gun control rant thread

Osterkraut wrote: You are your father-in-law are what's know as "Fudds."

I had forgotten about that term. It is the best term to describe them.

Oh god, here we go with "armor piercing hollow point rounds", "automatic assault rifles", and "body armor". The hot button words that ill informed people throw around while being "gun owners".

I've been hearing that the Oregon mall shooter ran off and offed himself after someone pulled a pistol on him. If it turns out to be true how much you want to bet we aren't going to hear about it?

poopshovel wrote: Awww. Iggy's back, and making up his own definitions. Surely we'll continue to have a meaningful, logical discussion.

Thank you. Sometimes it helps when you cut through the rubbish and lay it out like that. I really appreciate the reminder.

I had forgotten that Fueled by Caffeine was the new name he was using these days. OK, I'm done trying to respond to that one.

N Sperlo wrote: The Second Amendment Text: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If any of our rights should be infringed upon, so may all the others. Lose one, lose all.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is we can't go back in time and ask the writers what the hell they meant since it can be taken in a few different ways, depending on how a person wants to read it. "Well regulated militia..." or "shall not be infringed."

I don't see this debate coming to any sort of conclusion within my lifetime.

Beer Baron wrote: What about guns making us safer? I don't buy that much either. The chance of being in a situation where a firearm will benefit you is about as low as the gunman scenario. Pretty low. If your goal is really to save lives, you'll statistically save more being trained in CPR and walking around with a mouth-to-mouth shield and epinephrine pen. Probably fewer people doing that that concealed carrying. So people concealed carrying aren't making as much of a safety difference in the world as they think they are. So what? They aren't really hurting anything either. So there isn't much that needs to be done to regulate that.

I don't mean to cherry pick in case I'm quoting you out of context but... I buy the general argument that being trained in CPR is making the general population safer than a CC because certainly there are more heart attacks than gun attacks. I am certain I'm more likely to encounter the former. It's a straw man here. You can do both. You probably were not making that correlation since the whole thing seemed well thought out ... but I hate the either/or implication.

I agree with the sentiment of the 2nd paragraph above. I do have a CC so I am biased but I really don't feel like my opinion would change if I didn't. What people do under the awkwardly over sized loose fitting shirt they have draped over their curiously lumpy waistline is no ones business.

Grizz wrote: I've been hearing that the Oregon mall shooter ran off and offed himself after someone pulled a pistol on him. If it turns out to be true how much you want to bet we aren't going to hear about it?

Not surprising. The Sandy Hook shooter killed himself when the cops arrived (...and he still had plenty of ammo.) The aurora movie theater shooter walked out of the building and tried to get to his car when the police arrived.

Many of these shooters are looking for soft targets, and don't want to face off against armed defenders.

someone forgets an "and" and their whole post is "full of misinformation" - all the while the entire post is personal experience and opinion, which inherently can not be misinformation.

the second ammendment is clear as mud, and people pick the meaning they want it to mean when using to argue for or against gun control.

some say it means arm the people to the hilt

others say it means a well organized militia has the right to keep and bear arms.

others say it was written in a different era when england was attacking from the right, native americans were attacking from the left, occasionally france got their panties in a bunch and attacked from the top, and spain attacked once in a while from the bottom, and that we should ignore it completely

nobody will ever get along. you could be a total redneck spouting BS and have people follow you to the end of the earth as long as you talked about freedom and 'Murica, or you could state your case eloquently and have people wanting to tie you up and shoot you because you think it means something else.

but like most conversations involving politics or guns or whatever other issues we have to deal with, someone is always there to rebut you no matter what.

Ian F wrote: The problem with the 2nd amendment is we can't go back in time and ask the writers what the hell they meant since it can be taken in a few different ways, depending on how a person wants to read it. "Well regulated militia..." or "shall not be infringed."

Clearly they were thinking of Davey Crocket and his silly boots. The first pass read en-squirrel-hatted but it was changed to Infringement because he had to remove his hat indoors and so the boots were considered a larger transgression. True story. I'm going to fix the wiki right now.

Ian F wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: The Second Amendment Text: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If any of our rights should be infringed upon, so may all the others. Lose one, lose all.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is we can't go back in time and ask the writers what the hell they meant since it can be taken in a few different ways, depending on how a person wants to read it. "Well regulated militia..." or "shall not be infringed." I don't see this debate coming to any sort of conclusion within my lifetime.

It's fairly easy. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

"Well regulated militia" is less so, but still explainable. Regulated refered to training and equipment, and militia is defined as such:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

Besides that, the middle bit is the important part,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

is the part that people continue to conveniently forget is there, because there really isn't much room for creative definition.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Ian F wrote: The problem with the 2nd amendment is we can't go back in time and ask the writers what the hell they meant since it can be taken in a few different ways, depending on how a person wants to read it. "Well regulated militia..." or "shall not be infringed."

Clearly they were thinking of Davey Crocket and his silly boots. The first pass read en-squirrel-hatted but it was changed to Infringement because he had to remove his hat indoors and so the boots were considered a larger transgression. True story. I'm going to fix the wiki right now.

you win the argument.

Anyone else want a pair of those? They're kinda cool.

poopshovel wrote: Awww. Iggy's back, and making up his own definitions. Surely we'll continue to have a meaningful, logical discussion.

I don't understand this?

JoeyM wrote: No, the shooter stole that weapon. His mother legally purchased the gun. He stole it from her.

I heard on the news tonight (take that for what it's worth) that she was worried about the possibility of the economy taking a E36 M3, and started buying weapons for that reason. So mom might have been a bit of a nut job herself.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: I edited this, because I wanted to point something else out. Your response, full of vitrol and snark is exactly the reason why this gun owner has been ostracized by other gun owners. Thanks for driving me away from wanting to talk to you in a calm and even manner. bye.

Snark, yes, absolutely. Vitriolic, where? I thought I was being pretty civil all day. Maybe your panties came pre-wadded to the thread? vitriolic [ˌvɪtrɪˈɒlɪk] adj 1. (Chemistry) (of a substance, esp a strong acid) highly corrosive 2. severely bitter or caustic; virulent

Look. Sorry for the nasty response but I've had some pretty bad experiences with the super life member types. It makes me angry fast. It is hard to be told continuously that your ideas are worthless or wrong. Or be called a gun grabber at a gun show, when I was really just interested in a different viewpoint. Anyway that gumshoe sucked, no 7mm Mauser surplus ammo.

Osterkraut wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

patgizz wrote: I understand the collecting of classic military weapons as some of them are super cool, but really who needs a full on automatic AK for anything?

Neither this crime, nor any of the others in recent history, involved an automatic weapon.

patgizz wrote: I would argue a shotgun or even a pistol a much better home defense tool.

You'd be right

Dude the old school way is to refer to semi autos as automatics. I just assumed that is what he was saying. That's always my dad said it.

You're thinking automatic pistols. An automatic rifle has always been automatic, your father nonwithstanding. All parties involved in this case mean automatic, and know it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Auto-5

Browning automatic was also a shotgun. Not saying I'm right. I've just heard people use them interchangeably in my experience.

I don't see how this thread doesn't violate the no political threads thing...

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: I edited this, because I wanted to point something else out. Your response, full of vitrol and snark is exactly the reason why this gun owner has been ostracized by other gun owners. Thanks for driving me away from wanting to talk to you in a calm and even manner. bye.

Snark, yes, absolutely. Vitriolic, where? I thought I was being pretty civil all day. Maybe your panties came pre-wadded to the thread? vitriolic [ˌvɪtrɪˈɒlɪk] adj 1. (Chemistry) (of a substance, esp a strong acid) highly corrosive 2. severely bitter or caustic; virulent

Look. Sorry for the nasty response but I've had some pretty bad experiences with the super life member types. It makes me angry fast.

I'm a shooter and occasional hunter who carries when I feel a need but I don't belong to the NRA.

I seriously think the problem is that mental illness is almost a dirty secret in this country. It is a hard problem to sort out because no one even wants to take grandpa's keys when he is too old to drive so calling out the loonies and making them get help before they off a pack of nuns seems waaay out there. It is a really hard problem.

Hiding all the dangerous toys from everyone isn't an answer that fixes anything. We obviously don't agree about that so... I suggest we continue to make fun of each other because this is the internet. If I'm not laughing at it I have to go look at porn and I'm all chaffed from earlier.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Awww. Iggy's back, and making up his own definitions. Surely we'll continue to have a meaningful, logical discussion.

I don't understand this?

Shocking.

Gun control is not the answer. There are something like 300,000,000 guns in this country. Anyone that wants one for mal intent WILL get one.

People control is not the answer. It's what government incessantly tries to do with no success whatsoever, only continued political posturing and bantering.

Fixing sick people with broken brains is not the answer. There have always been sick people, and there always will be.

Getting all excited about a very public and obscenely tragic event is not the answer. Please understand, I'm in shock and deeply broken about Friday's events like anyone else, but there are over 1400 child murders per year in the US. That's about 4 per day, every day. In other words, every single week in America, more children are murdered than were murdered on Friday. Using a tragic event like Friday's to advance political agendas is disgusting.

I do think there are a couple of things that could help.

First off, how come nobody seems to wonder how a 20 year old awkward kid became an expert sniper? There were virtually no wounded, only dead. I have heard no reports, but I think it's very likely he was trained by a culture that desensitizes people to violence and thinks first person shooter games are entertainment. Maybe we should consider video game control instead of gun control?

Secondly, we have a warped cultural view on how to report things like this. Why do we know the names of people like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Adam Lanza? We elevate them by journalistically immortalizing them. Seems to me, this is a very enticing opportunity for a person with a broken brain. Maybe they should go down in anonymity forever.

I realize this post is a little bit close to a flounder, but it's not my intent. The current elevated discussion about gun control is only because of Friday's tragedy, and offers little in the way of real solutions to actual problems, only political bantering, which I find abhorrent.

On the specifics of gun control, I think the collective wisdom of this forum should be allowed to solve all the world's problems. Most of my opinions on this have already been covered.

Carry on.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Hiding all the dangerous toys from everyone isn't an answer that fixes anything. We obviously don't agree about that so... I suggest we continue to make fun of each other because this is the internet. If I'm not laughing at it I have to go look at porn and I'm all chaffed from earlier.

Can I ask you a serious question, one that really drives at the heart of my anti NRA feelings? Why do you believe that I want to hide " all the dangerous toys"? I don't. I love target shooting and skeet, especially black powder. They make big booms.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: We obviously don't agree about that so... I suggest we continue to make fun of each other because this is the internet. If I'm not laughing at it I have to go look at porn and I'm all chaffed from earlier.

You never disappoint in your posts, sir!

SVreX wrote: I do think there are a couple of things that could help. First off, how come nobody seems to wonder how a 20 year old awkward kid became an expert sniper? There were virtually no wounded, only dead. I have heard no reports, but I think it's very likely he was trained by a culture that desensitizes people to violence and thinks first person shooter games are entertainment. Maybe we should consider video game control instead of gun control? Secondly, we have a warped cultural view on how to report things like this. Why do we know the names of people like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Adam Lanza? We elevate them by journalistically immortalizing them. Seems to me, this is a very enticing opportunity for a person with a broken brain. Maybe they should go down in anonymity forever.

First off, I've played plenty of first person shooters and shot plenty of guns, the two are nothing alike. I can keep em on a paper plate at 300 yards if the rifle can do it. I can do the same in a video game, because it lets me, not because there's any skill in it.

Secondly, spot on. These people are put up as big scary villains by the media to further their political agenda(eliminating big scary guns), and end up as fuel for more of these massacres in the process.

Ok, I'll admit I don't do video games. Certainly don't mind being corrected.

Any other theories on how he got to be such an accurate sniper?

What about the desensitization? Yeah, I understand- videos are different than real life, and broken brains, but...

SVreX wrote: Any other theories on how he got to be such an accurate sniper?

Close range. I don't think the term sniper really applies here.

And without knowing how many rounds he fired that missed, how do we know how accurate he was?

That's fair.

Do you think there is any validity to the idea that games such as this desensitize people to the actions?