#Login Register


  • 11 Vote(s) - 3.18 Average
Home 


Snowflake Fires a Gun! PTSD Ensues! LMAO!
06-21-2016, 09:10 PM #16
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,733 Threads:641 Joined:Feb 2011
(06-21-2016, 08:43 PM)Coolchick Wrote:  well it would get rid of the mass shootings that ppl can now just walk in and do, for one thing. how is that a bad thing?

if there were no gun laws, ppl would not just suddenly 'behave'. no way. ppl would be using guns for immediate solutions to road rage and jealousy and everything else.

lol if ppl could, they would be blowing away anyone who pissed them off!

and sure ppl have always been killing each other but a gun is an immediate threat as opposed to say a spear or something.. you dont have to engage anyone up close or anything with a gun.

Ever watch a movie and commented that it seemed like nobody in the entire movie could shoot straight? Well it's pretty accurate. I have shot thousands of rounds through a handgun. I can tell you it isn't nearly as easy as it would seem. 99% of gun owners could barely hit a target at 25 yards. Forget trying to hit a moving person. Any hits would be pure luck. They pretty do have to be right on top of each other.

I'm very much in favor of the 2nd Amendment. When you disarm a people, tyranny is soon to follow. That said, I am also in favor of better background checks, education and training. The problem is that this subject, like many others, is always presented as extremes. Total ban or total freedom. It turns out that nature prefers, and runs best on, moderation.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
06-21-2016, 09:18 PM #17
Coolchick Member
Posts:5,205 Threads:118 Joined:Mar 2013
well yes exactly.
and since moderation is not in play with the issue much.. well.. i guess i would prefer to err or the side of caution.

if they ever do add the moderation thing, great.

but not so far and.. they do seem to manage to hit quite a few ppl over the years, dont they..?

Just Plain Nuts.
06-21-2016, 09:26 PM #18
US nli Incognito Anonymous
 
(06-21-2016, 09:10 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(06-21-2016, 08:43 PM)Coolchick Wrote:  well it would get rid of the mass shootings that ppl can now just walk in and do, for one thing. how is that a bad thing?

if there were no gun laws, ppl would not just suddenly 'behave'. no way. ppl would be using guns for immediate solutions to road rage and jealousy and everything else.

lol if ppl could, they would be blowing away anyone who pissed them off!

and sure ppl have always been killing each other but a gun is an immediate threat as opposed to say a spear or something.. you dont have to engage anyone up close or anything with a gun.

Ever watch a movie and commented that it seemed like nobody in the entire movie could shoot straight? Well it's pretty accurate. I have shot thousands of rounds through a handgun. I can tell you it isn't nearly as easy as it would seem. 99% of gun owners could barely hit a target at 25 yards. Forget trying to hit a moving person. Any hits would be pure luck. They pretty do have to be right on top of each other.

I'm very much in favor of the 2nd Amendment. When you disarm a people, tyranny is soon to follow. That said, I am also in favor of better background checks, education and training. The problem is that this subject, like many others, is always presented as extremes. Total ban or total freedom. It turns out that nature prefers, and runs best on, moderation.

With an automatic assault-type weapon you don't need to know how to shoot straight, just point and fan out. There is no need for assault-type weapons, IMO.
06-21-2016, 10:02 PM #19
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,343 Threads:1,438 Joined:Feb 2011
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

There, that was easy. Now we all know exactly what to ban, right?

wonder.gif
06-21-2016, 10:31 PM #20
Coolchick Member
Posts:5,205 Threads:118 Joined:Mar 2013
yeh. guns.
lol!

Just Plain Nuts.
06-22-2016, 12:36 AM #21
White Ribbon call me
Posts:9,779 Threads:371 Joined:Apr 2013
(06-21-2016, 09:18 PM)Coolchick Wrote:  well yes exactly.
and since moderation is not in play with the issue much.. well.. i guess i would prefer to err or the side of caution.

if they ever do add the moderation thing, great.

but not so far and.. they do seem to manage to hit quite a few ppl over the years, dont they..?

Dont waste your time trying to make sense of it, they love guns, no one can tell them otherwise, it's written in their laws, it's never going to change, accept it is just one of the cultural differences of a foreign country.. Let them have all the guns they want..

yup.gif
06-22-2016, 12:38 AM #22
Coolchick Member
Posts:5,205 Threads:118 Joined:Mar 2013
(06-22-2016, 12:36 AM)the white wabbit Wrote:  
(06-21-2016, 09:18 PM)Coolchick Wrote:  well yes exactly.
and since moderation is not in play with the issue much.. well.. i guess i would prefer to err or the side of caution.

if they ever do add the moderation thing, great.

but not so far and.. they do seem to manage to hit quite a few ppl over the years, dont they..?

Dont waste your time trying to make sense of it, they love guns, no one can tell them otherwise, it's written in their laws, it's never going to change, accept it is just one of the cultural differences of a foreign country.. Let them have all the guns they want..

yup.gif

no worries lol

i know that. im not tryin to change anyone's mind. ppl will do, what ppl will do.
just commenting on foolishness is all.

lol.

Just Plain Nuts.
06-22-2016, 01:52 AM #23
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,980 Threads:425 Joined:Jun 2012
06-22-2016, 02:58 AM #24
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,733 Threads:641 Joined:Feb 2011
(06-21-2016, 10:02 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

There, that was easy. Now we all know exactly what to ban, right?

You also are required to have a Federal firearms dealers license to have a full auto and those are EXTREMELY hard to get.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
06-22-2016, 03:08 AM #25
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,733 Threads:641 Joined:Feb 2011
(06-22-2016, 01:52 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Selective fire weapon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAn_KdciO00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire

I guess I should have watched this before I made my last post about the Fed license. That is what the guy was referring to. Not only is it a lot of paperwork and a long wait, but they are picky about who gets them.

Also note, the M-16 he was firing was not full auto either. It was burst fire which is about all you would want to do any way. Full auto can be too damn hard to control.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
06-22-2016, 03:30 PM #26
US nli Incognito Anonymous
 
@ Kreeper - the point is if they are defining an assault weapon as having selective fire (not specifically defined as to what type of selective fire), then that makes the AR-15 an assault-type firearm.
06-23-2016, 12:26 AM #27
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,733 Threads:641 Joined:Feb 2011
Selective fire is irrelevant.

It fires one bullet at a time. Period. It is no different than a shotgun, a revolver, a .22 or even an air rifle for that matter. You are being misled by the term "assault weapon". There is no such thing. The term was invented by anti gun groups back in the mid 80's to confuse and scare people. ( The focus then, and today, was the AR-15, which has been sold in America since 1963, because it looks like a machine gun which makes it easy to confuse people.) It was derived from the term "assault rifle" which is interchangeable with "machine gun".

A machine gun is fully automatic. A ban was placed on the sale of new machine guns to American citizens with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1993. Because "assault weapon" was invented solely to scare people it has no set definition. What is used to lump semi-automatic guns in with machine guns is their appearance. Nothing more. In fact, there has already been a total ban on "assault weapons" They were banned between 1994 and 2004. The ban was enacted with a time limit. After it expired it was not renewed because the ban had zero effect on crime. You see, when the law was initially enacted less than 2% of crimes were committed using "assault weapons".

Why ban them at all? Because it was easy to scare people with the comparison with machine guns (which had already been banned) and it was a step in the direction of total gun bans.

In short, you were fed a lie.

I grew up around guns. Everyone I knew had guns. Many guns. Kids even had high powered rifles and shotguns in gun racks in their trucks while they were at school. To my knowledge I have never known anyone that was killed by a gun. The difference? Culture.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
06-23-2016, 04:23 PM #28
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,980 Threads:425 Joined:Jun 2012
With that explanation, I have to agree with you.
06-23-2016, 04:45 PM #29
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,343 Threads:1,438 Joined:Feb 2011
(06-23-2016, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  With that explanation, I have to agree with you.

yup.gif These shooting incidents have exploded exponentially with the use of SSRI's.
Its an inconvenient truth.

wonder.gif
06-23-2016, 04:47 PM #30
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,980 Threads:425 Joined:Jun 2012
(06-23-2016, 04:45 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(06-23-2016, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  With that explanation, I have to agree with you.

yup.gif These shooting incidents have exploded exponentially with the use of SSRI's.
Its an inconvenient truth.

I don't know if that is it, or that they are NOT taking their meds.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com