Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 89

Thread: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

  1. #61

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    The way you sell it its either financial ruin or live in mad max times. Maybe sell all your guns to buy a better house in a nicer neighbourhood?
    Last edited by Lazarus; February 17, 2013 at 07:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  2. #62

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    No sources?
    You really want me to find sources on how a weapon handles recoils and how its sights work influence its accuracy? Because right now it seems as if you are saying all guns handle recoil the same and all sights work the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Because you changed the focus of the conversation when you brought up douchebags and their swords.
    No, I made an analogy and you decided to take it literal or something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    27 Million Russians died during WW2. By your standards, Mausers should be the deadliest gun, not an AK
    Really? 27 million Russians died in WW2 TO the mauser K98? Never heard that one before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    It was a hyperbole
    No doubt. It also had a point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Still back-tracking, I see.
    If by backtracking you mean trying to make you understand what I actually said, then sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    So without any sources or ammunition dealers to back up any of the claims you've made, along with the pathetic attempt at throwing a Wikipedia article that only mentioned pistol rounds (specifically the .38) into the fray, your conclusion is that I don't know anything about firearms? Lol.

    Curious how Cheaper than Dirt, Midway USA, Gunbroker, and even Google have no mention of any flat nosed rounds for .223 caliber weapons.

    Now if you were talking about a Varmint Grenade, you're clearly referring to a round developed uniquely for small game and predators.
    I honestly don't know how you got so convoluted here. Did I ever say there were wadcutter rounds for .233? I don't think I did; I claimed that wadcutter rounds come in several different calibers and that they are used in home defense and big game hunting both, depending on the particular caliber of round.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    By who and from where? Have you posted any sources saying this? (no)
    Did you read the wiki article?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    That's an odd conclusion (one that again, rests more on the shooter than the gun).
    It is? You wouldn't see how a gun with strong recoil may take more time to land accurate rounds properly than a gun with less recoil?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    This really isn't a discussion about legal matters anymore. We seem to be debating your opinion of what you should do in a home invasion, not what should be law in a home invasion.
    What would I do during a home invasion? I would run to my room, call the police while looking for something to protect myself with, yell to the person that I called the cops and to leave.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Clearly, the criminals are the victims in the case of someone shooting in defense in their property and family

    Quite honestly, I have no business playing armchair general and critiquing the decisions of someone who was being forced to make life-ending decisions over a period of a second or two, and neither do you. The ungodly amount of What-if's at play here is astounding, and these hypothetical scenario's are getting old.

    Curiously, Police officers have the right to use Lethal means to enforce even the most trivial of laws. Somehow, it's okay for the man in blue to shoot someone for rolling through a stop sign, though now it's wrong for a homeowner to kill someone who has invaded their house with obvious intentions to commit either violence or burglary.

    Your apathy towards the victim in this scenario is rather absurd and ridiculous. You have more mercy for the belligerent than the innocent
    I don't think noting that criminals are also humans is the same as calling them the victim. I am just not naive enough that criminals are just "evil people". That is stupid. I would rather no one die in these situations. And I have plenty of empathy for the victims of home invasions, I just don't empathize for executing someone after they surrendered for breaking into your house.

    Also, what is this with police? Have you ever heard of police brutality? An officer of the law cannot shoot someone for running a red light, sorry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    yes, opening yourself up to Civil and Criminal lawsuits is clearly the answer. In this scenario, what stops the criminal from calling police and coming up with some wonderful story about how you held them at gunpoint and intended to execute them?

    Not only are we talking about possible Civil and Criminal cases against the victim, the notion that you must "shoot to warn" is ridiculous. Temporarily disabling yourself and possibly putting your family on the receiving end of a bullet is now "moral" means to defending your house? Excuse me, but breaking into an innocent family's home is hardly moral to begin with.

    I must ask, how many gun-fights/home invasions have you been in that let you come to this conclusion?
    I really have no idea what you are talking about here. Why would the criminal be suing the home owner? Because the home owner shouted? This is complete insanity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    So owning a gun for home defense due to home invasion/robbery/burglary being one of the most popular crimes in the country is paranoia?
    PROPERTY crimes are common, not having drug dealers kicking down your door. Burglary is not particularly common (again, depends on where you are, not often in suburbia), but certainly not unheard of. Again, the point of burglary is that the person you are robbing isn't there to stop you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    You're dancing around the facts
    No, no I am not. You are making borderline insane claims like "property crimes means home invasions/rape/murders". 9,000,000 property crimes=/= 9,000,000 home invasions. Not by a long shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    The way you sell it its either financial ruin or live in mad max times. Maybe sell all your guns to buy a better house in a nicer neighbourhood?
    You think a libertarian debating on the internet is not ALREADY in a super safe suburb? He is probably in a gated community for God's sake.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  3. #63

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You really want me to find sources on how a weapon handles recoils and how its sights work influence its accuracy? Because right now it seems as if you are saying all guns handle recoil the same and all sights work the same.
    No, I'd like you to source the part where they make you handle it "more effectively"

    No, I made an analogy and you decided to take it literal or something.
    An analogy that essentially proved my point; Any idiot can own a gun, but the training is what makes him effective. Without the training, he is useless.

    Really? 27 million Russians died in WW2 TO the mauser K98? Never heard that one before.
    Clearly not what I said, but alright

    No doubt. It also had a point.
    One that you're blowing completely out of proportion. I suppose next you'll be using Jeremy Clarkson's analogies as absolute fact when debating sports cars?

    I honestly don't know how you got so convoluted here. Did I ever say there were wadcutter rounds for .233? I don't think I did; I claimed that wadcutter rounds come in several different calibers and that they are used in home defense and big game hunting both, depending on the particular caliber of round.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    A flat nose round is meant for gophers? Please.


    Hmm. It appears you did claim that the .223 (which was the round in question) was developed with flatnosed rounds, also known as "Wadcutters", when I pointed out that the .222 and .223 were developed for small game (gophers).


    Did you read the wiki article?
    Did you? It clearly stated that the Wadcutter was used in self defense and only sourced Pistol caliber ammunition.

    It is? You wouldn't see how a gun with strong recoil may take more time to land accurate rounds properly than a gun with less recoil?
    Unless you're comparing a 20mm Anti-Tank rifle to a .22, the difference between re-engagement time for different calibers is negligible.

    What would I do during a home invasion? I would run to my room, call the police while looking for something to protect myself with, yell to the person that I called the cops and to leave.
    Clearly, informing the bad guy of his 20 minute window while arming yourself with a little-league bat is far superior to informing him that you're well armed and not afraid of prison.

    I don't think noting that criminals are also humans is the same as calling them the victim. I am just not naive enough that criminals are just "evil people". That is stupid. I would rather no one die in these situations. And I have plenty of empathy for the victims of home invasions, I just don't empathize for executing someone after they surrendered for breaking into your house.
    Why is it always with the extremes? All of a sudden we go from defending your property to executing someone who surrendered. As far as I'm concerned, defending your house should use the rules of warfare, which say you are allowed to shoot a retreating enemy but not allowed to execute them after they surrender.


    Also, what is this with police? Have you ever heard of police brutality? An officer of the law cannot shoot someone for running a red light, sorry
    .

    Is that so? LAPD shot two women last week because they owned a vehicle vaguely similar to Christopher Dorner without any officers even being reprimanded. How justified.


    I really have no idea what you are talking about here. Why would the criminal be suing the home owner? Because the home owner shouted? This is complete insanity.
    Clearly
    http://www.wisn.com/Accused-Burglar-...z/-/index.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...-who-shot-him/
    http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22709/
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/...files-lawsuit/
    http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/home...lling-intruder
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1055269/posts

    PROPERTY crimes are common, not having drug dealers kicking down your door. Burglary is not particularly common (again, depends on where you are, not often in suburbia), but certainly not unheard of. Again, the point of burglary is that the person you are robbing isn't there to stop you.
    ..And a burglary has never turned into a homicide when the homeowner got home, right?

    No, no I am not. You are making borderline insane claims like "property crimes means home invasions/rape/murders". 9,000,000 property crimes=/= 9,000,000 home invasions. Not by a long shot.


    Where did I say any of that?

    You think a libertarian debating on the internet is not ALREADY in a super safe suburb? He is probably in a gated community for God's sake.
    Funnily enough, my suburb is super safe. We have the highest guns per household ratio in the county and only average property values while having almost no crime whatsoever. Even better, it's a bunch of townhouses


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  4. #64

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    No, I'd like you to source the part where they make you handle it "more effectively"
    Well a weapon with good recoil distribution, intuitive sights, and an easy grip to it would make it easier for any layman operate the weapon to use effectively, sooo...
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    An analogy that essentially proved my point; Any idiot can own a gun, but the training is what makes him effective. Without the training, he is useless.
    Ok? I don't think I ever claimed training doesn't make you more effective. Also, you were the one claiming that operating a gun effectively was just "pulling a trigger".
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Clearly not what I said, but alright
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    27 Million Russians died during WW2. By your standards, Mausers should be the deadliest gun, not an AK

    Then your example was terrible? You seem to imply that the Mauser killed more people than the AK, which isn't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    One that you're blowing completely out of proportion. I suppose next you'll be using Jeremy Clarkson's analogies as absolute fact when debating sports cars?
    Sigh, I was just using his words as an example. I have heard from many other sources that the AK was a very simple gun to use and maintain. Ask Ciabhan, he will probably agree,


    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Hmm. It appears you did claim that the .223 (which was the round in question) was developed with flatnosed rounds, also known as "Wadcutters", when I pointed out that the .222 and .223 were developed for small game (gophers).
    Claiming that people DON'T typically use flatnosed rounds on gophers means that I claimed wadcutter rounds are made in .223 rounds? Not seeing a flow of logic here...


    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Did you? It clearly stated that the Wadcutter was used in self defense and only sourced Pistol caliber ammunition.
    Did I say differently?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Unless you're comparing a 20mm Anti-Tank rifle to a .22, the difference between re-engagement time for different calibers is negligible.
    Tell that to yourself next time you try shooting multiple targets with 9 mm glock and then with a .44 magnum revolver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Clearly, informing the bad guy of his 20 minute window while arming yourself with a little-league bat is far superior to informing him that you're well armed and not afraid of prison.
    Then you clearly don't know crap about criminals. You seem to think they are some kind of insane psychopaths hellbent for your blood. A burglar doesn't want to harm the homeowner, the burglar would rather the homeowner would not be around at all. Criminals know that if they kill someone, the police are going to be extra up their ass and that they may very well have to suffer life in prison. Crimes that would result in "random violence", like a wannabe burglar turning into a mad murderer, are extremely small. If a person doesn't know you, they probably don't want to kill you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Why is it always with the extremes? All of a sudden we go from defending your property to executing someone who surrendered. As far as I'm concerned, defending your house should use the rules of warfare, which say you are allowed to shoot a retreating enemy but not allowed to execute them after they surrender.
    You were the one claiming that a home owner should be able to shoot someone execution style...


    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Is that so? LAPD shot two women last week because they owned a vehicle vaguely similar to Christopher Dorner without any officers even being reprimanded. How justified.
    Yes, that means that the police overall are sanctioned to shoot people over petty crimes.


    You think a suit of a burglar suing a homeowner over being yelled at would go anywhere in court? Please.

    Also, I loved the Fox news link, the homeowner was arrested FOR CHASING THE CRIMINAL OUTSIDE AND SHOOTING HIM WHILE FLEEING. The homeowner should be arrested.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    ..And a burglary has never turned into a homicide when the homeowner got home, right?
    Never? No. Rarely? Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post


    Where did I say any of that?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    The statistics are facts, your speculation is not. 9,000,000 property crimes, 399,000 house fires. You're more likely to get robbed, end of story.

    You are implying that, since there are more "property crimes" (which doesn't mean robberies, btw), that a gun is better idea than a fire extinguisher. That is an insane use of statistics. Just because it was a "property crime" doesn't mean a gun would have been helpful in any way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Funnily enough, my suburb is super safe. We have the highest guns per household ratio in the county and only average property values while having almost no crime whatsoever. Even better, it's a bunch of townhouses
    Yes, I am sure it is safe BECAUSE of all of the guns.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  5. #65

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Well a weapon with good recoil distribution, intuitive sights, and an easy grip to it would make it easier for any layman operate the weapon to use effectively, sooo...
    No sources, I see.

    Ok? I don't think I ever claimed training doesn't make you more effective. Also, you were the one claiming that operating a gun effectively was just "pulling a trigger".
    That's just it. The type of sword the douchebag you were referring too chose is irrelevant because he doesn't have the training to use it effectively.

    The type of firearm purchased is irrelevant; the lethalness of the combination rests almost solely on the shooter and their intentions.

    Then your example was terrible? You seem to imply that the Mauser killed more people than the AK, which isn't true.
    So if the AK is so deadly, why does everyone besides African Warlords use either AK-74's or M-16 variants? The point you're trying to make is ridiculous and unsourceable; there is no reliable way to determine how many people have been killed by a given variant.

    Sigh, I was just using his words as an example. I have heard from many other sources that the AK was a very simple gun to use and maintain. Ask Ciabhan, he will probably agree,
    As I've stated multiple times, this is all opinion. Literally, all of it.


    Claiming that people DON'T typically use flatnosed rounds on gophers means that I claimed wadcutter rounds are made in .223 rounds? Not seeing a flow of logic here...
    Again, no sources I see. Are you planning on using facts at any point in time here? You clearly stated that a specific type of round that was supposedly made for the caliber in question means that the idea of small game hunting with any weapon using that caliber is laughable. Now you're saying that there's no logic on my end for calling you out?



    Did I say differently?


    This is getting old. You've stated multiple times that it's used for big game hunting, yet never once listing a source that has supported that claim.


    Tell that to yourself next time you try shooting multiple targets with 9 mm glock and then with a .44 magnum revolver.


    This is hilarious. Just to ask, is this a timed exercise or are we just shooting at our own pace?


    Then you clearly don't know crap about criminals. You seem to think they are some kind of insane psychopaths hellbent for your blood. A burglar doesn't want to harm the homeowner, the burglar would rather the homeowner would not be around at all. Criminals know that if they kill someone, the police are going to be extra up their ass and that they may very well have to suffer life in prison. Crimes that would result in "random violence", like a wannabe burglar turning into a mad murderer, are extremely small. If a person doesn't know you, they probably don't want to kill you.
    I think that it's not my job, nor the homeowner's job, to come up with a hypothesis on why this person is doing whatever they're doing. Simply observing the fact that they're in my domain without my permission and obviously posing a threat to my family and property gives the homeowner the right to use Lethal force in defense of their residence.

    In short, the motives of the intruder are irrelevant.

    You were the one claiming that a home owner should be able to shoot someone execution style...
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I'm not even going to respond to this. There is simply no argument left apparently.


    Yes, that means that the police overall are sanctioned to shoot people over petty crimes.
    And because it wasn't sanctioned clearly saved the day for these women, right?



    You think a suit of a burglar suing a homeowner over being yelled at would go anywhere in court? Please.
    You're assuming the bad guy tells the truth, which would put them behind bars.

    Also, I loved the Fox news link, the homeowner was arrested FOR CHASING THE CRIMINAL OUTSIDE AND SHOOTING HIM WHILE FLEEING. The homeowner should be arrested.
    Clearly he is a determent to society who needs to be behind bars due to the clear threat he's imposing to innocent people, right?

    Never? No. Rarely? Yes.
    Clearly since it's so rare there's no valid reason for owning a weapon for home defense.

    You are implying that, since there are more "property crimes" (which doesn't mean robberies, btw), that a gun is better idea than a fire extinguisher. That is an insane use of statistics. Just because it was a "property crime" doesn't mean a gun would have been helpful in any way.
    Why do you always change your stance when presented with facts? Please show me where I was referring to rapes, murders, and assaults. It's as if you make this stuff up in your head.. OH WAIT

    Yes, I am sure it is safe BECAUSE of all of the guns.
    God forbid it be possible, right? That would go much to far against the mainstream agenda!
    Last edited by Rights of the Individual; February 18, 2013 at 06:14 PM.


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  6. #66
    AUSSIE11's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    No sources, I see.
    Stop crapping on about sources unless you are willing to provide your own in counter-argument. However having handled numerous types and styles of firearms throughout my lifetime including an SKS makes me agree with Spartan.
    That's just it. The type of sword the douchebag you were referring too chose is irrelevant because he doesn't have the training to use it effectively.
    consider the difference between effectively and most effectively. Someone with no training whatsoever is still more than capable of weilding a sword and killing their intended target. However traing reduces the chance of the swordsman injuring himself or an unsuspecting bystander by accident in the process. This is even more true if ythe opponent has the training and/or experience with their chosen tool meaning they are more likely to dispatch our untrained/unexperienced protagonist first as they are more effective.
    The type of firearm purchased is irrelevant; the lethalness of the combination rests almost solely on the shooter and their intentions.
    No. Joe Bloggs is just as dangerous accidentally discharging his 30-06 as ex-spetznaz Sergei is withhis Mac-10. Bullets hill whether intentionally or not. Intentions are also largely irrelevant and I see the larger issue around American gun laws involving the irresponsibility of allowing someone who has no idea of their weapon own and operate one. Plus if the lthality of the weapon revolves almost solely around the operator why are they always improving and changing them?

    So if the AK is so deadly, why does everyone besides African Warlords use either AK-74's or M-16 variants? The point you're trying to make is ridiculous and unsourceable; there is no reliable way to determine how many people have been killed by a given variant.
    Considering the fact the the AK has been used by countless combatants in countless wars it does seem Likely. Possibly only the Lee-Enfield, G98 and FN FAL can really compete.
    As I've stated multiple times, this is all opinion. Literally, all of it.
    And i'm only seeing opinion from you.
    Again, no sources I see. Are you planning on using facts at any point in time here? You clearly stated that a specific type of round that was supposedly made for the caliber in question means that the idea of small game hunting with any weapon using that caliber is laughable. Now you're saying that there's no logic on my end for calling you out?
    You've lost me there



    This is getting old. You've stated multiple times that it's used for big game hunting, yet never once listing a source that has supported that claim.
    It is, rounds such as the .44 and .45 along with the 44-40, .454Casull, .357 and even, irresponsibly, .38 Special and .32 have been used with wadcutters for hunting all kinds of game, even big game.



    This is hilarious. Just to ask, is this a timed exercise or are we just shooting at our own pace?
    Timed exercise accuracy will go down appreciably.
    I think that it's not my job, nor the homeowner's job, to come up with a hypothesis on why this person is doing whatever they're doing. Simply observing the fact that they're in my domain without my permission and obviously posing a threat to my family and property gives the homeowner the right to use Lethal force in defense of their residence.

    In short, the motives of the intruder are irrelevant.
    thinking like that has got pistorius or whatever his name is into a lot of trouble if what he says is true.

    Clearly he is a determent to society who needs to be behind bars due to the clear threat he's imposing to innocent people, right?
    As an offender is fleeing he clearly no longer poses a threat to your life. Therefore you have no right to use lethal force in self defence, therefore yes, he should go to jail for murder.
    Why do you always change your stance when presented with facts? Please show me where I was referring to rapes, murders, and assaults. It's as if you make this stuff up in your head.. OH WAIT

    God forbid it be possible, right? That would go much to far against the mainstream agenda!
    You stated that firearms should be allowed for self defence. by far the majority of property crimes in no way place the victim at risk so therefore why should you quote the whole number as being a reason for armament for defence of yourself. or are you now arguing for armament for defence of property as opposed to defence of self?
    The eight most terrifying words in the english language... I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

  7. #67

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Then you clearly don't know crap about criminals. You seem to think they are some kind of insane psychopaths hellbent for your blood. A burglar doesn't want to harm the homeowner, the burglar would rather the homeowner would not be around at all. Criminals know that if they kill someone, the police are going to be extra up their ass and that they may very well have to suffer life in prison. Crimes that would result in "random violence", like a wannabe burglar turning into a mad murderer, are extremely small. If a person doesn't know you, they probably don't want to kill you.
    All true. But how do you know it's a burglar(s)? Not something a little more serious?

    It also appears you don't have a family to worry about. See I'd have to run around and gather up my children before I could hide in the bedroom. It's far safer and more effective for me to prevent the intruder/s from being able to move about the home. This is easily accomplished by being armed and thus being able to stand my ground on superior or at least equal footing.

    They get the chance to get the out. If they take it fine. If they don't I'm not particularly bothered by what happens next.

    Sigh, I was just using his words as an example. I have heard from many other sources that the AK was a very simple gun to use and maintain. Ask Ciabhan, he will probably agree,
    This is true. Not only are they pretty simple to strip, reassemble, and maintain but because of the way they are made you could skip maintainence altogether and still have a reasonable expectation of it functioning for it's lifetime. They're among the most simple and rugged automatic firearms ever made.



    This is getting old. You've stated multiple times that it's used for big game hunting, yet never once listing a source that has supported that claim.
    I sort of lost track of what you two were arguing about in regards to this but yes many big game rounds are flat-nosed. They have a devastating effect on soft tissue, because they dump their energy faster on impact, at short to medium ranges. They fall off faster than more aerodynamic rounds however.
    Last edited by Ciabhán; February 18, 2013 at 08:32 PM.

  8. #68

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by AUSSIE11 View Post
    Stop crapping on about sources unless you are willing to provide your own in counter-argument. However having handled numerous types and styles of firearms throughout my lifetime including an SKS makes me agree with Spartan.
    I see. So now it is no longer "make a point and back it up", but "make an outlandishly retarded statement and force the opponent to prove it wrong". Clearly, I had it all wrong

    Since you're so experienced the big bad SKS, could you kindly outline how the sights, magazine compartment, and recoil distribution control how effectively you can use the weapon compared to, say, an FN-FAL?

    consider the difference between effectively and most effectively. Someone with no training whatsoever is still more than capable of weilding a sword and killing their intended target. However traing reduces the chance of the swordsman injuring himself or an unsuspecting bystander by accident in the process. This is even more true if ythe opponent has the training and/or experience with their chosen tool meaning they are more likely to dispatch our untrained/unexperienced protagonist first as they are more effective.
    What does this have to do with types of swords?

    No. Joe Bloggs is just as dangerous accidentally discharging his 30-06 as ex-spetznaz Sergei is withhis Mac-10. Bullets hill whether intentionally or not. Intentions are also largely irrelevant and I see the larger issue around American gun laws involving the irresponsibility of allowing someone who has no idea of their weapon own and operate one. Plus if the lthality of the weapon revolves almost solely around the operator why are they always improving and changing them?
    Curiously enough, they're not changing the way they operate anymore. Functionally, we are as technologically advanced now as when Eugene Stoner came up with the Direct Impingement gas system. Today, you are forced to choose either a weapon that uses either a Piston system or a DI system. The only "changes" have been cosmetic.

    As for Joe and Sergei, we're clearly not talking about accidental discharges, but such an instance only furthers my point; all guns are equally dangerous.

    The intentions are by no means irrelevant; a madman intent on killing as many innocents as possible is far more dangerous than Joe Schmoe on a hunting trip.


    Considering the fact the the AK has been used by countless combatants in countless wars it does seem Likely. Possibly only the Lee-Enfield, G98 and FN FAL can really compete.
    This is just speculation. How can you prove the AK-47 was used to kill a given number of people and not a similar machinegun or another weapon system entirely, such as an Airstrike or Artillery?

    And i'm only seeing opinion from you.
    Do you intend to add anything to this discussion besides personal anecdotes and do-nothing responses?

    It is, rounds such as the .44 and .45 along with the 44-40, .454Casull, .357 and even, irresponsibly, .38 Special and .32 have been used with wadcutters for hunting all kinds of game, even big game.
    Have you any sources? The only ammunition dealers selling .45 wadcutters advertised it as self defense ammunition, not game ammunition.

    Timed exercise accuracy will go down appreciably.
    With your vast firearms experience, you should undoubtedly know that firing in quick succession (taking advantage of the 9mm's inferior charge/recoil) is horribly inaccurate, right?

    thinking like that has got pistorius or whatever his name is into a lot of trouble if what he says is true.
    See the above on do-nothing responses

    As an offender is fleeing he clearly no longer poses a threat to your life. Therefore you have no right to use lethal force in self defence, therefore yes, he should go to jail for murder.
    How is it killing someone as they attempt to backtrack from robbing/raping/killing/whatever you the same as murdering an innocent person in cold blood? In war, you are allowed to shoot a retreating enemy, are you not? Why should this not apply to a household which was clearly under attack?

    You stated that firearms should be allowed for self defence. by far the majority of property crimes in no way place the victim at risk so therefore why should you quote the whole number as being a reason for armament for defence of yourself. or are you now arguing for armament for defence of property as opposed to defence of self?
    I believe the term I used was "home defense", which, as I've stated multiple times, would include defending your property with lethal force.


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  9. #69

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    I sort of lost track of what you two were arguing about in regards to this but yes many big game rounds are flat-nosed. They have a devastating effect on soft tissue, because they dump their energy faster on impact, at short to medium ranges. They fall off faster than more aerodynamic rounds however.
    Can you show me? I have only seen Wadcutters/Flat nosed rounds in pistol calibers, and only advertised as home defense rounds.

    As far as the argument, Spartan made the claim that using .223 to hunt gophers was laughable because there are supposedly flat nosed rounds that come in that caliber. Though it's meandered a bit, we've come full circle, after proving they don't exist in .223 and the ridiculousness of the said statement in regards to the intended use of specialty ammunition, and now back to whether or not he actually said what is clearly open for all to read.

    This argument in general is ridiculous; All guns are equally lethal. Though their intended uses differ, they will kill you, just the same.


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  10. #70
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    How is it killing someone as they attempt to backtrack from robbing/raping/killing/whatever you the same as murdering an innocent person in cold blood? In war, you are allowed to shoot a retreating enemy, are you not? Why should this not apply to a household which was clearly under attack?
    But you are not in a war, and he is not an enemy soldier. If the burglar is retreating from your household, he is no longer a threat to you or your family any longer. Law only allows you to shoot him if he is a threat to you or your family.
    Best/Worst quotes of TWC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    While you are at it, allow Germany to rearm, it's not like they committed the worst atrocity in modern history, so having a strong army can't lead to anything pitiful.

  11. #71
    AUSSIE11's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    417

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    I see. So now it is no longer "make a point and back it up", but "make an outlandishly retarded statement and force the opponent to prove it wrong". Clearly, I had it all wrong
    All i'm saying is that until you supply any evidence your position is no more nor less legitmate than your opponents.
    Since you're so experienced the big bad SKS, could you kindly outline how the sights, magazine compartment, and recoil distribution control how effectively you can use the weapon compared to, say, an FN-FAL?
    Standard diffenrences include the 30 as opposd to 20 round standard magazine and the calibre (SKS generally in 7.62x39 midpower whilst FN FAL is in 7.62x51 Full power). other than that they are fairly similar, not surprising they are both gas operated weapons derived from the Stg-44.
    What does this have to do with types of swords?
    Specifically it doesn't, it applies to all weapons

    Curiously enough, they're not changing the way they operate anymore. Functionally, we are as technologically advanced now as when Eugene Stoner came up with the Direct Impingement gas system. Today, you are forced to choose either a weapon that uses either a Piston system or a DI system. The only "changes" have been cosmetic.
    Yet why are they replacing the M-16 if they're all the same?
    As for Joe and Sergei, we're clearly not talking about accidental discharges, but such an instance only furthers my point; all guns are equally dangerous.

    The intentions are by no means irrelevant; a madman intent on killing as many innocents as possible is far more dangerous than Joe Schmoe on a hunting trip.

    This is just speculation. How can you prove the AK-47 was used to kill a given number of people and not a similar machinegun or another weapon system entirely, such as an Airstrike or Artillery?
    I'm not saying it has, im just saying that it's a legitmate assumption.

    Do you intend to add anything to this discussion besides personal anecdotes and do-nothing responses?
    All this thread is seemingly based on is personal knowlege.

    Have you any sources? The only ammunition dealers selling .45 wadcutters advertised it as self defense ammunition, not game ammunition.
    The 2011 remington catalogue has a sillouette of a deer on the page for wadcutters if i remember correctly.
    With your vast firearms experience, you should undoubtedly know that firing in quick succession (taking advantage of the 9mm's inferior charge/recoil) is horribly inaccurate, right?
    9mm aint too bad, its a bit the same with the .38 Specia, get bigger than that and it'll get harder.

    How is it killing someone as they attempt to backtrack from robbing/raping/killing/whatever you the same as murdering an innocent person in cold blood? In war, you are allowed to shoot a retreating enemy, are you not? Why should this not apply to a household which was clearly under attack?

    I believe the term I used was "home defense", which, as I've stated multiple times, would include defending your property with lethal force.
    If you state that killing a criminal is right then where does it end? is it legit to hunt him down and shoot him a minute later? and hour later? a day later? all that encourages is vigilanteism and revenge seeking neither of which are legitimate. The alleged robber is already fleeing therefore neither you nor your property are under threat. you are therefore shooting someone who is posing no threat to you therefore you cannot claim self defence. therefore it is murder.
    The eight most terrifying words in the english language... I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

  12. #72

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Can you show me? I have only seen Wadcutters/Flat nosed rounds in pistol calibers, and only advertised as home defense rounds.

    As far as the argument, Spartan made the claim that using .223 to hunt gophers was laughable because there are supposedly flat nosed rounds that come in that caliber. Though it's meandered a bit, we've come full circle, after proving they don't exist in .223 and the ridiculousness of the said statement in regards to the intended use of specialty ammunition, and now back to whether or not he actually said what is clearly open for all to read.

    This argument in general is ridiculous; All guns are equally lethal. Though their intended uses differ, they will kill you, just the same.
    Wadcutter is actually a term specifically for flat soft lead target rounds. They leave a nice clean hole in the paper targets. It and semi-wadcutter are generally used to describe soft point flat nosed pistol rounds of various types. Flat-nosed is a category that includes wadcutters and other styles of ammunition such as the below examples(or things like the 'standard' .40 FMJ in terms of well known popular rounds):

    http://www.midwayusa.com/product/915...ding-box-of-20

    http://www.midwayusa.com/product/155...oint-box-of-20

    http://www.midwayusa.com/product/727...ose-box-of-100

    While not specifically flat-nose it falls into a similar category:
    http://www.midwayusa.com/product/594...nose-box-of-50

    You can also look at things like Barnes Banded Solid and I believe VOR-TX bullets. They are both flat nose big game/safari rounds.

    Etc. Big game loads aren't commonly advertised but almost all the associated calibres have some form of flat-nosed round. Flat-point or even round nose rounds make better charge stoppers. They have good penetration and quick energy dump. They also fly straighter through brush because they aren't knocked off course as easily. That factor also comes into play inside the target body. They tend to have a straighter path in the body.

    You may be right about the .223 I dunno. I've never seen a manufactured .223 flat nose. Thats because the .223 bullet needs the higher velocity to achieve it's maximum potential in the target, fragments about 2700FPS. I have however seen flat nose in home cast .223 bullets and manufactured .222 bullets(hornady I believe was the one who made the brand I used to see around).
    Last edited by Ciabhán; February 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM.

  13. #73

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    I am very grateful that I don't have to deal with you alone for awhile, but I would like to address these points real quick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    And because it wasn't sanctioned clearly saved the day for these women, right?
    You said police are allowed to shoot people over petty crimes. They aren't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    You're assuming the bad guy tells the truth, which would put them behind bars.
    Shouting at somebody isn't a crime, why would the truth matter there?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Clearly he is a determent to society who needs to be behind bars due to the clear threat he's imposing to innocent people, right?
    Yes, yes he is. He is dispensing his own justice out of society's consensus. The individual is deciding what offenses are worthy of death and which or not. That is bad.
    Last edited by The spartan; February 18, 2013 at 11:34 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  14. #74

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by AUSSIE11 View Post
    Standard diffenrences include the 30 as opposd to 20 round standard magazine and the calibre (SKS generally in 7.62x39 midpower whilst FN FAL is in 7.62x51 Full power). other than that they are fairly similar, not surprising they are both gas operated weapons derived from the Stg-44.
    Curious. The two use completely different magazines, grips, and calibers, yet they handle fairly similar. Is this not the point I've been making all along?


    Yet why are they replacing the M-16 if they're all the same?
    They're not "Newer" versions are being released with the old, M-1 Garand style Long Stroke Piston system, but functionally they've released nothing new. They're putting a set of off-road tires on a sports car, if you will.


    I'm not saying it has, im just saying that it's a legitmate assumption.
    No, as it's immeasurable. Saying it's the most popular weapon in the world is a far more accurate, measurable statement.

    9mm aint too bad, its a bit the same with the .38 Specia, get bigger than that and it'll get harder.
    You missed the point; it's common knowledge that the faster you shoot, the less accurate you are.


    If you state that killing a criminal is right then where does it end? is it legit to hunt him down and shoot him a minute later? and hour later? a day later? all that encourages is vigilanteism and revenge seeking neither of which are legitimate. The alleged robber is already fleeing therefore neither you nor your property are under threat. you are therefore shooting someone who is posing no threat to you therefore you cannot claim self defence. therefore it is murder.
    I believe once the criminal crosses the property line, the use of home defense becomes void. As the home invader was still in the man's yard, he should've been found innocent. Pursuing someone down the street is a far cry from shooting at someone as they exit your house.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan
    You said police are allowed to shoot people over petty crimes. They aren't.
    They are. If you resist arrest over a petty crime, you can be shot.

    Shouting at somebody isn't a crime, why would the truth matter there?
    Is it not far fetched for the criminal to say you threatened him or held him at gunpoint so that he can avoid jail time?

    Yes, yes he is. He is dispensing his own justice out of society's consensus. The individual is deciding what offenses are worthy of death and which or not. That is bad.
    He was defending his property, not hunting people down and shooting them in the face. Had the perpetrator run beyond the property line, this would be a different story.


    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  15. #75

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Curious. The two use completely different magazines, grips, and calibers, yet they handle fairly similar. Is this not the point I've been making all along?
    Could that have something to do with you picking which weapons to compare? Also ignoring the part about the common ancestor.
    Last edited by Lazarus; February 20, 2013 at 03:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  16. #76

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    They are. If you resist arrest over a petty crime, you can be shot.
    No, they aren't. Police aren't allowed to shoot you unless you are an immediate threat to themselves or another person. Like, a life threatening threat. If you resist arrest and aren't particularly dangerous (i.e. unarmed), you are probably gonna get tasered or pepper sprayed, but not shot. If you do get shot over something petty, you or your family can sue the ass off of the police department.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    Is it not far fetched for the criminal to say you threatened him or held him at gunpoint so that he can avoid jail time?
    Is it far fetched that a criminal would say that? No, probably not. Is it far fetched anyone would take him seriously? Yeah, pretty much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    He was defending his property, not hunting people down and shooting them in the face. Had the perpetrator run beyond the property line, this would be a different story.
    He stopped defending his property when he chased the dude down to shoot him. That isn't defense.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  17. #77

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Is it far fetched anyone would take him seriously? Yeah, pretty much.
    It isn't really far fetched. We are talking about a society where the criminal has more rights than the victims. A society where criminals have won lawsuits because they tripped and fell, injuring themselves, over objects in their victims' homes or on their properties.

    Society has become far too concerned with the strictly following the letter of the law and forgotten what the purpose behind is. It has also become too soft and decadent overall.

    I heard a supposed childhood psychologist advocating people be their children's friend and not authority figure. He insisted it was more fair because they are people to and we wouldn't give orders to or punish our peers. People will listen to him. Stupid, useless, lazy, undisciplined will result from it. It's just another example of the problem.

  18. #78

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    It isn't really far fetched. We are talking about a society where the criminal has more rights than the victims. A society where criminals have won lawsuits because they tripped and fell, injuring themselves, over objects in their victims' homes or on their properties.
    I mean come on, the number of lawsuits actually won by criminals against their victims is probably countable on two hands in the history of the US court system. This isn't actually any noticeable problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    Society has become far too concerned with the strictly following the letter of the law and forgotten what the purpose behind is. It has also become too soft and decadent overall.

    I heard a supposed childhood psychologist advocating people be their children's friend and not authority figure. He insisted it was more fair because they are people to and we wouldn't give orders to or punish our peers. People will listen to him. Stupid, useless, lazy, undisciplined will result from it. It's just another example of the problem.
    Well, our legal system is designed to be slightly biased to the accused (note the burden of proof is on the accuser), but that's just it, accused, not criminal. Whether it is too soft or not is debatable and complex, the legal system is often overburdened as is. And again, I am not trying to advocate more criminal rights or some BS, I am just noting that criminals ARE people and that you shouldn't chase them down and shoot them, or execute them for that matter.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  19. #79

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    No, they aren't. Police aren't allowed to shoot you unless you are an immediate threat to themselves or another person. Like, a life threatening threat. If you resist arrest and aren't particularly dangerous (i.e. unarmed), you are probably gonna get tasered or pepper sprayed, but not shot. If you do get shot over something petty, you or your family can sue the ass off of the police department.
    So would making any of the aforementioned "life threatening threats" not be "resisting arrest"?

    My point still stands; if you resist arrest to a petty crime, such as running a stop sign, you can be shot by police whether you're armed or not.

    He stopped defending his property when he chased the dude down to shoot him. That isn't defense.
    So, in english, the only way you should "defend" your house is through retreating? Why? was it not his property that he was protecting? The assailant was clearly killed on his front lawn, not the gas station a mile away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    Could that have something to do with you picking which weapons to compare? Also ignoring the part about the common ancestor.
    Clearly, I'm the biased one. They're obviously identical copies of one another, created in a scandalous back-door deal with the Kremlin and Fabrique Nationale for the expressed purpose of undermining all pro-rights people in the "some guns are deadlier than others" argument.



    "Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.

  20. #80

    Default Re: California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    So would making any of the aforementioned "life threatening threats" not be "resisting arrest"?

    My point still stands; if you resist arrest to a petty crime, such as running a stop sign, you can be shot by police whether you're armed or not.
    Dude, no one believes you, just stop. There is several things wrong with what you are saying. First, resisting arrest isn't a petty crime. Second, you can ONLY be shot if you are putting people in life threatening situations (like fleeing police in your car on a freeway).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rights of the Individual View Post
    So, in english, the only way you should "defend" your house is through retreating? Why? was it not his property that he was protecting? The assailant was clearly killed on his front lawn, not the gas station a mile away.
    So, just so we are clear for everyone here; you are in favor of chasing people fleeing from your premises and killing them AS LONG as you kill them before they get off your property? Good to know.

    Edit: Also, not chasing someone is not the same as retreating, since you brought up english.
    Last edited by The spartan; February 20, 2013 at 08:59 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •