[pgviper]

Originally Posted by fravel

So poor people aren't worthy of self-preservation, got it.

And why are they expensive and limited? Because they use exotic materials and cutting edge technology. Their prices aren't artificially inflated for the sake of it.

Again, what do these accomplish? I agree that someone who owns/carries a firearm should be trained to use said firearm, but I'm not cool with it being a .gov mandate.

No need to get yourself all worked up. I can make the same argument against car manufacturers by asking, do poor people not deserve safe cars because they are much more expensive. Lets be honest, vehicles deaths are much higher than firearm deaths. Be careful with that mindset because if you want all people to be equal, then move to a communist country where we all make the same salary. Otherwise there will always be a class system. However, not to get off topic, i'm not making that point, I argued that there are methods to begin reducing the guns in circulation that satisfies the enthusiasts, manufacturers and liberals.

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

There are likely more guns in private circulation in the US than there are people in the US. If the number of guns is what kills people, the US would be a ghost town. Take away suicides along with gang/drug related gun homicides and the US gun homicide rate falls in line with most European countries.

Remember, every night for the past several years, there were roughly 350,000,000 guns in private hands that DIDN'T kill anyone.

To everyone pleading for a marksmanship course.... Based on several years of records, you are 5x more likely to be "accidentally" shot by a cop than by someone with a concealed carry permit. Why people think being a bad shot is a problem is beyond me. The average shooting takes place with 7' between shooter and targeted person. What kind of marksman do you want?

I'm not sure making the only people who can own weapons are those who have seen the darkest, dirtiest, shitiest levels of humanity possible. And you're likely not aware that the VAST majority of those who serve in the military never shoot a pistol while serving. My nephew is an exMarine. He can shoot a rifle with the best of them. Never shot a pistol until he went to the range with me. He still can hardly hit the broad side of a barn with a pistol. AND that's after months of practice with it. I don't get it, but it's true.

The military and police in real life aren't like they are in the movies. No one stands on the skid of an inflight helicopter and shoots a moving guy who is 300 yards away while holding the gun with one hand. Do police have more pistol training than most gun owners, maybe. But their qualification requirements aren't standardized and are a joke in most parts of the country. Have you see the reports where some odd 18 police officers fired over 250 rounds at a SUV from a range of 20 yards and the SVU was only hit with 90 bullets? The lion's share of Police are not special marksmen. Get into SWAT or special event teams and you get some good shooters. But the average cop you see on the street is likely to only have fired their gun during qualifying and likely don't practice with it.

I would bet that the average cop / military personel with basic training of a firearm is more aware of consequences and safety than the average consumer. Until I see data, i'm not convinced otherwise.

Also, the numbers you point out don't take into consideration the causal effects of those trainings. There is no way to ever quantify preventative training, its not an AB test.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by pgviper

No need to get yourself all worked up. I can make the same argument against car manufacturers asking, do poor people not deserve safe cars because lets be honest, vehicles deaths are much higher than firearm deaths. Be careful with that mindset because if you want all people to be equal, then move to a communist country where we all make the same salary. Otherwise there will always be a class system. However, not to get off topic, i'm not making that point, I argued that there are methods to begin reducing the guns in circulation that satisfies the enthusiasts, manufacturers and liberals.



I would bet that the average cop / military personel with basic training of a firearm is more aware of consequences and safety than the average consumer. Until I see data, i'm not convinced otherwise.

Also, the numbers you point out don't take into consideration the causal effects of those trainings. There is no way to ever quantify preventative training, its not an AB test.

I wouldn't argue this, but the average person who owns a gun in their home isnt the problem. They aren't doing the murders and they only have it for defending their home. You don't need training for. Someone's breaking in, grab the gun. Simple. Carry permit holders do need more training because they are faced with a much broader range of scenarios. Obviously the training now works because they are the lowest measurable gun crime group there is. So I don't see where adding more training is relevant except as a way to make people ignorant of this feel better. I don't think it would save lives. But it would make the benefits of owning a firearm more expensive and difficult than they are now preventing more people from being able to defend themselves and becoming victims.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by pgviper

No need to get yourself all worked up. I can make the same argument against car manufacturers asking, do poor people not deserve safe cars because lets be honest, vehicles deaths are much higher than firearm deaths. Be careful with that mindset because if you want all people to be equal, then move to a communist country where we all make the same salary. Otherwise there will always be a class system. However, not to get off topic, i'm not making that point, I argued that there are methods to begin reducing the guns in circulation that satisfies the enthusiasts, manufacturers and liberals.



I would bet that the average cop / military personel with basic training of a firearm is more aware of consequences and safety than the average consumer. Until I see data, i'm not convinced otherwise.

Also, the numbers you point out don't take into consideration the causal effects of those trainings. There is no way to ever quantify preventative training, its not an AB test.

Guns aren't the problem.



I was specifically addressing your suggestion of a marksmanship training course. Which was followed up with only having ex-military/police earning the right to own a gun. I assumed you made that statement because you believe them to be much more proficient with firearms than the rest of us. I tend to agree that on average a military/police officer is more safety oriented than consumers. But, there are many videos on YT showing negligent discharges by cops, as well as average consumers. I think reality puts both camps on close to equal ground.

Don't forget that all the firearms training police and military receive is focused on how to kill effectively. Military vets who have served in active combat infantry situations are going to be more aware of muzzle direction and safety on when not pulling the trigger than police or even military who haven't served in a combat infantry position. Most police don't use pistols with external safeties and they don't walk around with them in hand like combat soldiers do. I wouldn't elevate the average cop to be that much more safety aware than the average gun owner.

It often surprises people to find out how many cops aren't gun owners other than their service pistol. For many, their familiarity with firearms starts and ends with their pistil being part of their uniform.

[gonzo]

Hmmm.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Hmmm.

I don't get it. What's the point?

[gonzo]

Wouldn't there be flash?

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Wouldn't there be flash?

From that angle if he was back a foot or so no. Depends how deep into the room he was. Why? Gotta laugh at all these conspiracy theories.

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Hmmm.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

From that angle if he was back a foot or so no. Depends how deep into the room he was. Why? Gotta laugh at all these conspiracy theories.

Simple question about a simple video was my post. Makes sense that he could have been back in the room a bit.

[gonzo]

[Breno_Piece]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

nice tirade at the end... did you just realize that your point of view holds no water?

I will gladly accept a few gun murders for freedom.

didn't mean for it to be a tirade. I legit don't have a problem with things if the majority of Americans are happy. i was just asking the question based on the fact that we're having a conversation. I'm actually quite happy with the answers / explanations provided... I mean, they did feel like they had some emotion in them... but hey... it's cool

can i ask a question about the American version of Freedom though? do you guys feel like countries that have different gun legislation to you aren't free, because we cant take up arms against our government? (even though, in that case... our soldiers are people too, and would likely side with the civilian populous if a tyrannical government tried any shenanigans...)

Does you freedom lie in the ability to own guns? are you equally as pissed about other legislation? seat belts in cars, licensing of cars, registration of cars, obeying speed limits etc? (using cars as an example as we all have them and enjoy them) i am not taking the piss by asking... i'm actually interested. i mean, you have a lot of laws for a "free" society... just like the rest of us.

[are0lies]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

didn't mean for it to be a tirade. I legit don't have a problem with things if the majority of Americans are happy. i was just asking the question based on the fact that we're having a conversation. I'm actually quite happy with the answers / explanations provided... I mean, they did feel like they had some emotion in them... but hey... it's cool

can i ask a question about the American version of Freedom though? do you guys feel like countries that have different gun legislation to you aren't free, because we cant take up arms against our government? (even though, in that case... our soldiers are people too, and would likely side with the civilian populous if a tyrannical government tried any shenanigans...)

Does you freedom lie in the ability to own guns? are you equally as pissed about other legislation? seat belts in cars, licensing of cars, registration of cars, obeying speed limits etc? (using cars as an example as we all have them and enjoy them) i am not taking the piss by asking... i'm actually interested. i mean, you have a lot of laws for a "free" society... just like the rest of us.

To try to answer your question, and I don't know how your constitution was formed, but ours was formed on the principle of the lessons taught by the monarchy, which we wanted no part of. Also, our early government wanted a sense of fairness, and self-rule, which once again, the monarchy was not willing to accept. In order to attain these freedoms, and because the population in the colonies was so small, the founding fathers had to unite citizens to defend against any agression by the king's forces. Also, understanding the rebeliousness of their actions, they also empowered the very citizens to prevent the newly-formed government from repeating the very things that made them rebel in the first place; Hence weapons. The whole idea behind this, is that the government can become rogue, and go against its citizens. This is a vague answer, but hopefully helps you understand a bit better.

[Delta0311]

Where are all the Europeans talking about how safe Europe is and how gun violence is taking over America?

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/...c703859807afa5

Gang related shoot out at a market in Sweden. Progressive Sweden banned guns so riddle me this, how did they manage to have a shoot out in a country where guns are banned?

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Delta0311

Where are all the Europeans talking about how safe Europe is and how gun violence is taking over America?

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/...c703859807afa5

Gang related shoot out at a market in Sweden. Progressive Sweden banned guns so riddle me this, how did they manage to have a shoot out in a country where guns are banned?

I don’t think it happens as frequently. Check your stats for school/mass shootings Sweden vs US.

SQUIRREL!!!

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

I don’t think it happens as frequently. Check your stats for school/mass shootings Sweden vs US.

SQUIRREL!!!

How about terrorist attacks in Sweden? No go zones in Sweden? Canceling concerts because they can't control all the rapes that go on in Sweden.

And you didn't answer my question. Since guns are banned there how can you have shootings? Gun free zone and people getting shot, imagine my surprise.

Oh and what was the body count during that horrific terrorist attack in France, the concert one? Now tell me how guns and terrorism are illegal in Europe.
Long story short, clean your own house first.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

I don’t think it happens as frequently. Check your stats for school/mass shootings Sweden vs US.

SQUIRREL!!!

Oh, it doesn't happen as often so taking away the people's ability to defend themselves in those rare cases is A-Ok.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

didn't mean for it to be a tirade. I legit don't have a problem with things if the majority of Americans are happy. i was just asking the question based on the fact that we're having a conversation. I'm actually quite happy with the answers / explanations provided... I mean, they did feel like they had some emotion in them... but hey... it's cool

can i ask a question about the American version of Freedom though? do you guys feel like countries that have different gun legislation to you aren't free, because we cant take up arms against our government? (even though, in that case... our soldiers are people too, and would likely side with the civilian populous if a tyrannical government tried any shenanigans...)

Does you freedom lie in the ability to own guns? are you equally as pissed about other legislation? seat belts in cars, licensing of cars, registration of cars, obeying speed limits etc? (using cars as an example as we all have them and enjoy them) i am not taking the piss by asking... i'm actually interested. i mean, you have a lot of laws for a "free" society... just like the rest of us.

This will differ vastly based on who you ask in the US. I am more of a libertarian so I personally believe that the only functions of the US government should be homeland protection and infrastructure. The aid programs, most laws, etc should be left up to the individual states. I also believe we should not be meddling in all of the worlds affairs, it hasn't worked out for us so well in the past few decades.

I believe our government is already broken based on what it should be and how it was originally described. I believe we need to get out of our 2 party system because at this point they are pretty much the same thing with slightly different views on how to spend more money and make the federal government bigger.

The laws are a little more difficult, I feel like some of them are overarching and some are band aids. Seat belts for instance, I think wearing it should be your decision, although with the insurance angle I can see how it is an easy lever to reduce liability if you require people to wear them. I think it is silly to require people to wear seat belts in cars but not require motorcyclist to wear helmets and not have seat belts in children's school buses. Licensing of cars is more of a tax, you pay for registration to be able to use publicly maintained roads. If talking about driver's license, I agree with those and believe (similar to my thoughts on gun licenses) that you should need to take an operating test as well as the written test. I believe our speed limits would work better if our cops worked more like those in Germany, where they actually enforce the rules and target all dangerous drivers more than those just speeding (based on my limited time and knowledge of their system). I can't make it to work (~15 minute drive) without seeing at least 20 people on their phone while driving, and we even have a law saying it is illegal, it is just not enforced.

I realize that you may not think a tyrannical government is a possibility since your military "are people too", but history has shown multiple times that it can still happen.

[Jon H]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Wouldn't there be flash?

Look up flash hiders/muzzle breaks. A good one makes a huge difference.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by pgviper

No need to get yourself all worked up.

Who's worked up?

Originally Posted by pgviper

I can make the same argument against car manufacturers by asking, do poor people not deserve safe cars because they are much more expensive.

What? All commercially available cars still have to meet minimum safety requirements. Your example of artificially inflating the price of firearms just because would be analogous to artificially increasing the price of 'cheap' cars to be equivalent in cost to super cars to keep poor people from being able to drive at all.

Firearms also exist in a price spectrum. One can spend a bare minimum for something that functions in a safe, reliable manner or one can spend more money for something with a better fit/finish, special features, exotic materials, etc. The existence of one doesn't negate the justification for the other.

Originally Posted by pgviper

Lets be honest, vehicles deaths are much higher than firearm deaths.

That's true.

Originally Posted by pgviper

Be careful with that mindset because if you want all people to be equal, then move to a communist country where we all make the same salary. Otherwise there will always be a class system.

What mindset are you talking about? I said nothing about all people being equal, unless you want to make the assertion that all people should be afforded the same rights under the law. The right to keep and bear arms is just that - a right. It shouldn't be limited only to those who are deemed worthy because they have an arbitrarily chosen net-worth.

Originally Posted by pgviper

However, not to get off topic, i'm not making that point, I argued that there are methods to begin reducing the guns in circulation that satisfies the enthusiasts, manufacturers and liberals.

And I'm arguing that it doesn't actually accomplish that.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by gonzo

*223 Flash Video*

Can't tell for sure, but it doesn't look like the rifle in this video has any sort of muzzle device on it. It's pretty crazy how much difference a simple flash hider or compensator can make.

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

can i ask a question about the American version of Freedom though? do you guys feel like countries that have different gun legislation to you aren't free, because we cant take up arms against our government? (even though, in that case... our soldiers are people too, and would likely side with the civilian populous if a tyrannical government tried any shenanigans...)

I'm not gonna say you guys aren't free, as for all practical purposes you may enjoy just as much freedom as we do. Where I see the difference is that your freedom is only afforded to you because your .gov allows it and could revoke it at any moment. In our case we hold the means to retain our freedom should the .gov make an attempt to revoke it. You do not.

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

Does you freedom lie in the ability to own guns?

Ehh... I'd say it's more like it's ensured by the ability to own guns. The 2nd is the Amendment that protects all the others.

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

are you equally as pissed about other legislation? seat belts in cars, licensing of cars, registration of cars, obeying speed limits etc? (using cars as an example as we all have them and enjoy them) i am not taking the piss by asking... i'm actually interested. i mean, you have a lot of laws for a "free" society... just like the rest of us.

Driving isn't a right, so no.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Simple question about a simple video was my post. Makes sense that he could have been back in the room a bit.

Originally Posted by gonzo

Video without flash hider

That weapon doesn't have a flash hider on it. Nearly all tactical rifles come with the standard A2 flash hider on it.

Huge difference between visible flash going with vs without.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

This will differ vastly based on who you ask in the US. I am more of a libertarian so I personally believe that the only functions of the US government should be homeland protection and infrastructure. The aid programs, most laws, etc should be left up to the individual states. I also believe we should not be meddling in all of the worlds affairs, it hasn't worked out for us so well in the past few decades.

I believe our government is already broken based on what it should be and how it was originally described. I believe we need to get out of our 2 party system because at this point they are pretty much the same thing with slightly different views on how to spend more money and make the federal government bigger.

The laws are a little more difficult, I feel like some of them are overarching and some are band aids. Seat belts for instance, I think wearing it should be your decision, although with the insurance angle I can see how it is an easy lever to reduce liability if you require people to wear them. I think it is silly to require people to wear seat belts in cars but not require motorcyclist to wear helmets and not have seat belts in children's school buses. Licensing of cars is more of a tax, you pay for registration to be able to use publicly maintained roads. If talking about driver's license, I agree with those and believe (similar to my thoughts on gun licenses) that you should need to take an operating test as well as the written test. I believe our speed limits would work better if our cops worked more like those in Germany, where they actually enforce the rules and target all dangerous drivers more than those just speeding (based on my limited time and knowledge of their system). I can't make it to work (~15 minute drive) without seeing at least 20 people on their phone while driving, and we even have a law saying it is illegal, it is just not enforced.

I realize that you may not think a tyrannical government is a possibility since your military "are people too", but history has shown multiple times that it can still happen.

Some pretty sound stuff in there. We know seat belts save lives though. I’m sure we can all point towards isolated instances where that’s not The case but on the whole they reduce lives lost.

In Australia we get 12 license points, getting caught on your mobile will cost you $400 and 4 demirrit points and trust me our cops take it very seriously. It used to be a swerving car meant a drunk driver, now it means iPhone or Samsung! And I’ll confess I’ve been guilty of this from time to time.

It’s funny because as soon as you start talking about other subjects everything seems totally normal and logical within reason And in line with the rest of your western buddies but the conversation on guns - it’s jist another matter entirely.

IF you could get all the guns off the crims would you still want or feel the need to carry or own them?

If your answer to that is yes, then it’s just as simple that and there will be no changing your minds. For better or worse.

If that scenario, realistic or not, changes your mind then I think there’s hope to disarm the population and reduce gun related homicide in The future.