TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

RE: 13 Dead 59 Shot in Chicago over Father's Day Weekend

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People really think that more violence is the result in gun technology over the decline in societal values and morals? Interesting.
If a gun a hundred years ago, in the hands of a shooter, could only get out 1 shot and a gun today can get out hundreds in the same time frame then yes it is a factor.

No, it isn't. Because the one thing that hasn't changed is that a gun requires a person to shoot it. Therefor - the change in the PEOPLE and their values is what matters.
They are BOTH factors, LL, that's what makes attempting to solve the problem so very difficult.
Which would you rather be facing? A gun that shoots one bullet & needs to be reloaded OR the choice of gun used by mass shooters?
flan
p.s. And it is incredibly insulting to beat that old tired horse..."Guns don't kill people..."

I don't believe there is such a gun...almost all of them are multiple ammo guns...

FNW · Guru

Even the boys' nerf guns are multiple ammo...

burns07 · Guru

Which would you rather be facing? A gun that shoots one bullet & needs to be reloaded OR the choice of gun used by mass shooters?

flan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

if I'M armed it really wouldn't matter--one, maybe two rounds is all that's required

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

burns07 wrote:

Which would you rather be facing? A gun that shoots one bullet & needs to be reloaded OR the choice of gun used by mass shooters?

flan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

if I'M armed it really wouldn't matter--one, maybe two rounds is all that's required

We would rather you were unarmed...

flan

chef · Guru

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People really think that more violence is the result in gun technology over the decline in societal values and morals? Interesting.
If a gun a hundred years ago, in the hands of a shooter, could only get out 1 shot and a gun today can get out hundreds in the same time frame then yes it is a factor.

No, it isn't. Because the one thing that hasn't changed is that a gun requires a person to shoot it. Therefor - the change in the PEOPLE and their values is what matters.
You are being deliberately obtuse OF COURSE it makes a difference how many shots you can get out in a minute. jeeeze... I'm done with you, you are completely unreasonable and argumentative today.

The number of shots possible doesn't have anything to do with the gun actually being fired. Unless the gun malfunctions, it takes a person to squeeze the trigger - whether it's 1 shot or 100.

Ohfour · Hooker

If anyone at the Orlando club had been packing, they would have been able to take him out. He reloaded multiple times. During those times, someone could have shot him...

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
burns07 wrote:

Which would you rather be facing? A gun that shoots one bullet & needs to be reloaded OR the choice of gun used by mass shooters?

flan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

if I'M armed it really wouldn't matter--one, maybe two rounds is all that's required

We would rather you were unarmed...
flan

I am NOT part of that we.

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People really think that more violence is the result in gun technology over the decline in societal values and morals? Interesting.
If a gun a hundred years ago, in the hands of a shooter, could only get out 1 shot and a gun today can get out hundreds in the same time frame then yes it is a factor.

No, it isn't. Because the one thing that hasn't changed is that a gun requires a person to shoot it. Therefor - the change in the PEOPLE and their values is what matters.
They are BOTH factors, LL, that's what makes attempting to solve the problem so very difficult.
Which would you rather be facing? A gun that shoots one bullet & needs to be reloaded OR the choice of gun used by mass shooters?
flan
p.s. And it is incredibly insulting to beat that old tired horse..."Guns don't kill people..."

Why is it insulting?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

chef wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People really think that more violence is the result in gun technology over the decline in societal values and morals? Interesting.
If a gun a hundred years ago, in the hands of a shooter, could only get out 1 shot and a gun today can get out hundreds in the same time frame then yes it is a factor.

No, it isn't. Because the one thing that hasn't changed is that a gun requires a person to shoot it. Therefor - the change in the PEOPLE and their values is what matters.
You are being deliberately obtuse OF COURSE it makes a difference how many shots you can get out in a minute. jeeeze... I'm done with you, you are completely unreasonable and argumentative today.

The number of shots possible doesn't have anything to do with the gun actually being fired. Unless the gun malfunctions, it takes a person to squeeze the trigger - whether it's 1 shot or 100.

apple:

Are you taking notes?????

flan

chef · Guru

apple wrote:
Dear flan,

Lawnmowers don't cut grass, people do.

:)

True. Lawnmowers are not sentient beings and do not act of their own accord. Ditto for guns.

apple · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
If anyone at the Orlando club had been packing, they would have been able to take him out. He reloaded multiple times. During those times, someone could have shot him...

Maybe, if they were not drunk...as often happens in night clubs.

Maybe, if they were a good shot and didn't catch someone else in the crossfire.

Maybe, if they didn't freeze in panic, as often happens to untrained civilians in a live shooter situation.

Ya, maybe... oh and then maybe another good civilian, not drunk, not shaken and with good eyesight might shoot the other good civilian because he is a man with a gun...shooting. And so on....

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People really think that more violence is the result in gun technology over the decline in societal values and morals? Interesting.
If a gun a hundred years ago, in the hands of a shooter, could only get out 1 shot and a gun today can get out hundreds in the same time frame then yes it is a factor.

No, it isn't. Because the one thing that hasn't changed is that a gun requires a person to shoot it. Therefor - the change in the PEOPLE and their values is what matters.
You are being deliberately obtuse OF COURSE it makes a difference how many shots you can get out in a minute. jeeeze... I'm done with you, you are completely unreasonable and argumentative today.

The number of shots possible doesn't have anything to do with the gun actually being fired. Unless the gun malfunctions, it takes a person to squeeze the trigger - whether it's 1 shot or 100.
apple:
Are you taking notes?????
flan

It's truly sad, Flan, that a librarian would rather mock than contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

It's truly sad, chef, that any intelligent person would think that stating the obvious was contributing to the conversation...

flan

apple · Guru

lol...stop it.

I've used up my snickering quota for the day!

apple · Guru

So...

A guy walks into a bar.

He has a gun.

Would you rather he had a gun that had to be reloaded after each shot.OR... Would you rather he had an automatic weapon that continuously fires rounds?

Oh ya...YOU are in the bar.

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
So...

A guy walks into a bar.

He has a gun.

Would you rather he had a gun that had to be reloaded after each shot.OR... Would you rather he had an automatic weapon that continuously fires rounds?

Oh ya...YOU are in the bar.

Again, those really do not exist. There are some collectable single shots, but most guns hold at LEAST 6 rounds...

Oh, and automatic weapons are banned...just sayin...

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 22nd of June 2016 04:50:07 PM

burns07 · Guru

Maybe, if they were a good shot and didn't catch someone else in the crossfire.

Maybe, if they didn't freeze in panic, as often happens to untrained civilians in a live shooter situation.
____________________________________________________________________________

bs--how many live shooter situations have you ever been in ? how many people have you ever actually shot ? you're opinion is based again on sheer speculation--what if the sky falls ? what if the roof collapses ?

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
It's truly sad, chef, that any intelligent person would think that stating the obvious was contributing to the conversation...

flan

LOL! Your hypocrisy is showing.

It's clearly NOT obvious to you since you have such an issue with the maxim: Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people. If it were obvious, you wouldn't feel the need to mock that maxim on multiple threads.

But, you go right ahead and think that guns act of their own accord. As for myself, I will continue to be thankful that I'm intelligent enough to know that guns are not sentient beings.

Oh, btw, since you weren't creative enough to use your own words ... Flan wanna cracker? biggrin

apple · Guru

burns07 wrote:

Maybe, if they were a good shot and didn't catch someone else in the crossfire.

Maybe, if they didn't freeze in panic, as often happens to untrained civilians in a live shooter situation.
____________________________________________________________________________

bs--how many live shooter situations have you ever been in ? how many people have you ever actually shot ? you're opinion is based again on sheer speculation--what if the sky falls ? what if the roof collapses ?

I suppose you have been and you are an expert on this.

Truth is no I have never shot anyone, have you? I have never been in a mass shooting, have you?
I do have a very good friend who served in Iraq, he is quite adamant that most Americans have their heads up their arses if they think they can and will act like a professional in a live shooter situation.

chef · Guru

apple wrote:
So...

A guy walks into a bar.

He has a gun.

Would you rather he had a gun that had to be reloaded after each shot.OR... Would you rather he had an automatic weapon that continuously fires rounds?

Oh ya...YOU are in the bar.

I'd rather he follow the law. Oh wait. Criminals don't care about laws.

The only gun I'm aware of that needs reloaded after each round is the musket. At least, I think that's the one that the shooter had to manually load the powder and round each time. Could be wrong.

However, assuming single shot guns are currently available, of course I'd pick that one. But, it still doesn't change the fact that the gun doesn't act of its own accord - a person has to squeeze the trigger.

apple · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
apple wrote:
So...

A guy walks into a bar.

He has a gun.

Would you rather he had a gun that had to be reloaded after each shot.OR... Would you rather he had an automatic weapon that continuously fires rounds?

Oh ya...YOU are in the bar.
Again, those really do not exist. There are some collectable single shots, but most guns hold at LEAST 6 rounds...
Oh, and automatic weapons are banned...just sayin...

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 22nd of June 2016 04:50:07 PM

Single-shot rifles hold a single round of ammunition and require manual reloading after each shot fired, then there are bolt action, lever action.

The weapon of choice for mass shooter situations is assault weapons.<-- an American term.

burns07 · Guru

I do have a very good friend who served in Iraq, he is quite adamant that most Americans have their heads up their arses if they think they can and will act like a professional in a live shooter situation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yet another telling statement on your " knowledge " and " experience " with the subject

lord............

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
apple wrote:
So...

A guy walks into a bar.

He has a gun.

Would you rather he had a gun that had to be reloaded after each shot.OR... Would you rather he had an automatic weapon that continuously fires rounds?

Oh ya...YOU are in the bar.
Again, those really do not exist. There are some collectable single shots, but most guns hold at LEAST 6 rounds...
Oh, and automatic weapons are banned...just sayin...

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 22nd of June 2016 04:50:07 PM
Single-shot rifles hold a single round of ammunition and require manual reloading after each shot fired, then there are bolt action, lever action.
The weapon of choice for mass shooter situations is assault weapons.<-- an American term.

YOU said automatic weapons. Those are banned...

Ohfour · Hooker

Oh, and single shot weapons are rare...I don't know of anyone that even OWNS one of those. A collector maybe...

apple · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Oh, and single shot weapons are rare...I don't know of anyone that even OWNS one of those. A collector maybe...

Okay, can we agree on just one thing?

Some guns are made to kill faster and more efficiently than others?

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Oh, and single shot weapons are rare...I don't know of anyone that even OWNS one of those. A collector maybe...
Okay, can we agree on just one thing?
Some guns are made to kill faster and more efficiently than others?

Yes, but not to the extent you would like to believe.

MOST guns made in the last few decades are semi-automatic.

burns07 · Guru

actually the most effective weapon for close range (6 meters or less) is a 12ga shotgun loaded w/00--multiple lethal hits with one round--unfortunately not usable by the good guys in a group setting indoors

Ohfour · Hooker

burns07 wrote:

actually the most effective weapon for close range (6 meters or less) is a 12ga shotgun loaded w/00--multiple lethal hits with one round--unfortunately not usable by the good guys in a group setting indoors

And not real easy to carry around!

My PMR-30 is light, concealable, and holds 30 rounds. Hollow tips will blow a 3 foot hole in the back of someone...

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Honestly, the scariest sound when you are up to no good is the ****ing of a pump shot gun.

It generally stops people in their tracks.

apple · Guru

Ya, you've seen this in the movies no doubt. lol

Ohfour · Hooker

G says the same thing. There is no other sound like it...

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I want a colt like the one on my favorite show.

tumblr_inline_mg2t54JSvP1qhyq09 (1).jpg

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

apple wrote:
Ya, you've seen this in the movies no doubt. lol

No.

I've seen it in action.

Heck, I won't lie, it's stopped me in my tracks back in my wild days.

apple · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
apple wrote:
Ya, you've seen this in the movies no doubt. lol
No.
I've seen it in action.
Heck, I won't lie, it's stopped me in my tracks back in my wild days.

It is a very distinct sound.

The same with stilettos on concrete or tile. Mens heads turn, they know that sound.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

apple wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
apple wrote:
Ya, you've seen this in the movies no doubt. lol
No.
I've seen it in action.
Heck, I won't lie, it's stopped me in my tracks back in my wild days.
It is a very distinct sound.

The same with stilettos on concrete or tile. Mens heads turn, they know that sound.

Yep.

burns07 · Guru

It is a very distinct sound.
______________________

amen

______________________

that's one hell of an engraving job on that colt--mother-of-pearl grips, too--wow

have my father's .45 he flew with in WWII--he had it nickel-plated in germany after the war with ivory grips a la Patton

the sights on those damned things are the pits but have left it original--still fires/functions flawlessly

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

burns07 wrote:
It is a very distinct sound.
______________________

amen

______________________

that's one hell of an engraving job on that colt--mother-of-pearl grips, too--wow

have my father's .45 he flew with in WWII--he had it nickel-plated in germany after the war with ivory grips a la Patton

the sights on those damned things are the pits but have left it original--still fires/functions flawlessly

I love the engraving.

My dad has his dad's side arm from WWII.

It's a .45 as well.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
People really think that more violence is the result in gun technology over the decline in societal values and morals? Interesting.
If a gun a hundred years ago, in the hands of a shooter, could only get out 1 shot and a gun today can get out hundreds in the same time frame then yes it is a factor.

No, it isn't. Because the one thing that hasn't changed is that a gun requires a person to shoot it. Therefor - the change in the PEOPLE and their values is what matters.
They are BOTH factors, LL, that's what makes attempting to solve the problem so very difficult.
Which would you rather be facing? A gun that shoots one bullet & needs to be reloaded OR the choice of gun used by mass shooters?
flan
p.s. And it is incredibly insulting to beat that old tired horse..."Guns don't kill people..."

They don't make guns that only shoot one bullet, flan. Perhaps learning a little about guns before commenting on them would be helpful. Revolvers have the least amount - and they usually shoot at least 6 or 7.