TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5101520212223242526 LastLast
Results 601 to 625 of 642

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #601
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    You can always tell when someone's vaping by the way they're driving down the interstate in their riced up Civic, all going 90 MPH in the middle lane, smoke coming out their passenger side window like they've got a fog machine running in the back seat.

    The stores are even worse. APOKALYPSE VAPE 'N SMOKES! TRIBAL TONICS VAPOR! ANGELIC DESIGNS VAPE AND GALLERIA! DOUCHEBAG CITY!

  2. #602
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    taxation is theft, but I do love muh roads.

    good call on city hall, that's where the thieves gather..........

  3. #603
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I'm watching It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World right now. Haven't seen this since I was a kid.

    So shuuuudupppp.

  4. #604
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Ollie North is now President of the NRA.

    I couldn't find any fair and balanced reporting on this, so an excerpt from American Dad will have to suffice.



    When they say he sold arms to Iran, was that the same Iran, Donald hates or a different one?

  5. #605
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    The cold war was a whole different world. There were real commies back then. Everything was justifiable.

  6. #606
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    It was the Iran-Iraq War to be exact.
    In the spirit of true sportsmanship, the US aided both sides, Saddam & the Ayatollah, to kill each other. =L
    Well then there were the Sandanistas in there somewhere too. I guess they count as your real commies.

  7. #607
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    Another tragic event, apparently “not surprising”.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/u...-fe-texas.html

  8. #608
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So it goes.

  9. #609
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    How does this affect your gun control arguments? No AR-15, no semi-automatic weapons at all. A 6-shot revolver with a ballistically inferior round and a (presumably) six-shot 12 ga shotgun. Two of the most ubiquitous weapons in the world. Technology not from the last century, but the century before: the first pump shotgun was invented by John Browning (PBUH) in 1897. The Colt Company patented the first double action revolver in 1877. It, too, was available in a .38 caliber round.

    The only way this is pertinent to your gun control arguments is if in you're in favor of outright ban of civilian ownership, which I believe is your primary intent. Chris Murphy (Asshole, CT) was quick to condemn Congress's inaction. Presumably he forgets that he's a member of congress, and that he supported private ownership of far more powerful weapons. In February of 2018. You wonder why gun owners mistrust your intentions, and why the pro-gun crowd is so uncompromising? Look no further.

  10. #610
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    A fucking men Nicker. I gave up this debate a long time ago but you goddamn nailed it.

    Woops. I was transfering vhs to dvd while this went on and timing was not a consideration. Still doing the horror show stuff.

    Wait. Goddamn it. I must have been looking at a days old page. Fuckity fuck it then.
    Last edited by Tocky; 19th May 2018 at 02:13.

  11. #611
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    How does this affect your gun control arguments?
    We should have laws on the books that would put the father in jail for failing to secure weapons that were used in a felony. This, and at least some other mass school shootings would not have occurred if the weapons were properly secured by their owners. It should be considered criminal negligence, and enforced as such until most gun owners actually start following all those gun safety rules that the NRA itself teaches.

    https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle...99816820053714

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    ...no semi-automatic weapons at all.
    Revolvers being considered not semi-automatic despite one-pull one-shot capabilities is kind of a weird technicality, IMO. If I were writing a ban on semi-automatic weapons, I'd include them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Technology not from the last century, but the century before...
    I don't see how that's relevant. Bombs and cannons date back to something like the 12th century, but we don't make them legal. Heck, I can't carry a side-handle baton, nobody knows when those were invented.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    You wonder why gun owners mistrust your intentions, and why the pro-gun crowd is so uncompromising?
    Why would anyone wonder that? Many Republicans don't seem to know the meaning of the word compromise anymore, no matter the context. The Republican Congress has been routinely failing to compromise with itself when implementing its own priorities, nevermind Democrats. That rot is far deeper than gun issues.

  12. #612
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Gun control doesn't mean a ban of all weapons. This is purely a fantasy of the gun lobby to scare gun owners.

    The gun control argument is not to eliminate all gun deaths and injuries. It's to reduce them. Just like traffic laws and regulations on cars don't seek to eliminate all accidents.

  13. #613
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    We should have laws on the books that would put the father in jail for failing to secure weapons that were used in a felony. This, and at least some other mass school shootings would not have occurred if the weapons were properly secured by their owners. It should be considered criminal negligence, and enforced as such until most gun owners actually start following all those gun safety rules that the NRA itself teaches.
    This. Safe storage could have prevented the Sandy Hook school massacre as well.

  14. #614
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    We should have laws on the books that would put the father in jail for failing to secure weapons that were used in a felony. This, and at least some other mass school shootings would not have occurred if the weapons were properly secured by their owners. It should be considered criminal negligence, and enforced as such until most gun owners actually start following all those gun safety rules that the NRA itself teaches.

    https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle...99816820053714
    I don't know the situation with this kid, obviously, but it's very possible the father did have them locked up. He obviously had experience with guns, and it's not impossible or even unlikely that he knew the combination to the gun safe. I knew the combination to my father's gun safe, and had access (if I violated his rule) to high capacity magazine semiautomatic rifles from the age of 13 or 14. He didn't know I knew the combination, and it's not impossible that the same situation happened in this or other cases. Kids and teenagers are nosy, quiet, and absorb a lot of information that you think might go over their head. My 9 year old son unlocked my phone, recently. I never gave him the password--he just saw me do it, once, when I was unlocking it to show him something on youtube.

    Revolvers being considered not semi-automatic despite one-pull one-shot capabilities is kind of a weird technicality, IMO. If I were writing a ban on semi-automatic weapons, I'd include them.
    So you'd ban everything but single shot weapons?

    I don't see how that's relevant. Bombs and cannons date back to something like the 12th century, but we don't make them legal. Heck, I can't carry a side-handle baton, nobody knows when those were invented.
    Cannons are perfectly legal, and at least where I live so are tonfas. We haven't had a murder with either in my state, and neither is the criminal's weapon of choice. Do you live in the UK? Everything's illegal there. The UK police say on their website that the only legal self defense item you can use is a rape alarm. Good luck with that.

    Why would anyone wonder that? Many Republicans don't seem to know the meaning of the word compromise anymore, no matter the context. The Republican Congress has been routinely failing to compromise with itself when implementing its own priorities, nevermind Democrats. That rot is far deeper than gun issues.
    I don't think you get to ding others on lack of compromise when you want to ban anything newer than a muzzle-loading rifle.
    Last edited by Draxil; 19th May 2018 at 10:36.

  15. #615
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    This. Safe storage could have prevented the Sandy Hook school massacre as well.
    You don't know that. It would have prevented him from using that individual gun. He could easily have gotten another from somewhere else, or made a bomb, or waited till recess and run a car into a group of kids, or used a knife (K-4 school--I doubt they'd have offered much resistance) or... if you're committed to killing, you're likely going to find a way to do it.

    Edit: quick research says that Lanza had been a sports-shooter from youth, with his mother. So he had a 15 year track record of responsible gun use, and had a gun safe in his own room. It wasn't unreasonable for his mother to trust him around firearms.
    Last edited by Draxil; 19th May 2018 at 10:14.

  16. #616
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    why the pro-gun crowd is so uncompromising?
    That is because they are selfish cunts.

  17. #617
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    You don't know that. It would have prevented him from using that individual gun. He could easily have gotten another from somewhere else, or made a bomb, or waited till recess and run a car into a group of kids, or used a knife (K-4 school--I doubt they'd have offered much resistance) or... if you're committed to killing, you're likely going to find a way to do it.

    Edit: quick research says that Lanza had been a sports-shooter from youth, with his mother. So he had a 15 year track record of responsible gun use, and had a gun safe in his own room. It wasn't unreasonable for his mother to trust him around firearms.
    You need to refresh your memory on the kind of person Adam Lanza was. Read this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...ealth_problems

    Summary: history of developmental distorder since 3, diagnosed with Asperger's and OCD, suspected schizophrenia, cuts off contact with his own family, spending all of his time in a blacked out room that he won't let anybody into, not communicating with anybody except online, won't even talk to his mother except via email, not eating to the point of severe anorexia. He had also been overheard threatening to shoot up the same school 4 years earlier, which was reported to police but they didn't act on it. Now, if you think it's reasonable to trust somebody like that around firearms, I don't even know what to say.

    The more fundamental point here is that even if Adam Lanza was the most normal person on Earth, his mother had a responsibility to safely store her firearms and ammunition.

    If he didn't have access to guns, it's possible he would have found another way to kill, but it's somewhat unlikely considering how severely anti-social he was. He literally didn't go anywhere or talk to anyone. And the evidence found in his room and on his computer shows that he was obsessed with mass shootings. It was easy for him to go shoot up the school because his mother enabled it. Other means of killing would have been a lot harder for him, wouldn't have fulfilled his fantasy of being a mass shooter, and also wouldn't have killed so many people.

  18. #618
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    I don't know the situation with this kid, obviously, but it's very possible the father did have them locked up. He obviously had experience with guns, and it's not impossible or even unlikely that he knew the combination to the gun safe. I knew the combination to my father's gun safe, and had access (if I violated his rule) to high capacity magazine semiautomatic rifles from the age of 13 or 14. He didn't know I knew the combination, and it's not impossible that the same situation happened in this or other cases. Kids and teenagers are nosy, quiet, and absorb a lot of information that you think might go over their head. My 9 year old son unlocked my phone, recently. I never gave him the password--he just saw me do it, once, when I was unlocking it to show him something on youtube.
    ...which is a good example as to why all these proposed laws that would hold the parents responsible for their kids shooting up schools wouldn't amount to much of anything. Almost every case that'd be brought to court would present too much reasonable doubt to convict on.

  19. #619
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Sorry, but that just sounds like "dog ate my homework" kind of excuse.

    Protecting a combination is not hard. Most of us learned to do that when we got a bike lock as kids. If you can't keep your kid from peeking around the corner when you dial a combination, use a key lock. If you don't think you can safeguard a key, make it biometric then. Or use two-factor authentication. Preventing access is an easy technical problem to solve, and access controls are something most of us deal with routinely in life so I can't accept that it's a burden on gun owners.

    The standard we need is that if you own the firearm, you're responsible for its use. There are way too many cases of kids taking their parents' guns from a nightstand drawer or closet shelf (i.e. unsecured so it will be "at the ready" for self-protection) and accidentally shooting their friends, siblings, or themselves.

    Besides, in cases like Mrs. Lanza, who did not lock up her guns, and her son exhibited all the warning signs, what reasonable doubt would there be?

  20. #620
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Like I've said before, I am completely in favor of requiring safe storage, and mandating that anyone who leaves a firearm unsecured be held partially liable for crimes committed with that firearm. I recognize that this is assigning a level of liability with no current precedent in our laws, but I feel that it's necessary to get people to start being responsible with their guns.

    To touch on that heywood said about a 'dog ate my homework' kind of excuse, stricter liability in this respect would also make it harder for criminals to distribute firearms. Straw purchase is virtually always performed by a clean accomplice, who has basically nothing to fear, since most states and the federal government refuse to prosecute straw purchase except in the most outrageously high-profile cases, partially on account of it being difficult to prove. This kind of change would make it easy to prosecute: You bought a gun and it wound up in the hands of your criminal sibling/friend/acquaintance? Unless there's a police record on file from when your safe must have been broken into, either you deliberately bought a gun for a felon, or you negligently allowed them to 'steal' it.

    I read too many accounts of 'I left my truck gun in my truck and it got broken into and they stole my gun' to think that erring on the side of forgiveness is the best policy here. I don't think it's unreasonable that if someone wants to buy a gun that they implicitly assume the responsibility of safeguarding access to it. Maybe there ought to be some leeway in judicial review, like not sending a parent to jail if their kid manages to lift a set of fingerprints off a coffee mug and uses it to break into a biometric safe. But right now a parent can own unsecured guns around a teenager with known psychological issues, and face no repercussions when their kid goes on a killing spree. There's no expectation of responsibility, and IMO that needs to change.
    Last edited by catbarf; 21st May 2018 at 16:05.

  21. #621
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    You need to refresh your memory on the kind of person Adam Lanza was. Read this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...ealth_problems

    Summary: history of developmental distorder since 3, diagnosed with Asperger's and OCD, suspected schizophrenia, cuts off contact with his own family, spending all of his time in a blacked out room that he won't let anybody into, not communicating with anybody except online, won't even talk to his mother except via email, not eating to the point of severe anorexia. He had also been overheard threatening to shoot up the same school 4 years earlier, which was reported to police but they didn't act on it. Now, if you think it's reasonable to trust somebody like that around firearms, I don't even know what to say.

    The more fundamental point here is that even if Adam Lanza was the most normal person on Earth, his mother had a responsibility to safely store her firearms and ammunition.

    If he didn't have access to guns, it's possible he would have found another way to kill, but it's somewhat unlikely considering how severely anti-social he was. He literally didn't go anywhere or talk to anyone. And the evidence found in his room and on his computer shows that he was obsessed with mass shootings. It was easy for him to go shoot up the school because his mother enabled it. Other means of killing would have been a lot harder for him, wouldn't have fulfilled his fantasy of being a mass shooter, and also wouldn't have killed so many people.
    I appreciate the considered response. You're right, I had forgotten what kind of person Lanza was, and it was a serious and fatal mistake for his mother to leave unsecured weapons available to him, or even to cultivate an appreciation for firearms. You are also perfectly correct about her responsibility to safely store the weapons.

    Both you and catbarf bring up points that are hard to oppose. Objections I have to the obligation to secure a weapon are easily answered, and hinge mainly on availability in case of need. Biometric safes or simple push-button combination safes are available, reliable, and accessible and allow access only to those granted access. Would your proposed securement requirement rely on inspection for enforcement (which I oppose), or just harsh punishment for infringement in cases of shootings (which I would fully support)?

    I've mellowed with age, and now generally oppose the death penalty. If, though, a harsh penalty is a deterrent for failing to secure your firearms, would it not be reasonable to impose the death penalty on perpetrators of mass shootings? Most reasonable objections to cases involving the death penalty don't really apply to mass shootings, and there's little more heinous or deserving of execution. Perhaps promise of expedited and ignominious death would deter some of these sickos.

  22. #622
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    David Hogg was swatted in what the article describes as a prank, but really it is a crime with potentially deadly consequences to the victims:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...swatting-prank

    A hoax 911 call saying David Hogg was kidnapped sent a team of armed police officers to his house while he was in Washington DC

    [...]

    Neither Hogg nor any family members were at their home when the Broward sheriff's office Swat team responded to the anonymous call shortly after 8.30am.

    "The call was regarding someone in the home with a weapon," Gina Carter, a BSO spokesperson, told the Guardian. "We responded to the home and cleared the property. It was established that the call was a hoax and detectives are investigating to try to find out who made the call."

    [...]

    In January, a "swatting" call allegedly placed by a California man led to a man in Wichita, Kansas being shot dead by local police.

    [...]

    Hogg, 18, has become an outspoken advocate for gun law reform since the 14 February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in which 14 students and three teachers were killed. He has often found himself the target of abuse.

    Last month a Florida police officer was suspended for a Facebook post in which he suggested Hogg should be run over at a protest against a supermarket chain that donated to a pro-National Rifle Association politician.

  23. #623
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    We are not in Germany. How did being my unarmed work out for the Jews there?
    Came across a video today that explores that very question and the idea that being better armed would have made a big difference:


  24. #624
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Came across a video today that explores that very question and the idea that being better armed would have made a big difference:

    being armed made a hell of a difference to the Bundys.

  25. #625
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Is there any reason we're necroing this thread?

    Well anyway, this is a gun I've been really liking recently while the topic is up.



    Any of you have fire arms you've been interested in lately?

Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5101520212223242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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