Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

You haven't provided any data.



In what way has my approach been irrational?



Pointing out that the other side believes it's right as a strike against the argument is the stock tactic of someone defending a simply wrong belief.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

BS. None of what you described would be substantially different if you were using a BB gun or dart launcher.

If what you want is a marksmanship weapon, then why not just ban the AR15 and tell manufacturers to go design a gun with a huge magazine, chambered for an extra-small caliber, engineered for extreme precision, high projectile torque, and with a semiautomatic firing mechanism hard-throttled to five shots a minute?

If you want to argue that powerful and dangerous weapons should be legal so people can maximize the effectiveness of their lame hobbies, then why shouldn't nitro boosters, M80s and arsenic be legal too? There are a lot of hobby-related things that are illegal for safety reasons, why treat guns differently?

The only appeal of hunting is coming as close to murder as is legally possible. It's a vicious and sadistic pasttime. Proof being that birdwatching or photography are equally challenging for all the same reasons except they don't have the thrill of killing.

Conversely, if you really want to hunt for skill or sport why not use a bow or lance?

Case in point. People make a bunch of lame rationalizations for wanting to fire off guns and kill stuff. But at the end of the day, the only real reason to do so, is that some people really like firing guns and killing stuff, and not any of the other rationalizations given.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Regardless of whether his AR-15 was full auto or not, the fact remains that it is still capable of firing 30-60 rounds per minute if he were so inclined. I'm not sure how long he was firing before he left the theater and attempted to escape when he was caught in the parking lot, but I'd guess it wasn't longer than two minutes. For sake of argument, let's say 1.5 minutes from the time the first shot was fired and the time he stopped and left.

Why does anyone need to be able to fire 30-60 rounds per minute for deer hunting and home defense? If anyone can give me a realistic answer, I'd be happy to hear it.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

The M1 Garand is more accurate and more powerful than the AR-15, but it can't fire nearly that many shots a minute without advanced skill.

If anything the Garand is also better as a sporting and home defense weapon for exactly the same reasons. The fact that it requires advanced skill to reach a high fire rate keeps the weapon out of the hands of mass murderers who acquire a weapon only incidentally.

The only thing the AR-15 has on the M1 is the the ability to kill a lot of people very quickly or spray-and-pray a deer.

What we see here is people inventing a lot of specious reasons why guns are cool and necessary. All these claims, if taken in good faith, are simply using guns as a component in Rube Goldberg devices.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

ACTUAL FOOTAGE of Hoenheim purchasing a new sportsmans' rifle

(or maybe that's his great-uncle =P)

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Tell Nascar drivers to just play with RC cars. Scale makes all the difference.



In my brothers particular high power rifle league they all use the same firearm(type) to make the playing field even, they use AR15s as they are fine firearms and they are cheap(as far as precision firearms go). I'm sure if you marketed such a target rifle as you stated above and could sell it for $800-$1100 a league would pop up around it.



Firearms don't kill people. Just like cars don't kill people and 747s don't kill people. PEOPLE murder PEOPLE, no one will ever baby proof the world. If some nut wants to kill a bunch of people and he can't get a firearm he will use something else.

I would like to see this arsenic related hobby though...



I don't hunt. I just noted how Target shooting with some calibers/rifles is not so much fun as others. I personally don't hunt but the people I know that do eat what they kill. It's not like slaughtering buffalo on the plains and just leaving them there. They shoot a dear or a bear or a turkey and then they take it home and eat it, thats not to say they probably don't enjoy hunting it down but different animals have different tastes and people go for the exotic nature of it(turkey probably taste pretty much like turkey though >.>).

Are you a vegetarian ? I personally would love it if they could come up with some vat grown beef/chicken/pork that tastes like beef/chicken/pork, but animals have been eating other animals since the beginning so I don't really have a moral thing against it.



I really don't want to hunt as I'm a little squeamish(I do know where my hamburger comes from, but I would prefer someone else kills it for me ). I have had to kill mice/squirrels(rats with bushy tails !!) to protect my house and a few raccoons, weasels and minks to protect my chickens(fresh eggs are the best eggs).



Just because you don't like something or some reason for doing/owning something isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal.

Çhubathingy - Shaman - Royal Militia
Hoenhiem - Paladin - Royal Militia
Contact: Bnet= nurindun#1138 / twitter / twitch

(really long response but its worth reading I swear)



Nascars aren't street legal. You can't just drive around your RC wherever you want.

The proper analogy would be if the AR15 were restricted to the armory. I don't really think anyone would have a problem with that. Would you?



So - then why not ban the AR15 completely and let the market do its thing?



I don't buy that argument. This is what I was alluding to when I said "guns are a Rube Goldberg device towards beast mastery." If you find your meat more satisfying if you have some connection to it, then take up animal husbandry.


I agree that space travel is under-funded and that space colonization should be a long-term goal of RnD efforts under the inevitable successor-state. The new government, should it be so inclined, ought be able to establish a net-positive colonization program from scratch within 40 years.

In the here and now, I find that vegetarian food lacks the richness or satiety of meat, but it has much more flavor, from the complex spices etc that go into it. Having been a vegetarian for over a decade, one comes to see meat as non-food - if you see it served at a buffet, you might as well be looking at a garnish.

Soyrizo is completely indistinguishable from actual chorizo (confirmed by humane laboratory experiments on real wetbacks). It is tasty enough that it can be eaten straight from the wrapping at room temperature. Even non-vegetarians are likely to find it far more tasty than real meat, and it has the same richness and satiety. It is truly a culinary miracle.

I enjoy Gardenburgers (I usually prepare them as a "Phoenix slider", trimmed to one-third size, with blue cheese, sauteed mushrooms, avocado and BBQ sauce), and soylent Italian and breakfast sausage. Broiling the soylent with olive oil gives it a superior taste but inferior richness to meat.

I would objectively say that Phoenix sliders and soylent sausage are superior to the real meat incarnations because they have much more flavor and less grease - the absence of grease gives soylent a better aftertaste and better-balanced satiety (meaning you get more satisfaction from devouring an entire platter of Phoenix sliders and soylent sausage).

I also make a pasta sauce by broiling a mixture of Prego sauce, olive oil, fresh shiitake mushrooms, and soylent ground sausage. It does not have the richness of real meat sauce, but it has much more flavor. I freely admit it is inferior to the real thing.

Soylent meat, served in the manner of real meat, (e.g., bacon, hot dogs, roasts, etc) are grossly inferior to the real thing (and also far more expensive). Soylent meat is disgusting and completely not worth eating.



Neither do I, strictly speaking. My issue is with factory farming and the general over-proliferation of meat in the diet. Like most contemporary vegetarians, it is because of that over-proliferation that I find eating meat distasteful.

I don't have a problem with traditional husbandry (although for the reasons stated above I don't eat free-range meat either). And I think with shrewd use of resources, traditional husbandry could provide abundant if not ubiquitous supply of meat.

I would be firmly in favor of a campaign to establish beefalo herds and promote widespread goose and chicken ownership in suburban communities. Like you, I grew up in a suburb where wild chickens, ducks, geese and turkeys were common. And like you, I don't enjoy killing animals, but I do think that ethical slaughter is no more wrong than euthanizing a dog, and I think that it is morally correct that people should be involved in the production of their food (plant as well as animal and aquatic).

I believe that establishing game as co-habitants on the same land in a sustainable way is more humane for the animal, better for the environment, and more correct than either factory farming and over-proliferation of meat or the hackneyed "meat is evil" from radical leftists. I believe that the surest way to ensure animal welfare is not to insist we can't kill or eat them, but to develop long-term sustainable symbiosis.

To include the AR15 in that vision, however, would be Rube Goldberg.



Gold prospecting. Some people still find it fun to pan and sluice in rural California. Arsenic can be used to leech gold. It's illegal to own arsenic because it can be used to kill people.

I'm sure M80s and nitros are more fun than the legal alternatives. There's no support for making them legal just because some people find them more fun.

Looking at it from the opposite angle: is that you like something a good enough reason to make it legal above and beyond the standard of safety considerations and inescapable utility that applies to all other hobbies?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I was intending RC to mean Remote Controlled(the scale thing, the competition might be on an even plane but it is not the same plane).



You can't walk around shooting people either, but just like you can move your Nascar from track to track you can bring a firearm from place to place(and you have the right to defend yourself and others who cannot defend themselves from harm/illegal activity).

Either way I don't see people using AR's as carry firearms, I would probably watch out if I saw someone walking down the street with one.



Does this even deserve an answer(I assume you mean the guys house who owns said AR when you say the "armory")? Maybe the answer to reducing crime is to not let people leave homes, I mean they can't hurt anyone if they are locked away right?



If you are trying to imply that the "free" market is going to come up with a better(accuracy, range, cost) fire arm then the military already has...

I assume that your problem with the AR is the magazine "size", now, when you purchase one it comes with a 20 round mag. In competition(my brothers anyway) they use 10 round mags with a max of 7 rounds at a time for rapid strings(each station is 10 shots, rapids require 1 mag change{200yards is standing, 300yards is rapid prone/sitting and 600yards is slow prone for mental reference) and all other stations are single shot hand cycling the bolt.

The problem with the whole issue of mag size is that if you are a criminal type and you can't buy/make a 100rd mag like this dude had, then you can just carry 10x 10rd mags and it will take you half a second to switch them out. The other thing is you could just ban all firearms with mags... But then comes the personal defense argument, people will say "how am I supposed to defend myself from criminals breaking into my house if I'm only allowed to have 1 shot back and there are 5 of them? I wouldn't even be able to fire a warning shot."



Read more carefully... What I said was "Bears don't taste like chicken", not "seeing the blood ooze out of it makes me salivate". But again there are people that look at it in a boys turning into men father/son bonding thing. Like I said it doesn't do anything for me.



Who says that it is "above and beyond the standard of safety considerations" ?

You are assuming that firearms are only for sport, I never made that case. I was merely disproving the link that the sole use of ARs was to kill people.

U.S citizens have the right to defend themselves and there property. You can put any issue in a box. People by firearms to hunt, they buy firearms for target shooting, they buy firearms to defend themselves from criminals/defend there homes, they buy firearms to defend themselves from foreign invaders(I think this would be much less effective today then it might have been 85 years ago now that wars are fought in the air but people like to think they could Red Dawn it up) and they buy firearms to defend themselves from their neighbors should the world go Road Warrior/Postman on us. And I'm sure some people buy them for all of the above.


Again I think it comes down to baby proofing the world. I don't think that banning some type of firearm or all firearms will make criminals stop being criminals. I for instance am just as afraid of some crazy dude running me over on a side walk in his car as I am of being attacked by some crazy with a bunch of firearms/body armor.

If we can't keep drugs and illegal aliens out of the states how do you think they will do any better with small arms?

Should body armor be illegal as well since crazy people can use it to help them kill people ? Cars ? Airplanes ?

Why stop with things that kill bunches of people quickly? We could outlaw tire irons more then 10 feet from cars. Baseball bats that aren't on a diamond or around a hitting machine. Knives that aren't in kitchens or unboxing stations. Where does it end?


And that is why conservatives are against all these "gun bans" and restrictions, they snowball. The other countrys of the world that have already banned firearms entirely started out by banning "assault weapons" because who has a legit reason to own one ?! And then they banned Handguns because .. man you can't hunt with a colt 1911.. And now they don't have anything. Once you let people take away your rights(what ever right it might be) its very hard to get them back.

Çhubathingy - Shaman - Royal Militia
Hoenhiem - Paladin - Royal Militia
Contact: Bnet= nurindun#1138 / twitter / twitch

No. I mean the armory. A facility for the storage and testing of weapons.



The issue is not the mag size, it is the rate of fire. I appreciate that semiautos are useful for sportsmanship simply because they're more convenient. Hence the suggestion to ban the AR15 and demand that civilian semiautos be hard-throttled to five rounds a minute and use a tiny caliber.

So back to my question. Why not just ban the AR15 and let the market work it out?



And it's a stupid argument because 1:5 you're boned no matter what. Add guns to the mix and that just means it's five guys with guns and the initiative against one guy with a gun on the defensive.



Those people are liars. The appeal is killing. They equate killing with being manly because they are insecure and having the power to kill a lower form of life makes them feel better about themselves. Proof being there are far more valid ways to affirm one's manliness, and the only subcultures in our society that accept this belief are latter-day barbarians who fail at most measures of merit. It's not an attitude that our society needs to endanger itself to facilitate.



It's a statement of fact. Nitros, M80s, and arsenic are illegal because they are useful and fun but dangerous, AR15s are at least as dangerous and less useful but they are not. All those other things you mentioned have inherent utility and are mandated by law to be as safe as humanly possible.

The only reason that this is seen as "baby-proofing" when applied to guns, is gun fetishism. It's not rational.



I didn't engage the defense argument because it's retarded and has been beaten to death already.

Guns don't achieve that goal. If someone wants your stuff and you have a gun, they will get a gun too and make sure they get the drop. Conversely, countries without guns are objectively safer than countries with guns. The Switzerland argument is irrelevant because the Swiss do not use their guns for personal or home defense. And if you think that is the same thing then I suppose it's also your argument that citizens have the right to own a tank, helicopter gunship or nuclear weapon?

No amount of rhetoric about rights defense etc changes what is a cold, hard, objective fact. Countries that rely on guns for personal/home defense are less safe than those that do not.

Arguing on the basis of "rights" is anachronistic. If you want to have the right to own a musket and saber, power to you. I don't have a problem with that.

But the fact that the argument is made proves something: that, again, guns are merely a component in a Rube Goldberg device. There isn't one cohesive argument for guns, there's a bunch of very flawed arguments of extreme inconvenience.

What we are looking at is not a cogent opinion, it's myriad rationalizations.



Funny enough, there is no constitutional right to it because the document was written before it existed. Just goes to show the wild irrelevance of a law written 250 years ago.



Guns require a supply chain and industrial base. Drugs and people do not. A bunch of criminals in the jungles of Panama are not going to churn out sophisticated, precision-engineered weapons. Proof being that the drugs consumed in the US come from down south - but the weapons that Mexicans use to kill each other are all smuggled over the border from the US.



This country once fought a war for the "right" to keep slaves. After the war was over, and the "right" was forever lost, some disgruntled person wrote a book called Gone With The Wind QQing about how everything sucks now that their right to own black people got taken away.

I don't see any sane person losing sleep over losing the right to own a gun any more than losing the right to own a person because in fact they are exactly the same thing which is something that is not a right at all, because both inherently intrude on the rights of others.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The gun enthusiasts of these boards are willing to grasp for any low-hanging fruit they can in their quest to justify their positions, aren't they.. I have yet to hear a single objectively good and plausible reason to own a gun.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

i grew up in a shitty area. i've heard shots more then i should have, i've known people who die. i own it for safety.

it doesn't matter what anyone tells you, you don't want to believe it. i would beg for a mod to nuke this thread to end the endless cock waving but it will just happen again.

i can't wait to hear that that's not why i own it, i'm lying to myself, i don't actually know the thoughts that go through my head, etc.

I'm more concerned that anyone younger than me owns a firearm.

Whether you're responsible or not isn't at issue. It's just weird to me.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

How many of the anti-gun advocates here have fired a gun?

Yo.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh