Just about everyone I know uses a semi-auto shotgun...
[News] Several killed in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Really? I live in a very heavy hunting area, and just about every shotgun is pump action.
That's just too much work.
Could just be regional preferences. We hunt grouse around here in heavy brush. They're really fast, and you're in heavy cover, so you only have a few seconds to shoot. So without a semi-auto you'll rarely get more than one shot off even if you get a group of 2 or 3 up.
Although when we go pheasant hunting most carry just a double barrel single shot shotgun. So, it probably has a lot to do with what and where you hunt.
Ah, could be. Here it's mostly deer hunting.
I don't hunt myself, but I own a pump action because I do live in a rural, wooded area, and there have been bears in my yard, and sometimes wild dogs or boar.
That you associate those types of guns with all semi-automatic weapons shows how little you know about it. I'm not a fan of those either, and they are not anything close to the majority of semi-auto rifles. They do function basically the same though, which is the problem with assault weapon bans. There's no easy way to define them.I guess I'm thinking of something more like
being the issue.
Nevermind I specifically excluded shotguns in my statement above.
Gasp you mean having trained security can be a protection against crime? Gosh that is just utterly unexpected.
It is also an utterly feasible solution in all cases.
No, I don't. But I like how you're changing the subject.
How am I changing the subject? What would you like to talk about? How everyone who uses a semi-auto is lazy?
That was a joke. Humor, son.How am I changing the subject? What would you like to talk about? How everyone who uses a semi-auto is lazy?
Well, there's that guy in Oregan that stopped a mall shooter
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Or the Principal at Pearl High School in 1997 that stopped a school shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
That's off the top of my head
edit: Or http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112
or http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4...L1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx#.UA3BQ5iNMfH.facebook
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting\
or http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out-10236.html
I like those stories. Mostly cause neither one has the person firing a shot.
Do I have an easy answer? Not on your fargin' life. But I offer this alternative to banning guns or trying to define "assault weapons"...
Regulate the ever living fuck out of the ammunition. Make it as difficult as possible for your average thug to acquire, without making it impossible. Same goes for equipment for self-loaders. Everything you purchase from here on out is already registered with the gov't, and WILL be traced back to you of something bad is done with it.
Now let the hair-splitting on what counts as "ammo" begin.
Regulate the ever living fuck out of the ammunition. Make it as difficult as possible for your average thug to acquire, without making it impossible. Same goes for equipment for self-loaders. Everything you purchase from here on out is already registered with the gov't, and WILL be traced back to you of something bad is done with it.
Now let the hair-splitting on what counts as "ammo" begin.
Does this mean ball bearings are going to be really hard to get, because I can fire them from my musket?Do I have an easy answer? Not on your fargin' life. But I offer this alternative to banning guns or trying to define "assault weapons"...
Regulate the ever living fuck out of the ammunition. Make it as difficult as possible for your average thug to acquire, without making it impossible. Same goes for equipment for self-loaders. Everything you purchase from here on out is already registered with the gov't, and WILL be traced back to you of something bad is done with it.
Now let the hair-splitting on what counts as "ammo" begin.
It still strikes me as funny that, for the most part, people defending the 2nd amendment are the same who defend heavy Defense spending.
If fighting the government is why you need guns, stop giving the government bigger guns. It'd make more sense of you had one side of politics saying you need a big army for safety against threats, and one side saying you need to have free gun ownership to protect from that. instead, you have one side saying the government needs bigger guns to protect the people, and the people need bigger guns to protect them from the government. It's ridiculous and only good for the gun manufacturers.
"Gun" used as a general term for weapons. Blegh.
Look, all of the mass stabbings and such aside, a world where guns are rare and only possessed by a small group of heavily-vetted, trained people who are responsible and trustworthy enough would be a safer place for the general population than one where most everyone who wants to can have a fire-arm. Obviously this would not stop crime, nor would it prevent organized/determined criminals from getting a gun. As Europe shows, though, the same type of crimes tend to be less violent, there are less wounded and dead due to crime (not just "violent crime" because those numbers are pretty meaningless to compare), there are less lethal accidents. On the other side, it's impossible to suddenly change the US into a culture like Western Europe - a prohibition or the like would be senseless, since guns are so widespread that, indeed, criminals would still easily have them, which would unbalance the scales.
That doesn't mean that tighter control wouldn't help in cutting down. Most crimes remain crimes of opportunity. Locking your car won't stop car burglary, but it'll seriously reduce risks. Keeping (legal) guns out of the hands of depressed or unstable teenagers, violent criminals, the disgruntled and irresponsible ones, drug abusers and so on would help. Keeping closer tab on those who DO own guns and forcing them to practice safe handling, safe storage, obligatory repeated handling/firing tests,... would mean better control and thus, easier tracking of guns and more responsible ownership.
If fighting the government is why you need guns, stop giving the government bigger guns. It'd make more sense of you had one side of politics saying you need a big army for safety against threats, and one side saying you need to have free gun ownership to protect from that. instead, you have one side saying the government needs bigger guns to protect the people, and the people need bigger guns to protect them from the government. It's ridiculous and only good for the gun manufacturers.
"Gun" used as a general term for weapons. Blegh.
Look, all of the mass stabbings and such aside, a world where guns are rare and only possessed by a small group of heavily-vetted, trained people who are responsible and trustworthy enough would be a safer place for the general population than one where most everyone who wants to can have a fire-arm. Obviously this would not stop crime, nor would it prevent organized/determined criminals from getting a gun. As Europe shows, though, the same type of crimes tend to be less violent, there are less wounded and dead due to crime (not just "violent crime" because those numbers are pretty meaningless to compare), there are less lethal accidents. On the other side, it's impossible to suddenly change the US into a culture like Western Europe - a prohibition or the like would be senseless, since guns are so widespread that, indeed, criminals would still easily have them, which would unbalance the scales.
That doesn't mean that tighter control wouldn't help in cutting down. Most crimes remain crimes of opportunity. Locking your car won't stop car burglary, but it'll seriously reduce risks. Keeping (legal) guns out of the hands of depressed or unstable teenagers, violent criminals, the disgruntled and irresponsible ones, drug abusers and so on would help. Keeping closer tab on those who DO own guns and forcing them to practice safe handling, safe storage, obligatory repeated handling/firing tests,... would mean better control and thus, easier tracking of guns and more responsible ownership.
I don't really see a contradiction in their line of thought, as far as I understand their reasoning. A military exists primarily for the purposes of defence against external threats. An armed and vigilant populace is needed as a final check against the power of the armed forces (and paramilitary/law enforcement/any other government controlled agencies) being turned against the citizenry in a power bid by a ruthless leader. The intended purposes of the two are very different, as the military is not meant to fight against it's own citizenry, and an armed populace can't be used effectively in furthering national interests abroad. Hamstringing the military for the benefit of domestic security leaves the country less capable of dealing with outside contingencies. But if one wants the greater external security that a strong military provides, then, or so I understand the thought goes, one should also reinforce the safeguards, just in case.
One wants to watch the watchmen, but a superpower wanting global reach kind of needs the watchmen to be effective, too.
I do kind of agree with the effect. As something of an extreme, living under The Leviathan might have drawbacks according to some schools of thought, but it would very likely be a safer and more stable condition than one where every Tom Dick and Harry had chemical weapons shells for their MBT.
GasBandit
Staff member
We "almost oust" a president for a blow job (we didn't, the political class did amongst themselves), yet we barely even raise our voices above a mutter when another president starts forming a hit list with american citizens on it. Yes, it's entirely feasible that a dictator could come to power in the US given the right economic and political situations under a declared state of emergency, but even that isn't necessary. Even 250 years ago, there was saying that a number of people had about whether or not it was preferable to cast out 1 tyrant 1000 miles away in exchange for 1000 tyrants 1 mile away.
And you can't hold a town if you never get out of your tank, and tanks aren't absolutely impregnable to infantry. As I said earlier - if tanks were such a trump card, we wouldn't be having the trouble we've had in pacifying scruffy herdsmen in Afghanistan and Iraq with Kalashnikovs this last decade, now would we? Why didn't the first Abrams to come along put an end to that?
I'm not saying an uprising would push all the way to washington and topple the capital dome, I'm saying they could make occupation costly and sap the will of the oppressors. Without firearms, there's nothing but blades of grass to be mown down.
In Afghanistan, it's because those "scruffy herdsmen" are armed with RPGs, IEDS, conventional explosives, and military-grade equipment that "happened" to find their way from caches of the warlords we backed when we deposed the Taliban, and are intimately familiar with guerrilla warfare after having done nothing but for the past 30-40 years while being trained at various points in time by us, the Soviets, Iran, Iraq, and Al-Qaeda.
The presence of firearms doesn't really stop the occupiers from "mowing the grass" if that's really what they want to do. That's why the herdsmen use planted explosives.
GasBandit
Staff member
It would doubtless involve that too, but it'd still be a lot harder to accomplish without being armed conventionally - it'd be a pretty big stretch to argue otherwise, to put it extremely kindly. I'm just glad we can arm ourselves, instead of having to wait for another state to arm us.
It will always be a lot harder to accomplish without any one key thing. You've said nothing to demonstrate that firearms are the reason for our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to the exclusion of explosives, intelligence, experience, and surreptitious support from a local military power with superior logistical lines, but you've continuously contended that firearms, in a modern world against a modern standing army, are the absolute must-have key to defending against the tyranny of the government controlling that army, and that's why we need freely acquirable guns.
And I'm saying that's a nice idea in theory, but it's a grossly outdated one.
You do realize I'm not Charlie, right? I'm not calling for a ban.
GasBandit
Staff member
Didn't mean to accuse you of it, I was expressing an honest thought.
Obviously it's not firearms alone in the middle east - but that example was to show that tanks are not an instant win condition against a populace without tanks, in response to the "there's no point, you can't beat tanks and nukes" argument that others keep throwing at me. Yes, military grade firearms alone aren't enough, but they are part of what makes it possible, and without them pretty much everything else is elementary. And I'd just like to reiterate, it doesn't have to be enough to guarantee victory (it'd be silly for us to work things so that our civilian population could overpower our military at will), it merely must be enough to give that much more pause to those who might otherwise govern so very far against the will of the governed.
That's all very well, but it's predicated on the idea that an actual tyrannical government 1) will act rationally and 2) is genuinely tyrannical. Right now, in this country "tyranny" seems to be defined as "won a democratically-decided election and disagrees with me".
GasBandit
Staff member
I sure didn't define it that way. The people who do are just as wrong as people who think the second amendment is so they can go hunting.
And since GB has flatly refused to take part in the process to try to fix anything, it's "everyone else".
GasBandit
Staff member
I vote my true conscience. That's a more sincere effort than most.
No surprise that Senator Manchin is already walking back his comments from Monday. Most journalists from WV could see that coming as soon as the story broke Monday. Dude's a puppet of the lobbyists. Guy would piss on the graves of his own family if it would earn points with the big donors.
Well, it is in the political forum.
- Status