Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Common Sense Gun Control

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 16:27:54

AdamB wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:Here is an article on the subject by a non gun owner. He is a better wordsmith then I am.
https://townhall.com/columnists/brucebi ... s-n2466002


Good article.

To be fair, it is an opinion piece, not an "article". But yes, it is a good one. Of course, I'm "biased", as an owner of a handgun for the defense of my home (no CCW, or carting it about, except unloaded, to the firing range).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7224
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 17:47:51

Outcast_Searcher wrote:To be fair, it is an opinion piece, not an "article".

Journalism class was many, many, moons ago, and if there is a difference between an article and an opinion piece I have long sense forgotten it.
Whatever you wish to call it, it speaks for itself and is worth the time to read it.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9816
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 04 Apr 2018, 19:01:29

Looker - "But, for one important reason these more powerful guns should be banned or better controlled." This why I dislike threads like this but like a moth to a flame I let myself get drawn in. It's the wanna be teacher in me. LOL. I doubt any potential nut job is reading our posts. But it still makes me uncomfortable explaining the mechanics of firearms. In particular with respect to ballistic lethality.

But the AR style weapons are NOT particularly powerful. But I’m talking about the original caliber load…the .223. Of course the AR and similar style “assault” rifles now come in a great variety of calibers. And typically the particular caliber used by these maniacs is seldom mentioned. But I would best most go with the cheapest caliber using the cheapest ammo: the .223. Yes, a bullet with the same diameter as a .22 most kids get when young. But a much longer casing which holds a lot more powder and thus propels the bullet much fast. Again, just guessing, but probably most are using the cheapest ammo (FMJ…full metal jacket) because they are insane killers and not real hunters. So now the very uncomfortable part of my story: a .223 FMJ is not a particularly lethal round. Yep: hit in the right spot it will kill you. But there are much better bullet calibers and design specifically designed for much greater lethality. For instance, they’ll hit harder and expand in the body cavity transferring a tremendous amount of energy. A .223 FMJ will typically pass thru a body with no expansion and little energy transfer.

OK, grossed out enough? LOL. But this as far as I‘ll go with details. But you can walk into a Walmart and buy a weapon that no one would say looked like an “assault weapon” for 25% of what even the cheapest AR sells for. And buy a 100 rounds of ammo for it that’s much, much more lethal then any .223 round. I promise you that had any of these maniacs been so armed instead of carrying an “assault weapon” the death count would have been much higher. And even higher if they used a trick the Palestinians were using decades ago. I know you and others have may have no idea what that last statement means. But those that do should keep it to themselves .

So, yes, you missed my point. The typical .223 AR is not a very powerful weapon nor is it designed to be a particularly lethal weapon. Common US rifles used in WWII were much more powerful and lethal. Fortunately these maniacs are going for cooler LOOKING WEAPONS then choosing much more lethal arms. If all that looked like “assault weapons” disappeared tomorrow (an impossibility IMO) the maniacs would then have to switch to much more lethal and efficient weapons.

BTW I understand this subject very well not because I’m an expert at killing my fellow man. But I’m very knowledgably when it comes to killing a similar sized mammal…a deer. I bet if you studied the lives of all these mass murderers you’ll find few if any were serious hunters. If they were they would have left their AR’s at home. But they wouldn’t do that because they need such weapon to complete their sick fantasies. To me the important issue has very little to do with gun control or the STYLE of weapon available to the public. It’s a mental health issue. Much more complicated then what is being debated.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 06:59:34

There are all sorts of people who own AR-15's who do not engage in sick fantasies about them Rockman. You are making implications about the millions of us who do own AR's, that is unwarranted by the facts. The fact is rifles of all kinds, including the AR15 kill less people than fists, knives, and clubs.

As far as lethality goes, the military seems to think AR15-M4 rifles using the 5.56 round are plenty lethal for their intended purpose.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 11:14:17

Cog ole buddy - Please stop wasting space here and pay attention. Everyone else here knows I was talking about the mass murderers and not all AR owners. Feel free to pitch your particular agenda all you want but don't try to tag it onto my posts.

As far as what the military choses to arm its forces with the lethality of the rifle/caliber is obvious not the primary factor. Exactly why marine snipers don't carry AR's loaded with .223. As all us serious hunters know a .308 is much more capable of a "one shot/one kill". And a .308 is a pussy rnd compared to custom monster calibers many snipers feed their long range weapons. For instance from last June:

"A Canadian special forces sniper has broken the world record for the longest confirmed kill shot. The soldier shot an IS militant dead from 3,540 metres, which is just over two miles away, in Iraq last month. The previous record was held by British sniper Craig Harrison, who killed a Taliban fighter in 2009 in Afghanistan from 2,475 metres away (1.5 miles). The Canadian Armed Forces now holds three of the top five positions for longest confirmed kill shots. But how do you kill an enemy soldier from more than two miles away? You have to have the right equipment The unnamed soldier who killed the IS militant used a McMillan TAC-50 sniper rifle."

Yes: that's a .50 caliber (1/2" diameter...more then twice that of a .223) rifle that sells for about 10X the price of a pussified AR15. LOL

The 30.06 and .45 ACP proved their capability during WWII. The .223 FMJ is not a more lethal load and every hunter here knows that. Fortunately most of those mass murderers are not as well educated.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 11:24:05

Military intelligence = oxymoron. :)

Cog I think Rockman makes excellent points. 223 is a lousy deer rifle. Like the vast majority of weapons in this caliber are designed for one primary function purpose and that is to kill PEOPLE. And why the military uses it is because it’s more effective to flood the killing fields with unskilled grunts (spray and pray) than skilled marksmen. What was the shot to kill ratio in WWII vs Vietnam? I think in WWII it was something like 100:1 while in Nam it was 5,000:1. I believe the ratios in more recent conflicts are nearly a magnitude of order worse; approaching 50,000:1.

The .223 is less about killing so much as it is about making a lot of loud noise and keeping their heads down. It’s more about intimidation.

I don’t expect you to agree or that I will change your mind. I’ve come to accept that you have a fetish for these weapons which no logic can challenge. But these are mere side matters. Through these discussions, and in large part to some of your arguments, both I hand my (hard core liberal l) Wife have shifted much more towards your position on gun control.

The two points where I see some potential for agreement are:
Holding gun owners responsible for the possession of their weapons. Far too many guns are trafficked into illegal hands. When the original legal owners are brought to answer they say these guns were “stolen.” Baloney. Owners should be held responsible to report gun theft at the first knowledge and released thefts mean the owner forfeits his right to own guns, he is not a sufficiently person.

Also I would require some sort of practical education in the handling of guns. The course could be roughly modeled after the Hunter Safety education courses run by state agencies. The course would require basic gun ownership responsibilities, an understanding of the law, gun safety, and field demonstration of skills. The instructors would have the right to flunk anyone they feel has poor skills or a poor attitude. If flunked at this first level the student can then appeal to some higher level of review where they have a second opportunity to demonstrate their competence. Maybe different certifications for field gun, hand gun, and “stage” gun/AR type of weapons. THEN gun usage without the appropriate credentials can become a enforceable offense.

Maybe tie to immigration somehow. If a region (say San Fran) wants to control guns in this manner then they have to agree and demonstrate that they are themselves law abiding citizens. They have to start enforcing their local gun laws and cease flaunting federal laws. I fail to see how some group, left or right, can on the one hand refuse to obey the laws and then with a straight face demand new laws and expect them to be enforced.

Im sure these are not perfect ideas but I think they are ideas that both sides could mold into something workable.

All said, I think the level of political discourse in this country would make a second graders blush.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 14:08:02

The Second Amendment doesn't protect your right to hunt deer and ducks. At least my copy of the Constitution doesn't mention them Rockman. I'm quite aware of what type of caliber rifles military snipers use and why they use them. But for the average infantryman from zero to four hundred meters, the AR platform is hard to beat. I would argue that the ballistics and lethality of the 5.56 round is much better than you think Rockman but that is for another thread.

As far as fetishes go Newfile, the AR/M4/M16 rifle platform is one of the best around. Its the most configurable weapon system the US military ever developed. Comes in many different calibers, barrel lengths, attachments for both night vision work and suppressed fire. That is why the US military has stuck with it these 50 some years. And this is also why those of who do understand why the Second Amendment was created want similar armament to those in in the military and law enforcement.

As far as your suggested infringements on the Second Amendment Newfie, which you disguise as training requirements, I've yet to find any such mention in the US Constitution requiring thus. Now if you think the left is going to stop with AR's AK's and other semi-automatics in their attempts to disarm us, you are delusional. What I call the FUDD guns are on that same list they want banned. Your bolt action rifles and pump shotguns scare the left as much as my AR does. You either draw your line in the sand here, or you accept being disarmed by the left with the usual activities which will accompany it. To be clear, I will not be disarmed or be regulated. We are very rapidly approaching a point in this country(with regard to the Second Amendment) where your will have to choose which side of this equation you want to be on.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 14:52:56

Cog,

RE: para 1&2 I agree we disagree.
RE: para 3 you are ascribing many thoughts and opinions to me that I do not hold. I think what you are doing is yelling at the fear that is in your own mind. Calm down a bit.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 15:12:27

Its is not fear to describe what the left is after this time around. They are skipping the usual universal background checks and registration nonsense and going straight to making felons of millions of gun owners by banning entire classes of rifles based on their appearance. None of which will affect gun crimes or mass shootings in the slightest.

Ultimately this about control. Not of guns. That is only a stepping stone. But total control of the individual to serve the state. I've read how this turns out in history and its not pleasant. Think it can't happen here? There are six million dead Jews who would argue with you if they could.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 15:21:14

Cog,
While this may seem a non-sequitur at the moment I think it’s relevant.

Your retired, must have time on you or hands. I would recommend you get a copy of The Covenent by James Michener. In the first place i think you would find much of the book interesting. It discusses the history of the Boers and their many trials among other things. I also think parts of it would challenge you. I find when I’m challenged it helps me clear my head, organize and strengthen my thoughts.

Just an idea.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 15:57:18

Newfie,

You and Rockman remind me of this:

I support the 2nd Amendment But...

I'm a hunter But......

I support the right to bear arms But.............

I own guns But......

Do you see where I'm going with this? I'd rather just have you and Rockman support sending out the police to everyone who owns an AR(or any other scary gun) and arresting them, or simply burning their house down along with their family. I know you won't be volunteering to dirty your hands with that business yourself. Because that is literally what is at stake here. At least the left is completely honest about what they are up to this time. Spare me the fair weather patriot act. That is the first one who will stab you in the back.

You either support the Second Amendment or you don't. You either understand why the civilian population must be armed or you don't. Pick a side.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 16:55:59

No I don’t see where you are going.

Second Admendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does “well regulated” mean? What “regulations” are allowed and what are prohibited? Where is education or proof of competence prohibited? Would you allow felons to possess firearms?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:02:59

Ok let me spell it out for you. You have said you would allow the state to regulate through training or some other mechanism who can own an AR-15. Let's pretend for argument's state I refuse to agree with this regulation.

Are you willing Newfie, for armed men(the state) to come to my house, arrest me, or kill me if I resist this regulation?
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:07:01

I’m as willing to allow that as I am to allow police offices to arrest those who currently illegally carry. In fact I encourage law enforcement to remove illegal weapons from the population.

Do I inrruptut you correctly that owning weapons is an unalterable right and that even convicted felons should be allowed unfettered right to unlimited weapons?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:07:13

Newfie wrote:No I don’t see where you are going.

Second Admendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does “well regulated” mean? What “regulations” are allowed and what are prohibited?


SCOTUS has already dealt with this issue in DC V Heller. There is no need to be part of a militia to bear arms. They ruled there is an individual right to bear arms. But regulated in those days meant trained or in good order, not regulated in the way we understand the modern word. But since SCOTUS has already ruled there is an individual right to bear arms, then there is no training involved here. Do you have to be trained to use the First Amendment or the Fourth or Fifth Amendment? Of course not.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:10:00

Newfie wrote:I’m as willing to allow that as I am to allow police offices to arrest those who currently illegally carry. What is your point?


So you are willing to allow the state to arrest and potentially kill those who do not comply with your state regulations? Well congrats you have picked the side of history that lines people up against a ditch and executes them. Well done Newfie. I'm proud of you for picking a side.

Image
Last edited by Cog on Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:12:34, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:10:20

We have to slow down posting a bit we are crossing over one another and this is becoming silly.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:16:39

Newfie wrote:I’m as willing to allow that as I am to allow police offices to arrest those who currently illegally carry. In fact I encourage law enforcement to remove illegal weapons from the population.

Do I inrruptut you correctly that owning weapons is an unalterable right and that even convicted felons should be allowed unfettered right to unlimited weapons?


Cog,

Please respond to this second para.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13218
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:18:40

Lots of misinformation in recent posts. For example, the "lethal" nature of the AR-15/M-4 type of arms.

The purpose of this weapon is to wound and not to kill. Kill an enemy, they will tag him and come to kill you with vengence and zeal, the last thing you want. Wound him, and his buddies will save him, and perhaps that one bullet has diverted three enemies from completing their mission. That is why we use fully jacketed .223 rounds, because they make terrible gory wounds that are more survivable than the .30-06 rounds of WW2.

What it's all about is stopping the enemies from completing their mission. That is why it is better to incapacitate than to kill.

One does not need to have training? Reflect for one moment what any child learns from watching TV for years on end. What you do when you find a gun, is point it at some other person and pull the trigger, and be a hero. That's what all of them know so very well, until you teach them differently.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Common Sense Gun Control

Unread postby Cog » Thu 05 Apr 2018, 17:29:27

Newfie wrote:
Newfie wrote:I’m as willing to allow that as I am to allow police offices to arrest those who currently illegally carry. In fact I encourage law enforcement to remove illegal weapons from the population.

Do I inrruptut you correctly that owning weapons is an unalterable right and that even convicted felons should be allowed unfettered right to unlimited weapons?


Cog,

Please respond to this second para.


The US Constitution makes no reference to the ability of those convicted of felonies to bear arms or to vote. Those are statutes that passed after the fact. But lets consider this. Does a convicted felon upon release and parole still have the right to free speech, to not be compelled to testify against himself, to be free from illegal searches by the state? The Second Amendment should be the same. You are either in prison or you are not. If you are not, your full rights as a citizen should be restored.

But you are ducking the issue Newfie. I am not a felon. But lets say the state of Illinois or the federal government passes legislation that says AR's are illegal and the possession of such a felony. Let's say I do not comply with the state in turning them in or destroying them. Are you willing for the state to come arrest me or kill me to comply with this law? Do you want the police to kill me for not complying with the law? Its a very simple question Newfie.
Last edited by Cog on Thu 05 Apr 2018, 18:41:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests