Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



Gun Discussion

Cyparagon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
9,878
Points
113
you forget that those soldiers were US citizens first huhhh? Ignorant comment deluxe.

I came here to learn about the issue, not to be and taunted and ridiculed. Pipe down and be respectful, or you'll earn yourself a neg and a seat on my ignore list. :tired:

[Obama] certainly has the power to limit what we can get by a lot.

I don't see how. Doesn't that type of thing have to go through congress first? The doors of the capital building have Gandalf yelling at all the bills that try to go through. Or something like that.

some people in the military may find their orders to be immoral and refuse to carry them out.

Wouldn't that be more helpful and reliable than bobby-ray and his 12 gauge? :p

taking nitroglycerin from an ordinary civilian isn't going to prevent them from defending themselves against those who will make it illegally. Taking guns away from civilians on the other hand would.

Kinda goes against what you said here:

guess what will happen if you take their guns? They'll either make them for small amounts of money like this $7 shotgun or [retracted] or they'll make pipe bombs. All options are cheap, easy and just as effective as guns.
 



InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
Time and again, both history, and experiments, have proven that otherwise seemingly good people will do horrible things, when instructed to do so by anyone in a position of authority.

Both police officers and soldiers are continuously trained to accept orders without question.

These are the same people that are also the most heavily armed. The same people that will NOT ask any questions when given an order.
 

Woodofcville

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
1,184
Points
0
@Cyparagon: I'm not taunting or ridiculing, just offering my opinion like everyone else. If my opinion is too much for you I'd advise you to go ahead and ignore me, please. Save the flames you're desperately kindling.

I've got a problem with people asserting that I respect them, so again, please ignore me now.

If you truly feel the need, go ahead and -neg rep me. Do you know what power that little click has over me? None. Zip. Nadda. It'll recover in time and you will fade away, because I'm generally friendly and helpful when I can be. HAPPY CLICKING, BUDDY! ;)



@IE:thanks for that link to Moore's point of view on this, it was interesting, I honestly thought he'd come down a bit more liberal on this for some reason. :0

EDIT; let's talk about the police force, I've known a few to be complete drunks off and on duty, and heard stories from reliable sources of cops that dip from illicit drug confiscations.. And we're supposed to cower behind them without question as the only citizens with real weapons in time of crisis?!
 
Last edited:

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
EDIT; let's talk about the police force, I've known a few to be drunks.. And we're supposed to cower behind them as the only citizens with real weapons in time of violence..?

Well, let's see. Based on average life expectancy, I've lived roughly a third of my life.

Number of times I've been helped by a cop: 0 as in ZERO.

Number of times times I've been hurt by a cop physically: 1.

Number of times I have been hurt by cops financially: 8.

Number of times any of my friends, relatives, or coworkers, have ever had stolen property recovered by cops: 0.

Number of times I have seen a cop do something heroic: 0.

Number of times I have seen a cop abuse his authority: Too many to count.

Granted this is taken strictly from first hand experience, but to date, so called criminals have done quite a bit less to impact my life in a negative way, than have the so called officers of the "law".
 

Woodofcville

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
1,184
Points
0
Granted this is taken strictly from first hand experience, but to date, so called criminals have done quite a bit less to impact my life in a negative way, than have the so called officers of the "law".

I saw a story on the news recently how a nearby city, Broken Arrow, was proudly outfitted with M-4s and M-16s to "better heroically protect and serve the people of their community" is how the news anchor had put it.. I almost puked in my soup. You see, the only thing that goes down in Broken Arrow is maybe the occasional bi-monthly burglary, other than that they're known for being total seatbelt nazis eight days a week.

Armed to the teeth, you know, just in case someone goes rogue on Main Street and cuts their seatbelt off with a box cutter in protest.

To my knowledge there's never been an instance when B/A cops even needed to kill someone with their standard Glocks..

But that fiscal cliff keeps getting closer and closer for some crazy unknown reason?!


EDIT; @Dave: srrys, back to guns.
 
Last edited:

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
LOL!

"Cops" are NOT "guns" ;)

Peace,
dave

I know, I know, totally different subject.

You can see I'm 100% for more cop control though:p

Back on topic we go :p

I saw a story on the news recently how a nearby city, Broken Arrow, was proudly outfitted with M-4s and M-16s to "better heroically protect and serve the people of their community" is how the news anchor had put it.. I almost puked in my soup. You see, the only thing that goes down in Broken Arrow is maybe the occasional bi-monthly burglary, other than that they're known for being total seatbelt nazis eight days a week.

Armed to the teeth, you know, just in case someone goes rogue on Main Street and cuts their seatbelt off with a box cutter in protest.

To my knowledge there's never been an instance when B/A cops even needed to kill someone with their standard Glocks..

But that fiscal cliff keeps getting closer and closer for some crazy unknown reason?!

Yup. One thing that my town, or surrounding towns, wouldn't really miss much are the police departments. I've listened to a scanner before out of curiosity. Hours will go by without ANYTHING happening except idle chatter.

Why the hell do they need more cops on the street when crime has actually gone down over the last several decades, especially relative to population? Why do they need new cars every 2-3 years?

In the history of the town, one police officer was ever shot. A police chase from a nearby town, of a drug dealer, and the chase ended with a car crash, and a shoot out. Obviously her killer died...

I've met her once. While I'm sure she didn't deserve to get shot, I can say with a very clear conscience, she was a real b*tch.

Nor do I consider cops who die in the line of duty to be heroes. It's their JOB. They are trained for it. They get paid well for it, and they have good benefits... if police departments were strictly volunteer based... that would a different story, but they aren't.

Anyway, sorry for the deviation from the original subject matter. Let's get back to :gun:

Out of curiosity I asked three friends what they thought about automatic, and semi-automatic weapons. Not one knew the difference :(
 

Woodofcville

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
1,184
Points
0
Precisely my point, and I'm honestly surprised how many people do not know the difference between semi-auto and automatic, especially since the vast majority of them seem to be men. 0__o it seems most of my generation isn't as knowledge thirsty as previous generations.. If its not presented to them in a textbook at school they just never take the time to look into it, it mustn't be important if the mothership doesn't want them knowing about it..

@IE: @anyone else with an opinion on a pistol; I'm buying a good concealed carry soon, to keep for home defense until I'm 21, then getting qualified for my carry. (ah, the one good thing about the South, for now) Any suggestions, since you seem quite versed in weaponry?
 
Last edited:

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
That's the sad thing. I'm really not versed in weaponry. I don't own any guns.

I'd like to, I have a clean record. Unfortunately NJ has rather draconian gun laws, to such a degree that buying a gun is just too much hassle. More than likely in a few years I'll get a studio in PA, just to be able to claim residency there... Getting a carry permit is basically impossible here unless you are in law enforcement.

At least I consider myself not to be versed in weapons at all. Granted I know how to shoot, and basics, but I'm far from what I would consider to be well versed or proficient. That it's still way more than most people I know, know about guns, and it's kind of depressing to me.

This is bit OT, but I came across this article yesterday: Inventor warns 'Google generation who spend life in front of screens are losing creativity and skills' | Mail Online

For concealed carry, IMO a small revolver makes the most sense. They are extremely reliable due to simplicity, and there is no tension on springs so afaik you can keep a revolver loaded indefinitely, just so long as you take the time to clean it once in a while. If you end up needing more than 5-6 shots, you're screwed anyway.
 
Last edited:

ARG

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
6,851
Points
113
Really? Nobody has yet to challenge my post here:

Not taking sides, just playing the devils advocate. :eg:

After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia gun restrictions were introduced.
Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if you take a look at this list
Australian mass murders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You'll see that 16 years prior to 1996 there were seven mass murders. 16 years after 1996 there have been only two mass murders. Perhaps there is a connection between guns and mass murders? It's up to you to decide, to date there hasn't been a a study exploring the relationship between the choice of weapons for murder, the changing legal climate, and cultural attitudes. Same applies to when Canada introduced firearms restrictions in 1977. [Citation needed, I'll see if I can find it] The amount of mass murders decreased.

In Canada we have heavy gun restriction (guns can still be smuggled from the USA easily) there has been exactly one rampage killer since the introduction of gun laws.
List of rampage killers: Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also if you take a look at that list you'll see that the USA list is more than a page long. Even taking into account the population ratio the amount of rampage killers is many times greater for the USA.

It would be very hard to prove or conduct a study to see if there is or isn't a relationship between rampage killers and gun control because of the small amount of data available.
If a relationship does exist should guns be banned then?
From the few figures we have available right now that provide evidence of a relationship are we to assume there is one?

Discuss.
 
Last edited:

InfinitusEquitas

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
15,445
Points
113
It would be very hard to prove or conduct a study to see if there is or isn't a relationship between rampage killers and gun control because of the small amount of data available.
If a relationship does exist should guns be banned then?
From the few figures we have available right now that provide evidence of a relationship are we to assume there is one?

Discuss.

A study to assess this is simply not possible.

For the sake of argument though, let's assume the position that yes there is a correlation between the number of spree killing within a given population, that corresponds neatly to gun ownership within the same population.

This still just takes us back to Statistics 101: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

In nearly all cases, (if not all?) the shooters are consistently found to have suffered from some form of mental illness or defect.

Therefore one of the questions that needs to be addressed, is, how would these same people have reacted, without access to firearms?

Further to me a point of concern, not just with guns, but with any form of regulation, is where does one draw the line, in balancing individual freedom versus safety?

Should we readily sacrifice freedom for added safety?

How would this safety be guaranteed?

Discuss.
 

Woodofcville

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
1,184
Points
0
@IE; But IE, who needs knowledge when you have all this swaaaaaaaag *chokes self* :crackup:

And thanks for the recommendation, I'd never even thought of the spring tension thing.

@AllThread Why not spend the money from the useless "war on drugs" that will NEVER be won (see: prohibition of alcohol in US history) on mental health availability to those whom need it instead?! Or maybe cancel the division of the FBI that hunts down "evil hackers" who simply download a few movies here and there for free and use that money to aide in mental health awareness and outreach in this country?

You don't even have to halt the entire "war on drugs", just shift the funding, and tell the companies in direct competition with illegal drugs that they're about to be outmatched and underpriced, they'll fund the biggest illegal opium crackdown you've seen in your life, overnight. AstraZeneca, Phyzer, Glenco Squibb Meyers, WatsonPharma, and Glaxo Smith Klien would pony up BILLIONS for the USELESS, bloated DEA to keep slinking along. Sony Pictures, Warner Bros, etc. would do exactly the same to preserve their business in the film industry, but only if we made them fear being left alone and unprotected by big brother for once.

The reason my solution works, to me, is that guns aren't the things killing people, it's these people snapping that seem to keep blowing everyone away...
 

Meatball

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,987
Points
0
How about a little bit of research to debunk the popular myth: More guns = more violence

A study done by two Harvard professors it has some interesting information on the murder rates in European countries and how they correlate to the amount of gun ownership in the countries. The numbers, I believe, are enough reason to give it a look.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Reading the whole things is worth your time though, lots of time and energy was put into it.

"... those without swords can still die upon them."

J.R.R. Tolkien - The Two Towers
 

ped

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
4,911
Points
113
"... those without swords can still die upon them."

J.R.R. Tolkien - The Two Towers

Indeed.
But personally, coming from a country that doesnt arm its police officers, and you need a really good reason to own a gun, we have very little gun related crime here.
 




Top