[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 08:25 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Ugh. This crap again? Does this horse ever die?

Does it have a name?




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
13-06-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 08:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 08:09 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  I agree with the first part. As for the second part I disagree. I feel a bit safer having a couple of guns in my house. I have no idea how to fight and am not that physically imposing, but I am able to shoot a gun fairly accurately. So if some asshole busts in and wants to reenact a SAW movie on me and my family, at least I have a chance to stop it.
So how do societies continue to function where they don't have guns for home defence? e.g. NZ, Australia etc.

Why should I care? I'm only interested in what could potentially happen in my own house. I live within throwing distance of a prison, by the way. Now more than likely if a prisoner were to escape (Which has happened once, that I know of), they won't stop at the closest house. But whatever, I'm not taking that chance prison or no. If a crazy person busts in here and I have no gun, I'm pretty much fucked. I don't see how me having a gun in my house is preventing society from functioning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Every time I see this:
A- "Assault weapons aren't for hunting, they're made to kill humans"
B- "They're tools. Don't blame the tools. Taking our guns won't make things better"

I just start thinking about other weapons that aren't for hunting... like tactical nukes. Are we OK with getting those into the hands of every law abiding citizen because they're just tools?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 08:34 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 08:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So how do societies continue to function where they don't have guns for home defence? e.g. NZ, Australia etc.

Why should I care? I'm only interested in what could potentially happen in my own house. I live within throwing distance of a prison, by the way. Now more than likely if a prisoner were to escape (Which has happened once, that I know of), they won't stop at the closest house. But whatever, I'm not taking that chance prison or no. If a crazy person busts in here and I have no gun, I'm pretty much fucked. I don't see how me having a gun in my house is preventing society from functioning.

So you have a shotgun, right? You know... so you can go hunting and such when you're not using it to kill humans?

I don't mind the idea of a gun for protection. But an automatic assault rifle or SMG is a bit unnecessary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
....

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:45 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2016 10:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
So, we find out today the shooter hung out in this bar. Sat by himself, and drank. He also hooked up with a guy in a gay dating site. Fuck. He was a conflicted gay, in denial ... the first thought that crossed my mind. Anyone THAT homophobic hates himself.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-06-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 08:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So, we find out today the shooter hung out in this bar. Sat by himself, and drank. He also hooked up with a guy in a gay dating site. Fuck. he was a conflicted gay, in denial ... the first thought that crossed my mind. Anyone THAT homophobic hates himself.

Really? I mean, when I first heard the news about the shooting, and that the parents were saying he got upset about some guys kissing, I just thought "that guy was definitely gay"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
13-06-2016, 08:53 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 08:45 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 08:34 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  Why should I care? I'm only interested in what could potentially happen in my own house. I live within throwing distance of a prison, by the way. Now more than likely if a prisoner were to escape (Which has happened once, that I know of), they won't stop at the closest house. But whatever, I'm not taking that chance prison or no. If a crazy person busts in here and I have no gun, I'm pretty much fucked. I don't see how me having a gun in my house is preventing society from functioning.

So you have a shotgun, right? You know... so you can go hunting and such when you're not using it to kill humans?

I don't mind the idea of a gun for protection. But an automatic assault rifle or SMG is a bit unnecessary

Yeah, a shotgun and a pistol. I really only trust the shotgun though. Not a very good shot with the pistol. And no, I'm far too lazy to go hunting. Food is readily available to me so I really don't see the point in it either.

I'd agree with automatic weapons being unnecessary. Which is probably why they are illegal where I live. Can't speak for anywhere else though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 08:54 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Did you just accuse me of killing humans? Blink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 07:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 03:25 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  AR 15s and high capacity magazines are allowed in NZ with E endorsements to your firearms license.
Thanks for the info, I didn't realise.
Seems to be an improvement on US though. Isn't it that anyone that can buy a gun, can also buy AR-15?

Is that just odd phrasing or do you not know that an AR-15 is a gun? Consider

Quote:
(13-06-2016 03:25 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Two valid reasons for an E endorsements are competing in 3-gun and service rifle. Both are shooting sports that I participate in in the US. You don't have to use an AR15 for either of those sports but most people including those in NZ do.
Doesn't seem to me to be an important enough reason to let people have those guns.

And others believe it is.

Quote:
(13-06-2016 03:25 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Both sports require high capacity magazines.
Yes, and high capacity magazines, with an action that allows a shooter to keep shooting without losing aim seems to be a potential for a disaster.

It does not allow "a shooter to keep shooting without losing aim".

Quote:Personally I think a single shot, bolt action is sufficient for sport and hunting.
I understand that people want more, but I feel it is a small consecion for public safety.

A single shot bolt action rifle is not sufficient, it is not a small concession.

Quote:This is an interesting argument and seeks to prioritise effort for gun control, but doesn't seem to address the issue on whether semi-automatic rifles ought to be legal or not. It's more of an attempt to avoid this decision by distracting us on other decisions.

He is pointing out that semi-automatic rifles aren't the problem. How did you miss that?

Quote:In USA you guys have this idea that guns are for personal protection (NZ does not see guns as a means for personal protection). But obviously for personal protection, if you are allowing people to carry loaded weapons in public places, then it is impractical for people to wander around with rifles, not to mention intimidating for others.
So if personal protection is your thing, then handguns is what you need. Why on earth you would need something that can hold 15,20,30 bullets is beyond me.

A semi-automatic handgun can carry 15, 17, 20, 25, 30 rounds.

Quote:But anyways, this aspect makes the debate on handguns more difficult. It also means that the "bad" guys can also carry around the convenient hand gun. So you make it easier for them and then you are more likely to be in a "shoot-out". Who wins, nobody knows.

What is your argument? They already carry semi-auto handguns. Consider

Quote:So if we look towards low hanging fruit. Machine guns seems to be an obvious one. Why does a person in a developed nation need a machine gun? You don't go hunting deer or ducks or even rabbits with machine guns. You don't need a machine gun to ward off a would be attacker. Sure, you can make a sport of firing machine guns, but then again you can make a sport of anything. So if you restrict machine guns, you also restrict assault rifles because they have an automatic function.
Next in line is the semi-automatic rifle.

Why? As pointed out above, they are not the problem.

Quote:The AR-15 is a candidate because you can attach large magazines and you can do rapid fire without losing aim.

Not true.

Quote:It is much harder to police magazines than it is guns. So if you allow the AR-15 then you will have many instances of it used with large magazines regardless of whether large magazines are illegal. Do you really need an AR-15 for hunting? Sure, people can make arguments about accuracy, or about the convenience of having several bullets in the magazine. But what kind of hunter are you if you need 15+ bullets to take out a single deer? Surely a single shot, bolt action would be sufficient, takes a couple of seconds to reload if you need another bullet.

More than "a couple of seconds" and that is often too long for an effective follow-up shot.

Quote:The benefit is though, that it makes it hard for a nutter to do a mass shooting if they need to take a couple of seconds to reload after each shot. This is a concession. For public safety, give up on the convenience of an AR-15 for self use.

The only place this argument leads is to the ban of any repeating action firearm .

Quote:Why is it that many USA gun enthusiasts aren't willing to make this concession? Is it because their lives will be so ruined if they can't have an AR-15 or similar rifle? Is it because they fear the government or they fear that their home will be attacked by a mob? Is it because they are taking the idealistic view that it is their "right" to bear arms of their choosing, that it is un-american, un-constitutional to infringe upon that right?

It is because the only place this argument leads is to the ban of any repeating action firearm. And a single-shot firearm is insufficient for self-defense or hunting.

Quote:I do get a feeling that for some, it is this rights and patriotic American thing above all else. That somehow they are exercising this "right" to prove how great America is and if this right is taken away then somehow America is no longer great. Many of these people would probably find Trump, Bush etc appealing.
Given all the gun propaganda, I also feel that some people consider it almost an obligation to carry a gun, to be a protector of the public. They are the unsung heroes, bless them. They probably own a multitude of guns, they probably are proud that they carry their guns with them every single day, for them gun issues are top of mind. Probably the main issue that they vote on.
Some however, might be itching to score a human as a trophy. Probably take pride that they have killed almost every species of animal known to mankind and want a human on that list to complete the set. But want to do it legally, so they are of the "go ahead, make my day" ilk. They would leave the garage door open with a purse if view of the street and wait in a bush for someone to step on their property. Maybe they want a trophy, maybe they are frustrated and grumpy with the wrong-doers in the world. But they don't want to miss the chance to kill legally. Like a paranoid gambler they would be fearful that the one time they aren't carrying is the time that a legal opportunity presents itself for them to shoot someone.

Your speculations are ignorant and insulting.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: