Rolling Stone Calls For Repeal Of Second Amendement

Status
Not open for further replies.
seb said:
I have no problem with pistols, rifles and shotguns period! All the others, yes, I have a problem with them.

Yes, earmuffs and ear plugs have come a long way since I was 10. Back then the best you could do was about 29 dB and those were the muffs worn by people working at airports. A dB rating of 29 does not translate into a noise reduction of 29 dB but ruffly about half of it, so if your exposed to 100 dB of sound and are wearing the 29 dB muffs you are still being exposed to about about 88 dB of sound depending on how well they fit. If you use ear plugs with a rating of 18dB and ear muffs with 29 you won't see a reduction of 47dB but only about 16 or 17 dB, so if your shooting a gun that produces a sound of 165 dB, you are going to receive a damaging sound level of about 148 dB, so over time if you have any hearing left, your going to lose it. Noise canceling muffs do a great job for canceling constant noise, but don't work to well on noise that is intermittent such as the noise that comes from shooting firearms.
Click to expand...


Well, since YOU have a problem with all of those other firearms then YOU don't have to buy one. Simple.

Same thing goes for banjos - if you don't like banjos, don't buy one.
 
seb said:
As I said, I would have no problem if gun ranges had assault weapons that you could go and shoot to your hearts content, but yes, I have a problem with people owning them. I know most people are responsible gun owners, but unfortunately, there are those that aren't, such as Mr. Mateen in FL., Mr. Oh at Virginia Tech, Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, James Huberty in San Ysidro, and the list goes on and on. Until they can figure out a way to protect us from those type of killers, the best method of curbing them is a ban. I know people on here are going to say they will go to other methods to kill their victims such as explosives. Even with those the number killed would more than likely be less than those carried out with assault weapons. The Boston Marathon bombing took three lives and wounded 264.
Click to expand...

Actually ... Gun bans have never ever worked in The whole history of ever. Brazil's gun violence rate is higher than the US and they have banned guns. You might think I am making all this up, but it is actually true. A gun ban does not keep guns away from criminals.
 
seb said:
As I said, I would have no problem if gun ranges had assault weapons that you could go and shoot to your hearts content, but yes, I have a problem with people owning them. I know most people are responsible gun owners, but unfortunately, there are those that aren't, such as Mr. Mateen in FL., Mr. Oh at Virginia Tech, Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, James Huberty in San Ysidro, and the list goes on and on. Until they can figure out a way to protect us from those type of killers, the best method of curbing them is a ban. I know people on here are going to say they will go to other methods to kill their victims such as explosives. Even with those the number killed would more than likely be less than those carried out with assault weapons. The Boston Marathon bombing took three lives and wounded 264.
Click to expand...

We had federal assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004, but it didn't prevent the Columbine shooting that happened in 1999.
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, since YOU have a problem with all of those other firearms then YOU don't have to buy one. Simple.

Same thing goes for banjos - if you don't like banjos, don't buy one.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the only problem is the people we don't want to own firearms are buying them and killing innocent people, lets not even mention all the other shootings: where I live their have been 26 people gunned down this year, Chicago is off the charts with gun violence.
 
Foxrac said:
We had federal assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004, but it didn't prevent the Columbine shooting that happened in 1999.
Click to expand...
That one was watered down because you got the lobbyist and politicians involve, kinda like the ACA.
 
seb said:
That one was watered down because you got the lobbyist and politicians involve, kinda like the ACA.
Click to expand...

It won't make any difference. The "assault weapon" is just nonsense.

AR-15 is rifle like M16.
 
seb said:
Absolutely, the only problem is the people we don't want to own firearms are buying them and killing innocent people, lets not even mention all the other shootings: where I live their have been 26 people gunned down this year, Chicago is off the charts with gun violence.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know about Chicago. I understand how you feel about wanting all this craziness to stop. It seems to be getting worse and worse.

Let me explain my thoughts on this, and then perhaps after you understand my position, maybe you can appreciate why I feel the way I do. I am not asking you to whole heartedly agree - I am aware everyone has a unique and differing opinion on different subjects, especially when it concerns safety issues for ourselves and our families, friends and neighbors.

If you have paid attention to where these mass shootings have occurred, they are taking place in gun free safety zones. The results are always a high number of casualties. You may be under the impression that the reason for this high number is because the gun being used is amazingly powerful and shoots many, many bullets really really fast. You may blame the so called "assault rifles" for their ability to do this. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that is chambered for either a .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO round. These are not powerful rounds, and if used for hunting, it is for small game animals at close range. The AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16, and is not fully automatic. What that means is that one trigger pull equals one shot being fired. The same is true of a revolver, or a semi-automatic pistol. The .40 caliber round does far MORE damage than the .223 or 5.56 NATO. The .40 was designed to immediately drop a human being by striking them so hard, and causing so much tissue damage, that they immediately undergo hydrostatic shock - a quick loss in bodily fluids. You can effectively damage far more people with a .40 handgun than you can with an AR-15, you can also modify a .40 to become fully automatic as well as modify a hi capacity magazine to fit it. All of which are ILLEGAL, but criminals, being criminals, will break the law. You can also switch out low capacity magazines far more quickly than you can with an AR-15.

A testament to this is one of the survivors of the Orlando shooting - Rodney Sumter - he was shot 3 times. If he was shot once by a .40, his chances of survival would be very slim - as it would be highly likely he would have bled to death.

With that being said ... there are two main reasons why the number of injuries and death are always so high during these mass shootings. 1) No one is armed in a Gun Free Zone, and no one has the ability to effectively counter the shooter. 2) People panic and try to exit as quickly as they can once they know there is an active shooter.

The route to the exit is known as the "fatal funnel". Everyone is trying to exit quickly, but they are in a panic. The shooter takes advantage of this, and shoots everyone trying to exit through that narrow door.

The shooter uses the element of surprise to create a panic, then once the panic erupts and people attempt to flee, the shooter uses that to his advantage to kill as many people trying to exit as he or she can.

With no one having the ability to defend themselves, because they are in a Gun Free Zone and are obeying the law, the shooter can continue to kill everyone in a systematic manner for as long as he or she can, until the guys with the guns show up to shoot him.

Get rid of gun free zones, and you will see less and less of these crazy homicidal attacks - because those individuals will not be able to exploit them any longer. A gun free zone gives a homicidal maniac the upper hand, the tactical advantage, free reign, complete control.
 
Last edited:
Foxrac said:
Wow, worse than sprained ankle?
Click to expand...


I have a profoundly deaf friend that attempted to shoot without ear plugs, he hurt his ear drum and got a throbbing headache afterwards. Wear ear muffs or ear plugs even if you are deaf.
 
seb said:
I don't need to be schooled on gun rights from a single sided gun nut! I have no problem with someone owning a firearm. I do have a problem with someone owning assault weapons especially with high capacity magazines.
Click to expand...

actually the term is
open minded. not gun nut
we prefer open minded to designate ourselves
.
we believe and hold an open mind to what tools people use.

gun nut is a derogatory term, that frames an ideological position at the very start of the discussion.
thus

for us its open minded.
as opposed to your position which we find and see as closed minded.

so seb
i invite you to
open your mind.

thank you
 
Steinhauer said:
Actually ... Gun bans have never ever worked in The whole history of ever. Brazil's gun violence rate is higher than the US and they have banned guns. You might think I am making all this up, but it is actually true. A gun ban does not keep guns away from criminals.
Click to expand...

mexico has some tof the strictist gun laws on the books anywhere

i admit

its rather peaceful their..

we would be hard pressed to find much people getting blown away in mexico, i think for violence and murders its prob due to highly restricted gun laws the most peacfull place on earth
 
hoichi said:
actually the term is
open minded. not gun nut
we prefer open minded to designate ourselves
.
we believe and hold an open mind to what tools people use.

gun nut is a derogatory term, that frames an ideological position at the very start of the discussion.
thus

for us its open minded.
as opposed to your position which we find and see as closed minded.

so seb
i invite you to
open your mind.

thank you
Click to expand...

oh, my mind is open. I just don't think people need to own assault type weapons. Hand guns, shotguns and rifles will get the job done. For protection I would go with the pump type shotgun, once you pump it the person you are trying to protect yourself against is going to be in a world of hurt. As to assault weapons I have no problem with ranges being allowed to have them for people to borrow or rent to get their need to shoot them out of their system. Once the NRA and the government figure out a way to keep them out of the hands of the wacko's that use them to kill numerous innocent civilians then I would have no problem with " gun enthusiast owning them. However, I also feel that if the "gun enthusiast should have their guns stolen because they didn't take the proper steps to secure and protect them, they should be held liable for them if they are used in the commission of a crime.
 
Steinhauer said:
Yes, I know about Chicago. I understand how you feel about wanting all this craziness to stop. It seems to be getting worse and worse.

Let me explain my thoughts on this, and then perhaps after you understand my position, maybe you can appreciate why I feel the way I do. I am not asking you to whole heartedly agree - I am aware everyone has a unique and differing opinion on different subjects, especially when it concerns safety issues for ourselves and our families, friends and neighbors.

If you have paid attention to where these mass shootings have occurred, they are taking place in gun free safety zones. The results are always a high number of casualties. You may be under the impression that the reason for this high number is because the gun being used is amazingly powerful and shoots many, many bullets really really fast. You may blame the so called "assault rifles" for their ability to do this. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that is chambered for either a .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO round. These are not powerful rounds, and if used for hunting, it is for small game animals at close range. The AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16, and is not fully automatic. What that means is that one trigger pull equals one shot being fired. The same is true of a revolver, or a semi-automatic pistol. The .40 caliber round does far MORE damage than the .223 or 5.56 NATO. The .40 was designed to immediately drop a human being by striking them so hard, and causing so much tissue damage, that they immediately undergo hydrostatic shock - a quick loss in bodily fluids. You can effectively damage far more people with a .40 handgun than you can with an AR-15, you can also modify a .40 to become fully automatic as well as modify a hi capacity magazine to fit it. All of which are ILLEGAL, but criminals, being criminals, will break the law. You can also switch out low capacity magazines far more quickly than you can with an AR-15.

A testament to this is one of the survivors of the Orlando shooting - Rodney Sumter - he was shot 3 times. If he was shot once by a .40, his chances of survival would be very slim - as it would be highly likely he would have bled to death.

With that being said ... there are two main reasons why the number of injuries and death are always so high during these mass shootings. 1) No one is armed in a Gun Free Zone, and no one has the ability to effectively counter the shooter. 2) People panic and try to exit as quickly as they can once they know there is an active shooter.

The route to the exit is known as the "fatal funnel". Everyone is trying to exit quickly, but they are in a panic. The shooter takes advantage of this, and shoots everyone trying to exit through that narrow door.

The shooter uses the element of surprise to create a panic, then once the panic erupts and people attempt to flee, the shooter uses that to his advantage to kill as many people trying to exit as he or she can.

With no one having the ability to defend themselves, because they are in a Gun Free Zone and are obeying the law, the shooter can continue to kill everyone in a systematic manner for as long as he or she can, until the guys with the guns show up to shoot him.

Get rid of gun free zones, and you will see less and less of these crazy homicidal attacks - because those individuals will not be able to exploit them any longer. A gun free zone gives a homicidal maniac the upper hand, the tactical advantage, free reign, complete control.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your opinion but I don't buy it. The NRA has always pushed the more is better ideology and "don't put any limits on what we can and can't own." It hasn't worked! Yes, these areas are gun free zones, but with relaxing these areas to allow guns, you are still going to get a lot of people shot and killed before the person doing the shooting can be taken out by someone with a gun. Lets look at the proliferation of the hand gun: how many places have seen a huge rise in the number of shootings and shooting related deaths in the places they live? Where I live we have already had probably 60 drive by shootings this year and I think it's up to 29 dead, Chicago had 600 shootings in I think a one month period and I'm not even sure of how many deaths. Back in the twenties Chicago had returned to basically the wild west with many civilians carrying a weapon(including machine guns) and it didn't stop the carnage just left more people dead. Since most of these "homicidal
maniacs" don't make it out alive they really don't care if they die as long as they take some people with them and the more the merrier.
 
using terms such as gunnut though doesn't demonstrate your open mind.
i see you changed it to enthusiast.

the term "assault" weapon is also problematic.

and betrays an ideological position from the start.

it doesnt really help us in tryign to see through the mud on what occured in orlando and what will occure soon enough in the future.

a disarmed population obviously is the easiest target for a murderer to pick off liek fish in a barrel,
just like orlando

keeping those tools (guns) only int he hands of killers or the state is folly.

as obviously it leaves out every one else
the very people targeted.


isreal has some very strct gun laws.
and what they have done in regards to terrorist attacks with guns on its population was realize the isreali state cannot be everyplace at all tims in order to defend its population against that kind of attack.

rather then tightening its rules on gun acquisition
they loosened them

understanding that an armed populace is better to handle that threat then a disarmed one.

more restriction
isnt the answer

lets take orlando

the killer shows up engages the cops, the cops miss their target and he shoots his way in.
there he finds as he knew already from casing the place, a packed box with unarmed fish waiting to get smoked

they were all unarmed.

they were doomed.

what if they weren't?

what if some of them where armed?

and some of them rather then waiting bleeding on the floor as he went around shooting those already down another time to make sure, or cowering begging for their lives in the corner helpless as the dedicated killer did his work...

what if instead they fired back?

would the outcome be any worse for the slaughtered?

would someone their being able to engage him after the cops missed, be able to actually either by drawing his fire or laying out covering fire allow others to escape as the killer is distracted?

what if after going to case the joint he found a room packed with armed to teeth fags, (think the blue oyster in police academy, but armed) rather then helpless snowflake generation clientele, unarmed. waiting to be killed. literally sacrificial victims for his cause.

what would the body count if any be compared to what we have?

put yourself there
think it through


if you can honestly and sincerely state being unarmed was the better option
so be it
 
Foxrac said:
It isn't answer that I'm looking for that so I'm waiting for Stein.
Click to expand...
You've never had an ear ache before? It is a constant pain that doesn't go away, it's always there and it can't be ignored. A ruptured ear drum is a sharp pain when it happens and then goes away and starts healing, but you are susceptible to an inner ear infection because you know have a hole where the tympanic membrane used to be. A sprained ankle hurts but only hurts really bad when you walk on it. When your sitting down it isn't a constant pain, you get relief from it an
 
seb said:
I know people on here are going to say they will go to other methods to kill their victims such as explosives. Even with those the number killed would more than likely be less than those carried out with assault weapons. The Boston Marathon bombing took three lives and wounded 264.
Click to expand...

Do not forget the Oklahoma City Bombing: killed 168 people,[1] and injured more than 680 others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

And the World Trade Center Attacks (flying bombs): killed 2,606 people in and within the vicinity of the towers, as well as all 157 on board the two aircraft, injuried? who knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973–2001)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top