoric that confused him and made him also hate gays.

These mental contortions are complete madness.
Social Justice is a fools errand. May all the adherents at its church be thwarted. Of all the religions I have come across, it is by far the most detestable.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44898 Posts
June 15 2016 03:26 GMT
#12178
Glad to see you're back, for however short that time may be

I expanded further on that post in later comments, if you'd like to read up on them too.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 04:18:32
June 15 2016 03:31 GMT
#12179
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.

Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.

No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval.

Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons.

And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same.
Q: My freedom!!
A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before.

Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place
A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club.

Q: It won't fix the whole problem
A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective.


At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
superstartran
Profile Joined March 2010
United States4013 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-15 05:24:50
June 15 2016 05:22 GMT
#12180
On June 15 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote:
this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.

Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.

No one really thinks of semi-automatic rifles with shouldered ammunition as adequate home defense or CCW, except the insane and the "from my cold dead hands" crowd of twisted people who are planning to wage war against an upcoming tyrannical US government. The only reasonably legitimate use for an AR15 is target shooting and competitive shooting like the 3-gun format, and I'd say that's thin as a justification for unregulated gun ownership. Some might argue that AR15's and other semi-automatic 223/5.56 firearms like the Ruger Mini-14 are perfectly good for hunting also and I agree, it's tacticool as fuck and that ought to impress my cousin/sister. She'll be like "dude you shoulder peeked that boar so hard" and I'll be tap on my military grade body armor in approval.

Now if you're the frivolous kind who feels the need to hunt with a semi-auto rifle (may God spare their souls), I think it wouldn't be too much to ask to have more rigorous background checks, and some administrative fuckery to prevent the rapid proliferation of those weapons. Much of the argument is "muh freedom" because the AR15 and those kinds of weapons somehow symbolize freedom. I think that under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to regulate, even heavily regulate those types of weapons.

And any criticism that'll be leveled at those kinds of regulations are the same.
Q: My freedom!!
A: Your freedom is preserved, fill out the paperwork and show that you're sane and you'll get your AR15. Only, it'll have to be locked so it doesn't get stolen easily and you'll have to abide by some strict rules. But you're still going to be able to do everything you did before.

Q: The criminals will have access to weapons anyway because they're all over the place
A: Widespread access to weapons is a problem. The solution is not to do nothing. By gradually reducing the access to firearms, it'll gradually get slightly harder for some criminals to get the most effective weapons. And anyway you have to assume that black market firearms will be hard to get your hands on, if not just straight up more expensive. Not everyone can just call up their black market guy and say I WANT TO BUY ILLEGAL GUNS NOW! Nah man. Not every unhinged person has connections with the nefarious dudes club.

Q: It won't fix the whole problem
A: No, it's not magic. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents. The laws against drinking or texting while driving didn't stop those things. Regulations on car safety for manufacturers didn't make the people in the habitacle invincible. All those things combined, over time, led to a dramatically lower death toll on our streets since a few decades ago. Regulation worked for cars. Regulations will work for guns. Might take decades to reap the bulk of the benefits, but there are benefits. And that's not to say there aren't short term benefits. Make semi-auto rifles require a bit more paperwork and stuff, and some would-be shooters will go with the simpler option of buying some piece of shit that's less effective.


At the end of the day though, mental health issues and poverty/inequality are the real problem. You could have guns all over the place and in a relatively egalitarian society all you'd get is the crimes of passion you get in any society.



Just thought I'd clear something up.

The AR-15 is an excellent rifle for hunting smaller game such as smaller deer and most smaller wild hogs. This whole idea that 'semi-automatics' are too much for hunting are for people who have never shot a fucking gun at a wild animal in their life. The reason why most hunters carry a semi-automatic pistol if they are not utilizing a semi-automatic rifle is because a good hunter knows that a pissed off animal sometimes doesn't get put down by one or even two rounds, especially if it has anywhere from 300-400+ lbs on you.

The AR-15 also due to its modular nature can be fitted for a wide variety of different calibers, scopes, grips, etc. without much expense outside of the parts themselves. This makes it a very popular weapon among smaller game hunters who don't have the luxury of affording multiple different caliber rifles and the upkeep that comes with them. It's actually the cheapest Rifle to upkeep and maintain while also being flexible due to the numerous amounts of parts that are available to it on the after market for it.

There are far more uses to the AR-15 then you think outside of sport shooting. It's the most effective method of wild hog/prairie dog control that we have at the moment. And before you say 'fucking prairie dogs?" let's just remember that prairie dogs were responsible for the plague outbreak that happened recently in the United States. Yeah. The fucking plague. I mean, you could potentially just blow the hell out of their nests and shit but that's actually pretty damaging to the environment.

I most certainly agree on the premise that it is FAR too easy to obtain a weapon like the AR-15 that is potentially extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. It should be far harder to obtain one, and there should be no reason for anyone to need a drum magazine. However, I just want to let people know that there are actual legitimate uses for the weapon ranging from security contractors, hunters, as well as self defense for those who live out on the country against smallish predators such as coyotes and bobcats (where it is absolutely necessary to have a semi-automatic weapon).
Prev 1 607 608 609 610 611 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 5m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 519
IndyStarCraft 138
BRAT_OK 81
ProTech70
Railgan 62
JuggernautJason26
MindelVK 21
Codebar 19
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 1278
hero 273
Leta 233
Larva 212
Mini 151
Dewaltoss 88
Mong 60
sas.Sziky 45
NaDa 20
Movie 19
[ Show more ]
ggaemo 17
Shine 5
Dota 2
Gorgc8490
PGG 84
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
byalli549
shoxiejesuss415
Stewie2K379
Foxcn238
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu475
Other Games
FrodaN1775
fl0m687
Mlord410
Skadoodle283
Sick119
markeloff61
Trikslyr40
Mew2King34
ViBE19
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 61
• Reevou 4
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• Ler90
League of Legends
• Nemesis4270
• imaqtpie2098
• Doublelift1033
Other Games
• Shiphtur296
• WagamamaTV191
Upcoming Events
OSC
3h 5m
Replay Cast
3h 5m
The PondCast
14h 5m
OSC
16h 5m
Wardi Open
1d 15h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
Safe House 2
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Safe House 2
3 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.