Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   assault rifles (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=78546)

RIJIMMY 07-26-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 950616)
Oops, it's the hall monitor :rotf2:

Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed.

-spence

just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

likwid 07-26-2012 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 950621)
just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

steers & queers.

spence 07-26-2012 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 950621)
just be respectful in discussion, no need to insult or demean people. Im a southerner now, I've let go of my east coast attitude.

You didn't answer my question.

-spence

Slipknot 07-26-2012 05:29 PM

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that


I'm a believer in the right tool for the job

Jim in CT 07-26-2012 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 950599)
It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".

Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here.
A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon.
A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon.

The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode.


Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?"

Ok... let's look at mortality rates and apply that philosophy:
2008 Gun Deaths in America - About 30.4k (18.2 of which were suicides - people that could have killed themselves another way if guns weren't avail)
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pd..._US_2008-a.pdf
2000 - 20004 Mortality rate related to tobacco products - Approximately 443,000 deaths per year
CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use
2001 - 2005 Alcohol Related Deaths - Approximately 75,000 per year
CDC - Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) - Alcohol

So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them."

Who needs alcohol?
Who needs tobacco?

Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage?

Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage?

And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me:

There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons.
Gun Control

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.

I have no issues with handguns or hunting rifles. I'm conflicted on this, I'm not an anti-gun radical. But I have reservations about these specific weapons.

spence 07-26-2012 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 950634)
Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that

Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow. I'd think a hunting rifle or shotgun would work fine...if you're against that many zombies at once you might want to reflect on your lifestyle.

-spence

Pete F. 07-26-2012 06:08 PM

Interestingly enough, the new typical hunting gun more and more looks like an "assault" rifle. Modern rifles with that type of action look like that type of action, they don't look like a lever, bolt, pump or one of the WW2 style automatics. The sporting models shoot well, function well and have some other advantages I am told. To me they don't look like hunting guns but I am not very fashionable and still hunt deer with a 30-30. As for a wacko doing mass killings being a reason to outlaw anything sounds good politically but likely will not achieve the result. There are many ways to do evil things that rational people would not consider. Perhaps we should just medicate everyone and keep them in their spaces to prevent the bad things that occur when they interact. I think that was a novel, later a movie.

Jim in CT 07-26-2012 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 950600)
Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.




This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.


"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy."


I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

"Really? harder?"

Yes. Really. Harder.

"VT proved that to be completely and utterly false."

No. VT proved it's possible to kill many people with handguns. It did nothing to refute my claim that it's easier to kill many people with a rifle.

Likwid, how many Americans troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima with .45 pistols, and how many had rifles? Why do you think that is?

I have never, ever, anywhere, heard anyone deny that rifles provide significant tactical advantages over handguns (unless you are within 18 inches of the person you are fighting). All other things being equal, rifles fire more rounds, and have much longer effective ranges, and the rounds do more damage.

"I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped "

It's not reasonable to assume that the attack could have been prevented altogether. It is absolutely possible that an armed moviegoer or two might have resulted in a lower bodycount. And I've been in a firefight, with smkoe, noise, screaming, confusion. Not everyone is trained like a Marine, but it's certainly possible someone could have stopped this guy before he stopped on his own.

I'm not saying I'd want to see 15 yahoos shooting up the theatre. But if I was in that theater, huddled over my wife, and I had my rosary beads in one pocket and a gun in the other, I'm safer with the gun in my hand, and so is evertyone else in there with me, no?

JackK 07-26-2012 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 950645)
Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow. I'd think a hunting rifle or shotgun would work fine...if you're against that many zombies at once you might want to reflect on your lifestyle.

-spence

/tangent

Yet all of them are too noisy. The best tool by far is the Dead On Annihilator Superhammer. Cost effective, doesn't rely on shady online ammo, and quiet. Won't attract others.

/end tangent

And its always appeared to me that there's much more outrage in this country about tobacco and alcohol... Seems like we're (rightfully) inundated with anti-smoking and drunk driving ads, and I've never seen an anti-gun possession commercial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. 07-26-2012 06:17 PM

Just think how much safer you would have been with an AR-15:rocketem:

PaulS 07-26-2012 06:42 PM

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

Swimmer 07-26-2012 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 950600)
This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.



I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

There is no bravado being flung about by me. Never said I had been in a firefight nor did I allude to being in one. I am curious though how many you have been in LIKWID? I agree completely with JimCT on this.

spence 07-26-2012 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 950606)
What do you consider not very often?

Yes, Guns Kill, but How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? ? The Patriot Post

Seems a bit more frequent than "doesn't appear like it happens very often."

Brilliant analysis. It's certainly thorough, thought provoking and complete.

As an aside, I usually consult Charmin.com when trying to determine how much toilet paper my family really should be using.

-spence

Pete F. 07-26-2012 07:46 PM

Deadliest mass shooting around the world CCTV News - CNTV English
So if you look at the deadliest shooting incidents around the world, It does not seem to me that gun laws or specific weapon bans have much impact.
England, Finland and Norway all have more restrictive laws than much of the USA.

afterhours 07-26-2012 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 950536)
The constitution states that the people should have the right to bear arms for an important reason.. Our founding fathers wanted a small efficient government, and they wanted the masses to have the firepower to stand up to take down the government by force if needed when and if the government became large, out of control and was oppressing the people. I'm all for the ownership of assault weapons... I think every non felon should own one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

xactly...

JohnR 07-26-2012 08:19 PM

I do find it interesting that a country like Switzerland doesn't have these problems and most everyone has an assault rifle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 950539)
This is like some kind of Bizarro world I've wandered into....:huh:

:rotf2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 950634)
Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that


I'm a believer in the right tool for the job

Double :rotf2:

Nebe 07-26-2012 08:26 PM

As I said. Everyone should have one and a side arm. Crime? What crime. Crowded jails that we all have to pay for?? Empty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. 07-26-2012 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 950689)
I do find it interesting that a country like Switzerland doesn't have these problems and most everyone has an assault rifle.



:rotf2:



Double :rotf2:

Mass shooting reveals dark side of Swiss society
Google is a wonderful thing!

likwid 07-26-2012 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 950679)
Deadliest mass shooting around the world CCTV News - CNTV English
So if you look at the deadliest shooting incidents around the world, It does not seem to me that gun laws or specific weapon bans have much impact.
England, Finland and Norway all have more restrictive laws than much of the USA.

No, they don't.

A motivated individual will do what they want despite any threat or laws.

VT shoot proves that
Charles Whitman proves that
This latest incident proves that

likwid 07-26-2012 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swimmer (Post 950668)
There is no bravado being flung about by me. Never said I had been in a firefight nor did I allude to being in one. I am curious though how many you have been in LIKWID? I agree completely with JimCT on this.

None, nor would I want to be, nor do I have this BS belief that some john wayne is going to pop out and save everyone from the evil doer. I live in reality where people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens.

The vietnam vet is right.
A: people freaking the eff out.
B: shooter shooting at pretty much anything that moves
C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

Slipknot 07-26-2012 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 950662)
To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

well seeing what happened to the National Seashore access over the years and the governments' track record on such things, you can guess my answer

detbuch 07-26-2012 10:08 PM

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.

Nebe 07-26-2012 10:59 PM

UN based gun control?? Bwaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch 07-26-2012 11:19 PM

Hmmm . . . What if every Jew in Germany in the 1930's and 40's owned an assault rifle with a whole lot of amunition? And what if they understood what was about to happen to them so refused to surrender their guns? Ah, well, firefights and all . . . you know . . . everbody would be disoriented and wouldn't be able to shoot strait. Just mayhem and they'ld be shooting each other instead of the well trained Nazis who would then be justified and skilled enough to methodically mow them down and elliminate them. Oh, wait, they did do that anyway. Bad idea about them owning guns. That would have been too messy and disorderly. Too bad about what happened to them. Oh, well, as likwid says, people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens. Better that the U.N. should control us. Life will be better that way

The Dad Fisherman 07-27-2012 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 950609)
DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.

Oh I know who the usual Suspects are.....and they were already on "The Watch List" :hihi:

The Dad Fisherman 07-27-2012 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 950645)
Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow.

You haven't seen 28 Days later or Zombieland have you? Today's Zombie is a Fit, Fast and fierce Killing Machine...

Rule#1 Cardio...The fatties were the 1st to go

JohnR 07-27-2012 05:28 AM

Part of the guns was that the citizenry being able to raise a militia in the classical sense, and yes, some reasoning was to be able to overthrow the government if needed. If the government grew too powerful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 950716)
You haven't seen 28 Days later or Zombieland have you? Today's Zombie is a Fit, Fast and fierce Killing Machine...

Rule#1 Cardio...The fatties were the 1st to go

"I don't have to outrun the Zombies, I just have to outrun you."

Sh!t

The Dad Fisherman 07-27-2012 07:06 AM

I found this amusing.....

http://people.cs.vt.edu/wchiang/imag...l%20People.jpg

JohnnyD 07-27-2012 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 950671)
Brilliant analysis. It's certainly thorough, thought provoking and complete.

As an aside, I usually consult Charmin.com when trying to determine how much toilet paper my family really should be using.

-spence

Response 2 of 2 that's merely condescension due to your lack of knowledge. Is it just that you're merely incapable of having a grown-up discussion with someone you disagree with?

RIROCKHOUND 07-27-2012 07:13 AM

So, was anyone on here's life actually lessened during the AW Ban? Did you feel inadequate as a man w/o a machine gun? :-P

Besides, I'm not a great shot... I want a semi-auto Mossberg 12ga during a zombie attack rather than a semi-auto .22 AR-15.... or a cross-bow a la the walking dead.....

and JD, while spence was being a condesending ass, he does have a point regarding the source of the article...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com