|Crackersmack - 2012-09-11 |
Liberal's fear of guns is the most ridiculous thing. Shooting is an incredibly fun and challenging hobby. Just go try it.
Yes, you might have to interact with some idiotic teabaggers occasionally. However, it's been my experience that unless you go to a gun show (don't) then politics almost never come up.
This doesn't have to be about disgusting political beliefs, or some macho thing. For a lot of people recreational and competitive shooting is just a fun way to spend an afternoon.
"liberals" don't fear guns any more than any other sane person does. what you patronizingly think of as fear of a weapon is actually fear of the type of people that fetishise that weapon.
Dread Pirate Roberts
I'm with CJH on this. And I point to this very video for evidence.
"This'll also kill just about any target of the... two-legged variety."
"Yuup, sure will!"
Crackersmack, I'm a liberal and I understand what it's like to enjoy shooting things. In my case, though, my weapon of choice is a bow, though (really surprising spoiler) I am absolute ass at it. Even so, I understand the appeal of learning a skill that requires concentration and control; and when I say I shoot "things" I am talking about bales of hay or other strictly non-living targets.
So I am halfway on board with these guys; I can understand why a person would enjoy becoming a marksman. Where I am NOT on board with them is that the appeal to them seems to be directing firepower at other humans, or at least having the ability to do so if the occasion arises.
I'm fine with hunting more or less: I know a guy who bow hunts to help put food on the table. I get that. As CJH says, the problem is fetishizing weapons and the power they have over other people.
Crackersmack is correct. Guns are like Kryptonite to liberals. Its one of their few weaknesses. Most bullets effectively penetrate the liberal's skin, but silver bullets are the most effective.
I completely understand how creepy the people that are obsessed with guns and apocalypse scenarios are, and I don't blame anybody for being turned off by this part of the shooting community.
That's why I suggested that any doubters actually go out and shoot somewhere; you'd be surprised to learn that these weirdos are more interested in hording guns and posting on internet forums than actually becoming proficient at shooting.
I shoot IDPA twice per month and trap/skeet at least four times per year at a private shooting club. I've been doing this for years, and we have drinks at the range bar after every meet so I know most of the people that participate fairly well.
Our IDPA group is over 30 people, and honestly it probably breaks down 1/3rd liberal/progressive, 1/3rd conservative/teabagger, and 1/3rd not interested in politics at all. And for the most part when politics comes up everybody groans and tries to change the subject.
I didn't listen to much of this video; I just scanned through it to see what guns they are suggesting everybody should own. Except for the Mosin everything in this video was pretty practical and had multiple legitimate uses outside of shooting other humans.
So yes, there is definitely a creepy and potentially dangerous segment of the shooting community, but I think that most people overestimate their numbers and/or the risk they actually pose. And possession of a particular type of gun or multiple guns does not automatically make someone part of this group.
I think that the left in America is tilting at windmills when they demonize "assault" rifles, and any time or resources spent on trying to further restrict guns in any way is wasted since it just highlights one of the very few issues that the right-wing has the public's support on.
I didn't really watch the video but I saw it was about guns and I just badly needed an excuse to tell everyone that I'm cool cause I go to a shooting range.
Counterpoint: I hate shooting. I find it boring as fuck, but I still own a 9MM handgun and a pump shotgun for home defense. I'll gladly give up my guns when America has the crime rate of the average progressive European country.
Adham; by the way that they were dressed I could probably make a pretty accurate guess as to what they would say regarding gun ownership. I don't really need to listen to it. Regardless of their (likely) repulsive political views, four of the five guns in this video are actually fairly solid recommendations for anyone that might be interested in competitive or recreational shooting. The Mosin is kind of pointless.
I'm glad that you think my hobby makes me cool though. If somehow I missed something that was said in this video that you think is pertinent to the conversation then feel free to point it out.
Another way to frame the argument; dangerous bikers exist. They fetishise an "outlaw" lifestyle that includes abusing women, dealing drugs, theft, and violence. Therefore we should ban or restrict the ownership of Harleys since nobody can really justify their need to own one anyway, right?
Here's something I wanted answered: why is it necessary to own anything more than a revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle?
Why do you need the range, stopping power, and clip size of assault weapons? "Because it's a cool hobby" is not a good reason for these things to be legal. I'm sure rocket launchers and C4 would be fun to use on trees too.
Sorry, guys. Too many deranged people want these things out of some irrational fear or fantasy. The only thing these weapons are good for is maximizing the damage a lone person can inflict on people. Anyone who uses the "knives are dangerous too" belongs in that deranged category.
I don't understand this weird strawman that gun owners always duck under whenever gun culture is criticized. Guns are not like cars, or motorcycles, or ATVs, or whatever other moderately dangerous thing that also happens to serve a specific purpose not associated in any way with any sort of directly criminal behavior. You can use a motorcycle to commit a crime...motorcycles are not MADE to commit crimes. You can use a gun to shoot something. It has no other purpose. It shoots. It shoots bullets. It always shoots bullets. Bullets are dangerous. Fatal even. This never changes; it is the nature of a gun, unless you're loading it with blanks for the purposes of shooting. Yes, you can collect them, polish them, show them off, and never fire them once. But apart from taking up space in a cabinet they serve no other active function other than firing bullets and being used to shoot.
I'm sorry but the level of inherent risk and danger in operating, say, a car as compared to a gun is so radically different that comparing them in this way is intellectually dishonest at minimum. A can of soda could conceivably be used to kill someone by hitting them in the head with it. Are you saying that a can of soda is the same as a gun and therefore we should treat guns with the same casual attitude as we do a can of soda?
"British friend visiting America actually said this: "I've been in the USA for two weeks and I haven't heard any gunshots yet"."
Funnily enough, an American overseas student I was at Uni with listened to two weeks of local kids letting off fireworks around late October/early November before turning to me and saying, quite calmly, 'man, is this a rough neighbourhood or something...?' He wasn't even perturbed walking home late at night from the pub with the pop, pop, pop all around us.
The only reason you all say you need guns is because you're scared of the man on the street also having a gun and wanting your watch. So if you all get rid of your guns, there's no problem.
Where I live, in the land of the cockney geezers, we don't have guns. If you see someone giving you a bit of strife and you think claret is imminent, or if someone's a bit stoke-on-trent and creeping up the apples and pears going after your crown stools and brothel creepers, then as long as you are mustard you just roll up your sleeves and give them a bloody good hiding.
Fabio: "Because it's a cool hobby" is all the justification necessary for these things to be legal. We are talking about something with specific constitutional protection, without any qualifiers for ownership. You don’t have this right for hunting or self defense or any other specified reason; you just have this right. Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed I need no reason other than "Because it's a cool hobby" to own almost any firearm.
“Too many deranged people want these things out of some irrational fear or fantasy. The only thing these weapons are good for is maximizing the damage a lone person can inflict on people.” is just conjecture. “Assault” rifles and high capacity magazines are just not a factor in violent crime. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make them all disappear, violent crime would not be reduced at all. Statistically, crimes with more than 10 shots fired make up a fraction of one percent of violent crimes involving firearms. Shouldn’t this fact figure into the debate at all?
StanleyPain: None of the firearms I own can kill another human being without gross misuse. None of the firearms that I own were marketed as something to use while committing crimes. People shoot firearms for many reasons other than harming people; the popularity of shooting sports and firearms in general is a testament to that. Crime has been on the decline for decades despite greatly rising levels of firearm ownership. If firearms were primarily intended to facilitate crime wouldn’t increasing firearm ownership result in increasing crime rates? Saying that because a firearm can shoot projectiles then their only reason to exist is to shoot these projectiles into other people is just as ridiculous a statement as saying that motorcycles are designed to facilitate crime since they make it easier to escape the police.
I hear the “designed to kill people” argument all the time and I just don’t understand the reasoning behind why anyone thinks that the original purpose for the design of any specific firearm should matter. I own firearms that were designed for military use and I own firearms that were originally designed strictly for target shooting and the layman wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. The original intent behind the design means nothing.
"I'm sorry but the level of inherent risk and danger in operating, say, a car as compared to a gun is so radically different that comparing them in this way is intellectually dishonest at minimum. "
It's true, a car is a lot more dangerous to operate.
And just to add to it, I was disappointed at the lack of Heckler-Koch items in the list
I didn't mean to sound like I was claiming that all liberals are afraid of guns; I consider myself a liberal and I am good friends with quite a few liberal gun owners.
There is a vocal segment of liberals however that are definitely anti-gun, and that confuses me since I have always associated the right-wing with the desire to create unjustifiable and irrational legislation based on emotional reactions instead of reason.
I was helping to set up for a convention at a rented hall that was sharing the space with a gun show. This was in Missouri, so YMMV as to how "normal" this experience was. I noticed several things:
1. All, and I mean ALL of the (at least six) cigarette-tower-disposal-things were FULL to overflowing, each one still smoldering like oversized incense burners.
2. Most of those coming and going that were over 50 were wearing overalls. A majority of the men were wearing old ballcaps that either had pithy slogans about shooting intruders, a camo design, or the CAT logo.
3. While using the bathroom, two men at urinals a few spaces apart had propped their AK-47-like (they had the curved magazines) weapons next to where they were relieving themselves.
4. I can't estimate percentages, but enough people for me to notice were coming into the gun show, and apparently leaving with their purchases only a few minutes later. It's not so much a convention as a farmer's market to those sorts of people. I mean, pickup trucks would arrive, whoever was driving would sit with the hazards on and play with a cell phone while any passengers hopped out to go buy stuff and take off once business was concluded.
And for all those (Hi, Cena!) claiming it's Liberals who are scared in this debate, I beg to differ. Conservatives are far more easily frightened. They're so scared right now, they're buying guns and ammo in record numbers, since the gun dealers and the NRA are filling their tiny, frightened brains with the "Obama's comin' to take yer guns!" fairy tale again.
Fun fact: Obama has pushed for no gun control legislation, yet the wingnuts fell for the lie four years ago, and they're so stupid they're falling for it again. Have fun clutching your guns, guys. You're a hair away from being as mentally stable as the gangstalker loonies.
FABIO: "Here's something I wanted answered: why is it necessary to own anything more than a revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle?"
What's the difference between a revolver with speed loaders and a semi-auto pistol? What's the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an assault rifle, when in able hands? And BTW, I would *much rather* be shot several times with a .223 AR15 than once with a shotgun (if I had to be shot). Getting shot with a buckshot round is the same as getting shot 9 times with a .38 revolver. At once.
People call them assault rifles because they look military / bad ass. They function the same as any other rifle.
I am a liberal and I own an AR15, 2 Glock 9MMs, a Kimber .45, and a Mosin Nagant (which was a gift which I have never fired; impractical indeed, but cheap as hell - like for one in decent shape). I hope to never need to use one in self-defense (which I would try to run away first anyway), but as the old saying goes "it's better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it."
And once again, cars kill many times more people every year than guns, but we'll give any dipshit a license to operate a 2 ton monster that can go 100 mph.
Layin' the Crackersmack-down.
Stanley I thought you were smarter than that. Cars may not be designed to kill things but they kill more things per year than guns WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO KILL. That should put things in perspective.
Who cares if assault rifles have the capacity for more carnage? What does that matter when 99% of gun crime involves handguns?
Please don't ever make the "NEED" argument ever again. You're on a computer connected to the internet. Please have some humility when speaking about "needs" on something totally unnecessary (the internet).
Basic needs, if you want to go that route, dont involve much more than not dying and having shelter/food requirements met. Don't even begin talking about who "needs" what.
Switzerland has no Active military component. Instead, Switzerland issues assault rifles to every adult after government-mandated basic training. Switzerland's gun-related homocide rate is 1/200,000 - one of the lowest in the world.
When everyone has a deadly weapon, everyone apparently gets along just fine.
Gmork, did you know that Internet access has been declared a basic Human Right by the United Nations? True story, bro.
|Hugo Gorilla - 2012-09-11 |
|Raggamuffin - 2012-09-11 |
Excuse me sir but the rabbits and squirrels in my area tend to wear body armor. How can you help me against them I also need to shoot through the cars and if they are holding a gun I need to be able to shoot through that also?
Also superflu enhanced ultratigers and http://tinyurl.com/csb2dym
|Jet Bin Fever - 2012-09-11 |
I like firing guns, but I HATE being around gun people. The endless talk of "THISLL KILL EM DEAD" better than another and all that. I know shooting someone with a .22 is different from a 9mm or a .45, but when it comes down to it... any gun can kill a human being without body armor (such as someone who would break in). The theory shit just goes too far.
|craptacular - 2012-09-11 |
are those MP5s over his left shoulder? how come those aren't on his list of 5 guns every american should own?
Doesn't compensate enough.
Most of the time when you see an MP5 it is a .22lr and made (at least partially) of plastic.
Real MP5s cost many thousands of dollars, and clones made by companies other than HK still will run 00+ for something that might not even work that well.
Its easier to be a Kit hobbyist and create guns using other gun parts.
Many "conversion kits' abound. I have a friend who is a gun dealer who is the most responsible, nerdy guy I know. He owns a Kriss Vector. You can find it on clips of futureweapons.
He has a suppressor for it, and let me tell you it's the hottest piece of ass down at the police shooting range.
|Gojira1000 - 2012-09-11 |
the 10/22 and mossberg are perfectly useful. but no to everything else.
If you really wanted to survive, you'd have a scoped .270 bolt action, maybe a remington 700, or something similar. Not wank-material like glocks and ar15s.
and did that bearded ass really suggest illegally silencing your 10/22 so the other hills have eyes hillbillies can't find you in the apocalyptic forests of the end times?
That scoped .270 is lethal at a much greater distance and has much more penetrating power than your average AR-15. What advantage do you think the AR-15 offers over a scoped .270 if someone intends to commit crime with a firearm?
Glocks are "wank-material"? Since when? My Glock 34 is definitely my favorite gun for IDPA competition, but it certainly wouldn't win any beauty contests. It might be one of the ugliest and most utilitarian handguns on the market today.
Hey now, the Mosin is incredibly useful for making fenceposts and/or rotten vegetables explode. I have investigated this thoroughly.
|Kid Fenris - 2012-09-11 |
He should attach them all together and turn one gun into five guns.
He should load them into each other and turn five guns into a gun that shoots other guns.
|Doomstein - 2012-09-12 |
These men are in fact liberal homosexuals.
It's just that they also own a pawn shop and need to get rid of some dead stock, and that stupid Mossberg has been sitting around the shop for three years...
Ya gotta do what ya gotta do, ya know?
|kingofthenothing - 2012-09-12 |
I don't own guns out of the fear I would use them on myself, on purpose.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|