|
Cuckoo posted:-Pro gun: I am a small woman with weak noodle arms. He was a male who could easily overpower me physically. If I had a gun, I could have protected myself without getting saved by the neighbor. Not sure if you're presenting these two points as the same scenario, but it's entirely possible (and typically preferable) to use the gun defensively, attempting to retreat, barricade yourself, or otherwise disengage, rather than just drawing on the dude. Also, totally unrelated: Cuckoo posted:because my brights were on too close to his car (I wasn't even riding his rear end, it was about 10 car lengths away That is way too close to have your brights on. Usually it's like 200-300ft minimum, if not more. Hell I usually dim them if I see a car ahead of me within like, a quarter mile or something just because I know how goddamn annoying it is to have brights in your mirrors for an extended period.
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 21:40
|
|
).
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
green chicken feet posted:It makes sense that various types of rifles have been in use in the military. If the rifle can only shoot once and then must have another load of ammo chambered, this would still effective when people are fighting en masse. Some of the group could be reloading while the others are firing. If a single person tried to shoot up a room full of co-workers with such a weapon, he or she would have much worse luck. So whether or not the weapon has ever been used in a military setting isn't really a concern, but whether it's easy for one or two people to go on a shooting spree with it. The problem is that if a gun is good at MURDEROUS RAMPAGES it's also good at defending yourself. As discussed earlier in the thread, there are plenty of good reasons why you'd want a firearm that had high capacity and semi-automatic (or even automatic) fire depending on the circumstances. At the same time, bolt actions or shotguns don't really slow people down too much, they just change the shooter's tactics. green chicken feet posted:Does anyone know if it's legal to give a gun as a gift? Because if it is, that just about renders any background check concept nonsensical. For that matter, how about inheriting firearms? It's legal, but depending on which state you live in, a background check or licensed dealer transfer is required. Similar with inheriting. However, it's of course, always illegal to transfer a firearm to someone who is not legally allowed to own or purchase one: http://www.nssfblog.com/giving-a-firearm-as-a-gift-some-reminders-from-nssf/|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Yeah this is a good read. I was going through the shootingtracker site (or whatever the Reddit map is), and was really skeptical about how they were reporting the events. A lot of them were murder-suicides or crime-related. That still sucks, but doesn't really fall under the crazed gunman/political terrorist umbrella that most people think of when they hear "mass shooting". I was looking at Philly, and I saw they had a 10-victim shooting listed back in July. Seeing as how I live in the area and heard jack-all about that, I was intrigued. Turns out someone took pot shots at block party with a shotgun loaded with birdshot. People got peppered with pellets from some distance, nobody killed or seriously injured. But if you just go by the numbers, it looks like a rampage. That's not exactly useful data when trying to figure out roots causes for events like San Bernadino, Newtown, or Aurora. EDIT: vvvv Yeah I kinda hoped that was implied, but maybe I should have said it directly. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Who is "most other people"? Because the FBI was the standard before whatever Reddit burped up gained traction. And that was four fatalities, not wounded, in an indiscriminate attack, in a public place. Really the numbers on shootingtracker are not useful for understanding what most people think of as a mass shooting event. Including crime/gang related events as well as domestic murder-suicides doesn't make any sense as they are all distinct types of events. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Subyng posted:The 2nd amendment isn't carved into stone, people. Wasn't the 18th amendment the prohibition of alcohol? And the process of repealing an amendment is written into the Constitution, so go ahead and try that. However, it's also one of the amendments making up the Bill of Rights. Those are supposed to be sacrosanct and basic, fundamental limits on the power of the state. Repealing a portion of the Bill of Rights would be unprecedented, and in many ways extremely disturbing. Also, can we not use Wikipedia to define "mass shooting". The definition has already been edited to something far less conclusive since Rah! cited it yesterday.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm sorry you don't understand the American legal system, where the right to gun ownership is, in fact, quite literally as important as the right to free speech, free religion, and free association. A better way to frame the issue, to get people to at least understand it in context of speech, religion, etc. is to explain it as the right to self defense. The unimpeded ownership and use of personal weapons is a key part of that. Why firearms? Because they are in many ways a great equalizer when it comes to physical force. Telling someone facing a significantly stronger attacker, or multiple attackers, that they can only defend themselves in hand to hand combat is notably cruel.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:A gun is a "tool" in the same way a cigarette is: the only thing it's good at is killing people. It's a murder stick. Projecting the potential for lethal force in a defensive scenario /= murder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Next thing I want to know is how did guns get to be so plentiful in the U.S. versus other countries? When, chronologically, did gun ownership per capita in the U.S. reach into the dozens as opposed to one or two and when did people really start to stockpile guns? Was it during the Wild West period? During the Civil Rights movement of the 60s/70s? The answer to this is "never" because the per capita rate is still around 1 per citizen. I've seen estimates of 80 million gun owners or so, so assuming 300-350 million firearms in the US, that's around 3-4 firearms per gun owner. I have no idea about actual statistics on this, but the super-hoarders are few and far between. 3-4 firearms is nothing out of the ordinary and makes perfect sense if you think about the various types of weapons. A handgun, rifle, shotgun, and maybe a plinker/varmint gun cover most common sporting and defense uses, as well as target shooting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
it is posted:I was making fun of you for treating "reduce wealth inequality" like an easy problem with a one-step solution. Except he never said that. He said it was easier and far more beneficial than trying to enact strong gun regulation and eliminate a significant portion of the firearms in the US. That doesn't translate into "one step solution". The point is that nearly everyone can get behind more prosperity, less poverty, and less crime. It's an overwhelmingly positive goal that improves peoples quality of life and doesn't trample on their constitutional and basic rights.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Yeah, the real "ban" on surface to air missiles, RPGs, giant cannons, or other ridiculous poo poo, is the extreme cost of actually buying one. Hell, flamethrowers actually aren't under any federal regulation and to my knowledge are completely unregulated aside from some state laws. EDIT: Available in up to 12 different colors and finishes to compliment your personal style! http://store.xm42.com/XM42-Flamethrower-p/xm42.htm LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 12:18
|
|