Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

LET'S TALK ABOUT FACTS GUYS



I... don't even know where to start with this.

Bonus: image promoted by a group called "Gun Control Kills"

So if the UK needs more guns to lower crime in Australia, who do we give guns to to lower crimes in the USA? Clearly it's Puerto Rico, right?

I'd almost say that's a joke if I didn't know Conservatives have no sense of humor. Their need to be right overwhelms them. Common Conservative jokes:
Why did the chicken cross the road?
We don't know because we have no way of communicating complex ideas with chickens yet.

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Your neighbor.

Why did the dummy throw the clock out the window?
He misconstrued a common phrase as being literal instead of figurative.

What is your source for this? I mean, other than internet gun people conventional wisdom with no basis in practical CQB experience for amateurs?

A round table of politicians and journalists talk (and surprisingly not yell) about gun control and violence after the Newtown shootings.

Shotgun buckshot will go through doors and walls as pistol cartridges. 5.56/.223 ammo is less likely to penetrate as they're made to fragment (inside human bodies).

One of the rules of gun safety is to know what's beyond your target, which could be walls to your kids' room or your neighbour's window.

Again, assault rifles are classified as fully automatic military rifles, which are prohibited to civilians in Canada and the US (there are exceptions but they require very special permits). I have two M-4 style rifles, neither of which are "assault rifles" since they're both semi-automatic.

The AR-15 family of rifles are classified as Restricted firearms in Canada because of public perception based on movies, tv shows, and the news. Whereas the Robinson Armament XCR with a 18.5" barrel is classified as a Non-Restricted firearm. The former are limited to government recognized gun ranges while the latter can be used for hunting.

I think the assault rifle classification as "fully automatic" is not a useful one, either in a technical or a legal sense. Fully automatic weapons are difficult to obtain, great, let's move on from that. In contrast, my m16 and the variants used in this and the Batman shooting are semi-automatic. They are all exceptionally lethal in terms of spree shootings, and the optimal weapon for that uh task as well as many other things that you don't really want civilians to be able to do. That exceptional lethality comes from a variety of parameters such as their ease of operation, especially at close ranges, and the weight to effectiveness balance of the ammunition types and so on.

As has been highlighted in both recent high profile cases the amateur should not expect to get through even an entire magazine because m16 variants in particular are sensitive to low quality ammo, magazines, poor maintenance/over-lubrication, and just a lack of practice with dealing with rounds; this did not stop them from being exceptionally effective, and if nothing else one of the CQB precepts of "have an alternate weapon to switch to" seems to have definitely made it's way into the popular imagination. Semi automatic is not in fact a significant hindrance if your goal is to kill or wound humans versus making a complete idiot of yourself; there are a reason why better trained troops never use settings beyond semi automatic on their small arms except in very specialized roles or extraordinary situations.

Point is when people who don't know about guns refer to assault weapons, it's time to move beyond nomenclature and discuss specific capabilities. Again, I don't think it's an exceptionally fruitful route because there's going to be a lot of back and forth as mythical capabilities bounce off factual capabilities and gun advocacy propaganda, but at least we can get beyond the details if we're direct about what exactly people are trying to prevent in the context of spree killings.

That people ignorant of guns find them scary or assume they are disproportionately present across all crimes is pretty reasonable in the former case and situationally applicable in the latter case. But let's start with the benefit of the doubt and explain from there.

I have a FB friend who shares this shit constantly. I don't want to engage because it's just not worth it, but she's a huge fan of Doctor Who, a show that used to (end of Tennant years) annoy me for its rampant wussing out of using violence as a last resort to save the universe. I cannot imagine the cognitive dissonance necessary to like that show (she loves the Tennant years) and be so incredibly pro-gun as to share the bullshit rhetoric and skewed memes that are on that page.

Another surprisingly civil (non-yelling) discussion on mental health, gun control and violence.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that when it comes to CQB, as Lizard_King alludes to. Pistols are popular because the myth that they can be tucked in closer and thus are harder to grapple out of a shooter's hands; ignoring that proper pistol stances tend to feature your dominant arm being fully extended. Shotguns are well liked because of spread and penetration characteristics, when a far more significant factor is the much lighter barrel than a rifle; often combined with an absolutely stupid proof design. Hunting and sporting rifles are not favoured, yet for example a Model 1894 would probably do very well in a pinch. Like shotguns, assault rifles are probably a tad longer than is strictly ideal at room to room range; however quite a bit of effort goes into making them light, and moving the centre of gravity closer to the shoulder; which makes them an eminently viable weapon in close quarters. Submachine guns are nearly ideal for the purpose of room to room fighting, but not good for much else due to pistol rounds being pistol rounds.

Four firefighters shot, two killed while responding to a call near Rochester, NY.

How many minutes until Wayne LaPierre suggests arming firefighters?

Yeah, that's going on in the next town over from me. Five houses are burning, and four are going to be a total loss, though they think they have the fires under control now. The shooter is dead.

I engaged in a retarded conversation with a concealed carry dude about this armed-guards-in-schools nonsense. My argument was that without even considering the actual merits or otherwise of having armed guards in schools, it'll quickly fail because of our social attitudes towards actually funding schools. When my wife's school can't even cough up $150 for her to buy supplies to repair library books and only two parents volunteer in the entire school, where will all this come from? Dipshit's response was to ask why I don't volunteer if I'm going to complain out it. Guess what! I do, generally around 10 hours per week. I asked why he doesn't, he said it's because they won't let him carry a gun. So I wanted to beat the shit out of him. Anyway, he claims that this can all be done totally for free because the community will totally step up to hang around schools with guns. I pointed out that training and coming up with actual security plans isn't free, he responded that something is better than nothing. THIS GUY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY ALLOWING ARMED CIVILIANS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ASSURANCE OF CAPABILITY OR TRAINING IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. BECAUSE FREEDOM OR SOME SHIT. Shit will be totally kosher and people who decided to shoot up a school wouldn't suddenly find an extremely easy way to access the building from the inside. Oh, oh, and when I pointed out that the first negligent discharge, whether someone was injured or not, would likely cause a shitstorm amongst the public, he said it was not big deal because accidents happen.

Anyway, I didn't really intend to go into all that. My main point is that I realized that at least some people who carry constantly aren't in it for the possibility to kill someone, they're in it for the chance to be a hero.

Anyway, vent over. Merry Christmas.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

Oh, I was also accused of wanting to ban all guns evar, I told him I would bet cash right then that I owned more guns than him, I just didn't share his Ramboner for this retarded proposal. He declined the bet. Shortly thereafter, he told me that if it had been my daughter killed, I would agree with him. I told him I can't help but imagine myself in that situation every day since and Fuck you, you scummy piece of shit.

This shit has been stewing in my head for a couple days now and SOME GODDAMN PEOPLE.

I don't know who this guy is to you but the proper response is "If you ever wish any of my kids dead again I'll shoot you in the face before you can get your tiny penis substitute out of your holster."

Yes. Acceptable losses in order to preserve our freedoms. They'll never come out and say it or agree when put directly, but that is the implication. It's acceptable for kindergartners to be shot and killed for the "greater good" of every citizen to be able to legally stockpile assault rifles.

Fuck you asshole if that is what you think people who support gun rights really are thinking.

That's what some people who support gun rights are really thinking, because there's no other conclusion to make. How about if they say "well, this is the price of the freedom we have to protect our own families." Sound familiar? It should, but you parse logic about as effectively as a chipmunk, because you're a stupid mother fucker.

You tell me what people are thinking when their first response to a tragedy like Newtown is devoid of accepting that gun control is a good idea (wherein gun control does not equal total gun seizure despite that being the typical hyperbolic stance).

And fuck you too, Brett. You need to learn to fucking read better and argue better before you even step to me with your childish, ill-informed perspective because quite simply, fuck you for every stupid opinion you've ever had the gall to publicly voice on this forum.

Telling Brett to fuck off in the Sanctum Santorum is the easiest form of Like farming on the citadel, easier than making an LP, easier than reposting zooborns pictures to the Cute Images Thread. I think that's actually his only real purpose on this forum; to make other people feel fulfilled and satisfied by idly stamping on his posts like they were as many maggots.

So you are going to double down on your bullshit, interesting choice there.

Brett, you couldn't win an argument about whether chocolate icecream is better than vanilla because you don't understand how arguments work. For some reason I can't fathom you exist in a world where you can't be wrong because you don't know how. You don't know how to be wrong, you don't know how to recognise when other people present you with evidence that what you say is wrong, and conversely, you don't even recognise when you happen to be right, because logic is not something you seem to be able to process like the rest of us. And if it wasn't so fucking infuriating to deal with I'd pity you. But right now I just feel sad.

Refute it, then. Or continue being the same cowardly babyman you've always been, and don't you dare cry personal attacks because you are the one who decided to go there first. Well now we're here and it's up to you if you want to actually argue cogently with me or actually think you are going to get anywhere with me by hurling insults.

Furthermore, I do support reasonable gun rights however owning unlimited assault rifles is not among those rights that need to be guaranteed. You are free to refute what I said further up about pro-gun owners who refuse to admit gun control to some extent needs to be put into place in the wake of Newtown and the never-ending stream of gun-related attacks. Go on, do it, otherwise prepare to be humiliated in ways you haven't even dreamed of.

Or just fuck off to some other thread and think twice before you enter a gun rights thread armed with the dull-edged butter knife that is your brain flinging insults.

Thanks for the laughs Bill, your screed is nothing if not amusing.

You lost any legitiimacy of an argument when you talk about limiting 'assault weapons' as a way to deal with the issues here.

Nobody calls Brett an idiot to "farm likes."

You never had an argument to begin with.

I honestly can not imagine any other reason to not have him on ignore.

Why did millions of people watch inbred hicks with IQs of 50 slap each others' baby daddies on Jerry Springer?

Metaphorically, then, if you will. I don't see any reason not to have Brett on ignore than to have him on hand so you can step on him every now and then and get that little satisfied feeling. Maybe that's just me projecting my motivations on other people, though; what utility do you derive from his presence and your responses to him?

A little feeling of satisfaction.

A "like" from your id if you will

You lost any legitimacy years ago right about the time you started parroting John Lott's fake statistics about how many home invasions have been thwarted by people waving their guns around and, once defeated, fell back onto the same "If you advocate gun control you by definition are calling for the total banning of all gun ownership," a stance literally nobody in this thread has once taken. And you just tried recycling it against me, you fucking imbecile.

You're an idiot and you'll always be an idiot and only an idiot of your depth, scope and magnitude would even conceive he's anything but a complete and total moron. And you're even laughing about it. The only thing more sad than that is you're lying about the laughing part.

Ooohhh that's good.