|
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. |
Semi autos come in a variety of shapes and sizes... in Canada, anything semi-automatic bigger than a .22 magnum semi auto (a very lethal cartridge in it's own right) has a maximum capacity of 4 round magazines. For hunters I feel this is entirely appropriate. Most .22 calibers are used for plinking / target shooting, and hence it is understandable why they are permitted a higher magazine capacity.
I own several rifles, and keep them legally locked and stored, and dread the thought of being put into a position where they might get used for anything other than hunting. I love hunting and hunt in an ethical manner (eating whatever is shot, taking only ethical shots)
Really, it does baffle me sometimes why the heck the average civilian is able to get ahold of military grade weapon which are designed expressly for the purpose of offing enemy soldiers. Makes me want to move further out away from the cities and avoid all public places.
|
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
|
On July 21 2012 11:09 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:04 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. ...What? No really. The hell did I just read? Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man. Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile. Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man. You're talking about a society that has civilian law-enforcers (possibly self-proclaimed) who carries a gun at all times. I'm sorry, but what country are you talking about again? You're saying that you are backing the current gun policies in USA, but your reasons for doing so has no foundation on how the american society actually works. You're painting up a fantasy story of ppl carrying guns when going to the cinemy. A few of the ppl in that cinema probably had, or could get access to a gun, but still they didn't bring a gun to the cinema. How do you suppose that these ppl should be convinced into always carry their firearms (to fit your reality)? And is that honestly the society that you want?, a society where 1 out of 20 or so walks around with a gun at all times (to protect society). Can't you see how ridiculous and dangerous that sounds? What if one of them misuses their power? What if their weapon gets stolen? Policemen pretty much always work in pairs in order to protect themselves, and to prevent their weapons from falling into the wrong hands. A civilian enforcer is much more vulnerable. Anyway, if you want more ppl protecting society and acting as heroes, wouldn't it be much more effective to increase the presence of the police? I mean, that's pretty much their job.
Well there are a ton of unknowable or ridiculous assumptions of facts in your post. So I have a few for you too.
-Police were ALREADY ON THE SCENE in this massacre (they had the few 'nightwatchmen' patrols at the theater, as they do at most theaters during chaotic crowds at midnight showings) and you see how much good that did. EIGHTY THREE PEOPLE SHOT. Law enforcement did jack shit....the response, while epic -usually involving swat teams, dogs, bomb gear, etc, is always way too late in these situations. The deed is done long before they lock down the scene.
-Consider the average age and maturity level of the midnight release Batman comic book movie goer. Consider the ACTUAL percentage of under-22 year olds who own guns, then consider the ACTUAL percentage of those youngins that possess a concealed carry permit, then consider the ACTUAL percentage of those young CCW concealed carry permit holders who actually carried to a fun movie with their friends in a good neighborhood.
-They can and will be convinced with more and more of these incidents. There is a town near wear I live (area where Mr. Bitter is from) where it is required that every household owns and is trained on a firearm. Crime, violence, and even accidental injury or death from misuse is near NILL in this town. Now explain that based on your assertions? Even if we go with what you're saying, it's completely untrue. The area of the country where I am from, 1 in 10 with CCW or a gun in the truck is SPARSE.... we're talking 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 own a gun. And crime is notably less in this area of the country than in other parts. You don't know anything, you're making your assertions based on nothing or based on what you've heard from someone in a different part of the country.
|
On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine
Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself.
![[image loading]](http://www.wildrivermedia.com/guns/handcannon.jpg)
Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well.
|
On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me.
I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun.
On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal?
|
On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well.
Lol... What the hell does that shoot? Mini-Cannonballs?
|
On July 21 2012 11:14 InoyouS2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:06 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:53 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 10:38 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:30 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 10:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:04 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. ...What? No really. The hell did I just read? Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man. Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile. Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man. Real life is not some fucking comic/book action movie. I don't care how good with a gun you are, you are not trained or experienced in using it in a panic situation. Which is what the post I was replying to was implying. "Some hero with a gun could have saved everyone!!!" Maybe. Very likely not though. Get off it. It's not just "some hero". As someone else mentioned, what if there were 5 of the armed citizens? You don't need to be military trained to know that as soon as someone takes a shot, he will turn to deal with it, and that is your opportunity. It's simple wolfpack instinct. The guy chose correctly walking into a movie which was probably 80% 22 and below. Who knows what his chances wouldv'e been in a movie with a few older heatpackers sitting above him. What if...-scenario's are strawmen to the umphf degree. What if everyone wore bulletproof vests and gas masks at all times? This would obviously lead to less cases where the entire audience would get gassed and the allow people to escape with less injuries. Having untrained, triggerhappy citizen carry guns would provide much better chances for fellow innocents? Because that IS what you are claiming with "You dpn't need to be military trained to know ..." Getting shot by concealing citizens is not better than getting shot by a maniac. Guess what? You still bleed red. STRAWMAN is using words like untrained or triggerhappy to describe competent gun owners and what ifs like "what if everyone who carried was a complete idiot who had no training at all and blind fired into crowds of people hoping to hit a bad guy" Attempting to put a crazed gunman on the ground at the risk of hitting innocent civilians or getting sprayed yourself is better than saying "well, since I'm not military or swat trained, I'll just roll over and hope he doesn't shoot me or hope his gun gets jammed or just pray to the Lord Jesus Christ". Again, I'm not going to play those odds, and I would suggest that any one with a calm disposition and 20/20 vision... get a permit and start carrying. Carrying is not high risk high reward situation. It's low risk (accidental discharge is highly uncommon in concealed carry permit holders) and even though the risk of ever running into a situation where you need it is extremely low, you'll always know that you have the best chance of coming out alive or saving people around you.... if you have put in the time to know how to react in this situation. You can believe they have and know, or you can say they are full of shit and won't be of any help when the time comes. Those of us who have.... we know who we are. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/ You are exactly the type of person who should not be trusted with a firearm. Also your argument is bordering insanity and unless there is an alien invasion or another one of those hill-billy apocalypse scenarios, there is no reason for anyone to be armed, as it just provokes panic and far far more violence. Perhaps also read up on Human psychology and physiology when under extreme stress and anxiety, the last thing anyone is going to be in a situation that warrants having a concealed firearm is calm and collected.
HYUK ALL PRO-GUN'RS ARE HILLBILLYS AND CONSPIRACY NUTS AMIRITE haha never heard that one before. You're so clever. :D
Alright bro, because of your supreme ability to psychoanalyze people over the internet based on a series of articulate and well thought out posts, I MUST BE VOLATILE AND UNWORTHY OF CARRYING A GUN right? I shall now surrender my gun to the state based on Inoyousc2's analysis. You're an idiot.
So what you're saying is because all humans have human psyches and physiology, that NO HUMAN can be trusted with a firearm in that situation, that no one exists who would fight the adrenaline well enough to take a steady shot, that everyone should just cower in fear or run for cover or be a meat shield for someone else right? Fucking gem right there.
|
On July 21 2012 11:39 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well. Lol... What the hell does that shoot? Mini-Cannonballs?
Yep. You dont need more.
Also, what about nonlethal weapons, like teasers and beanbag-guns and whatnot? Wouldnt they defend your home as well?
|
On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well.
Not going to lie. I kind of want one now. LOL.
|
On July 21 2012 11:32 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me. I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun. Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal?
Some people choose to hunt with AR's, maybe since it has more follow-up rounds with decent accuracy while leaving the animal relatively intact. Granted, it's unconventional, but hey, people use 7 round semi-automatic desert eagles (.50AE) for hunting too (also as a handgun it's much easier to conceal and thus even riskier).
However, a 100-round drum is definitely out of the question. Just imagine the assailant with a 10-round mag assaulting the theater vs a 100-round drum.
Edit: that image is a real handcannon lol
|
On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well.
Wow what a silly looking thing, no trigger guard or sights, if you don't misfire just handling the thing you'll likely miss and might hurt someone who isn't threatening you with bodily harm. If the only guns people had shot just a single round, the entire point of carrying them, as a deterrent and for protection, would be nearly defeated. All you'd have to do is miss once and you're screwed. Then again maybe your entire post was sarcastic, I can't tell.
|
On July 21 2012 11:18 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:12 guN-viCe wrote:
Cars are great. You can't deny that people have used them to murder people, though. Let's be accurate here. Assault rifles are great, too. But you can't deny selling one to 24 year old Med student without a license or credentials seems like a bad idea, even if they are squeaky clean. Let's not be ridiculous here. The benefit of cars far outweighs the risks they pose to society. I'm not saying that you should ban the sale of guns, it just that maybe it's time to raise the requirements of purchasing guns like these, instead of just selling them to any schmoe off the street.
I already made a post agreeing with this sentiment. It's absurd that people can buy automatic weapons without some big barriers in the way(big fees, classes, psych evaluation, accepting responsibility for any damage caused by the gun even if by another person or if it is stolen, etc). Or ban them, I'm open to the idea.
I feel you are missing my point. Guns can kill, cars can kill. Guns are a tool, cars are a tool. Ditto for axes, machetes, knives, etc.
My point is: Some people are murderers, some are not. A gun is simply more efficient for killing than other weapons are( but you can still do a TON of damage with weaker weapons).
|
On July 21 2012 11:32 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me. I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun. Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal?
semi-auto rifles and handguns are really fun to fire at targets though. i dont think responsible people should be prevented from doing stuff just cause random insane people can do messed up shit.
|
On July 21 2012 11:45 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:18 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:12 guN-viCe wrote:
Cars are great. You can't deny that people have used them to murder people, though. Let's be accurate here. Assault rifles are great, too. But you can't deny selling one to 24 year old Med student without a license or credentials seems like a bad idea, even if they are squeaky clean. Let's not be ridiculous here. The benefit of cars far outweighs the risks they pose to society. I'm not saying that you should ban the sale of guns, it just that maybe it's time to raise the requirements of purchasing guns like these, instead of just selling them to any schmoe off the street. I already made a post agreeing with this sentiment. It's absurd that people can buy automatic weapons without some big barriers in the way(big fees, classes, psych evaluation, accepting responsibility for any damage caused by the gun even if by another person or if it is stolen, etc). Or ban them, I'm open to the idea. I feel you are missing my point. Guns can kill, cars can kill. Guns are a tool, cars are a tool. Ditto for axes, machetes, knives, etc. My point is: Some people are murderers, some are not. A gun is simply more efficient for killing than other weapons are( but you can still do a TON of damage with weaker weapons).
On the point of efficiency, a 100-round assault rifle is much more efficient than a bolt-action rifle outside of single targets
|
On July 21 2012 11:43 mainerd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well. Wow what a silly looking thing, no trigger guard or sights, if you don't misfire just handling the thing you'll likely miss and might hurt someone who isn't threatening you with bodily harm. If the only guns people had shot just a single round, the entire point of carrying them, as a deterrent and for protection, would be nearly defeated. All you'd have to do is miss once and you're screwed. Then again maybe your entire post was sarcastic, I can't tell.
Maybe its because its selfmade. But the point stands as it is. You dont need sights (as was confirmed by another american in this thread, you dont need sights in "near-melee", you just point and shoot), at all(!). And why would the purpose defeated? Make sure you dont miss then, according to most of the ppl here, they can fire guns in a hysteric crowd and still guarantee to not fuckin shoot an innocent person.
But thanks, so you need more ammunition, because you actually cant really aim and may need more than one shot, is that correct?
|
On July 21 2012 11:45 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:18 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:12 guN-viCe wrote:
Cars are great. You can't deny that people have used them to murder people, though. Let's be accurate here. Assault rifles are great, too. But you can't deny selling one to 24 year old Med student without a license or credentials seems like a bad idea, even if they are squeaky clean. Let's not be ridiculous here. The benefit of cars far outweighs the risks they pose to society. I'm not saying that you should ban the sale of guns, it just that maybe it's time to raise the requirements of purchasing guns like these, instead of just selling them to any schmoe off the street. I already made a post agreeing with this sentiment. It's absurd that people can buy automatic weapons without some big barriers in the way(big fees, classes, psych evaluation, accepting responsibility for any damage caused by the gun even if by another person or if it is stolen, etc). Or ban them, I'm open to the idea. I feel you are missing my point. Guns can kill, cars can kill. Guns are a tool, cars are a tool. Ditto for axes, machetes, knives, etc. My point is: Some people are murderers, some are not. A gun is simply more efficient for killing than other weapons are( but you can still do a TON of damage with weaker weapons).
Then we're not disagreeing at all. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... ???????
|
On July 21 2012 11:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:32 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me. I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun. On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal? semi-auto rifles and handguns are really fun to fire at targets though.
I agree on that actually. But that doesnt need you to take the rifle home with you, am i wrong there?
|
On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
|
On July 21 2012 11:47 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:43 mainerd wrote:On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well. Wow what a silly looking thing, no trigger guard or sights, if you don't misfire just handling the thing you'll likely miss and might hurt someone who isn't threatening you with bodily harm. If the only guns people had shot just a single round, the entire point of carrying them, as a deterrent and for protection, would be nearly defeated. All you'd have to do is miss once and you're screwed. Then again maybe your entire post was sarcastic, I can't tell. Maybe its because its selfmade. But the point stands as it is. You dont need sights (as was confirmed by another american in this thread, you dont need sights in "near-melee", you just point and shoot), at all(!). And why would the purpose defeated? Make sure you dont miss then, according to most of the ppl here, they can fire guns in a hysteric crowd and still guarantee to not fuckin shoot an innocent person. But thanks, so you need more ammunition, because you actually cant really aim and may need more than one shot, is that correct?
Hopefully you don't *need* any ammunition at all, but if you want to raise an attacker's hopes by giving them the knowledge you've just got one single shot and that's it, you're just weakening the chances that your sidearm will be a deterrent in the first place.
|
On July 21 2012 11:49 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 21 2012 11:32 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me. I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun. On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal? semi-auto rifles and handguns are really fun to fire at targets though. I agree on that actually. But that doesnt need you to take the rifle home with you, am i wrong there?
i dont always want to shoot at targets at firing ranges though. my cousins live in the boonies and its fun as shit to drive out to the middle of nowhere and shoot their AK at a hill of dirt. that way you only have to pay for ammo and you can empty the clip as fast as you can (which almost every if not every firing range will NOT allow you to do)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
