Multiple marines, police officers wounded and killed in attack in Chattanooga, TN
219 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bdd458;48225103]@Grenadiac
Oh dear lord if miltary rifles like the 98 Mauser or Lee Enfield were ever banned there goes my dream of being a WWI Reenactors.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, K98s should be extra-banned. Not only are they military rifles, they were used by NAZIS. Can you imagine if a gun like that got out of its case and started shooting up Jews?
[QUOTE=OvB;48224286]There's talk of an isis affiliated tweet mentioning Chattanooga just 15 minutes prior, but have yet to see said tweet.[/QUOTE]
tbh isis would claim the housing crisis was caused by an affiliate if they could
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225061]But that doesn't discredit anything I have to say??? FP has this allergic reaction to anecdotes being used in arguments and it's hilarious. I'm not arbitrarily biased, I'm talking from experience. If you could just call anyone you disagreed with biased and completely destroy their argument that would be fucking retarded and absolutely no discourse would ever happen.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"]you [I]are[/I] biased.[/URL] we are [I]all[/I] biased. if you want valid evidence, go for expert testimony, statistics, studies. at least those are measures with a degree of objectivity and falsifiability, rather than unverifiable personal stories based on subjective perceptions and interpretations.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225032]You could say the same about most hunting rifles which are typically derivatives of the Mauser action. Would you ban all military firearms, including antique pieces and sentimental bringbacks, or just the ones that look scary to you? You are aware of course that the AR-15 platform is over 50 years old...
My AR-15 is as civilian as my Remington 700, also a civilian version of a military rifle.[/QUOTE]
We could argue my dad's caplock musket is a military rifle but that's getting a bit ridiculous. The difference being bolt actions are completely sufficient hunting tools, but much less evolved for killing humans specifically. What exactly does the age of it have to do with anything?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225086]The Mauser 98 is a military rifle. Most commercially available hunting rifles are closely related to that action, many being just .308 copies.
My AR-15 was built for the civilian market with civilian parts and sold in a civilian store to a civilian (me). It is a civilian rifle.
My 1918 Lee Enfield, however, is through-and-through a military rifle. Built in a military factory in Australia, issued to multiple militaries, and used in multiple wars. Would you ban it?[/QUOTE]
I think you are trying to put me up as a straw man of anti-gun people. Try and refute what I say rather than come up with things to disagree with me on that I don't even disagree about. As I said earlier a long gun ban does not make much sense because FACTUALLY they do not contribute to a large amount of gun violence. Pistols FACTUALLY contribute a large part of gun violence. I would ban pistols before I banned long guns.
I own a bunch of AR-15's and AR-15 variants. They were my father's and I grew up with them around and shooting them. Target shooting is fun. I don't disagree with that but that doesn't mean everyone should have a right to own them or that they are not dangerous.
[QUOTE=nox;48225140]The difference being bolt actions are completely sufficient hunting tools, but much less evolved for killing humans specifically. What exactly does the age of it have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]
My point is "military rifle" in the way it's being used is an empty term and saying "we should ban military rifles like AR-15s" would encompass a large number of historic muskets, bolt actions and even modern hunting rifles based on those actions.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48225142]I think you are trying to put me up as a straw man of anti-gun people. Try and refute what I say rather than come up with things to disagree with me on that I don't even disagree about. As I said earlier a long gun ban does not make much sense because FACTUALLY they do not contribute to a large amount of gun violence. Pistols FACTUALLY contribute a large part of gun violence. I would ban pistols before I banned long guns.
I own a bunch of AR-15's and AR-15 variants. They were my father's and I grew up with them around and shooting them. Target shooting is fun. I don't disagree with that but that doesn't mean everyone should have a right to own them or that they are not dangerous.[/QUOTE]
I don't think everyone should be able to own firearms. There's no doubt that some people shouldn't have them. I would not be opposed to a psych eval and mandatory safety courses for new gun owners. I am however opposed to serial registration (leads to confiscation), total confiscation, and criminalization of innocent gun owners.
[QUOTE=nox;48225140]What exactly does the age of it have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]
And what exactly does being derived from a military rifle have to do with anything?
Jack shit, that's what. It may be ~evolved to kill humans~, but it's still used in a ridiculously small amount of crimes.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48225164]My point is "military rifle" in the way it's being used is an empty term and saying "we should ban military rifles like AR-15s" would encompass antique bolt actions and modern hunting rifles.
I don't think everyone should be able to own firearms. There's no doubt that some people shouldn't have them. I would not be opposed to a psych eval and mandatory safety courses for new gun owners. I am however opposed to serial registration (leads to confiscation), total confiscation, and criminalization of innocent gun owners.[/QUOTE]
You're back to arguing semantics rather than trying to come up with facts that disprove the points people try and make. I don't think you want your opinion changed so there isn't much I can say that will change it. Please try and read up on the issue though. Read some studies about gun violence and gun legislation rather than going off anecdotes and feelings.
You'll find a lot of the legislation in the US sucks but that's more of a fault of us being too afraid to do any real regulation than it is that legislation as a whole is ineffectual.
[QUOTE=nox;48225140]We could argue my dad's caplock musket is a military rifle but that's getting a bit ridiculous. The difference being bolt actions are completely sufficient hunting tools, but much less evolved for killing humans specifically. What exactly does the age of it have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]
Well, they were originally made for killing humans and have been turned into sporting guns... SAME WITH THE AR-15!
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48225212]You're back to arguing semantics rather than trying to come up with facts that disprove the points people try and make. I don't think you want your opinion changed so there isn't much I can say that will change it. Please try and read up on the issue though. Read some studies about gun violence and gun legislation rather than going off anecdotes and feelings.
You'll find a lot of the legislation in the US sucks but that's more of a fault of us being too afraid to do any real regulation than it is that legislation as a whole is ineffectual.[/QUOTE]
You want to ban the AR-15 based on misinformation. When corrected on that misinformation you cry about semantics.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224537]However it's incredibly easy to get a collection from private purchases and these are hardly regulated.[/QUOTE]
What's the context of private sellers? I thought that all dealers, especially online ones, were required to own an FFL license.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=valkery;48224680]Let's just look at some graphs!
-snip-
These are graphs of firearm death rates in Australia pre and post the gun ban.
Also, the report this is attached to states that zero mass shootings have occurred in Australia post-ban.
[URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170183[/URL][/QUOTE]
How many firearms did they have prior to the ban? Was it nearly as large in comparison to the 281 million guns in the US?
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48225324]What's the context of private sellers? I thought that all dealers, especially online ones, were required to own an FFL license.[/QUOTE]
"Dude, you should totally sell me that gun yo."
"Sure thing bro; 200 bucks."
"Here you go bro"
money exchange
gun exchange
gun sold legally.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48225324]What's the context of private sellers? I thought that all dealers, especially online ones, were required to own an FFL license.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
How many firearms did they have prior to the ban? Was it nearly as large in comparison to the 281 million guns in the US?[/QUOTE]
No, it was nearer to 3.5 million. And even with number of citizens taken into account, they were still only at .15 guns per citizen as compared to the US's .88. So yeah, gun culture is different, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the statistics coming out of their country entirely.
[QUOTE=valkery;48225337]"Dude, you should totally sell me that gun yo."
"Sure thing bro; 200 bucks."
"Here you bro"
money exchange
gun exchange
gun sold legally.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
No, it was nearer to 3.5 million. And even with number of citizens taken into account, they were still only at .15 guns per citizen as compared to the US's .88. So yeah, gun culture is different, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the statistics coming out of their country entirely.[/QUOTE]
i think that the most reasonable ground that the US can reach on the gun control debate is restrictions, rather than outright bans.
with the example of connecticut in mind, permit-to-purchase restrictions, combined with community-based crime-fighting efforts, outreach/public-relations improvements, and targeted social reforms to combat the ills underpinning violent crime (i.e. socioeconomic conditions leading to gang violence) seem like the best way forward.
[QUOTE=joes33431;48225499]i think that the most reasonable ground that the US can reach on the gun control debate is restrictions, rather than outright bans.
with the example of connecticut in mind, permit-to-purchase restrictions, combined with community-based crime-fighting efforts, outreach/public-relations improvements, and targeted social reforms to combat the ills underpinning violent crime (i.e. socioeconomic conditions leading to gang violence) seem like the best way forward.[/QUOTE]
But that doesn't cater to the US mentality of "all or nothing" when it comes to this sort of thing. We all hate Obamacare. The left for not being enough and misdirected. The right for it being government healthcare at all.
Same with guns. The left will always want total bans and the right will always want less restrictions, and so we're going to be stuck in this weird limbo where neither side is satisfied and both sides are getting shot.
We're trying to create a society that's free of mass murder and irresponsibility, and that's not possible.
The best solution is to put restrictions on handguns and full/semi automatics, let pro-gun people have fancy grips and slings and whatnot, require mental health evals for people purchasing new guns, cover "mass shootings" less often and with more detachment (because it's not "mass" if it's four people) and then sit back and accept that we've done all we legitimately can to mitigate the situation without pissing off more than half the population.
[QUOTE=Aide;48224430]Im worried about gun violence for fucks sakes because of this article.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i'm all for background checks at minimum and that sort of shit in every sale but it's not going to reduce the number of guns already out there and the effect it'd have on criminal firearm ownership would probably be negligible at best. Harsher restrictions on inconsequential shit like mag capacity and pistol grips (like fucking really) only harm the vast majority of gun owners who have them for hunting, target shooting and that thing called fun, oh and the manufacturers and retailers of those parts. The type of stock and the capacity of a mag aren't going to affect some mad cunt's ability or willingness to shoot up a cinema or school, and outside of mass shootings the most common firearms used in crimes are handguns, usually illegally acquired ones at that.
I typed this post with the onscreen keyboard so you better fucking goddamn appreciate it
Well this is going to be fun.
I was watching CNN and guy says, "We should expect more, this is how radical Islam operates."
Yeah, nice gun debate going on and all, but is there any news on who actually did this now?
I don't see how making me go through a background check to buy my Grandpas old Ithaca 37 would prevent crime. I don't see how preventing private sales would prevent gun crime at all, to be honest.
I don't see how banning "EBUL M855 ASSAULT PENETRATOR DRUM MAGS" is going to put any worthwhile dent in crime.
I don't see how restricting certain features and labeling my gun an "assault weapon" (which is literally a buzzword and nothing more) would put a dent in crime.
I don't see how getting rid of my moms M&P 9 is going to stop gangbangers from ventilating each other with stolen hi-points.
Maybe there are sensible ways to combat gun-crime in the US but I really haven't seen many presented. Until then, I will happily dodge bullets and trip over dead bodies on the way home from work in Apocalypse America, as long as my SKS is sitting at home to comfort me.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48225834]Well this is going to be fun.
I was watching CNN and guy says, "We should expect more, this is how radical Islam operates."[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why that's interesting.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48225834]Well this is going to be fun.
I was watching CNN and guy says, "We should expect more, this is how radical Islam operates."[/QUOTE]
CNN to terrorists, "Please keep going, we love these ratings!"
[QUOTE=Tureis;48225891]Yeah, nice gun debate going on and all, but is there any news on who actually did this now?[/QUOTE]
Yes, his name is on the 1st page of the thread.
huh so that's why there was an 100% id check and a bunch of MP's around on-base today
i feel as though the process of gun confiscation in the instance of an all but full ban would result in more deaths than if laws stay as they are. i'd support stronger policies on purchases and psych evaluations but straight up removing guns is a terrible idea for several reasons, including revolt and an extreme jump in the number of guns on the illegal market
I really wish people would stop comparing other fucking countries to the US. Different people, different culture, different situation. If you're going to do that and hold up all these other nations as paragons of virtue and justice then you should [i]also[/i] reference how bad things [i]could[/i] be in the US. It's not fair to go "LOOKIT THIS COUNTRY TOTALLY NO GUNS NO MASS SHOOTINGS NOTHING EVERYTHING IS FINE FUCKEN AMERICANS" and then ignore the fact that the vast majority of the US is almost entirely saturated with firearms [i]and[/i] homicide-free, yet still our worst is better than, say, Southern Ukraine in terms of firearm-related deaths.
Yeah. Shit's different in different places, who would have fucking thought?
This is a tired argument. Those people who could have been swayed by evidence and facts already have changed their opinions, the only people that remain are the ones who refuse to admit they're wrong. This thread, just like all the other threads, will end in a stalemate and nothing will change at all.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
Oh, and for the record? Anyone advocating for a total ban or heavy restriction of firearms in the US doesn't know a fucking thing about the US. That would surely kick off some form of armed insurrection, the people who would get upset by that take the Second Amendment [i]really fucking seriously.[/i]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48226359]I really wish people would stop comparing other fucking countries to the US. Different people, different culture, different situation. If you're going to do that and hold up all these other nations as paragons of virtue and justice then you should [i]also[/i] reference how bad things [i]could[/i] be in the US. It's not fair to go "LOOKIT THIS COUNTRY TOTALLY NO GUNS NO MASS SHOOTINGS NOTHING EVERYTHING IS FINE FUCKEN AMERICANS" and then ignore the fact that the vast majority of the US is almost entirely saturated with firearms [i]and[/i] homicide-free, yet still our worst is better than, say, Southern Ukraine in terms of firearm-related deaths.
Yeah. Shit's different in different places, who would have fucking thought?
This is a tired argument. Those people who could have been swayed by evidence and facts already have changed their opinions, the only people that remain are the ones who refuse to admit they're wrong. This thread, just like all the other threads, will end in a stalemate and nothing will change at all.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
[B]Oh, and for the record? Anyone advocating for a total ban or heavy restriction of firearms in the US doesn't know a fucking thing about the US. That would surely kick off some form of armed insurrection, the people who would get upset by that take the Second Amendment [i]really fucking seriously.[/i][/B][/QUOTE]
it would be an armed insurrection led by most of the military and law enforcement lol
every soldier to have served in special forces (green berets) has had experience training and leading an american militia against a government, its something they have to do before being qualified as a green beret
look up: exercise robin sage
[editline]17th July 2015[/editline]
all these freedom hating europeans are just trying to bring america down to their level of oppression~
[editline]17th July 2015[/editline]
4 page gun control argument on a thread about a terrorist attack
[QUOTE=Leon;48226441]
4 page gun control argument on a thread about a terrorist attack[/QUOTE]
Sounds like business as usual over at facepunch.
shiiiiit RIP brothers; I just heard about it this morning after company PT, some of my guys knew them
My condolences to their families
[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;48223854]I have no idea how americans defend their gun culture and laws when it obviously doesn't work.
Seriously.
Ps. I'm the owner of a shotgun in the UK.
Inb4uknownothingbritbong[/QUOTE]
What do you mean it doesn't work?
If anything, the gun control should be even less restricted, and less bureaucratic.
And if by "not working" you mean gun-related deaths and incidents; it's the blood-price you have to pay for an extremely liberal gun culture.. something every American accepts.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48223970]Because it's not like pro-gun rights people do the exact same thing right? "Oh my god that kid just shot up a school!!! Give the teachers guns!!! The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!!!"
Have some real points or fuck off. The number of actually noticeable shootings in the US is getting fucking silly, but thanks to some old piece of paper you're all so damn insistent that access to firearms isn't causing this violence to occur easily.[/QUOTE]
And yet the statistics show no significant change.
I'm sorry, I'll stick with the NCVS and the UCR as my means of decision making, not the media coverage.
[editline]16th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48224926]Cars aren't tools designed to kill people/are the backbone of our economy, nice try though.
And not everyone who owns a gun keeps it in a super safe location, I know tons of people who just have them lying around their nightstand or in an open case (like Grenadiac).
I personally know 2 people who have been killed by gun violence, and another who is was a victim of a drive-by. But that doesn't mean anything I mean it's all in good fun and sport.
The fuck am I doing, this never goes well, done with this thread.[/QUOTE]
Killing people, specifically representatives of our government, is the reason we have an amendment reserving our gun rights. The notion of hunting weapons somehow being restricted would be unfathomable in the era in which this was passed. Vast portions of the population hunted regularly or maintained their entire livelihood through hunting.
The amendment literally points out that, because a military is a necessary evil, the people shall reserve the right to have firearms. A military (militia technically) was thought of as a necessary evil because they recognized that it might have to protect the nation from insurrection and external threat, but in some cases, as they would have been well equipped to recognize at the time, an insurrection is warranted.
This is hardly a warranted insurrection, quite the opposite, but it is also an entirely expected consequence of this national design. We trade some measure of safety for additional freedom.
[QUOTE=Leon;48226441]it would be an armed insurrection led by most of the military and law enforcement lol[/quote]
For the most part, we're looking at Law Enforcement taking on the role of forcefully disarming the population. The President isn't allowed to deploy the Military to act as Law Enforcement, Congress must Authorize it first. The only way the Military can be deployed without Congressional Authorization is if Law Enforcement completely fail to maintain order. Governors can deploy the National Guard if they declare a State of Emergency.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48227121]We trade some measure of safety for additional freedom.[/QUOTE]
And for increased gun-related deaths. As is logically expected of course.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.