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

On June 16 2016 23:26 ahswtini wrote:

like the us government?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

On June 17 2016 05:09 dontforgetosmile wrote:

please explain to me how these regulations help in any way.