aegix drakan said:
I notice you didn't reply about requiring training/barring paranoid schozoprenics from owning guns.....Are we in agreement on that at least, then?
...I'm going to sum it up to no, but because I really, really don't want to delve into the area of mental health, arms, and the government's role in that right now. Or possibly will not want to ever, or at least not on this forum because there are some things I'd rather talk about directly with people in real-time. That's one of the things.
Well good, if they do turn into extermination camps I hope to see you making a daring rescue. Although considering the terrible conditions are already killing people and they're not doing shit to make the conditions better, I`m already finding the situation unacceptable enough that they need to be abolished yesterday. They may not be intentionally killing children, but they are intentionally not trying to avoid it. That's monstrous enough.
That I can thus far gather and with all the evidence available, it does appear that a lot of, if not most of the deaths that are supposedly at the fault of ICE are actually things that I, in all good faith, could not say were actually their fault with the evidence currently available. I believe several of the deaths presented have been due to pre-existing conditions, or were generally things that they,
from evidence currently available, took reasonable and expected steps to combat. Note I did not say
all, and I'm wanting investigations into those even more than the ones that we do have a clearer picture on, because I want any and all deaths that the facilities are responsible for to be firmly established as such so we can hang them legally, and possibly literally depending on how pissed off I am that day. I'm not for capital punishment, but some days you just have some people you wish were at the end of a rope or in front of a firing line for their crimes.
And no, I actually don`t think trump is literally hitler. I think he's just so much of a visionless hateful doofus that he's just a large scale enabler of fascism in the US, not the driving source of it. I think it's more likely that some asshole at these camps would just get the idea of 'These migrants are pissing me off why dont we just shoot 'em' and he'd turn a blind eye or try to post-event deflect blame, rather than him ACTUALLY order it to happen. So....Very close, VERY close, but no cigar.
I'm fairly certain that most people that aren't actually shells with unholy entities within would absolutely draw the line at doing nothing about executions at the facilities. I myself do have a lot of problems with things going on in a lot of them, and disagree with how this administration is handling it. Some of it I'd personally describe as being treasonous, but I like that word and use it too much.
Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...
Dude, you're willing to actually say you may not be well-versed in the topic, which puts you leagues ahead of the people that plug their ears when they're told that thirty-magazine clips in half a second is the most insane gibberish. You're actually wanting to understand what you're talking about, and I'm happy as shit for that, because a lot of people
don't. A lot of people spout actual gibberish in a discussion of arms regulation, and then act like you're an asshole when you want to actually know what they're saying, and you try and convert what they said into something usable for the discussion. You're fucking good in my book.
But isnt there a considerable difference between rifles and handguns?
...In their most base, core operation? Not really. But I'm going to take this from the next bit since I know what you're meaning and I'd rather not shove crap in your face you're not asking, because I have a really bad habit of doing that.
Like, rifles allow for more powerful/high caliber ammo (so one shot is almost guaranteed to kill the target, and maybe the guy behind him) unless were talking about magnums,
Okay, so, rifles by nature tend to allow for larger munitions to be used, yes. The issue with how you described it is that the round I'm believing you're imagining is something akin to taking out Zakhaev in Call of Duty 4, which is still not quite the thing you're picturing(and I'm actually hoping you've played the game or that I'm generally not wrong on what you're picturing because I feel like an asshole already, making a few assumptions) Time for visual aids.
Common or otherwise noteworthy handgun calibers.
Comparison of some of those and one particular rifle caliber (which is important next) to a United States Quarter.
Finally, comparison between two of those rounds shown to other noteworthy rifle calibers, and a US Dollar.
That .50 BMG in the bottom image? That's what was used to shoot his ass, and it's capabilities have become mythical in Hollywood and Video Games, like even the bullet whizzing by can fuck you up. Complete and total lie of course.
That round at the end of the second image and the one next to .22lr on the right in the last one? 556? That's the round the Ohio killer used, and the round most mass shooters that use the AR-15 use. Notice how it's actually pretty small next to the two rounds aside .50 BMG, and even it's commie friend right next to itself relatively. The actual bullets are not that big, and the casing is the more intimidating factor to a lot of these.
Like so.
...Actually lost what my point was for a second, but I'm back on track. So when you're talking about high-caliber rounds and such and it's OHK capabilities, that is realistically a thing for any round, because metal flying at high speed into meaty water sacks is not a good thing for the organic. Any of these rounds can kill in one shot, but that's typically not the case. The best one to probably have that shot is the .50 BMG. The key to effectively shooting and actually killing someone is in shot placement, which is what the 5.56 is geared towards. It has stopping power, and it's a lot less likely to actually over-penetrate and leave the target out the other end. Which leads me to the next bit. A round going through somebody is always a risk, and at the same time it is not something that is relied upon because there are so many factors at play, and generally you
don't want the round to fly through someone just to hit someone else. Such a thing is very specifically tied to a major rule in firearms safety, which is to always be aware of what is
beyond your target, as well as the thing you're actually aiming at.
And just in general on the subject of one hit kills and how that's generally not a thing relied upon which is part of why double or triple-tap is a common thing, this video which is fairly entertaining on top of being educational.
and allow the user to kill at longer ranges (so people fleeing after the initial surprise attack),
Rifles generally have better precision at range, yes. This however does not mean I can't use a handgun for similar because most of these shootings are
extremely close-quarters. The effective range of firearms in general is both majorly overstated, and somehow understated at the same time. Don't get me started on buckshot. Good lord, entertainment media and buckshot...
AND tend to have larger clips
Magazines. Not dogging on you like a lot of people tend to, I just want to be informative.
so you can shoot 30 shots instead of abotu 10 before you reload, making the initial burst before anyone can stop the guy while he is reloading much longer and deadlier, right?
Standard magazines for rifles are usually larger than the average standard magazine for a handgun, absolutely. But I can buy a 30+ round mag for twenty bucks or, with the advent of 3D printing, soon(or possibly right now, since that's a thing people have done) make one at home and not have to order online, or go to a store. 3D printing is just going to shit all over gun laws. With training, reload times are... pretty fast. You'd need to be using a revolver for your time to reload and the amount of times you reload to actually be a significant factor.
I mean....IF they're so interchangeable, why arent solider using handguns and not rifles?
It's... not that simple. Rifles are nice, and they work. But they're not the be-all end-all of firearms, and there are many situations that you do not want to have a full-sized rifle over something more compact, or possibly built for situations involving truly precise shooting over long ranges. That's also not taking into account that while modern rifles tend to share the same core characteristic, they are not all the same.
Clearly, the rifle is better at killing people when you want to kill a lot of people than just a handgun,
Not that simple, and not the case.
otherwise why do people gravitate towards assault rifles when they want to kill a lot of people?
Because shooters tend to have the same misconceptions that other people do. I'm convinced at this point most of them just use AR-15s because it's common, and for actually thinking they're awesome badasses with black rifles mowing down people. Cho is a good example of the desire to live out a fantasy. Go Google his name and look up photos he sent the media with his handguns. It's very clear what kind of image he was going for, and how he saw himself.
And bear in mind, I would MUCH rather a complete gun ban, but I know that's never going to happen, so I sympathize and go 'Fine, keep your guns, just at least try to remove (or AT LEAST LIMIT) the ability for people to mow down an entire crowd because the voices in their head told them to do it.
Thing is, we really all disagree on the means to truly reduce that number. It's pretty clear my take on it is rather unique on this forum, but we all seem to have different levels and variations of what we would consider to be effective or not effective. I like to believe we, on some level at least, all understand that we've all come to our conclusions out of a true analysis of things we've seen, and probably a lot of life experience. I understand the perspectives of a lot of the people here. I still disagree with what they desire to do with that perspective in mind, but their life experiences and perspective are all theirs and are valuable. Which is why I'm absolutely for gunning bastards down that would end their lives without hesitation.
Blessedly no. Canadian Suburbs are generally pretty safe, outside of the occaisional person running a drug den in plain sight where things are quiet, and the occaisional bike path predator.
Well that's good at least. I've had some shit run-ins in my life in regards to gang members, but it was thankfully kept to a minimum because my city was pretty chill. A fair amount of the time anyway...
My mother however has had far worse in that department, with I believe someone sending a bullet flying through her window when she was a child being a high point, and all the times even in my quiet little city she had to deal with people and manage to keep her kids none the wiser. Bunch of other stuff but that's stuff I wouldn't share without actually asking her first.
What would do far MORE damage is to target the system and infrastrucure.
...
THIS is how you cripple a behemoth. You stop the participation in, and the function of, the rotten system.
And this bit is a subject I actually, with all do respect, do
not want to go into here because while this is not actually breaking TOS, it's a subject that I imagine can very easily invoke a Rule 0 and/or just get the thread shut down pretty fast. I'd be more than happy to discuss it elsewhere, but not here. I will say though that you're not wrong in your ideas, and that it does tie into me saying that a Civil War of that kind in the US would in no way be a simple or conventional conflict. Then again, we really haven't had a conventional conflict since World War II, so it really doesn't say much, does it?
I hope my
colossal wall of watching myself type is actually informative, and that it brings some kind of understanding to my positions. Not necessarily agree with of course, but maybe you will change your mind, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll understand my craziness, probably won't. But I hope I, if anything, have been informative.
EDIT: Was going to put this in somewhere but forgot to, so I'll just put this as a little addition.
With all of the information above, you can now probably realize the cartoonist has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and made the comic with zero basis in reality. In reality? The rifle he's probably referring to as an assault weapon commonly use a round that is considered too
small to be effective for even Deer, and in some cases, using rounds people would associate with "Assault Weapons" are considered
legally inhumane to hunt with, not because they are big, but because they are small as stated above, and would not reliably result in a clean, humane kill. Bonus video for what you'd actually use to hunt fuckhuge dangerous game, like the Elephant featured.
...I'm not a hunter though, so any hunters that want to beat my ass for any incorrect information, please do.
