| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Yes, the FBI and justice department screwed up that time. It was bad. A couple times gun owners gave their 9 year olds semi automatics and their kids killed them. Two mothers allowed their children to shoot them in cars because. One of those kids was two and the mother died. Do you have anything substantive to add or are we going to play dueling fuck ups by the government and gun owners? | ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
www.nbcnews.com (Filibuster Ends After GOP Agrees to Allow Gun Control Votes: Senator) So no, not everyone in the US government likes guns, and I am pretty sure some were even directly affected by guns in their lives. Sweeping general statements do not mean anything, there is a war going on in politics too. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 16 2016 23:43 Plansix wrote: Yes, the FBI and justice department screwed up that time. It was bad. A couple times gun owners gave their 9 year olds semi automatics and their kids killed them. Two mothers allowed their children to shoot them in cars because. One of those kids was two and the mother died. Do you have anything substantive to add or are we going to play dueling fuck ups by the government and gun owners? Well there's no need for a government vs gun-owner debate, the question is how they can work together to make the USA a safer place. Unfortunately, you guys have a status quo to fight and when you look at your presidential candidates and Congress, I seriously don't believe that you guys are going to be going anywhere soon. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On June 16 2016 10:37 MoosyDoosy wrote: This is absolutely false. I hear people say "oh government's taking away our guns, stop them!" and that's absolutely false. There's this special fearmongering around Obama that's especially ridiculous because he's never done anything of that sort. In fact, more guns have been bought during his term as president than any other time. And don't think Obama's spreading guns either. What he has been trying to do is push through standard checks and procedures that should take place. A comparison can be made with buying a car. When you buy car, you have to prove that you have the ability to by obtaining a driver's license, show you have no medical condition that prevents you from driving, etc, etc. Why are these things in check? Because we saw ridiculous auto fatality rates in the past. So we researched why that was the case and put different things in check. One part was making sure the driver was responsible and other steps such as fixing roads, stepping up driving laws and enforcement were others. In some states, this is not the case with guns. You can walk into any store and buy a gun with ammunition as you want. That's without any of the prerequisite steps like a driver's license, showing you have no medical condition, etc, etc. All we want are some standard checks in place like background checks that make sense. And you know what's ridiculous? It's been stated and it's known that the FBI cannot stop a known ISIS endorser from walking into a shop and buying a gun. They have a list of individuals that visit ISIS supportive sites and they can stop them from boarding an airplane but they can't stop them from buying a gun. When you think about it, isn't it ridiculous? An ISIS supporter can't board a plane but they can buy a gun. And that's because whenever background checks and other procedures are proposed as prerequisites to buying a gun that could show an ISIS supporter for who they are, the NRA raises its banner and rallies gun owners under the false pretense that the government is taking away their guns. NO. That is absolutely not the case. I don't understand why people are so adamant about this. If you are sane and capable of using firearms you can still access them in the future. But the steps that people want to put in place are to ensure the insane are not walking into a shop and buying firearms. There are other implications of this. In other countries where guns are less easily obtainable, police methods revolve around coercing an attacker into submitting without force. There are videos of police from European countries surrounding a machete or knife wielder until the attacker submits to arrests. In America, we shoot that attacker on sight. Why? Because police are trained to shoot in such situations because the attacker might have a gun. If we make guns only available to those capable and sane enough to wield them, they have a means of self-defense and we can change police training as well. I am in full support of the 2nd amendment and would never propose taking it down. But making sure insane individuals don't get access to guns easily is not taking down the 2nd amendment but supporting it imo. There are plenty of liberals and democrats who would propose to literally confiscate every single weapon in America and make it into Australia. Barack Obama has always been abit more moderate in his stances then the vast majority of his fellow democrats, however there's a reason why so many Republicans and conservatives in general are extremely wary of gun legislation. First of all, the media always tries to paint guns as bad and harmful to society in almost every conceivable way possible, slanting the image, the statistics, etc. all while not actually pointing out that gun related crimes and gun related violence is at an all time low since the 1960s. Why? Because we finally started to take care of the drug problems within our cities by helping those out that actually need it, and slowly started getting them out of poverty. Today we still have major issues in pockets, but it's no longer quite as bad as it once was. Stamping out the crack/heroine epidemic helped reduce the amount of violent crimes within our cities. Oh yeah, liberals would say 'war on drugs worthless.' Right. That's why after stamping out the crack epidemic in the majority of our major cities that violent crimes in general especially firearm related crimes dropped dramatically. This idea that the democrats are willing to 'compromise' is silly. They've shown that they will not. They just say 'we're just going to do this' and take it about 100 steps further. I'm not saying the current situation is perfect either, and the NRA are a bunch of assholes too. However, don't make it sound like the democrats are the reasonable ones here, when many of them have called for outright bans of firearms in the United States, many of them citing Australia as a perfect example (without realizing that Australia is a far more homogeneous country then the United States, and is made up of 3 regions rather than the multiple regions such as the Midwest, West, Mountain Regions, the Southwest, Deep South, North East, etc). And the last time I believed Barack Obama my health premiums shot through the roof when he promised that they wouldn't. So..... yeah. And for those of you who keep trying to say that the United States should copy XYZ country, please, just stop. The United States is geographically a far bigger nation then any of the countries you listed. That's already one major difference, let alone the various other differences regarding culture, presence of various different ethnic and religious groups, wide swinging and varying degrees of wealth per city, etc. There are far bigger issues at play here then gun control. I will agree that there needs to be much more strict gun regulation and the NRA needs to stop being assholes about it. However, I do see their point when the left media paints firearms in such a negative way despite the fact that there are legitimate uses to firearms, and so many liberal congress members are calling for the outright ban of firearms in our country. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On June 17 2016 02:31 superstartran wrote: There are plenty of liberals and democrats who would propose to literally confiscate every single weapon in America and make it into Australia. Barack Obama has always been abit more moderate in his stances then the vast majority of his fellow democrats, however there's a reason why so many Republicans and conservatives in general are extremely wary of gun legislation. First of all, the media always tries to paint guns as bad and harmful to society in almost every conceivable way possible, slanting the image, the statistics, etc. all while not actually pointing out that gun related crimes and gun related violence is at an all time low since the 1960s. Why? Because we finally started to take care of the drug problems within our cities by helping those out that actually need it, and slowly started getting them out of poverty. Today we still have major issues in pockets, but it's no longer quite as bad as it once was. Stamping out the crack/heroine epidemic helped reduce the amount of violent crimes within our cities. Oh yeah, liberals would say 'war on drugs worthless.' Right. That's why after stamping out the crack epidemic in the majority of our major cities that violent crimes in general especially firearm related crimes dropped dramatically. This idea that the democrats are willing to 'compromise' is silly. They've shown that they will not. They just say 'we're just going to do this' and take it about 100 steps further. I'm not saying the current situation is perfect either, and the NRA are a bunch of assholes too. However, don't make it sound like the democrats are the reasonable ones here, when many of them have called for outright bans of firearms in the United States, many of them citing Australia as a perfect example (without realizing that Australia is a far more homogeneous country then the United States, and is made up of 3 regions rather than the multiple regions such as the Midwest, West, Mountain Regions, the Southwest, Deep South, North East, etc). And the last time I believed Barack Obama my health premiums shot through the roof when he promised that they wouldn't. So..... yeah. And for those of you who keep trying to say that the United States should copy XYZ country, please, just stop. The United States is geographically a far bigger nation then any of the countries you listed. That's already one major difference, let alone the various other differences regarding culture, presence of various different ethnic and religious groups, wide swinging and varying degrees of wealth per city, etc. There are far bigger issues at play here then gun control. I will agree that there needs to be much more strict gun regulation and the NRA needs to stop being assholes about it. However, I do see their point when the left media paints firearms in such a negative way despite the fact that there are legitimate uses to firearms, and so many liberal congress members are calling for the outright ban of firearms in our country. But you are the perfect example why we even have the tendency to tell you americans what to do with your country - because of arogant ignorance such as this. Geographical extent means nothing, physical distance is easily covered in the 21st century. When it comes to population, the US not only has roughly the same population as the EU, it also has the same order of magnitude as the largest EU countries (Germany and UK). The idea that US is so vastly bigger is just self-delusion of grandeur, nothing more. The EU as a whole is also now much more closely tied than you probably imagine and it's not much more different from a single country, than US with the power given to individual states. So please, drop this argument, it has no point and it is also just wrong form to ask for someone to not have opinion, just because he is an outsider. The "war on drugs" argument is outright absurd. Do you understand that the only reason for organized crime and violence coming hand in hand with drugs is the very war on drugs you are praising? If the drugs were legally sold, their trade won't differ from any other thing. You have alleviated a problem, that you have created, so what? The war on drugs is actually probably a big reason for a lot of guns being in circulation in the first place, with the crime it created. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5201 Posts
The slippery slope argument does not exist when you can oppose to every stronger stance made on the fucking legislation. That's why people/unions go on strike, because they don't want the government to take even more advantage of them. That's how countries come to compromises. I'm so sick of people who aren't able to 1- compromise 2- relativize. The thing I AM extremely wary about, though, is if guns would have a stronger regulation, what would happen with the excess ann confiscated guns. Sold in black markets? Destroyed (lol)? Sold to other nations? | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On June 16 2016 20:51 Tula wrote: I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range? i don't know how you can argue a pistol is easier to fire than a rifle, regardless of range. it's many times easier for someone to shoulder a rifle and put multiple rounds on target at any range than it is to do with a pistol. At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is. you can find ars chambered in 9mm. effective penetration is absolutely critical. otherwise, why not use .22lr? And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars. there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option. what you consider "stopping power" is really just penetration and shot placement. any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 17 2016 03:33 dontforgetosmile wrote: any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this. Yes clearly it does otherwise this thread wouldnt exist. I think in obfuscating the issue with hunter problems you pretty much hit the nail on the head right there. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 16 2016 20:51 Tula wrote: Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is. There are various tests for this but a 9mm pistol round will namely go through over 10 layers of drywall and 6 inches of ballistic gel for instance, and that's with a hollowpoint round so you could expect it would go through even more with a FMJ. + Show Spoiler + And if you hit 2x4's, well there's a test where a FMJ bullet goes through three planks, and that's despite the fact that the stack of planks absorbs much of the impact because it's not fixed to anything like planks inside a house would be. + Show Spoiler + So saying "chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd" is misguided. A 9mm round almost always will go through 2-3 layers of wall.. You'd be incredibly lucky to hit two or three pieces of a house's wooden frame to slow down the bullet to where it would be significantly less lethal, odds are you'd go through maybe one piece of wood, some layers of drywall (bullet hardly cares about 2-3 layers of drywall). So yeah 9mm bullets are VERY dangerous over a long long way in modern homes. Better hope furniture stops the bullet because the materials used to build the house suck at that. And 9mm shot out of a 4 inch barrel is incredibly weak in comparison to 223 shot out of a 16 inch barrel, too. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 17 2016 02:44 opisska wrote: But you are the perfect example why we even have the tendency to tell you americans what to do with your country - because of arogant ignorance such as this. Geographical extent means nothing, physical distance is easily covered in the 21st century. When it comes to population, the US not only has roughly the same population as the EU, it also has the same order of magnitude as the largest EU countries (Germany and UK). The idea that US is so vastly bigger is just self-delusion of grandeur, nothing more. The EU as a whole is also now much more closely tied than you probably imagine and it's not much more different from a single country, than US with the power given to individual states. So please, drop this argument, it has no point and it is also just wrong form to ask for someone to not have opinion, just because he is an outsider. The "war on drugs" argument is outright absurd. Do you understand that the only reason for organized crime and violence coming hand in hand with drugs is the very war on drugs you are praising? If the drugs were legally sold, their trade won't differ from any other thing. You have alleviated a problem, that you have created, so what? The war on drugs is actually probably a big reason for a lot of guns being in circulation in the first place, with the crime it created. There was nothing arrogant about his post, unlike what many Europeans do in this thread (like that one guy from UK with the one-liner which added exactly nothing to the discussion). A lot of what you're saying simply isn't true or at very least verified: "Do you understand that the only reason for organized crime and violence coming hand in hand with drugs is the very war on drugs you are praising?" Blaming organized crime on the war on drugs? Not sure that I agree with that. We have our friendly drug dealing gangsters in France as well.. gun violence is a regular issue. I dunno, was a sensible post from the guy, I'm not seeing any self-delusion or arrogance. He's just saying that he would not like an Australian solution in the USA; and he's right. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On June 17 2016 03:57 Rebs wrote: Yes clearly it does otherwise this thread wouldnt exist. I think in obfuscating the issue with hunter problems you pretty much hit the nail on the head right there. right, but people are speaking as if mindless gun regulations are absolutely necessary. i mean there are over 300million guns in the us, and good portion of those are probably ars. just because you don't see value in owning them doesn't mean other people don't, otherwise they wouldn't. that's the point i'm trying to make. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5201 Posts
On June 17 2016 04:34 dontforgetosmile wrote: right, but people are speaking as if mindless gun regulations are absolutely necessary. i mean there are over 300million guns in the us, and good portion of those are probably ars. just because you don't see value in owning them doesn't mean other people don't, otherwise they wouldn't. that's the point i'm trying to make. Look, it's the typical pro gun owner's thought process! Talking about mindless gun regulations! They must think we actually want to take their guns away instead while all they want is to regulate the easy access to guns. Why is it so hard to compare the regulations of cars? Never, in all of the debates, EVER, have I heard one refutation of this argument. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10162 Posts
| ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On June 17 2016 05:02 Uldridge wrote: Look, it's the typical pro gun owner's thought process! Talking about mindless gun regulations! They must think we actually want to take their guns away instead while all they want is to regulate the easy access to guns. Why is it so hard to compare the regulations of cars? Never, in all of the debates, EVER, have I heard one refutation of this argument. 1. microstamping 2. bullet button 3. .50 BMG 4. assault weapons ban 5. attempted ban on "armor piercing" ammo please explain to me how these regulations help in any way. On June 17 2016 05:03 Godwrath wrote: I am lost. You don't want as much penetration as you can blindly, you just want enough. I think overpenetration makes harder for expansion to happen, and therefore being less effective to kill on shot. not talking about overpenetration. if i shot a bb at you and it doesn't penetrate your skin it's not going to do anything to deter you. the fbi standard for minimum effective penetration is 12" in bare ballistics gel. birdshot does not meet that (even most subcompact 9mms have trouble meeting that with standard non +P ammo, i believe). | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 17 2016 05:03 Godwrath wrote: I am lost. You don't want as much penetration as you can blindly, you just want enough. I think overpenetration makes harder for expansion to happen, and therefore being less effective to kill on shot. I don't know if you're giving an answer to my latest post but I was definitely not saying that overpenetration is a good thing in a self-defense situation. The guy was saying 9mm won't go through more than 2-3 walls, but it almost definitely will, and it'll kill your neighbor too. Even projectiles that expand (and therefore lose energy more quickly as they pass through layers of walls) will go through many layers of drywall and pieces of wood. That's why I was saying that unless you live alone in the middle of the woods, birdshot is probably the least dangerous self defense cartridge if you intend to protect your family and neighbors. If you'll be using 9mm you better be damn careful and know that there's nobody behind those walls. And if you think bird shot won't deter someone, look at 2:50 in this video. + Show Spoiler + Absolutely disgusting damage to the tissue. "Ribs completely broken", it went through many inches of the pork shoulder. Sure it may not penetrate ballistic gel as much as a single projectile going at 1250 feet per second would, but it'll absolutely wreck it nonetheless, damaging a huge surface at a reasonable depth. The FBI penetration standard is probably set for single bullets and they probably don't use birdshot. Anyone who thinks birdshot is not dangerous at distances you get inside a house doesn't know what they're talking about. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat. It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches? Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5201 Posts
On June 17 2016 05:09 dontforgetosmile wrote: please explain to me how these regulations help in any way. Who proposed these, and why haven't they proposed harsher licensing for example? The ban on guns that enable someone to kill more in less time and easier, is kind of sensable, for me at least, although I can understand why you would oppose that (my freedom to bear arms, any arm). The bullet button I understand, as it's harder for someone to reload their gun after emptying the clip Microstamping is kinda weird to me, because I don't think it's that hard to trace someone who just went on a huge rampage already (enough witnesses for that), but I guess it could make it easier. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
Solar vs Reynor
Serral vs TBD
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs ggaemo
Larva vs Mong
The Patches Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs PianO
JyJ vs sSak
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Mini vs Calm
Queen vs EffOrt
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
