• Gun Control: Where do you draw the line?
    964 replies, posted
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38873845]I imagine the aftermath of Aurora would have been much different if the shooter wasn't using a 100-round drum on his AR-15. It is absolutely absurd that they are legal.[/QUOTE] Did you even bother to look at the video as to how easy it is to change magazines? Also, those 100 round drum mags are unreliable, it probably jammed or something
[QUOTE=download;38873868]Did you even bother to look at the video as to how easy it is to change magazines? Also, those 100 round drum mags are unreliable, it probably jammed or something[/QUOTE] Let's assume that even among the chaos, darkness, adrenaline, and focus on the shooter's targets, along with the assumption that he/she is even trained to reload magazines that fast (doubtful), that they are able to reload that quickly consistently. It still means multiple times where the shooter could be firing bullets and isn't. Those unfired bullets are lives saved. Meanwhile, 100 round drum magazines serve basically no real purpose other than you don't want to bother reloading. The fact that they are unreliable means jackshit when it is still very possible to go through all 100 rounds. Lives saved trumps the minor inconvenience of reloading at the target range. EDIT: The Tucson shooter used a high-capacity magazine on his Glock and was only wrestled to the ground after he stopped shooting. If he had a normal capacity magazine, lives would have been spared, or at least injuries prevented.
You realize you don't need to look to change a magazine, right? And on an AR platform, it can be accomplished in under 3 seconds, because he sure as hell isn't going to care about saving his empty mag. His drum mag jamming probably saved more lives than if he'd used 4 stick mags and reloaded in between each of them.
[QUOTE=aydin690;38871906]I'm talking from experience, i've been fortunate enough to have a wealthy family so i travel a lot.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. [QUOTE=aydin690;38871906]Have you ever been to South Georgia? How about rural Mississippi, Kentucky and Arkansas? I've seen more misery and poverty in those places than in South American and South East Asian villages.[/QUOTE] I live in rural Virginia, I don't think where I live is a shithole, but to each their own opinion I suppose. [QUOTE=aydin690;38871906]But i've been in a lot of sketchy shit in a lot of rough parts of the world and not once i thought a weapon would have helped the situation.[/QUOTE] I think that if the people at Ft. Hood in Texas were allowed to have weapons on the base, Nidal Hasan would not have been able to slaughter 13 people and injur 30 on November 5, 2009. This has to do with "gun-free" zones. The number of mass murder incident in the United States fell from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the 2000s. Keep in mind President Bill Clinton issued an assault weapons ban in the year 1994 which expired in 2004(I believe.) A 1999 study showed that mass murder shootings are more likely to occur in "gun-free" areas where the shooter knows no one can be armed to fight back. Infact, with the exception of one incident in 2011, every mass murder shooting since 1950 where at least 3 people have been killed has occured in a "gun-free" zone. The one exception was in Tuscon, Arizona on the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Source: [URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#[/URL] [QUOTE=aydin690;38871906]And now people can riot against the US military and overthrow the government?[/QUOTE] Well riotting isn't the correct term, but in the event of the federal government going rouge, the people are legaly allowed to overthrow them. The United States armed forces take an oath to uphold the constitution, so if the federal government takes absolute power, the armed forces are supposed to be on the side of the people. I believe the federal government has become bloated, but to call it rouge, in my opinion, would be ludicrous. [QUOTE=aydin690;38871906]Prove a known fact? Jefferson thought the dead should not rule the living, thus constitutions should expire frequently.[/QUOTE] That may have been his [I]opinion[/I] however there is a reason the framers made the constitution amenable. [QUOTE=aydin690;38871906]The fact that you equate having 3 meals a day, clothing, and electricity to owning a gun is kind of worrying.[/QUOTE] You simply said that modern Americans don't need guns to survive like they might have when the country was "untamed". I was simply suggesting that people do not need 3 meals a day, clothing, or electricity to survive. Nor do we need guns to survive.
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38873903]Let's assume that even among the chaos, darkness, adrenaline, and focus on the shooter's targets, along with the assumption that he/she is even trained to reload magazines that fast (doubtful), that they are able to reload that quickly consistently. It still means multiple times where the shooter could be firing bullets and isn't. Those unfired bullets are lives saved. Meanwhile, 100 round drum magazines serve basically no real purpose other than you don't want to bother reloading. The fact that they are unreliable means jackshit when it is still very possible to go through all 100 rounds. Lives saved trumps the minor inconvenience of reloading at the target range. EDIT: The Tucson shooter used a high-capacity magazine on his Glock and was only wrestled to the ground after he stopped shooting. If he had a normal capacity magazine, lives would have been spared, or at least injuries prevented.[/QUOTE] You don't need special training to do quick mag changes. If I spent a few hours practising I would have it down pat [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38874068]You realize you don't need to look to change a magazine, right? And on an AR platform, it can be accomplished in under 3 seconds, because he sure as hell isn't going to care about saving his empty mag. His drum mag jamming probably saved more lives than if he'd used 4 stick mags and reloaded in between each of them.[/QUOTE] 3 seconds? try half that
Thanks, but I've got my guns perfectly under control. They're in a safe, out of reach of children, irresponsible manchildren, and premeditating murderers.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38871287][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ignlbn1-wg0[/media] none of these people are competitive shooters[/QUOTE] That's a straight-pull bolt. They are fairly rare and aren't exactly what would be referred to as a true bolt action.
The K-31 and K-11 are both fairly common military surplus guns, and both cost under $500. Then Browning makes a series of rim fire straight-pulls called the T-Bolt, and .22 Magnum is one of the available chamberings, a weak round, yes, but like .223 certainly no joke.
I bet I could fire a Lee Enfield as fast as the straight pull
[QUOTE=download;38873868]Did you even bother to look at the video as to how easy it is to change magazines? Also, those 100 round drum mags are unreliable, it probably jammed or something[/QUOTE] It did jam, actually. Which probably saved a few lives.
I used to be in agreement with the principle of 2nd amendment rules, devised as an antitode to the oppression experienced by British rule. However my views have now changed. [QUOTE=UziXxX;38874099] Well riotting isn't the correct term, but in the event of the federal government going rouge, the people are legaly allowed to overthrow them. The United States armed forces take an oath to uphold the constitution, so if the federal government takes absolute power, the armed forces are supposed to be on the side of the people. I believe the federal government has become bloated, but to call it rouge, in my opinion, would be ludicrous. [/QUOTE] This may be the principle, but it does not bear out like this. In the aftermath of katrina, I recall seeing news footage of a hurricane ravaged property, with words to the effect 'have shotgun, will use it' spraypainted on the garage door, people clearly making use of their 2nd amendment rights to defend their property from looting during mass social breakdown. The government response was to send in teams of agents to disarm citizens.
I don't think taking guns away will prevent violence like that school shooting from happening, it will still happen, it just wont be with a gun, it'll be with a sledgehammer or baseball bat or something like that. But, if people want the guns taken away, so be it, I don't really care, people die all the time anyway, not like its a big deal. Easy come, easy go.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38877793]I don't think taking guns away will prevent violence like that school shooting from happening, it will still happen, it just wont be with a gun, it'll be with a sledgehammer or baseball bat or something like that. But, if people want the guns taken away, so be it, I don't really care, people die all the time anyway, not like its a big deal. Easy come, easy go.[/QUOTE] In places with strict gun control it [i]does[/i] happen with other weapons. In China, for instance, they use cleavers instead. Honestly it doesn't make me feel any better knowing a guy killed a bunch of kids with a cleaver and not a gun. The big problem isn't the tools, it's the people. Society is only ever as civilized as the people living in it. Any good solution should deal with the problem, but it needs to have minimal impacts on legitimate owners. There's simply no reason to paint people who own .22 target rifles as savage criminals, and even less reason to compel them to give those rifles up.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38877793]I don't think taking guns away will prevent violence like that school shooting from happening, it will still happen, it just wont be with a gun, it'll be with a sledgehammer or baseball bat or something like that. But, if people want the guns taken away, so be it, I don't really care, people die all the time anyway, not like its a big deal. Easy come, easy go.[/QUOTE] I would like to watch somebody kill 27 people in 3 mins with a sledgehammer or baseball bat. Sure, you can kill somebody with a spoon too if you really tried but it won't be as effective because that's not their intended purpose. Guns on the other hand...
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38874346]That's a straight-pull bolt. They are fairly rare and aren't exactly what would be referred to as a true bolt action.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ1HGUIpl5w[/media] fast
[QUOTE=aydin690;38878787]I would like to watch somebody kill 27 people in 3 mins with a sledgehammer or baseball bat. Sure, you can kill somebody with a spoon too if you really tried but it won't be as effective because that's not their intended purpose. Guns on the other hand...[/QUOTE] Guns are not the problem, guns are completely harmless. Its the bullet that is dangerous, and even then, its only when somebody is using it. Stop all production of bullets, and any materials used to make them, and eventually the use of firearms will decrease. The only people that will be able to use them are the ones rich enough to get the resources and make their own. You cant rid of the guns, but you can get rid of what makes them so dangerous in the first place, if you feel like they are such a problem. But like I said earlier, things like this will still happen, people will still die and murders will still be committed, I guarantee it.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38878958]only people that will be able to use them are the ones rich enough to get the resources and make their own. [/QUOTE] reloading (basically making your own) is cheaper than buying commercial ammo
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38880516]reloading (basically making your own) is cheaper than buying commercial ammo[/QUOTE] Yeah but if your unable to get gunpowder, new bullets, etc. Then its not possible. Plus, I think the bullet casing gets weaker with every use, which over time would render it a hazard. I'm really sure on the whole reloading process, we had a bucket full of cases we were going to reload but my parents never got around to doing so, so I was never taught.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38881049]Yeah but if your unable to get gunpowder, new bullets, etc. Then its not possible. Plus, I think the bullet casing gets weaker with every use, which over time would render it a hazard. I'm really sure on the whole reloading process, we had a bucket full of cases we were going to reload but my parents never got around to doing so, so I was never taught.[/QUOTE] people can cast their own bullets and manufacture gunpowder substitutes (afaik old film could be used with other substances) ammunition isn't hard to manufacture at all. Also you'd totally get rid of the entire market surrounding black powder shooting and whatnot
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38881363]people can cast their own bullets and manufacture gunpowder substitutes (afaik old film could be used with other substances) ammunition isn't hard to manufacture at all. Also you'd totally get rid of the entire market surrounding black powder shooting and whatnot[/QUOTE] There always seems to be around, eh? That's why I think it's so stupid that everyone is freaking out over how guns should be banned, and that its the only solution. I'm mostly going off of "well if you really think it needs to be done..." type of attitude. I really don't want guns to banned or anything like that.
[QUOTE=RidleySmash;38881565]There always seems to be around, eh? That's why I think it's so stupid that everyone is freaking out over how guns should be banned, and that its the only solution. I'm mostly going off of "well if you really think it needs to be done..." type of attitude. I really don't want guns to banned or anything like that.[/QUOTE] I'm for limited gun control but I think bullet control is just stupid and silly.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38881748]I'm for limited gun control but I think bullet control is just stupid and silly.[/QUOTE] Yeah, thanks.(sarcasm)
[QUOTE=matt.ant;38865039]Just out of curiosity, would it not be possible for the American government to just change or disregard the amendment? We have rights in Europe but they're always being changed, David Cameron's plan is to change our human rights to stop prisoners voting and so foreign criminals can be deported Times are changing, maybe your rights should change too?[/QUOTE] Why would the government disregard the Amendment against illegal search and seizure?
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38881748]I'm for limited gun control but I think bullet control is just stupid and silly.[/QUOTE] +1 You do realize someone who plans on killing tons of people and then offing themselves is not going to care whether the bullet costs $.50 per round or $50.00 bucks a round they wont have to deal with debt, credit, paying it back. They will be dead and their goal will be accomplished.
[QUOTE=G12-A5;38888085]+1 You do realize someone who plans on killing tons of people and then offing themselves is not going to care whether the bullet costs $.50 per round or $50.00 bucks a round they wont have to deal with debt, credit, paying it back. They will be dead and their goal will be accomplished.[/QUOTE] Bullet control would work if only one person knew how to make bullets and he sold each one for $10,000. Then again the preconditions to create that kind of world, and the results thereafter would be terrifying to say the least.
[QUOTE=Electroholic;38873181]Ok, so some Semi-autos are allowed, but the maximum legal magazine size for a semi auto is 5 rounds. Have fun trying to massacre a room of 30 people with 5 bullets.[/QUOTE] So killing 30 people is bad, but killing only 5, possibly more due to penetration, is just fine?
I think sports cars are pretty analogous to firearms: they have no use other than fun/showing off/etc., There is no legitimate need for them, and they are more dangerous than a slower car. Another example: junk/fast food. Obesity kills more people in the US than guns by a HUGE margin. I guess the solution would be to ban any high calorie food. I can think of TONS of things that should be banned if the only criterion is that they are dangerous and aren't necessary.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38894435]I think sports cars are pretty analogous to firearms: they have no use other than fun/showing off/etc., There is no legitimate need for them, and they are more dangerous than a slower car. Another example: junk/fast food. Obesity kills more people in the US than guns by a HUGE margin. I guess the solution would be to ban any high calorie food. I can think of TONS of things that should be banned if the only criterion is that they are dangerous and aren't necessary.[/QUOTE] Guns are important because all order is ultimately upheld by force.
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;38895583]Guns are important because all order is ultimately upheld by force.[/QUOTE] I'm just taking the argument to it's full extent. If something should be banned if it is dangerous and unnecessary than many other things should also be banned. I, personally, don't want to ban the ownership of guns.
-snip- Lol turns out that's not a true quote. You can rate my post dumb now :P
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.