Poll of the Day > I'm tired of all the misinformation about guns on this forum

(+) Yeah! (+)

Recently people have been hating on gun permits as if they were not "real", before you go any further into the debate let's take a look at the facts.

Even if you dispute the number of applicants from Texas for concealed carry permits over the past 10 years, how much blame should be put on law abiding citizens when bad guys get away with breaking the law, even when police act on false tips?

This isn't a new idea; guns were commonly carried concealed in Texas for many years before that, just not legally. The NRA has never iced guns because they are worried about arming up law abiding citizens, and rather has emphasized the risk to bad guys who are packing heat. No one can ignore how firearms have been used in mass shootings.

"American gun-owning citizens have a right to protect themselves and their families against violent criminals," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam in a statement when the NRA did a little poking around at potential answers to Orlando. "But it is the wrong answer to pass laws that would disarm law-abiding citizens in order to spare dangerous criminals the inconvenience of facing the consequences of their crimes."

Furthermore, iced guns become that much more attractive to shooters when they know their victims are armed. It is always a bad idea to carry a firearm around when you know your companionmay be ready to commit murder or severe injury. Concealed carry permit holders are no different. They are going to face an increased temptation to walk into a different type of high crime area.

But some of this statistical evidence may be flawed. If you look at the data for the number of "justifiable homicides" defined as homicides committed during justifiable situations since 2004, the numbers don't bear this out.

In fact, from 2003 to 2011 there were just 938 justifiable homicides in Wisconsin, almost three times the number of self-defense homicides reported to police. But because non-citizens are barred from applying for Wisconsin concealed carry permits, we can't know whether there have been any more non-citizens coming to Wisconsin from other states to use the self-defense rationale.*

That's why we can't just dismiss what happened in Sutherland Springs as an anomaly. Indeed, given the "Gun Free Zone" status of schools and the fact that in recent years law enforcement agencies have been improperly arming themselves against the public, we have a right to be concerned. It is time that law enforcement and the pro-gun-control lobby come together to ensure that law-abiding gun owners and their families are able to defend themselves without the fear of being assaulted. For too long, they've been left out of the conversation about what we can do to make our communities safer.

*The state has never issued a permit for any type of pistol with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds or for a semi-automatic pistol with a rate of fire of more than one pull of the trigger in 9 seconds or less.

It has already been proven in a number of high-profile shootings that the police has been purchasing weapons and using them against citizens without enough training to distinguish between real and fake threats

---

Nobody cares about anything in that post.

SpeeDLeemon posted...

Nobody cares about anything in that post.

Who told you it was "cool" not to care about politics? News flash: the people who do care about politics decide what world you live in! You're going to feel pretty guilty when you grow out of this phase, kiddo

---

TIL: Guns are indigenous to America

---

The far left should be for guns if they want a socialist revolution so bad. Revolutions much like war requires firepower.
---

> TIL: Guns are indigenous to America

That's not true. Guns were found on other continents long before Americans brought them to the new world.

>The far left should be for guns if they want a socialist revolution so bad. Revolutions much like war requires firepower.

That's the thing, people know the socialists have always had guns and all I can say is, too bad. As the godfather of "right" and to the amoral, I can see myself the naysayer going right in the face of those who want to violate liberty...and then, afterward, scoffing at any further violation... this should be the correct response to the leftist agenda that is going unchecked for the moment.

---

Nobody cares.

---

AWinterJ posted...

Nobody cares.

FYI: you have to be at least 13 to post here.

---

OniRonin posted...

> TIL: Guns are indigenous to America

That's not true. Guns were found on other continents long before Americans brought them to the new world.

Springfields are indigenous of North America.
---

What about a gun that shoots obesity away

---

Mead posted...

What about a gun that shoots obesity away

That exists, it just costs like $8k per shot

---

Lokarin posted...

That exists, it just costs like $8k per shot

.45s aren't that expensive.
---

Are laserbeams guns?

---

I believe you were asked to refrain from making topics.

shadowsword87 posted...

Are laserbeams guns?

Good question. Let's start from Ogre. This weapon in the game is not actual laser-based guns. Instead, this weapon fires a blue laser beam. From its description:

"Firing a large laser beam from your weapon, you destroy structures by dissolving their shielding."

I'm not going to try to give you a step-by-step overview of how the weapon works, but lets do just that. If you want to learn more about the Ray Gun, see its page on GOG Galaxy and Twitter. If you want to see something different, check out Gnomia's website and FireFall's homepage.

Each laserbeam only fires one shot at a time, but can maintain a fire target for a total of 6 seconds. The laser beam remains active for the duration of the shield, but will not dissipate once the beam is focused.

TIP: While charging a laser (laser dot on-screen), use + > (alternate fire button) to deflect enemy projectiles back at the enemy.

This differs from a gun in that it uses lasers, rather than heat or a particle beam, to deal damage. So I would argue that this is not a gun, and is instead a laser device (i.e. anything with lasers).I also can't imagine how this could be added to the gun category given the new point systems.

---

SpeeDLeemon posted...

Nobody cares about anything in that post.

Cacciato posted...

I believe you were asked to refrain from making topics.

You should stop asking and just stick to your gimmicks.

---

tl;dr

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

You should stop asking and just stick to your gimmicks.

You should do the board a favor and shut the fuck up.

Far-Queue posted...

tl;dr

Guns aren't inherently "good" or "bad". They're tools for people to use for themselves. With firearms there's a certain inherent responsibility and responsibility for the person who has them, especially to use them responsibly, and protect others from harm. The responsibility is there for the security and the freedom of you and I. The only responsibility is what we individually use that weapon to prevent the foreseeable, preventable harm of others. It's an individual responsibility. We can make ourselves "safe", but when we do that, the guns go away. If we make ourselves "safe", we leave room for one another to use to commit greater harm than we actually could have prevented in the first place.

How should we think about this with regard to concealed carry? Well, there's a few key questions to ask yourself. First, is the person going to do what they're able to do with their right hand? That's called having a "rifle grip". Now, if the rifle grip is what I call a "totally hopeless grip", that's fine, but it makes the rifle incompatible with the pistol grip and the glove/arm band. It puts the shooter out of reach of his own hand, and the hand getting for his gun is going to be working and getting hit by a bullet, but the shooter's shooting hand is now going to be getting hit, too, and that's going to be harmful. We need to factor this into our gun laws when handing out concealed carry permits. As a firearm safety advocate, and a parent who has children in the system, I am willing to fight for law changes that address both.

But I also realize that I have to use "any means necessary" when they come for it.

---

Okay, a few more points before I break out my big daddy-pistol.

Assault Weapons? Yes please. There are just some that are very easy to obtain, and most people won't have those. I think there should be a registration requirement for all weapon sellers. Also, I see people that think registration will hurt the legal gun industry. That's not the case.

CCW? That's a little more complicated. As I have said many times I believe CCW is needed, but it's not what makes people self-defense in the first place. CCW only works if a person can get a concealed carry permit in the first place. As a self-defense example, let's say I find my house burglarized and I'm in the process of arming myself and defending my family. What do I do if I happen to stumble across a gang going at it? There's a problem. The federal government has put police officers and most state governments in the position of punishing people who are armed and doing what they were authorized to do when they are on the government's property. This creates an uneven playing field because the rights of those who are getting punished are stronger than those who are protected. But first, I have to get my concealed carry permit. The key is the legislation that makes it possible for me to get one. Before getting my permit I must pass a criminal background check, complete a safety training course, and pay a fee. All this is just to get to the point where I can actually get a CCW. You need a CCW permit to carry a concealed weapon on your person, so the only people who can legally own one are those who are also in the country legally. In my case, that means I'll need to be temporarily detained by customs or immigration officials, as I am undocumented. No matter where I am, I will have to go through something like a US-customs-equipment-check or a US-immigration-check. If you don't do it, you risk being sent back to wherever you came from, which could take a while. But here is my rationale: I feel my life is getting more complicated. I live in the USA because I want to be here. I have a lot of family here, but I can't see them because they could be deported. I have a job that takes me to Pennsylvania. It takes a long time to drive there. It's far away, as well. I want to come back and reunite with my family. I don't want to stay in my home country. I will likely be asked to show a "Federal Gun License", which is supposed to be issued only to those who are actually US citizens or permanent residents. The background check includes questions about a person's criminal history and past associations with federal firearms. That's why I support relax of CCW laws.

2nd amendment? It goes too far in my eyes. At the end of the day, we live in a civil society. If you are going to have that freedom of speech, I don't care if you only say "shit" on TV one time, that's just fine. We live in a free country. That being said, I think the second amendment is a bad piece of legislation and I would vote against it. It doesn't make sense to me that everyone should have a right to have weapons like what happened at Sandy Hook. Not everyone is cut out for militia service, frankly. My old leather cap is full of scars from hunting and gun handling. The thought of training to kill others makes me shudder with revulsion. I guess it is better to err on the side of extreme caution when it comes to weapon usage. Whether that is moral or not, it is up to you, my friend. I respect that and even cherish it. That's what makes it wonderful. If you have questions about anything, post 'em below.

3rd amendment? The freedom of speech, right? Well, I don't know how I feel about this one.

I realize this is a big pain in the ass to read, but it helps for me to get some of my points across. I hope you enjoy.

---

Far-Queue posted...

tl;dr

---

Wut. The first amendment is freedom of speech, the press, religion and right to assembly. It's first because it's obviously the most important right you should have.
The third amendment states that in times of peace, no American will be forced to house soldiers. The reason for this is is that in the constitution, the military is NOT above the citizenry, and forcing you to house soldiers is a massive invasion of privacy.

---

papercup posted...

Wut. The first amendment is freedom of speech, the press, religion and right to assembly. It's first because it's obviously the most important right you should have.
The third amendment states that in times of peace, no American will be forced to house soldiers. The reason for this is is that in the constitution, the military is NOT above the citizenry, and forcing you to house soldiers is a massive invasion of privacy.

This is about the bill of rights, not the constitution. These are amendments (an amendment is like a post edit) to the constitution, not the original document. You are probably thinking about Article 3.

---

OniRonin posted...

This is about the bill of rights, not the constitution. These are amendments (an amendment is like a post edit) to the constitution, not the original document. You are probably thinking about Article 3.

What the hell are you talking about. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

---

papercup posted...

What the hell are you talking about. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Ah, so I stand correctly on this issue. Thank you for verifying that

---

This is exactly why weve asked you to refrain from making topics.

OniRonin posted...

> TIL: Guns are indigenous to America

That's not true. Guns were found on other continents long before Americans brought them to the new world.

>The far left should be for guns if they want a socialist revolution so bad. Revolutions much like war requires firepower.

That's the thing, people know the socialists have always had guns and all I can say is, too bad. As the godfather of "right" and to the amoral, I can see myself the naysayer going right in the face of those who want to violate liberty...and then, afterward, scoffing at any further violation... this should be the correct response to the leftist agenda that is going unchecked for the moment.

The far left IS for guns.

Try telling an actual ancom you want to take guns away.

You are arguing against a strawman.

---

Disengaged posted...

The far left IS for guns.

Try telling an actual ancom you want to take guns away.

You are arguing against a strawman.

That's exactly what I'm saying from the opposite side. Guns aren't bad, unless you are going to ban and ban and ban, hoping that some bureaucrat somewhere will make you believe the good guy always wins in the long run. If you want to discuss gun control, then choose a sensible starting point. Gun control is an ideal and not a reality. A much better starting point is: what are the legitimate reasons that people want and need guns, and how can they be effectively and safely prevented? In other words, a genuine discussion about the effectiveness of gun control. The short answer to the question of whether someone needs a gun.

---

OniRonin posted...

That's exactly what I'm saying from the opposite side. Guns aren't bad, unless you are going to ban and ban and ban, hoping that some bureaucrat somewhere will make you believe the good guy always wins in the long run. If you want to discuss gun control, then choose a sensible starting point. Gun control is an ideal and not a reality. A much better starting point is: what are the legitimate reasons that people want and need guns, and how can they be effectively and safely prevented? In other words, a genuine discussion about the effectiveness of gun control. The short answer to the question of whether someone needs a gun.

That's a straw man.

---

Disengaged posted...

That's a straw man.

Who am I straw-manning, sir? If you don't have an immediate answer, that's ok. What you will find is that for a lot of your days, the Internet won't help you with the many questions you have about this stuff.

---

OniRonin posted...

Okay, a few more points before I break out my big daddy-pistol.

Assault Weapons? Yes please. There are just some that are very easy to obtain, and most people won't have those. I think there should be a registration requirement for all weapon sellers. Also, I see people that think registration will hurt the legal gun industry. That's not the case.

CCW? That's a little more complicated. As I have said many times I believe CCW is needed, but it's not what makes people self-defense in the first place. CCW only works if a person can get a concealed carry permit in the first place. As a self-defense example, let's say I find my house burglarized and I'm in the process of arming myself and defending my family. What do I do if I happen to stumble across a gang going at it? There's a problem. The federal government has put police officers and most state governments in the position of punishing people who are armed and doing what they were authorized to do when they are on the government's property. This creates an uneven playing field because the rights of those who are getting punished are stronger than those who are protected. But first, I have to get my concealed carry permit. The key is the legislation that makes it possible for me to get one. Before getting my permit I must pass a criminal background check, complete a safety training course, and pay a fee. All this is just to get to the point where I can actually get a CCW. You need a CCW permit to carry a concealed weapon on your person, so the only people who can legally own one are those who are also in the country legally. In my case, that means I'll need to be temporarily detained by customs or immigration officials, as I am undocumented. No matter where I am, I will have to go through something like a US-customs-equipment-check or a US-immigration-check. If you don't do it, you risk being sent back to wherever you came from, which could take a while. But here is my rationale: I feel my life is getting more complicated. I live in the USA because I want to be here. I have a lot of family here, but I can't see them because they could be deported. I have a job that takes me to Pennsylvania. It takes a long time to drive there. It's far away, as well. I want to come back and reunite with my family. I don't want to stay in my home country. I will likely be asked to show a "Federal Gun License", which is supposed to be issued only to those who are actually US citizens or permanent residents. The background check includes questions about a person's criminal history and past associations with federal firearms. That's why I support relax of CCW laws.

2nd amendment? It goes too far in my eyes. At the end of the day, we live in a civil society. If you are going to have that freedom of speech, I don't care if you only say "shit" on TV one time, that's just fine. We live in a free country. That being said, I think the second amendment is a bad piece of legislation and I would vote against it. It doesn't make sense to me that everyone should have a right to have weapons like what happened at Sandy Hook. Not everyone is cut out for militia service, frankly. My old leather cap is full of scars from hunting and gun handling. The thought of training to kill others makes me shudder with revulsion. I guess it is better to err on the side of extreme caution when it comes to weapon usage. Whether that is moral or not, it is up to you, my friend. I respect that and even cherish it. That's what makes it wonderful. If you have questions about anything, post 'em below.

3rd amendment? The freedom of speech, right? Well, I don't know how I feel about this one.

I realize this is a big pain in the ass to read, but it helps for me to get some of my points across. I hope you enjoy.

Where you incorrectly wrote the 3rd amendment about freedom of speech, that's actually the 1st amendment referring to that FYI.

I've always long interpreted the 2nd amendment as giving the US the right to set up a militia(armed forces) to defend itself, and not so much the right to CCW. But of course as the ship long has sailed away from SCOTUS debating if this is right or not(they ruled in favor), I think there should be a very stringent amount of training required before you can get a CCW permit. Myself, I don't have a problem with CCW permit holding laws and support those myself, but I feel there are some cases where it should be allowed where it currently isn't(i.e. public transit in Illinois).

And on a side note, I suspect a lot of Democrats would get more votes, if they weren't so damn anti-gun. I swear in a lot of past elections, this has bit them in the ass in the end and cost them votes they'd otherwise get. Also being less nanny state(i.e. Michael Bloomberg, and why I'll never vote for him among a few reasons), would help them out as well.

---

reminder

https://files.catbox.moe/oa044a.jpg

---

wh0_kn0ws posted...

reminder

https://files.catbox.moe/oa044a.jpg

The math in this is wrong.


---

OniRonin posted...

The math in this is wrong.

round it up to whatever fraction of a percentage you want, .01% is still insignificant

---

wh0_kn0ws posted...

round it up to whatever fraction of a percentage you want, .01% is still insignificant

not even just the percetnages. they literally did subtraction wrong lmao

---

OniRonin posted...

not even just the percetnages. they literally did subtraction wrong lmao

19200+960+1280+10560=32000

re-read it, 'gang related' is a separate attribution, hence the second percentage

---

wh0_kn0ws posted...

19200+960+1280+10560=32000

re-read it, 'gang related' is a separate attribution, hence the second percentage

you're too dumb to have a conversation with if you can't see the mistake. sorry

---

OniRonin posted...

you're too dumb to have a conversation with if you can't see the mistake. sorry

settle down, goofball. that 500 missing in the difference is obviously so incredibly significant to the overall context here. maybe try refuting instead clinging to what ultimately amounts to a typo

---

OniRonin posted...

you're too dumb to have a conversation with if you can't see the mistake. sorry

That's ironic.

wh0_kn0ws posted...

settle down, goofball. that 500 missing in the difference is obviously so incredibly significant to the overall context here. maybe try refuting instead clinging to what ultimately amounts to a typo

haha you still don't even see the error. that's funny.

---

OniRonin posted...

haha you still don't even see the error. that's funny.

ok you're one of these

---

wh0_kn0ws posted...

ok you're one of these

it's hard to take you seriously when you either
1) can't subtract 10560 from 8448 even after multiple suggestions or
2) think 2112 -1712 = 500

---

OniRonin posted...

it's hard to take you seriously when you either
1) can't subtract 10560 from 8448 even after multiple suggestions or
2) think 2112 -1712 = 500

it's hard to take you seriously when you're niggling over exact numbers in the hundreds when the context is of hundreds of millions. i didn't even look at the actual difference, i just estimated.

serious question, are you obsessing about this because of being autistic or something

---

wh0_kn0ws posted...

it's hard to take you seriously when you're niggling over exact numbers in the hundreds when the context is of hundreds of millions. i didn't even look at the actual difference, i just estimated.

ok. come back when you finish high school arithmetic and i will explain the issues with your statistics.

serious question, are you obsessing about this because of being autistic or something

rude


---

OniRonin posted...

ok. come back when you finish high school arithmetic and i will explain the issues with your statistics.

rude

so, yes. i'd think an autist could understand statistical insignificance, but i guess you can be autistic and stupid as well. don't bother replying you're already blocked. maybe consider medication for your childish outbursts due to your lack of understanding of simple concepts

---

wh0_kn0ws posted...

so, yes. i'd think an autist could understand statistical insignificance, but i guess you can be autistic and stupid as well. don't bother replying you're already blocked. maybe consider medication for your childish outbursts due to your lack of understanding of simple concepts

cool. let me know when you understand arithmetic

---

I have a gun related question.

I live in Tacoma Washington if that makes a difference.

I know almost nothing about guns, although I did work on a rifle range waaaay back in the late 70's at a summer camp (taught people how to shoot). I didn't ever buy a gun and while I have fired pistols a few times (had some survivalist friends in the 90's), that is about my extent of experience with them.

Can I just go to a store, like a walmart or something and buy two pistols, decent caliber ones that pack a punch, but not so strong you can't fire one handed? Do I need to get licensed or soemthing first?. I want to get a belt and a cowboy hat and walk around like a gunslinger. Is that legal? How much would it cost me do you think?

---

wolfy42 posted...

Can I just go to a store, like a walmart or something and buy two pistols, decent caliber ones that pack a punch, but not so strong you can't fire one handed? Do I need to get licensed or soemthing first?. I want to get a belt and a cowboy hat and walk around like a gunslinger. Is that legal? How much would it cost me do you think?

This may help
https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/washington-gun-laws/

Woah, that is a useful site thanks.

Man 30-60 days though, that is along time, blah.

Guess I could go for cosplay and use non-real guns, but It wouldn't be the same.

Also if an apocalypse happens, it would be nice to have some guns as backup already.

Might just go to a range and practice with a few guns (hopefully they rent them) till I find the ones I like anyway.

I thought people were complaining you could just go buy a gun at a walmart right away, looks to me like it takes quite awhile, you can't have mental health conditions (that have been identified *woot!!*), no criminal record etc.

Maybe that is just WA though.

---