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. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: In this case, would it even have made that big of a difference if he emptied his mag automatically or a few seconds slower by rapid semi-automatic manual fire? When shooting into large crowds of people, yea probably. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: In this case, would it even have made that big of a difference if he emptied his mag automatically or a few seconds slower by rapid semi-automatic manual fire? with the lack of any real path to stopping these massacres people just want to at least save a few more lives in the process. Bumpfire stocks just look like something thats really shady and should be illegal. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:33 Nevuk wrote: From what I understand without a bumpfire stock you have to hold it at your waist to actually use, which is extremely inaccurate. It's sort of like a cheat code. Doesn't mean people can't beat the game without it or speed run it faster than someone playing with cheat codes, but it does make it easier for everyone. But basically yeah. Hip firing takes a lot of practice to be comparably accurate to traditional shooting form, combined with bump firing it's even more difficult, but a lot of gun owners are probably more accurate hip firing than someone who doesn't shoot picking one up and aiming it. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 04 2017 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote: It's sort of like a cheat code. Doesn't mean people can't beat the game without it or speed run it faster than someone playing with cheat codes, but it does make it easier for everyone. But basically yeah. Hip firing takes a lot of practice to be comparably accurate to traditional shooting form, combined with bump firing it's even more difficult, but a lot of gun owners are probably more accurate hip firing than someone who doesn't shoot picking one up and aiming it. I'd imagine it's different for each gun, too. Would be hard to get proficient at hip shooting with the 18 or so guns this guy used the original night (so far it seems he had 34 guns overall). On October 04 2017 02:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: In this case, would it even have made that big of a difference if he emptied his mag automatically or a few seconds slower by rapid semi-automatic manual fire? There probably wouldn't be 500+ wounded in addition to the dead. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10698 Posts
Good stuff, keep going. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23218 Posts
On October 04 2017 06:07 Velr wrote: Talking about it "being a cheatcode" when improving your gun to be as effective as possible mowing down people. Good stuff, keep going. I mean the point of the analogy was to explain it's not doing something you can't do without it. I could have used a more morbid example I suppose, but I don't see the point? The point of using "cheat code" was because of the audience/venue (of TL). | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On October 04 2017 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean the point of the analogy was to explain it's not doing something you can't do without it. I could have used a more morbid example I suppose, but I don't see the point? The point of using "cheat code" was because of the audience/venue (of TL). velr is an incredibly hostile poster when it comes to this subject, i would honestly ignore him. it's fine for him to make tongue in cheek remarks about mowing down herds of cows or concert goers, but god forbid you do something similar | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1924 Posts
1) "Guns are for fun. Shooting is fun. I want to fire guns for recreation.": Allright, there are shooting ranges all over the States anyway, you can shoot their guns there and when you are done, you give them back. Regular inventory and check-in/out of the gun required. You can use automatic or semi automatic there, sniper guns, whatever you want, fire away. 2) "Guns are for hunting. I wanna hunt.": All right, if you finish a hunting class, including shooting training, responsible control of wildlife, human killing and the like, you are allowed to own hunting weapons. Hunting weapons are rifles with low capacity clips and not semi-automatic. You have to register the gun and you have to store it and the ammunition seperately. 3) "Guns are for self defense. I wanna protect me from dangerous wildlife.": All right, you live in a rural area where dangerous animals are still at home, you are allowed to have pistols, but you need to have license and pass a test for responsible ownership. 4) "Guns are for self defense. I wanna protect me from criminals.": Sorry, the criminal has a right to survive an encounter with you and you are less safe for having a weapon in your house. The state decides for you, that owning a gun for self defense is against your best interest and it will take that away from you, the same way it does not allow you to take heroin. 5) "Guns protect me from the tyranny of government".: No, they simply don't. If you have to fight your government with small arms you are either a terrorist that is using violence to overthrow a legitimate government or your government stopped being legitimate. In that case, the military either defends the people and the people don't need to bear arms or the military is on the side of the illegitimate government and will murrrrrrder the people with the small arms. In both cases, having an armed population is no help. Open and concealed carry laws are obviously abolished in this scenario as well as the shoot first ask questions later laws in some states. Pros: In a vacuum, this will create comparable gun homicide rates to european countries, will result in less militarized police and therefor less police shootings. Cons: Even if your legislative would do it, actually enforcing the laws could be....difficult. A more productive first approach would probably be to prohibit the sale of all semi-automatic rifles and machine pistols to the public. Buy back all that are still around. Make it illegal to own them and crack down on those who still do. This only leaves pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns for Average Joe to defend himself from the government. Nevermind that shotguns were called inhuman in WW1, they should be in the hands of civilians as well. Then you start a crackdown on arms smuggling instead of a war on drugs and if you find someone that wants to purchase 10 assault rifles, you can get him behind bars just for that alone. | ||
|
NBird
United States24 Posts
| ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7711 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On October 04 2017 20:32 Broetchenholer wrote: 4) "Guns are for self defense. I wanna protect me from criminals.": Sorry, the criminal has a right to survive an encounter with you and you are less safe for having a weapon in your house. The state decides for you, that owning a gun for self defense is against your best interest and it will take that away from you, the same way it does not allow you to take heroin. you also have the right to survive an encounter with a criminal. you can't place the criminal aggressor on the same level as the defender. this won't even sit well with many of the "moderate" advocates of gun control. your post demonstrates a number of misconceptions with lethal self defence in the US. for one, you do not have carte blanche to shoot a criminal. nor are you allowed to "shoot first ask questions later". i bet you think "stand your ground" literally allows you to gun down anyone who looks at you strange. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=935 here is a good resource on the four requirements that you must meet before you can justify using deadly force in self defence. the fourth, which deals with a duty to retreat, doesn't apply in states with 'castle doctrine' if you are in your home. the idea is that your home should be your last refuge, and you should not have to retreat from your own home. in states that have 'stand your ground' laws, it also remove that duty to retreat requirement. but you still have to justify that you reasonably believed you were in imminent threat of death, rape, kidnap etc..., and that deadly force was necessary to protect yourself, and you did not provoke the threat or were doing something illegal yourself. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 21:03 PoulsenB wrote: Why are bumpfire stocks even legal? What kind of twisted logic one must follow to make a law that says "You can't buy full auto guns because they're too deadly for civilian use, BUT if you want to use a mechanism that greatly speeds up firing rate for semi-automatic rifles that's totally okay bro, knock yourself out"? Seriously, what the hell? Because America doesn’t pass gun laws. One of the most powerful lobbies in the US, the NRA, sole purpose in existence is to prevent any gun law from being created. Merit does not matter, they simply want guns to not be regulated. This point of view changes slightly when black people get their hands on guns. Then the NRA seems to think gun control could have some merit, if limited to people black people who committed felonies. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1924 Posts
Regarding your point about your right to survive the criminal encounter. Turns out without guns involved on both sides, you have a way better chance of surviving. In Germany, you actually have quite robust rights for self defense, you are allowed to use deadly force in a lot of cases that don't need a direct threat for life. It allows people to defend themselves for instance from robbers and should they kill by accident, they go free as long as they tried to do reasonable force. That is fine. It's just that as criminals are either not armed or don't fear themselves for their lives, they don't murder you when they actually just want your tv. They steal your tv. Then they leave. Americans kill each other in self defense because they fear there might someone be in their house with the intention to kill them. Sure, if someone broke into my house with the sole purpose of murdering me, i would really like to have a gun in the house to defend my self. That chance is fucking slim though. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10698 Posts
Burglars/Intruders won't kill you, normally they get away asap if they realise someone is home/waking up. In the US, if the pro gun advocats and some television hosts is to be trusted, they seem to not want your TV/Money, they want to rape/kill your wife, children and dog, make you watch it all and then finally kill you, after that they steal your TV and do genereal sane stuff because psychos also need money to eat. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On October 04 2017 23:08 Velr wrote: The Problem with intruders/burglars is that in the US these seem to be pictured very diffrently than around here. Burglars/Intruders won't kill you, normally they get away asap if they realise someone is home/waking up. In the US they seem to not want your TV/Money, they want to rape your wife, children, kill your dog and finally kill everyone (you last) - then they steal your TV because psychos also need to make money somehow. Well... Given that the punishments for intruding/burglary are rather lax here (even though they were recently raised to 1y prison minimum, when intruding a permanently used apartment), but dramatically increase the moment you carry any tool which could be used to threaten(this includes fake guns etc), regardless whether it is used, no burglar is stupid enough to carry a weapon, even if they could get hold of it. Oh, the moment anyone gets actively threatened, the minimum punishment jumps to 5y. And since the urgency of law enforcement to get you also correlates pretty heavily with the crime, "upgrading" your crimes is really not worth it. It just ruins the cost/risk analysis. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
They are well separated by enough water so this stuff doesn't really impact us here. And they are a good warning against any such ideas, because I'm quite sure gun ownership would be much more debated here, if we wouldn't get a monthly reminder from across the Atlantic, what it's consequences are. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2017 23:08 Velr wrote: The Problem with intruders/burglars is that in the US these seem to be pictured very diffrently than around here. Burglars/Intruders won't kill you, normally they get away asap if they realise someone is home/waking up. In the US, if the pro gun advocats and some television hosts is to be trusted, they seem to not want your TV/Money, they want to rape/kill your wife, children and dog, make you watch it all and then finally kill you, after that they steal your TV and do genereal sane stuff because psychos also need money to eat. The law views them very differently than US citizens. We design laws around the idea that breaking into a house to steal things is a minor crime. Breaking into a house at night is a more serious crime. Breaking into an occupied house with a weapon is home invasion carries a life sentence in many states. But US citizens have this idea that they can shoot anyone that comes into their home, even if those people are unarmed. People get mad when a home owner is charged with a crime for shooting a fleeing burglar. We lack the self awareness that implied threat of being shot by the home owner makes people who break into homes more likely to respond with violence. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 04 2017 22:01 Plansix wrote: Because America doesn’t pass gun laws. One of the most powerful lobbies in the US, the NRA, sole purpose in existence is to prevent any gun law from being created. Merit does not matter, they simply want guns to not be regulated. This point of view changes slightly when black people get their hands on guns. Then the NRA seems to think gun control could have some merit, if limited to people black people who committed felonies. The NRA doesn't just want gun control for black people, it's more that it's working as intended when black people get killed for exercising their 2nd amendment rights. | ||
| ||
