imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Off Topic

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-20-2012, 08:33 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,842
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post




Did you seriously just say "educations", plural? *SIGH* I know people make typos, but the difficulty you seem to have with reading and writing (demonstrated repeatedly over the years) keeps triggering my cringe reflex. The absolute last thing I would want is for somebody like you to be considered representative of American gun owners. I think you would be better off not acting as though you have superior powers of logic and analysis; you are essentially degrading gun controllers as intellectually wanting.
Did you just seriously corrected my grammar first? I want to talk about this and you're trying to be an English teacher to me? So I had a typo, so what? That means I shouldn't be taking and expressing myself? That I shouldn't represent gun owners because I wrote a couple of things wrong?

I don't claim to know everything nor do I have "superior powers of logic and analysis". I am learning more every day about laws relating to this subject, studying the politicians that are trying to suppress our freedoms and you want to be a grammar nazi about how I typed an extra letter and built on that to make me look like an idiot?

The fuck did I do to you? I don't know you know just as much as you don't know me. Yeah people make mistakes. What is your fucking grind with me?

I'm trying to say we should stand together. Let our voices be heard, educate others about guns and responsibility and you want to antagonize me?
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”

Last edited by Excalibur; 12-20-2012 at 08:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-20-2012, 08:51 PM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default

I agree with Matt frankly, you do consistently fail to use proper grammar or produce coherent thoughts or sentences, and it makes you seem uneducated and an easy target for those with whom you'd argue. I don't think he means to pick on you, he's just repressed the fair criticism to the point where it's just boiled over, and given the political climate at the time, we need both intelligent thinking and proper display of such to discuss these issues, that's all. It'd be worth it to either put the extra effort to make sure the voice you want heard is polished and coherent, or that you step aside from being a voice and do other things to benefit the collective cause.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-20-2012, 09:34 PM
predator20's Avatar
predator20 predator20 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
I am sympathetic to you, but I hope you would never compare your brother to someone like Lanza? As I told JCordell, the vast, vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not mass murderers.

No I'm not comparing my brother to Lanza. Nor do I think most people with mental illness will commit mass murder. But I've been around my brother when he's in a bad place. I never knew what he was going do or how to talk him down. Basically you can't be rational with a crazy person.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
I heard body armor, but it might have been negligent reporting. Holmes was wearing body armor, though, wasn't he? Also, my point still stands: Armed citizens carrying concealed handguns will be outgunned by somebody carrying an AR-15. So unless we advocate for schools to have armory rooms full of AR-15s and Kevlar vests, I don't think that the "more guns, less crime" argument is one that we should use in situations like this. It's just embarrassing for me to hear it.
They always say body armor at first, then it's usually a tactical vest. The first rule of a gunfight is have a gun! Yournamehere made some great points with his reasoning behind it.

Now I don't fall into that "more guns, less crime" bit either. The more guns out there, then there's more that could potentially be stolen and used in a crime. But if more non-gun people are getting into guns and being responsible that's great. Gun education is key.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
And? I don't support a new AWB (and I was quite relieved when the last one expired). You're preaching to the choir.

I do, however, want pro-gunners to stop claiming that AR-15s are not significantly more dangerous than hunting rifles and acknowledge that maybe they should require a somewhat higher level of regulation. I say this as somebody who owns both an AK and an AR-15 carbine.
What kind of regulation would you propose? Registration? That seems like it would be one step closer to having them confiscated or "required to be turned in". (I don't buy into that confiscation bit either, but people are looking for something to blame.) There's so many of them out there right now in private hands, it would be impossible to track as well.

More dangerous than hunting rifles. My father has a Remington Model 750, semi-auto .308 "hunting rifle" it takes a detachable box magazine. Usually around 5 rounds I think, it will accept larger ones as well. Making it capable of doing just has much damage as my L1A1 in the wrong hands. (I don't even want to get into that hi-cap mag or "battle clips" they are sometimes referred as.) While the AR, AK and L1A1's etc manual of arms make for a better fighting rifle. A gun is gun at the end of the day no matter what it looks like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
You act as though straw purchases are something that we can't do anything about. You also talk about illegal guns as if they magically appear out of thin air (or from the same international arms trade which arms terrorists and insurgencies around the world). The vast, VAST majority of the illegal weapons used in the United States start out as legally-purchased firearms from gun stores. Illegal acquisition and illegal source are two very different things; as long as most illegally-acquired weapons come from a legal source, it is dishonest to act as though gun control has no ability to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms.

Thin air, come on! I figured you thought better of me than that. How does one go about checking a potential straw purchase? After a gun is purchased, the law shows up at your house a month or so later to see if you still have it? How do guns get stolen? By having them too accessible to others besides yourself. That seems to be the case with Lanza's mother and she paid dearly for it and so did a lot of kids and teachers.

When I first started buying guns, I kept them in a gun cabinet. It would keep a kid out but that's about it. As the collection grew I ran out of room and had to to keep several handguns in a dresser drawer. I thought to myself 'this is bad', it's not only bad, but irresponsible. So I bought a gun safe. Now I know not everyone has enough guns to warrant a large and expensive safe. But even just a simple metal cabinet would help a lot.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

Last edited by predator20; 12-20-2012 at 09:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-20-2012, 09:36 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,842
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
I agree with Matt frankly, you do consistently fail to use proper grammar or produce coherent thoughts or sentences, and it makes you seem uneducated and an easy target for those with whom you'd argue. I don't think he means to pick on you, he's just repressed the fair criticism to the point where it's just boiled over, and given the political climate at the time, we need both intelligent thinking and proper display of such to discuss these issues, that's all. It'd be worth it to either put the extra effort to make sure the voice you want heard is polished and coherent, or that you step aside from being a voice and do other things to benefit the collective cause.
Is that your way of saying "be quiet, the adults are talking?"
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-20-2012, 09:43 PM
predator20's Avatar
predator20 predator20 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 767
Default

Guy's come on. We got a good discussion going on here, let's not derail it.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-20-2012, 09:56 PM
predator20's Avatar
predator20 predator20 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
I just heard this audio clip about Diane Finestein and that she carries a gun and here she is pushing for further gun control? What a hypocrite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBbLeqZbPA
Most of them are hypocrites.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-20-2012, 11:27 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
It's also why I personally don't approve of all these micro carry guns, since they are light and great for carrying all the time but they offer very little in terms of firepower in the event of a mass shooting.
Bear in mind the instances of anyone drawing a carry gun during a mass shooting will be minuscule compared to someone drawing a gun during a one on one threat to themself or someone near by. I can't even begin to know what the statistic would be but I'm guessing we are talking a less than one in a thousand. For the majority of personal protection needs a sub-compact will be sufficient. Also bear in mind that a gun is only good if you are carrying it. With a light sub-compact you will be more likely to carry it all the time with whatever you are wearing, as opposed to a higher capacity weapon which you may not be able to wear with all clothing, and large and heavy enough that you may forego due to being an encumbrance.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-20-2012, 11:41 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
I just heard this audio clip about Diane Finestein and that she carries a gun and here she is pushing for further gun control? What a hypocrite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBbLeqZbPA
My god, that guy's style of broadcasting annoys me. As to the content, I don't think that necessarily makes her a hypocrite. I do not know the specifics of her proposals, but someone can believe that guns are too prevalent and easy to acquire and still wish to carry a gun for personal protection. Hell, the first logically leads to the second.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-21-2012, 05:40 PM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Is that your way of saying "be quiet, the adults are talking?"
Not at all sir. I'm only justifying the objective parts of Matts statement, and saying that if you are going to stand for something, stand straight and tall, don't slouch. If you want to engage in rhetorical discussion, it's key that you say what you mean and mean what you say in the best, most articulate way possible, that's all. No need to be mad, guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552 View Post
Bear in mind the instances of anyone drawing a carry gun during a mass shooting will be minuscule compared to someone drawing a gun during a one on one threat to themself or someone near by. I can't even begin to know what the statistic would be but I'm guessing we are talking a less than one in a thousand. For the majority of personal protection needs a sub-compact will be sufficient. Also bear in mind that a gun is only good if you are carrying it. With a light sub-compact you will be more likely to carry it all the time with whatever you are wearing, as opposed to a higher capacity weapon which you may not be able to wear with all clothing, and large and heavy enough that you may forego due to being an encumbrance.
Oh you're absolutely right, more robberies and other individual crimes happen than mass shootings by a wide margin, and a gun is a gun when it's one on one and you have the only gun. But weighing (excuse the pun) the detriments of the size and weight of heftier, higher capacity "fighting guns" against the detriments of a micro gun in any given fighting situation is what I look to. With a micro gun, you lose fighting edge for ease and consistency of carry, but with a fighting gun, you lose those traits for a better gun. And those more often than not are disciplinary issues that go along with carrying a gun in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I understand some people are physically limited to the gun they can carry through their strength or dress or whatever, but in a world where mass shootings are on the rise (in media coverage anyway) and a world where you have the ability to shoulder the very hefty yet possibly lifesaving weight of carrying a gun for self protection and the protection of others, those who are physically capable of carrying a bigger gun ought to.

I've seen a lot of big burly men carrying, all puffy chested because they support the 2nd Amendment and gaining the feeling that they are the thin line between order and chaos when crime acts before police do, and they carry single stack micro .380s, and it just blows my mind. It will get you out of a carjacking at knife point, but it may not get you out of a gunfight, or a mass shooting if it comes down to it, and the only cost to carry a better gun is discipline in consistent carry of a hefty gun and proper dress and gear to carry the gun comfortably. And with that you now have a much better fighting gun in the rare event something truly catastrophic goes down. I mean, what are the odds you'll be in any crime at all, period? and yet we still weigh that against not carrying a gun, and we carry the gun. It's just the next dimension of that philosophy.

Women and skinny college kids who don't eat enough and don't have the strength or comfort to lug around a P229 or XDM or something like that, yes, I'm for them carrying SOMETHING like a PM9 or a 642 since it's better than nothing, but the former guns are better for all tasks including the ones that are "less likely" if that statistic really matters. Couple that with other semantic benefits like draw speed and a more terrifying presence, as well as the very minute weight differences between polymer compacts/subcompacts among other things, I find carrying a fighting gun to be worth the cost if one can pay it (I'm talking to full grown men for the most part).


Basically, "guns should be comforting, not comfortable" and "carry the biggest gun you can" apply in my mind, and they are better than micro guns given higher versatility at the cost of carriers discipline and full usage of their capability, not minimalistic thinking and action, or, bluntly speaking, if you carry a gun to be a man, then man up and carry a big one.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-24-2012, 11:16 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,612
Default

I'm very happy to see that we're having a much more constructive dialogue here than what I have seen previously. This is the type of conversation I think that gun owners need to have a little more often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552 View Post
The UK licensing system works here, but there are a couple of parts that would never be accepted in America. First and foremost is the fact that in the UK, self defence is not an acceptable reason to own a firearm which would make a lot of Americans very unhappy. Secondly, in the UK you need to obtain permission for each new firearm you want to acquire (with the exception of regular shotguns or antique weapons), and give justification for why you want it. There are a few other parts which I think the USA could benefit from adopting, such as the requirement that firearms are locked up with only the license holder having access to them, along with limits on the amount of ammunition that can be stored, or purchased in one transaction.
Agreed, self-defense should be regarded as a perfectly acceptable reason for owning a firearm. But in my opinion, someone who does carry a firearm for self-defense also requires a greater level of scrutiny than those who wish to own firearms for recreation or hunting. I would not, for example, be comfortable approving a conceal-carry permit for a senile old dude who thinks that every black guy walking down the street is casing his house for a robbery. And while I sympathize with a woman who gets raped and applies for a conceal-carry permit in order to defeat future would-be rapists, I would still wonder whether she was of sound mind to carry (because she might be a little too paranoid to be trusted with a weapon).

(Both of these examples are based on real people who I've actually known, though neither of them ever tried to get carry permits.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by commando552 View Post
Any changes in legislation that come in the following months need to be well thought out and reasoned, and not the knee jerk over-reactions that followed Hungerford and Dunblane massacres.
I agree that the sort of kneejerk reactions that followed massacres in the U.K. are certainly NOT the type of reaction I want to see. I have said many times that bans should, as a rule of thumb, be considered one extreme that is to be avoided. But I think that it is possible to acknowledge that an AR-15 is a far more dangerous weapon than a bolt-action hunting rifle, while simultaneously arguing that a ban on AR-15s would be unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
I'm still not clear on the details of the shooting myself, but from what I heard A: he wasn't wearing body armor, and B: he didn't use his Bushmaster, just his pistols. If that's the case, then (even though in hysteria it doesn't matter) calling for an AWB in the wake of this shooting is really unfounded.
You are correct; it was indeed errant reporting. However, James Holmes was in fact wearing armor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
No matter what weapon he used, I don't necessarily agree that someone is useless in this situation with a concealed handgun. Outgunned, definitely, but it's reasonable to say that you can make up with a lack of firepower with proper tactics. I'm not saying it's easy, just that it's conceivably doable, especially if the CCW has a reasonable amount of training/skill, and the shooter doesn't. Yes this is semantic, but it seems to be the case in most respects.
Maybe "useless" is too strong a word, but I have trouble imagining that anyone who doesn't use guns for a living (i.e. a well-trained police officer, federal agent, or soldier) would be able to defeat a well-armed perp with only a handgun. That sounds more like something from a movie than real life. In real life, there are plenty of examples of BGs with assault weapons outgunning scores of police officers who had only handguns (i.e. North Hollywood, though obviously, those were illegally converted full-auto AKs and ARs).

That being said, if I were in a building where a mass killer was loose, I would definitely prefer to have some type of gun than none at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
The other thing is the idea that mass shooters tend to quit at the first sign of resistance, because, again, they usually lack skill as well as coherence in the situation to understand that they can outgun a single person wielding a pistol with their rifle or whatever they are using, and just like in any other gunfight, they have to take in all this information at 200 miles an hour, where the shots are coming from, how many shots and with what, and given they're in a mass shooting solely to go out with a bang, they can come to the conclusion that they are beat (thats why they were there in the first place), and so they off themselves even if rationally they may have been able to win said gunfight against said concealed weapon holder.
Mass shooters may retreat when faced with resistance, but off themselves? The whole point of a mass killing is to get the highest possible body count, so I would expect a mass killer to retreat only so that he could survive long enough to kill more people. But simply give up completely and kill himself? I realize that the NRA has cited examples of shootings that were stopped by armed citizens, but is that really the norm?

You're also not taking into account the ways that mass killers might anticipate and try to mitigate this threat, like wearing body armor with trauma plates.

Also, recall that in Columbine, the two shooters exchanged gunfire with the school's security guard, and they didn't off themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
No, I don't think an AWB will do anything to prevent mass shootings, it will only serve to restrict law abiding gun owners.
If a new AWB were passed (politically impossible, even after Newtown), and ATF could somehow confiscate all of the assault weapons in private hands (physically impossible), it would certainly deprive mass killers of their weapons-of-choice, and it might make these incidents less deadly. It will always be easier to buy an AR-15 and some 100-round drums than to learn how to build a bomb. The question is whether these incidents will become less common.

Also, the fact is that there are too many AWs now in private hands for a ban to ever work. It might make them more expensive or harder to get, but it will never eliminate the threat completely. So from a practical point of view, there is no reason to deprive law-abiding gun owners of their rights. I do, however, believe that we should consider laws to reduce proliferation of AWs in the wrong hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
Mag capacity is also not correlative to any of these crimes either, especially since VTech, the most violent shooting happened with nothing but 10 round mags. Granted it reduces reloads, practically speaking, giving people the chance to rush the shooter but rarely do shooters get rushed and taken down anyway (the Arizona shooting is an exception). And again, a ban isn't going to delete weapons or mags or bullets from existence (even if it could, we shouldn't want to be stripped of our great equalizers anyway) and just as well, a CW with as many rounds on tap as possible is a pawn for a pawn in that situation.
Yes, the VT shooter used 15-rounders in his Glock 19 (not 10-rounders; the AWB had expired by the time that incident took place). Obviously, it's possible to kill more people with lower magazine capacity. But that still doesn't mean that higher magazine capacity doesn't make it easier to shoot multiple victims in a short period of time. If there was no practical difference between ten 10-round magazines and one 100-round magazine, 100-round magazines wouldn't have been invented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yournamehere View Post
I agree with Matt frankly, you do consistently fail to use proper grammar or produce coherent thoughts or sentences, and it makes you seem uneducated and an easy target for those with whom you'd argue. I don't think he means to pick on you, he's just repressed the fair criticism to the point where it's just boiled over, and given the political climate at the time, we need both intelligent thinking and proper display of such to discuss these issues, that's all. It'd be worth it to either put the extra effort to make sure the voice you want heard is polished and coherent, or that you step aside from being a voice and do other things to benefit the collective cause.
Thank you for the support, though I still feel a need to respond to him anyway...
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.