Jump to content

Gun Talk


VL-16

Recommended Posts

Number of gun related deaths in the U.S. in 2009 = 12,632

Number of deaths on U.S. highways in 2009 = 33,963

I guess we better ban cars, they are far more dangerous...

There 1.3 million abortions each year...restricting law abiding gun owners should be the least of our f@cking concerns.

Now, back on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Left baseops for about two years due to the previous week of Pancake/USAFcrypto/ad nauseum ramblings in multiple threads. Gentlemen, this is the Squadron bar, and honestly, if you had ever spewed in person the nonsense I've been reading in a real Sq Bar--I would have asked you to leave. Oh and yea...I know, I don't have to read it if I don't like it...blah...blah...blah. Agree again with Rainman.....your new Delta Chi name is SDA....pls---extreme lack of SA. You are 1 v many and losing, wasting our time, wasting our gas, and wasting precious oxygen.

OL Patch

Edited by OL Patch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saddened by the tragic events of Saturday. It makes me feel very bad that some guy, who is likely bat-shit crazy, targeted a group of people and viciously shot them down. I can't explain it and he likely can't either - but he did it... I feel ashamed that I was mad early on because this idiot is likely to cause me more pain in my hobby and cost people freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I also hate the nanny-state mentality in our country (and in the AF as well for that matter) - as soon as someone screws up we can't place the blame on the person responsible but we sure as hell put in place a bunch of rules and regulations that the offender wouldn't have followed anyhow...

As a group I very much think gun owners are a good lot. I've seen many people offer up their rifles and pistols for others to use in matches - hell when I was TDY in San Antonio I was able to get a loaner rifle for a carbine match from a person I had met twice before. Again, this lunatic has shed extremely negative light on a group of people who are law abiding and dedicated to their hobby. It really is too bad...

And as others mentioned there are a lot of other things in the US that kill people every year. Cars, motorcycles, doctors, pools, etc, etc - yet none of them are demonized like firearms. I can't explain it but that's the way it is...

BF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A classic thread now ruined... I'm not a fan of personal attacks, but Pancake, you're an idiot. You are the type of American that appreciates the loss of personal/inalienable rights for increased "security." Once they're gone, they're extremely difficult to get back. Your lack of support for the 2nd amendment shows your disrespect for what the the Bill of Rights stands for. They are natural born rights not to be fucked with by a government. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to add them to the Constitution, because they knew pricks like you would want to subjugate their fellow man. Eat a bag of dicks and choke yourself.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A classic thread now ruined... I'm not a fan of personal attacks, but Pancake, you're an idiot. You are the type of American that appreciates the loss of personal/inalienable rights for increased "security." Once they're gone, they're extremely difficult to get back. Your lack of support for the 2nd amendment shows your disrespect for what the the Bill of Rights stands for. They are natural born rights not to be ######ed with by a government. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to add them to the Constitution, because they knew pricks like you would want to subjugate their fellow man. Eat a bag of dicks and choke yourself.

Wow, kettle meet black.

For not being a fan of personnel attacks you sure did call "fights on" early in this post.

Edited by Tank
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this was a really interesting article...actually surprised me. Robert Levy, the chief financial backer for DC v Heller and the chairman of the CATO Institute, giving a few quotes about how in his view, the Heller case supports some common-sense limits to gun ownership such as restrictions on hi-cap magazines. He said, in part:

“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines. Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”

Now, I know how folks around these parts feel about guns and I expect there to be more middle-fingers flipped and youtube videos of epic gun collections posted, but I thought it'd still be worth it to post this. Try not to pre-judge what my opinions on gun control may or may not be when responding I guess is all I ask...

Edited by nsplayr
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one man's opinion...and I disagree, in case that even needed to be said! :bash:

That said, stricter gun laws have never had an effect on crime; all it does it keep law-abiding citizens from owning the prohibited items. As a matter of fact, most myths about gun control have been disproved, but that doesn't stop the anti-gun coalitions from spewing their rhetoric.

Honestly, does anyone think that Loughner, Cho or Hasan would have been curtailed in their efforts if such laws existed? Would not having a 33-round magazine made much of a difference in Arizona? A trained individual can reload in less than a second. Was there a push to pose limits on passengers in cars after Chappaquiddick?

It's all ridiculous hyperbole that politicians spew to make their constituents feel that they are actually "doing something" after an event such as this. It happens every time and it always blows over, and I suspect it will do the same in a couple of weeks...

Cheers! M2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although he is strongly opposed to most gun control measures, Levy said in this case “as a policy matter” restricting access to high-capacity magazines such as the 33-round one used by Loughner makes sense.

Say they do restrict the magazine limit to 15. You really want to have 30 bullets to spray at a crowd. Get another gun with a 15 round mag...problem solved, law useless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, does anyone think that Loughner, Cho or Hasan would have been curtailed in their efforts if such laws existed?

Would a crowd full of gun carrying citizens have stopped Loughner from walking up to Giffords and firing at point-blank range? Doubt it. Common sense and/or mortality doesn't stop crazy people, either.

So let's say a gun-carrying citizen shot at Loughner, missed, and killed innocent person? What's the fall-out from that? While I'm 100% in favor of open and concealed carry, I don't understand how anyone can advocate untrained Dirty Harry wannabes walking the streets, praying to become a folk hero. Police officers, FFDOs, fighter pilots, etc... all require mandated use-of-force training. But Billy Jack and his MP-4 don't?!? Personally, I don't want to be at a Dunkin Donuts with my family when it gets robbed and Billy Jack steps in to "save the day"... Then accidentally kills half of the donut-makers, and possibly my family.

There are a lot of people walking the streets who think they are much bigger bad-asses than they really are. Some of them have guns, and I'm not comfortable with that.

Edited by Pancake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a crowd full of gun carrying citizens have stopped Loughner from walking up to Giffords and firing at point-blank range? Doubt it. Common sense and/or mortality doesn't stop crazy people, either.

So let's say a gun-carrying citizen shot at Loughner, missed, and killed innocent person? What's the fall-out from that? While I'm 100% in favor of open and concealed carry, I don't understand how anyone can advocate untrained Dirty Harry wannabes walking the streets, praying to become a folk hero. Police officers, FFDOs, fighter pilots, etc... all require mandated use-of-force training. But Billy Jack and his MP-4 don't?!? Personally, I don't want to be at a Dunkin Donuts with my family when it gets robbed and Billy Jack steps in to "save the day"... Then accidentally kills half of the donut-makers, and possibly my family.

There was a guy carrying, he chose not to pull his weapon, probably the right choice. A fine example of exercising good judgement in a tense situation. But if he would have had a clear field of fire, he may have saved a few lives, and we would have one less POS in this world.

There are a lot of people walking the streets who think they are much bigger bad-asses than they really are. Some of them have guns, and I'm not comfortable with that.

You just described every gang-banger/Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold/etc... They can try to restrict it guns all they want, guns will still find their way into the wrong hands. Now I have no ability to defend myself when confronted with a possible situation. I am not comfortable with that...

So cliche, but so true..."when seconds count, the police are minutes away!"

Edited by SocialD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nsplayr, how are creating more gun laws going to stop crimes committed with guns? Look at the North Hollywood shootout. Two men created fully automatic weapons illegally and used illegal "high capacity" magazines. The Columbine shooters acquired their guns illegally through straw purchases. After the VT massacre there was talk about creating more "gun free" zones, even though VT was already a "gun free" zone. That seemed to work out very well. Bad guys don't care about laws. So please explain to me how creating more gun control makes us safer. It takes away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and innocent people around them.

How does M2 having a 75-round magazine for his AK type rifles, hurt anyone or make anyone less safe?

Edited by Timbonez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just described every gang-banger/Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold/etc... They can try to restrict it guns all they want, guns will still find their way into the wrong hands. Now I have no ability to defend myself when confronted with a possible situation. I am not comfortable with that...

I agree with you 100%. However, that doesn't excuse the well-intentioned, law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen from the repercussions of errant bullets shot from their weapon. Criminals will commit crime; they will have guns regardless of the laws. However, it would be a real shame to watch a law-abiding citizen become a criminal in the squeeze of a trigger. IMO, if you want to legally open/concealed carry, then you must 1) realize you are 100% responsible for who you kill, correct target or not, 2) subject to all laws regardless of intentions, and 3) be required to receive annual training and pass annual evaluations. The way it is now is akin, IMO, to taking a B-courser to the range, dropping a few BDUs, firing the gun, then turning them loose in the Stan, alone and unafraid-not a good idea.

The carrying citizen in this case showed good judgment. I doubt that all 299,999,998 (minus Loughner) Americans would show the same judgment.

Good talk, good talk. Thanks.

Edited by Pancake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nsplayr, how are creating more gun laws going to stop crimes committed with guns? Look at the North Hollywood shootout. Two men created fully automatic weapons illegally and used illegal "high capacity" magazines. The Columbine shooters acquired their guns illegally through straw purchases. After the VT massacre there was talk about creating more "gun free" zones, even though VT was already a "gun free" zone. That seemed to work out very well. Bad guys don't care about laws. So please explain to me how creating more gun control makes us safer. It takes away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and innocent people around them.

How does M2 having a 75-round magazine for his AK type rifles, hurt anyone or make anyone less safe?

I wasn't advocating any particular gun control measure in my last post, just sharing an article I thought was interesting with quotes from someone who seemed to supported some kind of limits but that also should be immune to the commonly used "liberal gun-grabbing" line.

Since you asked though, my personal views are that most types of guns and gun related paraphernalia (i.e. mags, ammo etc.) should be legal damn near everywhere; the legal thought on this is pretty settled at the moment. However, I believe there is an argument to be made that all freedoms afforded in the Constitution have limits, and common-sense limits have been placed on many of our other Constitutional rights already, so I don't know why the second amendment should be any different one way or the other. Where you draw the line at "common-sense limits" is the question and obviously opinions differ.

I agree that gun laws are not going to stop the determined criminal. A determined criminal will get whatever illegal weapons he wants, and a skilled gunman will be able to cause devastating damage with weapons well within the legal and reasonable limits. Like many have said, a well-trained gunman can kill a lot of people with a small semi-automatic pistol, or a knife, or his bare freaking hands so stopping determined criminals isn't the reason for limits. What I think should be the litmus test is rather an item has a legitimate use to the common citizen or rather it exists simply to exist or because it was a piece of military hardware with a specific military purpose. To me, a common citizen has use for rifles, pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. for hunting, personal defense, target shooting, etc. Some things like very hi-cap magazines (i.e. more than a reasonable amount to defend yourself with), armor-piercing bullets, fully-automatic weapons, belt-fed machine guns, etc. don't, to me, meet the criteria of a reasonable use. All of these things allow amateur, unskilled criminals to cause devastating damage based on the advanced capabilities of these items rather than based on their skill or determination or weapons experience, all of which are impossible to limit or control.

Now we can argue about the specifics but I'm obviously not a judge or legislator so the specifics of my opinion don't really matter. The philosophical argument should be: do reasonable limits to constitutional rights exist? If so, what should those limits be based on, and then you can nitpick rather something is truly an "assault weapon" or rather a certain bullet has a function in niche hunting or etc. etc. Some things liberals want to ban seem perfectly reasonable to me, but the right of the government to set limits on the rights granted by the second amendment for the public good really isn't in question.

Anyways, I am liberal but am not a huge gun control dude so I've tried to keep it reasonable. If you disagree cool but I'm not going to really engage further because I know the attitude around here is very passionate and honestly I like reading about the finer points of guns in this particular thread rather than political debates. Out :M16a2:

Edit: back on topic, anyone wanna comment on a Rem 870 in terms of fun-to-shoot factor? I eventually want one for home defense reasons but I enjoy shooting at the range too. Only used a shotgun a few times but I know some out there probably own and shoot 870s and the ability to go out and have fun throwing slugs or popping watermelons is a factor I'm curious about WRT a shotgun purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother and I had a discussion about concealed carry the other day. He said he didn't want to carry out in public because he didn't think he was well trained enough to pull and shoot a bad guy if he happened onto the scene that required deadly firepower. I then told him he had a decision to make. And here's the decision:

A.) I carry a gun and when required and appropriate, I use the gun to protect myself, my family or innocent civilians. Appropriate means a clear field of fire, knowing the exact target I need to hit, and am comfortable taking the shot. I also realize that if I miss said target and end up killing someone else, I will probably spend many a year behind bars.

or

B.) Not carry a gun and happen into a situation where myself, my family, or innocent civilians are going to get hurt. People end up dying and I have to live with myself the rest of my life knowing that I maybe could have done something to save people.

He chooses to not carry out in public. I choose to carry when I have the chance. But that choice right there determines whether you are the sheep or the sheepdog.

Other rules to live by with concealed carry:

1. Bars, schools, and churches are usually off limits, don't push it.

2. Shoot to kill and have the appropriate ammo to achieve those means. (Just speculating, thank god this asshat probably used ball target ammo...had he not, the situation would have been worse)

3. If you see my gun, I am going to shoot. I am not a cop and I will not give you a warning shot. I will not pull my gun out to posture, I will pull it out to shoot.

4. Not every situation requires deadly force. My gun is for deadly force.

5. If I use a gun in a self defense situation, I will fire the gun, retreat, then separate myself from said firearm ASAP. Cops rolling up on a random civilian will probably shoot you if you do otherwise.

6. If I fuck up, I am going to jail.

It's as easy as that. You as the individual make that decision. The Government should have no say in it.

BTW, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than a stray bullet fired from concealed carry holder....just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So please explain to me how creating more gun control makes us safer. It takes away the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and innocent people around them.

How does M2 having a 75-round magazine for his AK type rifles, hurt anyone or make anyone less safe?

nsplayer isn't advocating more gun control. He simply posted an article that offers an opposing view.

M2 said a trained shooter can reload in less than 1 sec. How long does it take an untrained shooter? Is that a window of vulnerability that us law-abiding types can exploit? You say we need 75-round magazines and AKs to protect ourselves. Two questions: How's life in Darfur these days, and how bad of a shot are you? I doubt you need 75-round magazines to kill an intruder in your cozy suburban home (ref: nsplayer's evaluation of the philosophical argument).

Edited by Pancake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100%. However, that doesn't excuse the well-intentioned, law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen from the repercussions of errant bullets shot from their weapon.

Please don't confuse "legal" with "right." I am fully responsible for every bullet that departs my weapon. If I end up on the wrong side of a criminal or civil judgement after doing the right thing with a weapon then I'll go to jail

or the poor house with my cranium high and a clear

conscience.

Same goes for the jet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where you draw the line at "common-sense limits" is the question and obviously opinions differ.

The philosophical argument should be: do reasonable limits to constitutional rights exist? If so, what should those limits be based on, and then you can nitpick rather something is truly an "assault weapon" or rather a certain bullet has a function in niche hunting or etc. etc.

Anyways, I am liberal but am not a huge gun control dude so I've tried to keep it reasonable.

Amen, Brotha. As a conservative, I appreciate finding common ground.

Please don't confuse "legal" with "right." I am fully responsible for every bullet that departs my weapon. If I end up on the wrong side of a criminal or civil judgement after doing the right thing with a weapon then I'll go to jail or the poor house with my cranium high and a clear conscience.

Same goes for the jet

I didn't confuse "legal" and "right," but thanks for the heads-up.

As for "being on the wrong side of a criminal case," "holding you head high," and "same goes in the jet"... pretty bold statement for something I assume hasn't happened.

It's as easy as that. You as the individual make that decision. The Government should have no say in it.

Sheep/Sheepdog, IMO, both lives are equally valuable. You may kill an innocent person and go to jail, BUT THE INNOCENT PERSON IS DEAD! Personally, I don't care if you go to jail or not. I do, however, care about protecting innocent people from untrained shooters who were "doing the right thing."

My point is that if you want to carry, you should be required to be current and qualified.

BTW, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than a stray bullet fired from concealed carry holder....just sayin'.

So that makes the few lives lost to stray bullets ok?!

Edited by Pancake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nsplayer isn't advocating more gun control. He simply posted an article that offers an opposing view.

I never said he did. Unlike you, I can respect nsplayr's viewpoints.

You say we need 75-round magazines and AKs to protect ourselves.

Show me exactly where I said this.

How's life in Darfur these days, and how bad of a shot are you?

What does this have to do with the topic? If you can't come to terms that it is currently within someone's rights to own a 75-round magazine, a machinegun, and so on then you are more than welcome to move to a country where your rights are limited.

ETA: Nsplayr, I own a Remington 870 with a 20" barrel and deer sights. One of the benefits of the 870 is that you can easily swap out barrels to fit your needs. One shotgun receiver and different barrels will allow you to fill a home defense role, clay/trap shooting, and hunting. You can also buy magazine extensions that will increase you capacity by a few shells.

Edited by Timbonez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100%. However, that doesn't excuse the well-intentioned, law-abiding, gun-carrying citizen from the repercussions of errant bullets shot from their weapon. Criminals will commit crime; they will have guns regardless of the laws. However, it would be a real shame to watch a law-abiding citizen become a criminal in the squeeze of a trigger. IMO, if you want to legally open/concealed carry, then you must 1) realize you are 100% responsible for who you kill, correct target or not, 2) subject to all laws regardless of intentions, and 3) be required to receive annual training and pass annual evaluations.

I agree with this 100%. If you do decide to carry, you had better be prepared to pay the consequences if you f&ck up. But I'm more worried about being sent to jail, by the tape "graders" in the AOR!

The way it is now is akin, IMO, to taking a B-courser to the range, dropping a few BDUs, firing the gun, then turning them loose in the Stan, alone and unafraid-not a good idea.

Ahhh BDUs and bullets....can't wait until we actually get to shoot/drop those again. I have done neither since the B-Course. But I digress...

Edit: back on topic, anyone wanna comment on a Rem 870 in terms of fun-to-shoot factor? I eventually want one for home defense reasons but I enjoy shooting at the range too. Only used a shotgun a few times but I know some out there probably own and shoot 870s and the ability to go out and have fun throwing slugs or popping watermelons is a factor I'm curious about WRT a shotgun purchase.

The Remington 870 is a classic, like the red rider BB gun. I have one, as should all red blooded all American bada$$es! It is a great gun, very dependable, comfortable, cheap and built well enough that you don't have to worry it hurting it. A buddy of mine piked one of these up for home defense, it was a blast to shoot. Not to mention that bad johnny attached to the barrel, that's enough to mess up your day.

picture-11.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...