• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Las Vegas Shooting

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,733
Country
United States
@VartioArtel rifles are needed for target shooting. I've been on a target range once. A shotgun wouldn't cut it :-p I don't think rifles are all that bad (at least the one I used) as it takes like 30 seconds to even load the bullet in and pull all the different levers and things.
>Target shooting.

Read: A hobby. Which I've made clear in my posts I do not view under any circumstances as a legitimate reason for a rifle.

Also, what you're describing sounds like a American Revolution era rifle, which is barely longer range than a normal handgun.

Edit: You know what you can use on a target range though? A handgun. Unless you speak those over 100 feet away, but again, that's more a military shooting range, not something you ever need as a civilian.
 
Last edited by VartioArtel,

Quantumcat

Dead and alive
Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
15,144
Trophies
0
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
boot9strap.com
XP
11,094
Country
Australia
>Target shooting.

Read: A hobby. Which I've made clear in my posts I do not view under any circumstances as a legitimate reason for a rifle.

Also, what you're describing sounds like a American Revolution era rifle, which is barely longer range than a normal handgun.
It's still a rifle. I'm against guns more than anyone else in this thread, but using them for sport in a controlled way I view as fine(it was pretty much exactly like archery). It's when regular people start feeling scared and thinking a cupboard full of guns will make it better that I have a problem (now any criminal will have a gun, police are scared and more likely to shoot, civilians get killed by police, domestic violence people have easy access to guns, people who want to go on homicidal rampages have easy access to guns...)
 

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,733
Country
United States
It's still a rifle. I'm against guns more than anyone else in this thread, but using them for sport in a controlled way I view as fine(it was pretty much exactly like archery). It's when regular people start feeling scared and thinking a cupboard full of guns will make it better that I have a problem (now any criminal will have a gun, police are scared and more likely to shoot, civilians get killed by police, domestic violence people have easy access to guns, people who want to go on homicidal rampages have easy access to guns...)

See. That's the thing: owning these rifles is one thing. Being able to borrow them from a federally managed location for a shooting range for practice is another. I don't want civilians to 'own' these rifles, as in to be able to take them home, prepare them as they please, prepare ammo for them, etc. I do not mind them being able to borrow them at a set location like you do the play-guns used at your state faire, for example.

What you suggest would be the latter. So the point comes full circle: why should you be allowed to own a rifle? The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed.
 
Last edited by VartioArtel,

Quantumcat

Dead and alive
Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
15,144
Trophies
0
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
boot9strap.com
XP
11,094
Country
Australia
See. That's the thing: owning these rifles is one thing. Being able to borrow them from a federally managed location for a shooting range for practice is another. I don't want civilians to 'own' these rifles, as in to be able to take them home, prepare them as they please, prepare ammo for them, etc. I do not mind them being able to borrow them at a set location like you do the play-guns used at your state faire, for example.

What you suggest would be the latter. So the point comes full circle: why should you be allowed to own a rifle? The answer still is: you shouldn't.
What about hunting?
 

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,733
Country
United States
What about hunting?
Literally editted that in a moment before you replied:
"The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."

Much like a shooting range, you don't need to keep a rifle at home, and hunting requires you need to report your kills (or so I'd hope!) to help keep track of when to cull the hunters to prevent over-hunting.

Why would you need a rifle at home, when you're not hunting at home? In an essence, hunting is more a job than something you'd do at home. Do you take your forklift home? How about your price tag sticker generator used at stores? Those are two examples I could give to make relative terms.

Edit: And that's why I've never seen 'hunting' as an excuse to 'owning' a rifle, as much as they should be maintained and stored by hunting associations.
 

Quantumcat

Dead and alive
Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
15,144
Trophies
0
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
boot9strap.com
XP
11,094
Country
Australia
Literally editted that in a moment before you replied:
"The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."

Much like a shooting range, you don't need to keep a rifle at home, and hunting requires you need to report your kills (or so I'd hope!) to help keep track of when to cull the hunters to prevent over-hunting.

Why would you need a rifle at home, when you're not hunting at home? In an essence, hunting is more a job than something you'd do at home. Do you take your forklift home? How about your price tag sticker generator used at stores? Those are two examples I could give to make relative terms.

Edit: And that's why I've never seen 'hunting' as an excuse to 'owning' a rifle, as much as they should be maintained and stored by hunting associations.
You can't leave your rifle out in the forest. It doesn't make sense. Where do you propose they keep them?
I don't think it makes sense to have hunters report kills - that would be a massive administration burden, plus, if the idea is to preserve vulnerable species, having a ban on killing those vulnerable species would be easier. Here, I'm not sure on the laws exactly, but I believe you can shoot all the rabbits and wild pigs you want (they are pests) but you're not allowed to shoot any native species (even though the government has to do an annual kangaroo cull).
 

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,733
Country
United States
You can't leave your rifle out in the forest. It doesn't make sense. Where do you propose they keep them?
Answered this before:
"The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."
=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I don't think it makes sense to have hunters report kills - that would be a massive administration burden, plus, if the idea is to preserve vulnerable species, having a ban on killing those vulnerable species would be easier.
But it's something they do do. In fact:
http://www.gon.com/news/game-check-is-mandatory


Here, I'm not sure on the laws exactly, but I believe you can shoot all the rabbits and wild pigs you want (they are pests) but you're not allowed to shoot any native species (even though the government has to do an annual kangaroo cull).

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8316.html

Basically put:
'Hunters are required to report the harvest of deer, bear, and turkey within 7 days of take. You may report your harvest using one of these methods:'

Hunters are expected to basically report anything you'd kill with a rifle anyhow: bears and Deer.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Tl;Dr: it's not that huge a stretch if there was a revision to hunting so that you had to leave your rifles at the hunting association closest to you. Also removing rifles from public hands would reduce (not eliminate) the # of poachers anyhow, as Rifles would be harder to come by.
 
Last edited by VartioArtel,
  • Like
Reactions: felix.200

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
See. That's the thing: owning these rifles is one thing. Being able to borrow them from a federally managed location for a shooting range for practice is another. I don't want civilians to 'own' these rifles, as in to be able to take them home, prepare them as they please, prepare ammo for them, etc. I do not mind them being able to borrow them at a set location like you do the play-guns used at your state faire, for example.

What you suggest would be the latter. So the point comes full circle: why should you be allowed to own a rifle? The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed.
Kind of like what Switzerland does with their military. I agree
 

gnmmarechal

Well-Known Member
Member
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,036
Trophies
2
Age
25
Location
https://gs2012.xyz
Website
gs2012.xyz
XP
5,957
Country
Portugal
Its quite simple really, he's not Muslim so he's either a lone wolf or has mental issues. Always some kind of excuse for a white killer.
>he's not Muslim so he's either a lone wolf or has mental issues

wew logical fallacies
 

gnmmarechal

Well-Known Member
Member
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
6,036
Trophies
2
Age
25
Location
https://gs2012.xyz
Website
gs2012.xyz
XP
5,957
Country
Portugal
Do you... do you hear that?... that whistling noise?? I think I just saw the point fly right over your head!
I'm not an idiot and I know what the point was. Was just poking fun at that particular sentence.
 

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
This takes the cake for the grossest comment I've ever read regarding both gender roles and gun control
They probably had good points but I the only thing I got out of the underlying message was "men shoot people because women are taking their place in society and they can't control their own actions because of that"
What? I never said that. Stop making up crap I never said. Your response has no ground on reality.

So expanding mens roles in society is gross? Not having strict gender roles to provide is gross? When did I ever say increasing women role in society was a bad thing. I didn't. No where I said that. What I said is that since we increased women roles we should also increase mens roles and give them more options and more purpose in life.

Your completely missed the whole entire message because you were focusing on something I never said. Didn't you notice that I said girls were affected too? I mentioned that it leads to higher risk of being pregnant as teens for girls, girls suffer from mental and emotional health too from not being in intact families.

They've been studying the impact of the family and child delinquency since the 1800's and the impact of single mother homes. It not about women taking place in society you idiot, its about the children. Doing whats best for the kid, and having equal custody rights so that your kid gets what is needed to properly develop into adulthood. Discipline comes from the home. Majority of inmates grew up in fatherless homes. I never said men shoot because women are taking their place in society you idiot, the underling message is that children, male and female, do poorly socially and economically coming from broken families. It starts at the home.

Being in an intact family leads to better mental health and physical health of the kids. They have fewer learning disabilities.

Children growing up with single moms are more likely to need treatment for emotional and behavioral problems. Also here.
Father involvement leads to better health for kids. Children do better growing up with married parents.

Children who grow up with both parents have better upward mobility economically. Also here and here.

The current welfare system discourages single moms to establish a 2 parent household, because if the women is married and living with the biological father she can get a reduction and loose her welfare benefits. Children who grow up on welfare are more likely to be on welfare themselves. Children do poorly economically growing up in single parent homes. Poverty leads to more crime. Especially gun violence.

Father absence leads to more sexual activity younger and leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy for girls.

Children of single families have higher rates of drug use.

Growing up with both parents leads to higher reading scores, they do better on most academic measures, and do better on social competence. Kids who grow up without a dad are less likely to go to college.

It about the kids. But stupid dumb ass feminist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) are trying to prevent equal custody rights for fathers because they are delusional.
 

the_randomizer

The Temp's official fox whisperer
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
31,284
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Dr. Wahwee's castle
XP
18,967
Country
United States
Here's my unpopular opinion. everyone has a right to defend people they love, i.e. family, friends, etc from credible threats of violence. In fact, the state I live in is a Castle Doctrine state and civilians have a right to stand their ground if:

- They know they or those around them on their premises are in danger of serious bodily harm or death
- The assailant enters by stealth or by tumultuous noise with intent to cause serious harm or death
- The one defending gives a verbal warning they are about to use lethal force on the premises

With that being said, no one should ever need an automatic or semi-automatic firearm, like, at all, for self defense. Responsible ownership of a simple handgun with a few bullets is more than enough for those who are competent and mentally stable enough to know what to do and what not do with a firearm to keep those they love safe. There needs to be a stronger vetting process to make sure those who do have to prove they are sound mind and know safety, etc when operating a handgun. Again, if people want to go after me for this opinion, or call me out, so be it. Not all guns should be banned, but all automatic and semi-automatic guns are unnecessary to use for self defense.

Yes, we need to make it harder for people who are prone to going batshit crazy from ever owning any kind of weapon, granted, but where do we draw the line as far as controlling how and who is able to obtain simple firearms?
 
Last edited by the_randomizer,
  • Like
Reactions: rileysrjay

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
What? I never said that. Stop making up crap I never said. Your response has no ground on reality.

So expanding mens roles in society is gross? Not having strict gender roles to provide is gross? When did I ever say increasing women role in society was a bad thing. I didn't. No where I said that. What I said is that since we increased women roles we should also increase mens roles and give them more options and more purpose in life.

Your completely missed the whole entire message because you were focusing on something I never said. Didn't you notice that I said girls were affected too? I mentioned that it leads to higher risk of being pregnant as teens for girls, girls suffer from mental and emotional health too from not being in intact families.

They've been studying the impact of the family and child delinquency since the 1800's and the impact of single mother homes. It not about women taking place in society you idiot, its about the children. Doing whats best for the kid, and having equal custody rights so that your kid gets what is needed to properly develop into adulthood. Discipline comes from the home. Majority of inmates grew up in fatherless homes. I never said men shoot because women are taking their place in society you idiot, the underling message is that children, male and female, do poorly socially and economically coming from broken families. It starts at the home.

Being in an intact family leads to better mental health and physical health of the kids. They have fewer learning disabilities.

Children growing up with single moms are more likely to need treatment for emotional and behavioral problems. Also here.
Father involvement leads to better health for kids. Children do better growing up with married parents.

Children who grow up with both parents have better upward mobility economically. Also here and here.

The current welfare system discourages single moms to establish a 2 parent household, because if the women is married and living with the biological father she can get a reduction and loose her welfare benefits. Children who grow up on welfare are more likely to be on welfare themselves. Children do poorly economically growing up in single parent homes. Poverty leads to more crime. Especially gun violence.

Father absence leads to more sexual activity younger and leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy for girls.

Children of single families have higher rates of drug use.

Growing up with both parents leads to higher reading scores, they do better on most academic measures, and do better on social competence. Kids who grow up without a dad are less likely to go to college.

It about the kids. But stupid dumb ass feminist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) are trying to prevent equal custody rights for fathers because they are delusional.
I apologize, I clearly misread your post. This entire thread has kind of put me on edge
 

rileysrjay

Connoisseur of all things Morshu
Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
1,121
Trophies
1
Age
23
Location
Koridai
XP
2,285
Country
United States
This reply can wait for you to return.

Indeed my intent was mostly towards the rifles/shotguns, but yes there's never a guarantee of anything. And of course even with restrictions as I suggested there would be shootings. The only things we can do is create less and less opportunities for such accidents to ultimately occur. And as noted two of my replies ago: I fully acknowledge black markets exist, but the legal avenues - and hence the easily accessable avenues - will be heavily mitigated if not negated in general. That's more of a relief than anything. From there discerning intent will be far easier.

As for uprising or revolution... well let's be real, we've had automatic weapons banned before (see the '94 ban on Assault weapons), and...
SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png

As seen in this image, between 94 and '04 we saw a huge dip in the number of homicides based on firearms, most likely this is a direct correlation, although I cannot state so as fact but instead as an inference based on such info. (Edit/Note: In 93-94 there was a drop, but nowhere as sharp as 94 to roughly 96)
(Although https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...yweapon.svg/325px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png - implies that handguns have a higher general rate of homicides, for some reason the ban seemed to have indeed had a role to play in the downfall in homicides as from '93 on there was a huge decline in gun based homicide in general).

As seen above - we endured a 10 year ban of assault (including automatic) weapons without a revolution. I'm sure we can handle another ban of guns.

If people seriously are going to revolt against a government for restricting access to lethal weapons to very precise requirements for not only their safety but others, and considering that these tools have no purpose in civilian hands except as 'a hobby', then well, those people are probably extremists to start and a threat to national security anyhow, although that's one point of view. That's the same as if they get angry for a ban on the civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, as I referenced in the first message.

In the end, all we can do is our best to hinder and restrict the motions of homocidal individuals. While handguns will always remain the more accessible method of murder as seen in the charts, the fact remains that they are also comparatively less frightening weapons and also more fitting self defense than the rest. When someone can give a legitimate reason for owning these more dangerous guns other than hunting (government should manage or restrict these rifles to hunt clubs or the sort, and hold hunt clubs constantly responsible for their stocks) or war time (go join the army then...), then I'd support civilians holding these weapons.

EDIT: to make something clear, I am not trying to use this as a springboard to say "BAN EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE A THREAT". I namely infer this as a means to mitigate threats that should never be in civilian hands. Here's a few examples of my opinion:
The substance the killer used (Tannerite) for bombs? Should be banned. It has no household use beyond as an aide in gun fire accuracy tests, and hence has no place in civilian hands due to the potential it has as a bomb. If they want to test their accuracy, they can stare at the hole they make.
Rifles - They are not for defense. For one when an enemy's on top of you, you aren't going to find it easy positioning a rifle and shooting your foe compared to a handgun. They're designed for mid-long range shootouts, as was their intent - for war.
I have to disagree on the revolution part of your response. I think you underestimate how many people have rifles and shotguns and how important the second amendment is to them. Yes there wasn't a "revolution" when automatic guns got banned, and I doubt it would happen if the government banned the devices the killer used in the Vegas shooting. I would say that from personal experience probably the majority of guns owned here in the us are either shotguns and rifles. How many had automatic guns in the us before the ban? I'd imagine not many since they aren't that practical and people wouldn't tend to use them. But rifles and shotguns? Pretty much everyone I know has multiple rifles or shotguns in their family household for hunting and self defense. And pretty much everyone I know that owns a rifle or shotgun would fight back if the government tried to take away their rifles, shotguns or even pistols and handguns. Plus as @Subtle Demise mentioned earlier, I've also heard there's a portion of the military that has vowed to fight back if the government tries to takes away civilian guns or takes away or infringes upon any of the laws in the Constitution and the bill of rights.
 
Last edited by rileysrjay,
  • Like
Reactions: Subtle Demise

Quantumcat

Dead and alive
Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
15,144
Trophies
0
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
boot9strap.com
XP
11,094
Country
Australia
"The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."

Tl;Dr: it's not that huge a stretch if there was a revision to hunting so that you had to leave your rifles at the hunting association closest to you. Also removing rifles from public hands would reduce (not eliminate) the # of poachers anyhow, as Rifles would be harder to come by.
This makes no sense. Do you think there's going to be an office at the entrance to every forest? Hunting is usually done in remote areas. Some friends of mine who kill wild pigs for farmers in far north Queensland are operating on farms that are thousands of acres. Having to travel an extra couple of hundred or thousand kilometres to also do a round trip to see hunting association offices is ridiculous. The nearest town to some of these places is 500km away and the nearest neighbour like 100km away (no way is an office going to be set up nearby and be manned).
 
Last edited by Quantumcat,

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Just a couple of guys taking their manatee out for some fresh air, why you have to molest them?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Stupid Chinese shop switched their shipping company and this one is slooooooow.
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    STOP BUYING CHINESE CRAP THEN
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    SUPPORT LOCAL PRODUCTS, MAKE REVOLUTION
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THEY KEEP REMOVING LOCAL SHIt AND REPLACING WItH INFERIOR CHINESE CRAP
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THATS WHY MY PARTNER CANT GET A GOOTWEAR HIS SIZE ANYMORE
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    HE HAS BIG FOOT AND BIG DUCK
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    d*ck i mean*
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    lol
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Mkay.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I just ordered another package from China just to spite you.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Communism lol
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    OUR products
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    @LeoTCK actually good quality products are dying out because they can't compete with dropshipped chinese crap
    +2
  • BakerMan @ BakerMan:
    @LeoTCK is your partner the sascrotch or smth?
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Good morning
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Out of nowhere I got several scars on my forearm and part of my arm and it really itches.
  • AdRoz78 @ AdRoz78:
    Hey, I bought a modchip today and it says "New 2040plus" in the top left corner. Is this a legit chip or was I scammed?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    @AdRoz78 start a thread and post a photo of the chip.
    +2
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Yawn
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    and good morning everyone
    +1
    S @ salazarcosplay: and good morning everyone +1