Gun Control is just....Silly

reply to post by Hopechest


If they can't victimize you with a bazooka or an AR-15 or a double barrel shotgun or a musket they will do it with machetes.

Sorry, I thought that was self explanatory.

The discussion about firearms prohibition and self defense go hand in hand, always. That is one of the many uses of firearms, self defense.

reply to post by ruderalis1


You won't make them go poof over night but through regulation you can greatly reduce their numbers over time. Try buying some antique firearms and see how hard it is to find them and then look at the cost of purchasing one.

There are still some out there but because they are no longer manufactured, have been lost or broken down, they are exceedingly hard to find. Its the same principle with anything you want to get rid of.

It does take time but its certainly possible.

Indeed Frazzle, more and more often, the consensus seems to be that it isn't about gun control as you say, but people control. We don't have a gun problem per say, but a people problem. More specifically, a race problem. Since that is a touchy subject, I will only provide a graphic to illustrate just how much.


This attempt to erode away at the Constitution is showing some positive economic benefits, though.
The firearms industry is doing better than ever, and job are being created nationwide in attempts to meet customer demand.

One solution I never hear mentioned is increasing firearms education and safety awareness, something that can save lives, that politicians and pundits have never mentioned. Who can argue that educating Americans on how to be more responsible gun owners is not a common sense approach?

But forget all of that for a moment, let's take a look at Chicago.
Following the gun bans there, murders committed with handguns actually rose 40%.
Why is that?

How is it that areas where firearms are banned are seeing increases in related crime, rather than decreasing?
And finally, how can we suggest following this trend which has proven to have the opposite desired effect?

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest

 

If they can't victimize you with a bazooka or an AR-15 or a double barrel shotgun or a musket they will do it with machetes.

Sorry, I thought that was self explanatory.

The discussion about firearms prohibition and self defense go hand in hand, always. That is one of the many uses of firearms, self defense.

Possibly but I think both of us will agree that an AR-15 is a bit more lethal than a machete. You don't see our seal teams going into combat with machetes do you?

'MERICA !!!

get drunk and shoot stuff !!!


the second ammendment was about a civilian army as much as defense against tyranny

how many have you have protested the fact we spend grotesque amounts of money on our standing army and demand it be dissolved ?

are you not patriotic ? do you not support the second ammendment and the constitution ?

reply to post by ruderalis1



Yep, evil exists.. it's a real thing. Sometimes you can't just run away...

reply to post by Hopechest


Yes i agree, that's why law abiding citizens need access to small arms like the AR-15 with standard STANAG 30 round magazines because someday it might be you VS a dozen machete wielding maniacs.

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Yes i agree, that's why law abiding citizens need access to small arms like the AR-15 with standard STANAG 30 round magazines because someday it might be you VS a dozen machete wielding maniacs.

Honestly, I don't know anyone trained in firearms that would actually use an AR-15 for home defense. The weapon is bulky and sprays bullets everywhere. A simple 9mm or shotgun is far more qualified to do the job of close quarter fighting.

About the only thing we ever found a use for the AR-15 that some other gun wasn't more suited for was clearing out rattlesnake nests where you have multiple snakes you need dead quickly. Other than that there is always a better gun to use.

Originally posted by Sek82
Indeed Frazzle, more and more often, the consensus seems to be that it isn't about gun control as you say, but people control. We don't have a gun problem per say, but a people problem. More specifically, a race problem. Since that is a touchy subject, I will only provide a graphic to illustrate just how much.

This attempt to erode away at the Constitution is showing some positive economic benefits, though.
The firearms industry is doing better than ever, and job are being created nationwide in attempts to meet customer demand.

One solution I never hear mentioned is increasing firearms education and safety awareness, something that can save lives, that politicians and pundits have never mentioned. Who can argue that educating Americans on how to be more responsible gun owners is not a common sense approach?

But forget all of that for a moment, let's take a look at Chicago.
Following the gun bans there, murders committed with handguns actually rose 40%.
Why is that?

How is it that areas where firearms are banned are seeing increases in related crime, rather than decreasing?
And finally, how can we suggest following this trend which has proven to have the opposite desired effect?

I think the differential is more of an inequality of wealth potential than race, but that's a different issue.

The statistic I'd like to see is how many gun deaths are committed annually BY law enforcement, especially those against unarmed civilians. That's a number no one seems to want to touch.

Otherwise I agree with all your points.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Yes i agree, that's why law abiding citizens need access to small arms like the AR-15 with standard STANAG 30 round magazines because someday it might be you VS a dozen machete wielding maniacs.

Honestly, I don't know anyone trained in firearms that would actually use an AR-15 for home defense. The weapon is bulky and sprays bullets everywhere. A simple 9mm or shotgun is far more qualified to do the job of close quarter fighting.

About the only thing we ever found a use for the AR-15 that some other gun wasn't more suited for was clearing out rattlesnake nests where you have multiple snakes you need dead quickly. Other than that there is always a better gun to use.

Setting aside the fact that Darce didn't say anything specific about "home defense", are you suggesting that your inability to understand why anyone would want an AR-15 should be the deciding factor in setting national policy? No offense but you seem to have a very high opinion of your opinion.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Yes i agree, that's why law abiding citizens need access to small arms like the AR-15 with standard STANAG 30 round magazines because someday it might be you VS a dozen machete wielding maniacs.

Honestly, I don't know anyone trained in firearms that would actually use an AR-15 for home defense. The weapon is bulky and sprays bullets everywhere. A simple 9mm or shotgun is far more qualified to do the job of close quarter fighting.

About the only thing we ever found a use for the AR-15 that some other gun wasn't more suited for was clearing out rattlesnake nests where you have multiple snakes you need dead quickly. Other than that there is always a better gun to use.

Its funny when people talk about how hard it is to shoot an AR-15. Bulky? Not really...Sure its a little bit longer in length than you'd want for close quarters (But how are Shotguns any different?) but it does just fine...Really

Sprays bullets everywhere? No. The gun isnt just going to spray bullets uncontrollably... 1) Civilians only have access to semi auto. I pull the trigger once and 1 bullet comes out. 2) AR-15s are super easy to fire and dont kick the way Shotguns do.



There are plenty of people out there that would (and do) use their AR-15 for home defense, me included.
I dont want to rely on a shotgun or pistol with 7 shots to protect me from multiple criminals breaking into my house. I dont want to rely on a shotgun or pistol with 7 shots to protect me during a catastrophic event. I dont want to rely on a shotgun or pistol with 7 shots to protect me Tyranny, Foreign or Domestic.

reply to post by frazzle
How wealth potential ties into this is a whole 'nother topic, something I didn't think about!

Tracking homicides by police is hard, since most departments do such a good job at covering down for each other, and many of their killings end up ruled justifiable.

Your point about it being difficult to find statistics on law enforcement homicides is alarming.
It highlights a problem with a lack of cross-agency accountability in our nation. Big time. Corruption in law enforcement does exist around this country due to a lack of it.

By the way Hopechest, in most CQC training, rifles continue to be the primary weapon of choice for most units stateside and abroad. That has been the case in my experience, anyway.

reply to post by Hopechest


Haha! Sounds like fun. Unfortunately we can't hunt with ARs in Canada as they are restricted by name and therefore can only be used at RCMP approved ranges.

I would agree with you that there are plenty of options for home defense, semi auto 5.56/.223 caliber carbines being only one of them. If you're interested here is a little video on the subject by a well known youtube channel called hickok45:

Honestly he never claims to be an "expert", but he does bring up some good points as to why the AR is a very capable defensive platform.

I can't figure out the embed sorry Youtube Link:

Home Defense: Double Barrel Shotgun vs AR15

I think that pretty much says it all.

reply to post by ruderalis1


Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. But I can't see something like Newtown or Aurora happen and not think that something needs to change. I also can't picture a world where the answer is to just give everyone guns. I fully understand and agree that to a certain extent we need to protect ourselves, but it's almost like treating the symptoms instead of the disease - there's a reason we have these bad guys with guns killing innocent people. I'd like to think there's a way to prevent that, but maybe that's just dreaming...

reply to post by Sek82

Tracking homicides by police is hard, since most departments do such a good job at covering down for each other, and many of their killings end up ruled justifiable.

Your point about it being difficult to find statistics on law enforcement homicides is alarming.
It highlights a problem with a lack of cross-agency accountability in our nation. Big time. Corruption in law enforcement does exist around this country due to a lack of it.

Logistically, police shootings wouldn't be any more difficult to track than gang banger or drive by shootings, they simply refuse to do it. Its almost funny anymore to hear people still say "they work for us", they only show up after somebody is injured or killed and they seldom find the guilty party. Sometimes they even manage to shoot the person who reported the crime (in a justified sort of way, dontchaknow). They don't work for us any more than the military invading foreign countries that lack even a functioning army or navy to defend themselves against our "mighty sword" is "working for us".

Protect and defend as once taught in the academy morphed into crowd control some years ago, or in the words of Jack McLamb, former police officer and author of the newsletter "aid and abet", they are now taught to protect the system. realneo.us...

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Yes i agree, that's why law abiding citizens need access to small arms like the AR-15 with standard STANAG 30 round magazines because someday it might be you VS a dozen machete wielding maniacs.

Honestly, I don't know anyone trained in firearms that would actually use an AR-15 for home defense. The weapon is bulky and sprays bullets everywhere. A simple 9mm or shotgun is far more qualified to do the job of close quarter fighting.

About the only thing we ever found a use for the AR-15 that some other gun wasn't more suited for was clearing out rattlesnake nests where you have multiple snakes you need dead quickly. Other than that there is always a better gun to use.

Setting aside the fact that Darce didn't say anything specific about "home defense", are you suggesting that your inability to understand why anyone would want an AR-15 should be the deciding factor in setting national policy? No offense but you seem to have a very high opinion of your opinion.

I'm only suggesting that if you want to limit violence with a certain type of weapon that it is certainly possible through taking the proper steps and giving it enough time. The actual type of firearm is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Haha! Sounds like fun. Unfortunately we can't hunt with ARs in Canada as they are restricted by name and therefore can only be used at RCMP approved ranges.

I would agree with you that there are plenty of options for home defense, semi auto 5.56/.223 caliber carbines being only one of them. If you're interested here is a little video on the subject by a well known youtube channel called hickok45:

Honestly he never claims to be an "expert", but he does bring up some good points as to why the AR is a very capable defensive platform.

I can't figure out the embed sorry

Youtube Link:

Home Defense: Double Barrel Shotgun vs AR15

edit on 2/4/13 by Darce because: (no reason given)

Some people may prefer it but I have no idea why. I find them extremely clunky and can't hit the broad side of a barn with one. If someone was in my house I'd take a 9mm any day of the week over an AR-15. I suppose that if you had time, were propped up in a window and saw a car full of people coming at you from down the street the AR-15 would be better but I highly doubt that situations happen too often like that.

reply to post by Hopechest

The actual type of firearm is irrelevant.

Then you agree with Joe Biden who also says gun types are irrelevant and that they won't stop until they get them all.

How long is it going to take before our caretakers get all the illicit drugs out of our system? Oh wait, they've got our soldiers protecting the heroin poppies over in Afghanistan as we speak, don't they. That's because they care about you.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Hopechest

 

The actual type of firearm is irrelevant.

Then you agree with Joe Biden who also says gun types are irrelevant and that they won't stop until they get them all.

How long is it going to take before our caretakers get all the illicit drugs out of our system? Oh wait, they've got our soldiers protecting the heroin poppies over in Afghanistan as we speak, don't they. That's because they care about you.

I don't know what Joe Biden's plans are actually. I'm only saying that if you wanted to limit gun violence by a certain type of weapon that you can easily do it over time.