Expert Actress on Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spyridon said:
That was a group of at least 5 men.
Click to expand...
I know that, and I’m glad you bring it up.

According to this article from Wikipedia, the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack involved two gunmen and resulted in 12 deaths and 2 injuries. According to the same article, their weapons were “assault rifles” (using the term so many here have used), along with submachine guns and shotguns.

2 gunmen with several different weapons resulted in fewer deaths (and far fewer injuries) than 5 men with knives.

The San Bernardino attack, also with two gunmen, resulted in 14 deaths (not counting the shooters themselves) and 24 injuries. Again, compare this to the slash attack in China. In this case, the perpetrators had semi-automatic rifles like the one used last week.

To contrast, the Orlando nightclub shooting resulted in 49 deaths (not counting the gunman) and 58 injuries. I’m placing this opposite the Chinese slash attack, which resulted in 33 dead and about 130 injured. Omar Mateen, despite having firearms, was just barely able to “out-do” the five attackers in the China case.

Any questions?
 
Last edited:
I think it’s also worth noting that- while the United States is a county, and Australia is a country, and China and England and France are all countries- the US is much larger than all but China as far as population is concerned. I think this fact needs to be addressed.
 
Thom18 said:
Any questions
Click to expand...
Yes.

Why doesn’t the US Military start just using knives and swords as their primary small arms instead of “assault rifles” which are much more expensive?
 
Last edited:
I would imagine because the people they’re fighting have “assault rifles”, too.

I don’t know where you live, but where I live? I don’t see anyone openly carrying “assault rifles”, let alone swords. I think it would be pretty tough to compare armed combatants to (mostly) unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you? 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Thom18 said:
think it would be pretty tough to compare armed combatants t
Click to expand...
Can you please speak bluntly for a moment?

Do you sincerely believe an assault weapon like an AR-15 is no more deadly than a butcher knife when attacking unarmed people?
 
If I am not mistaken, bump stocks essentially do nothing- someone who can hip-fire or has good trigger operation skills can simulate bump stocks very easily
 
Maximilian75 said:
bump stocks essentially do nothing- someone who can hip-fire or has good trigger operation skills
Click to expand...
If that were the case people wouldn’t pay hundreds of dollars for the devices.

Also, if that was the case, then why oppose banning them? What difference does it make?

That argument is just as weak as the “rubber band argument.”

Major kudos to President Trump here - a big step in the right direction, God bless him
 
Last edited:
Paying money as opposed to developing a skill? I think that’s very very common…

And I never said anything for or against banning them. I think Trump is just posturing, honestly.
 
Mostly because they’re cool. I paid for my permission slip and actually built those myself. In fact, I built the rifles myself too. It’s kind of like a more useful lego set.

Shooting at indoor or covered ranges, even with ear protection on, is very loud. Using a suppressor makes them much more pleasurable to shoot. Plus, if the worst ever happened and I had to use one in my house and didn’t have time to put on ear protection, I wouldn’t damage my hearing as bad.

In all honesty, suppressors should be more readily available. There’s no logical reason to regulate them as strictly as we do.
 
Spyridon said:
40.png
Thom18:
think it would be pretty tough to compare armed combatants t
Click to expand...
Can you please speak bluntly for a moment?

Do you sincerely believe an assault weapon like an AR-15 is no more deadly than a butcher knife when attacking unarmed people?
Click to expand...
You kinda did a number on my words, there 🤔

I think that a firearm certainly has more range than a knife- but you don’t need to reload a knife. It needs to be maintained, but so does any weapon. The blade would probably get dulled at some point in a slash attack, but that’s why another knife would be carried by a “smart” criminal, as a “smart” gunman would prepare for one of their weapons to malfunction by bringing another.

But, as the cases I brought up show, firearms haven’t outperformed knives nearly as much as some would have us believe. That’s not a suggestion to give our military swords, though. The military faces threats who are armed with bombs and firearms. In most cases, it seems, mass shooters have defenseless victims, not a fighting force.
 
Theo520 said:
if you shoot without ear protection.
Click to expand...
Depends on the type of weapon and specific round, but as a general rule yes.

For example, 5.56 won’t suppress to hearing safe levels and still work an AR action. But a subsonic 9mm round will both be hearing safe and still work either a pistol or carbine action.
 
Thom18 said:
that a firearm certainly has more range than a knife- but you don’t need to reload a knife. It needs to be maintained, but so does any weapon. The blade would probably get dulled at some point in a slash attack, but that’s why another knife would be carried by a “smart” criminal, as a “smart” gunman would prepare for one of their weapons to malfunction by bringing another.

But, as the cases I brought
Click to expand...
I’m still in awe that you are arguing that knives are as effective as rifles.

Have you ever fired a rifle? Do you have a military or outdoorsman background?
 
Spyridon said:
If that were the case people wouldn’t pay hundreds of dollars for the devices.

Also, if that was the case, then why oppose banning them? What difference does it make?
Click to expand...
  1. Because people are generally stupid and will pay a lot of money for gimmicky devices.
  2. Because it’s kind of a slippery slope. If we can arbitrarily ban 1 accessory because it supposedly makes a weapon more lethal, then the same logic could be applied to scopes, red dot sights, high end triggers with lighter pull weights, etc.
 
There is such a thing as an integrally suppressed barrel.

Basically, instead of having a separate can on the end of the barrel, it’s a permanent fixture.

All a suppressor is, is a series of chambers where hot air is slowed down to give time to cool off. Hot air being forced quickly into cold air is what creates the loud report.

Same thing happens with your car. Hot exhaust is piped into a muffler which is also a series of chambers, where the air has time to cool off and therefore not be as loud when it exits.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
There’s no difference in reliability due to the integral suppression.

Unless you were speaking on the innate issues of rimfire cartridges specifically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top