Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #4361
    You and i know this they don't. I figured i better put something with the fullauto in there or they would say but but there is a youtube video of it shooting omg so fast so it must be real.

  2. #4362
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by ugotownd View Post
    You and i know this they don't. I figured i better but something with the fullauto in there or they would say but but there is a youtube video of it shooting omg so fast so it must be real.
    And shotguns project walls of lead that mysteriously disappear ten feet away from the end of the barrel!
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  3. #4363

  4. #4364

  5. #4365
    UN Arms Treaty: NRA Vows To Fight Regulation Of $70 Billion Global Arms Trade

    UNITED NATIONS, Dec 28 (Reuters) - The leading U.S. pro-gun group, the National Rifle Association, has vowed to fight a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global arms trade and dismissed suggestions that a recent U.S. school shooting bolstered the case for such a pact.

    The U.N. General Assembly voted on Monday to restart negotiations in mid-March on the first international treaty to regulate conventional arms trade after a drafting conference in July collapsed because the U.S. and other nations wanted more time. Washington supported Monday's U.N. vote.

    U.S. President Barack Obama has come under intense pressure to tighten domestic gun control laws after the Dec. 14 shooting massacre of 20 children and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. His administration has since reiterated its support for a global arms treaty that does not curtail U.S. citizens' rights to own weapons.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2373417.html

  6. #4366
    Immortal SirRobin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    7,145
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    Using fully automatic fire would be pointless, anyway; you'd hit more walls and desks and chairs than you would people. Guns don't behave in real life like they do in Call of Duty.
    Yeah but short bursts, you don't have to empty the "clip," would be brutal in mass shooting scenarios.

    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    And shotguns project walls of lead that mysteriously disappear ten feet away from the end of the barrel!
    However, they can lose penetrating power much faster, compared to semiautomatic rifles.
    Last edited by SirRobin; 2012-12-28 at 03:06 PM. Reason: Points
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  7. #4367
    http://news.yahoo.com/three-jersey-p...134330961.html

    Three New Jersey Officers were shot today. Just throwing out how much safer they were..since they had guns or were they?

  8. #4368
    Immortal SirRobin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    7,145
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    http://news.yahoo.com/three-jersey-p...134330961.html

    Three New Jersey Officers were shot today. Just throwing out how much safer they were..since they had guns or were they?
    Come on! Give us a break wackos! This is getting freaking ridiculous! Wait, these guys were armed and "good guys." So what can LaPierre blame? El Nino? Global Warming? High Energy Prices?
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  9. #4369
    Bloodsail Admiral ovm33's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The 'Nati
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    http://news.yahoo.com/three-jersey-p...134330961.html

    Three New Jersey Officers were shot today. Just throwing out how much safer they were..since they had guns or were they?
    The report, which I read in the entirety, is vague on the details. So we can only assume certain things happened based on logic. First, the cops returned fire - either wounding or driving off the attacker. Second, no one died - it doesn't mention anything about the attacker, but you would think if they had been killed instantly it would be mentioned.

    So going off our little information in regards to the shooting... yes, the cops were 100% safer due to their firearms. No one died. If they had been unarmed, do you think there might have been a death or two or three?

    Logic says yes.

    Your attempt at bashing the idea of putting armed guards in schools fails, as the very story you link proved that having firearms available, while it won't necessarily prevent an attempted mass shooting, will sure as hell end it.
    I sat alone in the dark one night, tuning in by remote.
    I found a preacher who spoke of the light, but there was Brimstone in his throat.
    He'd show me the way, according to him, in return for my personal check.
    I flipped my channel back to CNN and lit another cigarette.

  10. #4370
    Quote Originally Posted by ovm33 View Post
    The report, which I read in the entirety, is vague on the details. So we can only assume certain things happened based on logic. First, the cops returned fire - either wounding or driving off the attacker. Second, no one died - it doesn't mention anything about the attacker, but you would think if they had been killed instantly it would be mentioned.

    So going off our little information in regards to the shooting... yes, the cops were 100% safer due to their firearms. No one died. If they had been unarmed, do you think there might have been a death or two or three?

    Logic says yes.

    Your attempt at bashing the idea of putting armed guards in schools fails, as the very story you link proved that having firearms available, while it won't necessarily prevent an attempted mass shooting, will sure as hell end it.
    Because the shooter shot at and wounded and didn't kill my logic is denied. It would been a totally different story if he could fire more accurately? Thats a bit a hogwash. So if the Officers would have been killed then it would proven my logic? not just shot at. Sorry to let you down.

    These officers were shot in a group. It sure didn't make them any safer. So I doubt putting one in every shool is going to stop a shooting. Didn't columbine have armed guards and looked how well it turned out for them. Plus its just an illusion of feeling secue. No one officer is going stop a mass killing with a deadly AR-15


    Here is information on the attacker

    The shooter, who was being held at the station, was shot and killed inside the municipal building.

    Earle says two of the officers suffered graze wounds and were treated at a hospital and released. The third was hit twice in the leg and was undergoing surgery. Earle says he's expected to recover quickly.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2375299.html
    Last edited by FusedMass; 2012-12-28 at 03:27 PM.

  11. #4371
    Immortal SirRobin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    7,145
    Quote Originally Posted by ovm33 View Post
    The report, which I read in the entirety, is vague on the details. So we can only assume certain things happened based on logic. First, the cops returned fire - either wounding or driving off the attacker. Second, no one died - it doesn't mention anything about the attacker, but you would think if they had been killed instantly it would be mentioned.

    So going off our little information in regards to the shooting... yes, the cops were 100% safer due to their firearms. No one died. If they had been unarmed, do you think there might have been a death or two or three?

    Logic says yes.

    Your attempt at bashing the idea of putting armed guards in schools fails, as the very story you link proved that having firearms available, while it won't necessarily prevent an attempted mass shooting, will sure as hell end it.
    Just as the China wacko, who only had a knife to use on those kids, failed to kill any of them. Not to mention that, like the firefighter ambush, its not actually a mass shooting. Mass shootings tend to involve four or more casualties and tend to be legal gun owners or get their weapons from legal gun owners.

    Apparently it was also one of the cops own guns that he grabbed. So yeah, its more a, "its dangerous to be a cop," sort of thing. Still makes me wonder what LaPierre would blame though.
    Last edited by SirRobin; 2012-12-28 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Thoughtification
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  12. #4372
    Ban? No. Much more rigorous control? Yes.

    I don't believe anyone with ANY criminal history has any business owning firearms. I don't think anyone with any history of mental illness has any business owning firearms. I also don't believe people who haven't demonstrated a high level of proficiency and marksmanship have any business owning firearms. This goes for all firearms, not just assault rifles. With assault rifles though, I could maybe support a proposition limiting AR ownership to active duty/retired military members and law enforcement. As an active duty member with multiple deployments and combat experience I wouldn't willingly give up my personal AR's, but I also don't see a reason why Joe Schmoe should have one without a really good reason. An AR is a terrible choice for home/personal defense; a shotgun is the best choice for that, and there is little chance of a shotgun being involved in a mass shooting incident.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 10:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Didn't columbine have armed guards and looked how well it turned out for them
    No.

    Plus its just an illusion of feeling secue. No one officer is going stop a mass killing with a deadly AR-15
    Maybe an incompetent "officer". As a combat veteran with expert marksmanship and experience in multiple firefights, I can assure you it isn't difficult to take down an untrained madman.

  13. #4373
    Immortal SirRobin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    7,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    No.
    Columbine had an armed deputy as its resource officer. Normally he ate in the cafeteria with the kids but that day he ate in his car. Now was his eating in the car predictable? Did the shooters actually factor that into their plans? They prepared for months after all. If he had been in the cafeteria that day, Columbine might never have qualified as a "mass shooting." Further highlighting that without a hell of a lot of guards, armed security just isn't a very safe bet in a mass shooting scenario.

    Now that I think about it, the shooter planned to blow up the cafeteria and the bombs failed. So maybe they thought the guard would be in the cafeteria and the bombs would kill him. Either way, unfortunately, he wasn't anywhere near a sufficient enough defense.
    Last edited by SirRobin; 2012-12-28 at 04:52 PM. Reason: Thinkering
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  14. #4374
    Just reading this:

    High-Capacity Magazines Bill To Be Introduced By Democrats On First Day Of Congressional Session

    House Democrats will introduce legislation to ban the production of high-capacity magazines on the first day of the next congressional session, the office of Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), one of the lawmakers sponsoring the bill, told The Huffington Post.

    The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act will mirror a failed bill introduced during the 112th Congress. Its authors hope that in the wake of the shooting deaths of 20 first grade students in Newtown, Conn., there will be heightened political urgency to act when it is reintroduced on Jan. 3.

    Backed by DeGette and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), the legislation has gained a wave of Democratic co-sponsors since the shooting, which also claimed the lives of 7 adults. But few Republicans have come forward to offer their support. Even more critical to the bill's political prospects, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has not indicated whether he will allow it to come to the floor for a vote.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2376838.html

  15. #4375
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    Come on! Give us a break wackos! This is getting freaking ridiculous! Wait, these guys were armed and "good guys." So what can LaPierre blame? El Nino? Global Warming? High Energy Prices?
    I don't know anything about the story except for the link that FusedMass posted.

    ""A violent struggle occurred while the suspect was being processed," Gloucester Deputy Police Chief David Harkins said, according to Philadelphia TV station NBC10. The man was able to grab a gun and then opened fire."

    So, yeah, he got a cops gun and shot cops with it, what bearing does this have on anything we've discussed here at all?

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 04:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    Wait a minute. You really think they are ignorant because they call them assault weapons instead of semiautomatic rifles? Maybe it was just me, but it always seemed kind of obvious that that was how they were distinguishing between semiautomatic rifles like the Armalite knockoffs and other semiautomatics like maybe the Garand. Not because they didn't know better.
    There have been interviews with Feinstein and others where it's obvious that they judge the guns by their looks. It was years ago though, so not sure if they're still floating around. And again, the idea that a 30-06 garand fires slower or less powerfully than some other, meaner looking rifle is nonsense. It shows a complete lack of understanding of firearms.

    I don't think anyone has tried to claim yet that the FAWB didn't have flaws. However, despite months of preparation, the only FAWB weapon to be used at Columbine was a TEC-9.
    The conversations run long, but when replying it's nice to look at what I've said previously. The common denominator between the weapons they chose was price point, nothing else. AR15's of "banned" or "post ban" configuration were readily available to anyone.

    Last I recall it was, "forced his way in." Columbine and Virginia Tech showed that security doesn't work very well against a mass shooter. Now of course guards are not useless. There are a number of reasons to have armed guards in a school. Gang violence as one example. However, because mass shootings tend to have more planning involved and pretty much "everyone" can be the target? Another reason to reduce the mass shooter's access to weaponry with higher effective rates of fire.
    You can say that as much as you want, but they don't have a higher rate of fire. They may in some cases have a theoretical max rate of fire that varies, but none of them will shoot slower than you can pull the trigger, so there is no higher effective rate of fire.



    Sorry but folks who love the currently liberal definition of the 2nd Amendment getting upset over a gun control loophole not being branded accurately enough for their tastes? Seems rather disingenuous to me.
    If you want to regulate private sales of firearms, then it should apply equally whether at a gun show or your neighbors house. Calling it a "gun show loophole" is disingenuous because it paints the gun show as somehow being different than any other forum.



    Perhaps, though given how frequently settling seems to be more about not having to admit guilt? Instead of risking all the bad press, a possibly very punishing judgement, and setting an even more dangerous precedent? I don't find Bushmaster's claimed reasoning very believable.
    They may have been worried about losing, or maybe not, who knows. What we can, IMO, safely agree on is that defending the case would have cost a lot of money. The insurance company figured it'd cost more than the half-mil to defend (win or lose), and I'd think that's accurate enough in theory.

    Either way, my point was more that saying "Bushmaster and Dealer pay 2.5 mil" is true, but misrepresents that BM paid out half a mil of it without being found negligent in any fashion.

  16. #4376
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    I don't know anything about the story except for the link that FusedMass posted.

    ""A violent struggle occurred while the suspect was being processed," Gloucester Deputy Police Chief David Harkins said, according to Philadelphia TV station NBC10. The man was able to grab a gun and then opened fire."

    So, yeah, he got a cops gun and shot cops with it, what bearing does this have on anything we've discussed here at all?
    It should prove that if a man with three armed cops around him. Somehow got hold of a gun that were supposed keep them safe and shot three of them with two of them being in the hospital. That more armed gurads in school doesn't equal safyet. It's very very simple. You have one armed officer to every school. Even if that were possible.

    You still wouldn't ensure everyone's safety. It only takes one person with a high powered assault rifle. Believe it or not. When these people are deciding on shooting weapons they decide on the AR-15. It fires the shortest amount of bullets in the least amount of time. Most mass killings are used by this weapon. In fact in NewTown this was only murder weapon.

    The answer is not more guns. By that logic. Those officers should have been safe since they are all trained. But even they ended up shot and likely worse if the gunman wasn't such a bad shot.

  17. #4377
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,305
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    It should prove that if a man with three armed cops around him. Somehow got hold of a gun that were supposed keep them safe and shot three of them with two of them being in the hospital. That more armed gurads in school doesn't equal safyet. It's very very simple. You have one armed officer to every school. Even if that were possible.

    You still wouldn't ensure everyone's safety. It only takes one person with a high powered assault rifle. Believe it or not. When these people are deciding on shooting weapons they decide on the AR-15. It fires the shortest amount of bullets in the least amount of time. Most mass killings are used by this weapon. In fact in NewTown this was only murder weapon.

    The answer is not more guns. By that logic. Those officers should have been safe since they are all trained. But even they ended up shot and likely worse if the gunman wasn't such a bad shot.
    The point of stationing armed officials at schools is to limit casualties if they cannot be prevented. It's not a one or the other situation.

    And considering the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns anyway, harping on assault rifles is stupid and pointless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  18. #4378
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    An AR is a terrible choice for home/personal defense; a shotgun is the best choice for that, and there is little chance of a shotgun being involved in a mass shooting incident
    A shotgun has always struck me as a horrible in home weapon, given that slugs are too much, and shot is like opening a package with an axe instead of scissors. An AR15 is obnoxiously loud, but the 223 characteristics make it less likely to richochet or penetrate walls (assuming jhp or 55gr rather than say, M855) That said, I prefer handgun or perhaps handgun caliber AR. Especially in a rifle, the 9mm or 45 has a lot less noise and flash and is easily controllable.

    And as we've been talking about, one of the Columbine guns was a shotgun (along with a 9mm rifle/ Hipoint with 10 round magazines)

    Maybe an incompetent "officer". As a combat veteran with expert marksmanship and experience in multiple firefights, I can assure you it isn't difficult to take down an untrained madman.
    There's a lot a capable person could do in one of these mass shootings. The thing is, most of the time in these situations, no one is going to rush the shooter. One of the shootings some years ago (sorry, I forget which one, I believe it was a college), the shooter had a revolver that he reloaded twice and no one stopped him.

  19. #4379
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    The point of stationing armed officials at schools is to limit casualties if they cannot be prevented. It's not a one or the other situation.

    And considering the vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns anyway, harping on assault rifles is stupid and pointless.
    You keep saying the majority of Gun Violence. I'm talking about mass murders. Not shooting a person or two. But killing five or more people. The one in the movies the shooter used an assault rifle. The same weapon was used in NewTown. It might not be a majority but compared to the one or two deaths hand guns result in compared to the number of deaths assault rifles.

    I'm pretty sure they are almost even. Hand Guns are not what Dems are pushing for. No one wants to take away your weapons. This is about assault rifles. Weapons designed even if semi or automatic to shoot the most amount of bullets. The Longest time to re-load because of more clips. The newest Dem want to ban high capacity magazine.

    Why does a person need a weapon with more then 10 bullets loaded in?

  20. #4380
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    It should prove that if a man with three armed cops around him. Somehow got hold of a gun that were supposed keep them safe and shot three of them with two of them being in the hospital.
    So cops shouldn't have guns, since someone may just take it and use it.

    That more armed gurads in school doesn't equal safyet. It's very very simple. You have one armed officer to every school. Even if that were possible.
    It changes the dynamic of the planning. I don't think the Newtown guy planned the shooting though. If an armed guard had gotten police help earlier, stopped him earlier or any number of variables, it certainly wouldn't have been WORSE, would it?

    You still wouldn't ensure everyone's safety. It only takes one person with a high powered assault rifle. Believe it or not. When these people are deciding on shooting weapons they decide on the AR-15. It fires the shortest amount of bullets in the least amount of time. Most mass killings are used by this weapon. In fact in NewTown this was only murder weapon.
    Not according to any of the statistics we've seen in any of the current threads, that I noticed at least. I think we've established that you don't understand how firearms work in any real sense though. I'm not sure why you think we're being dishonest when we tell you that an AR15 doesn't fire any faster than any other semiautomatic rifle does, nor even a semiautomatic handgun. Hit youtube for Miculek or the Benelli shotgun guy. Or, see if any three-gun matchs have video's up and you can see a timed course of fire.

    The answer is not more guns. By that logic. Those officers should have been safe since they are all trained. But even they ended up shot and likely worse if the gunman wasn't such a bad shot.
    We don't know why he "Only" injured them. All we know is that they came away with injuries. They also wear vests. If he had gone into a place that didn't have any cops with his own gun, how many would be injured vs dead?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •