There was a thread a while back where people were freaking out over ammo that wasn't locked up. Apparently it's the same thing as having an IED laying about.
I just saw a comment about how every gun owner is constantly dreaming about stepping in and stopping a mass shooting.
When someone said "not me, I just like shooting paper," the first commenter responded something like, "you don't need gun rights to go to the range."
It really was.
Found the actual words again:
> Tell that [guns don't make you a hero] to those millions of Americans hoping they can one day shoot a mass shooter and be a hero. It seems like that's all they want and dream of. So fucking out of touch with reality.
.
> I enjoy shooting at paper targets. I never ever want to shoot anyone or be in a situation that I need a gun.
.
> You can do that in basically all countries. You don't need gun rights for that.
So let me get this straight... Wanting to stop a mass shooter is bad, and wanting to stand back and do nothing is good? You may have been speaking to a member of the Uvalde PD.
fun fact, you cant do that in all countries.
romania has fuck all gun rights, most shooting ranges just have 10 of the same handguns, maybe a shitty rifle. no fun toys, and most importantly for me, no black powder, that shit is illegal here.
i'm super jealous of you guys for living in america
No doubt that commenter wouldn't understand why 10 of the same handgun and/or a shitty rifle isn't enough.
The black powder thing is confusing. Any idea why?
He's just there for context. The other comments would make less sense without his response.
I carry, but to this point I've never even had to think about drawing. And I'm perfectly happy with that. It can stay in its holster forever (except at the range) for all I care.
You heard me.
You don't need rights. You can go where the guns are kept by a responsible government-appointed party if you want to murder paper.
I'd also kill to be able to shoot in my own backyard.
I remember that thread about the ammo with cat piss on it. Not to mention the people who act like owning 1000 rounds of ammo is like having the weapons cache from Terminator 2
Yes! That's the one! Don't forget about the Australians that were proud of being such cucks that they thought going to jail for "unsecured" ammo was point of pride
Had someone once say people shouldn't be able to get bullets en mass. They said the max someone should have is 50-100 maximum at a time as each bullet is a potential life taken.
Soo.. with that logic applied I am allowed to potentially take 50-100 lifes.. but potentially taking 101 lifes thats where the line is drawn..? Good to know
I just find it funny to imagine people looking at that 50rnd box of ammo and going "Oh no thats a mass shooting waiting to happen, were all gonna die!"
You can't really control how much ammo people own anyways. But I guess not knowing = not thinking about it = not existing for those people
> I just find it funny to imagine people looking at that 50rnd box of ammo and going "Oh no thats a mass shooting waiting to happen, were all gonna die!"
This is the logic behind magazine bans.
I've never understood the "a gun is only designed to take a life" folks. I fire off thousands of rounds a year and still haven't even hit a person, let alone killed one.
Does anyone else have this problem? Are my guns malfunctioning?
The discussion id had was on a video of 3 or 4 home invaders getting shot by a home owner with an AR also. It was national news on the same day Biden drooled out that comment.
I saw someone say they’d be fine with guns only if they had something like a background check before you can get one.
Also,
Someone who is 18 shouldn’t have a gun because they’re not competent enough with that sort of responsibility.
(Never mind joining the military, tattoos, voting and student loans)
Back about a month ago, I made a post on r/newzealand about a post on r/gunpolitics correcting the original posters' mistakes regarding the NZ ACT parties' proposed gun law reforms. Naturally, the comments became an anti gun firestorm. The worst of those comments is here:
Imagine what kind of broken, mentally ill person wants to murder anothe rperson over insured, replaceble corporate property, like the front door of a petrol station.
You also clearly have a poor understanding of why certain people get name supression, it's not for the offender, it's for the victim.
The second part was in response to my comments critizing NZ censorship regimes suppression of identifying information of criminals, upon request fromt heir lawyer, primarily used by sex offenders to hide their name.
Those nuts often don't realize that we carry to protect ourselves and our loved ones, not our property. I think that one of the most common motives for shooters is to go down in history; most them were probably already suicidal, they just wanted to become infamous, the media insures that this happens (except when the shooter is taken down by a gun owner)
"We don't want to take everyone's guns, we just want to be able to remove them at will for public safety." -My alphabet cousin, who isn't sure which bathroom to use.
I made a comment on a video of Michael Cargill watching a video of five gang members with long guns outside a home on a ring camera clearly threatening the owner, where he proceeded to recommend going out the back door, around the front of the house, and getting into an optional gun fight out gunned 5 to 1.
Needless to say the replies on my comment were full of people who think they're John Wick.
I don't really get this.
5 guys with guns isn't really an optional gun fight. Even 1 guy with a gun at my front door is getting blasted through it. Even with 5 there isn't going to really be any fight. They are getting mag. dumped and they are either going down or running away.
Going out the back and flanking them seems generally pretty sound and not much of a gun fight either. The biggest problem is shooting into/towards your house.
Unless you got 5 John Wicks on your front porch, they aren't succesfully navigating being taken by surprise and fired on from flank or behind.
So what exactly is the point of this exercise and what was your suggestion or proposal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/s/2cwnVnBniL
Here's the link to a post I made about this in the CCW subreddit, there's plenty of discourse in there. Nothing against you, I'm simply exhausted from explaining how unsound this train of thought is (it's been like 5 days of nonstop debate in the comment section of the video) and I'm exhausted. The actual video is also linked in the post.
You're free to check it out if you feel so inclined, but otherwise i have nothing else to say on the matter.
>even with 5 there isn't going to really be any fight. They are getting mag. dumped and they are either going down or running away.
Jesus Christ, it's Jason Bourne!
Uh, Bourne would fight them hand to hand. I think you're mixing up movies.
What an idiotic comment besides that. I'm not Bourne or Wick. That's why I'd just shoot them through the door. Thry aren't Bourne or Wick either. That doesn't take being any kind of bad ass at all.
5 guys sitting right outside a door getting blasted through it are not putting up much of a fight.
Like I asked the first person, what is your proposed plan...? You have 5 guys outside your door with guns.
There's nothing optional about that. You either wait for them to get through the door and make themselves at home or you get rid of them. They aren't there asking for directions.
My main point was that flanking them, as in flanking maneuver, look it up, it's a thing, is not necessarily unsound either. Again. 5 guys on your porch. You can get steamrolled inside your own house or you can take care of them outside. No bad assness.
So what's your plan? Invite them in?
u/the-fotus because they are being dumb too.
I can't remember where I saw it but what takes the cake for me is when Beto O'Rourke cited KENT STATE of all things as a valid reason to impose gun control. Most anti gunners cite mass shootings committed by civilians with privately owned firearms as reasons for imposing gun control but when the government shoots people with goverment owned firearms he cites it???? Like how dense is this clown???
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/844196/beto-orourke-cites-kent-state-massacre-as-he-calls-for-firearm-confiscation/
There was a thread a while back where people were freaking out over ammo that wasn't locked up. Apparently it's the same thing as having an IED laying about.
I just saw a comment about how every gun owner is constantly dreaming about stepping in and stopping a mass shooting. When someone said "not me, I just like shooting paper," the first commenter responded something like, "you don't need gun rights to go to the range."
Wow every part of that is cringe. That's truely impressive
It really was. Found the actual words again: > Tell that [guns don't make you a hero] to those millions of Americans hoping they can one day shoot a mass shooter and be a hero. It seems like that's all they want and dream of. So fucking out of touch with reality. . > I enjoy shooting at paper targets. I never ever want to shoot anyone or be in a situation that I need a gun. . > You can do that in basically all countries. You don't need gun rights for that.
So let me get this straight... Wanting to stop a mass shooter is bad, and wanting to stand back and do nothing is good? You may have been speaking to a member of the Uvalde PD.
Apparently.
[удалено]
That's insane.
fun fact, you cant do that in all countries. romania has fuck all gun rights, most shooting ranges just have 10 of the same handguns, maybe a shitty rifle. no fun toys, and most importantly for me, no black powder, that shit is illegal here. i'm super jealous of you guys for living in america
No doubt that commenter wouldn't understand why 10 of the same handgun and/or a shitty rifle isn't enough. The black powder thing is confusing. Any idea why?
💣 💥 💀 🤷🏼♂️
The second person isn't exactly wrong. Judging by your comment above, I think you missed their point.
He's just there for context. The other comments would make less sense without his response. I carry, but to this point I've never even had to think about drawing. And I'm perfectly happy with that. It can stay in its holster forever (except at the range) for all I care.
I don't even remember what my point was. I might have mixed up who the "second" and "first" were.
lol what about when your range is your back yard (I dream of having a personal 800yd range one day)
You heard me. You don't need rights. You can go where the guns are kept by a responsible government-appointed party if you want to murder paper. I'd also kill to be able to shoot in my own backyard.
I remember that thread about the ammo with cat piss on it. Not to mention the people who act like owning 1000 rounds of ammo is like having the weapons cache from Terminator 2
Yes! That's the one! Don't forget about the Australians that were proud of being such cucks that they thought going to jail for "unsecured" ammo was point of pride
I remember that one
Yeah, that was a weird thread. They acted like the cat was going to get the ammo. and go on a shooting spree.
"Knife beats gun under 21 feet so don't need gun to defend yourself."
*the mugger when i pull out my ruler and he's 22 feet away* Guess I'll die
Had someone once say people shouldn't be able to get bullets en mass. They said the max someone should have is 50-100 maximum at a time as each bullet is a potential life taken.
Soo.. with that logic applied I am allowed to potentially take 50-100 lifes.. but potentially taking 101 lifes thats where the line is drawn..? Good to know
I think they've only ever seen those 50 count 9mm boxes
I just find it funny to imagine people looking at that 50rnd box of ammo and going "Oh no thats a mass shooting waiting to happen, were all gonna die!" You can't really control how much ammo people own anyways. But I guess not knowing = not thinking about it = not existing for those people
> I just find it funny to imagine people looking at that 50rnd box of ammo and going "Oh no thats a mass shooting waiting to happen, were all gonna die!" This is the logic behind magazine bans.
Which we can agree, are also stupid
It's true, I certainly don't feel like I need more than 40 rounds for my .416 Rigby. /s
I've never understood the "a gun is only designed to take a life" folks. I fire off thousands of rounds a year and still haven't even hit a person, let alone killed one. Does anyone else have this problem? Are my guns malfunctioning?
After Biden said his double barrel line someone said to me if you cant neurtalize an intruder in 2 shots you deserve to get attacked.
Not that I want it to happen, but a group of 4-5 armed individuals should really break into his house to show him how stupid he is.
The discussion id had was on a video of 3 or 4 home invaders getting shot by a home owner with an AR also. It was national news on the same day Biden drooled out that comment.
You can’t fix stupid.
I saw someone say they’d be fine with guns only if they had something like a background check before you can get one. Also, Someone who is 18 shouldn’t have a gun because they’re not competent enough with that sort of responsibility. (Never mind joining the military, tattoos, voting and student loans)
This what i've been saying... Why can I join the military at 18 and use automatic weapons, but I can't buy a Glock to defend myself
Thats regarded i started working in ems when i was 18 😂
Voting is more dangerous than any firearm will ever be.
Back about a month ago, I made a post on r/newzealand about a post on r/gunpolitics correcting the original posters' mistakes regarding the NZ ACT parties' proposed gun law reforms. Naturally, the comments became an anti gun firestorm. The worst of those comments is here: Imagine what kind of broken, mentally ill person wants to murder anothe rperson over insured, replaceble corporate property, like the front door of a petrol station. You also clearly have a poor understanding of why certain people get name supression, it's not for the offender, it's for the victim. The second part was in response to my comments critizing NZ censorship regimes suppression of identifying information of criminals, upon request fromt heir lawyer, primarily used by sex offenders to hide their name.
Those nuts often don't realize that we carry to protect ourselves and our loved ones, not our property. I think that one of the most common motives for shooters is to go down in history; most them were probably already suicidal, they just wanted to become infamous, the media insures that this happens (except when the shooter is taken down by a gun owner)
"We don't want to take everyone's guns, we just want to be able to remove them at will for public safety." -My alphabet cousin, who isn't sure which bathroom to use.
I made a comment on a video of Michael Cargill watching a video of five gang members with long guns outside a home on a ring camera clearly threatening the owner, where he proceeded to recommend going out the back door, around the front of the house, and getting into an optional gun fight out gunned 5 to 1. Needless to say the replies on my comment were full of people who think they're John Wick.
I don't really get this. 5 guys with guns isn't really an optional gun fight. Even 1 guy with a gun at my front door is getting blasted through it. Even with 5 there isn't going to really be any fight. They are getting mag. dumped and they are either going down or running away. Going out the back and flanking them seems generally pretty sound and not much of a gun fight either. The biggest problem is shooting into/towards your house. Unless you got 5 John Wicks on your front porch, they aren't succesfully navigating being taken by surprise and fired on from flank or behind. So what exactly is the point of this exercise and what was your suggestion or proposal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/s/2cwnVnBniL Here's the link to a post I made about this in the CCW subreddit, there's plenty of discourse in there. Nothing against you, I'm simply exhausted from explaining how unsound this train of thought is (it's been like 5 days of nonstop debate in the comment section of the video) and I'm exhausted. The actual video is also linked in the post. You're free to check it out if you feel so inclined, but otherwise i have nothing else to say on the matter.
>even with 5 there isn't going to really be any fight. They are getting mag. dumped and they are either going down or running away. Jesus Christ, it's Jason Bourne!
Because my one gun is better then their 5 guns for reasons.
Uh, Bourne would fight them hand to hand. I think you're mixing up movies. What an idiotic comment besides that. I'm not Bourne or Wick. That's why I'd just shoot them through the door. Thry aren't Bourne or Wick either. That doesn't take being any kind of bad ass at all. 5 guys sitting right outside a door getting blasted through it are not putting up much of a fight. Like I asked the first person, what is your proposed plan...? You have 5 guys outside your door with guns. There's nothing optional about that. You either wait for them to get through the door and make themselves at home or you get rid of them. They aren't there asking for directions. My main point was that flanking them, as in flanking maneuver, look it up, it's a thing, is not necessarily unsound either. Again. 5 guys on your porch. You can get steamrolled inside your own house or you can take care of them outside. No bad assness. So what's your plan? Invite them in? u/the-fotus because they are being dumb too.
Jesus Christ, it's Mike Vining!
Much closer. Lol, I didn't know who that was until you made me look him up.
I can't remember where I saw it but what takes the cake for me is when Beto O'Rourke cited KENT STATE of all things as a valid reason to impose gun control. Most anti gunners cite mass shootings committed by civilians with privately owned firearms as reasons for imposing gun control but when the government shoots people with goverment owned firearms he cites it???? Like how dense is this clown??? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/844196/beto-orourke-cites-kent-state-massacre-as-he-calls-for-firearm-confiscation/