A
You forgot the warp speed implementation of the precogs system
Add a few.
- Its' a mental health problem.
- A majority of violent crime is a mental health problem. doh!
- If he didn't have an assault rifle he would have used a knife.
- Knives do not have the same capacity to kill as an assault rifle. They are 2.5 million year old tech, we've advanced since. It would severely lesson the amount of casualties in events like these. Seems obvious, right?
I really liked your ideas about keeping long guns locked in storage in shooting ranges, strictly regulating who does not have to, or whatever, and the rest of what you presented. Made too much sense though ...
"God guns and how the west was won ...... America, f**k yea!"
This nation has a gun culture problem.
Last edited:
How about this one: "we should not be politicizing this tragedy."
"I can't believe how the Dems are politicizing this tragedy."
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Nah I think he’s pretty much dead on. We shouldn’t have these types of weapons.
When the initial reports came out about a handgun-I saw the body count and said no way. Unfortunately I was right again. If you’ve never seen what a 5.56mm round does to a body you don’t belong in the convo.
Can the state militias still store them in the Magazine down at the public square and practice with them on the weekends, in a well-regulated fashion?
And contrary to what American conservatives will have you believe, American liberals are not even close to being out of step with reality. In fact, other countries around the world with a very similar cultural makeup as ours are much more similar to America’s “crazy socialist behavior” it appears American conservatives are the ones on their own island in this world.
After Mass Gun Killings, Other Nations Changed Course -- to Notable Effect
The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too. After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semi-automatic weapons like...
As long as we can get to them in case of an Indian attack or a slave revolt that could be the answer.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t hate it. That sounds “well-regulated” to me. You?
Simple - we only need an Uber service for delivering the weaponry in the case of attack. Uber Arms™.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Well, we don’t want to become them.And contrary to what American conservatives will have you believe, American liberals are not even close to being out of step with reality. In fact, other countries around the world with a very similar cultural makeup as ours are much more similar to America’s “crazy socialist behavior” it appears American conservatives are the ones on their own island in this world.
After Mass Gun Killings, Other Nations Changed Course -- to Notable Effect
The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too. After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semi-automatic weapons like...news.yahoo.com
So long as we can shoot abusive federal government troops. Especially ones from The Ministry of Truth.
'Good guy with a gun' is brilliant in it's messaging. Absolutely brilliant.
It's an unbelievable fallacy on purpose.
Very few people believe they are 'bad guys'. The Buffalo shooter believed he was a hero. The bad guys were the guard who tried to shoot him. The columbine shooters believed they were the good guys. Timothy McVeigh believed he was the good guy.
Human nature will almost always cast ourselves as the hero of the story.
Good guy with a gun can only be true if everything is obvious and absolute. Like white hats and black hats in old movies.
And that's just the tip.
Another issue is good guys can have bad days and become bad guys.
Good guys with a gun is chaos theory and the belief in vigilantism where each outcome is determined by an individual's code vs a common social code.
So yeah, the slogun in theory is dumb as fvk...but it's brilliant in it's intent.
Change it to 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make it extremely difficult for the bad guy to get a gun and then have the majority of people with guns being trained enforcement officials' then I'm with it.
Hard to fit that on a bumper sticker.
It's an unbelievable fallacy on purpose.
Very few people believe they are 'bad guys'. The Buffalo shooter believed he was a hero. The bad guys were the guard who tried to shoot him. The columbine shooters believed they were the good guys. Timothy McVeigh believed he was the good guy.
Human nature will almost always cast ourselves as the hero of the story.
Good guy with a gun can only be true if everything is obvious and absolute. Like white hats and black hats in old movies.
And that's just the tip.
Another issue is good guys can have bad days and become bad guys.
Good guys with a gun is chaos theory and the belief in vigilantism where each outcome is determined by an individual's code vs a common social code.
So yeah, the slogun in theory is dumb as fvk...but it's brilliant in it's intent.
Change it to 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make it extremely difficult for the bad guy to get a gun and then have the majority of people with guns being trained enforcement officials' then I'm with it.
Hard to fit that on a bumper sticker.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
There are plenty of examples of people defending themselves with firearms. Why do you deny that?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
The surest way to get a ministry of truth is to deny the truth.
I'm sure there are. How many of those cases involved the owner being the only one with the gun (rhetorically speaking)? The slogan implies shoot outs. I don't have the data but we're seeing that armed guards in a shoot out have been ineffective and lost their lives among the other lives lost.
Because it's only effective if one side has it.
The slogan encourages everybody to get a gun because of the fear of three outcomes in a confrontation.
1. You have a gun, the aggressor does not.
2. You have a gun and so does the aggressor.
3. You don't have a gun and the aggressor does.
Pretty much everyone, based on those scenarios, are going to choose the gun.
The problem with the argument is it leads to the worst possible escalation regardless of the situation.
Remember when Bob Knight in Season on the Brink was pissed at some bicyclist and dressed him down? Well if they both had guns what stops the cyclist from pulling it out on him? Then what stops Knight from shooting him if he wasn't shot first?
Remember Ben Wilson, the basketball player? Came out of a drug store in a fight with his girl, bumped into a dude, the dude took offense, Wilson told him to fvk off, dude pulled out a gun that was his grand parents, Ben came towards him and poof....Ben was dead.
Guns, in an idiot's hand are about escalation, and we're irresponsible idiots in nature. We leave our guns loaded, we misplace them, we don't lock them up. We fvk with our friends by pointing the gun at them (I've had a gun in my face a couple of times, never from a 'bad guy's, each time was from a gun loving friend fvking with me thinking they were funny).
We aren't soldiers who have combat experience. Promoting and encouraging an ultra violent and scared society with itchy trigger fingers is simply irresponsible, a terrible mix, especially with how we've seen how badly social media can distort perceptions and fuel aggresion.
We've leaned in on gun ownership pretty much my entire lifetime and predictably we stand alone as a nation with gun incidents.
Currently gun violence is the #1 cause of death for kids. That's disgusting.
I believe the 'good guys with a gun' will go through a licensing and registration process (again no one is taking guns away, we want to better regulate which is stated in the 2nd amendment). I don't get the argument for those opposing. To me that must mean that petson has sinister beliefs which means.... sorry, you're not a good guy with a gun. You're most likely a nut job and I don't want you anywhere near a gun other than recreation.
If we can separate the legal from illegal, then we can go hard on the illegal. That includes everyone's favorite boogymen....troubled teens, mental health Travis Bickles', gang bangers, cartel drug dealers, etc.
It goes after all of them.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Serious question from a person who has never owned a gun: how do you draw the line on "the type of weapon?" I've heard others say that defining something as an "assault weapon" isn't easy.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s very easy. Anything that shoots high velocity 5.56mm or 7.62mm rifle ammunition in a semi-auto fashion.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You can be angry and perhaps justifiably - but “all guns” aren’t going away. You’d be more productive to figure out middle ground and the most effective risk mitigating strokes.
This is a very narrow focus mind set and screams, I only know NATO and have been brainwashed to thinking only military jughead jargon. I'm really starting to think, based on your very narrow focus with out any variation of your theme, that you are either totally indoctrinated or you are a total epic level pretender.
It's ok if you have just spent so much time in the service that you don't know reality any longer . I appreciate your service, but I question if you can couple with society anymore.
So, according to Ranger (he doesn't read my posts, so I can't address him directly), is a 30-06 rifle considered to be an 'assault rifle', since (I think) it shoots 7.62mm (3 inch) ammo?
Last edited:
This is happening in Australia. They now have private clubs.
The legal term means you can’t own an assault rifle. Semi auto isn’t in the definition. It’s “select fire”. An AR style rifle is not select fire. The general public cannot own them without a lot of paper work and licenses. Very rare. An M16 is select fire.
Last edited:
That’s not by definition an assault rifle. People just make crap up. The traditional definition vs new definition to fit the optics. ARs are sport rifles but that doesn’t sound scary enough so the definition by many(mostly the media)changed it to “assault weapon”. AR and AKs by definition aren’t “assault rifles” they are now “assault weapons”.
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That’s why I don’t call them assault rifles. I call them semi auto long guns.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Lol. Ok. Whatever the **** that means. Congrats on being one of the first posts I’ve read today and already surely the dumbest of the day. Woohoo!
My success since the military would quite significantly disagree with your “can couple with society anymore” trash.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
We also agree that ARs should be sport rifles but they’re being used far too often in mass shootings and the damage they do is unacceptable and clearly they shouldn’t be available in homes - hence my “keep it at the range” idea.
5.56 and 7.62 and their non-NATO kin are the examples of weapons that shouldn’t be available for purchase and taking home.
The problem will be defining them. Banning is like putting a bandaid on a mortal wound. It will be like the ban years. Already everywhere and mostly untraceable. Still easy to get if you want one. I agree on one thing. Make them at least harder to get. Also states will hold this up for years. Also? Their are so many other rounds that it’s a Pandora’s box.
No reasonable republican should have an issue with requiring thorough background checks and banning high capacity mags/or keeping at the range. The balancing against mass shootings is clear imo.
I think the problem right now is that proposed bill doesn’t address any of that.
Data suggests those are the interventions necessary
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Agreed. I’m painting in broad strokes but you get the idea. Those weapons that fire those type of round.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Similar threads
