OT: 58th Obsequious Banter Thread - Something Something Leier

[LegionOfDoom91]

Speaking of musicians, Tom Petty died.


I too am dead.

Damn. That really sucks.

 

[Lord Defect]

I believe the only way for a civilian to legally obtain a fully automatic gun is that the gun had to be manufactured before the mid-80's and they're EXPENSIVE. Other than the cost, I believe there's a ton of other screens and such one has to go through. Basically, unless you have a ton of time and money, it's not worth it for normal everyday gun enthusiasts.

Explosives should be outlawed to civilians, but I'm kind of "meh" on suppressors. They're only effective at long range (the gun is still loud up close) and the majority of the mass shootings we've seen were close quarters. Suppressors are very expensive and are only really bought by the real "enthusiasts".

Agreed on the ease of acquiring due to some loopholes. Admittedly, when I bought my pistol, I was literally in and out of the gun shop in 20 minutes. In that time they ran my background in under a minute. It took more time to do the paperwork than to approve me and pay. Although I will say that I've never had any legal issues other than stupid PPA tickets. Still though, it was my first gun purchase and I still felt it was a bit too easy.

This is pretty much correct. I looked into paying for my dad to get a minigun (terminator 2, best scene) while dreaming of hitting the lottery. It's a massive headache paperwork wise, takes a long time, and costs a small fortune. The background check practically scrubs for details of your first dentists third client.
Suppressors are not really that expensive, all things considered, but there are fees on top of the price in the form of tax stamps. The average suppressor only lowers the report of the firearm by 14-18 decibels and that's negligible considering guns vary from 130-180 decibels depending on the gun and ammo used. Hearing loss can occur at 90.

 

[OrangeAndBlackMetal]

Sorry Snake but you don't know what your talking abouthere buddy. Stop watching CNN and their pre setup videos(if they bought any gun without paperwork they would be committing a felony on video and would be in jail and/or reporting that the vendor was subsequently arrested).
You can get a gun illegally anywhere. I some moron at a gun show wants to commit a felony, your going to be hard pressed to find it.
You still need to pass a background check and fill out paperwork at gun shows.
The only loophole to guns is a grandfathered hand me down from deceased parent to child in some states(it may be one state but I'm fuzzy on that) where no paperwork is required.

ah, the "bad guys will still get guns if they're illegal" rhetoric... This is a logical fallacy perpetrated in order to quantify the static nature of any legislation aimed at correcting your country's very real gun problem. It's not enough to justify wanting guns because you like them by merely assuming the problem would persist even with heavier regulation. There are countless countries with heavy firearm regulation that have virtually no gun violence whatsoever. The problem begins to be solved by dismantling this cancerous libertarian mindset spreading through your country and some others which promotes egotism and trivializes the lives of anyone who's not you or your family.

 

[Oskar Man]

This is pretty much correct. I looked into paying for my dad to get a minigun (terminator 2, best scene) while dreaming of hitting the lottery. It's a massive headache paperwork wise, takes a long time, and costs a small fortune. The background check practically scrubs for details of your first dentists third client.
Suppressors are not really that expensive, all things considered, but there are fees on top of the price in the form of tax stamps. The average suppressor only lowers the report of the firearm by 14-18 decibels and that's negligible considering guns vary from 130-180 decibels depending on the gun and ammo used. Hearing loss can occur at 90.

I'm no expert by any means, but doesn't a suppressor just disperse the sound making it more difficult for enemies to pinpoint where the shots are firing from?

 

[Oskar Man]

ah, the "bad guys will still get guns if they're illegal" rhetoric... This is a logical fallacy perpetrated in order to quantify the static nature of any legislation aimed at correcting your country's very real gun problem. It's not enough to justify wanting guns because you like them by merely assuming the problem would persist even with heavier regulation. There are countless countries with heavy firearm regulation that have virtually no gun violence whatsoever. The problem begins to be solved by dismantling this cancerous libertarian mindset spreading through your country and some others which promotes egotism and trivializes the lives of anyone who's not you or your family.

I'm just curious why you think Libertarians are "cancerous".

To your point, the way the Americas are connected you'd have to abolish all possession and manufacturing of firearms across the intertwined countries to fully weed out gun violence. Until that happens, I stand by my right and others rights to protect themselves.

 

[Striiker]

The problem begins to be solved by dismantling this cancerous libertarian mindset spreading through your country and some others which promotes egotism and trivializes the lives of anyone who's not you or your family.

So... basically everywhere in the world?

 

[OrangeAndBlackMetal]

I'm just curious why you think Libertarians are "cancerous".

To your point, the way the Americas are connected you'd have to abolish all possession and manufacturing of firearms across the intertwined countries to fully weed out gun violence. Until that happens, I stand by my right and others rights to protect themselves.

Because the idea of libertarianism at its' core is egocentric and the antithesis of the concept of a community.
It promotes a value system conducive of caring for ones right to a firearm more than the lives of their fellow man.

And no, that is incorrect. Europe is connected and intertwined much more than the Americas are and don't have the problems your country has. Nevada is an open-carry state. Those guns sure did a whole lot of protecting.

 

[Lord Defect]

ah, the "bad guys will still get guns if they're illegal" rhetoric... This is a logical fallacy perpetrated in order to quantify the static nature of any legislation aimed at correcting your country's very real gun problem. It's not enough to justify wanting guns because you like them by merely assuming the problem would persist even with heavier regulation. There are countless countries with heavy firearm regulation that have virtually no gun violence whatsoever. The problem begins to be solved by dismantling this cancerous libertarian mindset spreading through your country and some others which promotes egotism and trivializes the lives of anyone who's not you or your family.

The reason that the United States of America has firearms is to allow to population the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. It's not to be able to hunt, or kill paper targets, or to collect flashy things. It's a literal check and balance against our government becoming a dictatorship.
In a population of 300,000,000 people, it is much easier to operate a black market and obtain anything illegally. In a country of 300,000 it is not.
Chicago has the strictest gun control in the United States and has the largest death toll of murders by firearms of any other city.
I do believe in gun control, and think that background checks need to be more thorough, but the people championing the cause has zero experience and absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Lord Defect]

I'm no expert by any means, but doesn't a suppressor just disperse the sound making it more difficult for enemies to pinpoint where the shots are firing from?

It diffuses the expelled gases when firing a gun so it comes out a little bit stretched out. Instead of a loud bang is more like a slightly less loud boom. The difference being, that when used with earplugs and or ear muffs it saves your hearing and not that your suddenly able to silently murder people.
My bad I read your question wrong.
When I was in the Marines I pulled pits, that's standing inside a concrete berm and manually lowering and raising the targets and marking the shot location for shooters. On the firing end of the gun you get two distinct sounds. Pa-Coo is my ghetto pronounciation. The Pa is the gasses being expelled and the noise that would be slightly suppressed the Coo is the sound of the round going super sonic and happens after the round leaves the barrel.

 

[Flyotes]

@ orange: Depends on the libertarian. There are plenty of articles from their ranks that argue for community. I.e.: Community, charity, makes things better for oneself and others. I've studied consent theory forever. The arguments aren't going away because they're strong. The problems are real. I sympathize with certain libertarian intuitions, but I'm uh, more eh, I almost don't want the good theories in mainstream lest they become corrupted.

If I were examining this situation closely, I'd be looking at: culture, laws, dysfunction within the mental health field, and philosophies and empirical data regarding happiness and freedom. And regional politics.

I'm center-left. I believe people should be able to own guns. It should just be an extensive and continual (and pain in the butt) process. Much rougher than it is now. Mental health screenings from legitimate professionals who aren't overworked, in addition to lengthy background checks-- hurdles to reach the most ideal screening method.

As someone who works in research-- want to get angry? Look up how the NRA and Republicans have blocked scientific funding for gun research: To find out the truth about what guns do to people, who is safe to own them, and so forth. They won't let Ivys do the testing and researchers are begging to do it.

 

[Oskar Man]

Because the idea of libertarianism at its' core is egocentric and the antithesis of the concept of a community.
It promotes a value system conducive of caring for ones right to a firearm more than the lives of their fellow man.

And no, that is incorrect. Europe is connected and intertwined much more than the Americas are and don't have the problems your country has. Nevada is an open-carry state. Those guns sure did a whole lot of protecting.

That's a bastardized view you hold on Libertarianism.

Respectfully disagree on your second point. Just because something holds true there, doesn't necessarily mean it holds true here. If you were to ban all ownership in the US, there's nothing in place to stop illegal firearms flooding through the borders.

 

[Rebels57]

Absolutely they can and it's their right. However, they have massive followings of gullible people who lack their own critical thinking skills. There's a lot of responsibility that comes with being at that status level and to blindly take to social media with your opinions on huge social matters is, in my opinion, very irresponsible.

It's the same as people who rag on Trump for airing his views on Twitter. He shouldn't do it and they shouldn't do it, but it's their right to do so.

Of course they do, but their huge followings also give them more responsibility to be educated on whatever they're talking about.

If some random idiot like myself says something incorrect online it makes no difference because who gives a **** what I think? But these celebrities have followings of people who worship them and will believe anything they say.

It should go without saying that I think anyone with a massive audience who publicly voices their opinion should be educated on the topic first.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the topic at hand though.

The gun issues in America and the potential fixes are well known. The problem is that nothing will change. No fixes will occur. This will continue. People will keep asking for change and the same portion of America will continue to prevent that from happening.

Maybe when 50..or even 100 children, instead of 30+ like in Newtown, are slaughtered people will say enough is enough? Doubt it though.

 

[Lord Defect]

Because the idea of libertarianism at its' core is egocentric and the antithesis of the concept of a community.
It promotes a value system conducive of caring for ones right to a firearm more than the lives of their fellow man.

And no, that is incorrect. Europe is connected and intertwined much more than the Americas are and don't have the problems your country has. Nevada is an open-carry state. Those guns sure did a whole lot of protecting.

I don't care who you are, how many hours you train, and how good you are, you cannot safely return fire over 700 yards with a handgun. That's just moronic and highly insensitive that you would say that.

 

[Lord Defect]

It should go without saying that I think anyone with a massive audience who publicly voices their opinion should be educated on the topic first.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the topic at hand though.

The gun issues in America and the potential fixes are well known. The problem is that nothing will change. No fixes will occur. This will continue. People will keep asking for change and the same portion of America will continue to prevent that from happening.

Maybe when 50..or even 100 children, instead of 30+ like in Newtown, are slaughtered people will say enough is enough? Doubt it though.

Would you mind sharing what the well known possible fixes are please?

 

[Rebels57]

@ orange: Depends on the libertarian. There are plenty of articles from their ranks that argue for community. I.e.: Community, charity, makes things better for oneself and others. I've studied consent theory forever. The arguments aren't going away because they're strong. The problems are real. I sympathize with certain libertarian intuitions, but I'm uh, more eh, I almost don't want the good theories in mainstream lest they become corrupted.

If I were examining this situation closely, I'd be looking at: culture, laws, dysfunction within the mental health field, and philosophies and empirical data regarding happiness and freedom. And regional politics.

I'm center-left. I believe people should be able to own guns. It should just be an extensive and continual (and pain in the butt) process. Much rougher than it is now. Mental health screenings from legitimate professionals who aren't overworked, in addition to lengthy background checks-- hurdles to reach the most ideal screening method.

As someone who works in research-- want to get angry? Look up how the NRA and Republicans have blocked scientific funding for gun research: To find out the truth about what guns do to people, who is safe to own them, and so forth. They won't let Ivys do the testing and researchers are begging to do it.

Likewise..but I am also against any military grade weapons in the hands of civilians and I am for limiting magazine capacity.

 

[Amorgus]

With the passing of Tom Petty, that leaves Jeff Lynne and Bob Dylan as the last men standing to claim the secret Treasure of the Travelling Wilburys. I really hope Jeff claims it.

 

[Rebels57]

Last thing I even want to say on this topic.

11,652 people have been killed by guns in 2017...in 275 days.

Enjoy your 2nd Amendment rights while you're still breathing and not just another statistic.

 

[Oskar Man]

I don't care who you are, how many hours you train, and how good you are, you cannot safely return fire over 700 yards with a handgun. That's just moronic and highly insensitive that you would say that.

I forgot to hit on that. Had the shooter been at ground level, he gets maybe one clip off before he's no longer a threat. Especially in a state like Nevada. There's a reason why he was raining down bullets from the 32nd floor.

 

[Lord Defect]

Likewise..but I am also against any military grade weapons in the hands of civilians and I am for limiting magazine capacity.

Civilians cannot get military grade weapons. The difference being is that the military weapons utilize a selector switch to go from safe to semi auto to three round burst while the civilian counterpart only go from safe to semi. Semi auto being only one round fires per trigger pull.
There are things out there like bump triggers, BMF Activators and other things that make the gun into a faux full auto and should be illegal. There are also legal full auto kits that make the gun illegal to own, which should not be allowed to be sold in the first place.

 

[Striiker]

Last thing I even want to say on this topic.

11,652 people have been killed by guns in 2017...in 275 days.

Enjoy your 2nd Amendment rights while you're still breathing and not just another statistic.

And how many of those are from legally owned guns?

A very small percentage, I'd imagine.

 

[Lord Defect]

And how many of those are from legally owned guns?

A very small percentage, I'd imagine.

I'm sure domestic disputes that lead to murders make up a large portion but suicides also get factored into that statistic usually.

 

[Striiker]

I'd like to clarify that I was only giving my opinion on the way people react to big news events, like this or weather disasters or whatever else. I'm on neither side of the gun debate so I wasn't trying to weigh in on that at all. I'm uneducated on the topic so I won't be a hypocrite and do exactly what I was just saying I hate seeing people do, giving an opinion on something I know nothing about.

I'm sure domestic disputes that lead to murders make up a large portion but suicides also get factored into that statistic usually.

Really? You think domestic disputes is a large portion? I didn't even think of domestic disputes, to be honest, but that's surprising if true.

If you had asked for my very uninformed guess I would have thought it was inner-city/gang violence. I assume most of those guns are illegal.

 

[Lord Defect]

I'd like to clarify that I was only giving my opinion on the way people react to big news events, like this or weather disasters or whatever else. I'm on neither side of the gun debate so I wasn't trying to weigh in on that at all. I'm uneducated on the topic so I won't be a hypocrite and do exactly what I was just saying I hate seeing people do, giving an opinion on something I know nothing about.


Really? You think domestic disputes is a large portion? I didn't even think of domestic disputes, to be honest, but that's surprising if true.

If you had asked for my very uninformed guess I would have thought it was inner-city/gang violence. I assume most of those guns are illegal.

I must not have been to clear, my bad, not a large portion of murders but a large portion of murders committed with legally owned guns. Not necessarily used by the owner themselves, I.e. The wife owning the gun and the husband killing her or vice versa.

 

[Rebels57]

For sure. Illegally owned guns are a big problem too. But it's a problem unique to America.

Countries where gun ownership is banned or very limited do not have an issue with gun violence from illegal guns.

England and Australia are 2 examples of countries that had ONE major shooting spree and actually took action and gun violence is almost non-existent in both countries now.

 

[Oskar Man]

For sure. Illegally owned guns are a big problem too. But it's a problem unique to America.

Countries where gun ownership is banned or very limited do not have an issue with gun violence from illegal guns.

England and Australia are 2 examples of countries that had ONE major shooting spree and actually took action and gun violence is almost non-existent in both countries now.

But those two countries are also surrounded entirely by water, making it harder for illegal firearms to come in.

 

[Rebels57]

But those two countries are also surrounded entirely by water, making it harder for illegal firearms to come in.

That's a fair point.