Obama and his speech in the Oval Office
-
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
-
Chris, the problem is that there have been situations (ex: LA riots, Ferguson, Post-Katrina, etc.) where having a long gun with high capacity magazines is the most logical means of defending yourself and your property.
As for the 6-7 rounds thing, handgun rounds are a compromise. You are giving up capability for concealabiity. If multiple people are confronting you, 6-7 rounds will not be enough.
In the end though, the only people who would abide by these feel good gun laws are the types of people who don't commit murders, rob people, etc. Criminals could give less of a shot about the capacity in a magazine if they are killing strangers.
-
Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.
If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.
And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?
-
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.
- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.
Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy
- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.
semi automatic weapons would be included in this. Handguns and rifles especially.
- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.
what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?
- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).
you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10
- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.
Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get
- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.
Yeah I pretty much agree with this. I'm not a huge fan of open carry in general
That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.
To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:
I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.
-
Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get
I was talking more about when on the street. You break in to someone's house, you get shot, you can't complain much. A man's home is his castle and all that. Walking down the street in a dodgy neighbourhood, less call for that.
what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?
You would have a licence for a single firearm - if you have a concealed carry licence, are you allowed to carry as many as you want around? :S
you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10
So when I said around 8 or 9 I was in the right ball park. That point was reflective of those 'high capacity magazines' people are so fond of. If "double stack" takes you out of the zone of 'someone's coming at me I need to put them down' then that's potentially something that needs addressing.
Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy
But if you're stuck with a single weapon, only holding 8-10 rounds, you're done shooting pretty quickly, no? As opposed to being able to keep shooting because you have 15 rounds per magazine and multiple magazines.
I agree on shipping them to the middle east though. Interestingly...link...US arms companies are struggling to keep up with the demand that they've created.
-
10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives
-
10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives
10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives
Those are some excellent examples of guns killing people. Some of which also even reflect a bad guy being shot. There's also only 10 of them. Do you want a list of 10 times a 'good guy with a gun' didn't jump in and save the day? Check out a thing called 'the news' and there'll probably be about one per day.
-
10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives
Those are some excellent examples of guns killing people. Some of which also even reflect a bad guy being shot. There's also only 10 of them. Do you want a list of 10 times a 'good guy with a gun' didn't jump in and save the day? Check out a thing called 'the news' and there'll probably be about one per day.
Those are some excellent examples of guns killing people. Some of which also even reflect a bad guy being shot. There's also only 10 of them. Do you want a list of 10 times a 'good guy with a gun' didn't jump in and save the day? Check out a thing called 'the news' and there'll probably be about one per day.
Oh there are a whole lot more than 10 stories Chris but then you would just complain if I posted them all.
-
I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and the intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.
-
I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and the intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.
I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and an intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.
Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.
But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.
-
Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.
If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.
And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?
Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.
If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.
And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?
You act like the police should be able to come right in and stop a riot in this country. How long did it take for the police to take control with the London riots in 2011? The fact of the matter is when you have a full scale riot going on the police are not able to help you.
-
I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and an intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.
Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.
But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.
Who has daily mass shootings? We also also don't yet have sharia law courts or complete neighborhoods so overran that emergency services won't enter.Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.
But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.
:neutral_face: -
When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.
-
Tens of thousands?
-
Who has daily mass shootings? We also also don't yet have sharia law courts or complete neighborhoods so overran that emergency services won't enter.Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.
But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.
Who has daily mass shootings?
The US does.
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
We also also don't yet have sharia law courts or complete neighborhoods so overran that emergency services won't enter.
Neither do we?
Tens of thousands?
Of people killed by guns every year? Yes. It holds steady between 10-12,000 people every year killed by guns in the US.
-
Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get
I was talking more about when on the street. You break in to someone's house, you get shot, you can't complain much. A man's home is his castle and all that. Walking down the street in a dodgy neighbourhood, less call for that.
what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?
You would have a licence for a single firearm - if you have a concealed carry licence, are you allowed to carry as many as you want around? :S
you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10
So when I said around 8 or 9 I was in the right ball park. That point was reflective of those 'high capacity magazines' people are so fond of. If "double stack" takes you out of the zone of 'someone's coming at me I need to put them down' then that's potentially something that needs addressing.
Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy
But if you're stuck with a single weapon, only holding 8-10 rounds, you're done shooting pretty quickly, no? As opposed to being able to keep shooting because you have 15 rounds per magazine and multiple magazines.
I agree on shipping them to the middle east though. Interestingly...link...US arms companies are struggling to keep up with the demand that they've created.
I was talking more about when on the street. You break in to someone's house, you get shot, you can't complain much. A man's home is his castle and all that. Walking down the street in a dodgy neighbourhood, less call for that. but I thought we're only liscensed for one low capacity firearm in your scenario
You would have a licence for a single firearm - if you have a concealed carry licence, are you allowed to carry as many as you want around? :Sas far as I know your liscense is to carry a concealed firearm. Not a specific one
So when I said around 8 or 9 I was in the right ball park. That point was reflective of those 'high capacity magazines' people are so fond of. If "double stack" takes you out of the zone of 'someone's coming at me I need to put them down' then that's potentially something that needs addressing.no.
But if you're stuck with a single weapon, only holding 8-10 rounds, you're done shooting pretty quickly, no? As opposed to being able to keep shooting because you have 15 rounds per magazine and multiple magazines.
I'll never support being stuck with a single firearm. Here you get one screwdriver. It's a p3 Phillips and if you need a tamper proof Alan key head you're outta luck. Better call a contractor.
I agree on shipping them to the middle east though. Interestingly...link...US arms companies are struggling to keep up with the demand that they've created.
-
What you keep about the house is your business. If you want to keep a shotgun for home defence, I can get on board with that, as long as it doesn't leave the property.
Have however many weapons you want I guess, but only one small firearm (as described) when out in public. If 'good guy with a gun' is your aim, you can achieve that with skill and a handgun.
-
I want to have the greatest possible advantage. Contrary to the movies it's very possible to miss with a handgun. Especially when a target is moving.
-
People are dumb. Concealed carry is mostly beneficial in an attempted mugging or something if you're walking down the street to defend yourself or business, etc. - but most people can't conduct themselves in a walmart I'm pretty happy they aren't all carrying guns personally.
In a crowded chaotic place like a theater or a party, it might not be so easy to get your sights on a guy wearing body armor and wielding an ar-15 shooting people indiscriminately. In some of these places it's hard to even tell where it's coming from - people just run opposite of the noise.
Then there's the good samaritan who witnessed somebody get carjacked, then pulled out his gun and accidentally shot the guy who got carjacked in the head (talk about having a bad day).
And isn't there another guy who was stealing a case of beer from a gas station recently and got killed by a good samaritan?
-
Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.
If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.
And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?
Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.
If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.
And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?
Response people can only do so much in the short term. Until things are under control, you are in charge of your own safety.
Having a firearm is most definitely going to be enough to protect you from multiple assailants. The two times I have had people try to rob me, they were in numbers.
The gun genie is already out of the lamp. If guns were banned right now and all production was stopped, they are enough firearms amongst the civilian population to last for a few thousand years. So stopping law abiding people from purchasing those types of firearms only punishes them and no one else.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login