TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 195

Thread: Route 91 Harvest Music Festival Shooting - Gun Control Thread

  1. #76
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe

  2. #77
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: CT, USA
    So then, should we think of Stephen Paddock and those like him as members of this "...well regulated Militia" gone wrong, and as the "necessary cost of freedom" as we become no longer free to circulate or assemble in public without the increasingly realistic fear of some homicidal-suicidal guy with a gun?

    There's not agreement that this part of the 2nd Amendment should by default refer to all legal gun owners rather than something actually well-organized like the National Guard. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe nobody in the thread has implied that all guns should be banned, only that they need more effective regulation to accommodate other rights & freedoms we're supposed to have, nor have they said it's only gun control that's needed and some additional things have been mentioned. I still believe a lot could be done without banning all guns, and that we are coming to that consensus that will be acted upon post-Trump, provided we're lucky to survive that long.

  3. #78
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyFoxx View Post
    The number of trained and armed federal agents pales in comparison to the number of "...well regulated Militia"
    We're talking about our military, which is currently 1.5 million strong. Even if you were to lump every single militia group into a single entity, it wouldn't come close to matching that number. Hell, there are probably more people in the reserves alone than there are in our crazier militia groups.

    Not that it would matter, considering the training and technological advantage our military has over these people. It's even more a moot point if you consider that if the government feels the need to deploy the military against the people, we'd probably no longer living in a country that'd be recognizable as the occasionally uptight, but generally happy-go-lucky US of old. We're either suffering under a tyrannical regime in Washington, or the paranoids have gotten so out of hand, they're actively terrorizing the populace to the point that Washington sees no other recourse but to throw its weight against them.

    Fortunately for all of us, neither of these scenarios are yet likely, even with Neo-Nazis and Antifa marching, and Trump in office.

  4. #79
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Dahenjo View Post
    There's not agreement that this part of the 2nd Amendment should by default refer to all legal gun owners rather than something actually well-organized like the National Guard.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    We're talking about our military, which is currently 1.5 million strong. Even if you were to lump every single militia group into a single entity, it wouldn't come close to matching that number. Hell, there are probably more people in the reserves alone than there are in our crazier militia groups.
    Minor note: Madison wrote a lot about the 'militia' being called upon the citizenry, and this was formally established by the Militia Acts a few years later. The 'militia' as intended by the founders isn't the National Guard or volunteer groups, it's literally every able-bodied male of fighting age. This is where Selective Service originates from. The 'well-regulated militia' was an armed citizenry, expected to provide for the common defense against both internal and external threats.

  5. #80
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Basically, they're meant to be armies of citizens, called upon on either the state or federal level, that groups when a threat arises, then disbands when its dealt with. The original vision was that the US would have no standing army, rather, we'd be a nation of Cincinnatuses that rise from their humble lives to heed the call when necessary.

    Of course things didn't quite work out as intended. The tribulations of the 20th century proved the necessity of a professional military, and our militias are a bunch of anti-government guys with big beards who spend most of the time posing for pictures with their guns drawn in front of upside down American flags. Funny, that.

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Everyone knows it's the open carry people who are the crazy ones. You know the type. They swagger into the local Circle K with a big ass revolver strapped to their hip, order a pack of chew, then stand in the corner, trying to get people to make eye contact with them so they can launch into a tirade about their rights.

    I can understand concealed carry, especially if someone live in a dangerous neighborhood. Like you, I know a few people who do have a license to do so, and they're far from crazy. But those people who walk into Wal-Mart sporting a tacticooled up super customized extended magazine AR15 (with the obligatory holosite kit installed) strapped to their back for all to see? They're either overcompensating for something, or are really desperate for attention.

    Also, I don't think those people own a single article of clothing that doesn't have a skull on it.

    I'll actually agree with you there. I have a few friends that do it (biker types mostly), but I always thought it was kinda weird. I used to have a conceal carry and probably would be smart to get a weapon and do it again...and I'm professionally trained in the use of firearms so I have a bit of a different perspective than most here. Open carry is something I view as a tactical liability because people know you have a weapon (which makes you an immediate target), people might go for it if you're carrying it, and it can put people on edge which may lead to escalating a situation further than is necessary. If you ever have to use one surprise is of the essence.

    And why the hell carry an AR-15? Most self defense situations take place at extremely close range anyway so the odds of being able to pull the weapon off a back strap and effectively use it quick enough are unlikely. Pistols are better because they're concealable, quicker to draw and use, and a slower, larger caliber pistol round has much more stopping power which is key if...let's say you're getting charged by some freaking huge dude with a knife who may or may not be strung out on crack.

    If safety is a concern for whatever reason the general rule of thumb is to use a pistol, in the largest caliber that you can both shoot accurately under duress and conceal carry comfortably.

    Of course things didn't quite work out as intended. The tribulations of the 20th century proved the necessity of a professional military, and our militias are a bunch of anti-government guys with big beards who spend most of the time posing for pictures with their guns drawn in front of upside down American flags. Funny, that.
    It's more doable than people think to drawback the national Army. National Guard units fall under the control of the states, and typically have the full range of equipment that the Active Duty military has access to up to and including fighter aircraft. In the event of a large scale war they already have the logistics and command structure in place to activate as combined arms Brigades and Divisions. Usually that' the unit level at which an Active Duty unit deploys for a campaign.

    I think there's a huge case to be made that dramatically downsizing the active army and buffing up the state National Guards would have some significant benefits in both reducing the hegemonic, insulated military culture that has emerged (typical career military officers are 3rd generation military these days), reduce the power of the defense lobby, and shifting US policy away from the state of perpetual war that Bush and Obama have created.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 6th Oct 2017 at 15:13.

  7. #82
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Wow, we're actually finding common ground here!

    I know people who have claimed to want a big semi-auto rifle for home defense, and my first response is "why?" Unless you're finding yourself in a situation where you have to lay suppressing fire on roving hoards at a 150 yards from the comfort of your front porch, an AR15 is nigh useless for home defense. A handgun might not look as scary, might not give you that same sense of overinflated confidence, but it'll be 1000x more effective if some random crazy stranger decides to kick open your front door to invade your home.

    Rifles are unwieldy in close quarters. All they'll accomplish is giving an intruder something to grab onto when they jump around the corner to invade your personal space.

    ...and no, you don't need a goddamn Mk19 Desert Eagle, either.

  8. #83
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Thinking Robot View Post


    I assume this picture fits perfectly in the current debate. Time to spice things up a bit
    pretty much it, there is another one

  9. #84
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Everyone knows it's the open carry people who are the crazy ones. You know the type. They swagger into the local Circle K with a big ass revolver strapped to their hip, order a pack of chew, then stand in the corner, trying to get people to make eye contact with them so they can launch into a tirade about their rights.

    I can understand concealed carry, especially if someone live in a dangerous neighborhood. Like you, I know a few people who do have a license to do so, and they're far from crazy. But those people who walk into Wal-Mart sporting a tacticooled up super customized extended magazine AR15 (with the obligatory holosite kit installed) strapped to their back for all to see? They're either overcompensating for something, or are really desperate for attention.

    Also, I don't think those people own a single article of clothing that doesn't have a skull on it.
    THOSE clowns are like chihuahuas , all bark & no bite, they generally don't go full retard because they don't want to be shot and they know they will be someone's GF if they land in jail.

  10. #85
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    I know America is a big country. I've mostly been in California (Silicon Valley). I've been a few times for a week in Washington DC and in North-Carolina. And I've visited other places (LA, Florida, Minneapolis, Memphis, etc). I know there is a huge difference between the two Coasts and everything in between.

    The people I used to work with (collegues, customers) were all highly educated people, with very good jobs. Probably mostly Democrats. And even those people I've sometimes heard say the weirdest things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    Americans want violence. And they are scared. They think violence is the answer to everything.
    The issue here, yet again, is you one, two, and three percenters.

    Yes, most of you guys are temporarily/indefinetly "important", and a very few of you are actually needed, but I represent the rest of the 99%, lmao. All this BS you see on the news/world stage, does *NOT* reflect the hardworking everyday American.

    And thanks to TTLG, I now have the rare insight into the 1% mentality, and it is kinda scary. Unsettling in its abhorrent ignorance.

  11. #86
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Wow, we're actually finding common ground here!

    I know people who have claimed to want a big semi-auto rifle for home defense, and my first response is "why?" Unless you're finding yourself in a situation where you have to lay suppressing fire on roving hoards at a 150 yards from the comfort of your front porch, an AR15 is nigh useless for home defense. A handgun might not look as scary, might not give you that same sense of overinflated confidence, but it'll be 1000x more effective if some random crazy stranger decides to kick open your front door to invade your home.

    Rifles are unwieldy in close quarters. All they'll accomplish is giving an intruder something to grab onto when they jump around the corner to invade your personal space.

    ...and no, you don't need a goddamn Mk19 Desert Eagle, either.
    A plethora of experts and people with experience disagree with you, says the internet. The AR platform is easy to use, accurate, easier to keep rounds on target, has less recoil, a larger magazine, harder to be turned on the owner in close quarters combat... the list goes on. When you see photos of SWAT teams or the military clearing houses, are they carrying pistols or an AR platform weapon? The best weapon for home defense is the weapon you've practiced with, are familiar with, and are comfortable using.

  12. #87
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It's a weird place I find myself in. I acknowledge gun ownership as a right, while believing that 50% of the people who exercise it regularly aren't really responsible enough to do so, while 5% of those are so crazy, they shouldn't even be allowed to hold a library card, let alone a gun.

    It's no wonder I'm so damn bitter these days.

    Also, NO MEMES! THEY'RE OBNOXIOUS AND DUMB!

  13. #88
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    A plethora of experts and people with experience disagree with you, says the internet. The AR platform is easy to use, accurate, easier to keep rounds on target, has less recoil, a larger magazine, harder to be turned on the owner in close quarters combat... the list goes on. When you see photos of SWAT teams or the military clearing houses, are they carrying pistols or an AR platform weapon? The best weapon for home defense is the weapon you've practiced with, are familiar with, and are comfortable using.
    You're talking about highly trained professionals who have been taught to handle myriad situations with their rifles. For your average person, the extent of their training begins and ends with "well, I spent a couple hours being taught what does what, and shot a few rounds at the range."

    ...for those people, a handgun is a much better option for home defense.

  14. #89
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It's a weird place I find myself in. I acknowledge gun ownership as a right, while believing that 50% of the people who exercise it regularly aren't really responsible enough to do so, while 5% of those are so crazy, they shouldn't even be allowed to hold a library card, let alone a gun.

    It's no wonder I'm so damn bitter these days.

    Also, NO MEMES! THEY'RE OBNOXIOUS AND DUMB!
    memes rule, others drool..................

    anyways, here is something that passed in CA that could help out
    http://www.independent.com/news/2014...s-legislature/

  15. #90
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    That wouldn't have helped with Paddock. No one expected him to do anything, until he did, and then most who knew him personally were surprised to know he did it.

    It's weird having a random guy like this show up and do so much damage with no real motive behind his action. It's like we, as a nation, can't even process violence unless there's a political bent to it these days. I see so many people on Facebook and the news trying their best to make him out to be Antifa, a Nazi, an ISIS sympathizer, a Democrat, a Republican, whatever. They're so desperate to blame some larger group for his actions, they refuse to accept that all this lies on Paddock, and Paddock alone.

    I guess we're doing this because conspiracies are, in a weird sort of way, comforting notions. Political groups and shadowy organizations can be exposed, quashed, and quelled. You have an easily identifiable enemy to keep an eye out on, to align yourself against. But what can we do against some nondescript guy on the street who decides one day, entirely on his own, to take the lives of dozens of people? People like Paddock are as random as lightning on a cloudless day. You don't expect them, and there isn't much you can do to defend yourself against them.

  16. #91
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldmoon Dawn View Post
    The issue here, yet again, is you one, two, and three percenters.
    None of us here belong to the 1%. And the 3%'ers are a bunch of paranoid right-wing libertarian types, so I doubt you'll see many of them here.

  17. #92
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    nothing would have helped with Paddock.

  18. #93
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    There were probably a few things that could've mitigated the damage he did.

    From what I understand, he bought hundreds of pounds of military quality equipment and a near literal ton of ammo. I think the final tally, found at both the hotel, and his home, was that he owned over 40 rifles, some explosives, and had a few thousand rounds at his disposal. All bought over the course of 3-4 years. At the very least, there should be a system in place to red flag purchases like that.

    But how do you do that, and not step on the toes of people who buy guns as a hobby? It is current a guaranteed right, and some people buy weapons simply to shoot, collect and sell them.

    We're gonna have to find a happy medium here.

  19. #94
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I know people who have claimed to want a big semi-auto rifle for home defense, and my first response is "why?" Unless you're finding yourself in a situation where you have to lay suppressing fire on roving hoards at a 150 yards from the comfort of your front porch, an AR15 is nigh useless for home defense. A handgun might not look as scary, might not give you that same sense of overinflated confidence, but it'll be 1000x more effective if some random crazy stranger decides to kick open your front door to invade your home.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    You're talking about highly trained professionals who have been taught to handle myriad situations with their rifles. For your average person, the extent of their training begins and ends with "well, I spent a couple hours being taught what does what, and shot a few rounds at the range."

    ...for those people, a handgun is a much better option for home defense.
    Respectfully, Renz, I couldn't disagree more. I'm not sure how much experience you have with handgun shooting, but it's really hard. Most new shooters with a handgun can't reliably hit a human-sized silhouette at just seven yards, and that's under shooting range conditions. I practice a lot and have some real-world experience, and even I can't guarantee that I could put every round on-target at that distance under the incredibly intense effects of adrenaline and fear. In contrast, long arms are much easier to aim and control, especially under recoil. And length doesn't matter precisely because we're homeowners, not SWAT officers- we're not room-clearing, we're going to post up at the top of the stairs or the hallway to the kids' rooms or whatever and call 911.

    Then you have penetration. Not only are you much more likely to miss with a handgun, even at very short range, but handgun rounds are fat and slow projectiles that like to go through walls. High-velocity, lightweight rifle rounds tend to fragment and tumble when they hit intervening objects, which limits their ability to endanger your neighbors, and frangible rifle ammunition is both more effective and virtually guaranteed not to exit your home.

    Lastly, ease of manipulation. My girlfriend has extreme difficulty racking the slide on most semi-auto handguns, and difficulty pulling the very heavy trigger on revolvers. In contrast, she has no problem with the manual of arms on her AK. For women, the elderly, and the physically handicapped, something like an AR-15 is much easier to operate than a handgun.

    (Side note: You didn't mention shotguns, but all these same points apply. They're huge and heavy. They're difficult to operate. In particular, they're difficult to load under stress, and we're not advocating people leave shotguns loaded, right? They have enormous recoil. Their ammunition penetrates drywall very well. And they don't have the comical levels of spread seen in movies and games, so you better not miss.)

    This is part of why I've said before that I would much more readily entertain further restrictions on handguns than on 'assault weapons'. For a homeowner, an intermediate-caliber rifle is the most practical and responsible weapon they could buy to defend their home without endangering their neighbors, family, or bystanders, while handguns are overwhelmingly (again, 97%) the weapon of choice for the home invaders they're ostensibly defending themselves against. If you wanted to add additional regulation to the sale and ownership of handguns, while rolling a national concealed-carry permit into the handgun purchase process, a lot of gun owners would readily accept that trade-off.

  20. #95
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Then you have penetration. Not only are you much more likely to miss with a handgun, even at very short range, but handgun rounds are fat and slow projectiles that like to go through walls. High-velocity, lightweight rifle rounds tend to fragment and tumble when they hit intervening objects, which limits their ability to endanger your neighbors, and frangible rifle ammunition is both more effective and virtually guaranteed not to exit your home.
    Admittedly, I don't know that much about guns. I have a basic understanding, and I've shot a few handguns in my day, but I'd say you have me outclassed on general knowledge.

    Like the above quoted? I would've assumed the opposite were true. Rifles, I would've thought, would be more likely to penetrate walls over longer distances, putting your neighbors in danger. One of the major advantages of a rifle over a handgun is that it has more power at longer distances. Handguns, being used more for short range, would be, to me, more likely to fragment and spin when they hit drywall or wood.

    With everything else you've said, I guess I gotta cede my point now. :P

  21. #96
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    I am more than happy to hold you really tight and teach you how to shoot , whisper in your ears what you can & can't do among other things..........call me.................... forever yours. Midge.................

  22. #97
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Say "wee wee", JK.

  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Well, yeah, they would. I mean, I'm not huge on the whole 'resisting tyranny' aspect of American gun ownership, but it's rather unreasonable to expect that police or Army regulars are going to be keen on going door-to-door on their former friends and neighbors pulling a Mujahideen 2: Electric Boogaloo. The government may have tanks and Hellfires, but those have much more significant repercussions to their use (eg the likelihood of mutiny when they're deployed against civilians) than just sending in riot police.
    We had a lone shooter in Dallas last summer killing police officers. They killed him using C4 and a robot. Imagine the response to a real rebellion.

    Small arms fire isn't going to do shit against a drone. And if things were really serious, you have artillery. That's before even discussing real bombs, cruise missiles, tactical nukes, etc.

    I think the one lesson no one learned from Waco is that you can have the biggest arsenal in the world, you aren't surviving against militarized police.

  24. #99
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    I know there are many sane people in the US. Most of the people I've worked with were just normal people. But overall, the average American is different from the average European. (And I think the European are way more different amongst themselves. If not only because of language). And your average American voted Trump into office. That's something that says something.
    I would not say that the average American voted Trump into office. When you divide the number of Trump votes by the population, it's 19%. And the voters who really swung the election to Trump are pretty average working class people who voted for him simply because they were sick of losing manufacturing sector jobs.

    Also, that whole discussion about "good neighborhoods" and "bad neighborhoods" is weird. I know some suburbs around Paris are bad. But I've never heard of neighborhoods in NL, BE, Germany, or even the UK where you can't walk around because "it's a bad neighborhood". I've actually lived for 2.5 years in the worst neighborhood in our country (Amsterdam South-East, aka The Bijlmer). It wasn't fun, it was a poor area, half the people were immigrants. But I never felt unsafe. There was criminality, more than anywhere else, but that didn't mean you'd get mugged or shot if you walk outside (not even during the evening).
    I've walked around some pretty bad neighborhoods in the US, but never worried about getting shot. Definitely worried about getting mugged though and know people who have. Ironically, the only time I was ever mugged was in Canada, in the center of St. John's, in an area that didn't seem to be a bad neighborhood at all. Honestly, the only places I can think of where I wouldn't want to visit due to personal safety concerns are parts of Central and South America and Africa where people are known to get kidnapped and ransomed.

  25. #100
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Moyer View Post
    We had a lone shooter in Dallas last summer killing police officers. They killed him using C4 and a robot. Imagine the response to a real rebellion.

    Small arms fire isn't going to do shit against a drone. And if things were really serious, you have artillery. That's before even discussing real bombs, cruise missiles, tactical nukes, etc.

    I think the one lesson no one learned from Waco is that you can have the biggest arsenal in the world, you aren't surviving against militarized police.
    There is a HUGE difference between going after one person, or one building full of people, and trying to put down a nationwide insurgency. Our military can't even handle the Taliban, and you think they're going to handle an insurgency in a country ten times the size? It's doubtful they would even want to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •