26 Jul 2012, 9:38 pm
26 Jul 2012, 10:12 pm
LKL wrote:
George Zimmerman, dead unarmed teen.
Yeah, anecdotes totally trump statistics 
. You're a hypocrite, straight up. You disapprove of generalizing, small sample sizes, and using strawmen when it comes to stuff like racism or sexism and yet it's somehow different when you do it to gun owners. You'd burn me at the stake if I started acting like I know everything about biology because I'm taking a rudimentary course on it, so maybe you should stay in your lane when it comes to guns.
27 Jul 2012, 1:23 am
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
27 Jul 2012, 2:38 am
27 Jul 2012, 8:11 am
27 Jul 2012, 1:07 pm
27 Jul 2012, 1:43 pm
27 Jul 2012, 2:00 pm
27 Jul 2012, 4:15 pm
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
27 Jul 2012, 9:12 pm
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
27 Jul 2012, 9:31 pm
AceOfSpades wrote:
So you've formed an opinion on an entire group based on the limited experience of interacting with people you've never met in real life. What a great way to come to a conclusion.
No, that is not the reason. I don't believe that people should be roaming the streets armed.
AspieRogue wrote:
I still can't believe someone actually used the term "assault weapons" or called an AR-15 an AR-17. If you hardly have any knowledge of guns, stay in your lane. I don't care how intellectual you think you are with your lofty ideals, if you lack the most rudimentary knowledge of guns while you already have your mind made up on the issue, you are ignorant period.
Interesting, so you think that freedom of speech should be reserved for people who think like you? I have noticed that approach with many libertarians. Liberty just for them.
As I said, I don't think that anyone, other than law enforcement and people with hunting licenses, should have guns.
AspieRogue wrote:
You know what an "assault weapon" is? A BS term the left-wing media (or some politician that made it catch on?) made up so that they can define it however they fit. That's right, it's not a technical term for firearms at all. This is a convenient way to distort statistics and manipulate language with a broad and inclusive term. It generally means a rifle with scary looking features like a pistol grip or a barrel shroud (God forbid that no one wants to get their hands burnt from firing a gun ) but I've also seen some hardcore conflations.
) but I've also seen some hardcore conflations.Fascinating. So the old assault weapons ban was created by the left-wing media?
27 Jul 2012, 9:44 pm
28 Jul 2012, 3:42 am
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/maryland-cops-thwart-aurora-theater-shooting-copycat-discover-gun-stash-included-20-weapons-400-rounds-ammo-article-1.1123265
We live in a nation of well prepared folks.
Quote:
A possible Colorado copycat, armed to the teeth and billing himself as “a joker,” was arrested Friday after threatening a mass shooting at his Maryland workplace, authorities said.
Neil Prescott, wearing a T-shirt declaring “Guns don’t kill people, I do,” was busted at his Maryland home — where cops found a lethal arsenal of 25 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition
.
Neil Prescott, wearing a T-shirt declaring “Guns don’t kill people, I do,” was busted at his Maryland home — where cops found a lethal arsenal of 25 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition
Makes one wonder how many people have arsenals like this, with those type of thoughts that aren't sharing them with anyone.
The most recent actionable rampage killer was willing to share those rampage killing thoughts, but unfortunately not in time for someone to hear those thoughts, and prevent the action, unlike this potential scenario.
This was an older guy; had plenty of time to stock up, as this collection obviously wasn't cheap.
The issue with the rampage killings, is the ones that commit the killings are at times known as law abiding citizens before the crime, who likely as most others would not carry their concealed weapons into a theater, in the civilized world, when the sign says no. The collection may come first; the thoughts and actions potentially much later.
Fortunately most people don't act on their thoughts. Like this.
Rampage killings aren't going away; guns aren't going away; but if anarchy ever comes in an urban area, for whatever reason, disaster promoted like Katrina, or otherwise; there is going to be one hell of a potential for a shoot out at the "O.K. corral".
New Orleans was a limited example for that potential. Even in my area with gas shortages, people were pulling guns out at gas stations, over who was first in line to get the last drops of gas, well before the disaster happened. The government and FEMA quickly became everyone's best friend, after disaster hit. Some people have no idea just how potentially dependent they are on their government, for safety and subsistence, unless they have seen a scale of disaster and been part of one that large.
People really do keep their guns in good shape for decades, and the majority are likely never used. I'm not a collector, but my father likely has a collection as diverse as anyone posting here, other than "assault weapons".
Not my special interest, but these interests are often passed from generation to generation along with the prized collection of firearms. There is a shot gun in my closet somewhere from my great grandfather, that I never took care of or used, but it was his so it had meaning. As a youth, even though I had no inclination or need to shoot it, I probably would have cried if Uncle Sam took it away, it was, well, like part of my great grandfathers life.
I can see where there is more to this gun controversy than target practice, self-defense, or hunting. It is part of culture, and an integral part what one is taught it means to be a man, in some areas of the country. All tools are extensions of one's physical body per cognition. Just the idea of taking away one's gun can almost literally be the mental equivalent of amputation for 10's of millions of people in the US.
This Charlton Heston thing isn't hyperbole, it is real, and to the core of human nature. But, I can see how difficult it may be for some to understand if they have not spent time in a home that is part of the culture.
But, one can't get attached to their new "assault weapon", if they can't purchase or access one. Eventually there will probably come a day when there are government imposed limits, for good reason, like a disaster. The existing arsenal that has been building over generations, still in good shape, will likely be a factor.
I imagine every time one of these rampage shootings happens, gun sales and ammunition sales spike, not necessarily over concern for defense, but fear of limited purchases, just as was the case before the Obama scare came into office. Guns, Guns, and more Guns, talk and fear of gun control only mean more guns. Like Trucks and SUV's, humans crave extensions of their limited human nature. I own an SUV, I am as guilty as any gun owner. Outlaw Trucks and many of the same people will be just as upset.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
28 Jul 2012, 5:01 am
Vigilans wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
A machinegun does not automatically equal higher casualties. That requires training in discretion on when to use semi or full auto. You would likely see more wounded, fewer dead, a lot more misses, and their ammo would only last about a minute or two. Most Monday morning quarterbacks have no idea how fast the weight and bulk of magazines adds up.
Of course, the introduction of automatic weaponry had no effect on warfare, casualties stayed the same despite them...
That only increases the body count with a supply line of ammo available. Even the marines and special forces units use semi-auto mode a lot nowadays. Without training or at least a whole lot of practice, a active shooter would not be able to make efficient use of a select fire switch. Defense is much more straightforward- do whatever you have to with whatever is at your disposal to walk away from the situation.
It seems more likely that short, controlled bursts would be used rather than just spraying fire everywhere. Most of the gun-oriented people here and elsewhere are more than happy to profess their own skill and authority but it seems contradictory to me that they also regularly make the assumption that a spree killer would not have their knowledge or be inferior to them. Take for example the vast amount of people talking about how if "they were there" at the Colorado shooting it would have ended differently. I think worst case scenario a person armed with a fully automatic weapon could lie down with their weapon and cause a lot of damage to a crowd of people in a very short amount of time. A person doing this likely won't expect to need a "supply line" since the window of opportunity for their heinous action tends to be relatively small to begin with. With a rapidly firing weapon this small window of opportunity becomes exponentially more dangerous, especially in a close quarters environment where there is almost guaranteed hits if enough metal is thrown into the air
Hits are almost always guaranteed at close quarters but killing someone is still iffy-especially if someone is spraying fire without aiming at someone's vital organs. If you look at the history of school/public shooters, the vast majority of them have very little or no experience with firearms save for planning their attack. They cannot control bursts well, know how to pick the best time to use them, and with AK variants, manipulating the selector switch involves moving your trigger hand off the grip. I'm sure a lot of people have said things would have been different but even that is not necessary. If the people that had carry permits were allowed to pack in the theater, statistically there would probably have been at least 4 at the premiere, things would have turned out the same way all the big talkers said it would...and without the intervention of all the big talkers!
Shooting full auto burns through ammo fast and poorly aimed. I categorized common magazine size for a particular machine gun, time to empty it in a single long burst, and the name of the particular gun. I stuck with better known ones that won't strain anyone's Google-fu skills!
30 rounds
2.6 M-16
2.1 F2000
3 AK variants
2-2.6 HK MP5 variants
4 M-3 "Grease gun"
2.6 M1 Thompson
32 rounds
3.2 UZI
1.7 MAC-10
20 rounds
1.7 FN FAL
1.7 M-14
1.8 M1918a2
50 rounds
3.3 FN PS90
28 Jul 2012, 11:05 am
nominalist wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
So you've formed an opinion on an entire group based on the limited experience of interacting with people you've never met in real life. What a great way to come to a conclusion.
No, that is not the reason. I don't believe that people should be roaming the streets armed.
nominalist wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
I still can't believe someone actually used the term "assault weapons" or called an AR-15 an AR-17. If you hardly have any knowledge of guns, stay in your lane. I don't care how intellectual you think you are with your lofty ideals, if you lack the most rudimentary knowledge of guns while you already have your mind made up on the issue, you are ignorant period.
Interesting, so you think that freedom of speech should be reserved for people who think like you? I have noticed that approach with many libertarians. Liberty just for them.
As I said, I don't think that anyone, other than law enforcement and people with hunting licenses, should have guns.
nominalist wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
You know what an "assault weapon" is? A BS term the left-wing media (or some politician that made it catch on?) made up so that they can define it however they fit. That's right, it's not a technical term for firearms at all. This is a convenient way to distort statistics and manipulate language with a broad and inclusive term. It generally means a rifle with scary looking features like a pistol grip or a barrel shroud (God forbid that no one wants to get their hands burnt from firing a gun ) but I've also seen some hardcore conflations.
) but I've also seen some hardcore conflations.Fascinating. So the old assault weapons ban was created by the left-wing media?
Fully automatic is intended to be more psychological than anything else.
So tell me, what specific features make military rifles more lethal than hunting rifles when both types of rifles are mechanically the same?
Military rifles are nothing more than rifles adapted to the demands of a battlefield environment, which don't necessarily involve "lethality". Military rifles tend to be easy to field strip for example since you don't have the luxury to waste time clearing a jam. They also tend to be easy to add modifications to for adjusting accordingly to the environment. A mission in the mountains demand ACOGs while close range engagements in an urban environment would call for red dot sights.
28 Jul 2012, 11:21 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Group of 5th grade girls accused of plotting to kill a boy |
26 Jun 2025, 5:11 pm |
|
How can I stop this?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
Today, 9:46 am |
| Stop with these delusions please. |
27 May 2025, 5:12 am |
| Can't stop my mind from thinking |
20 Jul 2025, 6:23 am |
