|
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. |
On August 05 2019 23:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
So Trump just said video games are to blame (false).
Then he says we need mental health care reform.
THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY HE WANTS AN EXPEDITED DEATH PENALTY FOR THE SAME MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE.
This man is literally demented.
Donald Trump tweeted that violent video games caused yesterday's mass shooting in Toledo, Ohio. Not only is there not a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, but there wasn't even a mass shooting in Toledo.
|
On August 06 2019 01:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
So Trump just said video games are to blame (false).
Then he says we need mental health care reform.
THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY HE WANTS AN EXPEDITED DEATH PENALTY FOR THE SAME MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE.
This man is literally demented. Donald Trump tweeted that violent video games caused yesterday's mass shooting in Toledo, Ohio. Not only is there not a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, but there wasn't even a mass shooting in Toledo.
I can't even rant about how stupid Trump is for not knowing there wasn't a shooting in Toledo. These days, it's hard to keep track of them all.
|
As someone who works in Toledo, I can confirm that there was no mass shooting here.
|
On August 05 2019 06:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 02:48 thePunGun wrote:The first step to solving a problem is realizing you have a problem. Since most politicians in the US are failing to recognize, lack of gun control is the main issue here and start implementing laws to prevent the crazies to get their hands on those guns, like everey other fucking country in the world, nothing will change! It's an idiotic cycle that will never change, a whole society lying to themselves, coming up with stupid arguments like: "It's obviously a mental health problem and not a gun problem"Like seriously every other fucking country has mental health problems, but their crazies don't fucking end up shooting dozens of people like every other fucking week. Get your heads out of the gutter and be fucking honest about the real issue here!!! Alright now that I got that out of my system, I'm back to lurk mode. Enjoy the rest of your weekend guys!  Lack of gun control is one of the proposed causes of the problem, or a way of stating your solution. Imagine if you had read someone else write Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 02:48 thePunGun wrote:
The first step to solving a problem is realizing you have a problem. Since most politicians in the US are failing to recognize, lack of armed and trained civilians is the main issue here So it's back to the second half of the point Alejandrisha made Show nested quote +On August 04 2019 11:36 Alejandrisha wrote:
i love that the right uses mass shootings as as way to promote gun proliferation and the left uses it to promote gun control.
So just to let people know, identifying your cause of the problem as a key part in "realizing you have a problem" will get you nowhere. And whenever you're done lurking, I appreciate any responses. Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 01:29 micronesia wrote:
I think the confusion over the term "Assault rifle" may be what stops us from making progress on this issue for the next several decades. I'll second this, since the very passionate ShambalaWar just made this point again in his own way. I'll probably disagree with what progress will look like, but any points of agreement between us on progress are definitely hindered by "assault rifle" term use and abuse. Sermo is even justified in not going in depth; since the main ignorant opposition are secondarily rude and emotional.
I agree that my statement was overboard in it's accusations, and I've posted an apology for it. I could have stated my points without the accusation or simply asked for clarification on what Serm was actually saying.
It would also be nice if people acknowledged the emotions on both sides (or even that emotions are part of the discussion, not something to exclude), because people have emotions on both sides. If you're not emotional about the issue, it means you're arguing from the far fringes of it. The nature of the issue is emotional, it directly involves death, threat, loss. The degree to which these things directly impact you as a person, will likely dictate how emotional impacted someone is on either side of the argument.
|
You can imagine how many American citizens would be upset that their rights were now subject to others' statistical likelihoods that they use their rights effectively for their own benefit. Just imagine how many heroes of free speech there are, compared to the many that only use it to insult, demean, and spout absurdities! What if Slydie's dialogue were censored from his fellow citizens appraisal that he doesn't really use it to benefit society? It's not censorship, it's not abridgment of rights, it's the triumph of logic across all individuals.
Why would you compare the "violence" of speech to the harm caused by firearms? This is probably the worst analogy I have ever seen you come up with. Even the premise that there are so many "victims" of free speech compared to healthy discussion is highly debatable, and I can't see how limiting free speech would solve anything for those "victims" either.
I understand that loosing rights is a terrible feeling, no matter how unjustified that right was in the first place. That does not mean that i have any sympathy for gunlovers, though. If serious measures of gun-control, buybacks and cleaning up the police so people can trust them to protect them so gun violence drops to a level comparable to other western countries, people would look back at this time as a dark period that finally came to an end. The emotional scars from losing the guns, which are far from rational, will be healed soon enough, apart from fringe cases.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 06 2019 01:15 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 02:59 micronesia wrote:On August 05 2019 02:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2019 01:29 micronesia wrote:
I think the confusion over the term "Assault rifle" may be what stops us from making progress on this issue for the next several decades. That is a manufactured issue to stop your country from making progress. No other developed country is confused. It isn't a manufactured issue. It just happened in this thread again with nobody trying to make it happen. See below. On August 05 2019 01:54 ShambhalaWar wrote:On August 05 2019 01:29 micronesia wrote:
I think the confusion over the term "Assault rifle" may be what stops us from making progress on this issue for the next several decades. That is the quintessential straw man argument, and has nothing to do with many other sensical solutions like background checks and limited magazine size that never got enacted. Money is the reason nothing has happened to make progress. People with power that built an industry (for profit) around violence, abuse that industry for max profit. The secondary (side) affect to guns is that people get killed who are around them. Just like smoking, people abused that industry and continued to. I don't think you understood my post. I wasn't defeating an argument for or against guns, straw or not. Your accusations don't make sense. I'll point out what caused my concern to resurface: Sermokala said: "One Assult rifles are already heavily regulated (until you look into the decade's old regulations where they're basically like cars)..." ShambhalaWar calls virtually all of the post, presumably including the above statement bullshit, and counters with: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings"Neither of these sources are relevant to the point Sermokala made. I'm not exactly sure what ShambhalaWar's point was because it's not actually explained, despite all the rudeness, but clearly both parties are not communicating effectively at this point, and it's causing people go move further apart on the issue. We've seen this in the thread and elsewhere many times. When effective communication can not happen, the gun problem will continue. It may continue anyway, but it definitely will continue if we can't speak to the same facts. First, I want to say I appreciate your concern and I think you make a good point about the quality of communication. It is probably a good idea for me not to post near the time of any of these shootings (especially when there are two in a weekend), because there is a build up of anger and frustration for me because nothing ever gets done. It gets harder for me to communicate my point effectively when I'm emotional on this issue of guns. I've also had a history of discourse with Sermokala, maybe I don't understand him well... it's quite possible that could be happening in which case my apologies Sermokala. When someone opens a statement with "Assault rifles are already heavily regulated" ... I saw that part of the statement more that what is in parentheses, which maybe I gave it more weight. But even if I take the whole statement into account, I still don't understand it the point he is making. My point was simply that no guns in America are "heavily regulated" certainly not assault weapons, and I could have stated that better. I do think that cars are more heavily regulated as they always require a license for operation, and insurance. And saying small caliber weapons are more effective in a mass shooting feels like opinion to me, I would argue penetration does more damage because one bullet is more likely to hit more than one person. Maybe I don't get the point of his caliber statement, but it seems to me a talking point against regulating the caliber of a weapon. His points felt borderline with gun advocate talking points against things like mag capacity regulation, or really any regulation. I will say I agree with him about handguns in that much of the violence is related to handguns, but I still think high capacity semi auto rifles are a bigger more obvious problem. One person, shouldn't have the power to kill 30-50, and wound 30-200. If someone goes into a shooting with two handguns there will be damage, but not on the scale of vegas. Can you please explain to me how my statement is an example of misunderstandings around the term "assault rifle"?
We've never communicated well as I think you've always been emotional and not reading the entirety of my posts.
Assult rifles being rifles that are fully automatic are heavily regulated, by decades old standards. The regulations are there but as I stated in that sentence the regulations are a joke with the modern reality of technology. They didn't take into consideration the possibility of a bump stock or a person being able to easily and cheaply work on their own gun. To own an assult rifle you have to get with the ATF and transfer over one of the registered ones grandfathered in. That or spend an hour on a 3d printer another hour in a gun shop and suddenly every gun can technically be an assult rifle.
I went to school that had a gun smithing program and I made friends that showed me some scary stuff.
A smaller caliber is better for a massacre then a larger one. One point is recoil, an ar15 shoots .223 which is only thousandths of an inch away from the "harmless" .22 round you even see in construction. Basically you can fire a lot more with smaller rounds and lower velocity. Take said pistols 3d print super large magazines and you'll do more damage then Vegas.
Most of my anger against people preaching ignorance as a strength in this argument is beacuse the bans that they advocate won't do anything and will just lead to more bans or nothing for a few decades like the Clinton assault weapons failure.
|
On August 06 2019 01:50 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +You can imagine how many American citizens would be upset that their rights were now subject to others' statistical likelihoods that they use their rights effectively for their own benefit. Just imagine how many heroes of free speech there are, compared to the many that only use it to insult, demean, and spout absurdities! What if Slydie's dialogue were censored from his fellow citizens appraisal that he doesn't really use it to benefit society? It's not censorship, it's not abridgment of rights, it's the triumph of logic across all individuals. Why would you compare the "violence" of speech to the harm caused by firearms? This is probably the worst analogy I have ever seen you come up with. Even the premise that there are so many "victims" of free speech compared to healthy discussion is highly debatable, and I can't see how limiting free speech would solve anything for those "victims" either. I understand that loosing rights is a terrible feeling, no matter how unjustified that right was in the first place. That does not mean that i have any sympathy for gunlovers, though. If serious measures of gun-control, buybacks and cleaning up the police so people can trust them to protect them so gun violence drops to a level comparable to other western countries, people would look back at this time as a dark period that finally came to an end. The emotional scars from losing the guns, which are far from rational, will be healed soon enough, apart from fringe cases.
Oof. I’m really interested in how you got “violence” as being the mode of comparison, when I never mentioned the word or anything of the kind to make a rights comparison. Tell me if this is wishful thinking or an honest mistake on your part.
I also note that you present no means to differentiate rights subject to removal based on statistics (censor Slydie based on how he uses his right of free speech/ban self defense with a weapon based on how few effectively exercise their right), and make no attempt to defend your original post’s argument regardless.
One last restatement, since you touch on the issue: those that think some constitutional rights were never justified in the first place deserve to be viewed with suspicion in crafting sensible restrictions to curtail those rights. I say this particularly when they use and defend vague terms, claim honest discussion is concern trolling, and whine about long debates and timeframe of legislation.
|
On August 05 2019 16:33 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 13:52 L1ghtning wrote:On August 05 2019 10:43 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments. ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this? Like others pointed out (thankfully), the AR-15, many school shooters weapon of choice is a semi-automatic rifle. Huge difference! Automatic sprays bullets. I believe semi-automatic just means that it reloads automatically, as opposed to many hunting rifles, where you have to reload manually. But you only fire one bullet per click. There are bump stocks that can kind of circumvent this, which increases the firing rate a bit, but didn't Trump ban them? And you could do the same thing to a handgun btw. There is hardly any advantages to using a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 over a handgun even in a mass shooting spree. They just look cooler and have larger mags, although because so many magazine restrictions have been put in place, that is not necessarily true anymore. They also weigh a lot more and require more effort to aim with. Removing the AR-15 and all equivalent rifles from the market would force these idiots to rely exclusively on handguns, the less cool, but more efficient weapon, which would probably lead to them causing more casualties. A handgun is easier to replace in the middle of a killing spree if it malfunctions, and you just put the jammed one in your holster or backpack. A jammed rifle on the other hand would be a huge liability. You can't really leave a rifle behind if it jams, because someone could pick it up and maybe fix it and use it against you. And it's pretty tough to carry a spare rifle as a replacement. The advantage of rifles would be for more long range shooting. The Las Vegas shooter probably wouldn't have caused as many casualties if he had used a handgun instead. But your average school shooter would have probably caused more harm if they had left their rifle or rifles at home. I believe that the long range advantages of the rifle is the primary reason why they are favored by those who wants to be able to protect themselves in the case of a civil war or rogue government. Rifles are more effective than handguns at protecting the perimeter around your property from intruders. Anyway, if enough ppl resist and have the guns to protect themselves, it would certainly make it a lot harder for a rogue government to take them out. They could bomb them and kill them with chemical weapons, but at what cost? There would be a backlash and they would lose allies both from within the country and abroad. In a country where the civilians can't protect themselves, they have to rely entirely on the state for protection, so if they get on the governments bad side, they're screwed, which happened to the jews in Nazi Germany. The government cracked down very hard on jewish gun ownership before they started deporting them to the concentration camps. Unarmed civilians also can't protect themselves against an invading army. A lot of civilian casualties and rapes in wartime, committed by the invaders could have been prevented if the civilians had better means to protect themselves. This post is just wrong on so many levels. The only real difference between an AR-15 and a fully automatic rifle is the full auto capacity. However anyone with even the slightest experience from actual army service would tell you that firing a rifle on full auto is almost never done. There is a reason the M-16 (the military version of the AR-15) had the full auto setting removed in favour of a 3 round burst setting when soldiers wasted all their ammunition without hitting anything. Handguns are designed primarily to be small and easy to carry with the secondary purpose of killing man sized targets compared to assault rifles who are only designed to kill man sized targets with no trade offs. Assault rifles/carbines are widely used by all countries today and are superior to handguns in 99 % of all situations where you actually have to shoot something (but suck ass for carrying around all day...)
You haven't disproven anything and you're wrong. AR-15 isn't automatic, this means you can't burst or go full auto. And handguns are superior in school shooting environments, because there are less things that can go wrong, you will be more mobile, it's less tiring to actually fire at someone, and you're generally shooting at close range, where a handgun performs very well. I even gave an example where rifles would be better (Las Vegas), to show that what I was saying wasn't set in stone, but was generally true. I was being very fair.
|
On August 06 2019 01:36 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 06:13 Danglars wrote:On August 05 2019 02:48 thePunGun wrote:The first step to solving a problem is realizing you have a problem. Since most politicians in the US are failing to recognize, lack of gun control is the main issue here and start implementing laws to prevent the crazies to get their hands on those guns, like everey other fucking country in the world, nothing will change! It's an idiotic cycle that will never change, a whole society lying to themselves, coming up with stupid arguments like: "It's obviously a mental health problem and not a gun problem"Like seriously every other fucking country has mental health problems, but their crazies don't fucking end up shooting dozens of people like every other fucking week. Get your heads out of the gutter and be fucking honest about the real issue here!!! Alright now that I got that out of my system, I'm back to lurk mode. Enjoy the rest of your weekend guys! Lack of gun control is one of the proposed causes of the problem, or a way of stating your solution. Imagine if you had read someone else write On August 05 2019 02:48 thePunGun wrote:
The first step to solving a problem is realizing you have a problem. Since most politicians in the US are failing to recognize, lack of armed and trained civilians is the main issue here So it's back to the second half of the point Alejandrisha made On August 04 2019 11:36 Alejandrisha wrote:
i love that the right uses mass shootings as as way to promote gun proliferation and the left uses it to promote gun control.
So just to let people know, identifying your cause of the problem as a key part in "realizing you have a problem" will get you nowhere. And whenever you're done lurking, I appreciate any responses. On August 05 2019 01:29 micronesia wrote:
I think the confusion over the term "Assault rifle" may be what stops us from making progress on this issue for the next several decades. I'll second this, since the very passionate ShambalaWar just made this point again in his own way. I'll probably disagree with what progress will look like, but any points of agreement between us on progress are definitely hindered by "assault rifle" term use and abuse. Sermo is even justified in not going in depth; since the main ignorant opposition are secondarily rude and emotional. I agree that my statement was overboard in it's accusations, and I've posted an apology for it. I could have stated my points without the accusation or simply asked for clarification on what Serm was actually saying. It would also be nice if people acknowledged the emotions on both sides (or even that emotions are part of the discussion, not something to exclude), because people have emotions on both sides. If you're not emotional about the issue, it means you're arguing from the far fringes of it. The nature of the issue is emotional, it directly involves death, threat, loss. The degree to which these things directly impact you as a person, will likely dictate how emotional impacted someone is on either side of the argument.
I have since read your apology for that post and think it fairly addressed concerns that I echoed and expanded on from micronesia and sermokala.
I urge greater understanding with “acknowledging the emotions on both sides” and “if you’re not emotional about the issue, it means you’re arguing from the far fringes of it.” How often have I heard “thoughts and prayers” pilloried here as somehow responsible for the attitude towards inaction? It’s an emotional response ... entirely said to soothe emotions and express empathy. Yet the callous treatment of that emotional response works against the public showing of emotions from different cultures. Not that you didn’t feel them, rather that you knowing sharing them will create disgust and anger from internet posters. The emotional becomes politicized by people here that are in their own emotional response, and from that want to be insulting to emotions they feel aren’t proper from their cultural background. It’s a vicious cycle. I understand people that want to leap towards a political attack on an emotional response, but I hope they later realize that they discourage honest sharing of emotions with their own reactions. Call it excessive politicization of different expressions of grief/sympathy/empathy/shock, which I’m sure you will agree that more than the “far fringes” won’t share emotions when they see them only used as a political battering ram against them.
|
On August 06 2019 02:53 Sermokala wrote:
A smaller caliber is better for a massacre then a larger one. One point is recoil, an ar15 shoots .223 which is only thousandths of an inch away from the "harmless" .22 round you even see in construction. Basically you can fire a lot more with smaller rounds and lower velocity. Take said pistols 3d print super large magazines and you'll do more damage then Vegas.
A .22 bullet has something like 10 times less energy than a .223. Of course it will have less recoil. But a M16 is a military weapon, design to kill humans as efficiently as possible (or supress them depending on doctrine). Rather than using your imagination to discuss how to best kill large amounts of defenceless people, perhaps your imagination should be best used to reduce or prevent these sort of massacres in the first place.
|
On August 05 2019 19:04 bluzi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 13:52 L1ghtning wrote:On August 05 2019 10:43 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments. ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this? Like others pointed out (thankfully), the AR-15, many school shooters weapon of choice is a semi-automatic rifle. Huge difference! Automatic sprays bullets. I believe semi-automatic just means that it reloads automatically, as opposed to many hunting rifles, where you have to reload manually. But you only fire one bullet per click. There are bump stocks that can kind of circumvent this, which increases the firing rate a bit, but didn't Trump ban them? And you could do the same thing to a handgun btw. There is hardly any advantages to using a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 over a handgun even in a mass shooting spree. They just look cooler and have larger mags, although because so many magazine restrictions have been put in place, that is not necessarily true anymore. They also weigh a lot more and require more effort to aim with. Removing the AR-15 and all equivalent rifles from the market would force these idiots to rely exclusively on handguns, the less cool, but more efficient weapon, which would probably lead to them causing more casualties. A handgun is easier to replace in the middle of a killing spree if it malfunctions, and you just put the jammed one in your holster or backpack. A jammed rifle on the other hand would be a huge liability. You can't really leave a rifle behind if it jams, because someone could pick it up and maybe fix it and use it against you. And it's pretty tough to carry a spare rifle as a replacement. The advantage of rifles would be for more long range shooting. The Las Vegas shooter probably wouldn't have caused as many casualties if he had used a handgun instead. But your average school shooter would have probably caused more harm if they had left their rifle or rifles at home. I believe that the long range advantages of the rifle is the primary reason why they are favored by those who wants to be able to protect themselves in the case of a civil war or rogue government. Rifles are more effective than handguns at protecting the perimeter around your property from intruders. Anyway, if enough ppl resist and have the guns to protect themselves, it would certainly make it a lot harder for a rogue government to take them out. They could bomb them and kill them with chemical weapons, but at what cost? There would be a backlash and they would lose allies both from within the country and abroad. In a country where the civilians can't protect themselves, they have to rely entirely on the state for protection, so if they get on the governments bad side, they're screwed, which happened to the jews in Nazi Germany. The government cracked down very hard on jewish gun ownership before they started deporting them to the concentration camps. Unarmed civilians also can't protect themselves against an invading army. A lot of civilian casualties and rapes in wartime, committed by the invaders could have been prevented if the civilians had better means to protect themselves. You my friend never actually used any type of weapon didn't you ? if you never used a rifle in your life please use the word " I think , I believe , I guess" , because if you ever used an Automatic weapon in your life you would KNOW that you will empty a clip on a target and hit 2 bullets out of your magazine max , you will also KNOW that pistols are MUCH harder to use In anything but close quarters and even that is not true if you have any experience in using rifles, not all rifles are "let me sit in the grass and shoot ppl , fortnite like" , we would practice months taking over houses with rifles , M4A1 to be specific , never did I felt a hand gun would be better when not taking into account collateral damage , bullets hit WAY harder , better penetration and better accuracy in short/mid range , I would say that if you want to spare lives you will use pistols , as they have less collateral damage and has lower impact on hit. But I believe you would agree that a mass shooter does not really care about collateral damage , he would like to cause more if possible with each shot. Also never in my life Ive used anything but semi auto on the M4A1. Just FYI the ONLY time you will ever use the automatic mode is when charging a fortified enemy , you will shoot in high bursts to create chaos and try to reach their position in time before your platoon is dead. Reading the rest of your post , I can't believe you actually believe that a rogue government will have any issues taking out civilians if they had personal guns , again , you never in your life were part of a real army , let me assure you that NO neighbourhood can withstand the US army (I was not in the US army but we had enough drills together so I can be sure of that part , well organised trained disciplined infantry will be enough for the avg Joe 20 times over). Also what invaders are we talking about here ? who is likely to invade the US ? dont you feel that you are being tricked to believe there is a real need to have guns to defend from phantom threats ? if I was a US citizen the least of my worries was a foreign invasion........
Why are you responding to me? Respond to all the ppl who say that we have to ban automatic rifles. I just showed that automatic rifles aren't really used in these shootings. I never claimed that firing a fully automatic clip all in one go was advisable. It's your opinion that the a rifle is better than a handgun. I have a different opinion. You're dealing in your playtime fake-war scenario where you are a group of ppl, where you have backup, and where the ones carrying the weapons are experts and are very fit, where your opponents are carrying weapons as well, and where the impact of the bullet can help you a lot. I'm talking about a scenario where a nerdy unfit 20 year old kid have 10 minutes to kill as many disarmed civilians as possible. In that case, a handgun is better imo. Not always but generally.
|
On August 06 2019 03:42 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 16:33 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 05 2019 13:52 L1ghtning wrote:On August 05 2019 10:43 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2019 09:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On August 05 2019 09:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 05 2019 09:43 Sermokala wrote:
I remember cleraly when we had the one good discussion about abortion in the us politics thread It came down a lot to the arguments about the language was the real arguments people were having.
If we can't have a reasonable understanding of the basic words to use when discussing gun control we can't discuss gun control.
TLDR: Assult weapons are fake news. What about assault weapons though? assault weapons have no purpose other than exterminating mass amounts of people in the smallest amount of time possible. makes no sense why these are available to the layman but the gun lobby is stronk and there are enough loonies in the us that believe the need to protect themselves vs. the gubment. and there are so many in civilian hands for no reason. it's true that some one with a similar motive could kill with a smaller gun but the usage of assault weapons is really fucked up. the cops are outgunned until swat arrives. like why can't people just have shot guns for home protection and be done with it. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It has no specific definition and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the conversation. The gun lobby didn't invent the term. I'll leave you to make the obvious arguments. ok how about i replace 'assault weapons' with ar-15s and other automatic rifles? why the need to nitpick this? Like others pointed out (thankfully), the AR-15, many school shooters weapon of choice is a semi-automatic rifle. Huge difference! Automatic sprays bullets. I believe semi-automatic just means that it reloads automatically, as opposed to many hunting rifles, where you have to reload manually. But you only fire one bullet per click. There are bump stocks that can kind of circumvent this, which increases the firing rate a bit, but didn't Trump ban them? And you could do the same thing to a handgun btw. There is hardly any advantages to using a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 over a handgun even in a mass shooting spree. They just look cooler and have larger mags, although because so many magazine restrictions have been put in place, that is not necessarily true anymore. They also weigh a lot more and require more effort to aim with. Removing the AR-15 and all equivalent rifles from the market would force these idiots to rely exclusively on handguns, the less cool, but more efficient weapon, which would probably lead to them causing more casualties. A handgun is easier to replace in the middle of a killing spree if it malfunctions, and you just put the jammed one in your holster or backpack. A jammed rifle on the other hand would be a huge liability. You can't really leave a rifle behind if it jams, because someone could pick it up and maybe fix it and use it against you. And it's pretty tough to carry a spare rifle as a replacement. The advantage of rifles would be for more long range shooting. The Las Vegas shooter probably wouldn't have caused as many casualties if he had used a handgun instead. But your average school shooter would have probably caused more harm if they had left their rifle or rifles at home. I believe that the long range advantages of the rifle is the primary reason why they are favored by those who wants to be able to protect themselves in the case of a civil war or rogue government. Rifles are more effective than handguns at protecting the perimeter around your property from intruders. Anyway, if enough ppl resist and have the guns to protect themselves, it would certainly make it a lot harder for a rogue government to take them out. They could bomb them and kill them with chemical weapons, but at what cost? There would be a backlash and they would lose allies both from within the country and abroad. In a country where the civilians can't protect themselves, they have to rely entirely on the state for protection, so if they get on the governments bad side, they're screwed, which happened to the jews in Nazi Germany. The government cracked down very hard on jewish gun ownership before they started deporting them to the concentration camps. Unarmed civilians also can't protect themselves against an invading army. A lot of civilian casualties and rapes in wartime, committed by the invaders could have been prevented if the civilians had better means to protect themselves. This post is just wrong on so many levels. The only real difference between an AR-15 and a fully automatic rifle is the full auto capacity. However anyone with even the slightest experience from actual army service would tell you that firing a rifle on full auto is almost never done. There is a reason the M-16 (the military version of the AR-15) had the full auto setting removed in favour of a 3 round burst setting when soldiers wasted all their ammunition without hitting anything. Handguns are designed primarily to be small and easy to carry with the secondary purpose of killing man sized targets compared to assault rifles who are only designed to kill man sized targets with no trade offs. Assault rifles/carbines are widely used by all countries today and are superior to handguns in 99 % of all situations where you actually have to shoot something (but suck ass for carrying around all day...) You haven't disproven anything and you're wrong. AR-15 isn't automatic, this means you can't burst or go full auto. And handguns are superior in school shooting environments, because there are less things that can go wrong, you will be more mobile, it's less tiring to actually fire at someone, and you're generally shooting at close range, where a handgun performs very well. I even gave an example where rifles would be better (Las Vegas), to show that what I was saying wasn't set in stone, but was generally true. I was being very fair.
First of all you didn't read my post properly. Also I may be wrong but you come across as someone who has only fired guns in videogames.
|
Prayers go out to family & friends effected by all of this madness...
|
On August 06 2019 04:04 GGzerG wrote:
Prayers go out to family & friends effected by all of this madness... Can't tell if sarcastic or not.
|
On August 06 2019 04:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 04:04 GGzerG wrote:
Prayers go out to family & friends effected by all of this madness... Can't tell if sarcastic or not.
Why not both at the same time?
|
Northern Ireland25246 Posts
On August 06 2019 03:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2019 02:53 Sermokala wrote:
A smaller caliber is better for a massacre then a larger one. One point is recoil, an ar15 shoots .223 which is only thousandths of an inch away from the "harmless" .22 round you even see in construction. Basically you can fire a lot more with smaller rounds and lower velocity. Take said pistols 3d print super large magazines and you'll do more damage then Vegas. A .22 bullet has something like 10 times less energy than a .223. Of course it will have less recoil. But a M16 is a military weapon, design to kill humans as efficiently as possible (or supress them depending on doctrine). Rather than using your imagination to discuss how to best kill large amounts of defenceless people, perhaps your imagination should be best used to reduce or prevent these sort of massacres in the first place.
I don’t see how he isn’t using his imagination in that sense, albeit not in a direct way.
Military weapons are designed to kill other humans as effectively as possible, but as part of established military doctrine, generally speaking against other military forces. They have a stopping power that is overkill in a scenario where one is shooting people who aren’t wearing armour, at relatively close ranges etc.
Sure it’s a morbid consideration, but one worth making anyway in ascertaining the worth of banning certain weapons that arguably aren’t even the optimal tool of choice in the pursuit of the thing we’re societally trying to prevent.
Of course not all theorycrafting is at all sensible to graft onto the actual world, one example being that in certain mass shootings it was a better idea for everyone to bumrush the shooter than sit tight. True in some instances but preposterous to advocate as a strategy that citizens might consider doing.
|
Instead of discussing how best to kill as many unarmed people as possible with guns, we should be discussing how best to prevent that sort of scenario from occurring and to reduce the death count. You cannot 3D print gun barrels of their breech, nor their cartridges.
|
Trump's right, it's obviously video games, the internet and mental illness that cause all this.
Because none of this happens in other countrys and no other country than the US has uncontrolled access to video games and the internet, plus the mental health problems of the US are vastly different from any other country out there.
Giving every good guy a gun would make such an enormous difference.
Just imagine every Fortnite kid out there with a gun, it's probably the best thing we could do. Think about all the mass shootings that could have been prevented! It's really a no brainer at this point. Arming teachers is a big mistake, they don't have the aim or reflexes to deal with a shooter quickly enough. Just imagine several hundred armed kids, what a glorious sight to behold, shooters would clearly be outmatched and think twice before entering a school armed to the teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
