CSNbbs

I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

There is no rational reason why civilians should be toting these around.

For politicians... too much NRA money floating around, and being a purist on 2A gets you brownie points in today's GOP (even though the 2nd amendment is widely misconstrued).

For those owners... I guess it makes them feel more like a tuff "alpha male," I suppose. And to them, it's worth schools, churches, stores and parades getting mowed down on a weekly basis given that 0.0001% chance they'll need it to fend off an invading Antifa army someday.

Those who watch children getting gunned down from Sandy Hook to Uvalde classrooms and still defend loosey-goosey access to these weapons, I just don't get it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/hig...d6f12efa4b

Yes, no signs of problems there-responsibility for mom or dad.

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

An AR-15 wouldn't even be military-grade in 1940. Your grand-dad's M1 Garand would give you a much more viscous wound.

(07-08-2022 10:01 AM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

An AR-15 wouldn't even be military-grade in 1940. Your grand-dad's M1 Garand would give you a much more viscous wound.

That's weird because I used to own a Colt M4, the exact same weapon I used in the Army except the selector switch didn't have a 3-round burst option. So yeah, I would call it "military grade".

In fact, there are lots of customized civilian rifles out there that are much nicer than the stuff we had in the Army. And I was in the infantry, so we had better equipment than most soldiers.

(07-08-2022 10:08 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2022 10:01 AM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

An AR-15 wouldn't even be military-grade in 1940. Your grand-dad's M1 Garand would give you a much more viscous wound.

That's weird because I used to own a Colt M4, the exact same weapon I used in the Army except the selector switch didn't have a 3-round burst option. So yeah, I would call it "military grade".

In fact, there are lots of customized civilian rifles out there that are much nicer than the stuff we had in the Army. And I was in the infantry, so we had better equipment than most soldiers.

Again, an automatic rifle is military grade; a semi-automatic has not been military-grade since the Garand, and a Garand fires a larger cartridge.

How many automatic rifles are out there causing mass shootings? Zero. Are AR-15s the most common gun used in murders? No.

You want to ban something that's corrupting people and enabling more violence? Ban social media.

(07-07-2022 03:13 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

There is no rational reason why civilians should be toting these around.

For politicians... too much NRA money floating around, and being a purist on 2A gets you brownie points in today's GOP (even though the 2nd amendment is widely misconstrued).

For those owners... I guess it makes them feel more like a tuff "alpha male," I suppose. And to them, it's worth schools, churches, stores and parades getting mowed down on a weekly basis given that 0.0001% chance they'll need it to fend off an invading Antifa army someday.

Those who watch children getting gunned down from Sandy Hook to Uvalde classrooms and still defend loosey-goosey access to these weapons, I just don't get it.

Just a reminder this forum has been a place to wish death on people for political views, or imply they are traitors engaging in sedition—which carries a death penalty.

Maybe being a anonymous dick online makes people feel really alpha, but I honestly wonder how many people in this forum would approve—or not really care—of some 20th-century style political violence inflicted on those they disagree with.

Maybe they are minority business owners and know their local elected officials aren't going to let the police defend their livelihood in a riot?

(07-07-2022 02:18 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/hig...9a3ce9228d

I mean, why should he be any different from anyone else in this society?

(07-08-2022 02:45 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2022 03:13 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

There is no rational reason why civilians should be toting these around.

For politicians... too much NRA money floating around, and being a purist on 2A gets you brownie points in today's GOP (even though the 2nd amendment is widely misconstrued).

For those owners... I guess it makes them feel more like a tuff "alpha male," I suppose. And to them, it's worth schools, churches, stores and parades getting mowed down on a weekly basis given that 0.0001% chance they'll need it to fend off an invading Antifa army someday.

Those who watch children getting gunned down from Sandy Hook to Uvalde classrooms and still defend loosey-goosey access to these weapons, I just don't get it.

Just a reminder this forum has been a place to wish death on people for political views, or imply they are traitors engaging in sedition—which carries a death penalty.

Maybe being a anonymous dick online makes people feel really alpha, but I honestly wonder how many people in this forum would approve—or not really care—of some 20th-century style political violence inflicted on those they disagree with.

Maybe they are minority business owners and know their local elected officials aren't going to let the police defend their livelihood in a riot?

Imply? Just open your eyes and watch the videos. The former President planned a coup & then acted it out the day our Government was certifying the election results.

A traitor is defined as someone who betrays a friend, country, or principle.

Nothing implied. It's a fact. It's all captured on tape.

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2022 10:08 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2022 10:01 AM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2022 02:42 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a gun owner but do not deny those who do to have them (hunters, collectors, etc.) their rights to do so.

What I cannot understand is why having military-grade assault weapons (AR-15s for ex.) that have killed so many innocent people
is okay in this country.

An AR-15 wouldn't even be military-grade in 1940. Your grand-dad's M1 Garand would give you a much more viscous wound.

That's weird because I used to own a Colt M4, the exact same weapon I used in the Army except the selector switch didn't have a 3-round burst option. So yeah, I would call it "military grade".

In fact, there are lots of customized civilian rifles out there that are much nicer than the stuff we had in the Army. And I was in the infantry, so we had better equipment than most soldiers.

Again, an automatic rifle is military grade; a semi-automatic has not been military-grade since the Garand, and a Garand fires a larger cartridge.

How many automatic rifles are out there causing mass shootings? Zero. Are AR-15s the most common gun used in murders? No.

You want to ban something that's corrupting people and enabling more violence? Ban social media.

This is not correct. Don't know where you're getting your definition of military grade. Every personal weapon the US Army issues is semi-auto, with some exceptions for special forces and other special units who may get more of a choice. A long time ago, military researchers studying WWII, Vietnam, and other contemporary conflicts realized that firing in full auto is basically a gigantic waste of ammunition. It's better to get off 5 accurate shots than to empty a whole magazine and hit nothing. Crew served or squad weapons like the M2 or M240 were the only automatic weapons we used, and their purpose is mainly covering fire.

Why are we even talking about automatic weapons? They are already heavily restricted, so *shockingly*, nobody owns them and virtually no murders are committed using them.

I don't know what your argument is. Do you think social media is corrupting people and making them more violent? Is it causing more violence? Because until Covid, violent crime statistics in the US had been going down consistently since the 1980s. And hooo boy has there been a lot of violence in human history. I don't think Genghis Khan or Pol Pot were being influenced by social media. This forum is social media, so practice what you preach! Excuse yourself from this hive of scum and villainy.

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]Again, an automatic rifle is military grade; a semi-automatic has not been military-grade since the Garand

This is not entirely accurate. While the the M4 and M16 have automatic variations, and are the most common rifles in the US military, there are other weapons that are semi-automatic and single action that are also military issued (pistols, sniper rifles, etc.). In fact, within the M4 and M16 family of rifles there are carbine and non-carbine, fully-automatic and semi-automatic, there are burst-fire options (removed from the M4A1 special forces variant), etc. The point being there is a wide variety of weapons that are "military grade".

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]How many automatic rifles are out there causing mass shootings? Zero.

Fully automatic rifles are among the most difficult weapons for a civilian to legally possess and the background check to get cleared to own one is often 8 to 10 months long. It's rare for them to be used in mass shootings for a reason.

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]Are AR-15s the most common gun used in murders? No.

People need to stop focusing on "it looks scary" as a criteria for what should or should not be banned. What policies have or haven't been effective historically (and worldwide, not just in the US)? What weapon capabilities are the most prevalent and dangerous in mass shootings (not just gun model numbers)? For mass shooters who got their weapons legally, is there a legal loophole to be addressed first? For mass shooters who got their weapons illegally is there an enforcement issue that's easy to fix? People need to stop suggesting policy changes with their emotions and apply actual problem solving skills to this issue.

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]You want to ban something that's corrupting people and enabling more violence? Ban social media.

Is this the modern day version of "let's blame video games"? It's kind of an odd place to go considering how spectacularly wrong the blame video games crowd was.

(07-11-2022 09:13 AM)moe24 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]You want to ban something that's corrupting people and enabling more violence? Ban social media.

Is this the modern day version of "let's blame video games"? It's kind of an odd place to go considering how spectacularly wrong the blame video games crowd was.

To be fair, I do believe social media has radicalized people far more quickly and effectively than in the era of "traditional" media channels. The amount of (mis)information out there designed to mold minds is incredible. It's different than video games because here we have very crafty people actively trying to mess with vulnerable heads.

That being said, this makes common-sense gun control, including the ban of AR-15s and the like, that much more urgent. Stamping down incendiary rhetoric on every corner of the Internet will be a perpetual game of Whack a Mole.

(07-11-2022 12:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2022 09:13 AM)moe24 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]You want to ban something that's corrupting people and enabling more violence? Ban social media.

Is this the modern day version of "let's blame video games"? It's kind of an odd place to go considering how spectacularly wrong the blame video games crowd was.

To be fair, I do believe social media has radicalized people far more quickly and effectively than in the era of "traditional" media channels. The amount of (mis)information out there designed to mold minds is incredible. It's different than video games because here we have very crafty people actively trying to mess with vulnerable heads.

It's a red-herring argument. Just like mental health. Yes, it's a problem, but it's being disingenuously used as a distraction to avoid real problem solving and tackling the numerous other issues at play.

(07-11-2022 12:14 PM)moe24 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2022 12:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2022 09:13 AM)moe24 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-08-2022 02:37 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]You want to ban something that's corrupting people and enabling more violence? Ban social media.

Is this the modern day version of "let's blame video games"? It's kind of an odd place to go considering how spectacularly wrong the blame video games crowd was.

To be fair, I do believe social media has radicalized people far more quickly and effectively than in the era of "traditional" media channels. The amount of (mis)information out there designed to mold minds is incredible. It's different than video games because here we have very crafty people actively trying to mess with vulnerable heads.

It's a red-herring argument. Just like mental health. Yes, it's a problem, but it's being disingenuously used as a distraction.

Moe-Do you really think "mental health" is just being used as a distraction?

Regardless of anyone's position/opinion about guns and gun laws, I got to believe the one thing everyone can be 100% in agreement is all these "mass-shooters" are mentally ill and this is the root cause. A firearm is just a tool they use to commit these heinous acts.

(07-12-2022 10:52 AM)Brownandgoldlaker Wrote: [ -> ]Moe-Do you really think "mental health" is being just being used as a distraction?

Regardless of anyone's position/opinion about guns and gun laws, I got to believe the one thing everyone can be 100% in agreement is all these "mass-shooters" are mentally ill and this is the root cause. A firearm is just a tool they use to commit these heinous acts.

I wish I had kept the link but I read an article after the Uvalde TX school mass murder that said the percentage of killers in these incidents who had been previously diagnosed with mental health issues was very low.

It seems like to most of us someone would HAVE to be mentally ill to do something like that.

But apparently not.

The first mass murderer-shooter during my lifetime.

http://behindthetower.org/charles-joseph...ied%20him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University...r_shooting