The Vice President of the United States is officially retarded.

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

 

 

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly.

 

I do not disagree with the first or second statements, but the third one I am not entirely sure about. Isn't that more about pollution than anything else? What exactly is the analogue there?

Actually, most higher end cars have a limiter built in to prevent them from passing a certain top speed. Because beyond that speed things would be way to dangerous and it'd be to easy for them to completely loose control. This is done by the companies because if the car can go faster than where it's limited (around 150 mph) all of a sudden insurance premiums skyrocket due to the fact that beyond that point it's really easy to get into a crash.

 

Now, this isn't direct government legislation, but it's part and parcel to the requirement of insurance to even think about driving a car.

Fair enough...but once again, it's not a very apt comparison. You drive a vehicle out in the public, along with other people, potentially endangering them and yourself...Where are you shooting guns? Hopefully not in the same circumstances. 

Edited February 21, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Oerwinde]

I was referring more to things like Nascars, indy cars, drag racers, etc.

[ravenshrike]

 

"Then of course there's his own flipping admission that an AWB won't do anything."

 

Anybody with any intelligence at all coudl tell you that more gun control laws will not stop massacres.

 

Yeah you right, except for the fact that throughout the world strict gun control laws has reduced massacres. But you right, lets not look at evidence and rather make incorrect and controversial comments

The only place such a trend exists is within the Australian data subset. Which is an OUTLIER, and therefore statistically irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

But to own a car you still need to register it. And to be allowed to use one you must be properly trained in its use and maintain a license and insurance in case of its misuse. And some vehicles of high enough power levels that using them for normal uses is ridiculous are not allowed on the road. Guns should be treated similarly.

No you don't. You only need to register it if you drive it on public roads, otherwise you can own any kind of vehicle you desire. I would LOVE for gun laws to be made equivalent to automobile laws. It would be AWESOME.

 

 

I'd suggest a shotgun hits a man sized target at household ranges much more easily than any form of AR... for the inexperienced user.

And you have exactly zero data to back that up. Outside of a short barreled rifled shotgun firing buckshot(the effects of centripedal force on the wad are fun), the spread pattern of a shotgun is not large. Maybe if you live in a house with a room the size of an olympic swimming pool you get a basketball sized shot pattern. But for normal houses, the maximum size will be a softball. Meanwhile the average shotgun(not talking about newer models like the KSG) is both heavier than the average AR, and much more unbalanced towards the barrel, along with MUCH greater recoil, which means more difficulty acquiring or switching targets.

 

However, to give the perspective of someone who has metric ****tons of more experience with both than either of us, along with training PLENTY of newbies.

 

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/

 

Now on shotgun vs. carbine, that is all personal preference. Which one do you shoot better?

If you’ve got a billion rounds through a 30” 870 Wingmaster dusting clays and are a veritable pheasant holocaust, then if you want to keep an 18” barreled shotgun stoked with buckshot next to the bed, I’m not going to fault you one bit, and I’m not going to try to invade your home at 3:00 in the morning either.

If you shoot your AK or AR better, do a little reading about what ammo is available, pick a good load, and you’re good to go.

If you are new to both types, the carbine is a little bit easier to learn to shoot and has less recoil. Plus when the zombies come, (oh mark my words, it is just a matter of time) it does have more ammunition capacity, and far greater effective range.

Really, they’ve all got their pros and cons. I don’t care what you learn to use, just learn to use something, and then go practice. A lot.

 

Of course, I suppose that if you are talking a Saiga 12 the difference between shotgun and carbine is minimal. But since you don't like "assault weapons", the Saiga would probably make you **** your pants.

Edited February 21, 2013 by ravenshrike

[Calax]

That guy... Wow. He's special. I get the feeling he hasn't ever actually had to deal with a home invasion. And doesn't have kids. "Have an AK next to your bed" my left nut....

 

A shotgun, which carries a smaller amount of ammunition, and will knock a guy over. Generally it makes more of a mess than an AR. And even if you're not the best shot, you could at least wing em (aiming with a softball is easier than aiming with a dart).

Remmington 870 vs watermelon

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEvUWQLqoZg

M16 equiv vs watermelon. (same yahoos)

Yes they both fall over, but the amount of force that's expended on the target by the shotgun is significantly more than with the AR. That's why people, like our VP (Who's a shotgun owner/user btw), say to use a friggin shotty rather than an AR.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Calax

[Tsuga C]

Foot-in-mouth Joe Biden would be well served to read this article a few times and perhaps some sense might sink into his head.

[ravenshrike]

That guy... Wow. He's special. I get the feeling he hasn't ever actually had to deal with a home invasion. And doesn't have kids. "Have an AK next to your bed" my left nut....

 

A shotgun, which carries a smaller amount of ammunition, and will knock a guy over. Generally it makes more of a mess than an AR. And even if you're not the best shot, you could at least wing em (aiming with a softball is easier than aiming with a dart).

Remmington 870 vs watermelon

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEvUWQLqoZg

M16 equiv vs watermelon. (same yahoos)

Yes they both fall over, but the amount of force that's expended on the target by the shotgun is significantly more than with the AR. That's why people, like our VP (Who's a shotgun owner/user btw), say to use a friggin shotty rather than an AR.

And you would be wrong about him not having kids. Just like you were about ease of use.  Moreover, with the higher difficulty in aiming, along with the much higher difficulty of reacquiring the target given the vastly larger recoil(we were talking about women shooters remember), you'd better hope for damn sure that first shot don't miss, whereas with the AR you could have 4-5 rounds downrange by the time you shoot round number 2 from the shotgun.

 

Also, people are not watermelons. Not to mention that was shooting 3" slugs and #000 buckshot which are the ****ing poster children of overpenetration and recoil when it comes to shotguns. Not #00 buckshot or bird shot.

Edited February 21, 2013 by ravenshrike

[Zoraptor]

If you're going to miss a human sized target in the context of a home invasion it barely matters whether you're missing with an AR or a shotgun, if you're planning on hitting with your 3rd or 4th shot you'd be better off using a handgun than either as that has the best handling qualities of the three. If you're planning on hitting with your first shot you're better off with a shotgun, it's got a better hit probability than an AR since you don't have to be spot on target, it's got immediate stopping power- even a non lethal round like a bean bag will put someone down- and if you're in a real situation having your shoulder turn blue the next day is going to be the least of your worries.

 

If ARs were brilliant at close range you'd see SWAT/AOS/SAS etc armed only with ARs when storming houses in hostage situations, in reality they tend to have shotguns, pistols and smgs for the close in parts, and ARs at greater ranges.

[AGX-17]

Dubba barrel shotgun solves all your problems, especially if you discharge it into the air when you don't see anybody. Of course, doing so is illegal in both his home state of delaware as well as many other states, but I can understand why he doesn't understand that's a problem as I'm sure he and the cops would come to some kind of understanding.

 

Not to mention his utter bull**** where he claims that it is easier to handle than an AR-15 which, besides being as misogynist as ****, is asinine. Not only is the AR-15 lighter but it has a ****load less recoil. And since women have no problems operating the controls in a car, issues with spacial awareness notwithstanding, I somehow doubt the 4 controls on an AR-15 are going to be too complex.

 

Then of course there's his own flipping admission that an AWB won't do anything.

You're right, any ol' retard can get a Law degree from Syracuse University.

 

All you're doing is making immature ad hominem attacks on a person so you don't have to actually argue your position with reason, logic or evidence. You'd get a big fat 'F' in a debate or philosophy class for this assignment.

 

This is Fox News-caliber posting.

Edited February 21, 2013 by AGX-17

[ravenshrike]

 

Dubba barrel shotgun solves all your problems, especially if you discharge it into the air when you don't see anybody. Of course, doing so is illegal in both his home state of delaware as well as many other states, but I can understand why he doesn't understand that's a problem as I'm sure he and the cops would come to some kind of understanding.

 

Not to mention his utter bull**** where he claims that it is easier to handle than an AR-15 which, besides being as misogynist as ****, is asinine. Not only is the AR-15 lighter but it has a ****load less recoil. And since women have no problems operating the controls in a car, issues with spacial awareness notwithstanding, I somehow doubt the 4 controls on an AR-15 are going to be too complex.

 

Then of course there's his own flipping admission that an AWB won't do anything.

You're right, any ol' retard can get a Law degree from Syracuse University.

 

All you're doing is making immature ad hominem attacks on a person so you don't have to actually argue your position with reason, logic or evidence. You'd get a big fat 'F' in a debate or philosophy class for this assignment.

 

This is Fox News-caliber posting.

This is the same person who plagarized 5 papers and then came up with the excuse that he was unaware of the proper rules of citation(given that he was in the graduate program at this point that was unlikely). Not to mention I made no case that he was always retarded, just that he pretty currently hits the requirements. Also, landing in the bottom 5th percentile in both undergrad and graduate programs with the grad program being a 3rd tier law school ain't exactly spectacular.

[Calax]

Yeah, shooting watermelons isn't like shooting a human.

 

Except I wasn't saying that it was supposed to be. I was more pointing out how the energy of the bullet was used. Shoot a sucker with a shotgun and it explodes from the fact that the energy is spread out more on impact. Shoot it with an ar and it splits... but the energy is probably going to be expended in something behind the target rather than in the target.

[Guard Dog]

I think a shotgun is a fine home defense weapon. I have four. Well, three really. One is a derringer pistol thst will chamber a .45LC or a .410ga. That is not technically a shotgun but it will fire a shotshell. But I don't like the idea of an instrusive semi-tyrannical nanny government telling free people what they should or should not use for self defense. Heck the that idiot running the DHS put out a bullitin telling people to use scissors for self defense.

 

My other problem is is this fool minded theory that the AR-15 should be banned because it looks scary. Ooooo. A Marlin .223 deer rifle fires the same ammo at the same rate and comes with the same size stock magazine as the Bushmaster and no one is talking about banning it. The only difference is one looks like an assault rifle, the other looks like a hunting rifle. The difference is purely cosmetic. It's asinine.

 

Here's a thought. The one thing we can all agree on is universal background checks for purchases. Let's do that and leave everyone's private property alone. We have a great system for checking credit scores that is not run by the damned government. We can do something similar for firearm purchases so long as that is not run by the damned government. I say that because I do not believe they will be an honest partner in this. Also it makes me uneasy to ask permission to enjoy a guaranteed right from the very people who are actively seeking to supress it.

 

Oh and BTW Bruce, that AH at Sandy Hook DID NOT use an AR-15. He had one but did not bring it in. What he did he did with a Glock & Sig 9mm pistol that are also not on any proposed banned list.

[Calax]

 

Oh and BTW Bruce, that AH at Sandy Hook DID NOT use an AR-15. He had one but did not bring it in. What he did he did with a Glock & Sig 9mm pistol that are also not on any proposed banned list.

 

 

This has been frustrating me. The Bushmaster was used in the shooting, along with the pistols. The gun kept in the car was Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun. The AR was the primary weapon used in the shooting.

 

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

[ravenshrike]

Yeah, shooting watermelons isn't like shooting a human.

 

Except I wasn't saying that it was supposed to be. I was more pointing out how the energy of the bullet was used. Shoot a sucker with a shotgun and it explodes from the fact that the energy is spread out more on impact. Shoot it with an ar and it splits... but the energy is probably going to be expended in something behind the target rather than in the target.

You do realize that none of the shotgun pellets stayed IN the watermelon right? The fact that it splits has to do with the nature of the rind and flesh, nothing else. Both an AR with ball ammo and a shotgun with #00 are unlikely to overpenetrate unless at point blank range.

[TrashMan]

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

 

Guns are all abut destruction.

They are made to kill. That is their purpose.

Cars are made for transport, not killing.

 

I like guns, but I'm well aware exactly what they are and what their purpose is.

If you want defense, amor, tasers, pepper spray, alarms and such are there for that reason.

 

Guns being for defense...yeah, I guess you can use them for that, but it's more of an excuse.

I can use a nuke for defense too. No one would be crazy enough to touch me it was known I had anuke. Perfect defense!

 

 

I would love to own this:

but I can't. And I don't mind.

Edited February 22, 2013 by TrashMan

[Calax]

 

Yeah, shooting watermelons isn't like shooting a human.

 

Except I wasn't saying that it was supposed to be. I was more pointing out how the energy of the bullet was used. Shoot a sucker with a shotgun and it explodes from the fact that the energy is spread out more on impact. Shoot it with an ar and it splits... but the energy is probably going to be expended in something behind the target rather than in the target.

You do realize that none of the shotgun pellets stayed IN the watermelon right? The fact that it splits has to do with the nature of the rind and flesh, nothing else. Both an AR with ball ammo and a shotgun with #00 are unlikely to overpenetrate unless at point blank range.

 And? The idea is that the energy would be expended in a different manner, which could be more destructive.

 

And it's not the Splitting. It's the fact hat one flat out disappears, while the other it's still mostly intact.

[Malcador]

So the point of this is shotguns are good then ?

 

I suppose carbines are illegal for civilians to own in the US, no ?

[Tsuga C]

I suppose carbines are illegal for civilians to own in the US, no ?

A rifle with a barrel of less than 16" is illegal unless one has a special permit. Suppressors are illegal unless one has a special permit. I believe that both require a more extensive background check and paying a one-time $200 user fee for the enhanced background check. Carbines with barrels 16" and longer are perfectly legal, be they lever action, semi-auto, or bolt action.

 

Edit: details are here.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Guard Dog]

So the point of this is shotguns are good then ?

 

I suppose carbines are illegal for civilians to own in the US, no ?

Shotguns are good for what they are good for. If you like skeet shooting (clay pigeons) or bird hunting they are the weapon of choice. The are effective for home defense because they are deadly at short range, there is little chance of penetrating multiple walls for misses and they do not require a great deal of skill to use. Some people prefer them for small game hunting but I find that is overkill. A .22 or .17 workes much better and is cleaner. As for your second question Tsuga is, of course, correct.

[Zoraptor]

The suppressor thing amuses me, as we have supposedly very strict gun control laws but my neighbour has a stonking great suppressor on his (.223) rifle. We're obligated to control noxious pests so we have a .22 for rabbits and possums, per Guard Dog anything else would be, er, overkill for that purpose- and I'd be picking steel out of the fruit trees as a full time job if using a shotgun.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So the VP isn't "Officially Retarded"? He just made a gaffe? Some people should learn what "Officially" and "Retarded" actually mean.

 

To jump in to the pit of the gun control debate......

 

A shotgun is a good home defense weapon. Short range, powerful, don't need to be especially accurate. An assault rifle with an extended clip is not as good of a home defense weapon. Assault rifles are much easier to use to massacre people because they can fire faster than your average shotgun, extended clips are easy to come by, etc. Banning someone from getting easy access to an assault rifle will not stop them from killing someone if they want to, but will limit their ability to do so.

[Bartimaeus]

 

And before you get into "LOL criminals will jsut get it anyway!" consider the fact that they're criminals. Criminals are committing murder too, does that mean we shouldn't legislate to prevent murders? Also, whoever is going to be doing the shooting is probably gonna be able to be stopped by a hand gun, shotgun, or rifle. So stating that "You need AK's to stop AK's" is about as valid as saying that the Stuart Kings should be returned to power.

The difference, of course, being that shooting a rifle in itself is not an abhorrent act, while a murder always is...we legislate laws against murder because we generally believe murder to always be wrong. We legislate laws against stealing, because we generally believe stealing to be always be wrong, (though, at this point, I'm not so sure about this one in our country...at least with less direct forms of stealing...but this is mostly besides the point). We don't legislate laws against driving, however, because we believe that, while cars are generally dangerous, (and can be used to carry out crimes), they are a tool that can be used in a manner we do not consider to be destructive...(or at least wholly destructive). The same goes for guns.

 

 

Guns are all abut destruction.

They are made to kill. That is their purpose.

Cars are made for transport, not killing.

 

I like guns, but I'm well aware exactly what they are and what their purpose is.

If you want defense, amor, tasers, pepper spray, alarms and such are there for that reason.

 

Guns being for defense...yeah, I guess you can use them for that, but it's more of an excuse.

I can use a nuke for defense too. No one would be crazy enough to touch me it was known I had anuke. Perfect defense!

 

 

I would love to own this:

but I can't. And I don't mind.

 

Note that I did not literally say destruction...but rather, destructive use. The difference being, of course, that constructive use of something could still lead to destruction of something(s) or someone(s), but still for what some would consider a constructive purpose. As I said previously, it depends on what you consider to be destructive use. To some, hunting animals is a destructive use. To others, it's not.

 

I do not know a constructive use for a nuclear bomb. Self-defense, of course, is silly, because you could not actually use it for self-defense beyond intimidation...not without destroying yourself and tens of thousands, (if not hundreds of thousands, or millions), of innocent or otherwise uninvolved people, except perhaps in some extreme circumstances, (if you manage to make a bunker under your house that can withstand a direct nuclear explosion, props to you - still doesn't solve the uninvolved people dying bit, though).

 

One of those miniguns would probably be loads of fun to shoot in a way that does not destroy life.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

So the VP isn't "Officially Retarded"? He just made a gaffe? Some people should learn what "Officially" and "Retarded" actually mean.

 

 

No he's not retarded at all. He is crass, arrogant, condescending, and ill-informed but he is not retarded. On the upside he does have an uncanny ability to run his mouth without his brain being in gear. From a comedic standpoint he is the gift the keeps giving. But he is a fool and a buffoon and more than anything he makes you hope Obama survives the next three years with no trouble because you don't want to ever have to say President Biden.

 

Obama is a lot of things, but he is not a fool.

[Tsuga C]

Obama is a lot of things, but he is not a fool.

A fool? No, he's dedicated statist.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Obama is a lot of things, but he is not a fool.

A fool? No, he's dedicated statist.

 

 

If Obama is a statist then he is terrible at being one. Not only has he failed to gain control over all means of production, but he relinquished his hold on those he did possess.

[Guard Dog]

No, I don't think I'd call him statist, although he does have tendencies in that direction. I think you could make an argument for him being a corporatist but that does not entirely fit either. What he is though is an enemy of federalisim and he is at best disdainful of and at worst hostile to individual liberty. That makes me 110% against him.

 

All I want is to live my life and be left alone. All I want from the federal government is to perform the duties the constitution requires of it and NOT ONE THING MORE. FDR was the one who really began usurping power from the rest of the US and consolidating it in Washington. It has had periods of ebb and flow since but Obama has been one of the worst Presidents we have had in that respect. My home is in Tennessee. The government that has the most influence over my home should be in Nashville, not Washington DC.

 

Hopefully his replacement will be someone to reverse the trend. If not I really worry about what the future holds for us.