OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[rhino]

Then weapons of the Navy cannot be used on the ground in the United States because then everyone would plainly see how the drone flyers are not just killing bad people they're killing everyone.

If the unlikely scenario were to arise where armed citizenry is actively trying to overthrow the US government and holding their own against ground forces, the federal government would not hesitate to use drones. Most of Washington has their collective heads so far up there own asses they would be convinced they were doing it for the peoples own good.

 

[shoeless]

123 pages and nobody's brought up how we are to defend ourselves against the zombie apocalypse.

 

[Lerxst]

Scott Adam's take:


On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

 

[Flamencology]

There doesn't have to be agreement.

People had to be pulled out of the Stone Age, kicking and screaming when they had their 'rights' to own slaves, to segregate, to discriminate, to disenfranchise, to stop suffrage, etc., forcibly taken away.

 

[rhino]

Scott Adam's take:


On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

brilliant

 

[wagdog]

One thing I know about the AR and any other rifle is they are significantly easier to shoot accurately. In the hands of a marksman or Hunter, that's great. In the hands of someone determined to commit an act of violence it's a liability.

I've never seen that argument. Are speaking from personal experience?

 

[bsman]

Stop right there. I didn't ask or say that. I want you to find someone from that era who was disarmed and then watched his family and friends get taken and reduced to nothing against their will prior to getting taken to camps to then work and die by the MILLIONS without an ounce of anything to fight with.

I tend to doubt that any number of sporting firearms would likely have been terribly effective in grinding the machinery of the SS and Wehrmacht to a halt (although it is true that the Warsaw Ghetto was able to hold off its ultimate depopulation by a month)...

 

[Dogsinplastic]

123 pages and nobody's brought up how we are to defend ourselves against the zombie apocalypse.

Assault weapons of course.

 

[Chad]

If the unlikely scenario were to arise where armed citizenry is actively trying to overthrow the US government and holding their own against ground forces, the federal government would not hesitate to use drones. Most of Washington has their collective heads so far up there own asses they would be convinced they were doing it for the peoples own good.

And it isn't like the government hasn't attacked its own citizens. Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas. Hell the kids at Kent State weren't even armed.

 

[GomezAddams]

Stop right there. I didn't ask or say that. I want you to find someone from that era who was disarmed and then watched his family and friends get taken and reduced to nothing against their will prior to getting taken to camps to then work and die by the MILLIONS without an ounce of anything to fight with.

Hitler's army conquered the professional armies of the better part of Europe and almost conquered the whole world. Do you think armed, but unorganized and untrained Jewish citizens (even millions of them) could have made a difference in their lot?

 

[wok]

You bet your ass I said it. Over night the world just change significantly. Donald Trump is in England saying he thinks it a great thing the way the vote went. If I lived in England that would scare the shit out of me. Hell, I live in the U.S. and it scares the shit out of me.

I still don't see how that bares any relation to the Jews in WW2.

 

[rhino]

And it isn't like the government hasn't attacked its own citizens. Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas. Hell the kids at Kent State weren't even armed.

Kent State was an act of war against a populace that wanted change and it worked exactly as intended.

 

[335clone]

One thing I know about the AR and any other rifle is they are significantly easier to shoot accurately. In the hands of a marksman or Hunter, that's great. In the hands of someone determined to commit an act of violence it's a liability.

Significantly easier than what? I'm not clear on what your point is.

A scoped rifle is easier to shoot accurately than one with iron sights. A semi auto is easier (arguably) to shoot accurately than a bolt action rifle because you can keep the target marginally sighted between rounds as you do not have to work the bolt.

 

[rhino]

Hitler's army conquered the professional armies of the better part of Europe and almost conquered the whole world. Do you think armed, but unorganized and untrained Jewish citizens (even millions of them) could have made a difference in their lot?

You can do anything with enough AR-15s and Coors original.

 

[Prages]

I've never seen that argument. Are speaking from personal experience?

I'd have to agree that any rifle is easier to shoot accurately at a large distance. I mean, rifles were designed for accuracy. Add high powered optics and you can pick off a beer can from 200 yards pretty easily.

Still, if I were a nut job walking into a crowded public place with the intention of shooting as many people as quickly as possible, I'd take a big semi-automatic handgun. They are much easier to wield than any rifle, and as I stated earlier, my Glock holds 13+1, and I can change the magazines out in a matter of a second or two.

 

[jp_nyc]

The advantage of an AR-15 is convenience, not accuracy. The design of the AR-15 makes it easy to point it into a crowd at torso level, keep pulling the trigger until out of ammo, and swap magazines while everyone is hiding or bleeding out. Folding stocks make this even easier—though I don’t know if mass killing shooters have used them. To make it any easier a shooter would have to upgrade to a spray-and-pray handgun. Of course there are plenty of other guns that are just as useful for a mass shooting. But the popularity of the AR-15 makes it easy to find and inexpensive.

 

[GomezAddams]

I'd have to agree that any rifle is easier to shoot accurately at a large distance. I mean, rifles were designed for accuracy. Add high powered optics and you can pick off a beer can from 200 yards pretty easily.

Still, if I were a nut job walking into a crowded public place with the intention of shooting as many people as quickly as possible, I'd take a big semi-automatic handgun. They are much easier to wield than any rifle, and as I stated earlier, my Glock holds 13+1, and I can change the magazines out in a matter of a second or two.

AR style rifles seem to be the preferred firearm for swat teams and nut jobs (both plain and radical terrorist). I assume there is a reason for this.

 

[Theodore]

*obligatory insular gun nerd debate*

 

[GomezAddams]

The advantage of an AR-15 is convenience, not accuracy. The design of the AR-15 makes it easy to point it into a crowd at torso level, keep pulling the trigger until out of ammo, and swap magazines while everyone is hiding or bleeding out. Folding stocks make this even easier—though I don’t know if mass killing shooters have used them. To make it any easier a shooter would have to upgrade to a spray-and-pray handgun. Of course there are plenty of other guns that are just as useful for a mass shooting. But the popularity of the AR-15 makes it easy to find and inexpensive.

Actually, the AR does have the advantage of accuracy if the shooter finds himself up against an opponent armed with a pistol. If the shooter can put some distance between himself and the opponent, he has the distinct advantage.

 

[Prages]

AR style rifles seem to be the preferred firearm for swat teams and nut jobs (both plain and radical terrorist). I assume there is a reason for this.

The "AR-15" style gun a SWAT team would use is going to be functionally VASTLY different than a consumer grade "AR-15".
Nut jobs may modify their consumer grade AR-15, but most probably choose it just for the high capacity.

I still say a large caliber, high capacity handgun would be the more efficient choice for a nut job.