BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

The only way you would have a remote chance would be to psych assess the entire population on an ongoing basis

HITNRUNXX wrote:

I do understand that looking at a series of murders or a time lapsed loon does not have the same ****IMPACT!!!!**** as an isolated loon that does a lot at one time. But that should not be discounted. Just because loon A kills 12 people over 3 years and loon B kills 12 people all at once, the acts of violence and the results are the same. 12 people were killed.

I would argue (in my non-qualified opinion) that loon A is more of a psychopath according to the (limited) knowledge I have on the subject. One of my now ex-colleagues was reading a book about serial killers whilst she was completing her thesis. She told me that psychopaths of this nature tend to have the urge to kill every so often, and once they satisfy the urge they may be fine for months or years before the urge to kill returns. The other to me sounds more like going out in a "blaze of glory" so to speak, as their chances of escaping or even survival are dramatically reduced to about 0, so I think they may have a bit more of a justified reason to their line of thinking. But I'm just speculating here.

I could agree with that assessment, Jaekus. However, my point was still that you can't take a few mass murders from one country and base all your opinions on that. We seem to have one of these about every 3 years. That is a lot. Way too much. But we also have, as stated above, 311Million people. I would expect ours to happen more commonly than, say, Australia's 22ish Million. (Sorry if I am misremembering the population there, not where I can go look right now).

Once you get more of a global view, you can see there is a lot of violence that gun laws didn't prevent. *break*

There are places where killings are common. *break*

There are a number of places where guns were used, but a lot of places where they were not. *break*

There are places where guns were banned/restricted, but guns were still used. *break*

There are places where other illegal weapons are used, and being illegal did not help. McVeigh was mentioned earlier... Dude turned fertilizer into a bomb. Anyone can build a bomb out of general household goods. Loony, psycho, desperate, extremist, political, religious, whatever.... There will be murders, and there will be a lot more of them. Gun laws or no. At least with the guns, people have a sporting chance of defending themselves.

Also, something that doesn't make the news: Cases where someone stopped this violence. Sure, some pop up on occasion, usually if there is video, or controversy, or to make someone into a hero, but there are a number that just go away. Do you think every time a man tries to rape a woman, and she shoots him it makes national news? Or every time a robber is shot in a home? No... These are not sensational enough. It doesn't mean they don't happen though.

HITNRUNXX wrote:

I could agree with that assessment, Jaekus. However, my point was still that you can't take a few mass murders from one country and base all your opinions on that. We seem to have one of these about every 3 years. That is a lot. Way too much. But we also have, as stated above, 311Million people. I would expect ours to happen more commonly than, say, Australia's 22ish Million. (Sorry if I am misremembering the population there, not where I can go look right now).

Once you get more of a global view, you can see there is a lot of violence that gun laws didn't prevent. *break*

There are places where killings are common. *break*

There are a number of places where guns were used, but a lot of places where they were not. *break*

There are places where guns were banned/restricted, but guns were still used. *break*

There are places where other illegal weapons are used, and being illegal did not help. McVeigh was mentioned earlier... Dude turned fertilizer into a bomb. Anyone can build a bomb out of general household goods. Loony, psycho, desperate, extremist, political, religious, whatever.... There will be murders, and there will be a lot more of them. Gun laws or no. At least with the guns, people have a sporting chance of defending themselves.

Also, something that doesn't make the news: Cases where someone stopped this violence. Sure, some pop up on occasion, usually if there is video, or controversy, or to make someone into a hero, but there are a number that just go away. Do you think every time a man tries to rape a woman, and she shoots him it makes national news? Or every time a robber is shot in a home? No... These are not sensational enough. It doesn't mean they don't happen though.

My earlier criticism was really just about the way you presented this in a particular paragraph. Semantics? Perhaps, though the implication was enough for me to raise it. However I do agree with pretty much everything you say here.

Jaekus wrote:

My earlier criticism was really just about the way you presented this in a particular paragraph. Semantics? Perhaps, though the implication was enough for me to raise it. However I do agree with pretty much everything you say here.

No, you made a good point. As much as we debate for fun here, it is a serious topic, and the way it was thrown together was misleading/confusing.

Jaekus wrote:

If you wanted to make a point on the other side of the logic in the argument, Japan has pretty loose gun laws and some of the lowest instances of gun crime in the world.

Dude, you need to use the /sarcasm sometimes.  I almost bit off on that one.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

'low power bunny rifle'

...

Jay wrote:

Ask any hunter and they will tell you that the only real use for a rifle firing a round of that size is to hunt small game like rabbits or the occasional coyote.

...

The FUCK do you need an AR-15 for a rabbit for? .17 or .22 would serve nicely.

.22LR

e: (to clarify) is NOT a .223 or 5.56

So it is. It'll do the job alright, but seems a bit overkill for a rabbit. Killing power with the lowest possible tissue damage wins, imo.

And #&$@ picking shot out of a carcass.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

So it is. It'll do the job alright, but seems a bit overkill for a rabbit. Killing power with the lowest possible tissue damage wins, imo.

And #&$@ picking shot out of a carcass.

I don't think .22LR is really excessively large for a rabbit, it seems like the perfect cartridge for it really, Carlos Hathcock used to shoot rabbits with a .22 to have them for dinner when he was a kid.  As a noob I would've suggested .17 HMR thinking that a smaller bullet would be less overkill but according to Wiki, it's actually more powerful than a .22LR and too powerful for small game at close ranges, and noisier than a .22 as well, although it's also more accurate, has a longer range with less trajectory and is less susceptible to wind because of better ballistics.  That's just what Wikipedia says though

It really doesn't look all that much smaller either:



It's obviously a little thinner but it looks like it has a relative shitload more powder behind it too

Last edited by _j5689_ (2012-07-25 22:13:37)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Inventing new and more unpleasant ways to execute people - see above.

I actually don't agree with that. As long as the state is allowed to kill people, it should be as sterile and efficient as possible, and making things too gruesome would simply drive suspects into fighting the cops with even more ferocity and desperation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

'low power bunny rifle'

...

AussieReaper wrote:

Concealed carry should be illegal in all states, unless you're a police officer or law enforcement official.

People already ignore off-limits areas to concealed weapons unless there's metal detectors. I don't know about you, but I don't want to walk through an x-ray just to go see Batman or buy a Twinkie. Heavy-handed legislation against weapons like that could turn the entire country into something like a TSA fortress.

That's fair enough and I'm certainly not advocating a police state or TSA fortress. lol

But I do think concealed carry is a joke and you should be required to have your gun plainly on your person around the waist.

If you want the right to a gun I want the right to know you're carrying. Let it be for businesses / etc to admit you based on that fact.

AussieReaper wrote:

But I do think concealed carry is a joke and you should be required to have your gun plainly on your person around the waist.

That would be a hard sell in the states. A lot of people are intimidated by open carry, and are happier if they don't know. Plus having it in the open marks you as a pretty juicy target...

_j5689_ wrote:

I don't think .22LR is really excessively large for a rabbit, it seems like the perfect cartridge for it really.

I agree. I meant overkill by way of the .223 and 5.56.

_j5689_ wrote:

As a noob I would've suggested .17 HMR thinking that a smaller bullet would be less overkill but according to Wiki, it's actually more powerful than a .22LR and too powerful for small game at close ranges, and noisier than a .22 as well, although it's also more accurate, has a longer range with less trajectory and is less susceptible to wind because of better ballistics.

Also .17's more expensive, last I checked.