The Batman Bill.
Bully for that kid, but they mostly aren't, which is why you hear the audience collectively breath an exasperated sigh when someone walks in to a late or scary movie with one slung over their shoulder.Stingray24 wrote:
Some are. After mine were two months old they slept like a log until morning.Macbeth wrote:
They never are thoughwest-phoenix-az wrote:
as long as the baby is quiet who cares
personally, i don't give a fuck how old a kid is - if it can't walk on it's own or speak English, it needs to be at home with a babysitter. and that goes for the fucking child also.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Bully for that kid, but they mostly aren't, which is why you hear the audience collectively breath an exasperated sigh when someone walks in to a late or scary movie with one slung over their shoulder.Stingray24 wrote:
Some are. After mine were two months old they slept like a log until morning.Macbeth wrote:
They never are though
all films either subtitled or dubbed in spanish
apparently his rifle jammed
I'm surprised there hasn't been more videos.
Hooray for shitty magazines! (One of the few situations where I'd say this with complete sincerity.)Trotskygrad wrote:
apparently his rifle jammed
This!RAIMIUS wrote:
Hooray for shitty magazines! (One of the few situations where I'd say this with complete sincerity.)Trotskygrad wrote:
apparently his rifle jammed
I hate crappy cheap magazines but they saved a lot of lives that night.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
that was deep
Tu Stultus Es
Very fortunate that the magazine jammed his primary weapon and he didn't have the training to clear it. I don't want to go too much into gun ideology because there is a thread for that but don't you think that this is an argument for more restrictions on ownership of assault weapons? Everyone's pretty much saying "well it's fortunate he didn't have use of his automatic" - well yeah, duh. Wouldn't it also be fortunate if he didn't have easy access to it in the first place? No-one needs an assault rifle or an SMG for defence, I think it's about time people accept that. They either want one because they enjoy letting off rounds for mindless fun or because they mean harm.
Not to say those who enjoy letting off a few rounds for mindless fun should be restricted from ever doing it. Gun clubs and shooting ranges are still an option. Just a lessened availability of them would help, make anyone who wants one work a bit harder than rocking up to a gun shop, Walmart or ordering online. Even in NZ I know how to get my hands on an Uzi if I wanted to, but the process is difficult and puts me up to scrutiny so I'd only ever pursue it if I really really wanted one, (fortunately I get my assault weapon fix from the army. Big fan of the Steyr, not so much of the C9.)
I can accept the American love affair with the handgun. As a personal defence weapon, as something to give you an inflated sense of self esteem, as a prop to practise your Travis Bickle impersonation, whatever. But outside of warfare there is no need for assault rifles. Why not make them less prevalent?
Not to say those who enjoy letting off a few rounds for mindless fun should be restricted from ever doing it. Gun clubs and shooting ranges are still an option. Just a lessened availability of them would help, make anyone who wants one work a bit harder than rocking up to a gun shop, Walmart or ordering online. Even in NZ I know how to get my hands on an Uzi if I wanted to, but the process is difficult and puts me up to scrutiny so I'd only ever pursue it if I really really wanted one, (fortunately I get my assault weapon fix from the army. Big fan of the Steyr, not so much of the C9.)
I can accept the American love affair with the handgun. As a personal defence weapon, as something to give you an inflated sense of self esteem, as a prop to practise your Travis Bickle impersonation, whatever. But outside of warfare there is no need for assault rifles. Why not make them less prevalent?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
because you*re too late, Ty. there are literally millions made, and not all of them went to Mexico.
was it an automatic rifle? I thought it was a civilian ar-15
Tu Stultus Es
I really don't want to have this argument again...
There's nothing special about 'assault weapons'. They, for some reason, strike fear in peoples hearts but that's simply due to ignorance and emotion. The M-16 platform that the AR-15 is based on fires a .223 round. This round was selected by the military for two reasons: 1) the bullet loses little accuracy and inertia out to ranges of 300-400 meters and 2) it's dirt cheap to produce compared to larger caliber rounds. If the attacker had used a round that actually had stopping power, rather than the wounding power of a .223/5.56mm round, many more than 12 people would've died. 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. Anything larger than that and the animal will probably not go down, and if it does, it means miles of following a blood trail before you find the animal. At the range he was using the weapon at, he would've been better served simply using two pistols.
The M-16/AR-15 is largely a shitty platform used because it's a very easy to use and user friendly system. It's cheap to build, the ammo is cheap to manufacture, and it's saving grace is that it is generally easy for novices to hit the targets they aim at from range. That's it. The same largely goes for any other military 'assault weapon' in the world except for perhaps the AK-47 which trades accuracy and ease of use for volume and stopping power. I really don't want to speculate about what I would use in a situation like his, because fuck, that's morbid, but I can say that there are about a thousand or so rifles I would prefer to use over an M-16/AR-15 that would perform better. Obsessing over the fact that the weapon is used by military's is pure silliness.
There's nothing special about 'assault weapons'. They, for some reason, strike fear in peoples hearts but that's simply due to ignorance and emotion. The M-16 platform that the AR-15 is based on fires a .223 round. This round was selected by the military for two reasons: 1) the bullet loses little accuracy and inertia out to ranges of 300-400 meters and 2) it's dirt cheap to produce compared to larger caliber rounds. If the attacker had used a round that actually had stopping power, rather than the wounding power of a .223/5.56mm round, many more than 12 people would've died. 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. Anything larger than that and the animal will probably not go down, and if it does, it means miles of following a blood trail before you find the animal. At the range he was using the weapon at, he would've been better served simply using two pistols.
The M-16/AR-15 is largely a shitty platform used because it's a very easy to use and user friendly system. It's cheap to build, the ammo is cheap to manufacture, and it's saving grace is that it is generally easy for novices to hit the targets they aim at from range. That's it. The same largely goes for any other military 'assault weapon' in the world except for perhaps the AK-47 which trades accuracy and ease of use for volume and stopping power. I really don't want to speculate about what I would use in a situation like his, because fuck, that's morbid, but I can say that there are about a thousand or so rifles I would prefer to use over an M-16/AR-15 that would perform better. Obsessing over the fact that the weapon is used by military's is pure silliness.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I highly suggest you move that post to the dedicated thread for it, Ty or it's going to derail this thread from it's focus on one tragic event. Feel free to move your post and mine since you're a mod.
So called "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted by law and are owned by a select few who have gone through an extensive process of scrutiny. One does not just walk into Walmart, a gun shop, or buy online to obtain a weapon of this sort. If you're speaking of semi-automatic rifles, those are not "assault rifles". They're used for hunting, sport shooting, and also self defense.
edit: Jay beat me to it
So called "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted by law and are owned by a select few who have gone through an extensive process of scrutiny. One does not just walk into Walmart, a gun shop, or buy online to obtain a weapon of this sort. If you're speaking of semi-automatic rifles, those are not "assault rifles". They're used for hunting, sport shooting, and also self defense.
edit: Jay beat me to it
Last edited by Stingray24 (2012-07-23 17:03:35)
Maybe he's using the old-timey british term that referred to any auto-loader as an automaticeleven bravo wrote:
was it an automatic rifle? I thought it was a civilian ar-15
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
A Civilian AR5 is still a military weapon regardless of its 'civilian' prefix in my opinion. It still has a high-capacity magazine and a medium-to-high RPM. I see it as being designed primarily for taking out people. I perhaps shouldn't have put emphasis on my 'automatic' misconception though it doesn't make a difference to my argument. Even the military only really uses automatic fire with support weapons rather than assault rifles.
I get Jay's point on round sizes and stopping power, if you want to commit mass murder it pays to do your research. But these psychopaths don't generally know that, they get something that rattles off bullets and they don't have to reload much, they don't really give a fuck whether it has stopping or killing power, (even though dismissing being shot by a .223 round isn't something I'd do.) I'm not suggesting that because these weapons are military grade that they're somehow deadlier but these psychopaths almost universally go for the same weapon characteristics; high capacity, medium-to-high RPM. Or pistols due to their ability to be concealed. Few opt to use hunting rifles or weapons ideally suited for killing animals of our size. The thing is with the availability of .223, it's cost, it's ability to be used in high-capacity weapons, and the damage it can do, it seems to me to be an ideal round to mow down people with, regardless of the 'efficiency' of larger rounds.
What's more is that this type of weapon doesn't have a use in civilian life. .223s can be used for small to medium game sure, but I don't know of a rabbit that needed semi-automatic fire and a 30-round magazine except for maybe that Monty Python one. Coyotes? Still no necessity to riddle the general area with bullets. There is no need to make these sorts of weapons so widely available.
To be honest I don't think it has much to do with the type of weapons but more to do with their availability. .223 weapons are a popular choice for nutters because there are lots of them, they are widely available, inexpensive and ammunition is also cheap and easy to get. How efficient they happen to be at killing people is another thing but fire a bullet at anyone and it's bound to do some damage.
Anyway I'll drop it now and give someone else the last word if they want it.
I get Jay's point on round sizes and stopping power, if you want to commit mass murder it pays to do your research. But these psychopaths don't generally know that, they get something that rattles off bullets and they don't have to reload much, they don't really give a fuck whether it has stopping or killing power, (even though dismissing being shot by a .223 round isn't something I'd do.) I'm not suggesting that because these weapons are military grade that they're somehow deadlier but these psychopaths almost universally go for the same weapon characteristics; high capacity, medium-to-high RPM. Or pistols due to their ability to be concealed. Few opt to use hunting rifles or weapons ideally suited for killing animals of our size. The thing is with the availability of .223, it's cost, it's ability to be used in high-capacity weapons, and the damage it can do, it seems to me to be an ideal round to mow down people with, regardless of the 'efficiency' of larger rounds.
What's more is that this type of weapon doesn't have a use in civilian life. .223s can be used for small to medium game sure, but I don't know of a rabbit that needed semi-automatic fire and a 30-round magazine except for maybe that Monty Python one. Coyotes? Still no necessity to riddle the general area with bullets. There is no need to make these sorts of weapons so widely available.
To be honest I don't think it has much to do with the type of weapons but more to do with their availability. .223 weapons are a popular choice for nutters because there are lots of them, they are widely available, inexpensive and ammunition is also cheap and easy to get. How efficient they happen to be at killing people is another thing but fire a bullet at anyone and it's bound to do some damage.
Anyway I'll drop it now and give someone else the last word if they want it.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
"in my opinion"
stop right there
stop right there
Tu Stultus Es
Why? An opinion that a weapon that has high capacity, a medium calibre and a medium-to-high rate of fire is an entirely valid opinion to have. What you think that me stating that it is my 'opinion' is less valid than the arms manufacturer claiming that their weapon is a 'civilian' model? I wonder what they're basing their 'opinion' on.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
fact is military weaponry is very different than civilian counterparts. different materials, different measurments, different rates of fire. the weapon that was jammed was semi automatic civilian version. the rounds could only be fired as quickly as one would be able to pull the trigger and release and pull again.
Tu Stultus Es
...yup. The civvie AR-15 is simply a semi-auto rifle that provokes an emotional response among gun control advocates because it looks scary.eleven bravo wrote:
"in my opinion"
stop right there
e: Not to say that you can't be just as hurt/killed if shot by it, but arguing over established terminology is pointless and does neither side any good. Besides which, it draws attention away from the tragedy that established this thread in the first place (I should be talking, with my earlier Batman jokes).
i hear they're also fun to shoot, and in fact 'fun' is often the reason someone buys a BMW M3 instead of a Toyota Camry. Both get you from A to B, hell the Camry's probably more reliable, but people are able to choose to get something they don't necessarily 'need.' And if they use it for nefarious purposes (e.g. vehicular manslaughter, or in a gun's case murder) they are prosecuted under existing laws.Ty wrote:
A Civilian AR5 is still a military weapon regardless of its 'civilian' prefix in my opinion. It still has a high-capacity magazine and a medium-to-high RPM. I see it as being designed primarily for taking out people. I perhaps shouldn't have put emphasis on my 'automatic' misconception though it doesn't make a difference to my argument. Even the military only really uses automatic fire with support weapons rather than assault rifles.
I get Jay's point on round sizes and stopping power, if you want to commit mass murder it pays to do your research. But these psychopaths don't generally know that, they get something that rattles off bullets and they don't have to reload much, they don't really give a fuck whether it has stopping or killing power, (even though dismissing being shot by a .223 round isn't something I'd do.) I'm not suggesting that because these weapons are military grade that they're somehow deadlier but these psychopaths almost universally go for the same weapon characteristics; high capacity, medium-to-high RPM. Or pistols due to their ability to be concealed. Few opt to use hunting rifles or weapons ideally suited for killing animals of our size. The thing is with the availability of .223, it's cost, it's ability to be used in high-capacity weapons, and the damage it can do, it seems to me to be an ideal round to mow down people with, regardless of the 'efficiency' of larger rounds.
What's more is that this type of weapon doesn't have a use in civilian life. .223s can be used for small to medium game sure, but I don't know of a rabbit that needed semi-automatic fire and a 30-round magazine except for maybe that Monty Python one. Coyotes? Still no necessity to riddle the general area with bullets. There is no need to make these sorts of weapons so widely available.
To be honest I don't think it has much to do with the type of weapons but more to do with their availability. .223 weapons are a popular choice for nutters because there are lots of them, they are widely available, inexpensive and ammunition is also cheap and easy to get. How efficient they happen to be at killing people is another thing but fire a bullet at anyone and it's bound to do some damage.
Anyway I'll drop it now and give someone else the last word if they want it.
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2012-07-23 19:56:46)
I think you're pettifogging a bit 11B. What difference do materials or measurements make really make to someone wanting to use a weapon to kill people in a movie theatre? Military grade weapons may be hardier to cope with a beating but this civilian AR-15 was no less effective in the situation it was used than a weapon deemed to be 'military'. The weapon didn't necessarily jam because it was of inferior quality and even if it did had this bloke known how to clear a stoppage it wouldn't have slowed him down.
Also if you'd read further than the first line you would have seen that I considered that in the military, at least in my admittedly limited experience, assault weapons are generally used in semi-automatic except in certain circumstances. I don't consider the civilian model's inability to be fired in automatic mode something that makes it less dangerous. I wonder if you'd agree that placing your rounds is more effective than spraying gunfire everywhere.
And newbie, people are scared of weapons like the AR-15 because they are scary, not just because of its aesthetics. A 20+ round magazine isn't designed to take out bunnies. You don't need semi-automatic fire to take out a deer. These 'civilian' models are deemed as such as a pointless attempt to differentiate them from the military weapons from which their design is based. And military weapons are designed to kill humans.
'kay I really mean it now, I'm going to shut up. I don't want to stay late at work tonight.
Also if you'd read further than the first line you would have seen that I considered that in the military, at least in my admittedly limited experience, assault weapons are generally used in semi-automatic except in certain circumstances. I don't consider the civilian model's inability to be fired in automatic mode something that makes it less dangerous. I wonder if you'd agree that placing your rounds is more effective than spraying gunfire everywhere.
And newbie, people are scared of weapons like the AR-15 because they are scary, not just because of its aesthetics. A 20+ round magazine isn't designed to take out bunnies. You don't need semi-automatic fire to take out a deer. These 'civilian' models are deemed as such as a pointless attempt to differentiate them from the military weapons from which their design is based. And military weapons are designed to kill humans.
'kay I really mean it now, I'm going to shut up. I don't want to stay late at work tonight.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Yes, they are fun to shoot, and that mostly has to do with the fact that it hits what you aim it at, and the recoil on it is largely negligible. It's designed for noobs, so it's great for the casual shooter. It does attract enthusiasts, but I think that has more to do with the plethora of accessories available (women have their shoes, men have their laser sights and flashlights) and that it allows them to live out a military fantasy of some sort. Almost every kid plays army or war as a kid, it's normal. Owning an AR-15 and going to a range is just the grown up extension of that. It's unfortunate that the weapon was used in this massacre, but when was the last time one was used in such a manner? The guy in Arizona used handguns, the VA Tech shooter used two handguns, the Columbine kids used Tec-9's, that dude up in the tower at the University of Texas used a hunting rifle. The only reason 'assault weapons' are even mentioned is because lefties are terrified of people they deem to be 'right wing extremists', and the AR-15 is the symbol they associate with them. That's all. It's emotional, not rational.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
