America can't handle guns

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah. While there have been the odd few cases where something bad -hasn't- happened because someone had a gun (it does happen), in cases like last night, when some moron proclaims that if HE, Walter Mitty Soap, and his trusty weapon had been there, less would have died, because he would have instantly identified the shooter and taken him out, (his bullet presumably winding around the milling mass of panicked people in a dark, hazy, incredibly loud atmosphere), he really might as well say that if he had been there, he would have epically punched the shooter back into his mother's womb, spontaneously inducing a miscarriage and saving everyone's lives twenty-nine years in the past.

It's honestly about as likely.

The point is that it allows a citizen a chance to defend themselves and others. Something that being unarmed would not. I know which scenario I would prefer, however unlikely it is that I would find myself in one.

Cienciano

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ever go to Prague? I'm told a lot of Irish folks do. Carrying concealed pistols into nightclubs is legal there, and even Irish folks cannot be denied a permit to carry one if they pass the checks.

Doesn't seem to have caused any significant problem that I'm aware of.

Do you think if concealed carry of handguns was made legal in ireland, life would be better or worse?

20Cent

Not many bazooka deaths in the US. Is it because they are banned?

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

I just don't understand the fixation on the method, instead of the motive. Almost all the prominent political figures (Obama, Clinton, Sanders) just blamed gun laws which is abhorrent.

Islam is a concept, an ideology, yet we cannot talk about that as a motivational factor?

Bingo, prime example, although I have to admit I didn't expect it to come quite that fast. I very clearly state that there were three major factors in that massacre happening as it did, because in general, I see people picking up one or the other or the third and arguing it and it took all three to allow this godawful thing to happen. someone immediately jumps in, pick the one they don't like and ask why I'm not letting them talk about the one they wish to talk about. Despite my having clearly stated it in my three factors. Hey, it was even number 1, although I didn't list them in any specific order.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The point is that it allows a citizen a chance to defend themselves and others. Something that being unarmed would not. I know which scenario I would prefer, however unlikely it is that I would find myself in one.

And the second point is that -you- might well prefer it, but the milling throng of panicked people around you when you start firing in terror may not entirely agree with you on that point.

And, as above, I clearly stated in the damn post that there have been cases where someone having a gun stopped something bad from happening, but I don't think it would have done so there.

Jesus, is anyone actually reading posts these days?

Samaris wrote: »

And the second point is that -you- might well prefer it, but the milling throng of panicked people around you when you start firing in terror may not entirely agree with you on that point.

And, as above, I clearly stated in the damn post that there have been cases where someone having a gun stopped something bad from happening, but I don't think it would have done so there.

Jesus, is anyone actually reading posts these days?

Supposition on your part there at the end, as much as it would be on mine or another gun owner that they could prevent an attack. I choose to put myself in a position where I could make a difference, you would choose to have no means to defend yourself bar bodily attacking an assailant.

20Cent wrote: »

Not many bazooka deaths in the US. Is it because they are banned?

They are not, to my knowledge banned, simply difficult to acquire. Those that possess them, use them responsively and within the bounds of the law, like the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US.

Parachutes

Why does any normal citizen need an AR-15 rifle?

Parachutes wrote: »

Why does any normal citizen need an AR-15 rifle?

Self defense, hunting, target shooting. All valid reasons to exercise their right to own a rifle.

Parachutes

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Self defense, hunting, target shooting. All valid reasons to exercise their right to own a rifle.

Which all can be done with a handgun or standard hunting rifle. Why the need for an assault weapon?

Gatling

Parachutes wrote: »

Which all can be done with a handgun or standard hunting rifle. Why the need for an assault weapon?

You can legally own heavy calibre weapons including anti aircraft guns from ww2 and other conflicts

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Self defense, hunting, target shooting. All valid reasons to exercise their right to own a rifle.

An AR-15 for self defense? NRA b*ll*xology at its finest.

Samaris

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Supposition on your part there at the end, as much as it would be on mine or another gun owner that they could prevent an attack. I choose to put myself in a position where I could make a difference, you would choose to have no means to defend yourself bar bodily attacking an assailant.

I really hope whatever gun-training you take, they don't encourage you to take shots at an undefined target in poor lighting with people jammed in around you. And I really, really hope that even godawful cases like this doesn't encourage people to go out to nightclubs, drinking and partying, with guns.

The likelihood of you being in a terrorist attack - tiny
The likelihood of you foiling said terrorist attack - even smaller
The likelihood of an accident between drunk mates messing around - small, but larger than the other two by several orders of magnitude.

However, I'm going to assume you are an American (else you wouldn't be talking about it in the present tense), and thus you have a different culture and way of seeing guns. I see a gun in a nightclub and I would think "****, crazy person!". You..I dunno, maybe see it as "person taking sensible precautions".

The Sidewards Man

Give every one a gun, nice level playing field then.

Mech1

We have some of the tightest gun laws in Europe, does that stop the scumbags here shooting each other?

Are they using legal firearms, or even firearms stolen from licenced holders?

Of course they are not! legal firearms in Ireland are not a problem. Legal and looked after firearms in America are not a problem.

You gotta address the bigger mental / religious issues.

Mech1 wrote: »

Legal and looked after firearms in America are not a problem.

You gotta address the bigger mental / religious issues.

The ease of which one can legally acquire a firearm is a very big problem.

Gatling

Mech1 wrote: »

Legal and looked after firearms in America are not a problem.

You gotta address the bigger mental / religious issues.

Mental health and unfettered access to Guns with a history of violence and irrational behavior is one the reaccuring themes in mass shootings in america 29 a week for the last 6 months alone

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

That last one is a good one. As is 'I'm older and can't swing a baseball bat like I used to', or 'I'm a 5'4" female and won't usually win a wrestling match against someone' or any other number of reasons someone may want a firearm for self defense. That's before you involve the Great Outdoors. There are some places in the US where if you go camping without a firearm, you're considered to be gambling with your life.

Ever go to Prague? I'm told a lot of Irish folks do. Carrying concealed pistols into nightclubs is legal there, and even Irish folks cannot be denied a permit to carry one if they pass the checks.

Doesn't seem to have caused any significant problem that I'm aware of.

Because they can handle it. America can't seem to.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because they can handle it. America can't seem to.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post on this thread.

20Cent wrote: »

Not many bazooka deaths in the US. Is it because they are banned?

No, they're not banned, but they are expensive and impractical. Bear in mind that more people are bludgeoned to death with blunt instruments in the US than killed by rifles. Handguns are cheap and quite convenient. Putting a bazooka in your waistband will result in you walking a bit funny.

Deleted User wrote: »

An AR-15 for self defense? NRA b*ll*xology at its finest.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate upon why it's such a stupid idea? I don't use one for practical reasons (my safe's too small to keep one to hand), but that doesn't deny that for those who are appropriately situated, they are actually extremely applicable. Feel free to use criteria such as weapon retention in close quarters, the risk of overpenetration through walls, stopping power, operations in the dark, and so on.

Gatling

Manic Moran wrote: »

I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post on this thread.

Manic do think there's a fix to the mass shootings especially those with legally held fire arms ,

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, they're not banned, but they are expensive and impractical. Bear in mind that more people are bludgeoned to death with blunt instruments in the US than killed by rifles. Handguns are cheap and quite convenient. Putting a bazooka in your waistband will result in you walking a bit funny.

Are you using this as argument against ANY measure to stop the nutjobs getting their hands on guns?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to elaborate upon why it's such a stupid idea? I don't use one for practical reasons (my safe's too small to keep one to hand), but that doesn't deny that for those who are appropriately situated, they are actually extremely applicable. Feel free to use criteria such as weapon retention in close quarters, the risk of overpenetration through walls, stopping power, operations in the dark, and so on.

You would use one of these for home defense, considering factors such as overpenetration through walls etc? Maybe if I had no other members of my family or friends in my house, but if they were present, no.

Deleted User wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, they're not banned, but they are expensive and impractical. Bear in mind that more people are bludgeoned to death with blunt instruments in the US than killed by rifles. Handguns are cheap and quite convenient. Putting a bazooka in your waistband will result in you walking a bit funny.

Are you using this as argument against ANY measure to stop the nutjobs getting their hands on guns?

Not at all. I would, for example, be quite happy with mandating that private party sales of firearms utilize the same background check system as firearm dealers use. (Commonly known as universal background checks). I would also be quite supportive of additional resources or regulations put forward to make sure that people who should be caught by the background check system actually are. However, most suggestions I've been seeing here recently tend to focus on the nature of the firearm itself, (usually from a position of ignorance, I'll get to 17pdr in a moment) and not the nut job.

Deleted User wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to elaborate upon why it's such a stupid idea? I don't use one for practical reasons (my safe's too small to keep one to hand), but that doesn't deny that for those who are appropriately situated, they are actually extremely applicable. Feel free to use criteria such as weapon retention in close quarters, the risk of overpenetration through walls, stopping power, operations in the dark, and so on.

You would use one of these for home defense, considering factors such as overpenetration through walls etc? Maybe if I had no other members of my family or friends in my house, but if they were present, no.

If there's a multi-quote option on this, I'm not seeing it.

Would you care to express the nature of your concern about overpenetration? Feel free to cite professional opinion on the matter. (I already know the answer, and it apparently may surprise you,)

Double post

Deleted User wrote: »

You would use one of these for home defense, considering factors such as overpenetration through walls etc? Maybe if I had no other members of my family or friends in my house, but if they were present, no.

Ar-15 pattern rifles are excellent options for self defense. They are easy to handle, aim and accurate, which should be obvious given their popularity for use by Armed Forces worldwide in urban environments.

As to risks of over penetration, there many options to mitigate that, from more frangible or deforming ammunition, to reduced powder rounds and most importantly, shot placement. The body is an excellent bullet trap.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you care to express the nature of your concern about overpenetration? Feel free to cite professional opinion on the matter. (I already know the answer, and it apparently may surprise you,)

Well the rather porous nature one can have with walls (especially internal walls) and the differing (worse?) standards of their construction. Of course you could use certain types of ammo with this risk in mind. Still wouldn't fancy a firefight in a Japanese type traditional house with those paper walls though.......

Rather use a handgun (semi-automatic, 1 in the spout with 15 to follow) myself, especially if your house has short hallways, many corners, angles etc.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Ar-15 pattern rifles are excellent options for self defense. They are easy to handle, aim and accurate, which should be obvious given their popularity for use by Armed Forces worldwide in urban environments.

As to risks of over penetration, there many options to mitigate that, from more frangible or deforming ammunition, to reduced powder rounds and most importantly, shot placement. The body is an excellent bullet trap.

Maybe in the hands of RESPONSIBLE people. Believe or not, I'm not against responsible people owning guns, just keeping them out of the hands of f**king murderous idiots like the guy in Orlando. It makes me enraged that the NRA seems to block ANY gun control. I'm frightened you can do this (legally it seems) with an AR-15 though....

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/new-trigger-makes-ar-15s-nearly-full-auto/

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the rather porous nature one can have with walls (especially internal walls) and the differing (worse?) standards of their construction. Of course you could use certain types of ammo with this risk in mind. Still wouldn't fancy a firefight in a Japanese type traditional house with those paper walls though.......

Rather use a handgun (semi-automatic, 1 in the spout with 15 to follow) myself, especially if your house has short hallways, many corners, angles etc.

You might be surprised to know that 9mm can present a higher penetration risk than 5.56mm can. 00 slugs will also punch through many barriers inside 100ms or so. At the end of the day, any engagement in an urban setting such as a home presents risks.

Grab All Association

He'd have still bombed the place if he had no access to guns. Putting gun control to the side for a minute it was a hatred of Western values and freedoms and homophobia he learned/interpenetrated from a 1300 year old book that motivated him.