If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WHAM Rochester) NewsFlash NRA yesterday: We should have armed guards at every school. NRA after this morning: We're gonna need armed guards at fires too   (13wham.com) divider line 1058
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19806 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1058 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 02:45:48 PM

Chagrin: Medical records (including mental disabilities) are private between a doctor and patient.


Not as much as you think. Certain Protected Health Information can be made public if precautions are taken, and some is legally mandated to be reported.

Sparky the Fire Dog: What if the shooter's not standing out in the open by the time emergency personnel get to the scene? Shoot, hide, wait for emergency personnel?


If there's an active shooter, the cops do not wait to establish a perimeter. They go straight in and sweep the scene for the shooter. The only exception to that is if the shooter is holding hostages and has not gone active.
 
2012-12-24 02:45:56 PM

ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.


.223 / 5.56 is not an ethical round to use against Elk. You need a .303, .308, 30.06 or something like that.

So, use an AR-10 if you want to use that platform, or one of the .308 ARs.
 
2012-12-24 02:46:40 PM

Skyd1v: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

What the hell...?

Moose are a heckuva lot bigger than an elk, and I have yet - in 25 years of hunting them - ever had to put more than a single round into getting one to drop. (300 WinMag)

Why would you be hunting an elk with a .223 anyway? 30-06 or 308 would make that job a LOT easier.


He's trolling - the "run and fire from the hip" while hunting put it over the top.
 
2012-12-24 02:47:04 PM

Skyd1v: Why would you be hunting an elk with a .223 anyway? 30-06 or 308 would make that job a LOT easier.


A knife is just as effective and much cheaper.

CHUMPS!
 
2012-12-24 02:48:41 PM

Chagrin: People_are_Idiots: How about a national database that has two items: criminal, and mental. If a convicted person (for the same reasons that can deny them firearms) goes to buy a gun/rifle/etc, a red flag goes up. Mental: black flag.

Medical records (including mental disabilities) are private between a doctor and patient.


While they should be, it's sorta pointless to ask the crazy person if they are crazy and call it security isn't it? What's wrong with a "has been treated for mental health issues" flag in the same farking database that they look up to find out if someone has a domestic violence conviction?

Sorry, only in the case where the crazies are LOCKED UP and not out in public is their condition none of my business.
 
2012-12-24 02:49:11 PM

noitsnot: Skyd1v: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie:

Why would you be hunting an elk with a .223 anyway? 30-06 or 308 would make that job a LOT easier.

He's trolling - the "run and fire from the hip" while hunting put it over the top.


Dammit...I'm gonna need some pliers to get this hook out of my lip...
 
2012-12-24 02:49:26 PM

BronyMedic: If there's an active shooter, the cops do not wait to establish a perimeter. They go straight in and sweep the scene for the shooter. The only exception to that is if the shooter is holding hostages and has not gone active.


Yup. My concern is the shooter who appears to have gone inactive but is in fact still there/still armed, so you don't know what you're dealing with. Sometimes the danger is obvious... sometimes not. I'll bet in the article here, the shooter wasn't sitting there blasting away when the trucks rolled up.
 
2012-12-24 02:49:47 PM

ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.


I have been hunting, many times. Using an AR-15 for hunting elk is the product of ignorance. You need a larger round to bring own an elk. Your statement proves it.

Running and firing from the hip is not hunting. What it is though, if very stupid and dangerous.

You are the perfect example of what I have been saying all along. You are using the wrong weapon to bring down the animal and you are too stupid to realize it. Next weekend I am going to tell my hunting buddies what you posted. They are going to get quite a laugh over you and your antics. I can just picture a moron running after an Elk and firing your gun as you run. You should have somebody get a video of that. It would go viral in 30 seconds.

Come deer hunting with me. We use muzzle loaders so you are going to be at a very big disadvantage.
 
2012-12-24 02:49:54 PM

Skyd1v: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

What the hell...?

Moose are a heckuva lot bigger than an elk, and I have yet - in 25 years of hunting them - ever had to put more than a single round into getting one to drop. (300 WinMag)

Why would you be hunting an elk with a .223 anyway? 30-06 or 308 would make that job a LOT easier.


It's illegal to hunt elk with .223 and other small rifle calibers.

Personally, I wouldn't try with less than a .308 or a 6mm-08.

Now I wouldn't mind taking out an AR10 or an AR15 chambered for .300 WSSM, that'd do it.
 
2012-12-24 02:50:28 PM

Rockstone: Chagrin: People_are_Idiots: How about a national database that has two items: criminal, and mental. If a convicted person (for the same reasons that can deny them firearms) goes to buy a gun/rifle/etc, a red flag goes up. Mental: black flag.

Medical records (including mental disabilities) are private between a doctor and patient.

People are forgetting this.
People are also forgetting that if a law passed that forced doctors to turn over mental records, you'll have less people going for mental checkups.


This will be a hard sell in states like Texas, where what you say to your doctor and how they are allowed to answer is strictly regulated, and incorrect answers may get you a vaginal probe.

Doesn't apply to guys, of course, but you can understand how a lot of folks would consider it a rather unserious proposal to improve mental health, when the same people who are pitching more guns, are also taking a rather intimate interest in your private life, thoughts, and activities?
 
2012-12-24 02:52:45 PM
Has anyone mentioned to Zeroply that he should be using a bigger round than a .223 when he's out hunting Elk/M⦵⦵se like game?
 
2012-12-24 02:53:27 PM

Kit Fister: Skyd1v: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

What the hell...?

Moose are a heckuva lot bigger than an elk, and I have yet - in 25 years of hunting them - ever had to put more than a single round into getting one to drop. (300 WinMag)

Why would you be hunting an elk with a .223 anyway? 30-06 or 308 would make that job a LOT easier.

It's illegal to hunt elk with .223 and other small rifle calibers.

Personally, I wouldn't try with less than a .308 or a 6mm-08.

Now I wouldn't mind taking out an AR10 or an AR15 chambered for .300 WSSM, that'd do it.


Wow, he really sucked you guys in. You just saw the caliber, and then stopped thinking about any of the rest of it.

"... you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me."

- Masterful trolling!
 
2012-12-24 02:54:08 PM
So... fundamental shift in America's attitude towards guns and violence, better mental health care, reformed prisons that rehabilitate and help prisoners, fixing the root causes of crime such as poverty, better regulation and tracking of weapons.

Am I still some kind of evil government lackey anti-American monster for suggesting these sorely-needed solutions?
 
2012-12-24 02:54:59 PM

BronyMedic: ZeroPly: You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

The fark? Really? Of all the examples of legitimate animals to hunt with an AR-15, you choose an ELK!?

Why are you hunting large domestic game with a .223 AR-15? You're either someone who doesn't hunt, or you enjoy watching animals suffer and die slowly, and their sympathetic response ruining the taste of their meat as they slowly bleed to death. Either way, you also have no clue what you're talking about.

What farking idiot hunts ANYTHING larger than a varmint with a 223? Hunting ELK? If you're not shooting it with atleast a 30-06 or 30-30, you're doing it wrong.


To each their own.
I've never used .223 on anything larger than a mountain dove and it was excessively effective.

The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.
 
2012-12-24 02:56:39 PM

chuckufarlie: DrExplosion: chuckufarlie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Can you believe these morons spending thousands on guns when a $20 kitchen knife is just as deadly?

SUCKERS!

how long would it take you to kill 26 people with a knife?

Assuming they were all packed somewhat closely together and none of them fought back, it could reasonably be done in under two minutes. The speed difference between killing with a knife and killing with a gun is negligible unless the other guy is over 20 feet away from you.

You are truly an idiot. Do you expect the people to hand around waiting to get killed? Do you expect people not to fight back? Anybody beyond arms length is going to get away in your ignorant scenario.


Would YOU fight back against a man armed with a knife while you were unarmed? I've been trained to do so, and I still know better than to expect to walk away unscathed (if at all). People do just hang around waiting to get killed. Very few people ever fight back. The most resistance you generally see in these events is an attempt to flee.

You are operating under the assumption that guns have magic killing powers. They do not. I know you've never seen a gun in person, but you have to aim them before you can expect to hit anything with them. Aiming a gun and pulling the trigger takes at least as long as thrusting a knife into someone's vitals. Standard practice is that if you are armed with a gun, and an aggressive man armed with a knife is within 20 feet of you, it is justifiable to shoot him because you can't expect to aim and fire before he's already begun stabbing you to death.

The difference in lethality between a gun and a knife is not the orders of magnitude you seem to be expecting.
 
2012-12-24 02:58:01 PM

Rockstone: Chagrin: People_are_Idiots: How about a national database that has two items: criminal, and mental. If a convicted person (for the same reasons that can deny them firearms) goes to buy a gun/rifle/etc, a red flag goes up. Mental: black flag.

Medical records (including mental disabilities) are private between a doctor and patient.

People are forgetting this.
People are also forgetting that if a law passed that forced doctors to turn over mental records, you'll have less people going for mental checkups.


Yeah, I'm thinking the last thing you want to give a mentally unstable person is an excuse to avoid treatment.
 
2012-12-24 02:58:15 PM

noitsnot: Kit Fister: Skyd1v: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie:
- Masterful trolling!


I already admitted to biting. After re-reading what he posted I agree it was too over the top and I should have seen it.

/I blame the Christmas Spirit
//120 proof Christmas Spirit
///Apple Pie to be exact
 
2012-12-24 02:58:19 PM

jafiwam: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

.223 / 5.56 is not an ethical round to use against Elk. You need a .303, .308, 30.06 or something like that.

So, use an AR-10 if you want to use that platform, or one of the .308 ARs.


The ar10 is .308, 243, and other common short action calibers, including 300wsm and such, as well as some custom calibers.

Ar15, on the other hand, takes .223, .300 WSSM, and other shorter cartridges.

Here in MI, I suspect you could get away with 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC on deer, and .223 is great for feral hogs and coyote. Plus pack varmints like that, having a larger mag and semi auto action is advantageous to get more of them before they can go to ground.
 
2012-12-24 02:58:42 PM
10/10 on the troll headline Subby.

/give it time though, confident they will suggest this
 
2012-12-24 02:58:58 PM

way south: /nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.


Do you mean "Bushwhacker - most powerful rifle in the world"?
 
2012-12-24 02:59:09 PM

way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.


/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.


And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds
 
2012-12-24 03:00:26 PM

david_gaithersburg: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

[img171.imageshack.us image 466x341]


Does this count violence from the IRA???  How is the gun crime plot greater than the violent crime plot?  Is there such a thing as non-violent gun crime?  Also from wiki:

After the 1996 atrocity, legislation was introduced to prohibit, with some extremely specialised exemptions, "Small firearms" ie those with a barrel length of less than 30 cm or an overall length of less than 60 cm. It has been suggested that firearm homicides declined; however, there is no doubt that homicides involving the class of frearms prohibited actually increased in the early years following the legislative change. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".[15] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).

Air guns and fake guns, dude.  Come on.
 
2012-12-24 03:02:31 PM
ronaprhys: I don't believe anyone is disputing this. The argument would generally be the same around vehicles and pools. If you don't have nor use a pool nor a vehicle, your chances of being injured or killed by one go down drastically. However, if it's your personal choice to bring one of these things into your home, it is not my business to stop you. That's your responsibility.

The problem is - you're relying on people to be better than they are. Perhaps you give them much more credit than I do. Sure, we can say that the solution to all stupidity and violence is just asking people to be more responsible but what's your backup plan? How do you force the trait of responsibility - especially in situations where the assailant is acting out of character?

There must be another solution. I'm all for teaching responsibilities in schools but we need additional mechanisms that mitigate the potential for a single act of irresponsibility to become a tragedy that takes 27 lives.

What is your solution? Banning types of firearms has been shown to be unconstitutional (Heller, McDonald). How do you address the fact that most of the homicides appear to be gang or drug related? Or the fact that firearm ownership has increased drastically but that the firearm homicide rate has decreased? How can you, without violating the Constitution, reduce the number of firearms?

Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated". Further - our interpretation of what's constitutional evolves. It's not static nor permanent.

The biggest trap we could fall into is allowing non-experts to regulate guns. I'd much more prefer those who have extensively studied this - with complete forecasting models - propose common sense regulation. I don't want to over-regulate, under-regulate, or ineffectively regulate. I wouldn't mind discussing the following:

1). Taxes on gun sales are used to pay for free gun training mandatory for all purchasing parties.
2). A tiered licensing structure that require a certain level of training hours and testing for guns that carry greater risks to society.
3). Certain types of weaponry only available to well-trained and regulated militias only permitted on bases for the militia so that, in the case of governments gone bad, the people have an army.
4). Better mental health funding to equip trained professionals in the school system, better support systems for adults, and resources for people who do have mental illness to receive cost-effective treatment. One of the things we've seen is a number of shooters that are excluded from society - not outcasts - but those literally living on the fringe of society. We could consider creating an outreach campaign for those members of society.

I'm open to a variety of suggestions - and again - there are professionals that study this. I don't. I'd rather they be the orators of debate and not necessarily me.
 
2012-12-24 03:02:36 PM
Based on a quick read of the article, and the fact the shooter was found dead at the scene--and NOT shot by the cops--I'm going to take a leap here and guess that the investigators are going to find a family homicide inside the original house. In other words, this was a murder/suicide covered by arson, and the shooter was keeping the firefighters off the scene till the house was fully involved. It's unlikely he was specifically targeting the firefighters--there are easier ways to shoot firemen if you want them--and unless he knew which ones would respond, it's doubtful he'd be after one specific fireman.

But we shall see.
 
2012-12-24 03:02:42 PM

Kit Fister: jafiwam: ZeroPly: chuckufarlie: Rifles that use magazines serve one purpose - killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. You would still be able to go hunting or plink cans, you would just be limited in how many people you could kill in a short period of time. Is that so much to give up?

You've never been hunting, so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. With a bigger animal like an elk, it can take 10-12 shots from an AR15 to drop it. A lot of times if it takes off after the first few rounds, you need to pursue it while firing. Try to run and fire from the hip without a magazine and then come talk to me. You're like someone who's never owned a computer saying it's stupid to buy a $500 graphics card.

.223 / 5.56 is not an ethical round to use against Elk. You need a .303, .308, 30.06 or something like that.

So, use an AR-10 if you want to use that platform, or one of the .308 ARs.

The ar10 is .308, 243, and other common short action calibers, including 300wsm and such, as well as some custom calibers.

Ar15, on the other hand, takes .223, .300 WSSM, and other shorter cartridges.

Here in MI, I suspect you could get away with 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC on deer, and .223 is great for feral hogs and coyote. Plus pack varmints like that, having a larger mag and semi auto action is advantageous to get more of them before they can go to ground.


I have a feeling that he is more interested in killing than in hunting. I cannot imagine chasing after an animal and firing from the hip. That is just stupid.

I did not know that there are feral hogs in Michigan. What part of the state do you find them?
 
2012-12-24 03:03:02 PM

Catymogo1: Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.


Was either a "terrorist" attack or someone was trying to kill a particular fireman/men by luring them out into the open. Or arson/murder by fire and they wanted the fire to be complete to collect on the insurance.

Will be awesome to see how this plays out!

/WHEN are we getting a "nutter with a gun" pool going?
/or is EVERYDAY a winner??
 
2012-12-24 03:03:26 PM
Places are reporting the ID of the shooter.... 62 year old white man (looks crazy like Manson) who had served 17 years for manslaughter (his own 92 year old grandmother).

House was supposedly his sisters and their mother had recently passed away.

One source Link
 
2012-12-24 03:05:33 PM

ongbok: iheartscotch: I always wondered why more schools don't employ a few members of the local police force to provide security.

/ I know a few do, but not all.

Some places it is a image thing, as in having armed security at the school isn't the image of their community that they want to portray. In other places it is a budget thing as some people don't feel they should have to pay the extra money for them.


My son goes to a fairly affluent public high school here in Atlanta where there is usually at least one SRO on duty during school hours. Last week, there were four armed police officers that my son could see. I am very OKAY with this. The sad thing is that, on Friday, a freshman at his school was found by his father....tied up and shot to death in his home...suspected burglary of his shoe collection. Last week, that child was safe at school but not at home. :(
 
2012-12-24 03:06:50 PM

DrExplosion: chuckufarlie: DrExplosion: chuckufarlie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Can you believe these morons spending thousands on guns when a $20 kitchen knife is just as deadly?

SUCKERS!

how long would it take you to kill 26 people with a knife?

Assuming they were all packed somewhat closely together and none of them fought back, it could reasonably be done in under two minutes. The speed difference between killing with a knife and killing with a gun is negligible unless the other guy is over 20 feet away from you.

You are truly an idiot. Do you expect the people to hand around waiting to get killed? Do you expect people not to fight back? Anybody beyond arms length is going to get away in your ignorant scenario.

Would YOU fight back against a man armed with a knife while you were unarmed? I've been trained to do so, and I still know better than to expect to walk away unscathed (if at all). People do just hang around waiting to get killed. Very few people ever fight back. The most resistance you generally see in these events is an attempt to flee.

You are operating under the assumption that guns have magic killing powers. They do not. I know you've never seen a gun in person, but you have to aim them before you can expect to hit anything with them. Aiming a gun and pulling the trigger takes at least as long as thrusting a knife into someone's vitals. Standard practice is that if you are armed with a gun, and an aggressive man armed with a knife is within 20 feet of you, it is justifiable to shoot him because you can't expect to aim and fire before he's already begun stabbing you to death.

The difference in lethality between a gun and a knife is not the orders of magnitude you seem to be expecting.


It takes a very ignorant person to go spouting off about people that you have never met.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make nor do I care.

Do you think that you figured out this aiming idea all by yourself? I bet that you think you are some sort of genius.
 
2012-12-24 03:07:32 PM

Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".


This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??
 
2012-12-24 03:07:48 PM

BronyMedic: way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.

And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.



Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds


Actually, lighter varmint bullets for the .223 will fragment and fail to penetrate a wall in most cases, but are useful in self defense. Anything over 000 buck in a shotgun will punch through a wall. The balancing act with a shotgun, too, is that too large and it'll go through the wall, but be more effective, however smaller will be "safer" but less effective.

A load of birdshot to the chest will make a nasty flesh wound but won't make it into the chest cavity and disrupt vital organs. You'd hurt and bleed like hell, but you'd be moving and still capable of fighting.
 
2012-12-24 03:08:07 PM

Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??


"Well Regulated Militia" does not count. That has nothing to do with regulating firearms.
 
2012-12-24 03:08:28 PM

Rockstone: At any rate, I say we should ban gasoline while we're at it.


I'm thinking we should also ban forks. There are hundreds of thousands die every year from obesity. It's a slow painful death. We ban forks and we'll save lives!
 
2012-12-24 03:08:56 PM

tonguedepressor: Has anyone mentioned to Zeroply that he should be using a bigger round than a .223 when he's out hunting Elk/M⦵⦵se like game?


several. I think he is more interested in killing than hunting.
 
2012-12-24 03:10:46 PM

Spare Me: Rockstone: At any rate, I say we should ban gasoline while we're at it.

I'm thinking we should also ban forks. There are hundreds of thousands die every year from obesity. It's a slow painful death. We ban forks and we'll save lives!


And swimming pools and hot tubs! Those kills lots of people too. So do cars. And electrical wiring...
 
2012-12-24 03:11:10 PM

BronyMedic: way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.

And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x290]

Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds


I thought about that, and considered what type of firearm would be best for each room, and for the various familiy members; the kids would have had trouble working the slide of a shotgun when they were younger, especially when panicked - not to mention that their rooms are at opposite ends of the same hallway, so there would be the problem of training them to identify the target positively AND identify the background before each round. Then where would be the issue of clothing - got to buy a lot of different handguns since the weather is quite hot here.

Then I realized there was a simpler solution: buy a house in a reasonably safe neighborhood, and deal with the likelihood that I have a 95% chance of dying from cancer or heart disease, 2% diabetes, 1.5% from vehicle accident, .5% from household accident, and 20 places down the chart, 0.04% chance of dying in a violent crime, and I'd get a lot more benefit out of eating green vegetables one more time a day than I would from keeping my neighborhood dealer wealthy.
 
2012-12-24 03:11:17 PM

jafiwam: willyfreddy: Banned on the Run: willyfreddy:

- If having more guns made a country safer, America would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.

If having more gun control laws made a country safer, Mexico would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.

[cincinnatiredlegs.files.wordpress.com image 320x240]

Although I assumed it would have been obvious, I was referring to countries that already have a high Human Development Index. Unfortunately, Mexico is tied with Saudi Arabia in this regard. For example, you could obviously have the strictest gun control laws imposed on Somalia, with little overall effect, but that doesn't add anything at all to the current debate.

Ah. I see the "make up some qualifications to skew the numbers his way" guy is here.

Welcome to the thread, I know it's christmas, but you have duties to uphold.


Obvious troll is obvious.

communitiesonline.homestead.com

My point: For example, you could obviously have the strictest gun control laws imposed on Somalia, with little overall effect, but that doesn't add anything at all to the current debate.
Your point: *crickets*
 
2012-12-24 03:11:34 PM

Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.


Probably started before 1700. Royalty/ruling parties in europe didnt allow armed citizens. People moved here, needed guns for hunting, protection from the locals and protection from each other (not enough law enforcement). Skip ahead to the feds wanting to collect taxes and the redneck, moonshiners wanting to not pay taxes, and well, guns came into play. During slavery, guns were probably used to help keep the slaves under control. Strangely enough, guns are still big in the ex-slave states. I wonder why that is??

Guns are exactly the same as all other culture norms. There is no reason, they are just the norm.
No different than religion, head scarfs, women's rights, voting, respect for elders, graft, political corruption, body mutilation.

Toss in the never ending "fear" of government taking over.

How do you protect a society from a police state?
Chicago Police is a perfect example of an insipid police state. And little is being done to stop it.
My guess is that with the new guns laws in Chicago, the number of police shooting of citizens will skyrocket in the next 2 years.
 
2012-12-24 03:12:48 PM

chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: Has anyone mentioned to Zeroply that he should be using a bigger round than a .223 when he's out hunting Elk/M⦵⦵se like game?

several. I think he is more interested in killing than hunting.


Says the guy who allegedly hunts with a black powder musket :-)
 
2012-12-24 03:14:32 PM
namatad:
How do you protect a society from a police state?
Chicago Police is a perfect example of an insipid police state. And little is being done to stop it.
My guess is that with the new guns laws in Chicago, the number of police shooting of citizens will skyrocket in the next 2 years.


incipid? Maybe you mean incipient?
 
2012-12-24 03:15:36 PM

coldf33t: My son goes to a fairly affluent public high school here in Atlanta where there is usually at least one SRO on duty during school hours. Last week, there were four armed police officers that my son could see. I am very OKAY with this. The sad thing is that, on Friday, a freshman at his school was found by his father....tied up and shot to death in his home...suspected burglary of his shoe collection. Last week, that child was safe at school but not at home. :(


but this is the CREEPY part .... it used to be that we worried about shootings at HIGH SCHOOLS. The kids were the risks. But now if we have to worry about grade schools and home, we have a much bigger problem.

CLEARLY the solution is that EVERYONE should stay in their home behind security bars and alarm systems. People should only go outside in body armor and armored vehicles.
It is the only way to be safe.
 
2012-12-24 03:15:53 PM

BronyMedic: way south: The real argument for large magazines is the dirty secret the NRA doesn't like to talk about. Most guns sold are for self defense, and that job requires ammo.
Defense against a guy with a pistol means you want range, capacity, and accuracy.
These small caliber carbines are the perfect thing for keeping an armed crook at bay.

/that they look evil is good for intimidation.
/nothing says "get off my lawn" like a full sized bushmaster.

And a .223 round is a great way to go through your wall, and into your neighbors house when you do that.

If you want a gun for home defense, a Bushmaster is the last thing you want.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x290]

Load it with buckshot, or some rock salt rounds


50 grain .223 won't get very far after hitting something, but it is just enough to puncture a car door or other cover. It's about fifty yards from where I sit to the tree line, so I'm more worried about accuracy and smoking someone out the weeds.

I'd never count on a wall stopping a bullet as it is.
 
2012-12-24 03:15:55 PM

Rockstone: Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.


No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that


Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Interpretation and meaning change as society evolves. Interpretation and meaning change as the justices are replaced. Further - just because SCOTUS has previously interpreted the Constitution to mean x doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution actually means x. It's a living document. Can you think of anything that used to be okay per SCOTUS but has since changed? Or vice versa? I'll give you a minute.

We're discussing whether or not we should regulate guns and how. To answer, "B-b-but SCOTUS" isn't a valid response. Congress has every right to enact laws they deem are constitutional and it's SCOTUS' job to evaluate those laws. We can submit challenges to current rulings - and we do every day. It's only a law until it ceases to be a law. You're going to need to root your response in actual logic.

And to address your comment, "There are reasonable limitations to that,": Yes. This is what we're talking about.
 
2012-12-24 03:16:47 PM

Rockstone: Bontesla: Actually - the Constitution allows for the regulation of firearms. It actually uses the term "regulated".

This is news to me, and I took AP GOV and got a four on the exam in High School. Link? Source??


The second amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To that end, the interpretation applied by most historical and current legal scholars is that this phrase, though awkward, is enforcing an individual right, and that's the same interpretation used by the Supreme Court.

However, even the Supreme Court had recognized that this right is subject to reasonable regulation. Even the first amendment applies within the framework of reasonable regulation (not yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander, etc.)

I think going forward most gun owners are willing to accept and work towards solving our problems without the need to ban, but I also think that an AWB of some sort will make it through.
 
2012-12-24 03:17:50 PM

Bontesla: Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.


Of course not, but that is their current ruling and their logic and legislative decisions make sense.They don't just randomly throw a ruling into a hat.
 
2012-12-24 03:17:56 PM

chuckufarlie: Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.

nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?


I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.
 
2012-12-24 03:19:49 PM

Catymogo1: Not sure what shooting the *firefighters* will accomplish, especially if you live in the neighborhood where they're trying to PUT OUT THE FIRE.



During the Rodney King Riots in LA, I remember firemen had to have a guy literally riding shotgun on board their trucks because they were driving into a virtual war zone to put out the fires started by the rioters. I don't really have a point to make, just a CSB.
 
2012-12-24 03:21:17 PM

Bontesla: Rockstone: Bontesla: I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.


No it isn't. SCOTUS has interpreted the right to bear arms to mean the right to bear arms. The well regulated militia has no bearing on the fact you can own a firearm. Both are rights.

Your usage is wrong.

Anyway, no. Our right to own a firearm is more important than our right to be safe. Freedom is more important than Safety.

/ There are reasonable limitations to that

Ah. Yes. The old argument that SCOTUS is filled with demi-gods and all of their rulings will exist forever in the land of eternity.

Interpretation and meaning change as society evolves. Interpretation and meaning change as the justices are replaced. Further - just because SCOTUS has previously interpreted the Constitution to mean x doesn't necessarily mean the Constitution actually means x. It's a living document. Can you think of anything that used to be okay per SCOTUS but has since changed? Or vice versa? I'll give you a minute.

We're discussing whether or not we should regulate guns and how. To answer, "B-b-but SCOTUS" isn't a valid response. Congress has every right to enact laws they deem are constitutional and it's SCOTUS' job to evaluate those laws. We can submit challenges to current rulings - and we do every day. It's only a law until it ceases to be a law. You're going to need to root your response in actual logic.

And to address your comment, "There are reasonable limitations to that,": Yes. This is what we're talking about.


And what is reasonable depends on which side you're in. To example I find very few of your proposals reasonable or logical.
 
2012-12-24 03:21:41 PM

MisterTweak: I'd get a lot more benefit out of eating green vegetables one more time a day than I would from keeping my neighborhood dealer wealthy.


I once saw a guy get nearly beat to death over $10. They gave him brain damage because they ripped him off on a tiny amount of pot and he got mad about it. It was amazingly stupid and kinda sad.
 
2012-12-24 03:22:39 PM

Delecrious: chuckufarlie: Delecrious: I could care less about gun laws. Sure, I'd prefer keeping them legal so I can get them legitimately, but if they're banned... I'd still get one if I wanted one, fark the government.

nice to know that you are a law abiding citizen. Why is it that so many of you gun nuts are anti-government but you tell us that you are protecting the government and us?

I never said I'm protecting you from the government. I'm a libertarian with my own self values and morals. Which are close to none. Protect yourself and I'll protect myself. If you want the police to defend you, go for it. But I prefer to solve problems with my own solutions. I'm not a gun-nut. I just don't like having someone telling me what to do and not. If I /want/ to own a gun, I /will/.


This
 
Displayed 50 of 1058 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report