This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
You also implied that hunting and target shooting are the only good reasons to own a gun. What about survivalists and disaster prepers? What about people that live in volatile regions or areas prone to riots? What about the growing number of people in the US alone that believe we are on the brink of some form of massive social upheaval? All of these people would have use for high capacity magazines.
I think that explosives (grenades, dynamite, C4, etc.) would be a fair comparison in this regard. Should access to explosives be deregulated for those needs you indicated?
I think there's a big difference between a magazine that carries 10-20 extra bullets, and military grade explosives. Explosives are primarily an offensive weapon designed to kill and main large numbers of people. I would put those in the same class as automatic weapons, antitank rifles, high caliber machine guns, and log range sniper rifles. All are designed with an offensive purpose. For the survivalist or disaster preper, a semiautomatic rifle with a high capacity magazine can be used for self defense purposes, in a situation where police intervention an't be counted on, or one might be under assault by a large number of people (for example in a riot).
Post by
Monday
The problem is you listed arbitrary reasons.
Reloading less quickly is arbitrary? What?
People will still kill each other without high capacity magazines. And high capacity magazines are easy to get if you're willing to break the law. All weapons of any kind are banned in prison, and people still kill each other every day.
Should we make grenades legal, then? I mean, after all, people will still be able to get those if they're willing to break the law.
I see you already responded to that.
You're reasons, listing mass shootings, is the same fear based mentality that led to prohibition, and just like with that, banning high capacity magazines will only effect people who are actually willing to obey the law.
How will it affect them? Force them to reload a few more times while shooting? Heaven forbid.
What about survivalists and disaster prepers?
Most (MOST) of them are generally nutjobs. I couldn't care less.
What about people that live in volatile regions or areas prone to riots?
Why would high capacity rounds help during those times? Let you shoot more people before you reload?
What about the growing number of people in the US alone that believe we are on the brink of some form of massive social upheaval?
Most of these people are insane right wing nutjobs who are doing their damned best to START this massive social upheaval.
Are you really going to argue that people can't effectively kill each other without large capacity magazines?
I don't believe I ever claimed that. I just said that it would help curb gun violence until people are willing to actually do something to stop the murder of our kids.
*!@#, you realize people are capable of carrying more than one gun right? It doesn't even take that long to reload.
Carrying more guns requires you to allocate less space to ammo, which means less shots overall. Additionally, it makes you carry bulkier bags, which will make you more easily spotted and apprehended by law enforcement.
With this in mind then, don't make large blanket statements that cover the entire country, or it will lead to confusion.
Considering this quote
You're basing this argument on a false premise, that guns are easier to obtain than cars, and they are not.
I'd ask you to do the same. Stones and glass houses and all that.
Post by
Gone
Most (MOST) of them are generally nutjobs. I couldn't care less.
Most of these people are insane right wing nutjobs who are doing their damned best to START this massive social upheaval.
Really? The Mormon is making blanket judgments about a large and ever growing group of people he's probably never been exposed to? I'd think you'd be more sensitive to making assumptions about people based on societal perceptions.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm done arguing with you about this particular subject.
Why would high capacity rounds help during those times? Let you shoot more people before you reload?
We're talking about high capacity magazines. There's no such thing as a high capacity round, and if you meant high caliber rounds, nobody is talking about that.
Considering this quote
You're basing this argument on a false premise, that guns are easier to obtain than cars, and they are not.
I'd ask you to do the same. Stones and glass houses and all that.
I haven't done that. The quote you put there was me saying that you're blanket statement was not true, not me claiming the antithesis.
Post by
Monday
The Mormon is making blanket judgments about a large and ever growing group of people he's probably never been exposed to?
You know what they say about assuming (hint: it makes an ass out of you and me). I've met several of these people. That's why I call them nutjobs.
The Tea Party has a particularly strong hold on my home county, and ESPECIALLY on the city where I attend university. It's filled with all sorts of those people.
Stop talking to me like I'm a *!@#ing kid who has no idea what he's talking about. Whenever I say something like that, I base it off of my experience with that particular group of people.
Until you can accept that people have actually gone out and done things in the world, and stop treating me like a condescending ass, I refuse to debate with you any further.
One other things, though
We're talking about high capacity magazines. There's no such thing as a high capacity round, and if you meant high caliber rounds, nobody is talking about that.
That was a typo. I meant magazines. That should have been bloody obvious from the context. GG.
Post by
Gone
I've met several of these people. That's why I call them nutjobs.
I've met a lot of them as well, probably more than your average person, and I've always found them (and gun people in general) to be some of the nicest and most helpful people I've ever met. I know one guy whose a little crazy and stockpiles ammunition, but most of the people I meet who stockpile survival stuff are fairly pragmatic about their day to day life, and choose to apply that "better safe than sorry" mentality into a hobby.
Tell me, do you call the people that you've actually met "nutjobs" just because they prepare for disaster or have different political affiliations than you, or have they actually done something else to earn your ridicule?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Dear Ryja. What has Benzene's point of view got to do with whether Benzene is, or is not a Mormon?
Because he's mentioned on these forums that he's had assumptions made about him based on his beliefs that aren't true, and I was surprised he so blatantly made assumptions about other people based on a label.
Post by
Monday
I guess I can shed a little light.
My problem with these people stems from one thing: every single one I've met, to a man, are some of the most intolerant, cruel, violent, crude and blatantly uneducated people I've ever met.
The Mormon ones I've met hate anyone not of the Tea Party with a blazing passion, up to and including threatening them with their weapon stockpiles. This extends to homosexuals, non-Christians, liberals, etc. They disguise it under a veneer of false love and friendliness, which quickly turns into rage and hate if you get to know them deep enough.
The non-Mormon ones I've met are Bible literalists who believe that any any and all science is the work of the devil and is dragging this nation down to Hell. They refuse to believe biology, physics, geology, etc, because it drives them away from the Lord. They relish the opportunity to take revenge on these people if/when the Last Days actually come and they're free to reign tyrant over their little patch of countryside, free from the petty restraints of law and human decency.
And before you claim stereotyping, etc, every word I've said is based off of the dozens of these people that I have met. They've had meetings and all sorts of things around here. It's not terribly difficult to find them, and most of them LOVE talking about what they're going to do once their beloved disaster hits.
Now, I will not deny that there are probably some decent people out there from this group. However, the supermajority of them that I've met are $%^&s, and if I never met another of that type again, it'd be too soon.
As for exposure. I NEVER want to be in the proximity of the people you describe. I have been in the company of militant class-war Marxists still waiting for the revolution, animal rights militants who forgot that humans are animals too, and neo nazis who thought the "Elders of Zion" were after us all. They were all full of %^&*.
Exactly this. Once religion and political philosophy gets mixed up with gun-nuts, things get messy, and fast. Not very many people scare me, but I get physically terrified whenever I have to go near these people.
and I was surprised he so blatantly made assumptions about other people based on a label.
Are they assumptions when they're backed up by the views of every one of them I've ever met?
Edit: cleared up a few typos.
Post by
Squishalot
You also implied that hunting and target shooting are the only good reasons to own a gun. What about survivalists and disaster prepers? What about people that live in volatile regions or areas prone to riots? What about the growing number of people in the US alone that believe we are on the brink of some form of massive social upheaval? All of these people would have use for high capacity magazines.
I think that explosives (grenades, dynamite, C4, etc.) would be a fair comparison in this regard. Should access to explosives be deregulated for those needs you indicated?
I think there's a big difference between a magazine that carries 10-20 extra bullets, and military grade explosives. Explosives are primarily an offensive weapon designed to kill and main large numbers of people. I would put those in the same class as automatic weapons, antitank rifles, high caliber machine guns, and log range sniper rifles. All are
designed with an offensive purpose
. For the survivalist or disaster preper, a semiautomatic rifle with a high capacity magazine
can be used
for self defense purposes, in a situation where police intervention an't be counted on, or one might be under assault by a large number of people (for example in a riot).
Everything you've listed there has been designed with offensive purposes in mind. As you rightly say, they CAN BE used for self defense purposes, but so can grenades and other explosives. In fact, there is actually more grounds for deregulating explosives on the basis that there are plenty of civilian usages for them in construction, mining and engineering generally. I'd include fireworks in that category too.
I hate to remind you, but semi-automatic rifles were designed for offensive purposes. The fact that they
can be used
for self defense purposes doesn't justify (in and of itself) that they're suitable for a lower level of regulation than other, more dangerous, weapons that can also be used for self defense purposes.
Post by
Gone
@Funden
I have an uncle who lives in one of the worst (per capita) cities in the country in terms of gang violence. Every day there is a mugging or a rape or an assault or a robbery within a few square blocks of his apartment. Most of the people that commit these crimes are black. Is he justified in saying that black people are usually criminals based on his limited personal experience?
I'm not even going to reply to Pike...
@Squish
I guess the distinction I make is that automatic weapons and explosives are designed to spray as much damage as possible, often indiscriminately. Where as a semiautomatic rifle sends out one bullet in one direction every time you pull the trigger. Now the argument can be made that semiautomatic weapons should be banned because they can be as dangerous as explosives or full autos, but to say that having a magazine that holds 10-20 extra bullets makes it in the same class as a grenade or a machine gun, and a magazine that holds only 10 bullets makes it safe enough that it's in an entirely different league, isn't really something I can agree with.
Post by
Monday
Is he justified in saying that black people are usually criminals based on his limited personal experience?
No, because there's a difference. Basing something on race (which hasn't been proven through genetics, i.e. black people get sickle cell anemia, most other races don't) is racist and stupid, because it leaves out all sorts of other factors.
Judging someone on their actions is entirely reasonable and, in fact, is the only reason you should judge people.
So, long story short, being born black =/= making the choice to be an intolerant doomsday prepper.
Post by
Gone
Is he justified in saying that black people are usually criminals based on his limited personal experience?
No, because there's a difference. Basing something on race (which hasn't been proven through genetics, i.e. black people get sickle cell anemia, most other races don't) is racist and stupid, because it leaves out all sorts of other factors.
Judging someone on their actions is entirely reasonable and, in fact, is the only reason you should judge people.
So, long story short, being born black =/= making the choice to be an intolerant doomsday prepper.
Okay how about if he said all poor people are criminals? Or to pick another example, I have a marine buddy who thinks that all Muslims are savages?
For the record, this is why I was treating you like an ignorant kid, because you're acting one. You're judging an entire movement of people based on the actions of a few that you've met, in a single area.
And again, there's a difference between doomsday preppers, and survivalists or disaster preppers. Doomsday preppers are kids who are waiting for the end of the world. Disaster preppers are people who do just that, prepare for disaster. Are you really that brainwashed by the myth of American supremacy that you think there's no credibility at all in the belief that pur current way of life could be turned on its head? Look what happened in New Orleans when Katrina hit. Look what happens all over the world every day to people who are unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You're basically saying that a person preparing for the possibility of disaster is ignorant, which makes very little sense to me. What specifically are they ignorant of?
Post by
asakawa
Ryja, whether you're aware of it or not you're crossing the line and making things more personal, more antagonistic and more argumentative than they need to be in a friendly discussion on an internet forum. If you would like to keep discussing this then you'll need to stop that.
It would be good if people took a breath (count to ten etc.) before making more replies on this topic.
Thanks.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
For the record, this is why I was treating you like an ignorant kid, because you're acting one.
Judging people that I've met by their actions is being a kid?
Dang. I've been doing it all wrong, I see.
in a single area.
... it's almost like traveling hasn't been invented or anything.
Doomsday preppers are kids who are waiting for the end of the world. Disaster preppers are people who do just that, prepare for disaster.
Do I have to preface every single post I make with "from the people I've met and based on my own observations, this is my own humble opinion, which is not as relevant as your opinion?"
I guess.
From the people I've met and based on my own observations, this is my own humble opinion, which is not as relevant as your opinion: the two words can generally be used interchangeably.
Are you really that brainwashed by the myth of American supremacy that you think there's no credibility at all in the belief that pur current way of life could be turned on its head?
No. However, I'm generally rather comfortable in my belief that American armed might, when combined with its alliances with other large, powerful, technologically advanced countries, will make any sort of large-scale invasion completely impossible, and make cleanup from large disasters much easier (as has been demonstrated in other Western countries outside of the US).
Look what happens all over the world every day to people who are unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You're basically saying that a person preparing for the possibility of disaster is ignorant, which makes very little sense to me.
You misunderstand. I've never claimed that they are terrible, ignorant people for the mere fact of being a disaster prepper. To quote myself, I've claimed that they are
some of the most intolerant, cruel, violent, crude and blatantly uneducated people I've ever met.
THAT is why I dislike them. Their actions define their inner being.
Edit: More typos. Bleh, typing with an injured finger is annoying.
Edit2: Hmm, I should probably take a step back, as well. I tend to get really sarcastic and rude if I'm angry. Sorry.
Post by
Gone
Okay look, I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm sorry if I came off as condescending or antagonistic. My problem has been that you are judging people based off characteristics of people you've met that don't necessarily define the people we have been talking about. The only thing defining disaster preppers is just that, preparing for disaster. If you've met disaster preppers that are intolerant or uneducated, then you met uneducated, intolerant people, who also happen to be disaster preppers. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough to provide correlation between the two qualities.
I'd like to share a couple personal stories about the people I've come across that fit into the category that we have been talking about.
The most extreme case I can think of is my best friend's mother. She and her boyfriend live down in Florida in a somewhat remote area. She has a metal fence around her property, two large dogs, stockpiles of food in the basement, and several guns, including an AK47 with a several large capacity magazines. She also has a chicken coop and a goat in her backyard and most of her money is in silver.
She's not a violent person by any means. She volunteers at homeless shelters and soup kitchens every weekend, she votes in every election big or small, she keeps all of her weapons locked up, and she's frankly one of the most helpful people I have ever met. I've never heard a racist or intolerant or even remotely hateful word out of her mouth.
The next person that comes to mind is a local friend that lives about two streets over. This guy doesn't own any guns because he's a year short from being old enough for an LTC, but he has everything from knives, to gas masks and other sorts of emergency gear. I've never seen him without a knife on him. He goes out of the house in combat boots, and has a big souped up jeep with flood lights and mudding tires.
Every time I have ever had a problem with my truck (and I've had a lot of problems with my truck) he'd be over here to help me within an hour. I've known this guy since he was just a kid, and he's never been intolerant or any of the other stereotypes you have been talking about.
I can think of two people that I wen't to college with that were self professed "preppers." One of them was a former navy seal who was a bit eccentric, but hardly anything worse than that. The other was one of the smartest people I've ever met. He was a polisci major, like myself, who managed an 800,000 dollar budget for his home town, organized an annual event where veterans hand out toys to needy kids, and took it upon himself to organize a study group to help everybody else in the class get the kind of grades that he was already pulling in on his own.
The guy who taught me how to handle a gun was an NRA certified safety officer, who went so far above and beyond what he was paid to do to help me get my LTC that he and I are still friends to this day. Another super nice guy, super helpful, not crazy.
Of all the people I know that are like this, I can only think of one that fits the description that you are laying down. He's the father of one of the people I already mentioned, who is this racist old lunatic that thinks that when welfare gets cut off, all the minorities are going to start flooding out of the cities into the small towns and rioting and looting everything. But again, I wouldn't think to judge an entire group of people based on one &*!@#$%. He's not a prepper and thus a racist, he's a racist who also happens to be a prepper.
Finally, I don't think it takes a brain surgeon to look at how offended I got earlier, and realize that I might in part be describing myself as well. I wouldn't call myself a "prepper" because I'm not comfortable with labels, but you know what? I store food in the basement, I carry a small knife and flashlight when I leave the house, I own guns and survival hear, and sometimes I carry a gun. If I were legally able to buy 30 round magazines in the state that I live in I would. I also modified my truck to be able to handle almost any harsh conditions. And I'm no more crazy than anybody else on this list, and I certainly think that I've more than earned enough credibility around here not to be judged based on the fact that I like to be prepared for potential disasters.
Post by
Monday
That isn't the same thing.
I
have a food storage, water purifier, knives, flashlights, batteries, lightbulbs, etc. It's only natural for when the power goes out or a bad storm rolls through.
What I'm referring to are people who build bunkers in their back yard, set up barbed wire fences, security cameras, etc.
He's not a prepper and thus a racist, he's a racist who also happens to be a prepper.
I think you're misunderstanding my chain of logic. I'm not saying that being a prepper makes you racist. I'm saying the vast majority that I've met are, therefore that is the image that I am left with.
And let me add some background of my own: I've been to every state in the US west of, and including, Colorado. I've been to some big cities and some pretty out of the way areas. The reasons varied (sometimes I went on my dad's business trips, sometimes I was going camping, etc).
Whenever I hit some of the smaller, out of the way towns, I ran into these types of people (so again, not just from one area. I've met them from several states). They generally acted as I described earlier.
So, to sum up: My anecdotal evidence > your anecdotal evidence (in respect to convincing me of how nice, intelligent and tolerant preppers are).
Post by
Gone
What I'm referring to are people who build bunkers in their back yard, set up barbed wire fences, security cameras, etc.
Most of the people I've met would probably do these things as well if they had the financial means.
And let me add some background of my own: I've been to every state in the US west of, and including, Colorado. I've been to some big cities and some pretty out of the way areas. The reasons varied (sometimes I went on my dad's business trips, sometimes I was going camping, etc).
Whenever I hit some of the smaller, out of the way towns, I ran into these types of people (so again, not just from one area. I've met them from several states).
You specifically mentioned the area in which you live in the original statement, so I thought this was the sum of your experience, especially since it was so different than mine.
You know I've traveled a lot too, and more than this I've lived all over. I spent most of my life in Massachusetts, but I've also lived in Michigan, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and the Czech Republic for extended periods of time. I also spent a summer in New York. I judge the people I meet in these places after actually getting to know them. Tell me, do you actually get to know the people you meet in these rural areas, or are you just making a snap judgment about them?
My anecdotal evidence > your anecdotal evidence (in respect to convincing me of how nice, intelligent and tolerant preppers are).
I'm not saying preppers are nice, intelligent or tolerant. Just that they are people who prepare for disaster. It doesn't affect any other aspect of their personality. Grouping them together with bigots or uneducated people is wrong.
From what you've been saying I think that you are observing people with certain political or cultural similarities, that may trend towards disaster prepping.
Post by
Gone
Looking at this, we've gotten kind of off topic. Back to the original point, there are plenty of perfectly sane and rational people out there that prepare for social upheaval as a result of political change or natural disasters who have a legitimate reason for wanting high capacity magazines. And even those you're talking about, intolerant or uneducated as they may be, as long as they're not violent or mentally ill, I believe that they have a right to own weapons, including high capacity magazines.
The only real problem is with the maniacs that decide to go out and massacre a bunch of people, and frankly, I don't think that having a slightly more difficult time obtaining 30 round magazines will stop these people.
Post by
Monday
a legitimate reason for wanting high capacity magazines
I think this is the line where you and I disagree. I don't believe that there is any legitimate reason for having a high capacity magazine if you're not in law enforcement or the military.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.