#oneless

[Syne]

The "full semi-automatic" phrase came from a dumb CNN report.

Actually it came from some dumbass gun nut. I thought they were the gun experts.

So now anyone ex-military is a "gun nut"?
What he said was only a problem for the typical gun-illiterate CNN audience. 3 minutes selectively cut out of a 90 minute demonstration (where they don't even show him fire the actual assault rifle in comparison). He should have known better than to use such imprecise language. And CNN immediately followed that clip up by claiming the AR-15 is "a weapon designed to inflict maximum damage", which is a flat out lie. Both, in concert, make the average dumb CNN viewer all the more ignorant on the subject.

[Image: 86f773d3c20f680713dddf5969d504d0934d95a6...3c43c7.jpg]

Yes, and more of those people use blunt objects, knives, hands, or feet than use rifles. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/201...0-2014.xls

Youtube+dickhead+gun .. how can it possibly fail to attract views? Allowing the crap to flow unhindered I see a young man shooting a tree to show a chainsaw is more dangerous than a gun... but no, he has a greater message, dickheads need guns, even have a duty to have guns, so the government can't subdue them by force of arms. Maybe not having to deal with dickheads like this is a good and sufficient justification for education.

The dickheads are the ones seeking to deprive people of their natural human rights. The same dickheads that tried to deny freed blacks citizenship because it would mean they could carry guns to protect themselves.

5 million dickheads with guns will get more attention than 5 million dickheads without guns. Seen from the outside I'm not sure the guns are really necessary at the moment.

Seen from the outside, you don't have a clue.

---

Because some people don't understand the lies leftist gun-control nuts regularly tell in the US:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/wC8ifbZyP1s

[stryder]

One of the main problems with peoples take on guns is the places where there are legitimate reasons to have one versus those locations where there isn't really a need.

For instance out in rural country areas a gun can potentially be used to kill or scare off predators (bob cats, mountain lions, bears, 'gators, snakes etc), hunt and potentially deter people from violent criminal behaviour (which can be important if you're in a location with spotty cell coverage or miles away from the nearest police station.) In the suburbs of cities though, for the most part it's criminal to unload a weapon within the city limits (as the cities patrolled by police and has a population that could end up collateral damage).

The problem of course is the rights of those out in the rural boonies to protect themselves isn't necessarily the same as those that live in an urban jungle, however people assume that all rights should be the same.

There is of course a grey area, when city folk travel through the country. Do they require protection should their car break down? As they can be subjected to the same things as those that live in the rural areas.

(It kind of reminds me of some of those old Westerns where the Sheriff would have people that came into the town hand their guns into the Jail house for safe keeping until it was time to leave)

[Syne]

Sorry, but even in cities, when seconds count the police are minutes away. Even though the police were on the scene at the YouTube offices within two minutes (after ignoring several previous warnings), the shooting had already ended and all the damage had already been done. And then there is dereliction of duty, like in Parkland. Yes, cities have ordinances against just shooting within their limits, but those do not prohibit self-defense by legal carriers. And crime is very often much higher in cities than rural areas. Just look at London, and their rash of stabbings and murder rate eclipsing NYC.

[confused2]

[Just look at London, and their rash of stabbings and murder rate eclipsing NYC.

Clearly we (the UK) have a very serious problem here, in London in particular. I am not convinced that it can be solved by introducing large numbers of semi-automatic weapons into the city of London. In fairness to gun culture in the US - 'buffalo' and his buddies exist in reasonable harmony with the rest of US society - in the UK we have no such culture to call upon. While Dogbrain (or whatever) was happy to demonstrate that 70 rounds wasn't enough to cut down a tree - it would certainly be enough to kill quite a few people in a crowded street on a Friday night. The UK way seems to be in the direction of no individual should have the power to use extreme and lethal force rather than all individuals should be given that power (as a right). Call it lack of trust if you like - yes exactly that.

[Syne]

[Just look at London, and their rash of stabbings and murder rate eclipsing NYC.

Clearly we (the UK) have a very serious problem here, in London in particular. I am not convinced that it can be solved by introducing large numbers of semi-automatic weapons into the city of London. In fairness to gun culture in the US -  'buffalo' and his buddies exist in reasonable harmony with the rest of US society - in the UK we have no such culture to call upon. While Dogbrain (or whatever) was happy to demonstrate that 70 rounds wasn't enough to cut down a tree - it would certainly be enough to kill quite a few people in a crowded street on a Friday night. The UK way seems to be in the direction of no individual should have the power to use extreme and lethal force rather than all individuals should be given that power (as a right). Call it lack of trust if you like - yes exactly that.

Who said anything about introducing guns in the UK? I'm sure Brits no longer know enough about guns to safely own and operate them.
No idea what you're talking about "70 rounds wasn't enough to cut down a tree". Was that something posted in this thread?
No, the UK way is effectively only criminals have the power to use extreme and lethal force, as per murder rate and stabbings (where lock-blade multi-tools are even illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry).
But people often judge those around them by the same standard they judge themselves. The untrusting are often the untrustworthy. That may be a natural consequence of heavy reliance upon government.

[confused2]

Who said anything about introducing guns in the UK? I'm sure Brits no longer know enough about guns to safely own and operate them.

Agreed.

No idea what you're talking about "70 rounds wasn't enough to cut down a tree". Was that something posted in this thread?

As mentioned above - allowing the youtube to chose the next most appropriate I got Dogbrain shooting a tree - and (incidentally) a flash of an assault rifle with a shortened barrel - could have been another spoof, of course.

No, the UK way is effectively only criminals have the power to use extreme and lethal force, as per murder rate and stabbings (where lock-blade multi-tools are even illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry).

We also have acid as a weapon of choice. Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in the last few years - at least we seem to agree that flooding the country with semi-automatic weapons isn't a viable solution for the UK - for whatever reason.

But people often judge those around them by the same standard they judge themselves. The untrusting are often the untrustworthy. That may be a natural consequence of heavy reliance upon government.

Ignoring the personal - when I was young I think the police did (to an extent) act as surrogate parents. I don't know what happens on the street now. By virtue of age and geography I don't have a dog in the fight.

When the yardstick for 'horrible' is "worse than New York" I'm not either of us can take any particular pride in the performance of our kin.

[Syne]

No idea what you're talking about "70 rounds wasn't enough to cut down a tree". Was that something posted in this thread?

As mentioned above - allowing the youtube to chose the next most appropriate I got Dogbrain shooting a tree - and (incidentally) a flash of an assault rifle with a shortened barrel - could have been another spoof, of course.

Since I can't find said video, I can only tell you that short-barrel rifles are legal, with the appropriate taxes, registration, and serious background clearance.

No, the UK way is effectively only criminals have the power to use extreme and lethal force, as per murder rate and stabbings (where lock-blade multi-tools are even illegal for law-abiding citizens to carry).

We also have acid as a weapon of choice. Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in the last few years - at least we seem to agree that flooding the country with semi-automatic weapons isn't a viable solution for the UK - for whatever reason.

I forgot about the acid attacks. But agreed about a sudden flood of guns in the UK. They might get strange notions about the wild west. Would be at least as bad as suddenly leaving only the criminals armed in the US.

But people often judge those around them by the same standard they judge themselves. The untrusting are often the untrustworthy. That may be a natural consequence of heavy reliance upon government.

Ignoring the personal - when I was young I think the police did (to an extent) act as surrogate parents. I don't know what happens on the street now. By virtue of age and geography I don't have a dog in the fight.

When the yardstick for 'horrible' is "worse than New York" I'm not either of us can take any particular pride in the performance of our kin.

Just a general description of a shoe, whether it fits or not is not for me to say.
NYC, and many Democrat dominated big cities are creatures of a different stripe than most of America, even within generally considered liberal states.
The gun control in those cities approaching that of London may explain the similarities.

[stryder]

London's increase in violence is likely Gang related, possibly racially motivated and more than likely orientated to cause maximum fear (Terrorism)

It's possible that the underworld there is trying to cut into that fear to control and dominate the people in that area. For instance if one of those shooters or stabbers wants to rape a victim or put a young girl in servitude, they could use the historic references of the random acts of violence to make them oblige. The only true method to deal with that situation is to do like how used to be done in Ireland, armed police and soldiers on the street corners for a couple of months. Enforced curfews, revoking liquor licensing to reduce the opening hours of establishments to fit with the curfews.

It's draconian, however it's the only viable option to curb the violence escalation.

(If such violence spiked in a city in the US, it would be time for the National Guard.)

The point with London however is that all that violence isn't necessarily gun crime (that's still rare, although it's been increasing with people trafficking) so even removing guns doesn't necessarily make a place safe. As for the population in cities, for the most part you'll find that cities that "Segregate" into smaller communities are more than likely to have higher levels of violent crimes as segregation is what seeds Xenophobia.

As for AR-15's, I always considered the design was for protecting Naval assets. It's potentially capable of dealing with the boarding of a Carrier, it's rounds aren't as high calibre as some weaponry which would have greater range and penetration (but then again on a ship you don't want to ricochet your own team or put a hole in the hull.) It's design therefore is potentially "Defensive" however only when you are trying to hold ground (or take it back), it's not exactly something you can say you keep for defence by your bed because if someone entered your room while you were sleeping, they could more than likely close distance on you with a knife than you would have time to bring it to bear on them. As for hunting... well I'm sure in certain states there was actually rules about what rifles you are allowed to hunt with (single shot bolt-action), although the usual argument from a hunter might be "If I'm hunting a bear, I don't want to tick it off with one wounding shot, I want to make sure it doesn't keep coming at me". (In those situations it makes more sense to hunt with multiple shooters rather than needing an assault rifle for an unarmed bear.)

[Zinjanthropos]

"If I'm hunting a bear, I don't want to tick it off with one wounding shot, I want to make sure it doesn't keep coming at me". (In those situations it makes more sense to hunt with multiple shooters rather than needing an assault rifle for an unarmed bear.)

Life is tough for a bruin. If this is what faces Yogi and Booboo when foraging for pic-a-nic baskets then I think the next constitutional amendment should include the right to arm bears.

[Syne]

The only true method to deal with that situation is to do like how used to be done in Ireland, armed police and soldiers on the street corners for a couple of months.  Enforced curfews, revoking liquor licensing to reduce the opening hours of establishments to fit with the curfews.  

It's draconian, however it's the only viable option to curb the violence escalation.

Yeah, once people have surrendered their own right to defend themselves, they usually end up giving up more rights, like freedom of movement, etc..
Not far from people being asked for their papers at regular checkpoints.

(If such violence spiked in a city in the US, it would be time for the National Guard.)

Probably, but only because most are suffering from Democrat policies that preclude more sensible alternatives.

The point with London however is that all that violence isn't necessarily gun crime (that's still rare, although it's been increasing with people trafficking) so even removing guns doesn't necessarily make a place safe.  As for the population in cities, for the most part you'll find that cities that "Segregate" into smaller communities are more than likely to have higher levels of violent crimes as segregation is what seeds Xenophobia.

Yeah, racial segregation, and crime, is highest in many US cities run by Democrats.

As for AR-15's, I always considered the design was for protecting Naval assets.  It's potentially capable of dealing with the boarding of a Carrier, it's rounds aren't as high calibre as some weaponry which would have greater range and penetration (but then again on a ship you don't want to ricochet your own team or put a hole in the hull.)  It's design therefore is potentially "Defensive" however only when you are trying to hold ground (or take it back), it's not exactly something you can say you keep for defence by your bed because if someone entered your room while you were sleeping, they could more than likely close distance on you with a knife than you would have time to bring it to bear on them.  As for hunting... well I'm sure in certain states there was actually rules about what rifles you are allowed to hunt with (single shot bolt-action), although the usual argument from a hunter might be "If I'm hunting a bear, I don't want to tick it off with one wounding shot, I want to make sure it doesn't keep coming at me".  (In those situations it makes more sense to hunt with multiple shooters rather than needing an assault rifle for an unarmed bear.)

The AR-15 round (.223) typically has similar or less penetration to a 9mm handgun. One of the reasons it was adopted as the NATO round was the reduced collateral damage compared to higher-powered rounds that go right through a target, possibly striking unintended bystanders behind it. This is also what makes it ideal for home defense, as it won't penetrate as many walls, possibly striking family members.

[Image: WoundProfilesAfterWallBarrier.jpg]

Home defense is about more than someone in your bedroom, as home invaders do not sneak in and often not alone. There are also AR-15 pistols that are much more maneuverable.
A few states do mandate the caliber of ammo used to hunt different game, but the AR-15 is relatively low-power (despite all the ignorant media claims of "high-powered rifles") and only suited for smaller game.

[Image: huntingcaliber.png]

Most hunters of deer or larger game shoot 308 or 30-06, although there are special ARs chambered in the equivalent to 300 Savage that are suitable for deer hunting (definitely not a defensive round).