Nicker on 26/10/2023 at 17:46
Quote Posted by mxleader
Also, Large capacity magazines are for amateurs. Anyone that shoots guns on a regular basis knows that 10 round mags are much less likely to jam and are super easy to store, load and work into the rifle receiver than a bigger mag.
Great!! Making it easier for amateurs to put more lead down range. Thanks NRA. How reassuring.
Quote Posted by mxleader
Also, not a one single
anti-gun nut crazy person who would prefer NOT being murdered by a psychopath, has mentioned banning cars after the big crash that killed a lot of unsuspecting people recently. There's no logic in your arguments.
I did ask for original arguments, not the same, tired false equivalents.
Cars do NOT kill if used correctly. Guns DO kill if used correctly. Especially the AR-15, the weapon of choice for 'Murika's mass murderers and school house killers.
Trusting you can finally understand the distinction here, MX.
Tocky on 26/10/2023 at 19:08
Quote Posted by mxleader
I doubt that you are that old.
I am that old. I grew up in the sixties and, despite what anyone tells you, there were plenty of hunting rifles but no high capacity magazines. They may have existed but nobody owned them except soldier of fortune nuts and, unlike today, back then those were few. Guns were a tool and if your hammer blows had to be high to drive in one nail then that was shameful. The most anyone had was a five round mag.
Quote Posted by mxleader
Are you referring to the miltary, police, politicians? It's hard to tell.
Also, Large capacity magazines are for amateurs. Anyone that shoots guns on a regular basis knows that 10 round mags are much less likely to jam and are super easy to store, load and work into the rifle receiver than a bigger mag.
Oops, I do have a one pump bb gun for play but also for driving off varmits I don't want to kill so also a tool really.
Also, not a one single anti-gun nut crazy has mentioned banning cars after the big crash that killed a lot of unsuspecting people recently. There's no logic in your arguments.
Typical. You know I'm not refering to professionals. I'm not anti-gun. I own them. I just don't have them for play. Your argument about cars is ridiculous. We have implemented all sorts of measures to reduce deaths where they are concerned. Only an idiot would not. I strongly suspect there will be some measure implemented this time as well. Who would want more death? Oh right.
Tocky on 26/10/2023 at 19:19
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
Interesting. You're
so close to a realization here....
Interesting. You are nowhere near any realization. If the general public did not own high capacity guns there would be no need for them. We live in the US and not Mogadishu. Children at bowling alleys are not a threat to most people. I guess they are to gun nuts. Have to have that AK on you at all times to feel safe do you? Must be hard to bowl.
lowenz on 26/10/2023 at 19:21
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
The USA is in a late-stage imperial collapse
Russia leit motiv using republicans as parrots, just believe it.....and continue serving the Kremlin. Thanks.
Nicker on 28/10/2023 at 17:53
Quote Posted by Tocky
Must be hard to bowl.
Ha ha ha ha ha. That's cute, Tocky.
(
https://gundigest.com/handguns/bowling-pin-shootings-high-powered-renaissance) ..... oh, wait.
Inline Image:
https://gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Smith-Wesson-460-XVR-9.jpgThere's a dream summer job for some kid. Pin-setter.
Quote:
But I suppose a person wouldn't see much need for an assault rifle unless they were hyper-paranoiac about mortal & existential threats around every corner.
True but the trouble is that these gun-fetishists who act out, seem to be most threatened by unarmed people, especially ones too small and young to even handle weapons. If gun-fetishists want to strut their stuff, go pick a fight on a gun range or a military base during live fire exercises, cowards.
mxleader on 2/11/2023 at 17:39
Quote Posted by Tocky
I am that old. I grew up in the sixties and, despite what anyone tells you, there were plenty of hunting rifles but no high capacity magazines. They may have existed but nobody owned them except soldier of fortune nuts and, unlike today, back then those were few. Guns were a tool and if your hammer blows had to be high to drive in one nail then that was shameful. The most anyone had was a five round mag.
Typical. You know I'm not refering to professionals. I'm not anti-gun. I own them. I just don't have them for play. Your argument about cars is ridiculous. We have implemented all sorts of measures to reduce deaths where they are concerned. Only an idiot would not. I strongly suspect there will be some measure implemented this time as well. Who would want more death? Oh right.
Well, you're wrong about the mag capacity of available weapons in the 60's. My father owned two M-14s with 20 round mags and used them as competition rifles and he was never in the military. Also, Charles Whitman used a variety of weapons at the University of Texas including an M1 carbine which came used a 15 or 30 round magazine. The weapons were available for purchase. I do agree that high capacity semi-auto weapons were not as prolific in the 60's as they are today though. Of course Charles Whitman had some mental health issues stemming from childhood but also had a "pecan sized" tumor located in a region of the brain that is known to be the part of the brain that controls emotions. The messed up thing about him is that he sought help from a campus mental health professional who's notes mentioned Whitman's comments about wanting to hurt people. Some of the problem stems from the strong position that the 1st and 2nd amendments have in the constitution and in the hearts and minds of the people. There's no easy solution that doesn't violate and erode the constitution. I think that part of the solution rests with the media and also with gun manufacturers and their marketing. Steps that are being made in the mental health field are so impossibly small due to the stigma surrounding anything to do with mental health that it will take decades for that field of medicine to make any significant contributions towards reducing violence. I also think that Hollywood is culpable in creating irrational paranoia with audiences through some movies but then what can you do about that because it's supply and demand in a free market system bolstered by that pesky 1st amendment.
Quote Posted by Nicker
If gun-fetishists want to strut their stuff, go pick a fight on a gun range or a military base during live fire exercises, cowards.
That's already been done. Also, I think you meant to say gun enthusiasts. You lose momentum in an argument when you try to insult. Work smarter not harder.
Nicker on 2/11/2023 at 20:23
Gun enthusiasts are a different creature and seem to be quite content to impose reasonable limitations on ownership and use.
No, I mean gun fetishists, people who put guns above life. For whom the mere mention of a firearm trumps all other causes and concerns. People who put their truncated, selective reading of the Second Amendment, above the founding principle of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People who see the unnecessary risk to life and limb, imposed on others, as a necessary price for their own gratification.
Either definition of fetish in the OED fits the above, IMH.
Tocky on 2/11/2023 at 21:15
The soldier of fortune types were almost never military. They were grown men who like to play with guns. They read the magazine Soldier of Fortune and imagined they were tough army men fighting it out in the jungle with swarthy villains. Pew pew! Take that, Sancho! Very few existed back in the sixties. Shit was real back then for most.
Competition shooters I can understand. That is the same as being good at any sport and they use a 22. No. Feeling some surge of manhood from a large caliber or large magazine is almost like stolen valor. It's stolen manhood. And it's not real. It's not putting meat on the table or serving your country. It's playing at being a man. Nothing says not really being a man quite like playing at it.
Sorry. I know that is harsh. But it's real. Today we have a lot of men who don't know what it is to be a man. They value a piece of metal over fellow humans. Look, I love sixties muscle cars and I've owned several, but I understand moving on to the safer cars we have today. I say I love those cars and yet I sold my prized 72 Lemans Sport convertible to give my family a better Christmas.
We can do the same as a country. We can stop playing at being men and actually BE men. We can give up guns we don't need to help our fellow humans. Nobody owns bazookas, right? No full auto, right? And if we want to shoot large mags we can have ranges for that but at least recognize it's play. Pulling a trigger isn't manhood. Gangs confuse that shit all the time. So do gun collecting rednecks. Mah rahts! Mah freeeeeeedumb! No. Your plaaaaayyyyy tiiiiiiime. Be honest. There is nothing about shooting multiple times that makes you a man. Not a damn thing. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Hit the bullseye. Once. THAT is impressive.
Men protect. They protect by serving, whether food on the table or against a country looking to take theirs. They also protect by listening to common sense measures to protect society. Do we need military weapons in such abundance in our country? No. Not currently. We have armories for them but Cletus in his paranoid bunker isn't going to be helping anyone by having them anyway. I would bet two to one he will make things worse.
I remember real men. I was raised by them. I see some glimmer of them left every now and then. But not much among the gun worshippers. I'll stop now before I really make someone mad. I'll just say it is dismaying to me what has become of men, and what they now think being a man is.
mxleader on 3/11/2023 at 04:47
Quote Posted by Nicker
Gun enthusiasts are a different creature and seem to be quite content to impose reasonable limitations on ownership and use.
No, I mean gun fetishists, people who put guns above life. For whom the mere mention of a firearm trumps all other causes and concerns. People who put their truncated, selective reading of the Second Amendment, above the founding principle of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People who see the unnecessary risk to life and limb, imposed on others, as a necessary price for their own gratification.
Either definition of fetish in the OED fits the above, IMH.
Quote Posted by Tocky
The soldier of fortune types were almost never military. They were grown men who like to play with guns. They read the magazine Soldier of Fortune and imagined they were tough army men fighting it out in the jungle with swarthy villains. Pew pew! Take that, Sancho! Very few existed back in the sixties. Shit was real back then for most.
Competition shooters I can understand. That is the same as being good at any sport and they use a 22. No. Feeling some surge of manhood from a large caliber or large magazine is almost like stolen valor. It's stolen manhood. And it's not real. It's not putting meat on the table or serving your country. It's playing at being a man. Nothing says not really being a man quite like playing at it.
Sorry. I know that is harsh. But it's real. Today we have a lot of men who don't know what it is to be a man. They value a piece of metal over fellow humans. Look, I love sixties muscle cars and I've owned several, but I understand moving on to the safer cars we have today. I say I love those cars and yet I sold my prized 72 Lemans Sport convertible to give my family a better Christmas.
We can do the same as a country. We can stop playing at being men and actually BE men. We can give up guns we don't need to help our fellow humans. Nobody owns bazookas, right? No full auto, right? And if we want to shoot large mags we can have ranges for that but at least recognize it's play. Pulling a trigger isn't manhood. Gangs confuse that shit all the time. So do gun collecting rednecks. Mah rahts! Mah freeeeeeedumb! No. Your plaaaaayyyyy tiiiiiiime. Be honest. There is nothing about shooting multiple times that makes you a man. Not a damn thing. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Hit the bullseye. Once. THAT is impressive.
Men protect. They protect by serving, whether food on the table or against a country looking to take theirs. They also protect by listening to common sense measures to protect society. Do we need military weapons in such abundance in our country? No. Not currently. We have armories for them but Cletus in his paranoid bunker isn't going to be helping anyone by having them anyway. I would bet two to one he will make things worse.
I remember real men. I was raised by them. I see some glimmer of them left every now and then. But not much among the gun worshippers. I'll stop now before I really make someone mad. I'll just say it is dismaying to me what has become of men, and what they now think being a man is.
I can agree with both of youz guyz's points to some degree. I consider myself a gun enthusiast but I've never owned an AR style rifle. I've fired many of them both in the military and out on the ranges with those various types of people that own such toys. They are all very different types of people for sure. I don't know what type of weapon makes someone a man or not but I do agree that most semi-auto rifles are bought and owned by fairly unskilled shooters. At least that's what I've seen out there on the ranges.
It does seem like a lot of the mass shooters are dudes with mental health issues that were known beforehand and yet they were able to acquire weapons. Even those who are professionals employed by the government seem to be a problem but some argue that only trained professionals should own big scary military grade weapons.
I don't think gun enthusiasts value guns above life. I don't think that most gun "fetishists" some some would put it value them above life either. I think that there are some individuals that have a very skewed view of things due to many different circumstances and unfortunately some also have mental health conditions that are either undiagnosed, or just flat ignored, and that is a major part of the current problem. It seems to that many of the mass shooters are people with mental health issues and they have been marginalized by society. It's not an excuse for their unfortunate actions though.
Is their an easy answer? Is there an answer at all that would reduce mass shootings or stop them altogether? Probably. I don't think destroying or heavily trampling the second amendment is the answer though. I mean there are lots of copies of the Anarchy Cookbook out there along with quite a sum of pressure cookers so I don't think an outright ban on AR-15 style weapons is the answer.
There is one phenomenon regarding two different things that I can't fully understand at all. One was the public's obsession with the H1 Hummer type vehicle and the other is with AR-15 style weapons. Both have been popularized by the media and Hollywood. And manufacturers and consumers responded by buying lots of each. There is an obvious cost difference that is part of it but it doesn't explain entirely why the Hummer has fallen out of favor with public so quickly and the AR-15 has not. One of the main reasons why a lot of people lost enthusiasm for the Hummer, even though it was always out of reach for many cost wise, was that people were seeing so many of our military being injured or killed by IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Literally the news media showed every bit of the carnage and the aftermath of those soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors and even journalists getting blown up in Hummers 24/7 for so long that the public lost interest in the basic Hummers. They were once seen as an accessible and tough military vehicle but then the truth was put before the pubic and they didn't like what they saw.
Maybe you know where I'm going with this. Maybe only showing sad families and nice before death pictures of those adults and children just aren't enough to convince the public to stop being obsessed with the AR-15. Maybe they need to see the actual carnage before they change their minds. Sort of like taking at risk teens to see all the bodies in the morgue that died from drunk driving incidents and drug overdoses. Some would say that it would be in poor taste to do such a thing and that we have to be sensitive to the families but clearly that doesn't work.
Maybe a little psychology is needed to make owning those types of weapons seem so distasteful that demand falls to the point where it's not really profitable for companies to manufacture and sell those types to the public in such large quantities. Maybe people need to man up and teach their kids how to shoot well instead of shoot lots. Who the hell knows?
I often find myself defending the right to keep and bear AR-15's even though I've never owned one. They really aren't that much fun to shoot more than once. It's kind of like walking through the same haunted house attraction more than once. They seem more effective at killing and injuring unarmed people than armed people. I think I would rather go up against an enemy that had an AK-47 if I had an AK-47 rather than an AR-15. That's just me though. In fact, the AK-47 is a superior rifle to the AR-15. The only thing the AR-15's have going for them is that these days you can attach all sorts of pointless accessories to them.
I need to stop drinking coffee so late.
