LGBT - Terror

conduit · Jun 16, 2016

Who has proven that this terrorist problem was created by a wrong immigration policy? Risking to repeat myself you don't think it has anything to do with the US meddling in every part of the world that clearly does not concern the US plus it's culturally insensitive appearance in many cases? Sorry but most in this world simply do not buy America's communicated intent, to spread a little love and democracy around the world. Many perceive the meddling as power grab and invasion. You would react in the same way probably if someone came to your country and played sherif, made alliances with cronies in power for their own benefit, helped to tip the political scales in whatever way for maximized benefits to the invader rather than local community, all under the cover of spreading "love, democracy, and freedom" across the world. People get agitated when someone shits on their lawn and tries to sell them the rational as having wanted to help.

Why does no foreigner or foreign religion or organization plot terrorist acts on Japanese soil? Because the Japanese don't fuck up other cultures and nations... At least not in the past 70 years. Why not in Canada? Same reason... Think about it for a moment before you decide which horses you put before YOUR cart.

AAAintheBeltway said:
I know this is hard for you as a foreigner to understand, but we have a Constitution and it gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It was clearly intended to protect the right to keep the sort of weapons that would be useful in a military conflict and not for target shooting or hunting only. To suggest that we have to somehow justify our desire to own a firearm puts the cart way before the horse. The government has to justify any restriction on our right, and part of that is demonstrating that doing so is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal.

Our leaders have created this terrorist problem by a suicidal and foolish immigration policy dating back decades. Now incredibly, when the FBI is justifying its failures by saying they lack the resources to track all these ticking time bombs, our leaders want to bring in tens of thousands more potential terrorists. And restrict our access to the best self defense weapons.

That is not a logical approach, and it is why Trump is so popular.

conduit · Jun 16, 2016

Welcome to the discussion even though you are late. Did we not bring up this very topic on page 2? You can't convince some with logic and reason. Some rather shoot around than first consider building and putting in place a sturdier door to help prevent home invasions. Cctv comes to mind and tons others... there are 20 more pressing things to do to prevent home invasions than getting an AR15. But for some life revolves around guns and shooting each other. And in the heat of the argument many of the AR15 proponents completely ignore the fact that most in society would not even be able to hold and run around in the house with such heavy arm. Think of a high stress situation. Most would not even be able accurately point at a perp from 10 feet away. Yet we have to listen to their flimsy and ridiculous arguments how assault rifles and the like are best to defend in home invasions.

nitro said:
The AR-15 (or any semi-automatic rifle) is not a defensive weapon. It is a weapon that has one foot in war and has no business being part of anyone's second amendment "right".

bone · Jun 16, 2016

I own 4 guns. I'm a member of a gun club and I target shoot. I find it to be a challenge and very relaxing. Also, if any person(s) breaks into my locked home in the middle of the night and chooses to ignore the vehement protestations of my two dogs by default your intentions and state of mind are such that I will quickly perforate your body and you will have certainly bled out well before 911 appears. My hardwood floors will mop right up. Afterwards, it will bother me a great deal and it will certainly traumatize me to have taken a human life. I would certainly get the assistance of counseling to deal with it. I would imagine such an ordeal would trouble me for the rest of my life. Flight is not an option with loved ones asleep or terrified in the house so fight it will be.

Two of my firearms I had to wait several weeks on simply because I ordered them. I have absolutely no problems with the proposition of having to wait for an extended background check provided that the time period is reasonable - no more than 2 weeks by law for example. I do not think that a person on a "do not fly" list should be able to purchase a firearm - provided that there is a functional and reasonable due process procedure for that listed person to challenge his or her status and that if the person in question is a US citizen any evidence used to make that determination is made known to them and they can challenge said evidence in a Court. Go ahead and shut down gun shows completely for all I care.

A gun ban or a magazine ban IMHO is a distraction and a red herring purely for practical and realistic purposes. In fact, just talk of a gun ban has had the exact opposite consequence that gun control advocates desire. Just some thoughts:

1. American culture. Guns and cars are two of the most indelible and irrepressible parts of American culture. It seems like 75% of TV and Hollywood movies feature gunplay and violence. I find it obscenely hypocritical that every Hollywood actor, actress, producer, director, studio staffer, etc. etc. has participated in a film or show that features guns. It would be very challenging to find an exception.

2. There are at least 300 million firearms already in circulation in the US and so it stands to reason hundreds of millions of magazines with at least 10 round capacity. A buyback or confiscation program would be of very limited effectiveness. We know this to be factual because talk of gun control and bans has actually manifested the consequence of increasing US gun purchases by esoteric orders of magnitude. Since the Sandy Hook tragedy, it is said that Smith & Wesson increased production rates of its M&P line of ARs by 10 times to meet consumer demand.

3. It takes maybe 2 seconds to change magazines. You can tape two low round count mags together, flip them over, and keep firing. Low round count magazines are not much of a deterrent. It's a convenience factor more than anything.

4. AR is just a design flavor. It's a model of an item. Like a Chevy Camaro. Like an iPhone 6S. There are plenty of semi-automatic magazine fed rifles and pistols out there that are not ARs - they've been making them since the very early 1900s before WW 1.

5. AR-15 is near low man on the totem pole in terms of bullet lethality in rifles. In some states it is illegal to hunt anything larger than a varmint ( groundhogs, coyotes) with the 223/556 cartridge. Police have shot armed suspects several times with AR-15 in 223/556 and they have survived - not a rare occurrence. Try that with a 300 Win Mag or a 338 Lapua.

6. By law, schools and movie theaters and government buildings and public gathering places and businesses that serve alcohol are designated "gun-free" zones.

7. Like it or not, the world and our society is populated by human predators.

Fractals 'R Us · Jun 16, 2016

Queers aren't dumb. They like to party in gun-free zones? Maybe not so much... http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/

AAAintheBeltway · Jun 16, 2016

conduit said:
Who has proven that this terrorist problem was created by a wrong immigration policy? Risking to repeat myself you don't think it has anything to do with the US meddling in every part of the world that clearly does not concern the US plus it's culturally insensitive appearance in many cases? Sorry but most in this world simply do not buy America's communicated intent, to spread a little love and democracy around the world. Many perceive the meddling as power grab and invasion. You would react in the same way probably if someone came to your country and played sherif, made alliances with cronies in power for their own benefit, helped to tip the political scales in whatever way for maximized benefits to the invader rather than local community, all under the cover of spreading "love, democracy, and freedom" across the world. People get agitated when someone shits on their lawn and tries to sell them the rational as having wanted to help.

Why does no foreigner or foreign religion or organization plot terrorist acts on Japanese soil? Because the Japanese don't fuck up other cultures and nations... At least not in the past 70 years. Why not in Canada? Same reason... Think about it for a moment before you decide which horses you put before YOUR cart.

This may shock you but I agree that our meddling in the middle east has been counterproductive. It's encouraging that the candidate who is among the most cautious on that, Trump, won. The one note warmongers and chest thumpers got no traction. There is no appetite in the country for more disastrous adventures, only among the neo-con punditry and defense industry-owned pols.

Unfortunately, ISIS, the proud creation of the Saudis, Qataris, Turks and Obama/Hillary, does require extermination. Expect the combination of Trump and Putin to wipe them out in a few weeks.

AAAintheBeltway · Jun 16, 2016

conduit said:
Welcome to the discussion even though you are late. Did we not bring up this very topic on page 2? You can't convince some with logic and reason. Some rather shoot around than first consider building and putting in place a sturdier door to help prevent home invasions. Cctv comes to mind and tons others... there are 20 more pressing things to do to prevent home invasions than getting an AR15. But for some life revolves around guns and shooting each other. And in the heat of the argument many of the AR15 proponents completely ignore the fact that most in society would not even be able to hold and run around in the house with such heavy arm. Think of a high stress situation. Most would not even be able accurately point at a perp from 10 feet away. Yet we have to listen to their flimsy and ridiculous arguments how assault rifles and the like are best to defend in home invasions.

If you're interested in learning something about a subject you clearly know nothing about, I suggest you read the article I cited.

An AR weighs about 6 pounds. If a woman can carry a baby or sack of groceries, she can carry an AR. A shotgun might weigh twice that. An AR is very easy to aim and shoot and, unlike a shotgun, does not spray a group of lethal pellets, each one of which is a potential lawsuit.

Handguns are very hard to hit anything with, even if you are well trained. Under extreme stress, forget it. In addition, defensive handgun loads are far more prone to overpenetration of walls, etc. IOW they will go through the walls of your house like tissue paper. An AR round tends to shatter and break up when it hits anything solid.

An AR has a huge intimidation factor, second only to shotgun. Simply displaying one will convince most would-be home invaders to seek a softer target.

Having 20 or 30 rounds available might seem like overkill, that is until you need it. In a life or death situation, it's better to have and not need than need and not have.

bone · Jun 16, 2016

AAAintheBeltway said:
Expect the combination of Trump and Putin to wipe them out in a few weeks.

The DNC and the Clinton campaign have confirmed the past few days that the Russian government completely hacked both their servers. Putin absolutely hates Obama and Hillary - so expect US news outlets and RT to water board the Clinton campaign with steadily leaked embarrassment.

nitro · Jun 17, 2016

AAAintheBeltway said:
I am reminded of the adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I will respectfully suggest that you know zero about firearms or home defense.

"Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise." - John Tukey

AAAintheBeltway · Jun 17, 2016

I thought we were addressing the same question.

Tom B · Jun 17, 2016

nitro said:
I understand that. A typical glock can handle say 17 rounds. An AR-15 not modified to be a full automatic weapon, is theorized as being able to fire 800 rounds per minute. I don't believe this BTW, simply because that means you would have to be pressing the trigger at 13 times a second for a minute, and that is not even changing magazines. No way.

I strongly recommend the following thread:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-does-a-semi-automatic-rifle-fire-per-minute

But do I believe 300 rounds a minute? Sure easily. And with magazines that are upwards of fifty rounds and changeable in a few seconds and getting bigger all the time, we are going to see 300 people packed together in proximity to each other like canned tuna in a public venue, we are going to be massacred one day by these things. It's just a matter of time.

http://ads.midwayusa.com/product/99...f5MZQEdMHQ3aXvuCNj8tsFGBhpsb2RA8i8aAm9N8P8HAQ

Nitro, the information you posted about rounds fired per minute is 100% false. In fact, the numbers are the equivalent of stating the sun revolves around the earth.

Here is an exercise for you to try. Time yourself for 10 seconds, pulling your index finger like you would pull a trigger. Multiply that number by six. For every 30 shots, you would need to change your magazine, which would take one second. Subtract one second for each magazine change from the total. That number is a realistic rounds per minute for an AR-15.