Off-Topic Mass killings

[NC_Canes_11]

Actually have a Springfield. 223/5.56,Ruger mini 14, SKS, multiple hunting rifles(.243, 30-30's),shotguns and a few hand guns. Out of all of them. I would honestly rather use my shotguns for any kind of home defense than any of the others i have. The Springfield and Ruger mini 14 are basically used for varmint guns like coyotes etc...

Not a bad choice. Personally I prefer a pistol bc it’s easiest to handle and in a much more accessible spot than any of my long guns. I’m also quicker and more accurate with it.

 

[CaneinBroward]

I know that’s not a genuine question but I’ll answer anyway. They redesigned and/or renamed rifles to get around it.

It was a genuine question. If literally just changing the name of a rifle made it legal, then I agree, the law was a joke. If they had to be redesigned, then the law actually worked as it was intended for those who voted for it.

 

[CaneinBroward]

That isn’t a definition, that’s a bucket list. That bucket list includes meaningless, or non-basic functional features, enough of them, so that the “scary“ weapons will be included on the list. The fact that you’re quoting that proves that you don’t really know very much about weapons. When you defined a weapon it’s important to discuss the actual functioning parameters of the weapon in terms of expelling a bullet from the muzzle and how that is achieved. This is the most laughable thing I’ve ever seen posted ever. But of course this is not surprising, because it comes from Congress.

“A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously…” and that’s just one example.

OMG - I can’t stop laughing.

I could go on… “Accept a detachable magazine“, another lol.

You just quoted a clueless source to fortify your clueless opinion.

to repeat, this is NOT a definition of an assault weapon. It’s a grab bag of features.

I was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. I was responding to another poster who literally said an "assault weapon" has never been defined. My answer was just pointing out that the original "assault weapon" ban did give a definition of them, an inaccurate and poor definition by your standard, but they were defined in 1994. If and when a new "assault weapon" ban were to be enacted, it will have a definition in it as well.

I do agree with you that the functioning parameters of the weapon should be listed in the definition. How many rounds can it shoot in a minute? How many rounds can it hold per magazine? and the like.

 

[kyhurricane]

Obviously depending on the environment, but most times, an appropriately configured shotgun is going to be your best bet for home defense. In second place I’ll put something like my 357 magnum with hollow points as another viable home defense candidate. Only fear is that bullet can go through walls so you better know what you’re doing.

Excellent choice with .357 mag! As far as handguns i have 3. Ruger .22 mag, Glock 9mm and a Glock 10mm. I keep the 9mm and a Typhoon defense 12 gauge close by(safely)to where i can get to it pretty quick if needed. The rest i keep locked away in a safe.

A guy i work with accidentally fired a S.W. 500 mag revolver inside of his home. No problem at all going through the wall. It literally cracked the brick on outside....and that was with one of the smaller grain bullets. A little less than a year later someone broke into his house and that was one of the things that was stolen.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

Excellent choice with .357 mag! As far as handguns i have 3. Ruger .22 mag, Glock 9mm and a Glock 10mm. I keep the 9mm and a Typhoon defense 12 gauge close by(safely)to where i can get to it pretty quick if needed. The rest i keep locked away in a safe.

A guy i work with accidentally fired a S.W. 500 mag revolver inside of his home. No problem at all going through the wall. It literally cracked the brick on outside....and that was with one of the smaller grain bullets. A little less than a year later someone broke into his house and that was one of the things that was stolen.

That Glock 20 you have doesn’t fūck around.

 

[pubmedu]

The dire prognosis was explained in modeling by Rutgers University, which found that 5 billion people would perish, primarily as a result of nuclear detonations causing huge infernos that inject soot into the atmosphere which blocks out the sun and devastates crops.

“Even a smaller nuclear skirmish – such as between India and Pakistan – would likely lead to 2.5 billion deaths within 24 months,” reports the Telegraph.

Nuclear War Between US and Russia Would Wipe Out 5 Billion People

Two thirds of the planet would starve to death.

summit.news

 

[JD08]

BBC News - Deadly gun attack at Russian school

Deadly gun attack at Russian school

At least 17 people - including 11 children - are killed when a gunman opens fire at a school in Izhevsk.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[nobeastofburden]

BBC News - Deadly gun attack at Russian school

Deadly gun attack at Russian school

At least 17 people - including 11 children - are killed when a gunman opens fire at a school in Izhevsk.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reporting up to 15 dead now

Swastika-wearing gunman kills 15 at Russian school

STORY: A gunman, wearing a swastika on his teeshirt, killed at least 15 people, including 11 children, at a school in Russia on Monday (September 26).Investigators said that the attacker, armed with two pistols and a large supply of ammunition, wounded 24 others before committing suicide.The...

www.yahoo.com

 

[JD08]

This is a very good article that doesn't just ignore the whole issue in favor of one political solution.

Mass shootings: What are the warning signs and could they help prevent another Parkland?

While each mass shooting in the US is unique, experts say the killers share some things in common.

www.bbc.com

 

[NC_Canes_11]

This is a very good article that doesn't just ignore the whole issue in favor of one political solution.

Mass shootings: What are the warning signs and could they help prevent another Parkland?

While each mass shooting in the US is unique, experts say the killers share some things in common.

www.bbc.com

If the so called answer to this is censorship, it doesn't do anything but make the problem worse. I have a hard time believing we can’t keep child **** off the internet, but we can redirect people from “violent” searches. You can’t ignore that the people deciding on what’s “violent” and what’s a “rabbit hole” aren’t apolitical.

Hard pass.

 

[JD08]

If the so called answer to this is censorship, it doesn't do anything but make the problem worse. I have a hard time believing we can’t keep child **** off the internet, but we can redirect people from “violent” searches. You can’t ignore that the people deciding on what’s “violent” and what’s a “rabbit hole” aren’t apolitical.

Hard pass.

No need to censor anything. But when a pattern of dangerous searches show up, it's a red flag. People don't find child **** through Google searches.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

No need to censor anything. But when a pattern of dangerous searches show up, it's a red flag. People don't find child **** through Google searches.

There’s been plenty of articles that have proven you can find child **** on free **** websites. Why can’t we regulate that? Pornhub being a major one.

And again, if Google or the federal government is involved in determining what is considered “violent” or a “rabbit hole” I’m out. After the last decade, there’s no explanation needed, why I feel that way.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

Straight from the US Navy. You think they won’t use Google as a pretext to harass people who don’t like the government?

“Representing ill-will toward US Government or DON personnel”

@JD08

 

[JD08]

There’s been plenty of articles that have proven you can find child **** on free **** websites. Why can’t we regulate that? Pornhub being a major one.

And again, if Google or the federal government is involved in determining what is considered “violent” or a “rabbit hole” I’m out. After the last decade, there’s no explanation needed, why I feel that way.

It can be done without going down the route of censorship. They're already messing with search results, this would be comparatively benign in comparison.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

It can be done without going down the route of censorship. They're already messing with search results, this would be comparatively benign in comparison.

That’s what they always tell us. But the second you give these people any bit of power, they use it for their own gain. I’ve seen this movie a thousand times before.

“The path to **** is paved with good intentions.”

 

[JD08]

That’s what they always tell us. But the second you give these people any bit of power, they use it for their own gain. I’ve seen this movie a thousand times before.

“The path to **** is paved with good intentions.”

They've already got it, they're already doing it. At least get some value out of it.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

They've already got it, they're already doing it. At least get some value out of it.

Whole heartedly disagree. The only value that will come of it, is casting a larger net and making extremists out of anyone that searches anything anti government or weapons related. We will be on a domestic terror list faster than yelling moms at a school board meeting.

 

[JD08]

Whole heartedly disagree. The only value that will come of it, is casting a larger net and making extremists out of anyone that searches anything anti government or weapons related. We will be on a domestic terror list faster than yelling moms at a school board meeting.

Do you honestly think that's not happening now? They don't really care about using it to help people because in their mind the best way to do that is through politics. The point isn't to minority report criminals, it's to help people in need.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

Do you honestly think that's not happening now? They don't really care about using it to help people because in their mind the best way to do that is through politics. The point isn't to minority report criminals, it's to help people in need.

Of course they are doing it right now. But once you give them the power to do it, it gets much worse. They no longer have to do it behind the scenes, and they won’t get any backlash over it. The scale of the operation will be upped 100000x

 

[JD08]

Of course they are doing it right now. But once you give them the power to do it, it gets much worse. They no longer have to do it behind the scenes, and they won’t get any backlash over it. The scale of the operation will be upped 100000x

That's exactly why it has to come from a help perspective, not a law enforcement perspective. It should be part of a more comprehensive data protection bill. The problem is that one party will put in enough loopholes to weaken the whole thing for their side. Look at the EU's GDPR requirements. You can basically have your data erased with a few exceptions. Nobody's even suggested that here. It's too valuable as a political tool and a corporate tool.