Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So read the Safe Act..and watched the video.

Anyone else get besides being a vet he is also a LEO?

Granted I wouldn't brought up my buddies getting killed inside the Frag 5 Humvee but I see why. If the politicians can take a stance on the 20+ kids getting opted out and pass a knee jerk law then he can stand on his buddies that made the ultimate sacrifice to get his point across.

Towards the end about him talking about stacking. He basically....in tactfully way...pure brilliance......called the politicians a bunch of "*ussies"

That Safe Act it seems also covers any US military (Ft Drum, 10th Mountain Division) and any of NY LEO....there's no exemption to it.

In 2013, Serbu Firearms refused to sell their model BFG-50A semi-automatic .50 rifles to the New York City Police Department after the passage of the NY SAFE Act that classified their weapon as an assault rifle

That means officers cannot have M4's with 30 round mags.

Not sure if the speaker was more pissed that LEO got their hands tied behind their back or the fact it went against the 2nd amendment.....I'm thinking both.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Grenades? Who's trying to solve a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads again?

Read my comment again, please. Note the 'if'. Think about it. Then think about the logic structure 'if, then'. I'll wait.

I'm not talking about two-sided, running gun battles. I'm talking about a home owner being able to outgun one or more criminals. If a homeowner has an AR-15 and criminal breaks into the house with a knife or a pistol, I do not have a problem with the criminal being under-armed. If a homeowner has an AR-15 and a criminal breaks into the house completely unarmed, I don't have a problem with the discrepancy of firepower in that situation either. Of the two, I consider the second situation to be absolutely preferable.

Who is talking about there being a problem with the homeowner being more heavily armed? Where does that nonsense come from? No-one has a problem with giving the advantage to the homeowner.

The issue is only with the idea that the homeowner needs an advantage in the event of a shoot out between the two sides. That's some crazy nonsense. It is, as I already posted, akin to reinforcing the roof of your house to make it better capable of resisting aircraft debris in case some ever lands on your house. The reinforcing may work, but the problem is astronomically unlikely that there is at least 2,000 greater threats that should be given priority.

It doesn't matter how many more times I read your post, even IF two-sided gun battles were a common occurrence in home invasions, the homeowner arming himself with grenades would in almost all cases be completely moronic. The point is to defend your family and home, not destroy and kill them. It's like the people who argue against a liberal interpretation of the second amendment by asking if second amendment advocates think we should be allowed to carry briefcases with nuclear bombs in them or something. The point is to be able to defend your life, not to end your life and the lives of everyone in your vicinity.

The point of something like an AR-15 is that it has the ability to scale with the situation better than many other firearms. An AR-15 or something similar gives the homeowner a better chance to defend themselves from a single, unarmed assailant (a more common threat) all the way up to multiple armed assailants (a relatively rare threat).

The whole point of my post that you quoted was that I prefer homeowners to be far more heavily armed than criminals. Don't quote and criticize my post and then call it nonsense that no one has a problem with when I restate the same point I was already making.

5.56mm round of a AR15/M4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[19] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[20]

Fragmentation, if or when it occurs, imparts much greater damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled carbines generate less muzzle velocity and therefore lose wounding effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles. Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the rapid transfer of energy also results in wounding effects beyond the tissue directly crushed and torn by the bullet and fragments.[5][6] These remote wounding effects are known as hydrostatic shock.[7]

It takes two individual to remove a wounded from the battle area. Besides its a good read. Just helping broaden some of your brain power.

 Jihadin wrote:
So read the Safe Act..and watched the video.

Anyone else get besides being a vet he is also a LEO?

Granted I wouldn't brought up my buddies getting killed inside the Frag 5 Humvee but I see why. If the politicians can take a stance on the 20+ kids getting opted out and pass a knee jerk law then he can stand on his buddies that made the ultimate sacrifice to get his point across.

Towards the end about him talking about stacking. He basically....in tactfully way...pure brilliance......called the politicians a bunch of "*ussies"

That Safe Act it seems also covers any US military (Ft Drum, 10th Mountain Division) and any of NY LEO....there's no exemption to it.

In 2013, Serbu Firearms refused to sell their model BFG-50A semi-automatic .50 rifles to the New York City Police Department after the passage of the NY SAFE Act that classified their weapon as an assault rifle

That means officers cannot have M4's with 30 round mags.

Not sure if the speaker was more pissed that LEO got their hands tied behind their back or the fact it went against the 2nd amendment.....I'm thinking both.

I thought they rammed through an amendment that fixed that "loophole". Because, you know, it's unreasonable to limit the police officers' ability to defend themselves.

Besides, all of the major gun companies aren't applying to the ban, so it's not exactly harming the LEO's and military. "Oh no, a few 3rd party companies are ignoring us. Guess we'll just buy some more glocks." In order to really hurt New York, Smith and Wesson, Colt, H & K, and any other major firearms companies would have to join in, and we know that won't happen.

I will admit that having to consider the fact that one might be attacked by multiple assailants is pretty fethed up, but the odds aren't exactly "astronomical" that it could happen. Especially if you live in low income areas (or god help you, near the Mexican border) We have these nifty little things called gangs and drug cartels over here in America. We're not exactly dealing with chav's wielding switch blades.

 Hordini wrote:
It doesn't matter how many more times I read your post, even IF two-sided gun battles were a common occurrence in home invasions, the homeowner arming himself with grenades would in almost all cases be completely moronic. The point is to defend your family and home, not destroy and kill them.

Okay, you're still not getting it. I'll explain it then. The 'then' part of the statement is conditional on the 'if' part of the statement. That is, if gun battles with home invaders were common, then it would be reasonable to make sure the homeowner was better armed. The point being, of course, that the if is actually incredibly rare - gun battles between home owners and home invaders are not very common at all. They are, in fact, so vanishingly rare that they should hardly be considered at all when it comes to the decision making of the average, rational person. So much so, that when people start talking about the guns people should own in order to protect themselves from such nonsense, then jokes about grenades should be made.

Get it now?

The whole point of my post that you quoted was that I prefer homeowners to be far more heavily armed than criminals. Don't quote and criticize my post and then call it nonsense that no one has a problem with when I restate the same point I was already making.

Yes, I get your point. But, as I'll now explain for the third time, you're wanting one side to be more heavily armed in a combat that has hardly ever happened. To rephrase my analogy, it's like arguing that if plane debris was to crash in to the roof of my house, I'd hope the roof was reinforced to the point where it could resist that debris. While it'd obviously be better when plane debris fell on the roof for it to be able to resist that debris... given the incredible scarcity with which plane debris lands on people's roofs, it really, really shouldn't be among anyone's top 2,000 priorities.

Of course the other glaring sillyness of this whole thing is that he is some sort of authority on constitutional law and the 2nd because he is a veteran or a LEO.

 sebster wrote:
Yeah sure, if there was a real issue of gun battles inside people's homes, then I'd totally agree that we should make sure that the homeowner has a bigger gun, and maybe some grenades as well.

I can't endorse this enough - I've been in a lot of gun battles, often against multiple heavily armed opponents who do utilize cover. While having the bigger gun is a no brainer, I can't emphasize how handy the humble grenade is as well - if it looks bad, toss out a frag. You might get a guy with it, maybe not, but worse case they take cover for a few seconds which allows you precious seconds for your shields to recharge, or even go on the offense and stab them for an insta-kill.

sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It doesn't matter how many more times I read your post, even IF two-sided gun battles were a common occurrence in home invasions, the homeowner arming himself with grenades would in almost all cases be completely moronic. The point is to defend your family and home, not destroy and kill them.

Okay, you're still not getting it. I'll explain it then. The 'then' part of the statement is conditional on the 'if' part of the statement. That is, if gun battles with home invaders were common, then it would be reasonable to make sure the homeowner was better armed. The point being, of course, that the if is actually incredibly rare - gun battles between home owners and home invaders are not very common at all. They are, in fact, so vanishingly rare that they should hardly be considered at all when it comes to the decision making of the average, rational person. So much so, that when people start talking about the guns people should own in order to protect themselves from such nonsense, then jokes about grenades should be made.

Get it now?

The whole point of my post that you quoted was that I prefer homeowners to be far more heavily armed than criminals. Don't quote and criticize my post and then call it nonsense that no one has a problem with when I restate the same point I was already making.

Yes, I get your point. But, as I'll now explain for the third time, you're wanting one side to be more heavily armed in a combat that has hardly ever happened. To rephrase my analogy, it's like arguing that if plane debris was to crash in to the roof of my house, I'd hope the roof was reinforced to the point where it could resist that debris. While it'd obviously be better when plane debris fell on the roof for it to be able to resist that debris... given the incredible scarcity with which plane debris lands on people's roofs, it really, really shouldn't be among anyone's top 2,000 priorities.

Please don't make me go find the "you wouldn't stand in a field during a lightning storm" argument I made a while back. I really don't want to hunt that thing down. Supershort version

*A home fire is incredibly rare, yet you wouldn't call a person crazy for having a fire extinguisher in the home (and it's not very likely to stop the fire anyways)
*You wouldn't call a guy crazy to have a window breaking tool in his car in case it fell into a lake and he was trapped underwater.
*You wouldn't call a person crazy for having a few months worth of non perishable food items in case of an emergency, even though the chances of needing it are astronomically low.

So why is it I'm considered crazy for wanting a gun to defend my home or keeping a gun in my car to prevent a car jacking, when it's proven that it happens across America on a daily basis? That's how regular people, just like me or you, who thought "I'll never have to deal with that," end up getting killed. Just like people who thought "my house will never catch on fire, I don't need an escape plan", or people who thought "why should I pack a life jacket? I'm only going 100 feet out from shore and I know how to swim." Just because the odds are low, doesn't mean it won't happen to you. We can argue how "likely" something is to happen to you until the cows come home, but ultimately, I'd rather not risk it.

I'm not necessarily talking about Clint Eastwood style shootouts here, but anything from a single unarmed intruder to a pack of thugs packing pistols and knives. 'This isn't like people are preparing for aliens attacking or a zombie outbreak, this is something that actually happens and you have a realistic chance of needing it someday. Yes, it's a low chance that it'll happen, but ask somebody who got struck by lightning, or attacked by a shark, or almost drowned because they forgot their life jacket. They didn't think it would happen to them either.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It doesn't matter how many more times I read your post, even IF two-sided gun battles were a common occurrence in home invasions, the homeowner arming himself with grenades would in almost all cases be completely moronic. The point is to defend your family and home, not destroy and kill them.

Okay, you're still not getting it. I'll explain it then. The 'then' part of the statement is conditional on the 'if' part of the statement. That is, if gun battles with home invaders were common, then it would be reasonable to make sure the homeowner was better armed. The point being, of course, that the if is actually incredibly rare - gun battles between home owners and home invaders are not very common at all. They are, in fact, so vanishingly rare that they should hardly be considered at all when it comes to the decision making of the average, rational person. So much so, that when people start talking about the guns people should own in order to protect themselves from such nonsense, then jokes about grenades should be made.

Get it now?

The whole point of my post that you quoted was that I prefer homeowners to be far more heavily armed than criminals. Don't quote and criticize my post and then call it nonsense that no one has a problem with when I restate the same point I was already making.

Yes, I get your point. But, as I'll now explain for the third time, you're wanting one side to be more heavily armed in a combat that has hardly ever happened. To rephrase my analogy, it's like arguing that if plane debris was to crash in to the roof of my house, I'd hope the roof was reinforced to the point where it could resist that debris. While it'd obviously be better when plane debris fell on the roof for it to be able to resist that debris... given the incredible scarcity with which plane debris lands on people's roofs, it really, really shouldn't be among anyone's top 2,000 priorities.

I got it all the first time. I liked it a lot better the first time too, because it wasn't bundled with the condescending tone and lack of respect you often seem to trot out when repeating yourself over and over. I wouldn't normally do this but it seems like you're oblivious to it, so I'll try to provide you with a working sample:

Okay, you're still not getting it. I'll explain it then. You'll notice I capitalized the IF when talking about your ridiculous statement about grenades. Through the power of inference, that should provide you with some evidence that like you, I also realize that armed home invasions that turn into gunfights are rare. My point is, it doesn't take an armed home invader to be a major threat to someone. I'm in favor of a homeowner being better armed than a potential home invader, period. Even if we assume that all home invaders will be unarmed or lightly armed (the most common scenarios I would think) I would still support the homeowner having access to arms up to and including an AR-15.

Get it now?

Now, if your point is that home invasions in general are not all that common, I would say it's not unreasonable to warrant some consideration, because the consequences of a home invasion for which you have no ability whatsoever to defend against (such as the woman in the video that Lordhat posted) are so dire that it's not as insane as you think to have a gun for defensive purposes. I'm also considering the fact that guns, including AR-15s, have many uses outside of home defense, including recreational shooting, hunting, and pest control.

There are lots of rare bad things that could happen, that doesn't mean someone is crazy to consider what you might do to prevent or control the situation should it happen, and my argument isn't based on home invasions turning into firefights, which we both have established in multiple prior posts that we both know are rare, but rather that I much prefer a well-equipped defender in any situation, including a home invasion, rather than a criminal who is more heavily equipped or has the ability through numbers to control a situation with a law-abiding citizen.

If you're trying to say that it's insane that I'm even contributing to a thread that involves the topic of rare home invasions and what homeowners might do to combat them, I invite you to look at the thread that you yourself are posting in.


Now that that's over: In addition, from this point on, I'm also going to require a little respect, something I will be more than happy to reciprocate. Nothing I've posted has warranted the dismissive explanations that you have been repeating, and before this post I've never responded to anything that you've written in a manner as condescending as your previous posts directed at me in this thread. I am more than happy to continue this discussion with you, because I value your viewpoint on the matter and am interested in the opinions of people outside of my country. Just so you know where I stand from here on out.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Please don't make me go find the "you wouldn't stand in a field during a lightning storm" argument I made a while back. I really don't want to hunt that thing down. Supershort version

*A home fire is incredibly rare, yet you wouldn't call a person crazy for having a fire extinguisher in the home (and it's not very likely to stop the fire anyways)
*You wouldn't call a guy crazy to have a window breaking tool in his car in case it fell into a lake and he was trapped underwater.
*You wouldn't call a person crazy for having a few months worth of non perishable food items in case of an emergency, even though the chances of needing it are astronomically low.

You haven't read what I said. The point of disagreement wasn't about having a gun in case of home invasion, but having a bigger gun in case, when confronting the home invader it broke out in to a gunfight, at which point having the most firepower became a key factor.

At which point we're not talking about a gun compared to a fire extinguisher, we're talking an AR-15 compared to building a moat to divert lava flows.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
Now, if your point is that home invasions in general are not all that common, I would say it's not unreasonable to warrant some consideration, because the consequences of a home invasion for which you have no ability whatsoever to defend against (such as the woman in the video that Lordhat posted) are so dire that it's not as insane as you think to have a gun for defensive purposes. I'm also considering the fact that guns, including AR-15s, have many uses outside of home defense, including recreational shooting, hunting, and pest control.

My point is not just that home invasions are uncommon (though there is an important point to be made that people way underestimate the rate of domestic shootings and suicides by firearm, while way overstating the risk of home invasion), but that home invasions that turn in to a shoot outs are even rarer. As such, any argument that makes a case for overwhelming firepower in case a shoot out breaks out is arguing for protection against an astronomically event.

Thing is, if a person said 'I own an AR-15 and support all other people owning AR-15s because they're great for target shooting, hunting (though I thought 5.56 was a bad round for hunting?), pest control, and because I know I will put a round on target across a room if I have to in a home defence situation', then great, that's an argument with plenty of basis. But the argument that a person might need an AR-15 because the home invader(s) might engage in a gun battle and so he needs to ensure he has greater firepower is pretty silly. And that's the only point I was making.

Now that that's over: In addition, from this point on, I'm also going to require a little respect, something I will be more than happy to reciprocate.

Look, we were bashing our heads. It seemed to me you were just repeating your initial point over and over, and it left me just repeating my own. This last post of yours expanded your point, and I think it helped clarify things to the poitn where we have, more or less a rough agreement. Thanks for that.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
*You wouldn't call a guy crazy to have a window breaking tool in his car in case it fell into a lake and he was trapped underwater.
*You wouldn't call a person crazy for having a few months worth of non perishable food items in case of an emergency, even though the chances of needing it are astronomically low.

Personally, I wouldn't call you crazy for those because it wouldn't be very tactful. I do think they're pretty bizarre. I might call you crazy if you banged on about how people were conspiring to steal your window-breaking tool and/or beans for years and years and years.

Frankly, if crime is such a huge issue in your country that you're seriously worried about people invading your home to kill you or killing you in the street for your car then I think you should stop worrying about gun control and start worrying about how to bring the crime rate down.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
*You wouldn't call a guy crazy to have a window breaking tool in his car in case it fell into a lake and he was trapped underwater.
*You wouldn't call a person crazy for having a few months worth of non perishable food items in case of an emergency, even though the chances of needing it are astronomically low.

Personally, I wouldn't call you crazy for those because it wouldn't be very tactful. I do think they're pretty bizarre. I might call you crazy if you banged on about how people were conspiring to steal your window-breaking tool and/or beans for years and years and years.

Frankly, if crime is such a huge issue in your country that you're seriously worried about people invading your home to kill you or killing you in the street for your car then I think you should stop worrying about gun control and start worrying about how to bring the crime rate down.

Not to mention that a window breaking tool or a stock of emergency supplies don't tend to be considered lethal, ranged weaponry.

 Jihadin wrote:
Ever wonder why the US Military dropped down to a 5.56mm and 9mm rounds....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hit the spider once in its rear abwhatever.....suckers can move

Yeah, they made the switch because of NATO standardisation. Sorry for being a smart-ass

Im a little confused as to what part of the law the guy in the video doesnt agree with, is it that law enforcement can only have weapons with 7 rounds in the mag? Or the thing about assault rifles?

I suspect he doesn't like the mag limit, period, though it is amusing that New York was in such a hurry to pass legislation that they forgot to exempt cops from it.

 Seaward wrote:
I suspect he doesn't like the mag limit, period, though it is amusing that New York was in such a hurry to pass legislation that they forgot to exempt cops from it.

Maybe they are trying to get the NYPD to learn how to shoot accurately.

People are going to miss when they're stressed. No getting around that.

 Seaward wrote:
People are going to miss when they're stressed. No getting around that.

The NYPD has a repuation, fair or not, for unleashing a torrent of bullets or hitting more civilians than suspects. I am not unfamiliar with what it means to use firearms, I am just mocking the NYPDs history of being terrible shots.

Posted that last one at 4am, and can't for the life of me remember why I quoted Sebster. I guess I was seeing things that weren't there, my bad.

At the guys arguing against the "be prepared" bit, I would rather have the option and never need it, than need it and not have it. It's a small investment that can save your life someday. There could be only 10 home invasions a year, and I would still want the option to be armed. I have the option to carry for self defense after all, why not use it? Best case scenario is I carry my whole life and never draw my weapon once in anger, its not exactly a huge inconvenience or cost a lot. Yes, the difference is one is a weapon and the other is a tool, but the intended use is similar, to save my life in an emergency.

I don't know, maybe it comes with different cultures or living in different countries. I just see it as weird that most people wouldn't carry if they have the option. Its not like America is the only country with a good amount of crime, or has a large distance between you and the cops at times.

I can understand a pistol. That makes sense, I wouldn't be opposed to having one myself. When it comes to things like semi-automatic rifles and the like... well it seems a bit over the top really.

 purplefood wrote:
I can understand a pistol. That makes sense, I wouldn't be opposed to having one myself. When it comes to things like semi-automatic rifles and the like... well it seems a bit over the top really.

An AR-15 is a LOT easier to hit a target with than a handgun, especially under stressful conditions, and the larger standard magazine size gives you more chances. For just a second, assume my previous sentence is true, why would you not want the easiest tool to use when your life may depend on your use of it?

 CptJake wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I can understand a pistol. That makes sense, I wouldn't be opposed to having one myself. When it comes to things like semi-automatic rifles and the like... well it seems a bit over the top really.

An AR-15 is a LOT easier to hit a target with than a handgun, especially under stressful conditions, and the larger standard magazine size gives you more chances. For just a second, assume my previous sentence is true, why would you not want the easiest tool to use when your life may depend on your use of it?

Not to mention the fact that shooting someone with a pistol typically does NOTHING to the person for several minutes (meaning until the adrenaline from being shot wears off )after the shooting. Where as a shot from a rifle on the other hand typically puts a person down. Go watch on YouTube a video made by an ER doc about the so called "stopping power" of hand guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well he's the link, since I'm sure most will be to lazy to even search.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Really it comes down to two views:

The government is told it MUST do something to protect the average citizen so they put forward at first glance, some regulations targeting potential people and their weapons that can kill on a large scale. Seems reasonable to deal with the problem.

From the viewpoint of the wary citizen that truly believes they must protect themselves from the possible dictator state: it looks like it is the final hour of identifying sources of resistance before being neutralized. Seems like a reasonable view.

No winners here.

For the fix to actually work you would either REQUIRE each household to have a firearm (average citizen protection) or ban all firearms (making them conspicuous and harder to distribute).

Everyone required to have a gun would certainly promote a more polite society.

 KingCracker wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I can understand a pistol. That makes sense, I wouldn't be opposed to having one myself. When it comes to things like semi-automatic rifles and the like... well it seems a bit over the top really.

An AR-15 is a LOT easier to hit a target with than a handgun, especially under stressful conditions, and the larger standard magazine size gives you more chances. For just a second, assume my previous sentence is true, why would you not want the easiest tool to use when your life may depend on your use of it?

Not to mention the fact that shooting someone with a pistol typically does NOTHING to the person for several minutes (meaning until the adrenaline from being shot wears off )after the shooting. Where as a shot from a rifle on the other hand typically puts a person down. Go watch on YouTube a video made by an ER doc about the so called "stopping power" of hand guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well he's the link, since I'm sure most will be to lazy to even search.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

That's a good point...

 Talizvar wrote:
Really it comes down to two views:

The government is told it MUST do something to protect the average citizen so they put forward at first glance, some regulations targeting potential people and their weapons that can kill on a large scale. Seems reasonable to deal with the problem.
From the viewpoint of the wary citizen that truly believes they must protect themselves from the possible dictator state: it looks like it is the final hour of identifying sources of resistance before being neutralized. Seems like a reasonable view.

No winners here.

For the fix to actually work you would either REQUIRE each household to have a firearm (average citizen protection) or ban all firearms (making them conspicuous and harder to distribute).

Everyone required to have a gun would certainly promote a more polite society.

Your first sentence is the problem. Who told 'the government' it must do something to protect the average citizen? Police cannot protect you, they can only really respond to an incident during (at best) or after (more realistic) it has occurred, not prevent the incident. To think they (the government) can protect you and to relinquish your responsibility to protect yourself, your family, and your property is a huge mistake. Requiring every one to have a firearm is silly. People should be free to decide for themselves if they want to have a firearm to protect themselves, or not to.

OA warning for people about to watch KingCracker's video, there IS gore, so if you're squemish look away. It is incredibly informative though so watch it if you can get through the bloody bits.

Its definitely making me reconsider my thought that I only really needed a handgun for home defense.

Aren't there companies that make defense rifle rounds that break up faster? You know, so they don't over penetrate. I don't own any "assault rifles" so I had never really looked into it.

 CptJake wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Really it comes down to two views:

The government is told it MUST do something to protect the average citizen so they put forward at first glance, some regulations targeting potential people and their weapons that can kill on a large scale. Seems reasonable to deal with the problem.
From the viewpoint of the wary citizen that truly believes they must protect themselves from the possible dictator state: it looks like it is the final hour of identifying sources of resistance before being neutralized. Seems like a reasonable view.

No winners here.

For the fix to actually work you would either REQUIRE each household to have a firearm (average citizen protection) or ban all firearms (making them conspicuous and harder to distribute).

Everyone required to have a gun would certainly promote a more polite society.

Your first sentence is the problem. Who told 'the government' it must do something to protect the average citizen? Police cannot protect you, they can only really respond to an incident during (at best) or after (more realistic) it has occurred, not prevent the incident. To think they (the government) can protect you and to relinquish your responsibility to protect yourself, your family, and your property is a huge mistake. Requiring every one to have a firearm is silly. People should be free to decide for themselves if they want to have a firearm to protect themselves, or not to.

That is not quite true. Increased police presence does have an affect on crime rates, but you are right in essence. Personal security rests in the hands of the person. The government can only do so much, and it's beyond silly when they try to restrict our own right to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
OA warning for people about to watch KingCracker's video, there IS gore, so if you're squemish look away. It is incredibly informative though so watch it if you can get through the bloody bits.

Its definitely making me reconsider my thought that I only really needed a handgun for home defense.

Aren't there companies that make defense rifle rounds that break up faster? You know, so they don't over penetrate. I don't own any "assault rifles" so I had never really looked into it.

There are rounds out there that serve better purposes for this, yes.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why does the fact that he is a vet lend more weight to what he thinks? I think people try to throw around "Someone in the military said this, so we must follow what they say" idea school of thought to much and dot really try to hear. I mean this a to no offense to the men in the military, but to often to i hear that school of thought. If someone else said "My right is more important the your dead" they would be flogged in the street.

I would like to believe that people who are willing to fight for their country should have more weight than people who just sit around on their ass all day....

Because there's a strict dichotomy that if you aren't enlisted in the military, you're useless and sit on your ass all day.

 Slarg232 wrote:
[I would like to believe that people who are willing to fight for their country should have more weight than people who just sit around on their ass all day....

That is a bit of a false dichotomy isn't it?