Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

opiate82

Bronze Squire
3,078
5
I do, but not for any of the reasons that are popular in the media at the moment. I've always been against 'assault' weapons of any kind, regardless of why you claim to own them. It's stupid to put any sort of high-capacity power (and that's not high capacity clips, don't get confused) in the hands of the normal citizen. There's just no need for it. Every example people have given is moot when you consider for thousands of years we existed without. Now, understanding that we aren't cavemen anymore, guns SHOULD exist. I have never been able to understand why the homeowner would ever need anything more than a pump action or handgun (and really, anything over .38 is pretty overkill for human v. human, which is the whole point of owning a handgun. The argument could be made that you can hunt with it, but the same could be said for a fucking spatula.). I've always heard the argument that the bad guys have them, so why shouldn't I? Well, the 'bad guys' during the Cold War had nuclear arms, why didn't the citizens? (Woo, hyperbole.)
Just so we are clear, you are okay with people having access to handguns but not AR-15s?
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,253
15,408
So banning firearms for cosmetic features that have no effect on anything isn't crazy? If you have firearms, then Im sure you know that things like the mini-14 ranch rifle are every bit as deadly as a ar-15. You don't find the banning of one and not the other pants on head retarded?
don't be dense, we all know that the bayonet lug alone on an AR-15 means it will kill .3 more people per hour. Nevermind the fact that there's not actually a bayonette that will fit most of them. The black synthetic stock is good for .3 kills per hour over wood. Collapsible stocks give you another .2, and the pistol grip stock give you another 1.25. Add it all up and you can kill 2.05 more people per hour with a stock AR-15 versus a stock mini-14. It's science, you can't argue with science!

(and really, anything over .38 is pretty overkill for human v. human, which is the whole point of owning a handgun. The argument could be made that you can hunt with it, but the same could be said for a fucking spatula.). I've always heard the argument that the bad guys have them, so why shouldn't I? Well, the 'bad guys' during the Cold War had nuclear arms, why didn't the citizens? (Woo, hyperbole.)
1. LOL. Tell that to the woman who emptied her .38 revolver into an intruder and he still walked away. The whole idea of overkill is dumb. it's either underpowered or just right. Are there levels of dead that I'm unaware of? Is it frowned upon if I manage to kill someone so dead that their ghost has a hole and dies too?
2. People do hunt with handguns all the time. Look up pretty much anything written by Elmer Keith. Show me an example of someone hunting with a spatula?
3. Bad example because we (the good guys) did have nukes too.
 

Kreugen

Vyemm Raider
6,599
793
Eh, a congressman isn't exactly in my circle but yeah, I'd say its pretty crazy to campaign for a ban that won't even be supported fully by her own party.

Funny though, I thought they banned the M82 years ago when they (the gubment 'they', not TEH MEDIA 'they') raised such a stink about it in the press about how someone could use it to shoot the President from Alaska. I'm sure someone somewhere argued that they needed it to protect their home from varmits driving LAVs. I mean, if they couldn't get THAT thing banned, what prayer do they have of banning a pissant .233? Waste of everyone's time. Go push the universal registration act, that's about the only thing that had a chance from the start.
 
558
0
I am not sure why it is important to you. You are the one that jumped into a post directed at Kreugen.

As for why it is important to me, I am just really tired of people acting like the pro-gun people are filled with crazies and then act like the other side is asking for perfectly rational things that we should just agree with and move on.

Also, I find it extremely hard to believe that Kreugen hasn't had to deal with people that advocate a complete firearms ban. However, in case he doesn't believe that such a people exist, I made a mention of Dianne Feinstein. Which also makes the point that those of us worried about the slippery slope issue with this aren't completely crazy, since the very spokesperson for the AWB is someone that wants a complete ban.
Here's the thing. In real life, I see crazies on both sides. I mean, take this picture that scrolled up on my facebook newsfeed, for instance.

rrr_img_10824.jpg


And when I see shit like this, I chuckle, roll my eyes, and move on. I can do this because I know the realities of politics and how our system of government works. This whole broohaha about banning assault riffles will-not-fucking-go-anywhere. But the assault riffle ban isn't the only thing Obama is asking for -- a lot of what was in the executive orders made a whole lot of sense, yet all I hear is the extreme overreaction of the pro-gun crowd in fixating on the one thing that will never turn into a reality anyways. I mean, I will gladly -- GLADLY concede that Feinstein and her ilk are extremist knee-jerkers. But some how I doubt the gun-nuts on this forum are willing to admit the same about themselves.
 

Anwyn_sl

shitlord
85
0
Just so we are clear, you are okay with people having access to handguns but not AR-15s?
No, I don't like firearms at all; but my comfort level means little. I understand the NEED at this point in our culture to allow citizens to posses firearms of some type due to the availability of them for the unsavory types.

Hoss_sl said:
3. Bad example because we (the good guys) did have nukes too.
The point of the example flew over your head, apparently. Citizens never, and will never, had access to nuclear material. The biggest argument I've heard about gun control is that the bad guys have them, so we should too (or some variant there of). Hoohoo, extreme examples in a silly debate.

Gavinrad_sl said:
Is ignorance bliss?
Hardly ignorance given the ballistics. A larger firearm allows margin of error, and provides greater per-shot damage assuming a misplaced shot. A .38's entry and potential exit provide ample damage to the human body to stop it cold assuming you have a moderate degree of training with said firearm. Assuming you don't, what the fuck are you doing possessing a gun in the first place?
 

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
Here's the thing. In real life, I see crazies on both sides. I mean, take this picture that scrolled up on my facebook newsfeed, for instance.

rrr_img_10824.jpg


And when I see shit like this, I chuckle, roll my eyes, and move on. I can do this because I know the realities of politics and how our system of government works. This whole broohaha about banning assault riffles will-not-fucking-go-anywhere. But the assault riffle ban isn't the only thing Obama is asking for -- a lot of what was in the executive orders made a whole lot of sense, yet all I hear is the extreme overreaction of the pro-gun crowd in fixating on the one thing that will never turn into a reality anyways. I mean, I will gladly -- GLADLY concede that Feinstein and her ilk are extremist knee-jerkers. But some how I doubt the gun-nuts on this forum are willing to admit the same about themselves.
The majority of the executive orders he passed are already laws on the books that are not implemented/enforced. Most well adjusted people are not opposed to them. And yes, there are some extremely retarded gun owners that go apeshit over any type of regulation at all. The type that Kruegen mentions are a bit nutty (not clinically) but they are law abiding citizens.

And to Anwyn, there has not been a drastic increase in the effectiveness of modern weapons since the 50's. it's not a problem with the tools, it's a problem with the people using them.
 

Anwyn_sl

shitlord
85
0
The majority of the executive orders he passed are already laws on the books that are not implemented/enforced. Most well adjusted people are not opposed to them. And yes, there are some extremely retarded gun owners that go apeshit over any type of regulation at all. The type that Kruegen mentions are a bit nutty (not clinically) but they are law abiding citizens.

And to Anwyn, there has not been a drastic increase in the effectiveness of modern weapons since the 50's. it's not a problem with the tools, it's a problem with the people using them.
Fair enough point.

I just want to point out that despite the fact that Iamfor an AWB, I'm not advocating for one. I really do understand the need for weaponry, both in the military and in private life. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean I'm not supportive of those who own them and use them properly. Idobelieve that taking away the buying power of them now and working towards a reduced-presence of firearms in our society's future could be a good thing, but it's a utopian ideal and hardly practical given the progression of our world.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,172
160,393
The majority of the executive orders he passed are already laws on the books that are not implemented/enforced. Most well adjusted people are not opposed to them. And yes, there are some extremely retarded gun owners that go apeshit over any type of regulation at all. The type that Kruegen mentions are a bit nutty (not clinically) but they are law abiding citizens.

And to Anwyn, there has not been a drastic increase in the effectiveness of modern weapons since the 50's. it's not a problem with the tools, it's a problem with the people using them.
I see most of those executive orders as benign and harmless to be honest but I still oppose them because gun regulation is a slippery slope. The assault on gun ownership is now and it makes less sense than ever. I might have been able to understand the outrage back in 1980s when Chicago tallied over 1,000 murders in a year but these days when we barely break 500 - its pretty idiotic. And we're not alone, but Chicago is the perfect microcosm for this "gun violence" bullshit debate.
 

B_Mizzle

Golden Baronet of the Realm
7,752
15,328
I have never been able to understand why the homeowner would ever need anything more than a pump action or handgun (and really, anything over .38 is pretty overkill for human v. human, which is the whole point of owning a handgun.
Anything over a .38 is overkill? 5 shots and the guy walked away. Good thing he was alone or we'd probably be reading about a woman and her children raped and murdered in their home. Situations like this are exactly why people need/want bigger magazines and more powerful weapons.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1234400
 

Fyro

Golden Squire
127
0
1. LOL. Tell that to the woman who emptied her .38 revolver into an intruder and he still walked away. The whole idea of overkill is dumb. it's either underpowered or just right. Are there levels of dead that I'm unaware of? Is it frowned upon if I manage to kill someone so dead that their ghost has a hole and dies too?
2. People do hunt with handguns all the time. Look up pretty much anything written by Elmer Keith. Show me an example of someone hunting with a spatula?
3.Bad example because we (the good guys) did have nukes too.
I apologize in advance for jumping in mid shit-flinging-debate, but the idea of "good guys" and "bad guys" is fucking so delusional.

I hope the two of you simply miss spoke- believing in this arbitrary "we were born here so we are good" idea is simply saddening and naive on so many levels.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,672
2,530
I don't think either GW Bush or Barack Obama wanted or want to turn themselves into a dictator and put anyone who resists them in concentration camps, but they are paving the way for that guy if he ever does show up. Taking apart the first, second, fourth, and who knows what other amendments in the name of safety or security is all well and good until we do get a bad guy in power. The founders didn't put those protections in the constitution so that THEY wouldn't turn into dictators, but so people 100 years down the line wouldn't. We didn't need the bill of rights to protect us from George Washington or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, but they do need to be there.
 

Anwyn_sl

shitlord
85
0
I apologize in advance for jumping in mid shit-flinging-debate, but the idea of "good guys" and "bad guys" is fucking so delusional.

I hope the two of you simply miss spoke- believing in this arbitrary "we were born here so we are good" idea is simply saddening and naive on so many levels.
Dunno where the 'we were born...' part came from, but I was merely making a broad generalization about the people who have guns and use them to commit crimes.
 

Grim_sl

shitlord
37
0
And when gun control doesn't curtail killings, we'll just medicate the populace placid! I got $10 that it's for the children too...
 

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
Handgun rounds in general are poor stoppers (minus the various magnum types, but most platforms for them are too large for SD roles). A .38 is on the extreme low end of acceptable SD rounds. See the FBI in the 86 Miami shoot out. And honestly, more effective stopping power is better for everyone. Less rounds down range means less chances for a stray round.

I read a really great paper by a trauma surgeon on wound characteristics and one shot stops of various calibers, I will try to find a link for it.