My father owned one when I was young because out where we lived there were Cougars, Bears, Coyotes, Wolves, etc. in the area. If one ever grabbed a hold of either me, my siblings, or one of our animals you needed to be able to deal with it immediately.
That’s something people who live inside of a city never really get is that when you live “around nature” there is a danger present that no amount of police protection will take care of.
Cities can be just as dangerous as the wild. There are Bears in Chicago, Lions in Detroit, and freakin’ Wizards in Washington. It’s a dangerous place in the city. Better bring protection.
You fucking moron. Read my second sentence in that quote. I said all along that a weapon (including your precious “military style weapon”) is to inflict lethal force, I.e. to kill. You have literally repeated what I have been saying all along.
I’m not talking about my country. I’m directly addressing the Issues facing the US and the US alone. Fuck the laws in my country.
DON’T. TELL. ME. WHAT. I. NEED. Fuck “need”. I don’t need to explain why I should want something, I should only need to prove that I am responsible enough to command the power and responsibilities of owning it. This goes beyond weapons and extends to most things that are outright banned in modern society.
You throw around the term “military grade” as if it being similar to a military weapon makes it more dangerous.
These people don’t know what the Fuck they are talking about.
Every single rifle after the 1900’s and handgun that’s not a 22 is derived from military blueprints, or originally designed for military applications. But that doesn’t mean civilians versions are military spec. Modern ar have a weakened bolt carrier, or require modification of the rifle to make it a semi automatic to functional assault rifle.
All modern bolt actions, and even old ones where not made for hunting, but military applications. Only niche 700 calibur elephant rifles are designed for that.
Doctor Mario, and the rest of the em say they can’t see a need for military style/grade weapons. That implies banning them all, because by definition that’s what all rifles are that aren’t musket, reapeter, very old six shooters. And even those are usually debatable.
Tell me, what is military grade? Because peeps throw that shit as if they know.
This is what you said when I called a semi-military grade killing machine a “weapon”
You can call it whatever you want, but you’re arguing the semantics of something which was created specifically for anti-personnel purposes. And the fact that you resorted to calling me names lets me know that your argument’s weak and you know it.
You may not be talking about your country, but as far as I know, you don’t live here in the US and you don’t have to deal with the fallout when these mass shootings happen. Part of the reason for the excessive amounts of paranoia and loads of other maladies that are becoming increasingly pervasive here is because everyone’s scared of this sort of shit, which happens on the scale it does in part because these “tools” as you call them are so readily available. I’m not saying these weapons are the only reason for it, but a lot of acts are carried out with them that contribute to it. But you’re safe on the other side of the world so you don’t have to see it first hand.
I’m not trying to tell you what you need, I just want to know why anyone who isn’t in the military or planning on going on a shooting rampage needs a weapon whose entire purpose is to kill other people. If you’re hunting, why do you need an AR-15 when there are several other choices that are perfectly suitable and less dangerous? I’m asking because I genuinely want to know, and the fact that you’re just getting all huffy about it tells me that you don’t really have an answer other than “Because I want to, because it’s my right.”
I’m sure you’re a responsible person, I know you’re intelligent from reading your posts on this board, but “because I can” is not a real answer. Some of the objects of your “hobby” assist in the murder and/or psychological damage of people in my country on a regular basis. So pardon me if I’m not terribly sympathetic, especially when all you can think about is “mah rights” when people are being shot up at a rate that the mainstream news here treats it as something that’s relatively normal nowadays. You’re not even subject to our laws here so I don’t see why you’d care so much anyway.
No, I called you a fucking moron because that’s what I do. You’ve yet to outline any actual hole in my argument.
A gun is a weapon. A weapon is a tool. A tool that is used to kill. There is no difference, it is neither one or the other, is it both a weapon and a tool, which is the original argument that I was responding to.
Last I checked, the overwhelming majority of Americans neither own guns, or are directly affected by gun violence. This means that, as a person who doesn’t own guns and hasn’t been directly affected by gun violence, Inhave the same level of understanding as the majority of Americans. Given the education system in the US though, I probably know your laws better than many of your countrymen anyway.
The purpose of ANY gun to kill. Whether it’s a Derringer or a Barrett .50 Cal. There is no “less dangerous” option when it comes to guns. All guns are lethal, from the lowest to the highest calibers or capacities. The same dangers exist for harm whether you’re using a pistol, bolt-action rifle or a semi-auto shotgun.
Don’t patronize me. Congratulations, life is dangerous, and fuck your mainstream media. If you hadn’t noticed, News Corp owns most our media here, too.
I care about what happens in the US as much as I care about any other country that is not my own. News flash: what happens in your country is used a guide for how the rest of the world should respond. This goes beyond guns and extends into other social issues like marriage, taxes education, healthcare and so forth.
A fully auto assault rifle like the SUROS Regime is going to do much more sustained DPS than a bolt action rifle like No Land Beyond. It’s my opinion that one is more dangerous than the other simply because it takes way less time to inflict much more damage. If we’re talking about mass shootings here, then one type of weapon is going to be way more effective than the other because it will kill more people quicker.
I’m using the time to inflict the most damage as the metric for “dangerous”, which might not be the correct way to measure it. But it makes sense in my head.
Friend posted a recent story of what happened at his old base. A soldier got drunk but couldn’t start his car equipped with a breathalyzer. Instead, he found a raccoon and forced it to breathe into the breathalyzer, allowing him to start the car. The raccoon passed out from the ordeal, but the drunk soldier left the animal in the car. The raccoon later awoke while the soldier was driving and attacked him, causing the soldier to lose control and crash his car into a pool (or river or something, I forgot). This is a story about someone allowed to use “military grade” weapons, but civilians are obviously too irresponsible. Kappa
You’re the one that objected to me calling it a weapon in the first place, so shrug
RE: Americans, the problem is that there are other effects as a result of gun violence. You may not be DIRECTLY affected by it, but there is a psychological price to be paid for living in a society that has the relationship Americans do to guns. Plus with concealed carry laws going into effect in a lot of states (a lot of southern ones especially) you have people walking around in broad daylight with guns attached to their hip like it’s the wild west. I’d also bet that a lot of the cop shootings that happen here are a result of the cops just assuming everyone is strapped and deciding its better to be safe than sorry, especially since police are rarely prosecuted for shooting suspects. So there’s that.
I know all guns are dangerous, and people are going to get shot, but I’m all for minimizing the casualties. I know there are other ways to help do that (i.e. removing the stigma of mental health help, more extensive background checks, etc) but part of it is making it more difficult to get weapons that are semi-military grade and that make killing large amounts of people in a short amount of time easier. I’M NOT AGAINST GUNS, I’m just against THOSE kinds of guns. We all know gun control in a lot of its present forms doesn’t work, but we really need to take a second look at the issue because things seem to just be getting worse, especially according to that study Wil posted.
But I 110% agree with you RE: American mainstream media. They’re a large part of the hysteria going on over here.
Not gonna lie. Fuckin’ impressed ALL to hell that dude, even drunk, had the ingenuity to snag a raccoon (and THAT shit ain’t easy. They’re pissed off on the best of occasions, and unlike opossums, they WILL back up their threats) to bypass the breathalyzer.
Yeah I forget how he actually managed to nab one, but he managed to do it. Story is legit too, as it was a full on scanned image of the report. Hahaha.
Reminder to the thread that most mass shootings are done with hand guns not “military grade weapons”. I’d source the article but im watchin the new season of american horror story. Dont give fuck all about this.
Actually I was waiting for someone to make this fallacious argument…cars were not designed to kill. Their purpose is far far too beneficial to ban due to the almost non-existent cases of using a car to murder people. What are these purposes of having a gun that outweigh the dangers?
This term “responsible gun owner” is thrown around too often. How do you prove that a gun owner is responsible? Is he simply considered responsible by default until an incident occurs that shows that he is not responsible? This gun owner was considered responsible, until this incident occurred (and now it is too late):