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.
The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.
I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.
Fafnir wrote: The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.
I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.
The seven-round mag limit's awfully absurd, as is the background check for ammo purchase requirement.
If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?
Because the ammo's useless without the gun, and tacking the $25 - $50 background check fee (down here; it's probably higher in New York) onto every single ammo purchase (which may not be more than $25 in the first place) is remarkably dumb and unnecessary.
As for the round limit? Most modern pistols aren't designed around a 7-round mag. You artificially shorten mags, you most often run into feed problems. So if you ever do need to use the gun in a self-defense scenario, there's a better chance you run into legislation-induced feedway stoppages (jams). It is also not at all difficult to locate any number of cases in which it takes far more than seven shots to incapacitate a threat. And I'm talking about seven actual hits, not the expected number of misses that will occur.
But getting back to the "most guns aren't designed around..." point, it's also an artificial limit on what's available to the consumer, because most manufacturers aren't going to adjust their production solely to ensure legality in one state, and a state that's rather harsh on gun purchasers in the first place (meaning that there won't be as much demand, and hence fewer sales, already). The Glock 19's an immensely popular CCW weapon, for example, and it runs a 15 round magazine.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?
I get the point of high capacity bans to a point, but laws for smaller magazines do seem a bit dumb to me. 7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me. But magazines can be dirt cheap, and somebody going on a spree with ten 7 round mags is not doing a lot less carnage than someone with ten 9 round mags.
The whole "why does him being a vet matter" question stands though.
Fafnir wrote: The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.
I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.
The seven-round mag limit's awfully absurd, as is the background check for ammo purchase requirement.
Canada has both of these, except our mag limit is 4 or 5 in semi auto's and we have a whole separate license for purchasing ammo. Ammo Requisition license, aw yeah.
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.
Being a vet shows that the person puts the whole above the part, and has accepted the moral responsibility that comes with the power of having one's franchise, to butcher Heinlein.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?
I get the point of high capacity bans to a point, but laws for smaller magazines do seem a bit dumb to me. 7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me. But magazines can be dirt cheap, and somebody going on a spree with ten 7 round mags is not doing a lot less carnage than someone with ten 9 round mags.
The whole "why does him being a vet matter" question stands though.
The whole reason? Because he is a vet, americans like to put to much emphasis on military service, to the point where so much criticizing a vet(even for something non-military related stuff, like hitting on your GF) is considered wrong. I remember the saying "they fought for your right to criticize them, so stop criticizing them"
Being a vet shows that the person puts the whole above the part, and has accepted the moral responsibility that comes with the power of having one's franchise, to butcher Heinlein.
In a public forum, his opinion should matter just as much as anyone elses, he has one vote, like the rest of us, try for an articulate argument, not "Im a vet, so my opinion means more"
Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.
Ammo's useless without a gun? What about guns that are illegally purchased or hand built? Sure you could buy the ammo illegally too, but why do that when its so much simpler to just go to the shop and buy some?
Jihadin wrote: I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider
The proper use for a Beretta, long range bug swatter. Though frankly as big as camel spiders get, no shame from shooting those nightmarish monsters.
As to using a rifle for self defense there's all sorts of reasons. Thankfully no one has to justify them to you or anybody else. Since I am a kind soul, I will however provide some examples. The most common defensive rifle in the United States is the venerable and extremely popular AR-15, it's ergonomics are comfortable for shooters of all sizes, it's easy to handle, doesn't weigh much and has extremely simple operation, good accuracy and importantly for female shooters despite what Joe "Give'em Both Barrels" Biden might tell you the recoil is extremely manageable (I would happily compare a 5.56/.223 to a .22, but I'm a large man who shoots high caliber rifles on the regular.) For the home defender the AR-15 is a cheap, effective and lethal package that provides enough gun for any given situation that might come through your door at night with ill intent towards you and yours. A standard capacity thirty round magazine means more then enough ammo to handle said nuisance and his friends. There are numerous examples of a rifle platform's use for defensive purposes. If they weren't good for defending yourself, why would the average LEO have one in his car eh?
Fafnir wrote: The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.
I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.
The seven-round mag limit's awfully absurd, as is the background check for ammo purchase requirement.
ther
Canada has both of these, except our mag limit is 4 or 5 in semi auto's and we have a whole separate license for purchasing ammo. Ammo Requisition license, aw yeah.
You also ration health care, live in igloos, think Molsons is actual beer and otherwise live in a hostile hell hole not suitable for human life. (Which explains why Quebcois live there)
Honestly I can achieve a high, accurate rate of fire with my M1 Garand, a rifle that's well over 60 years old (my individual rifle is over 60 years old, the design is older) and it only has an eight shot internal clip, I'm pretty proficient with my lever action rifles too, and they side load into a tube. Mag bans and limits are just a little goofy in my opinion. Especially for self defense, the primary effect is putting the citizen at a disadvantage to the criminal. It doesn't help or stop anything or anyone. It's an illusory feel good measure. Like most "common sense" gun control. Restricting the law abiding: Yeah that'll stop those bad guys!
Wyrmalla wrote: Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.
That's cute, but not really how it works. The notion that you're only going to need a couple shots to stop a threat in a self-defense situation is frequently a Hollywood myth rather than reality. You could get lucky and hit the CNS on your first shot, but that's not often how it goes. Keep in mind that Georgia woman who put six into a guy's chest and head and he still got up and drove off after invading her home.
Ammo's useless without a gun? What about guns that are illegally purchased or hand built? Sure you could buy the ammo illegally too, but why do that when its so much simpler to just go to the shop and buy some?
It's not so much simpler now, is it? Anyway, were it me, I'd just head over the border and buy some at a Jersey Walmart rather than pay an extra $50 every time I wanted to go to the range. Sucks for people living upstate, that's for sure, but that ain't where the gun crime is, anyway.
Wyrmalla wrote: Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.
Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?
We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.
We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.
I can't argue that....being in Germany....Canada.....drinking there compare to here....
Ratbarf wrote: We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.
Wyrmalla wrote: Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.
Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?
Because police are more likely to be in a gunfight where there are multiple assailants shooting from cover than your average person who buys a gun for self-defense?
The situation you described is far more Hollywood than anything else in this thread.
How often do home invasions turn into running gunfights ala Mr. & Mrs. Smith?
I guess I'll take the criticism for this one, so fire away.
High capacity magazines are for self defense from others with 30 round + magazines. The second amendment to our Constitution is in place for the citizens to defend themselves from a corrupt and unjust government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or burglers. The founders, who had just rebelled against a tyrant, understood the need for the tools to be in place if another should come to power. The federal government is telling us, "You have no right to defend yourselves from us."
There you have it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or a bigot or whatever the hell else you want. I've heard it before, and I'm sure I'll hear it until the day I die, or am proven right.
Using a high powered rifle in a home defense scenario defies all common sense. You are likely to injure someone else in the home or a neighbor.
Good grief buy a shotgun, then you (likely not trained for combat shooting) have a chance of hitting what you are aiming at and not killing the baby asleep across the hall.
Or you could just have a sturdy lock on your door. Unless you are living in a very high crime neighborhood if you carry a gun for self defense you are more likely to injure yourself or a loved one than you are to need it to defend yourself.
We've been over this countless times. I know saying that isn't going to stop anyone from wanting to do it again, but just thought I'd throw it out there.
General self-defense philosophy from instructors, people with combat experience, people with self-defense experience, etc. is that you'd rather have more than you need than less, and that one or two hits rarely does the job.
General self-defense philosophy from people in favor of "sensible" restrictions who've never shot a pistol at a moving target in their lives is that anyone who needs more than two rounds is incompetent.
Wyrmalla wrote: Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.
Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?
If you're in a gun fight against multiple assailants shooting at you from cover, I'm pretty sure gun laws would be the last of your concern, no matter how you look at them.
JWhex wrote: Using a high powered rifle in a home defense scenario defies all common sense. You are likely to injure someone else in the home or a neighbor.
Good grief buy a shotgun, then you (likely not trained for combat shooting) have a chance of hitting what you are aiming at and not killing the baby asleep across the hall.
Or you could just have a sturdy lock on your door. Unless you are living in a very high crime neighborhood if you carry a gun for self defense you are more likely to injure yourself or a loved one than you are to need it to defend yourself.
There are many arguments that rifles are better then shotguns (and pistols) for purpose of personal and home defense. Penetration being one of them. Unless your shooting #4 or less shot with a shotgun, which MAY slow your target down, your still going to punch through that wall with a shotgun.
Seaward wrote: We've been over this countless times. I know saying that isn't going to stop anyone from wanting to do it again, but just thought I'd throw it out there.
General self-defense philosophy from instructors, people with combat experience, people with self-defense experience, etc. is that you'd rather have more than you need than less, and that one or two hits rarely does the job.
General self-defense philosophy from people in favor of "sensible" restrictions who've never shot a pistol at a moving target in their lives is that anyone who needs more than two rounds is incompetent.
General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.
People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.
AR15/M4 is considered high powered? Getting hit with a 5.56mm...or .223 round you stand more a chance being wounded....reason being it takes two to remove a wounded from the Area of Engagement. I'm more comfortable with what I know. I know what I'm capable of using a AR15/M4 or a 9mm. What's the issue here is people throwing in their opinion like they know/familiar with the weapons in question. As for 7 rds in a mag...that's limiting amateurs and me, a professional, in being conservative or going for straight kill shots.
...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !
Yes that was a deliberately ignorant statement there.
Is there a statistic on how many of the average Americans have gotten into gun fights against a posse? At home I would believe you'd be carrying something larger anyhow, so the mag size is a little moot right?
One of my Dad's friends was shot in the abdomen whilst serving (yes it was a .303, but again if it really matters carry a Taurus or something...). ...He went down pretty fast. Apparently the average criminal in America's is some Hulk like figure that can take a few mags in their stride .
Also; People use assault rifles for home defense. Uh... Do they like blowing holes out of their walls and furniture? A shotgun'd presumably be a much more efficient/safer weapon to use in the environment. 0.o
Wyrmalla wrote: ...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !
Yes that was a deliberately ignorant statement there.
Is there a statistic on how many of the average Americans have gotten into gun fights against a posse? At home I would believe you'd be carrying something larger anyhow, so the mag size is a little moot right?
One of my Dad's friends was shot in the abdomen whilst serving (yes it was a .303, but again if it really matters carry a Taurus or something...). ...He went down pretty fast. Apparently the average criminal in America's is some Hulk like figure that can take a few mags in their stride .
Also; People use assault rifles for home defense. Uh... Do they like blowing holes out of their walls and furniture? A shotgun'd presumably be a much more efficient/safer weapon to use in the environment. 0.o
All bullets are going to punch through standard dry wall homes. AR rounds with the right powder will fragment when they hit the wall and shed velocity. They'll still penetrate, but will pose almost no risk once through.
Kanluwen wrote: General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.
What about the times when it's not?
People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.
I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.
Also, TIL we went to Iraq to fight for the second amendment in the US. Who knew?
American military personnel stand to defend the Constitution and the rights it protects no matter where they happen to be deployed at the moment, including Iraq.
I agree with those who say we shouldn't give his words some kind of special credence just because he is a veteran, but rather that we should judge his words based on their own merit. I for one find his words to be dripping with merit. His words have a hell of a lot more merit than the trash that those NY politicians filled the "SAFE" act full of before they passed it as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy.
Kanluwen wrote: General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.
What about the times when it's not?
Then fire away?
People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.
I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.
You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.
Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.
But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?
Fafnir wrote: The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.
I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.
The SAFE act is far from reasonable. NY already had some of the strictest gun legislation in the nation before they passed it. And there are plenty of people riled up about this crap legislation that are not at all passive about the NSA.
Kanluwen wrote: You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.
I don't believe you need that. If I did, I'd encourage everyone to wander around with a lot more than Glock 19s.
My point is that the assumption that you will only ever need four or five rounds in a self-defense scenario is not born out by evidence. Sometimes you will need only one. Sometimes you will need ten. And I'm talking simply about single assailants.
Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.
But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?
You're arguing against a strawman. The notion that carrying fifteen rounds is equipping on par with your local SWAT team is a little goofy.
People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.
I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.
You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.
Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.
But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense? How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?
Except none of that is what I said. I was asked what POSSIBLE use any one could have for multiple rounds and I listed a number of scenarios that do come up in real life. (Multiple assailants, bad guys not going down from a single bullet, etc) you decided to wave your hands in the air and start screaming about SWAT teams. Do you do this every where you go? If someone suggests getting a couple beers at the pub do you start talking about how hard it is to carry a keg? You realize over extending to the point of being ludicrous (which is your modus operandi) just makes you look like a poltroon right?
Edit: Also I'd like to verify that none of what I said requires going out armed like "John McClane" or your action movie of choice. Ooooh a normal hand gun, a standard capacity magazine (oh noes 15 rounds! He's a one man killing machine carrying enough bullets for an army!) and maybe a spare mag. Shocking I know. Then on home defense, Sea and I explained all that crap in detail above, though I did not take the time to mock the laughable notion that an AR-15 in 5.56 is a high powered rifle.
You want to know what's Hollywood Kan? That a single bullet stops a threat, that reloading is something that happens to other people, that stress doesn't affect aim, and a whole HOST of other horse gak that's been spread across this thread. (You don't have to aim shotguns/barely have to aim shotguns is a classic example)
People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.
I'm not sure why I even bother. You're more than welcome to believe that you will always shoot well in the midst of an adrenaline dump and that one hit is all you will ever need. You're also perfectly free to ignore the research done into terminal ballistics, the average number of shots even "high caliber" weapons take to incapacitate, and so forth.
You are talking past the point I was making which was referencing the idea that for whatever reason you need to be able to have enough ammunition capacity for prolonged firefights against multiple assailants using cover.
Police officers and military both would back your statement of the adrenaline effect during exchanges of gunfire and djones520's statement of "250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent" is probably fairly accurate given the concept of suppressive fire and the tactics used for combat in urban terrain.
But again: how many times is your average citizen who is buying a handgun or shotgun for home protection going to need to that many rounds for self-defense?
How often are YOU going to be involved in a situation that a SWAT team would be underequipped and trained to handle?
Except none of that is what I said. I was asked what POSSIBLE use any one could have for multiple rounds and I listed a number of scenarios that do come up in real life. (Multiple assailants, bad guys not going down from a single bullet, etc) you decided to wave your hands in the air and start screaming about SWAT teams. Do you do this every where you go? If someone suggests getting a couple beers at the pub do you start talking about how hard it is to carry a keg? You realize over extending to the point of being ludicrous (which is your modus operandi) just makes you look like a poltroon right?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.
Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?
So that is not your statement?
And I am the one being ludicrous. I forgot how common it is for those massive 7am firefights on the way to the grocery store...
I do not want to be mean or overexaggerating here, but if you cannot see why I responded with the statement I did?
You have no business accusing me of "overextending to the point of being ludicrous".
I have no 'modus operandi' here. I just simply do not see why you needed to bring up the idea of training for a gunfight, being in a gunfight, or Hollywood styled shootouts into a thread about the SAFE Act.
So American citizens never get attacked or have their home invaded by more then one guy? Bad guys only run straight at you without concern for their own lives after being engaged like some lead seeking lemming? One magic bullet can kill any one? And some how all of that extends to massive firefights.
Right on Kan. You can go sit down now, you're done here.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So American citizens never get attacked or have their home invaded by more then one guy? Bad guys only run straight at you without concern for their own lives after being engaged like some lead seeking lemming? One magic bullet can kill any one? And some how all of that extends to massive firefights.
Right on Kan. You can go sit down now, you're done here.
I am not the one who started talking about gunfights with multiple assailants firing from cover and the idea that "Hollywood physics" are misleading.
Home invasions with multiple assailants do happen, certainly. But they do not necessarily result in huge firefights and cover utilizing criminals.
Kan...the best time to assault a FoB is early morning.....transition between night to day....most everyone sleeping or in the process of waking up....guards are resisting the urge to power nap being that they been on guard mount pass 24 hrs....best time to go undetected in assaulting an objective...insurgents were quite good on that in 07-08....so your "7am" firefight are quite.....huge involves the grunts and personnel in the FoB....Apaches...A10's...105mm artillery...60mm mortars....50 cals....Mark19's...240's....249's...thrown frags....40mm grenade launchers...you name it. Versus their Ak47/74....RPG's...Russian mortars...thrown frags....typical day overthere on "Kill an American" Day year round
Nor am I saying they do, I am saying you'll probably need more then seven shots in such a scenario. Also seriously? You wouldn't get some wall between you and the angry home owner putting lead towards your squishy bits? Cover is not exactly a tactical skill so much as common sense if rounds are being exchanged. Unless you desire your own free lead piercings.
In other news here is an example of an item you probably will never need in any situation, but you should be free to purchase any way.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Nor am I saying they do, I am saying you'll probably need more then seven shots in such a scenario. Also seriously? You wouldn't get some wall between you and the angry home owner putting lead towards your squishy bits? Cover is not exactly a tactical skill so much as common sense if rounds are being exchanged. Unless you desire your own free lead piercings.
You are giving a bit too much credit to most individuals who get involved in home invasions.
In other news here is an example of an item you probably will never need in any situation, but you should be free to purchase any way.
No freaking way......sorry...I'm not Tacticool...that's aimed at civilians that doesn't know better....having that on a rifle is creating a blind spot (possible)....weapon leaning to the left due to weight...just the idea of the possible blind spot just unnerves me....that has the potential to make the shooter go "God mode" and totally expose him/herself
AngryMarine wrote: I guess I'll take the criticism for this one, so fire away.
High capacity magazines are for self defense from others with 30 round + magazines. The second amendment to our Constitution is in place for the citizens to defend themselves from a corrupt and unjust government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or burglers. The founders, who had just rebelled against a tyrant, understood the need for the tools to be in place if another should come to power. The federal government is telling us, "You have no right to defend yourselves from us."
There you have it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or a bigot or whatever the hell else you want. I've heard it before, and I'm sure I'll hear it until the day I die, or am proven right.
hard to call you a conspiracy theorist when you speak the truth...a lot of nonsense gets thrown around in the gun debate but the second amendment is as you say there so we can protect ourselves from the government
If the safe act thread is any indication you are not fully protected until you have a the firepower to fight off a hundred gang members and everything within a mile of your home rigged to explode if it is breached.
Jihadin wrote: No freaking way......sorry...I'm not Tacticool...that's aimed at civilians that doesn't know better....having that on a rifle is creating a blind spot (possible)....weapon leaning to the left due to weight...just the idea of the possible blind spot just unnerves me....that has the potential to make the shooter go "God mode" and totally expose him/herself
My understanding is that as long as I am the protagonist, I will only ever receive grazing shoulder wounds, anyway, and my shotgun will send people flying through the air. I see no reason not to use a shield!
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.
Just how people think. If you've never seen people who think this way before, you need to get out more. They definitely exist.
Not disrespecting vets, just saying that there are people who think that way.
I will admit that if a vet is saying something, it may lend more credence to what he's saying.
Say, a combat vet explaining multiple times that yes, it usually takes more than 1 bullet to kill someone, and that yes, it's really hard to aim when your adrenaline is pumping and that yes, a 7 round mag limit is an unreasonable handicap when odds are the person they are defending themselves against isn't encumbered by that ban.
Now if a vet walked up to me and starts telling me that GW Finecast was an excellent material, that'd be different. I don't care if you have 10 Medals of Honor, you're wrong
EDITs: because my phone screwed up and posted too early
Jihadin wrote: Sorry we have a different thought process and experience more in life.
Im not saying vets dont go through a gak ton, more then i will, but to put their views on a pedestal when, in a democracy, all views are supposed too be considered equal to me is stupid.
Ratbarf wrote: Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
Jihadin wrote: Sorry we have a different thought process and experience more in life.
Im not saying vets dont go through a gak ton, more then i will, but to put their views on a pedestal when, in a democracy, all views are supposed too be considered equal to me is stupid.
I don't see how anyone is putting him on a pedestal. I'm sure plenty of other people were given the chance to speak at that meeting too. They weren't all clapping at the end just because he was a veteran.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?
Hang on, what? Are we actually talking about gun control policy in the context of hypothetical gun battles with multiple home intruders, and shoot outs from cover with single or multiple intruders?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: As for referencing "combat experience", I believe the numbers that came out of Iraq was 250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent.
Yeah, in a situation in which both sides are armed with assault rifles and use of suppressing fire in common. Which is not the situation in home invasions. And what I just typed is not a something that should ever have to be typed in a world full of educated, rational men, but, well, this is a very strange thread.
I mean, thing is, I think the 7 round limit is a pointless bit of do nothing bad legislation at best, but the arguments being put forward in this thread to attack that legislation are trending towards being really, really nutty.
Ratbarf wrote: We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.
Join me for an Arrogant Bastard Ale Rat?
Horrible, horrible stuff, that Arrogant Bastard Ale..... almost as bad as Dead Guy Ale.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?
Hang on, what? Are we actually talking about gun control policy in the context of hypothetical gun battles with multiple home intruders, and shoot outs from cover with single or multiple intruders?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: As for referencing "combat experience", I believe the numbers that came out of Iraq was 250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent.
Yeah, in a situation in which both sides are armed with assault rifles and use of suppressing fire in common. Which is not the situation in home invasions. And what I just typed is not a something that should ever have to be typed in a world full of educated, rational men, but, well, this is a very strange thread.
In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.
I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.
7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me.
If you banned anything with a capacity larger than 5 rounds, you just destroyed the entire six-shooter market... basically every single revolver in existence carries a minimum of six rounds (that I know of)
I'm with AngryMarine, limiting how much we can defend ourselves from the RAI 2nd Amendment is incredibly wrong. But, to me, it is just as wrong as prohibition, NSA collection practices regarding US citizens, and violating EO 12223. You should get the idea. I'm of the libertarian mind that the Fed government should have very little power... I mean, aside from FBI handling cases that cross state boundaries, the IRS collecting the money that makes our government and it's necessary agencies run (and we all know there are some that are redundant and others that are asinine and pointless) but that's all beside the point.
7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me.
If you banned anything with a capacity larger than 5 rounds, you just destroyed the entire six-shooter market... basically every single revolver in existence carries a minimum of six rounds (that I know of)
I'm with AngryMarine, limiting how much we can defend ourselves from the RAI 2nd Amendment is incredibly wrong. But, to me, it is just as wrong as prohibition, NSA collection practices regarding US citizens, and violating EO 12223. You should get the idea. I'm of the libertarian mind that the Fed government should have very little power... I mean, aside from FBI handling cases that cross state boundaries, the IRS collecting the money that makes our government and it's necessary agencies run (and we all know there are some that are redundant and others that are asinine and pointless) but that's all beside the point.
I hope that the rest of my post made it obvious that I don't support the magazine limit.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?
Hang on, what? Are we actually talking about gun control policy in the context of hypothetical gun battles with multiple home intruders, and shoot outs from cover with single or multiple intruders?
.
Again someone asked what you might need more then a couple rounds for. There's plenty of answers. Multiple aggressors are a common self defense situation to train for whether they have guns or not (and does count as a lethal force situation), is the concept of two dudes working together to mug you or kick your door in to steal your gak really that mind blowing? We're not talking Hollywood Die Hard style shootouts with dozens of armed terrorists (well Kan is but he's in his own little world again) we're talking one to two bad guys, more in extreme situations. Just ask this homeowner in Sacramento. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-say-1-dead-3-wounded-in-sac-home-invasion/
Good thing he had more then seven rounds.
Also if you're not using cover that's your own death wish. I heartily welcome the bad guys to make like lemmings and expose themselves to gunfire.
Seaward wrote: We've been over this countless times. I know saying that isn't going to stop anyone from wanting to do it again, but just thought I'd throw it out there.
General self-defense philosophy from instructors, people with combat experience, people with self-defense experience, etc. is that you'd rather have more than you need than less, and that one or two hits rarely does the job.
General self-defense philosophy from people in favor of "sensible" restrictions who've never shot a pistol at a moving target in their lives is that anyone who needs more than two rounds is incompetent.
General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.
People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.
Ratbarf wrote: Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
3.2% beer? Do they even sell that anymore?
Ever been to Utah?
@Lordhat, That last video you posted, is pretty much exactly the reason why I suggest all my "anti-gun" friends (who are extremely few) read the book "Seven Myths of Gun Control".. It's quite the excellent, and fairly short read.
Hordini wrote: In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.
I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.
I'm totally fine with having guns not used in home invasions. Criminals in this country don't use assault rifles, perhaps that is something to think about.
Ratbarf wrote: Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.
3.2% beer? Do they even sell that anymore?
Ever been to Utah?
No. I take it I should keep it that way?
I kid, I'm sure I would visit Utah given the chance. But they still sell that there? I know they used to allow people to buy 3.2% beer at 18 here (which is not Utah), but it hasn't been that way for a long time. Before I was born, I'm pretty sure.
Hordini wrote: In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.
I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.
I'm totally fine with having guns not used in home invasions. Criminals in this country don't use assault rifles, perhaps that is something to think about.
That's great for your country, but it doesn't take an assault rifle to do a home invasion. My point is, I want the home-owner to be better armed than the criminal.
Are you fine with the woman not having a gun in that last video that Lordhat posted?
And the circle of life of the 2nd amendment right thread is complete.
We go from honest debate to personal attacks split straight down country nationality from both sides. Please guys this gets us nowhere, stop it now, or we'll have ANOTHER thread locked over stupid arguing.
What I'm wanting to know is where is the case being brought up that this is unconstitutional? This is something that I could easily see someone taking New York to court over, and would probably go all the way up to the Supreme Court. The law is clearly against the 2nd amendment and doesn't even do anything to curb gun violence in any meaningful way. The gun control crowd should be more furious about this law than gun owners, because the law doesn't do gak to stop a mass shooting (you know, the whole reason it exists in the first place)
Also, why should I have to pass a background check to buy ammunition? Its an unnecessary hurdle for legal gun owners, and any gangbanger who knows he won't pass will just get a straw man to buy it for him. Its a law clearly passed to be a burden on gun owners to discourage and slow them down in attempting to buy ammo, much like mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are designed to kill off gun ownership over time. They know they can't ban them all at once, so they're easing it in. Next thing you know it'll be 5 round mag bans, then no semi auto rifles, then single shot only, each with a more ridiculous justification than the last.
When I was growing up in Illinois you had to have a gun owner permit/license to carry when you were hunting, buying a gun, buying ammo or whatever. I never really had a problem with it and neither did any of my friends or friends of my grandfather that I went hunting and shooting with.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Its a law clearly passed to be a burden on gun owners to discourage and slow them down in attempting to buy ammo, much like mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are designed to kill off gun ownership over time. They know they can't ban them all at once, so they're easing it in. Next thing you know it'll be 5 round mag bans, then no semi auto rifles, then single shot only, each with a more ridiculous justification than the last.
My obligatory, "Same tactics as the anti-abortion crowd," post.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Its a law clearly passed to be a burden on gun owners to discourage and slow them down in attempting to buy ammo, much like mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are designed to kill off gun ownership over time. They know they can't ban them all at once, so they're easing it in. Next thing you know it'll be 5 round mag bans, then no semi auto rifles, then single shot only, each with a more ridiculous justification than the last.
My obligatory, "Same tactics as the anti-abortion crowd," post.
Exactly.
This tactic gets used a lot and I hate seeing it every time. Its a very underhanded approach
I honestly don't see the problem behind having a license to allow you to buy weapons/ammo.
You might have to wait a week or two for all the paperwork to go through, but considering that buying a gun should be more than just an impulse buy, I don't see it as being a huge issue.
We have the technology around to make this a painless process. If we can get it to work for automotive systems around the world, I'm pretty sure America can get it to work for their guns. What's one extra card in your wallet going to do?
Fafnir wrote: I honestly don't see the problem behind having a license to allow you to buy weapons/ammo.
You might have to wait a week or two for all the paperwork to go through, but considering that buying a gun should be more than just an impulse buy, I don't see it as being a huge issue.
We have the technology around to make this a painless process. If we can get it to work for automotive systems around the world, I'm pretty sure America can get it to work for their guns. What's one extra card in your wallet going to do?
You already have to pass a background check every time you buy a gun from a dealer. Why do you need to get a license too? To show that you can pass two background checks?
Hordini wrote: In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.
I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.
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.
But that's solving a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads. People who've engaged in two sided, on-going gun battles with home invaders are about as common as people who've walked on the moon.
Hordini wrote: In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.
I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.
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.
But that's solving a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads. People who've engaged in two sided, on-going gun battles with home invaders are about as common as people who've walked on the moon.
Grenades? Who's trying to solve a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads again?
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.
I wish the woman who got beat and thrown down the stairs in Lordhat's video had had an AR-15 and the knowledge to employ it effectively, and it has nothing to do with being able to engage her unarmed attacker in a running gun battle.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Again someone asked what you might need more then a couple rounds for. There's plenty of answers. Multiple aggressors are a common self defense situation to train for whether they have guns or not (and does count as a lethal force situation), is the concept of two dudes working together to mug you or kick your door in to steal your gak really that mind blowing?
Note that I'm not in favour of the seven round max. I'm just commenting on some people's thoughts on why such a thing might be needed.
We're not talking Hollywood Die Hard style shootouts with dozens of armed terrorists (well Kan is but he's in his own little world again) we're talking one to two bad guys, more in extreme situations.
You were talking about gunfights with multiple opponents, with each firing from cover.
"What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?"
Also if you're not using cover that's your own death wish. I heartily welcome the bad guys to make like lemmings and expose themselves to gunfire.
You're missing the point. It isn't strange to suggest that, once a gunfight between two parties breaks out, both sides might seek to use cover to protect themselves during that gunfight. It is strange, crazy even, to suggest that such situations occur between homeowners and home invaders regularly enough that it should be mentioned.
I mean, it's like asking a person why he's added steel reinforcing beams to the roof of his house, and he starts talking about how it'll stop plane debris crashing through the roof. Well yeah, it probably would, but why would anyone put that problem on the top of their list of priorities. Similarly, why in the hell would anyone put their ability to outshoot multiple armed bandits looking to engage in a gun battle in the top 2,000 problems they need to solve?
Typically, if someone's going to break into your house, the mere presence of a weapon is enough to scare someone off. Very few people want to even take the risk of getting shot, be it with a high-powered rifle or a pistol. Especially if they're already intruding on someone else's property.
Fafnir wrote: Typically, if someone's going to break into your house, the mere presence of a weapon is enough to scare someone off. Very few people want to even take the risk of getting shot, be it with a high-powered rifle or a pistol. Especially if they're already intruding on someone else's property.
Exactly. So if you decide you're going to have a gun for defense anyway, why not pick one that can do well in a variety of situations, both relatively mundane as well as extreme?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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....
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?
Have you made a sacrifice for your country?
Have you written letters to congressmen stating your opinions on issues? Or just posted about it on forums all day?
When did YOU actually do something other than just vote for president/rep/senator?
What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying anyone not a soldier is fat? I'm 150lbs at 6'3", and I'm the last person you'd ever see in the military.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying anyone not a soldier is fat? I'm 150lbs at 6'3", and I'm the last person you'd ever see in the military.
No, but I am saying that Americans are amongst the top ten countries in the world (Oddly, quite a few middle east countries have us beat....) making us fat, and also one of the least politically active citizenry in the free world, making us lazy.
CptJake wrote: 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.
The outcry from the people EVERY time there is a massacre by an armed "psycho" is what tells the government to do something.
Direct prevention to them is to remove the availability of the weapons, psychos are harder to get rid of (or identify) but they had the great idea of involving psychiatrists!
Who says the average citizen has the responsibility to protect themselves? How far is this protection to be? Mace, tazer, baseball bat, sword, gun, rifle, bazooka... It always sucks to bring a knife to a gun fight.
PREVENTION is the thing, not sure if criminals would think twice if they know any place they go has a high probability of greeting him with an armed response. To dismiss it as "silly" is to ignore the primary reason Texas is so warm to carrying weapons. Say if any people were armed in those movie theaters when a crazy stated shooting, there would be a whole lot less dead people.
Keep the potential victims armed to defend themselves but run the risk of arming crazy people OR allow no guns for anyone so availability is that much harder OR allow weapons but monitor their use, location and suitability of the person using them. Got other options??
It is easy to criticize but really try to think of what is a good middle ground. We are dealing with politics so it is in their best interest to keep it vague so they can call special circumstances when the political heat is too much.
It all boils down to: You can have "freedom" or you can have "security", you cannot have both.
MrDwhitey wrote: I apologise for the testiness of my reaction, but if you look at OT any time a "foreign" issue comes up there's almost always American posters in it.
I think that it's a stupid, Frazzled-esque "counter", and I didn't expect it.
I agree, I don't think Americans should be telling the British how to run their country, and I don't think British people should be telling Americans how to run their country. I try to actively avoid the other country threads
MrDwhitey wrote: Re-read my previous post in response to your post.
Also, this isn't an American only forum, grow up.
Never said it was, but obviously people from outside of the country have both a stake and a claim as to what is happening overseas.
I realize how hypocritical that could be taken, but to be fair I don't believe we should be overseas ourselves.
America is among the foremost countries of the world. It's media and culture is broadcast across the globe and it's political decisions have an impact on more than just the US. Why do you think so many people we against PIPA and SOPA? It wasn't just the US. People in different countries were worried that other governments would use it as an excuse or a framework for similar laws in their country which is why so many people rallied round to object to it.
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?
In another line of thinking, if you were told to chop down an old Oak tree, and were presented two tools, but could only choose one, an axe or a chainsaw... which would you take the tree down with?
Considering I have no idea how a chainsaw works I'd probably go with the axe but I do get your point.
The difference is however, in one case you have a tree that gets chopped down faster in the other case you have a dead person.
purplefood wrote: Considering I have no idea how a chainsaw works I'd probably go with the axe but I do get your point.
The difference is however, in one case you have a tree that gets chopped down faster in the other case you have a dead person.
Better the other guy dead than my wife, daughter or self hurt or worse.
Slarg232 wrote: I don't think British people should be telling Americans how to run their country.
If you want we can let you back into the embrace of the Empire. You can be known as Americashire and we will exchange your guns for tea and bullets for sugar cubes.
Slarg232 wrote: I don't think British people should be telling Americans how to run their country.
If you want we can let you back into the embrace of the Empire. You can be known as Americashire and we will exchange your guns for tea and bullets for sugar cubes.
Huzzah!
At that ratio everyone will be toothless in a week.
Slarg232 wrote: I don't think British people should be telling Americans how to run their country.
If you want we can let you back into the embrace of the Empire. You can be known as Americashire and we will exchange your guns for tea and bullets for sugar cubes.
Huzzah!
At that ratio everyone will be toothless in a week.
or as fat as the individuals in slargs pictures.
Everytime people talk about guns it seems to be home owners vs criminals being talked about and how home owners need bigger guns. I've a crazy thought for you, criminals can be home owners. Who would have thought? I always thought criminals waited in the periphery of my vision waiting to do bad things to me.
Bullockist wrote: Everytime people talk about guns it seems to be home owners vs criminals being talked about and how home owners need bigger guns. I've a crazy thought for you, criminals can be home owners. Who would have thought? I always thought criminals waited in the periphery of my vision waiting to do bad things to me.
Criminals are only homeowners because they stole the houses from people without guns
Everytime people talk about guns it seems to be home owners vs criminals being talked about and how home owners need bigger guns. I've a crazy thought for you, criminals can be home owners. Who would have thought? I always thought criminals waited in the periphery of my vision waiting to do bad things to me.
And when I break into their home or attempt to mug them one night, they can claim self defense when they shoot me.
Chub Scout in the hat cracks me up....looked like he scarfed his extra large fries and now working on his brother fries.....
I rather take down a intruder in my household with a 5.56mm. Less blood compare to a shotgun where I can remove a limb....then I have a bleeder on my carpet....then I have to replace my carpet...part of the dry wall....better yet..if he's arm with a knife.....I can spear him in the chest with my barrel...let him eat my buttstock for a bit.....really over do it on the rifle bayonet training minus the bayonet....I'm feeling the difference in this thread on the older indivduals vs the young individuals.
Of course we (those of experience in fire arms) will be the first to say "go with what you know" meaning military KISS. So if you ask me for advice for you first decision to buy a fire arm I be the first to ask...rifle or pistol....why not a shotgun? Its an overkill. Why an overkill....well the amount of blood that's going to go all over the place and a bleeder..depends how much you want to clean up the blood....its up to them...those with small hands stop looking at 45's...maybe go with a 40...I digress
Everytime people talk about guns it seems to be home owners vs criminals being talked about and how home owners need bigger guns. I've a crazy thought for you, criminals can be home owners. Who would have thought? I always thought criminals waited in the periphery of my vision waiting to do bad things to me.
And when I break into their home or attempt to mug them one night, they can claim self defense when they shoot me.
What point were you trying to make?
My point is the argument is always we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals. Criminals however can buy and use exactly the same guns you can use for protection in order to commit a crime.
In my country we don't "need" guns for protection because for the most part criminals don't use guns. Can you see how the whole we need them(guns) for protection idea just becomes a circular race for armament? It also becomes pointless as criminals buy the same guns for crime as you use for protection.
The whole protection idea also loses out when the idea of having a full auto weapon in your house may make you feel safe, however in a house invasion you are unlikely to have time to go grab the weapon and get to the area you need to in time. If however you leave it loaded in an easy to reach place you have no sympathy if your kid blows their head off with it.
If you choose to have more guns in your society then your criminals will have more guns. It is that simple.
You ignore that criminals with a conviction are not legally allowed to own guns, yet that does not stop them.
You also ignore that many law abiding citizens, such as myself, would rather blow away a bad guy that only had a knife or bat or bad attitude rather than risk being beaten or stabbed to death. I value my family members' an my own life MUCH more than I value a crap bag robbing or mugging me and mine.
You also ignore that I know the lay out of my house, especially in the dark, more than any stranger breaking in, and I trust my training, instincts, and willingness to use a weapon to see that at the end, I'm the one standing. It is a bet I and others like me are willing to take, especially when the alternative is a family member hurt or worse.
You also ignore the fact that wether or not I choose to arm myself, or to have more guns in my society, my society already has them. And the bad guys historically ignore the calls to turn in weapons and tend to disregard laws limiting ownership.
You also misrepresent what folks are saying. I have not seen ONE person state in this thread they need 'full auto weapons' to feel safe. In fact, full auto weapons are very difficult and expensive to legally own, so much so that most people assume they are illegal.
And you ignore another basic fact. I may live in a place where I fell 100% safe and still may desire to exercise my RIGHT to own a weapon, just because I can. I may enjoy the many competitive shooting sports, just think they are cool, or want to have a fully stocked arms room just in case. My reasons for owning a gun make no difference, it is my right to do so if I choose.
you're ignoring that the argument that you need weapons to protect yourselves from criminals is moot because here we have gun laws and criminals by and large do not use guns.
So more guns in society = more guns used in crime. I never understand why this connection is never made by people in America.
If bad guys ignore the turning in of weapons it still means that arms seized gradually get taken out of the system whilst the similar level of firearms are much harder to get.
I'm not against guns, I'm getting a rifle soon, I just think the "i need guns to protect myself" is a ridiculous argument based on fear and not logic. I don't need a gun to protect myself, I've never even considered it and carrying a gun here marks you AS a criminal not a citizen needing protection. That's gun laws working.
The whole protection idea also loses out when the idea of having a full auto weapon in your house may make you feel safe, however in a house invasion you are unlikely to have time to go grab the weapon and get to the area you need to in time. If however you leave it loaded in an easy to reach place you have no sympathy if your kid blows their head off with it.
Like how you slipped that in....we had grenades get slipped in and now you slipped in a full automatic rifle into this...now the current generation of full automatic crew serve weapons are the 240's (7.62mm) and the M249 SAW's (5.56mm) which we all know we cannot purchase. Converting AR15/M4's to full auto is waste...with bullets a little over a dollar per round...so that's a waste....why we have three round burst selection on most mil weapons....I unfortunaly has a full auto on my last deployment but that's what I get for mostly working with the "Dark Side" units. I much prefer semi. I want to know where my round go when I fire instead "pray and spray" No way would I go for a Thompson Submachine gun....45 cal make damn big holes in bodies and walls. Hence quite of bit of repair on drywall and again....I paid good money on my carpet....Kind of notice those of us are not letting our emotions play into this?
Sure, there arent as many per capita when compared to us, but they are there, and if it's a big enough business to have 2 countries working together to break up a smuggling ring, well then theres a problem for sure.
Like Jihadin and CptJake, I own guns not out of fear, but in part from desire, and another part from training. We plan for any and ALL eventualities, and come up with solutions and mitigations for those events, IF they come about. Statistically, will I be the victim of a crime? It's unlikely, but likely enough that it is prudent of me to take measures to limit the impact of a crime happening to me or mine.
I had to slip in the full auto It's kind of my tradition on dakka to stick one ridiculous hyperbole in a post even if i have made logical sense for the rest of the post.
What's a dark side unit Jihadin? Some sort of Sith deployment?
The way you are so concerned about your house more than the corpse of the house invader makes me think your emotions are invested in your property. I can imagine the scene of you bravely defending your house with your grenades and a full auto and the wife coming home and telling you off about ruining the new carpet, "why can't you just use the semi auto, I don't work all week to come home to this mess!"
I hear you on the cost of the ammo but aren't the cost of your childrens lives worth that much?
These threads are always emotive and as such are awesome and usually have one Sebster and Seaward multi quote argument, which i always enjoy.
Oh and ensis what is considered a major problem over here with drive bys and shootings in a city of 4.6 million wouldn't even register in a medium sized city in america, I think we might get 126 shootings a year ( i think that was the last figure i remember ) which seems very small to me out of 4.6 million people.
I'm not against guns, I'm getting a rifle soon, I just think the "i need guns to protect myself" is a ridiculous argument based on fear and not logic. I don't need a gun to protect myself, I've never even considered it and carrying a gun here marks you AS a criminal not a citizen needing protection. That's gun laws working.
*puts on tinfoil hat*
No, that sounds like a government that doesn't trust it's citizens.
Why should the government be afraid of a law abiding citizen carrying a gun? If anything, he's a good thing, someone that can stop a crime before it begins, and save innocent lives. Isn't the average police response time in Austrailia something like at least 20 minutes for most instances? Would you really want to be on your own, with no weapon to defend yourself for that long?
*takes off tinfoil hat* (I get what you were really saying there by the way, just wanted to argue that)
In a more serious tone, there's simply no way that a confiscation would work. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of firearms in the USA. There is no possible way you'd be able to remove enough of them to make it where a law abiding citizen wouldn't "need" them anymore. Even if you remove all the ones in the US, it's not like Cuba and Mexico and other countries aren't going to keep smuggling them in. And that's ignoring the Constitution and the implications that would bring ("well if the 2nd amendment is outdated, why do citizens need the 1st, 4th, and 5th? That's just slowing us down from catching criminals and terrorists.") the MASSIVE expenditure in time, money, and in all likelyhood, human lives; and the fact that it would set a precedent of allowing basic rights to be ignored based on "public safety". That's how we ended up with things like our "war on terror", the PATRIOT act, SAFE, and all the other horrible programs that have been getting exposed recently.
Ignoring that, look at how well the war on drugs and the prohibition went. Now imagine that, but literally every single person the authorities are going after has a gun.
Simply put, the approaches that seem so "sensible" to other countries would never work here. We're just too different from you in that regard. And I don't care how many guns the government confiscates, the gangbangers down the street will still find ways to get them. And as long as they have them, I don't see why I shouldn't have the right to those weapons as well to protect myself, my family, and my property.
No, it isn't perfect, but it's the best solution you're going to get in America.
EDIT: Yeah these threads can get heated, but for some weird reason I love arguing back and forth in them. No idea why
These threads are always emotive and as such are awesome and usually have one Sebster and Seaward multi quote argument, which i always enjoy.
No comment
The way you are so concerned about your house more than the corpse of the house invader makes me think your emotions are invested in your property. I can imagine the scene of you bravely defending your house with your grenades and a full auto and the wife coming home and telling you off about ruining the new carpet, "why can't you just use the semi auto, I don't work all week to come home to this mess!"
Wife is on the LEO side of the Government She might not have arresting power but she does have to know her way around a weapon
I hear you on the cost of the ammo but aren't the cost of your childrens lives worth that much?
Why I always use semi. Single rounds....I do not "pray and spray" because I'm more concern on where my rounds go. I go for the kill shot. I do not want to throw lead down range putting danger to anyone be it kids or parents. Hence I stick with a weapon that I'm real familiar with.
On a side note I brought my weapons for the desire of having them. Which also includes a M1 Carbine. Still debating a Garand but a side arm desire is getting in the way.
As to the "Darkside Units" well itsa terminology we use in the military on certain type of units
Automatically Appended Next Post: I want to bring up though if someone was armed when that British soldier got hacked to death....would you have stopped it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, they made the switch because of NATO standardisation. Sorry for being a smart-ass
Except that it was the US that argued for 5.56 as the standard NATO round. The UK made the argument for a round larger than 5.56, but still much smaller than the 7.62mm round.
The US had found through its trials that the benefits of a smaller round, through reduced recoil and greater ammo capacity, was far greater than the greater accuracy at range and slightly greater stopping power of a larger round.
I like how this thread is evolving. Meaning going over known issues and what relates to subject at hand. Instead of stats, polls, and personnel feeling getting in the way.
I will notionally hunt your ass down to the end of the Earth dying days....if someone post a 100+ reason why I should own a weapon or a 100+ reasons why I shouldn't own a weapon. Don't be that Guy/Girl
MrMoustaffa wrote: 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.
Happens to all of us
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 would argue that your reasoning is the product of being very aware of one possible outcome, a violent home invasion, despite it being incredibly rare, statistically speaking, while at the same time being dismissive of other threats from firearms - their use in a heated domestic situation or in a spur of the moment suicide, that are actually much, much more likely.
Not that any of that is a complete argument for any individual not to have a gun in the household. People know the facts of their own lives better than aggregate statistics can state. An individual might be very well aware that they just don't get in to heated family arguments, have never thought about suicide, and live in a crime ridden area.
But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.
Have you written letters to congressmen stating your opinions on issues? Or just posted about it on forums all day?
When did YOU actually do something other than just vote for president/rep/senator?
Last week I sat in a meeting with a minister, and while I sure as hell didn't open my mouth, briefing notes I gave to our CEO were used to make our case for funding initiatives. I was involved, in a small way, in directly shaping public policy. Does that mean everyone needs to bow down and listen to me? No, it doesn't.
In fact, while I could glorify that meeting and use it to claim that it gave me some kind of expertise, I would go so far as to say on the issue being debated that day I wasn't knowledgable at all*, and if people had to just listen to me on that issue they'd likely come away grossly ill-informed. Expertise claimed too often on the internet, while facts and substantive arguments are used too rarely.
In the context of this forum, all you are is words in little posts. If you have expertise, then show it, don't claim it.
*All I did really was produce a list of what it cost to deliver a certain service. What it should cost and why I couldn't tell you at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And people say that there arent many guns in Australia??
Sure, there arent as many per capita when compared to us, but they are there, and if it's a big enough business to have 2 countries working together to break up a smuggling ring, well then theres a problem for sure.
We're talking about countries here. On that scale everything exists to some extent. The issue is only one of scale. And, basically, on the scale of very few guns to very many guns, Australia is at one end and the US is at the other.
Not that there isn't a whole lot wrong with Australia's gun laws (the registries are woefully insufficient to track firearms over time, and there's all kinds of regulations in place that do nothing but annoy legal gun owners). But in terms of scale, our gun problem is very small, and yours is very big.
But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.
Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.
Three days ago...I live at the end of cul de sac....we had a guy get brought in by taxi just in his hospital gown....get off at the wrong house and tried to enter my neighbor house. I wasn't aware of it till "Johnny" banged on my door..causing me to streak Meph. red across the eagle...anyway the neighbors knows I'm armed. SO I went to second floor of my house with "Johnny" and got visual on the guy. Instead of a fire arm I got my medic bag...he reopen his chest wound and had me a good bleeder....other indicator was he was on some serious pain meds due to size of wound...and the weaving bit...he was "no factor" in my book...even though I'm weak as all Hell from Chemo...PTSD running a bit wild due to the fireworks. I just identified my self to him and straight out told him I was medic. One trauma bandage later and the sheriffs showed up from the 911 call.
Info I got later confirmed
Guy was in severe MVA
Chest wound from a tree branch
On serious pain meds
He gave the wrong address
Slarq
Have you made a sacrifice for your country?
Have you written letters to congressmen stating your opinions on issues? Or just posted about it on forums all day?
When did YOU actually do something other than just vote for president/rep/senator?
Do not pit the vets against someone who didn't serve. Everybody has that option to join the military. Its a career choice. The thread will really get out of hand and there be some pissed off people after it gets locked. So far the "vets" and the "minions" --->insert Loki laughter here version 2.3<--- are doing good.
Just random funny fact from talking about this video with a coworker last night (or at least I though it was a bit funny):
I'm the socialist European liberal, he is the redneck conservative (we are good friends so we wear out labels for each other openly). Yet somehow I am the one with shogun, rifles, pistol and he doesn't own a single firearm.
He does have a bow, but wouldn't tell me if it is an assault bow...
Depends if he can fire three arrows at the same time....reminds me...when does the new season of arrow begins...must go look...also Johnny Depp as Tonto was a GOOD choice
Jihadin wrote: Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.
But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.
Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.
Three days ago...I live at the end of cul de sac....we had a guy get brought in by taxi just in his hospital gown....get off at the wrong house and tried to enter my neighbor house. I wasn't aware of it till "Johnny" banged on my door..causing me to streak Meph. red across the eagle...anyway the neighbors knows I'm armed. SO I went to second floor of my house with "Johnny" and got visual on the guy. Instead of a fire arm I got my medic bag...he reopen his chest wound and had me a good bleeder....other indicator was he was on some serious pain meds due to size of wound...and the weaving bit...he was "no factor" in my book...even though I'm weak as all Hell from Chemo...PTSD running a bit wild due to the fireworks. I just identified my self to him and straight out told him I was medic. One trauma bandage later and the sheriffs showed up from the 911 call.
Info I got later confirmed
Guy was in severe MVA
Chest wound from a tree branch
On serious pain meds
He gave the wrong address
Slarq
Wait a minute... what kind of horrible hospital would discharge a patient in that condition?
But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.
Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.
Three days ago...I live at the end of cul de sac....we had a guy get brought in by taxi just in his hospital gown....get off at the wrong house and tried to enter my neighbor house. I wasn't aware of it till "Johnny" banged on my door..causing me to streak Meph. red across the eagle...anyway the neighbors knows I'm armed. SO I went to second floor of my house with "Johnny" and got visual on the guy. Instead of a fire arm I got my medic bag...he reopen his chest wound and had me a good bleeder....other indicator was he was on some serious pain meds due to size of wound...and the weaving bit...he was "no factor" in my book...even though I'm weak as all Hell from Chemo...PTSD running a bit wild due to the fireworks. I just identified my self to him and straight out told him I was medic. One trauma bandage later and the sheriffs showed up from the 911 call.
Info I got later confirmed
Guy was in severe MVA
Chest wound from a tree branch
On serious pain meds
He gave the wrong address
Slarq
Wait a minute... what kind of horrible hospital would discharge a patient in that condition?
A hospital who received a patient with no way to pay them. They're required to give you the bare minimum of treatment, and then they can kick you out if you don't have the money.
He walked out. Was not under supervision. This guy was so duped he was slurring simple words as I was talking to him. Point I was making that a lot of incidents can be avoided by assessing the situation first before going in anticipating a shot out. Or say racking a round into the chamber of a weapon being a side arm, AR15/M4 or shotgun is loud enough to inform the intruder that he walked into a bad situation...also the "I'm armed" helps further the Flight mode....not if Imdumbasarock decides to hang then that tells me he's going to take a chance with me.
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.
As far as hunting goes, certain people in the news media in America love to come on and claim that AR-15s and the like are useless for hunting, but it's really not true at all. A more truthful statement would be that it's not the best for hunting everything, something which is true of many guns. The 5.56/.223 round is an excellent varmint hunting round for things like coyotes and groundhogs. It also would be good for wild boar, and it is legal to hunt all these things with an AR-15 in my state. Somewhat strangely, outside of with a property destruction permit, my state doesn't allow deer hunting with any kind of rifle (you have to use a shotgun with a rifled slug, a high-caliber handgun at .357 or above, or a bow or crossbow). Most states do allow for taking deer with a rifle, however, and while an AR-15 would not be the most ideal rifle for deer, it is certainly possible to take a deer with one, and people do. I think part of the problem is many of the people who criticize the AR-15 most vigorously also don't really understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and imagine someone hunting with an AR-15 would be machine-gunning game animals by dumping 30 rounds into them on one go, when really you'd be taking slow, well-aimed single shots, and depending on state laws, would likely be using a much smaller magazine anyway.
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.
Fair enough. In retrospect, I was attempting to be concise when I probably would have been better off going into more detail sooner, and was just getting rubbed the wrong way by the whole exchange. Cheers, and no hard feelings!
JWhex wrote: Using a high powered rifle in a home defense scenario defies all common sense. You are likely to injure someone else in the home or a neighbor.
Good grief buy a shotgun, then you (likely not trained for combat shooting) have a chance of hitting what you are aiming at and not killing the baby asleep across the hall.
Hi there Joe Biden Are you still likely to injure a neighbour if you live on acres of land? Or with the nearest neighbour miles away? Granted I live in a neigbourhood with mainly drywall houses, and in fairly close proximity so my needing a rifle is unlikely. But I also don't need a sports car, a van, or a semi but I'm not going to stop the people who need them because I don't.
I'm not trained for combat shooting. I never held a rile until last weekend when we went to the range for my 30th birthday and I tried an M4. With iron sights I put the first round through the head area of the target. Followed by 6 more rounds in the head area.
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.
Rifles are more accurate because of a number of factors - you have a longer barrel than a pistol, you have better sights than a pistol, and you have better control over the recoil of a rifle on account of the grip, hand guard and the stock.
I think it is pretty obvious that if the UK had concealed carry gun laws, there might have been someone around to threaten or shoot the two guys who stabbed the soldier, and if he or she had a gun it would probably have been used because you don't carry a gun to not use it.
He was run over and stabbed quickly before a passer-by might have been able to do anything, though.
@sebster that is a good point. Its kind of a non issue for me since I'm on good terms with my family, single, and despite being poor, have a good life. That can be a very real issue for others though.
I will also admit that I wish there would be more mandatory training when it comes to gun ownership, especially over safety. Some of the just outright stupid mistakes you see in the news could have been solved by a 20 minute safety video and a decent dose of common sense. A good deal of them could have been avoided just by following the 4 basic rules of gun safety. Others by talking to your kids, or by keeping your guns unloaded and locked up when you have company over. If I remember correctly, the amount of people who die from an accident beyond their control (as in gun just randomly explodes) are very low.
Tying it in with the hunting, I thought the reason many states ban rifles for hunting is because the rounds can go so far. In Kentucky you can hunt with a rifle, but we have a lot of hills and hollars, so its unlikely a bullet will go very far. I could see a state like Kansas banning hunting with rifles due to a lack of good backstops to stop the round.
It is funny that controlling firearms is like computer security:
If you can make it completely safe, it will be completely unusable.
The Canada rule for guns is: trigger lock, locked case, gun safe, separately locked ammo.
Ask intruder to make a pot of coffee as I get armed.
I can sometimes get behind the right to bear arms since our government (or more correctly, enforcement agencies) seems to like to change the rules as they go.
An example:
Spoiler:
Read in news today about a town called "High River" (oddly appropriate that) RCMP (like State Troopers) had been breaking into flooding damaged area homes to look for "people in distress". Problem is they were high-ground houses and they confiscated people's weapons in "plain sight" (proven to be hidden since basement guns safes could be flooded out) or as they said "held for safe keeping if ownership can be proven". There is not a single law in Canada that supports them being allowed to break and enter as well as confiscate property. They are leaning on the "wanting to help" as the reason. This is going to be nasty like with New Orleans.
I personally have a Katana and have taken Kendo for quite a few years so I really hope that an intruder would not have a gun...
I have seen so many times that the people who are to enforce the law do not have a good grasp of it.
Should have them take the bar like the lawyers before they get their badge.
I am also on the side of more required safety training, but there are some people that just can't be trained.
We had a teenager in my state this week that was so sure that his rifle was unloaded that he demonstrated it by sticking it in his mouth and pulling the trigger.
I will let you guess what happened next.
You can lead the horse to mandatory safety classes, but you can't fix stupid.
Hordini wrote: As far as hunting goes, certain people in the news media in America love to come on and claim that AR-15s and the like are useless for hunting, but it's really not true at all. A more truthful statement would be that it's not the best for hunting everything, something which is true of many guns. The 5.56/.223 round is an excellent varmint hunting round for things like coyotes and groundhogs. It also would be good for wild boar, and it is legal to hunt all these things with an AR-15 in my state. Somewhat strangely, outside of with a property destruction permit, my state doesn't allow deer hunting with any kind of rifle (you have to use a shotgun with a rifled slug, a high-caliber handgun at .357 or above, or a bow or crossbow). Most states do allow for taking deer with a rifle, however, and while an AR-15 would not be the most ideal rifle for deer, it is certainly possible to take a deer with one, and people do. I think part of the problem is many of the people who criticize the AR-15 most vigorously also don't really understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and imagine someone hunting with an AR-15 would be machine-gunning game animals by dumping 30 rounds into them on one go, when really you'd be taking slow, well-aimed single shots, and depending on state laws, would likely be using a much smaller magazine anyway.
Ah, thanks. I'd heard the 5.56 round didn't penetrate a deer's flesh sufficiently (because it is much denser than our own), and bigger rounds were preferred. But it makes sense now that you've pointed it out that deer isn't the only kind of hunting, and an AR-15 might not be ideal, but it works well enough in most cases. Thanks.
That state law prohibiting hunting with a rifle sounds really strange. What's the logic behind it, if there is any?
Fair enough. In retrospect, I was attempting to be concise when I probably would have been better off going into more detail sooner, and was just getting rubbed the wrong way by the whole exchange. Cheers, and no hard feelings!
Is cool. And thanks for posting that bit to calm the conversation down, it was going to a bad place and I wasn't doing anything to stop it. Much credit to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: @sebster that is a good point. Its kind of a non issue for me since I'm on good terms with my family, single, and despite being poor, have a good life. That can be a very real issue for others though.
Yeah. It's really is a case of making the judgement according to your own personal circumstances. It's just that to make that judgement, people need to know the stats, and those numbers get lost all too often in these debates.
I've heard of using no rifles to hunt for deer in some states but never actually been in a state where it was a law. Granted I've no desire to hunt animals due to prior real world experience. My wife hunts deer so I'm willing to watch her back while she waits for a deer. She's from deep south Missouri. Sebster though did bring up a RL issue on the deer meat density. Seen deer in MD...NC...SC...southern states. Now the deer in WI, WA, and Michigan...there's quite a bit of height difference. Body mass to. I will never shoot a deer with a 5.56mm being that the chance of the deer surviving the hit un-nerves me. Before someone jumps that the deer is not trying to "opt me out" either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Page seven and its a normal debate...well done my minions 8)
Talizvar wrote:Say if any people were armed in those movie theaters when a crazy stated shooting, there would be a whole lot less dead people.[/b]
I would like to see some sort of peer-reviewed study or trials on this. Can you provide anything to back up this claim? Or is this just an appeal to what you think might sound correct?
Well considering that was a "maybe" statement as opposed to a definitive claim it'd be hard to research a supposition Azazel. We have danced this before however. Private citizens and off duty/retired LEOs have intervened in numerous potential "mass shooting" situations, ending them before the "mass" part could have occurred. A recent excellent example would be the Clackamas Mall shootings, where a private citizen's intervention caused the shooter withdraw and suicide.
So theoretically could a private citizen or armed off duty LEO have changed things at the Aurora Theater shootings? John Holmes (the shooter) apparently thought so, he picked the theater that was not most convenient to his place of residence, but the one that was a gun free zone. Crazy though he may be, the man was extremely methodical in his planning of the shooting, as evidenced by the explosive device rigged at his apartment complex that he left behind.
5.56/.223 is a pretty popular deer round to my knowledge. The deer here in Colorado are bigger then the East Coast though, so .30 caliber weapons seem to be more of a standard. Antelope, coyote, some fur bearing animals and of course the western shooting sport of choice, prairie dog smacking (really a form of pest control) all are excellent to handle with 5.56 ammunition. Of course round selection can change how the bullet performs on impact. Ballistic tips, hotter powder loads, that type of thing. Everything comes together for a combined effect on target. I'll stick to my old lever action .30-30 for deer though.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Well considering that was a "maybe" statement as opposed to a definitive claim it'd be hard to research a supposition Azazel. We have danced this before however.
We have danced to this tune, yes. And just as before, I shall end it with Hume's guillotine
Jihadin wrote: I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider
Hey if it was a camel spider, I can understand. Some big creepy spider? I'm calling in an air strike if I can, or the Wife.
"Baby there's a big scary spider in the bathroom, can you kill it? PLease... "
Hordini wrote: As far as hunting goes, certain people in the news media in America love to come on and claim that AR-15s and the like are useless for hunting, but it's really not true at all. A more truthful statement would be that it's not the best for hunting everything, something which is true of many guns. The 5.56/.223 round is an excellent varmint hunting round for things like coyotes and groundhogs. It also would be good for wild boar, and it is legal to hunt all these things with an AR-15 in my state. Somewhat strangely, outside of with a property destruction permit, my state doesn't allow deer hunting with any kind of rifle (you have to use a shotgun with a rifled slug, a high-caliber handgun at .357 or above, or a bow or crossbow). Most states do allow for taking deer with a rifle, however, and while an AR-15 would not be the most ideal rifle for deer, it is certainly possible to take a deer with one, and people do. I think part of the problem is many of the people who criticize the AR-15 most vigorously also don't really understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and imagine someone hunting with an AR-15 would be machine-gunning game animals by dumping 30 rounds into them on one go, when really you'd be taking slow, well-aimed single shots, and depending on state laws, would likely be using a much smaller magazine anyway.
Sounds a lot like the problem with attempts at gun control, and the mythical "assault rifles" that everyone wants to clamp down on without being able to define them outside of being black and looking tacticool.
Jihadin wrote: I've heard of using no rifles to hunt for deer in some states but never actually been in a state where it was a law. Granted I've no desire to hunt animals due to prior real world experience. My wife hunts deer so I'm willing to watch her back while she waits for a deer. She's from deep south Missouri. Sebster though did bring up a RL issue on the deer meat density. Seen deer in MD...NC...SC...southern states. Now the deer in WI, WA, and Michigan...there's quite a bit of height difference. Body mass to. I will never shoot a deer with a 5.56mm being that the chance of the deer surviving the hit un-nerves me. Before someone jumps that the deer is not trying to "opt me out" either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Page seven and its a normal debate...well done my minions 8)
We have deer here up in Northern Indiana. I wouldn't mind giving hunting a go at some stage.
Fafnir wrote: Typically, if someone's going to break into your house, the mere presence of a weapon is enough to scare someone off. Very few people want to even take the risk of getting shot, be it with a high-powered rifle or a pistol. Especially if they're already intruding on someone else's property.
1. You have no proof of that whatsoever. You're literally making that up.
2. How are they going to know you have a weapon unless you use it?
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.
Bizarre? Both the federal and state government here says you should have such supplies in case of a major hurricane coming in.
The Wife, when living in Illinois, was told to have a window breaker in her car when she was taking her driver's ed.
MrDwhitey wrote: I apologise for the testiness of my reaction, but if you look at OT any time a "foreign" issue comes up there's almost always American posters in it.
I think that it's a stupid, Frazzled-esque "counter", and I didn't expect it.
I agree, I don't think Americans should be telling the British how to run their country, and I don't think British people should be telling Americans how to run their country. I try to actively avoid the other country threads
It's K Dwhitey, I still loves you
As a Texan, I clearly should be telling both of you how to run your countries. After all, in order to converse with his equal a Texan is forced to talk to Dog.
djones520 wrote: Good hunting up there, and venison is oh so good. If your ever serious on getting set up to hunt, shoot me a PM.
Will do. Might be a wee while though, I think I need my citizenship (or at least Permanent Residence) before I can purchase a firearm, and USCIS are taking their sweet time
Also, if that was meant to be a Frazzled style post, it needs more Weiner dogs.
Exactly. I'll help.
TBone, who pretty much refuses to die out of sheer spite at this point, climbed into the garden, but became trapped by the garden hose. When I picked him up, Rodney became jealou8s so I picked him up too. This was ok until he started licking my nose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Jihadin makes a great point. From experience, there is a LOT of blood in a human body, and the cops and paramedics don't clean up for you.
Fafnir wrote: Typically, if someone's going to break into your house, the mere presence of a weapon is enough to scare someone off. Very few people want to even take the risk of getting shot, be it with a high-powered rifle or a pistol. Especially if they're already intruding on someone else's property.
1. You have no proof of that whatsoever. You're literally making that up.
2. How are they going to know you have a weapon unless you use it?
Fafnir is paraphrasing the entire line of reasoning behind the "criminals don't commit crimes where they think a gun will be; that's why they target gun-free zones". So it's nice to see you argue against that idiotic line, Frazz.
1. You have no proof of that whatsoever. You're literally making that up.
2. How are they going to know you have a weapon unless you use it?
Alright people...not thinking ahead on this.....the "suspect" has fair warning you are armed....when you rack a round into the chamber. Its pretty loud when both parties are trying to be quiet..then when the home owner notice how loud it is....and the "suspect" freezes or bolts out the door. My advice..and dead serious on this...announce you are now armed.
1. You have no proof of that whatsoever. You're literally making that up.
2. How are they going to know you have a weapon unless you use it?
Alright people...not thinking ahead on this.....the "suspect" has fair warning you are armed....when you rack a round into the chamber. Its pretty loud when both parties are trying to be quiet..then when the home owner notice how loud it is....and the "suspect" freezes or bolts out the door. My advice..and dead serious on this...announce you are now armed.
This is advised by the PoPo and NRA videos as well. Thou shalt not goeth ninja like after yon prey. Instead thouest shalt hold up in thine secured position, with thine phone and thine SAW, and whilst calling thine Shire reeves that shalt illuminate the villain and pierce his navery, that thouest be armed and that if heeth approacheth whether beist by stealthy foot or thundering colossus, that he shalt snuff it, and verily.
1. You have no proof of that whatsoever. You're literally making that up.
2. How are they going to know you have a weapon unless you use it?
Alright people...not thinking ahead on this.....the "suspect" has fair warning you are armed....when you rack a round into the chamber. Its pretty loud when both parties are trying to be quiet..then when the home owner notice how loud it is....and the "suspect" freezes or bolts out the door. My advice..and dead serious on this...announce you are now armed.
No sense in racking the slide if you already carry with a round in the chamber though.
d-usa wrote: If there is one thing movies have taught me it is that you always rack the slide.
It is just cinematic semiotics, not meant to reflect reality. If you want things to be more realistic than there are options, such as cinema verite, the extension of French Realism, or things like mumblecore and Dogme 95. I wouldn't recommend the latter that much to be honest.
If your packing a AR15/M4....you have 25 rounds to rack through besides...nothing more golden then hearing "Oh CRAP"
Pump action shotgun
9mm pistol racking a round..hey you have at least a full mag in the grip...
Hammer on a cylinder weapon
Hammers on a double barrel..
Hammer on a old school shotgun....looking at you UK
Not like your going to knife the guy....
Why not 30 rounds....think of the spring in the mag...how many here besides the vets actually think of magazine upkeep.....not fun having a failure to feed when you really need a live weapon in a situation.
d-usa wrote: If there is one thing movies have taught me it is that you always rack the slide.
They've also taught me that, because I am the "good guy" I will ALWAYS have to reload at the most inopportune moment, and the guys coming after me will always have unlimited ammo.
Movies have also taught me however, then when uncertain if weaponry will kill the creature, a good flamethrower is a perfect go to can of whoopass. Plus its cool.
Just make sure your homeowner insurance is paid up.
I'm disappointed that no one has said that movie have taught me to nuke the site from orbit
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and your opponents will be merciless killing machines with laser accuracy, except when they point a weapon at you.
Jihadin wrote: Why not 30 rounds....think of the spring in the mag...how many here besides the vets actually think of magazine upkeep.....not fun having a failure to feed when you really need a live weapon in a situation.
I've been doing some research on this lately, and while I've come across a lot of conflicting anecdotal information on this, it seems like the general consensus that fully loading a magazine won't wear out the spring. Do you have any verifiable evidence that fully loading a magazine contributed significantly to wear on the magazine spring? Not that magazine springs can't wear out, but that the act of fully loading the magazine is actually what caused it?
Jihadin wrote: Why not 30 rounds....think of the spring in the mag...how many here besides the vets actually think of magazine upkeep.....not fun having a failure to feed when you really need a live weapon in a situation.
I've been doing some research on this lately, and while I've come across a lot of conflicting anecdotal information on this, it seems like the general consensus that fully loading a magazine won't wear out the spring. Do you have any verifiable evidence that fully loading a magazine contributed significantly to wear on the magazine spring? Not that magazine springs can't wear out, but that the act of fully loading the magazine is actually what caused it?
I know in basically all the deploying units ive been with, it's the SOP that you remove your ammo and 'clean' the spring every 3 months, especially in a combat zone. I would suppose that the act of fully loading a magazine by itself won't wear out the spring, leaving it that way for too long may cause a permanent compression?
Plus, in most units, you have to realize that your magazines (unless you're in a cool guy unit) have been through probably a dozen different soldiers, and god knows how many deployments, plus ranges and training and everything else. So not taking care of them is just poor on the soldier who currently "owns" them.
Jihadin wrote: Why not 30 rounds....think of the spring in the mag...how many here besides the vets actually think of magazine upkeep.....not fun having a failure to feed when you really need a live weapon in a situation.
I've been doing some research on this lately, and while I've come across a lot of conflicting anecdotal information on this, it seems like the general consensus that fully loading a magazine won't wear out the spring. Do you have any verifiable evidence that fully loading a magazine contributed significantly to wear on the magazine spring? Not that magazine springs can't wear out, but that the act of fully loading the magazine is actually what caused it?
I know in basically all the deploying units ive been with, it's the SOP that you remove your ammo and 'clean' the spring every 3 months, especially in a combat zone. I would suppose that the act of fully loading a magazine by itself won't wear out the spring, leaving it that way for too long may cause a permanent compression?
Plus, in most units, you have to realize that your magazines (unless you're in a cool guy unit) have been through probably a dozen different soldiers, and god knows how many deployments, plus ranges and training and everything else. So not taking care of them is just poor on the soldier who currently "owns" them.
Do you guys ever replace magazine springs? Talking to people who have stored fully loaded magazines long-term, it seems like keeping a magazine loaded or unloaded doesn't damage or permanently compress the spring, but rather the action of repeatedly loading and unloading (either from firing the weapon or unloading the magazine by hand) is what causes wear to the spring. It might depend on the type of magazine and/or weapon, but a number I've heard floated is that magazine springs should be replaced every 5,000 rounds or so.
I appreciate you sharing your experience and I'm not trying to call it into question. I just wish there was some kind of study on this, because with magazines going through a dozen different soldiers, it seems like it'd be really hard to tell if the spring is worn out because some of the soldiers kept it fully loaded, or simply because the magazine has been loaded and reloaded a million times.
Like Ensis said...like every three months to pop the spring out and stretch it...say 4-5 inches...that is if you constantly have it loaded to max rounds. Sometimes less then 90 days on the condition of the magazine. I had a couple mags I relegated to "last resort" placement on my vest due to the noticeable wear and tear visible on them. I am not going to risk my life depending on a questionable magazine when most my time is dealing with failure to feed or overfeed. Good way to test your spring though is to rack a complete mag through it. Remove the firing pin but still treat the weapon as "Live" and aim it down range or a clearing barrel or something close to a clearing barrel....straight out dirt will do
Failure to feed = stretch your spring a bit
Over Feed = really compress your spring though I rarely seen this happen.
So I take it the springs are never actually replaced, just cleaned and stretched or compressed? I'm just wondering if it's primarily ancient springs with thousands and thousands of rounds cycled through them that are the real problem, rather than whether or not the mag has been kept fully-loaded.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: They've also taught me that, because I am the "good guy" I will ALWAYS have to reload at the most inopportune moment, and the guys coming after me will always have unlimited ammo.
But its okay, because the bad guys never hit. Well, unless you bring along a uniformed policeman with you, in which case the bad guys will drill that unfortunate loser in the first 30 seconds.
True...but then might as well just buy new mag's. I am tempted though to "test" a Magpul mag. We had a NG unit from Arkansas...whoever has that Razorback hog of a patch to get selected to test a new version of the mag in 2010. They did the arm escort convoy runs for whoever need what run where...especially when the new MATV version for the "Darkside" units started arriving in KAF.
I used to (and still occasionally) run an HK. The mag bodies'll last forever, so I'd much rather just pick up five springs for ten bucks through Wolff's than spend $35 per pop on a new mag.
Also, I could've sworn Big Army banned PMags last year.
Corps banned Pmags back in... 08 or 09 I think... I seem to recall it being right around then. Because using the issued garbage is so much better for everyone involved.
Also, I could've sworn Big Army banned PMags last year.
They did, or it was a couple years ago.. They reasoned that the issued junk worked better than any magazine on the market.... Yeah... RIIIIIGHT
Still doesnt stop my unit issuing Pmags.
I thought it had to do with them separating at the seams when in hot environments, though my memory of the blurb is admittedly very hazy.
The word we got at the time, was that the government 'tests' showed that the pmags and basically ALL magazines other than the crappy basic issue ones had "feeding" and other "reliability" issues where the basic ones didnt.... Reading between the lines, some congressman was losing money in his district (the one that makes crappy military magazines), and wanted to make sure that the money kept flowing.
I did some (very) mild digging, and there's a lot of differing explanations. Don't work well with the HK416, Magpul won't give up the technical data rights, whatever.
An SME over on M4Carbine did say he's seen cracking issues before, though.
Oh well. Doesn't really matter I guess. I'd imagine Ensis' between-the-lines interpretation is as good as any.
.....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider
!
It's kind of my tradition on dakka to stick one ridiculous hyperbole in a post even if i have made logical sense for the rest of the post.
