Lurker > Dark_Spiret

im still waiting for a school to raffle off something thats worth a shit like a colt, bcm or denial defense (not that andersons arnt decent).

AwesomeToTheMAX posted...

People will still defend this though because they unironically think it will stop school shootings

i doubt it would prevent anything from starting, but as far as being the quickest solution if something were to happen, yeah it most likely would be. unless you get lucky that the 1-2 resource officers assigned per 300 kids would get their in time to save anyone.

toilet hookup ones go for $25 on amazon. have at it.

cops use retention holsters, typically level 2. they snap into place around the trigger guard and require you to push a button with your trigger finger to release. makes it harder to unholster if you dont know how they work so most people cant just grab them from behind. some security forces might also use level 3 which has a thumb loop behind the hammer or back of the gun which you have to also release (with your thumb!) on top of the other mechanism for extra security.

CosmicShadows posted...

Are you okay with this?

yes, yes i am.

dunno about making republicans, but personally im finding it harder to vote for a democrat.

new kitten + needing to get up early to goto the store = im fucked today.

hope hes ready to lose a couple million votes if he continually goes after guns.

it shows that the new AWB now includes things like .22 rifles just because they are semi-automatic which are used in almost all cases as training rifles for younger kids and pest control.

i learned to shoot on a marlin .22 semi-auto and was taught about gun safety on one when i was 6 and got my first ruger 10/22 when i was 9. this is not uncommon.

the whole thing is stupid.

CarrieChan posted...

Why no outrage on the Ruger Mini 14?

thats just your standard ranch rifle, bruh.

well i did get a splinter the other day. was fucking brutal.

TMP and the Minethrower.

or just TMP if no NG+.

guns kill. you cant really sugar coat it. thats their core design.

but killing =/= murder and as much as peta likes to disagree, killing animals and paper targets =/= killing human beings which CAN be justified depending on the circumstances.

theres also the act of just having a gun and what it means. they keep people in check, both physically and emotionally (albeit in both a positive and negative way) and can help with self reliance. as well as be a symbol to stand up to oppression.

a lot of it has to do with the hypocrisy of the laws being presented and it being the only right that gets shit on as much as it does and in having shown most laws already in effect in other states have minimal, no or inconsistent results.

we already have background checks and its been shown time and time again that it doesnt matter with a lot of it being people that fuck up on the governments end so why add more especially univrsal when its shown they dont effect crime or mass shootings? you have to be 21 to buy a rifle, but not vote to put a dictator in power, drive a 2 ton vehicle thats responsible for 2.5million injuries a year or join the military to kill people...but you cant own a .22 until your 21?

and theres already literally hundreds of laws pertaining to firearms around the country.

need?

uwnim posted...

Thats more guns than people, so that doesnt really prove anything.

its an impossible statistic to get, but lets assume 1 person killing one person so 11000 (this also includes justifiable shootings of which its already skewed). theres an estimated 100million gun owners in the US so that means yeah about 99.99% dont kill anyone with their guns. now if you want to say those who shoot others regardless of killing or not (be it themselves accidentally or otherwise) then youre looking at 100k incidents which is 99.9%. and these are the worst case scenarios, the actual percentages are going to be much higher since a lot of the time multiple people tend to get shot by one person with one gun.

Mead posted...

I thought we were talking about the US

yes.

Mead posted...

If good guys with guns actually stopped bad guys with guns youd think we wouldnt have had 250+ mass shootings so far in 2019

"unfortunately" open carry is considered taboo in most of the country (if not illegal) and requires extra requirements for concealed carry so only about 15% of actual gun owners have a ccw and even thats not a guarantee theyll be carrying on that day, especially since a lot of places tend to be "gun free zones" and they can get in trouble if found out carrying in them. and a lot of the people who do tend to focus in more gun friendly pockets of the country, they arnt consistently spread out. most of those 250 "mass shootings" take place in cities where its very difficult to carry a handgun (dont tell that to criminals though).

that said it does happen--
https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

wolfy42 posted...

As people pro gun often say....anyone who wants to get a gun CAN get a gun, so by making them illegal, you just insure the criminals get them.

So apply that to the rest of the world and......it's obviously not video games that cause the problem.

the rest of the countries in the world do not have 400million guns already in them. they do not border violent nations (for the most part) or share continents with the largest gun makers in the world either. nor do they have the history with firearms that the US does. they also tend to have a lot more social programs, lesser wage gaps, less cut throat politics, easier health care ect. that tends to not lead into such a divide that the US suffers from leading to people turning to violence.

the US rarely had a mass shooting problem prior to columbine either which says theres a LOT more underlying problems at play here.

didnt walmart stop selling those types of guns a long time ago?

Sayoria posted...

How many mass shootings were done by handguns? Our country is beyond fucked because of the second amendment. We'll keep killing ourselves because we stick our dicks in the second amendment, but mass shootings will diminish with the attack on assault weapons. Just because it only helps "some" doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

statistically most are done with handguns as most can be classified as gang violence. some of the worst ones are done with rifles. the virginia tech shooter used two handguns and still killed 32 people, beating out almost all rifle mass shootings. mass shootings also take up between 350-400 deaths per year (once again most are gang on gang violence). total firearm homicides are around 11000 and another 23000 in suicides which are almost all handguns. mass shootings make up roughly 3.2% of homicides. getting rid of assault weapons may save some lives, but there is no data to suggest they also wouldn't go to some other method and carry out their plan negating most lives saved especially when most of those shootings are done with handguns anyway.

to be optimistic you might save ~100 lives by getting rid of "assault weapons". 100 lives to further punish and infringe on 10+ million other citizens rights and further the potential arm of tyranny to 330million.

Sayoria posted...

Issue is, people can own guns. We just need to get the assault weapons off the streets. Just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't mean you have the right to own a gun capable of 100 shots in a single round. A handgun is fine and will do the job you need or want. You don't need a damn AK or something like that. Get that shit off the streets.

according to the FBI 2017 weapons data, rifles took up around 400 deaths in that year. handgun were over 7000. the rifles are also ALL rifles, if you just wanted to factor in "assault weapons" then its even less. handguns also are attributed to almost all suicides.

basically its completely pointless to get rid of assault weapons and based on the previous AWB's its largely pointless when any slack gained by banning those rifles are replaced by the access to handguns. assault weapon deaths are just too negligible to matter. basically its another "we have to do something" while that something wont do jack shit.

Ilishe posted...

If the USA banned guns the number of violent gun crimes would be extremely diminished over the next 20 years.

more like a large uptick in that time, THEN you might see a decline after a few decades (considering the amount of the guns out there). banning guns doesnt magically eliminate the 400million already in circulation, all it does it give criminals a bigger means to terrorize the innocent and them not having what they need to protect them selves along with a police force thats already under staffed and under trained for the whole country and are apparently all racists minority murderers or complacent. after that time you might see a decline, but it wont drop as hard as you might think as long as other means to make weapons exist. 3d printing and cheap cnc machines are getting better and easier to work with each year and thanks to the internet its not hard to see how they work. you can expect the black market and illegal importing to get a boost as well which we all know will be largely futile if the drug war is any indication. basically if someone really wants to get a gun they will still get one while the average citizens wont.

and thats all assuming its just gun deaths. normal homicides would most likely remain negligible as guns get replaced with other means and other forms of crimes get a large boost like rape and home invasions if the UK and AU's bans were any indication ans they had 300x less guns in circulation at the time compared to the US.

theoretically it might cut down on school shootings, but then school shootings in terms of overall homicides are largely insignificant (not that they arnt terrible of course). suicides might also see a little drop, but then thats a difficult thing to really judge. basically its not gonna matter much and in the mean time you also have less deterrents from the government which can lead down an even dark path.

to kill tyrants, tyrants who try to take them away.

capitalism, ho!

considering i tried to kill my self twice in that time im gona have to go with the big D.

pauIie posted...

example of an extreme circumstance a regular person is going to be in that requires use of of these types of weapons.

to protect themselves from those who wish to take them away.

ktownslayer16 posted...

Good for you. Doesnt mean readily accessible weapons of war is a good thing.

"weapons of war" meaning almost all firearms?

can i choose where i get shot?

it also sounds like wanted to be a martyr for gun control. i cant think of any other reason why he chose the equipment that he did otherwise.

most other countrys havnt had guns in them since their foundation nor were they founded in revolution with them nor have the distrust of the government like the US does.

why, why must my vote be surrounded by idiots on all sides.

enough that i can retire in my 40's, but will probably carry on a little longer.

Tryin2GetDaPipe posted...

Idk much about guns tbh but to me it makes no sense for people to own 4+ guns, with some possible exceptions. Like I think I saw some guy say in that other topic that he has 44 guns or something like that. Like why the need for so many?

like anything else people like to collect stuff and its their right and choice to do so. as far as need there tends to be a lot of cases where individuals would want more than 4 guns. guns are like any other tool. the size, calibers and functions can vary heavily depending on the situations. handguns for instance- chances are pretty good you arnt going to carry the same thing in the summer as you do winter with heavy cloths on. chances are also good you arnt going to carry a little .380 like you do in summer when youre backpacking or camping in bear country. if you want something in a home defense setup typically a gun with a rail (something that imo can be a little awkward for concealed carry) that you can put alight on and a high capacity is proffered, something thats not perfectly suited for the other 3 functions i mentioned. that list just gets larger once you step it up to long guns and their functions and skys the limit as far as hunting options.

something a lot of people who dont know a lot about guns dont seem to realize. the AR platform is basically what you want to make of it which is why its so popular. it supports over 70 different calibers including ones youd traditionally hunt with. they come in all barrel lengths and colors (including hunting camo), you can customize any feature to any individual, add any accessory, they are easy to control and manage for any age group. they are basically the jack of all trades rifle and depending on how you set them up and how much you want to spend they can also be an end all be all depending on what you want to do with them.

its a lot of little shit, but ultimately id say its the internet.

not today, mr. ATF.

there is no end to gun control. there never is.

J03can posted...

Tell that to a group of 20 people murdered for going shopping.

and whats the likelihood of showing up a victim of a mass shooting? is it more than the 1+ million home invasions that take place in the US each year?

wonder how many of those come out of chicago.

Garioshi posted...

Australia would beg to differ.

australia barely had any to begin with, they also changed their definition of a mass shooting which lowered the stats.

creativerealms posted...

Of course if no bad people had guns why would a good person need a gun.

tell that to a 110 pound women whos about to be raped by 2 200 pound men. or someone whos home gets invaded by 4 thugs who you hope are just there to steal your tv to pay for their kids operation and not harm you, rape your wife or kidnap your kid.

HydraSlayer82 posted...

I dont know anyone in real life against the second amendment. Registering them and making people take safety classes before being able to own one? Sure. But I know no one that wants to take them away.

registering is counter-intuitive to the entire concept of the 2nd amendment. if someone is for that then they are not for the 2nd amendment.

the NRA is a boogyman and have had very little say in what goes on for years.

MagnusX posted...

If you think the general populace in the US with guns could do anything against the military, you're fucking stupid.

1. a real fight against the US military would be an insurgency, not on some distant battlefield force for force and the military would stand to gain nothing to glass its own citizens and infrastructure.
2. both populations tend to be mixed in with each other making infighting and assassinations a serious problem. military bases for instance tend to be surrounded by citizen homes.
3. you cant control areas with just tanks and drones. you need actual bodies on the ground. bodies and light armored vehicles that can maneuver in city streets and clear buildings and homes who are also susceptible to small arms fire.
4. US civilians have access to 95% of what a typical soldier has, often times better outside of special forces (thanks to uncle sam buying in bulk to save money). the US population also has a TON of vets and outdoors-men who typically tend to have more trigger time and basic survival knowledge than your average soldier.
5. the NFA and laws that can keep people from owning suppressors, "cut down" assault rifles, explosives (grenade launchers are civilian legal so are .50 AP rounds that can punch a hole through mraps), real full autos ect. all that is fair game now in an insurgency.

the whole situation would be a nightmare.

KTG2 posted...

"My worldview is based on a piece of paper from a couple hundred years ago written by people who didn't know dinosaurs existed, but no, YOU'RE the uneducated one."

Eat shit.

theres a lot of bullshit in the constitution, but a lot of things that are inherent to human nature and a lot of things that has put the US where it is on the world stage. some things dont go out of style. the the second amendment and a right to protect ones self will always be a thing as long as humanity is a thing.

CADE FOSTER posted...

You think if we all actually did fight against the government we would get obliterated instantly drones and tanks guns aren't gonna do shit

and thats not how a real fight with a superior force goes down, let alone the same citizens being involved with a fight against one another. there is no bombing a foreign force and not having to worry about collateral damage. if something goes down in the US you will have familys fighting each other, you will have military forces ingrained with the insurgent populations and you will have a high volume of cities and potential collateral damage that would mean nothing afterwards. in that environment tanks and drones dont mean much and boots on the ground is what wins. in that regard US citizens are allowed to own almost everything a standard soldier uses and if it gets to that the NFA goes out the window which means explosives, suppressors, short barreled rifles, full autos ect. i dont think most really realize what the US population has access to with the only things really keeping them in check being a few lines on a piece of paper.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Well apparently dude had body armor.

was is REAL body armor or just a tack vest? the criminals wearing real plat carriers tends to be exceptionally rare in these events.

most of my ideals lean left and i think everything should be deregulated. fuck the NFA and ATF.

im for tackling the core issues which are mental health, poverty, drugs, gangs, healthcare ect. and stopping the need that someone would want to pick up a gun in the first place and harm others.

im more worried about 5 times a day some crazy ass hole on the freeway is going to crash into me. seriously, learn to fucking drive.

Ruvan22 posted...

So the AU gun ban worked then? Because even if you reduce from 10 to 2 and then back up to 5, that's still less than the 10 you started at?

the entire point is that it didnt matter. you lose one mass shooting (which was so low before or after its impossible to know if it actually had any effect on future shootings) and pick up a number of other deaths by other means negating the entire homicide ratio.