Gun control

I am derp

On a different note, the scumbag who shot up the firemen in NY apparently had someone else buy the guns for him

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

Well he picked up a quad damage right before he entered the school and he gibbed all his targets. Makes it a helluva lot harder to pull ballistics.

Some one save that video, jeez.

Fadaar_sl said:

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

Gunman at Newtown did not use a rifle at all, only four handguns.

Click to expand...

That aired the 15th, which was the day after the shooting and before the ME conducted the autopsy, at which point it was determined all the wounds came from the AR-15. Did all of you miss the damn date on the video?

Cybsled_sl said:

That aired the 15th, which was the day after the shooting and before the ME conducted the autopsy, at which point it was determined all the wounds came from the AR-15. Did all of you miss the damn date on the video?

Click to expand...

Ahh hmm... I did. Woops. That'll teach me to trust stuff my friends post, they are a bunch of idiots.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Just love how the overwhelming majority of the guns are shitty little hi points and locrins or some bolt action rifle but the weapons that get the attention are the 20-30 "assault rifles"(also wonder how legit the whole thing is, as I dont know who the fuck would trade in a two or three thousand dollar gun for a $200 gift card).

Also love how LA's retarded police chief thinks hes holding a rocket launcher, just goes to show how uneducated and misinformed cops are about anything related to firearms.

Click to expand...

Unless it's a replica of some sort that's definitely an AT-4 rocket launcher.

This blog post is quite possibly the most epic and thorough beat down I've ever seen of the gun grabber morons.

Take some time to read it and send it on to others:

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry...e-and-for-all/

So, when I'm cramming a gun up my own ass for pleasure, is it best to use lube or go raw? Does caliber matter?

I figured I'd ask the experts in this thread.

Blakkheim_sl said:

This blog post is quite possibly the most epic and thorough beat down I've ever seen of the gun grabber morons.

Take some time to read it and send it on to others:

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry...e-and-for-all/

Click to expand...

He shoulda left China out of his gun free zone rant. It was a knife attack where not 1 child died. Totally works against his argument.

Tuco_sl said:

How is it so hard to determine whether he used that bushmaster?

Click to expand...

I would imagine the coroner can tell pretty easily as .223 does very different things to the human body over 9mm and .45. Plus, you know, the bullets themselves, the ones lodged inside the bodies, will confirm whether or not he used .223 on them rather than handgun cartridges. Also, seeing as its a Bushy, and those fuckers are almost all 1in9 twist, he was likely using 50-52gr bullets which tumble like a motherfucker once they penetrate the human body.

Now, did he actually use the Bushy? Should be enough residue on the BCG to determine whether or not it was used or just present.

Fun stuff.

Blakkheim_sl said:

This blog post is quite possibly the most epic and thorough beat down I've ever seen of the gun grabber morons.

Take some time to read it and send it on to others:

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry...e-and-for-all/

Click to expand...

Interesting read. I have not finished it all yet but there are two things I'd like to point out.

Blog_sl said:

Then they'll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom. No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now

Click to expand...

What I would be interested in seeing is the incidence of gun related injuries in schools over the years. My google-fu quickly brought upthis linkwhich is mostly about assults in schools but it does include the chart below. Also note that in the link it says

No data is available that specifically records the number of concealed carry permit holders that have committed crimes or caused problems in schools, churches, and private business. Contacts were made to the Department of Public Safety, Utah Department of Education, and the Office of the Governor for any information such as complaints filed or incidence rates.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this is still true as I haven't found anything newer but I am looking. My goal is to find out if teachers being allowed to carry guns results in more or less (or no change) in gun related incidences (with deaths and permanent injuries listed separately).


The second thing I noticed in the blog is

Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government

Spare me the whole, "You won't be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons" reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.

Click to expand...

The definition of arms does not say anything about "man portable" but even if I were to accept that position he still ignores backpack nukes and weaponized biological arms.

As to the 2nd amendment
1. If the government and military are wiling to use force on its own citizens then civilians will lose vs. our modern military. Period. 2nd amendment is useless.
2. If the government is willing to use force but the military is not then the citizens could depose them with kitchen knives if so inclined or just small arms/hunting rifles. 2nd amendment is useful for small arms/hunting rifles but there is no need for military grade weapons in civilian hands.
3. If the government is willing to use force and the military is split on using force then..
- a. He who controls the nukes and is wiling to use them, wins
- b. If not a then he who controls the drones/aircraft carriers/etc. and is willing to use them, wins
- c. If not a or b then he who convinces a or b to back their side wins
---- *. Same goes for convincing the military if they are not already a or b
---- **. Pointing a military grade weapon at a soldier and telling him to support you only works in movies
- d. If the military chooses to sit out entirely then see #2
- e. At no point willmilitary grade weaponsin civilian hands be of any use in determining the outcome
---- *.No one is advocating taking away all small arms and hunting rifles
---- **. I think everyone agrees the real problem is socio-economic conditions

Useless chart is useless.

Selix_sl said:

As to the 2nd amendment
1. If the government and military are wiling to use force on its own citizens then they will lose vs. out modern military. Period. 2nd amendment is useless.

Click to expand...

Why oh why does this keep being said? It is flat out absurd. Look at, oh, any of the 100s of guerrilla wars all around the globe. Having large numbers of armed civilians is going to have a HUGE effect on how easy it is for an insurgency to form up against oppression.

khalid_sl said:

Why oh why does this keep being said? It is flat out absurd. Look at, oh, any of the 100s of guerrilla wars all around the globe. Having large numbers of armed civilians is going to have a HUGE effect on how easy it is for an insurgency to form up against oppression.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is they don't have to even look very far. Look at the mighty US military vs armed insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn't until the locals started helping that we became effective in eliminating them.

khalid_sl said:

Why oh why does this keep being said? It is flat out absurd. Look at, oh, any of the 100s of guerrilla wars all around the globe. Having large numbers of armed civilians is going to have a HUGE effect on how easy it is for an insurgency to form up against oppression.

Click to expand...

As to the 2nd amendment
1. If the government and military are wiling to use force on its own citizens then civilians will lose vs. our modern military. Period. 2nd amendment is useless.
2. If the government is willing to use force but the military is not then the citizens could depose them with kitchen knives if so inclined or just small arms/hunting rifles. 2nd amendment is useful for small arms/hunting rifles but there is no need for military grade weapons in civilian hands.
3. If the government is willing to use force and the military is split on using force then..
- a. He who controls the nukes and is wiling to use them, wins
- b. If not a then he who controls the drones/aircraft carriers/etc. and is willing to use them, wins
- c. If not a or b then he who convinces a or b to back their side wins
---- *. Same goes for convincing the military if they are not already a or b
---- **. Pointing a military grade weapon at a soldier and telling him to support you only works in movies
- d. If the military chooses to sit out entirely then see #2
- e. At no point will military grade weapons in civilian hands be of any use in determining the outcome
---- *.No one is advocating taking away all small arms and hunting rifles
---- **. I think everyone agrees the real problem is socio-economic conditions

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if our modern military is willing to use force against its citizens that we will be able to beat them? Because I certainly covered the converse with steps 2-3 if you bothered to keep reading past step 1.