Guns good or bad

[Blender]

My neighbor has one and I live in norway. Sometimes I'm scared that he'll just shoot me while he's drunk.

 

[Maxliam]

My guy, You aren't gonna tell me you would be in bed with your wife, you spring up into action grabbing your assault rifle from under your pillow like some soldier clearing rooms.

Sure, maybe for people with military service experience that might be a thing, but for average Joe it's not very realistic.

I personally don't use one for that but I do have my S&W 5906 loaded for that. I tend to rotate my collection depending on my mood. I also sleep pretty lightly and don't suffer from being groggy when I get up. I am up and at it right away. Then again I'm also a very very hyperactive person in general so there's that.

As a joke I have used it to clear my place. It wasn't that terrible at the job. I prefer to use a pistol or shotgun for that. To each their own on it.

The military training isn't exactly the best ever, just my experience with MOUT training was that a full size M16 isn't ideal but very manageable in tight quarters. An M4 is even more so being much shorter and easier to move around.

Agreed. The avg joe is more likely to shoot himself, or his wife, than a perp.

If you don't train with weapons sure, but if you train and practice with weapons, it reduces that risk by a lot.

Have you shot one? I have as a civilian. ARs are are slick little carbines. The control you have versus a pistol is much greater. Greater control means better aim. Better aim means being more likely to hit your target. These aren't big clunky SKSs or grandpappy's scattergun. You can put more of the lead where you want to regardless of your training.

And if you are pulling a gun out of the safe to confront that which goes bump in the night, you might as well grab the best gun you have.

I definitely agree here. People seem to also think you don't need to aim with a shotgun. Oh boy do you, especially at house length distances. It's harder to get follow up shots with a shotgun compared to a light-recoiling AR.

My neighbor has one and I live in norway. Sometimes I'm scared that he'll just shoot me while he's drunk.

The hell kind of neighbor do you have? Sounds like he's just a piece of shit.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Practically speaking, though, I don't get why anyone not martial , paramilitary, or police force needs assault rifles or even semi-automatic pistols.

Multiple attackers. It's not as if there are is lack of incidents of home invasions being conducted by two or more people. Armed people. Having 7+ rounds on tap plus more reloaded quickly instead of the 5-6 you would have in a revolver is seen as desirable.

That's about as practical as you can get. You tend to want to have the best arm available when you are defending your life.

 

[Maxliam]

No, guns should not be "taken away." People in rural areas often need guns. Rifles and shotguns are often owned and used by farmers, ranchers, and countryfolk for vermin and protection, as well as using dogs. City people need them for protection as well.

Practically speaking, though, I don't get why anyone not martial , paramilitary, or police force needs assault rifles or even semi-automatic pistols.

Semi-auto rifles are lightweight, easy to manaveur and tend to have lower recoil than a shotgun or battle rifle (which are a giant pain in the ass to use indoors) and have a higher capacity than pistols/revolvers/shotguns. If a gang of people are coming at you or say you have a riot in your area, you want to have as many rounds as you can in a magazine. Why limit it to shotguns and revolvers if you don't have to? I like shotguns and revolvers but if I need to grab my AR or AK for a large group of attackers, I'd be very glad I had it.

Here are cases of people using AR15's to defend their homes

 

[D. Sweatshirt]

The OPFOR scenarios I've seen for my state specifically put a manpower loss of guard and police units at over 80% for a 12 month period in the event of an insurgency with a wide conservative base of support, I am not aware of an OPFOR scenario for a leftwing militia confronting the state government, probably because there is not a significant enough of a threat, and detailed OPFOR scenarios take an absurd amount of time, effort, planning, and manpower. Note: I am not on the OPFOR planning team, I'm just on the email list. That 80% number is mainly defections. That is what is going to really fuck you, defections. Not just people that leave either, those guys are bad, but the real threat is the large number that are expected to remain in their positions while feeding information and equipment to the OPFOR. Do you have any idea how fragile the military CnC structure in the US really is? There is one artillery base in the US. There are 7 facilities with SF units stationed at them in the US. There are 3 bases with AWACS stationed at them. All of those bases are in or very near major metro areas with sizable populations. How hard is it for someone to make an IRA mortar van, park on a city street 1200m away from the flight line, sling a half dozen mortars into it, and drive away, causing millions in damage and months in repairs? It isn't. How hard is it to just start popping family members of people that work on base until people start thinking that "hey, maybe supporting this regime was a bad idea?" The US government is woefully unprepared to face an insurgency with any wide base of support. They do not have the logistics capacity, the manpower, or the willpower to fight such a conflict. I would also assume that particular widely available "seditious materials" (see: anything by Uncle Fester), would also ensure that copious amounts of nerve agents, poison gasses, and IED/EFPs would be used to a wide degree against regime forces, probably with an impressive degree of success. Things like Sarin or even VX are relatively easy to make by an experienced backyard chemist. EFPs capable of penetrating tanks are even easier to make, taking only some high explosive and a copper plate inside a flowerpot.

My personal opinion is that the state would do anything and everything possible to avoid a civil conflict because of these reasons. I don't feel as though any state entity is prepared to push past that red line, regardless of political affiliation. It is also my opinion that any form of widespread civil conflict in the US would be the end of widespread organized society in the US, and that the standard of living would plummet, and likely wouldn't recover to prewar levels for decades, or up to a century. I also believe that there are people significantly higher on the foodchain than myself that keeps their finger on the pulse of things like this, and are aware of just how far they can push without toppling the house of cards. Again, the bureaucracy is extremely large, and the tendrils extremely deep. Everyone plays a part, down to the letter carriers. Not in like a spooky deep state way, but everyone is getting fed information from everywhere. It's pretty cool, in a way. In fact, this overwhelming amount of information and lack of analysts is actually what causes things like Parkland, where they had all of the information available, and nobody to analyze the lead to see if it was a credible threat. That happens more than anyone will admit.

Anyway, I digress, the point is that the government fighting their own people here is absolute suicide. That being said my personal opinion is that America was meant to be free, not safe, so I really couldn't give two fucks. Let people own guns, let people carry them, who gives a shit? Don't take life too seriously, nobody makes it out alive anyway. It's just a shitty joke with an even worse punchline.

I 110% agree. The day the government goes on a warpath in its own country to confiscate the guns of its citizens is the day society in the States dies a painful death.

 

[IV 445]

I 110% agree. The day the government goes on a warpath in its own country to confiscate the guns of its citizens is the day society in the States dies a painful death.

I just hope this is enough deterrent for the government to never attempt this, whoever is in power. We would be sitting ducks to other militaries if we were fighting amongst ourselves in a second civil war.

 

[Monotony]

i need guns so i can defend mysellf from having my ab workout videos demonetized

 

[Doctor of Autism]

I believe guns shouldn't be taken away, but there must be more regulations to make sure no one has easy access to them like in states such as Louisiana.

 

[PlasticOwls]

Unless you're a goddamned gunslinger with a shooting talent of Anne Oakley, i really dont see the point of owning more than one gun.

Hell, if its for the sake of safety and the 2nd amendment, I dont see the point of owning guns beyond a pistol. The right wing gun nuts are just being spoiled from having lots of guns and NRA money

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Hell, if its for the sake of safety and the 2nd amendment, I dont see the point of owning guns beyond a pistol. The right wing gun nuts are just being spoiled from having lots of guns and NRA money

A lot of gun enthusiasts seem to have this weird power fantasy that they need to be on maximum alert in case a team of ninjas suddenly descend upon their property at a moment's notice. I always used to be quite perplexed by this level of paranoia, but as soon as I got the opportunity to familiarize myself a little bit with gun culture, it all started to make sense.

When you hold a gun, you get this sense of danger that is difficult to quite put into words, and with that sense of danger comes the sense that the stakes are suddenly a lot higher. Some gun owners think that they will feel safer the more guns they own, but in reality they just end up becoming more paranoid for the reasons I just outlined.

A lot of people are keen to blame the NRA or the wider gun culture for reinforcing this paranoid mindset, but in the end, the real culprit is arguably the guns themselves.

 

[Duke Nukem]

The only people who want to disarm the citizenry and actually know jack shit about anything are probably psychopathic Pol Pot wannabes. Trusting the institution of state with your own protection is generally a very bad idea, for a number of reasons.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

The only people who want to disarm the citizenry and actually know jack shit about anything are probably psychopathic Pol Pot wannabes. Trusting the institution of state with your own protection is generally a very bad idea, for a number of reasons.

Is it really 'psychopathic' to support proper background checks designed to prevent actual psychopaths from getting their hands on guns? Because it seems to me that the alternative of doing nothing is eminently more psychopathic in that it works to enable those psychopaths.

 

[PlasticOwls]

All I know is Japan allows guns, shotguns even. But the standards and testing to get a gun are on par with passing the bar exam. As a result, gun related homicides are non existent.

I say if we allow guns, make it an accomplishment. Motivate people to go above beyond for the thing they hold so dear

Itll be a bigger headache to get guns and deters the nutters who get them without background checks

 

[Red Hood]

Unless you're a goddamned gunslinger with a shooting talent of Anne Oakley, i really dont see the point of owning more than one gun.

Hell, if its for the sake of safety and the 2nd amendment, I dont see the point of owning guns beyond a pistol. The right wing gun nuts are just being spoiled from having lots of guns and NRA money

Pistols for personal defense are a compromise, because most people don't have the ability to carry something larger and more powerful around all day, it's inconvenient (a loaded gun is HEAVY to have on you all day), or concealed carry is optimal. Pistols are effective defensive weapons but not as effective as a shotgun or carbine. The most powerful handguns most people can reasonably carry and shoot controllably would probably be a .357 revolver, which still pales to a 5.56 mm cartridge (what most AR pattern rifles chamber).

Cartridge /Mass Bullet Energy
.357 Magnum/ 158gr 731 J
5.56x45mm NATO/ 55gr 1,755 J

As for hunting...you pretty much need at least 3 guns if you want to hunt all available types of game in the US- a rimfire (.22) rifle for small game, a shotgun, and a larger centerfire rifle (such as a .30-06 or .30-30) for bigger game. And that's not getting into the options of muzzleloaders, handgun hunting, varmint hunting, or the larger and more powerful cartridges that are ideal for large/dangerous game like brown bears. You could probably get by as a hunter with just one shotgun, but you've got to be adept with tools because you're going to be taking a scope on and off, changing out barrels, and swapping chokes constantly and you'd have a much more limited range, which can be pretty bad if you're trying to take a deer or elk in some parts of the country. The goal is to kill the animal cleanly and ideally as quickly as possible and not to ruin the meat (or hide, in some cases).

 

[Duke Nukem]

Is it really 'psychopathic' to support proper background checks designed to prevent actual psychopaths from getting their hands on guns? Because it seems to me that the alternative of doing nothing is eminently more psychopathic in that it works to enable those psychopaths.

We already have a system like that in place. Like all systems it's not 100% reliable but then again nothing is. Plus, psychopaths exist in all walks of life, and psychopathy in itself is often very difficult to detect, let alone handle. And denying/depriving a constitutional right is not going to get rid of psychopaths, even if it DID somehow magically make guns disappear. It's as idiotic and counterproductive as anti-bullying programs and prohibition. It's just feelgood nonsense made to make nonsensical people feel good.

All I know is Japan allows guns, shotguns even. But the standards and testing to get a gun are on par with passing the bar exam. As a result, gun related homicides are non existent.

I say if we allow guns, make it an accomplishment. Motivate people to go above beyond for the thing they hold so dear

Itll be a bigger headache to get guns and deters the nutters who get them without background checks

Japan is also pretty much a police state on that and a number of other things. For Christ's sake, if you have a family member who's part of a political activist group, you're likely to be denied. You really don't have a whole lot of rights as a citizen in Japan to begin with, and their police powers are horrifying. The most successful criminal defense lawyer there only has a 65% success rate, and any confessions beaten out of a person can be used in a court of law against them.

Japan is hardly a model for the world at large, for a number of reasons. It's not the wonderful weeaboo fantasy land that anime addicts hold so near and dear.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Is it really 'psychopathic' to support proper background checks designed to prevent actual psychopaths from getting their hands on guns? Because it seems to me that the alternative of doing nothing is eminently more psychopathic in that it works to enable those psychopaths.

That is already on the books. Brady Bill.

the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who...

4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution

I find myself repeating like a broken record in these discussions because, apparently, people don't fucking know the law and/or now want these mentally ill people to be placed on double-secret probation when it comes to guns. As if that would somehow work better.

And if you just want a person's rights to be removed without due process because they just seem crazy and you don't like them. No. Fuck no. That is not how rights should be treated by government. Either prove it in court or fuck off.

 

[Red Hood]

We already have a system like that in place. Like all systems it's not 100% reliable but then again nothing is. Plus, psychopaths exist in all walks of life, and psychopathy in itself is often very difficult to detect, let alone handle. And denying/depriving a constitutional right is not going to get rid of psychopaths, even if it DID somehow magically make guns disappear. It's as idiotic and counterproductive as anti-bullying programs and prohibition. It's just feelgood nonsense made to make nonsensical people feel good.



Japan is also pretty much a police state on that and a number of other things. For Christ's sake, if you have a family member who's part of a political activist group, you're likely to be denied. You really don't have a whole lot of rights as a citizen in Japan to begin with, and their police powers are horrifying. The most successful criminal defense lawyer there only has a 65% success rate, and any confessions beaten out of a person can be used in a court of law against them.

Japan is hardly a model for the world at large, for a number of reasons. It's not the wonderful weeaboo fantasy land that anime addicts hold so near and dear.

Japan also has an entire 12 square miles of forest colloquially known as the "suicide forest" and used panty vending machines, let's not pretend they don't have their own fuck ups.

 

[D. Sweatshirt]

Is it really 'psychopathic' to support proper background checks designed to prevent actual psychopaths from getting their hands on guns? Because it seems to me that the alternative of doing nothing is eminently more psychopathic in that it works to enable those psychopaths.

There's a little thing called NICS Background checks. You have to go through one before you walk out the door with any firearm, handgun or long gun. You also have to have a state-issued ID before you can buy anything.

You can't get guns shipped to your door either. They have to go through a dealer first, who will do the background checks and ask for an ID just like they would've if you had to get one there.

These things already exist. You just need to do more research before you jump to conclusions.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Japan also has an entire 12 square miles of forest colloquially known as the "suicide forest" and used panty vending machines, let's not pretend they don't have their own fuck ups.

I don't know if the used panties vending machines deal is true anymore, but I've heard that girls sell their used underwear to weirdos on occasion to this day. And yeah the suicide rate is higher per capita than ours, so yeah you're on to something. I did once work with a guy who was real into anime and video games, by his own admission, who was in super denial about Japan's ugly side. Maybe I'll tell that story sometime.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

You can't get guns shipped to your door either. They have to go through a dealer first, who will do the background checks and ask for an ID just like they would've if you had to get one there.

That's where the vague anti-gun propaganda weirdness comes in. I have ordered a gun to my door. A ColtWalker1847. But it isn't considered a "gun" by the ATF because it's a cap and ball black powder replica. It's super neat, btw. You could, in theory, buy a replica black powder revolver like it and a conversion cylinder for modern smokeless cased ammo online and have a functioning "firearm" shipped to your door without a background check.

It would be a single-action cowboy revolver that you had to take apart to reload every 6 shots and it might blow up because it wasn't designed for the higher pressures. But you could do it.

Unsurprisingly, criminals have not sought out this method of acquiring guns for their misdeeds.

I had to explain this to a pawn broker once when helping a friend buy an 1860 Colt Army replica. Yes, it could be a firearm if other shit was bolted to it. But it isn't. So fuck off with your FFL transfer fee. FFFG 4 lyfe.