Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I disagree.  Unless you are hunting large game past 300 yards, you don't need either.  A 10 really only gets you better range.  And if you don't already KNOW you need 300 blk, you don't need it.  

 

I prefer to keep my guns at common calibers.  Makes ammo cheaper and easier to find.  Unless you have a good reason to go past .223, don't.

 

10 seems like a cool sniper weapon to take to the range

 

300 blk is listed as a great home defense round because it performs subsonic like a 45acp and with a suppressor turns an ar-15 into a suppressed riddle version of 45 acp

 

(this admittedly doesn’t really matter)

 

need is nothing than wantinging to build something fun to shoot. Friends are building ones got a standard 15, other a customized 10, and the other a Grendel. Looks fun. 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roger.Staubach said:

KH, was he drinking?  I didn't read that but I also haven't followed up.  If so, gun belongs anywhere but on his side.

 

Disagree with the off-duty and chambered.  If I am carrying, it is always chambered.  Pray to god I never have to use it, but if I do...both the weapon and I better be damned ready.  Like, right now ready.  Fed or not.  Last thing I want is a sweaty hand to miss the slide or have to pull the trigger twice.

 

Not sure if he was drinking. I apologize for making that assumption. 

I will say that I agree and disagree about the weapon being chambered. 

I see your point of view, but I clear before I go into most places. 

I simply don't want a mishap. 

Side note is...we probably will never know if he was drinking. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was arrested so we’ll probably find out soon enough. I’m willing to bet that’s part of why he was arrested, not sure what else he did was illegal other than being careless. 

 

The argument of chambered or not is a fun one to watch but ultimately mistakes or bad decision making cause the problem. Not chambered gives you one more layer of safety at the expensive if readiness. One more trade off in a long list of trade offs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Roger.Staubach said:

Disagree with the off-duty and chambered.  If I am carrying, it is always chambered.  Pray to god I never have to use it, but if I do...both the weapon and I better be damned ready.  Like, right now ready.  


Amen to that.  That half second you need to chamber a round could be the difference between you living and dying.

And as you said, I hope in my lifetime that I'll never need to draw my weapon.  But if/when I do, it's ready to rock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missouri woman, 27, found with a loaded handgun hidden in her vagina after traffic stop is sentenced to two years in prison

 

A Missouri woman who was found with a loaded handgun hidden in her vagina during a traffic stop has been sentenced to two years behind bars.

Anika Witt, 27, pleaded guilty to weapons possession and drugs charges in April.

 

4D3D31C500000578-5845565-image-a-69_1529

During a strip search she was found to have a loaded .380 caliber Kimber handgun in her vagina, the seized gun pictured above

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 9:17 AM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Not enough deaths to count according to the media, but this could have been a lot worse...

 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/1-Dead-Several-Injured-in-Trenton-Art-Festival-Shooting-485766011.html

The fun part is that here in NJ we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and they just recently made them even stricter.  I'm absolutely shocked that the shooter in this incident didn't follow them. It's almost like someone who would go out to murder people doesn't care about the laws.  Crazy. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Stugein said:

The fun part is that here in NJ we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and they just recently made them even stricter.  I'm absolutely shocked that the shooter in this incident didn't follow them. It's almost like someone who would go out to murder people doesn't care about the laws.  Crazy. :|

 

There is no substantive gun control at a federal level in the United States.

 

None.

Zero.

Nada.

 

Stop insulting people’s intelligence with your bull**** talking points.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

There is no substantive gun control at a federal level in the United States.

 

None.

Zero.

Nada.

 

Stop insulting people’s intelligence with your bull**** talking points.

You're right. I'm sure if NJ's super strict laws were enacted at the federal level there's no way these guys would've had guns. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stugein said:

You're right. I'm sure if NJ's super strict laws were enacted at the federal level there's no way these guys would've had guns. :)

 

I’m exactly right and I have the data to back it up, bruh.

 

gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stugein said:

The fun part is that here in NJ we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and they just recently made them even stricter.  I'm absolutely shocked that the shooter in this incident didn't follow them. It's almost like someone who would go out to murder people doesn't care about the laws.  Crazy. :|

 

2 hours ago, Stugein said:

You're right. I'm sure if NJ's super strict laws were enacted at the federal level there's no way these guys would've had guns. :)

 

Just because bad people have guns or access to guns, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have stricter gun laws at the state level for all states, or the laws at a state level.  If anything, this is exactly the reason we need stricter laws and at minimum the laws being the same in all states and not varying by state or federal laws in place.

 

Because right now, the entire process is ****ed up.  If I lived in NJ and wanted a high capacity magazine, I could drive to another state with no restrictions, walk into any gun shop and purchase one that fits my specific model gun and pay hardly anything for it.  Just looking now, you can get 20 round magazines for a Glock 9mm for $30 or less.  There are way too many work arounds when it's only regulated at the state level.

 

And yes, I'm a gun owner and own multiple firearms (both rifles and handguns).  Some things are just common sense, or should be at a minimum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

 

Just because bad people have guns or access to guns, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have stricter gun laws at the state level for all states, or the laws at a state level.  If anything, this is exactly the reason we need stricter laws and at minimum the laws being the same in all states and not varying by state or federal laws in place.

 

Because right now, the entire process is ****ed up.  If I lived in NJ and wanted a high capacity magazine, I could drive to another state with no restrictions, walk into any gun shop and purchase one that fits my specific model gun and pay hardly anything for it.  Just looking now, you can get 20 round magazines for a Glock 9mm for $30 or less.  There are way too many work arounds when it's only regulated at the state level.

 

And yes, I'm a gun owner and own multiple firearms (both rifles and handguns).  Some things are just common sense, or should be at a minimum.

 

I can appreciate where you're coming from.  The problem is that Dont Taze Me Bro is a good guy who follows the law and wouldn't do that.  The dink that wants to shoot up an art festival doesn't care.  Nobody is made safer by telling Dont Taze Me Bro he isn't allowed to carry outside of his home, or that he can only have 10 bullets.

 

To be legal in NJ we have to go through multiple layers of background checks, fingerprinting, mental health history reviews, character references, and other red tape.  In many cases it takes months to legally qualify for and purchase a gun.  And even after navigating and passing all of that, if you're the cleanest, most well adjusted and competent gun owner, we have a de facto ban on carrying (you can transport the gun, cased and unloaded, in your car to use at your nearest approved range which could be an hour's drive away, just don't stop for gas or you're an instant felon).   On top of that we already have low magazine limits (which just recently got made even lower; I now have 6 months to get rid of my standard sized 15 rd. magazines or risk jail), and all the other feature restrictions, ammo restrictions, and "assault weapon" bans that everyone clamors for as "common sense".  Despite all of this we have some of the most violent cities in the country with depressing rates of gun violence and clowns like the ones at the art festival this past week are still able to do what they're going to do.  It doesn't exactly fill one with faith that enacting the same at the federal level would have an appreciable effect if the underlying causes of the violence aren't addressed.

 

There's no 100% solution to the problem.  Economic inequality, gang activity, the war on drugs, lax enforcement of existing state and federal regulations, racist social policies, incomplete and poorly updated NICS databases, and a myriad of other deficiencies all contribute to creating environments that are conducive to gun violence.  Until we address the core faults that allow a culture of violence to fester in our cities, no amount of specific device restrictions or new controls are going to stem the bleeding.  Telling Dont Taze Me Bro he isn't allowed to carry a gun isn't saving anyone's lives.

Edited by Stugein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Stugein said:

 

I can appreciate where you're coming from.  The problem is that Dont Taze Me Bro is a good guy who follows the law and wouldn't do that.  The dink that wants to shoot up an art festival doesn't care.  Nobody is made safer by telling Dont Taze Me Bro he isn't allowed to carry outside of his home, or that he can only have 10 bullets.

 

To be legal in NJ we have to go through multiple layers of background checks, fingerprinting, mental health history reviews, character references, and other red tape.  In many cases it takes months to legally qualify for and purchase a gun.  And even after navigating and passing all of that, if you're the cleanest, most well adjusted and competent gun owner, we have a de facto ban on carrying (you can transport the gun, cased and unloaded, in your car to use at your nearest approved range which could be an hour's drive away, just don't stop for gas or you're an instant felon).   On top of that we already have low magazine limits (which just recently got made even lower; I now have 6 months to get rid of my standard sized 15 rd. magazines or risk jail), and all the other feature restrictions, ammo restrictions, and "assault weapon" bans that everyone clamors for as "common sense".  Despite all of this we have some of the most violent cities in the country with depressing rates of gun violence and clowns like the ones at the art festival this past week are still able to do what they're going to do.  It doesn't exactly fill one with faith that enacting the same at the federal level would have an appreciable effect if the underlying causes of the violence aren't addressed.

 

There's no 100% solution to the problem.  Economic inequality, gang activity, the war on drugs, lax enforcement of existing state and federal regulations, racist social policies, incomplete and poorly updated NICS databases, and a myriad of other deficiencies all contribute to creating environments that are conducive to gun violence.  Until we address the core faults that allow a culture of violence to fester in our cities, no amount of specific device restrictions or new controls are going to stem the bleeding.  Telling Dont Taze Me Bro he isn't allowed to carry a gun isn't saving anyone's lives.

 

 

You're missing the point I'm trying to make.  I never said that it would stop criminals from from breaking the law or 100% stop gun related violence/crimes.  I clearly stated that if someone wants to break the law, they will break the law.  But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be stricter laws in place or more regulations, etc.  

 

The solution and mind-set of "stricter laws aren't going to stop criminals from breaking laws and killing people" is the wrong approach to take, imo.  These mass shootings are not just being committed by career criminals, or gang members, etc.  They are also being committed by people with mental health issues, etc. with a common trend of these tragedies being committed by teens/young adults with easy access to firearms they should not have.

 

There are kids who are outcasts and bullied/picked on, who have severe mental issues and once they turn 18, nothing really in place to prevent them from heading down to the local gun shop and within 15 mins or less, walking out with a semi-automatic assault rifle, multiple clips and ammo.  Sure, stricter laws/regulations/etc. is not going to 100% stop all gun related deaths/mass shootings/etc.

 

But depending on how strict the regulations/laws are, it might prevent a lot of those tragic events from happening.  Raise the age to purchase all firearms to 21 and require a purchase permit for all firearms (not just handguns), then maybe that 18 year old senior that was constantly getting bullied, made fun of online in every social media platform available, laughed at at school, shunned by their fellow classmates and had no friends wouldn't have an easy of a path to purchasing a semi-automatic assault rifle, 4 or 5 30/40 round clips and taking multiple peoples lives.  

 

Maybe, because they don't have easy access and can't purchase firearms at that age, they graduate high school, go to college, get a job, whatever, and end up making friends, etc. between age 18-21.  Maybe then, because it's been 3 or 4 years since going through hell, they got help they needed or just quit hating and wanting to hurt/kill people that were bullying them.  Maybe during that time after finding/making friends they realized that they weren't a failure/etc. and their life did have meaning and purpose.  

 

Making stricter punishments for gun owners that do not properly secure their firearms, where their kids can gain access to their guns and use them in mass shootings, etc.  Maybe knowing you could be going to prison for a really long time should your child or someone else having easy access (guns not locked up, proof that you didn't do everything to properly secure them) to the guns and using them in a crime or murder, would make them start properly securing them.  And then maybe because a troubled youth can't get his dads semi-auto and can't buy a gun until they are 21 (if the age were raised), maybe that prevents another tragedy from happening.

 

It's never going to be 100% prevented, but damn it, I refuse to believe that doing something (common sense gun laws - just raising the age to purchase to 21 and stricter penalties for gun owners that don't secure properly) will not reduce these horrific tragedies from happening.  And at the end of the day, isn't saving as many lives as you can worth it?  

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

common sense gun laws along with just raising the age to purchase to 21 and stricter penalties for gun owners that don't secure properly

Just to be clear, are you saying raising the age to 21 and penalties for gun owners is NOT common sense?  That is how it reads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Just to be clear, are you saying raising the age to 21 and penalties for gun owners is NOT common sense?  That is how it reads.

 

Was typing on my phone, which is a pain in the ass for me :806:    I was retyping it and accidentally left the word "along" in there and forgot to put a dash, it was meant to read like this:  (common sense gun laws - just raising the age to purchase to 21 and stricter penalties for gun owners that don't secure properly)

 

To point out those two specifically since they were mentioned in my examples above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic gun safety should be a requirement for gun ownership, but in this case maybe it is better if this idiot can't reproduce.

 

Man accidentally shoots himself in the GROIN as he bends over just moments after loading his gun

 

This is the horrifying moment a man accidentally shoots himself in the groin while bending over. 

 

The one minute clip sees a man, who appears to be from the US, expertly load a Glock then holster the handgun inside the front of his pants.

 

When he walks over to a shelf and bends down to pick something up, the gun suddenly fires with a shocking loud bang.

 

Click on the link for the full article and images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raise the age of being a person in the military, not to mention the voting age, regardless of guns. 

See, how tricky that is ? 

 

Shaming things, causes results. 

Not always the way that we anticipate...but over the years , and what has happened...

 

We can only blame ourselves. The drug/alcohol war has been pointless, the loss of life is because of our laws...

Face it, start with the man in the mirror. We make mistakes. 

 

There is more but, I don't want to make this more than I already stated. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2018 at 3:09 AM, Kosher Ham said:

Raise the age of being a person in the military, not to mention the voting age, regardless of guns. 

See, how tricky that is ? 

 

Agreed, I'm not a fan of the 18 vs 21 arguements because of how much you allow 18 year olds to do already.  You trust them with an M-16 if they are in the military, but not to drink alcohol off base?  The age limits on marriage shows just how much of a joke this "protecting the kids from themselves" argument actually is.  I don't like the idea of calling 18 year olds kids and then charging them as adults, either, its hypocritical AF. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.