Gun control

yeah man don't you remember at the end of Saving Private Ryan when Tom Hanks blows up that tank with his pistol?

his semi-automatic pistol

"These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."

To illustrate the absurdity of gun-free zones, Goldberg dug up the advice that gun-free universities offer to its students should a gunman open fire on campus. West Virginia University tells students to "act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter." These items could include "student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc." Such "higher education" would be laughable if it weren't true and funded by taxpayer dollars."

Eyashusa_sl said:

yeah man don't you remember at the end of Saving Private Ryan when Tom Hanks blows up that tank with his pistol?

his semi-automatic pistol

Click to expand...

I thought he blew it up with his socks.

Araysar_sl said:

see Iraq, Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

So we can buy RPGs, AK-47s and pickup trucks with .50 cal MGs? Sure you aren't thinking of Red Dawn?



Speaking of stupid arguments.

Maybe it's fucked up but I would see banning big ass military rifles and lowering magazine size for common handguns as actual progress.

Will it stop all gun violence, or even these style of massacres? Of course not. It probably won't impact these massacres at all, gun control isn't what these are about. (Edit: It's fucked up, but killing 2-3 people just isn't newsworthy anymore. You've got to kill 20 before anybody gives a shit). These massacres are just the most sensational side of gun violence -- and lowering magazine sizes probably would have a positive global effect on that. Hell if I know how much, but some is better than none. Of course you can kill a man with birdshot if you try to and I wouldn't see the sense of outlawing birdshot.

You could magically pass a law banning the sale and private ownership of all firearms across all 50 states and gun violence would continue for at least a generation. It's not a solution, but I really don't think it's intended to be a solution. It's intended to address the larger issue the massacres are a part of. If it was an easy issue to fix I honestly think we wouldn't have a problem to begin with.

Araysar_sl said:

We already can buy Ak-47s and most of the time they took out american vehicles with IEDs, not RPGs. trucks with 50 cal machine guns is mostly a fantasy trope from the movies.

Click to expand...

Not full auto AKs, you know the ones that are actually assault rifles? How about mortars? Dshk and RPK machine guns? Or are those just tropes too?

IEDs have fuck all to do with this conversation. No one is talking about banning fertilizer, cell phones and whatever the fuck else go in homade explosives.

Is the Taliban is fighting with glocks and semi auto AR-15s?

The weaponry commonly available today is not even 'shithole third world insurgent' quality. Or does the walmart by you carry this stuff?

Fuse_sl said:

Not full auto AKs, you know the ones that are actually assault rifles? How about mortars? Dshk and RPK machine guns? Or are those just tropes too?

IEDs have fuck all to do with this conversation. No one is talking about banning fertilizer, cell phones and whatever the fuck else go in homade explosives.

Is the Taliban is fighting with glocks and semi auto AR-15s?

The weaponry commonly available today is not even 'shithole third world insurgent' quality. Or does the walmart by you carry this stuff?

Click to expand...

If things in this country actually devolved into rebels skirmishing with the armed forces, it wouldn't be impossible to raid a guard armory for supplies and equipment, or simply strip the kit off of dead soldiers that you ambushed.

Giving up liberties and rights for any legislation that is "not a solution and not intended to be a solution" is not acceptable. I am having a very hard time understanding how people think that is ok.

I really do not understand. Is it an age thing? Cultural? Regional? I'm in my mid 30's, and live in the Midwest. I am very liberal when it comes to nearly every social value, and I am not religious. I just don't get how people can be so afraid of guns. My only thought is that living in an area where you can be in a rural setting in a 30 mile car ride is it.

yawn. stupid argument thats been refuted a million times.

see Iraq, Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Yeah, all those guns they have are the reason the Iraqi's threw off the American invaders and Saddam Hussein is still in power, right? They're the reason The Taliban still control Afghanistan and it isn't an occupied country or anything?

Yeah, the war over there was slow and messy and stupid, but the big boulder still crushed all the little pebbles on it's way down the hill.

I think part of the problem is non gun people overestimate what a fully automatic rifle is capable of. There are almost zero situations where an M4/M16 is more effective than its semi auto counterpart. Automatic fire is inaccurate and it expends ammo quickly. Ammo is heavy and bulky. Only when you get to the light machine guns and mounted machine guns that it makes any real differences.

A few times a year we have NFA and Class 3 fun days at some of our matches. People will run M4's and sub guns (mp5/etc) through the same courses as the regular stuff. I have not once seen any of them win.

I don't see the benefit of this right taken to extremes. Children have to die so that you can say, "I'm proud to be an American?" I don't get that. I really don't. It will probably be beyond you but that's exactly how you just characterized the argument.

I do see a tangible benefit in mitigating this right. I don't really see gun ownership as a personal liberty -- maybe if I did I'd think differently. Maybe I'm just spoiled. I own a shotgun and a rifle. I've used the rifle once to kill a copperhead. I've never even used the shotgun.

The solution to gun violence is going to be incremental and societal, so yes, in the meantime I do find it perfectly acceptable to try practical approaches which are aimed to mitigate rather than solve. To do anything less isn't patriotic or principled, it's just complicit.

It's not the 18th century any more. It would be great if we stopped pretending like it was, while still allowing for the private ownership of firearms. Because I do think that private ownership of firearms is a core tenant of our society -- but I don't think you need to own a bazooka to be a true American, and I don't think you need high capacity rifles to hunt deer. If you do, you just suck at it. I used 1 round to kill that snake (beginners luck I guess). Deer are bigger.

Gavinrad_sl said:

If things in this country actually devolved into rebels skirmishing with the armed forces, it wouldn't be impossible to raid a guard armory for supplies and equipment, or simply strip the kit off of dead soldiers that you ambushed.

Click to expand...

Sure and you could do that with hunting rifles and revolvers. Don't get me wrong, as I've said, I'm not a proponent of banning anything (well I suppose I'm ok with civillians not having mortars), I just think 'we shouldn't have gun laws because the Taliban' is a stupid argument. If it ever came to citizens vs the government it would be more like Syria with some military units fighting against the government, but I have a hard time even imagining any sort of remotely plausible scenario that would resemble that.

When the constitution was written the British had sabers, muskets and flintlocks. The colonists had sabers, muskets and flintlocks.

Now you have a bushmaster and the government has an AH-64. If defense against our government is why people arm up, nothing available is remotely adaquate and wont be until you can buy shoulder fired SAMs at, well Sam's Club.

I suppose when I think of wanting a firearm for protection, home defense or protecting family and property in the wake of a natural disaster is more where I am at than trying to take down Abrams with my Glock.

Here is some video of Arysar vs. the Government.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=924_1355771890

Thorne_sl said:

I just don't get how people can be so afraid of guns.

Click to expand...

Our gun-related homicide rate is absurd relative to the rest of the civilized world (and a decent chunk of the uncivilized world as well). It's not a mystery as to why some people think this is a problem.