namelesstavern.net

Harrison wrote:hipposhit

quiet child let the adults speak

Well Brinstar as I have said it is both important to me that this doesnt happen and guns are not taken away so I am looking for solutions that fit both of those criteria. Some gun control is a good thing as guns are not toys and you need a license to do most everything else from get high to going fishing.

I get emotional just like you do because this is an emotional issue. Im not against some gun restrictions and I guess im a little off on my definitions as I thought gun control was YOU CANT HAVE THAT. That is what am trying to avoid.

I think both super liberals and the nra are out of touch on this issue and both groups are making more noise than sense at the moment.

Also brinstar im touched you wish more gun owners were like me as I have had that thought many times.

That Remington looks like it would be pretty good at killing people.

.30-06 is a lot more fire power than you need for most animals and is not a good weapon for plinking at the range at all. You put a mag or 2 of those down line and your whole body is gonna start to feel it. I would guess that it would also be very expensive to shoot like that but I dont have one so im only speculating on the cost.

Tossica wrote:That Remington looks like it would be pretty good at killing people.

First, let me just note the following: The only major difference between a civilian AR-15 and the M16 troops carry is that the full military version can fire 3 round bursts. The current military version, the M16A2 doesn't have a full-auto feature, while earlier models did. You can get AR-15s with a few other changes, but fundamentally, the burst fire feature is the ONLY major difference.

ANY gun is good at killing people. But that Remington is not as good at it as an AR-15, especially an AR-15 with a drum magazine or an extended clip. The Remington is also MUCH better for actual hunting than the AR is, since a) you can take on a wider variety of game with it since it's a higher power round, and b) the AR-15's round will tumble on impact (it's designed to do this, to do more damage to the people it hits), which means you ruin a lot of the meat of the animal you're trying to hunt, since the round turns it into torn-up shreds.

The Remington also lacks a pistol-style grip, which means it's not as handy in close quarters. Again, no impact on hunting, but less adept at killing humans.

Furthermore, the Remington has an internal magazine that you have to reload round by round, not a detachable clip. Once more, no impact if you're actually hunting game with it, as you're not wanting to fire off a ton of rounds if you're hunting game. It's much less efficient to kill people with, though, than the AR, with its capability to fire off, say, 30 rounds, then reload another 30 rounds in the space of a second or two.

So, given the differences in mass human-killing capability, I would support banning something like the AR-15, and ESPECIALLY would support banning clips that carry more than 10 rounds or so, but I have absolutely no problem with weapons like that Remington. I just don't think there's any viable argument for why civilians need a slightly de-tuned killing instrument designed for the mass slaughter of people on the battlefield.

-Arlos

Spazz wrote:.30-06 is a lot more fire power than you need for most animals and is not a good weapon for plinking at the range at all. You put a mag or 2 of those down line and your whole body is gonna start to feel it. I would guess that it would also be very expensive to shoot like that but I dont have one so im only speculating on the cost.

A 30-06 is used for everything from deer hunting on up to moose & bear, depending on the bullet size and propellant loads. I do think you are overstating the recoil quite a bit, too. Just don't load it with the high-grain bullet rounds used for Elk or Moose when you're just plinking at the range, and you're fine. Besides, 2 mags for that Remington is 8 rounds. If you're feeling 8 rounds over your whole body, you're doing it wrong.

Oh, and I looked up ammo prices:

5.56mm: http://www.bulkammo.com/rifle/bulk-5.56x45-ammo $670 for 1000 rounds.
30-06: http://www.bulkammo.com/rifle/bulk-30-0 ... field-ammo $630 for 1000 rounds of the 145grain bullets. (the 168gr soft points are pricier, but you wouldn't use those to plink at the range)

So no. The 30-06 isn't going to cost more to go target shooting with.

-Arlos

I didnt say it was going to cost more I said it was going to be costly which it is. Also like I said thats a high powered rifle and your going to feel that after plinking away. I wish i had 22 conversion kits for my guns as that would save me a lot of money.

Last but not least if your talkin bans your not talking to me and good luck dancing with yourself.

Arlos,

You know yourself how ridiculous your dismissal of an armed guard is. Just because there were few incidents where there was a gun violence which an armed guard present dos not diminish the value of a guard. Using your logic we should disband police since there is still crime.

the person with that sign in their yard is an asshole, fyi.

and now i shall slowly back away from the rest of this argument.

Ive seen those signs before. I always thought they were kind of tacky but I can understand my fellow gun owners being fed up with an anti neighbors. Im sick of the debate but I cant let it go because its important to me. Also I would and have defended by neighbors when things were out of hand down here. If you can tolerate my music the smell of weed and my howling ass dogs and my white trash yard than I make for a good neighbor. Had an old lady move in next door and she prolly tells her kin she lives on the redneck riviera.

Ganzo wrote:we should disband police since there is still crime

yes brilliant

why stop there

let's just not have any laws at all

Arlos wrote:comparison of remington and AR-15

there was a tec-9 ad in the 90s that claimed the gun is "fingerprint resistant"

what the fuck, can you be any more shameless about marketing to murderers



ANYWAY

new direction for the thread:

why are mass murderers overwhelmingly white and male?

brinstar wrote:

Ganzo wrote:we should disband police since there is still crime

yes brilliant

why stop there

let's just not have any laws at all

Sure lets only pluck a half of a sentence to change the meaning and argue against something I did not say. Look I can do that also:

brinstar wrote:let's just not have any laws at all

What? Are you crazy, why would you be opposed to having laws?

stretching a line of thinking to an absurd extent as a way of discrediting it is a tactic i find hackneyed and infantile

apparently someone had to do it to you before you agreed

but whatever i'll use simpler concepts from now on

Cuz white boys be crazy yo.

brinstar wrote:stretching a line of thinking to an absurd extent as a way of discrediting it is a tactic i find hackneyed and infantile

apparently someone had to do it to you before you agreed

but whatever i'll use simpler concepts from now on

Thank you oh wise one for explaining a Strawman fallacy to me. I was completely unaware of it when I used it to argue with Arlos's Non Sequitur fallacy about a small percentage of incidents where an armed guard did not prevent a gun violence would invalidate the entire argument for an armed guard.

BTW your way of arguing with people through personal attacks is much more

brinstar wrote: hackneyed and infantile

your boring comebacks notwithstanding, let's for the moment assume that putting a police officer in every school in america would actually prevent mass shooting sprees like columbine and newtown (lol)

surely the conservatives realize that the NRA's final "solution" would require a shitload of new taxes, yes?

You know not just here on the nt but the real world it is hard to have a real conversation with the other side. They belittle, call names, wish harm upon us and our families and demand we explain ourselves and no matter what we say its not good enough and were idiots and rednecks looking at gun porn while being paranoid of the government.

I would rather we worked together in this country but just like every issue the 2 sides will never come together and put into place any kind of good legislature. The left wants to ban the right wants no restrictions and it leaves people like me just feeling frustrated and angry as I dont play for either team.

your boring comebacks notwithstanding, let's for the moment assume that putting a police officer in every school in america would actually prevent mass shooting sprees like columbine and newtown (lol)

surely the conservatives realize that the NRA's final "solution" would require a shitload of new taxes, yes?

Yea its going to cost money. The question is is it worth it. The answer is yes.

Ive got an idea about where we can get the troops and the money for the school soldiers program but I know theres no way in hell that it will fly. The DEA. I think that would also kill 2 birds with one stone since I think the war on drugs is americas violence engine. Pretty wild idea but it could work.Might get a third and fourth bird by saving a little money and creating a little revenue.

brinstar wrote:your boring comebacks notwithstanding

you started, I was responding to Arlos but you felt the need for derailing the topic with personal attacks, kinda how you always do with Harrison

brinstar wrote: let's for the moment assume that putting a police officer in every school in america would actually prevent mass shooting sprees like columbine and newtown (lol)

surely the conservatives realize that the NRA's final "solution" would require a shitload of new taxes, yes?

I highly doubt that people would be against spending their tax dollars on children's safety, especially if this also meant more local jobs. Even with two armed guards you are looking at 100k a year budget. This would not even be a noticeable increase in property tax

Ganzo Im with you on this but there are a lot of schools out there and I think it would end up costing a fortune. Without redirecting some major funds or raising taxes I done think its possible at all.

Ganzo wrote:I highly doubt that people would be against spending their tax dollars on children's safety, especially if this also meant more local jobs. Even with two armed guards you are looking at 100k a year budget. This would not even be a noticeable increase in property tax

seriously? dude people are already against spending their tax dollars on children's survival (via SNAP and medicaid, among others) why would they suddenly flipflop and be like "yeah i'll pony up extra so these kids don't get shot"?

IMO you can boil down every single problem plaguing this country into one basic flaw: we do not give a fuck about each other. all we care about is me and mine, fuck you and yours.

There is a total of 273200 K-12 schools in the USA, that is including private schools; so at 100k per year that is 27.3 billion annually. There are also 140 million taxpayers in the USA which would make this an annual cost of $195 dollars. I think that a two hundred dollars a year or $4 per paycheck is a very low price to pay for kid's safety.

brinstar wrote:seriously? dude people are already against spending their tax dollars on children's survival (via SNAP and medicaid, among others) why would they suddenly flipflop and be like "yeah i'll pony up extra so these kids don't get shot"?

I think there is a difference between rich willing to pay for Medicare and a proposal to add security to schools. I mean really I need to go through two different security verifications to pick up my kid from LifeTime Winter Camp or if she stays in kids room while i work out in my local gym, but in her school I can walk in any time and walk out with any kid without any verifications or checks.

you and i might think so

but where you and i might say "$4 per paycheck? go for it", Bob Q. Teapartyasshole will go "OBUMMER BIG GUBMINT SPENDING QUIT TAKIN MA MONEY I'MA GIT MA GUN GRAARARRGGGHH" and the libertarian free-market ron paulbots would say "beep beep free market disapproves beep beep"


meanwhile, there are ~1.5 million homeless children in america. how much per paycheck would it cost 140 million taxpayers to wipe out child homelessness? where is the line between "worth it" and "not worth it"?


-response to ninjapost-

i'm not sure what you mean. what's the "difference between rich willing to pay for medicare and a proposal to add security to schools"?

brinstar wrote:i'm not sure what you mean. what's the "difference between rich willing to pay for medicare and a proposal to add security to schools"?

I mean people react differently to things based on presentation. Healthcare for the poor will not ever reach the same level of concern that the safety of their own kids.

Unfortunately child homelessness is not going to be solved by throwing money at it since we do not have a good system for managing issues leading to homelessness.