Non Footy Chat Thread II

[JohnStoppafarty]

This gun is perfectly legal here in Aus. Start Vid at 1:10 so see rate of fire. It uses the same round as an AR15. Anyone half proficient with this rifle could do the same damage an AR could do.
If the U.S. adopted gun laws like ours, these rifles would presumably be widely available as they are here and probably the mad mans gun of choice. IT's not the laws that cause the shit that goes on in the U.S.. It's the culture. You can't change that overnight.

 

[Happy MEel]

This gun is perfectly legal here in Aus. Start Vid at 1:10 so see rate of fire. It uses the same round as an AR15. Anyone half proficient with this rifle could do the same damage an AR could do.
If the U.S. adopted gun laws like ours, these rifles would presumably be widely available as they are here and probably the mad mans gun of choice. IT's not the laws that cause the shit that goes on in the U.S.. It's the culture. You can't change that overnight.

However gun control is the first step to changing that culture.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

I disagree. I think everyone should be allowed to open carry. Even here in Aus. God didn't make all men equal , Samuel Colt did.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If you’re fearing for your life why would you not adopt a military mindset?

As for its ability to ‘blow holes in people’, it’s only a 5.56mm round. Plenty of revolvers have a larger caliber. The reason assault rifles are suitable for self defence is the same reason they are suitable for murder - high rate of fire and effective range. This is why modern soldiers carry them in counterinsurgrncy operations - for self defence during ‘armed social work’. If you actually want to take out the enemy (assuming you can find them) you bring something much bigger than an assault rifle (referred to as ‘small arms’ despite soft urbanites being terrified of them). You bring heavy machine guns and rockets, preferably mounted on helicopters or fast air platforms.

I must say that there's a fair bit of input here from people who (or so it seems to me) have absolutely no experience with firearms.

Pou's statement above is pretty fair, however. The AR-15 is a small calibre rifle (I have a .22, but I've also got a .270 which puts that to shame) and it's perfectly legal for me to own a sidearm (pistol) that does significantly more damage.

Theoretically (because I would never, ever do this), with what I can legally own here in Australia, I could take two handguns and my .270 and clean up any densely populated area (school, Westfields etc.).

There are a whole bunch of problems in the US outside of the actual firearms. How many of the shooters are part of the pharmaceutical culture of the US, and how is this affecting them? You need to go to a deep, dark place for a long period of time before you carry out something like a school shooting, so why isn't mental health the primary concern?

America has had bucketloads of guns since forever, so why have the mass shootings only happened over the last 30 years, since the pharma industry took off? Sure, the firearms available now are more developed than in the past, but like I said above you can achieve a pretty sick result with what we can legally own here in Australia.

Having said all of that, I can't argue against Australia's system. I need a police check, and the police can come into my house basically whenever they want. Each firearm needs to be registered and stored correctly at all times. I treat this system with respect and it works for me.

On the flip side, my country wasn't founded on an armed uprising against the government, so I guess I don't have that in my blood.

 

[Bazal]

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a bunch of links showing how owning an AR15 has saved lives.

BTW using the "it's in the hallway cupboard and I have never been attacked so it must work" line is piss weak. I could buy a crystal that warns off evil merkins too. Same spin.

 

[Bazal]

I must say that there's a fair bit of input here from people who (or so it seems to me) have absolutely no experience with firearms.

Pou's statement above is pretty fair, however. The AR-15 is a small calibre rifle (I have a .22, but I've also got a .270 which puts that to shame) and it's perfectly legal for me to own a sidearm (pistol) that does significantly more damage.

Theoretically (because I would never, ever do this), with what I can legally own here in Australia, I could take two handguns and my .270 and clean up any densely populated area (school, Westfields etc.).

There are a whole bunch of problems in the US outside of the actual firearms. How many of the shooters are part of the pharmaceutical culture of the US, and how is this affecting them? You need to go to a deep, dark place for a long period of time before you carry out something like a school shooting, so why isn't mental health the primary concern?

America has had bucketloads of guns since forever, so why have the mass shootings only happened over the last 30 years, since the pharma industry took off? Sure, the firearms available now are more developed than in the past, but like I said above you can achieve a pretty sick result with what we can legally own here in Australia.

Having said all of that, I can't argue against Australia's system. I need a police check, and the police can come into my house basically whenever they want. Each firearm needs to be registered and stored correctly at all times. I treat this system with respect and it works for me.

On the flip side, my country wasn't founded on an armed uprising against the government, so I guess I don't have that in my blood.

For me the calibre isn't the issue. It's the fire rate and such that makes an AR-15 (as an example) so ridiculous for public ownership. There is no possible reason to own one apart from being a psycho or having a very small weiner.

You can, obviously, still kill merkins with a .22 or a .303, which my family own. But it's quite difficult to do in seventeen people with a bolt action 22. That's the point for me.

The US clearly has an issue with guns, and I don't just mean in a gun control sense. Sadly I don't think banning certain classes of guns is the answer to stopping mass shootings, I push it because I think it will mean less deaths when they happen. There is a massive problem over there that goes beyond gun ownership and maybe it's a bandaid, but if it means old mate Johnny Loner only takes out four people when he snaps instead of of twenty four then it's better than nothing

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Oh please, they say that they need them in their home for self defence. So unless they have upset their drug dealer, then most occasions would be random break and enters or home invasions.

They would indeed be home invasions - the absolute worst case scenario in the minds of many.

Remember this quote ?



I'm still waiting for you to come up with a bunch of links showing how owning an AR15 has saved lives.

If you're going to call somebody's bluff on online evidence at least check to make sure there isn't any:

You'll note CNN didn't have anything to say about this one: https://gundigest.com/article/florida-home-invasion-thwarted-by-gun-owner

However they did attempt to spin this one into an anti-gun sermon: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

The greatest benefit of guns to self defence is presenting a credible threat; you can protect yourself without ever having to fire a shot.

This merkin in Australia did exactly that (protecting himself with an unloaded weapon) but fell afoul of our nanny state: http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/...ing-himself-with-gun-to-thwart-home-invasion/

BTW using the "it's in the hallway cupboard and I have never been attacked so it must work" line is piss weak. I could buy a crystal that warns off evil merkins too. Same spin.

It's more the general gun culture in rural USA that gives bandits pause before rolling up on isolated farmhouses like Stephen Hawking. If they knew the inhabitants were probably unarmed the place would become a much more attractive target.

Anyway, you got your links so you can stop waiting. But really, if you wanted to think of yourself as being informed on the topic you could have found them yourself.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Nice. Polly wanted a few crackers and you delivered.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If you threw it at the tiger and saw it bolt you would have established a causal link, you smug, ill-considered merkin.

 

[Bazal]

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No I get the joke. I'm a very humorous person.

But there was an attempt to make a point, as there always is in evaluating the effectiveness of a deterrent. How much was the non-occurrence of the undesired incident due to the deterrent and how much was down to any other factor, including luck? It's a fair question, but in this case it is easy to see the link between brandishing a weapon and achieving your desired end-state in a dispute. It's the same reason armed criminals are able to successfully commit robbery or rape without having to fire a shot.

Gun owners might well be "nearly three times more likely to be a victim of homicide and nearly five times more likely to commit suicide", but they are also undoubtedly a billion times more likely to be able to convince a scumbag to get the f**k off their property than someone without a gun.

 

[Gronk]

They would indeed be home invasions - the absolute worst case scenario in the minds of many.

If you're going to call somebody's bluff on online evidence at least check to make sure there isn't any:

You'll note CNN didn't have anything to say about this one: https://gundigest.com/article/florida-home-invasion-thwarted-by-gun-owner

However they did attempt to spin this one into an anti-gun sermon: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

The greatest benefit of guns to self defence is presenting a credible threat; you can protect yourself without ever having to fire a shot.

This merkin in Australia did exactly that (protecting himself with an unloaded weapon) but fell afoul of our nanny state: http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/...ing-himself-with-gun-to-thwart-home-invasion/

It's more the general gun culture in rural USA that gives bandits pause before rolling up on isolated farmhouses like Stephen Hawking. If they knew the inhabitants were probably unarmed the place would become a much more attractive target.

Anyway, you got your links so you can stop waiting. But really, if you wanted to think of yourself as being informed on the topic you could have found them yourself.

You've lost focus merkin. Here is is again.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a bunch of links showing how owning an AR15 has saved lives.

I'll rephrase it for you: Links about how AR15s were used in self defence, hence somehow justifying their domestic need. We were talking about gun reform and how owning a semi automatic killing machine is (in many peoples opinion) unjustified.

I'll wait.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don’t think a semi-automatic rifle is necessary for self defence other than in extreme cases e.g. outnumbered by undeterred (psychotic perhaps?) attackers or threatened by someone else with a similar weapon.

In the majority of cases, brandishing an unloaded pistol will do the trick. But you surely understand that risk mitigation doesn’t just encompass the most likely situation, but the worst-case scenario as well.

This is why merkins are carrying on about school shootings. Given the number of guns and bullied psychopaths in American high schools, these incidents are extremely rare. However, gun reform proponents understandably want the possibility of these worst case scenarios eliminated.

Can you also see that for some people, being insufficiently protected in their own home might instead be the worst case scenario? Plenty of people think there are worse things than being killed by a bullet.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

An AR is a sweet lil gun for culling or medium range hunting, just having a blast at targets or self defence . I'd personally prefer an AK.
Should maniacs with homicidal tendencies be allowed to have one?Absolutely not.
Should mentally sound law abiding gun owners(despite the size of their penis) be allowed? Absolutely!

 

[Gronk]

I don’t think a semi-automatic rifle is necessary for self defence other than in extreme cases e.g. outnumbered by undeterred (psychotic perhaps?) attackers or threatened by someone else with a similar weapon.

In the majority of cases, brandishing an unloaded pistol will do the trick. But you surely understand that risk mitigation doesn’t just encompass the most likely situation, but the worst-case scenario as well.

This is why merkins are carrying on about school shootings. Given the number of guns and bullied psychopaths in American high schools, these incidents are extremely rare. However, gun reform proponents understandably want the possibility of these worst case scenarios eliminated.

Can you also see that for some people, being insufficiently protected in their own home might instead be the worst case scenario? Plenty of people think there are worse things than being killed by a bullet.

There are 3 million AR15s in the USA.

I am glad we agree that they have no place in society.

#neveragain

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don’t agree they have no place in society. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be three million of them.

 

[Bazal]

I don’t agree they have no place in society. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be three million of them.

Peak Pou.

If it's in society there must be a place for it. Filed away for the next time you argue something social lol

 

[Gronk]

I don’t agree they have no place in society. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be three million of them.

Obfuscation much ?

Are you in favour of gun reforms which would lead to weapons like the AR15 being removed from domestic households in the USA ? Y/N ?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Peak Pou.

If it's in society there must be a place for it. Filed away for the next time you argue something social lol

When have I ever said there is no place for anything in society? I even voted for SSM despite disagreeing with it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Obfuscation much ?

Are you in favour of gun reforms which would lead to weapons like the AR15 being removed from domestic households in the USA ? Y/N ?

I think they should be more difficult to buy, but not banned outright. Responsible people should have them if they want them.