[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/pony/ - Pony

Ponies and General Posting
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1034371

File: 1589601203452.jpg (359.62 KB, 2050x900, 41:18, Mosin-Nagant_M1891_Dragoon….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Every surplus rifle with bolt action is cheap some time in history. Mosin-Nagant rifle is most numerous of all infantry rifle. It is rifle that wins October Revolution. It is rifle that carries infantry of Allied Forces in Europe through Great Patriotic War. Mosin-Nagant rifle serves for more than century, old stolen Russian receiver is still use by sniper of Finnish army.

You can be happy with 40,000-rouble rifle with no history and plastic stock who kills paper target and deer with no weapon or fighting heart.

I can be happy with 2,000-rouble rifle that is artifact of military history and kills Tsarist and Nazi alike.

Joy of having Mosin-Nagant rifle is joy that money cannot afford.

 No.1034372

File: 1589602070351.gif (185.18 KB, 525x525, 1:1, be880a319f2c4996ed8390eb53….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.1034373

>>1034371
Is this a reference to a meme or something?

 No.1034374


 No.1034375

>>1034374
Isn't that the board with all the gun nuts?

 No.1034376

File: 1589602706401.png (60.26 KB, 876x319, 876:319, sbr.png) ImgOps Google

>>1034375
Yes!
What do you think of the aesthetics of this rifle?

 No.1034377

>>1034376
it's a handgun with a rifle stock(?) on it? It looks unwieldy.

 No.1034378

File: 1589603014827.jpg (16.18 KB, 342x445, 342:445, atf-guy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034377
>it's a handgun
Aha!  That's what a normal person would say!  But according to the ATF, it is actually a short-barreled rifle, not a handgun!

 No.1034379

>>1034378
I find your claim dubious.

 No.1034381

File: 1589603961234.jpg (97.23 KB, 640x360, 16:9, med_1564398036_image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034379
See for yourself!  Adding a stock to a pistol is legally considered to be reconfiguring it as a rifle.
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

 No.1034384

File: 1589605864734.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

i know several people who own a mosin-nagant, in real life. they always tell me, this is a good gun to start learning with

i do not want a gun, but i think it is very interesting, and that it still works so well is very interesting too!

 No.1034386

File: 1589607879468.jpg (223.26 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 1441249423824.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034384
>mosin-nagant
>they always tell me, this is a good gun to start learning with
They be trollin' you!  Start with a Ruger 10/22 carbine (or basically anything chambered in .22LR) instead.  Your wallet [1], your shoulder, and your ears will thank you.  The Mosin is loud as fuck, even when you double up on ear protection, and it kicks like a mule.  And it isn't even a good self-defense rifle, especially in dense urban area like NYC.  It will penetrate right through a home invader and continue on into your neighbor's home.

[1] 7.62x54r ammo costs 10 times what .22LR ammo costs, per round.

 No.1034391

>>1034381
But this feels like nitpicking to try and make the ATF appear as incompetent rather than having to make strange concessions and rules to make sure everything keeps operating smoothly. It feels like it has an ulterior motivation.

 No.1034392

File: 1589608947015.png (43.75 KB, 300x200, 3:2, 329394000.png) ImgOps Google

>>1034386
Moony does not need a rifle.

 No.1034427

File: 1589612790757.jpg (199.32 KB, 1124x1124, 1:1, UIAWyss.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034391
Oh, the ATF is definitely incompetent.
>>1034392
Everyone needs a rifle. They're the best tool for self sufficiency.  And everyone needs some self sufficiency.
A rifle grants probably the highest return of self sufficiency to cost and space. Covers a large bulk of basic needs, without excessive requirements. Just some 200$ for the rifle and some ammo, a bit of oil sprayed on every now and again depending on your humidity, and a little bit of practice get you the means to protect and provide for yourself.

It's something that ought to be in everyone's home.

 No.1034440

>>1034427
It feels like you have specific gripes with the way they handle certain regulations on guns rather than them being incompetent.

Moony lives in a city, and as far as I know he's not big on hunting. And while I can't speak for him, from what I know of him he doesn't seem the type to casually take another human life. So he literally does not need a rifle because neither of it's two uses (killing animals, killing people) apply to him.

 No.1034443

File: 1589628918065.png (1.14 MB, 1500x1500, 1:1, 1507332432454.png) ImgOps Google

Low cost is certainly an appeal, but if I were to really want another bolt-action rifle besides my Winchesters, I'd shell out for a Sako TRG-42 chambered for Lapua.

 No.1034444

File: 1589637773354.jpg (200.37 KB, 682x1023, 2:3, 300m_shooters_in_two_posit….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034440
The rationale for regulating short-barreled rifles (SBRs) is that they are more concealable than long-barreled rifles.  There was also a history of violent criminals sawing off part of the barrel of a rifle to make it more concealable.  But adding a stock to a handgun makes it less concealable, and there is no history of violent criminals adding a stock to handguns.  It's conceivable that this rule (i.e., the rule that attaching a stock to a handgun requires pre-approval by the ATF and payment of a $200 tax stamp) wouldn't even survive rational-basis review in court, and I don't see how it could survive under the much stricter review imposed by Heller.  So yes, I think the ATF is incompetent.  Or, another possibility is that they are actively malevolent rather than incompetent and deliberately ignore the highest law of this country.

> he doesn't seem the type to casually take another human life.
Shooting an assailant in self-defense is hardly casual.  

>it's two uses (killing animals, killing people)
You forgot plinking and the sport of target shooting.  But I guess that plinking opportunities don't really exist in highly urban areas.

 No.1034445

File: 1589638629133.jpg (177.51 KB, 563x800, 563:800, pnp389310.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034440
I feel that the way they handle 'certain guns' is incompetent.

Not wanting to hunt, and not ever needing to hunt are two different things.
I might not want to sit in an emergency shelter, or run a loud and smelly generator, or deal with the mess a fire extinguisher creates.
Those are all things I benefit from in an emergency situation, though

 No.1034446

Have gun people become the new vegans?

 No.1034447

>>1034446
What happened to the old vegans?

 No.1034450

>>1034447
They all passed away to malnutrition. It is very sad.

 No.1034468

>>1034444
Ok, so the rule was to address sawed-offs. So there's a reason for it, even if the same rule could be applied to a hand-gun in a silly way.

>>1034445
Well unless society crumbles, then you wont ever really need to hunt either. And preparing for the end of the world  like that is what these people called "Preppers" do, and they're nuts.

 No.1034469

>>1034427
>Everyone needs a rifle. They're the best tool for self sufficiency.  And everyone needs some self sufficiency.

I think what is far more important for self-sufficiency and adaptability is a combination of critical-thinking skills, humility, and being well practiced with rhetoric.

When you've got those things you can be a responsible gun enthusiast and not become a potential unwitting facist foot soldier because you interpret the most common narratives amongst certain segments of the gun enthusiasts uncritically.

 No.1034472

File: 1589654672450.jpg (71.33 KB, 550x448, 275:224, 1399427232523.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034468
Doesn't have to be the end of the world. While preparing for a specific unlikely event is silly, sure, putting in a little safety net for yourself is anything but.
It's hardly a bad idea to keep a supply of non-perishable goods in your cupboard, for example. Same for buying a generator. Lot of scenarios where you might need food and be unable to get it, or need power during an extended outage.

There's a difference between wrapping yourself in safety pillows, and wearing a seatbelt.
>>1034469
>I think what is far more important for self-sufficiency and adaptability is a combination of critical-thinking skills, humility, and being well practiced with rhetoric.
I'd definitely agree, 100%. Being able to truly think for yourself, think logically through problems, consider what's actually important to you, will help far more than anything else in life.
Better to have the right mindset if you're out in the wilderness, than just having a pile of tools.

But, you can have both, of course. Not like they prevent eachother.

>When you've got those things you can be a responsible gun enthusiast and not become a potential unwitting facist foot soldier because you interpret the most common narratives amongst certain segments of the gun enthusiasts uncritically.
I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here. I suspect a lot of this here is particularly politically charged rhetoric of a presumed hostile political tribe, but, it's not really got any practical meaning to me as a result.

 No.1034491

Man who argues one shot death by proud military calibers is fucking fool. I explain why. 

This man looks for pistol to hide on person to shoot man from street who would do crime to him. Man who would do crime is not like banzai charge of Japanese infantry. He is not in "ground of death" from epistle of wise Sun Tzu. Man who would do crime is not fighting for life or freedom of people. He fight only for things, he can get somewhere else from someone else. This man does not fight to death. This man fight only until is clear man with pistol resists and so he run away. 

Pistol of 9 millimeters or caliber of .45 is great shocking hole in body. Is giant spout of blood and pain of mortal wound. More men die from bullet of these two calibers than all others in history of world. 

I advise and you listen. Last time army carry bad pistol into combat was Nambu of Japanese Empire. Since that time millions of men carry pistol of 9 millimeters. Is good enough for them with stupid Geneva Treaty ball bullet. Is good enough for you with ten roubles per cartridge hollow-nose bullet and fancy brass of nickel plating. You practice with many magazine, you carry many cartridge. When man waves gun at you, fill him with bullets fast and straight. More holes is better than big holes. Carry pistol with large magazine and many cartridge. 

In this way you defeat criminal.

 No.1034495

>>1034491
I was under the impression that besides the Type 94 (which was issued to vehicle crews and noncombatants) that the Nambu had an excellent reputation.

 No.1034499

>>1034472
Then explain why you would need a rifle for self-defense, rather than a hand gun.

 No.1034500

File: 1589677152742.png (11.63 KB, 376x227, 376:227, Passed Torch.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>1034446
>>1034447
>>1034450

That's getting saved.

 No.1034501

File: 1589677333657.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>1034468
>Well unless society crumbles, then you wont ever really need to hunt either.

Society is crumbling a little as we speak.  It won't be the kind of crazy Mad Max world some preppers expect (hope for?), but our food  chains are being disrupted.  It's very conceivable that people might at the least benefit from being able to hunt.

 No.1034502

>>1034501
I think the food chains being disrupted is a far cry from "society crumbling". And nothing says they can't recover.

A lot of our old systems are being exposed as broken. But it's a chance to build new ones, not to cling to the old ways that got us here.

 No.1034503

File: 1589678033435.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>1034502
>A lot of our old systems are being exposed as broken. But it's a chance to build new ones, not to cling to the old ways that got us here.

There's a lot I hope changes as we clean everything up here.  But if there's no pork for a couple of months maybe the family might want a deer is all I'm saying.

 No.1034505

File: 1589680130092.png (51.8 KB, 236x301, 236:301, 700Sylveon_Dream.png) ImgOps Google

>>1034503
Most people don't live near deer grazing country. People who do more than likely already own a hunting rifle to keep from being sodomized by the banjo hillbillies.

 No.1034538

File: 1589698757985.jpg (87.65 KB, 750x600, 5:4, Soviet Engineering_7e53e9_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034499
Easier to use, a lot more obvious, reaches out farther, and has a lot more utility.
Personally, I think a shotgun is a bit better. You don't lose that much outside of the extreme end range, and get something that's a lot more variable for whatever you need.

In any case, handguns are sidearms. Sidearms are good when you have to carry it every day, or hide it. If you don't have to, there's not really much reason to take it over a larger firearm

 No.1034540

File: 1589699027116.png (2.56 MB, 1382x929, 1382:929, deer population.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>1034505
If you're on the eastern side of the US, there's a whole lot of deer.
If you're not, there's plenty of other things out there.

Drive out of the city for about a mile, and you'll find plenty of wildlife. It's not like you've got to be out in the complete middle of nowhere, here.

 No.1034549

File: 1589714821412.png (253.59 KB, 745x1024, 745:1024, Well aren't you just a tre….png) ImgOps Google

>>1034538
>>1034499
You can also smack someone pretty hard with a rifle. When it comes down to it a rifle is also a big stick, compared to a handgun which is more like a rock.

If we're going full memey, with a bayonet your long gun is also now a spear. One of the single most effective weapons in human history.

 No.1034567

File: 1589734580597.jpg (74.03 KB, 1500x398, 750:199, ruger-19100.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034499
Speaking from personal experience, I'd say that a rifle is MUCH easier to shoot accurately than a handgun.  Unless you have a lot of experience and are confident you won't jerk the trigger in a high-stress situation, you're probably more likely to hit your intended target with a rifle than a handgun.

A down side of a rifle is that its heaviness gets physically tiring if you hold it in position for a long time.  So if you have a meth head trying unsuccessfully to bust down your door for 10 minutes, that might be an issue.

Another thing is that many common rifle rounds will really fuck up your hearing if you shoot them unsuppressed indoors without ear protection.  I bought a pistol-caliber carbine (pic related), which will only moderately fuck up my ears if I need to shoot it indoors without ear protection.  (I do have some electronic amplifying muffs that I plan to don in a home-defense situation if there is time.)

 No.1034576

>>1034540
I'm not even going to think about that while McDonalds is still open.

>>1034538
I still don't really see the need for something like that in a modern society unless you frequently go hunting. But I guess owning a hunting rifle CAN be justified for that reason, hunting. Other types of fire arms don't have that kind of justification.

>>1034567
I don't own a gun. I briefly considered purchasing one as self-defense when Trump was elected, but could not come up with the money to do so.

 No.1034582

File: 1589752788284.jpg (319.1 KB, 834x555, 278:185, 1373336949423.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034567
Another thing to mention is that overpenetration is an issue. Going through your house and damaging your expensive stuff isn't exactly great. Matters a little less with something like 223, but you'd certainly want to avoid full sized rifle rounds.

Not like you're losing any advantage there, anyway.
>>1034576
And I'm not going to think about a seatbelt while my car's not crashed.
Food supplies can dry up quickly from a wide range of issues. A bad storm for example might leave your area without power for a few weeks, if it's big enough.
Never hurts to have some prepwork just in case. Same reason you'd have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, or a toolbox in your car. Sure, you probably won't need it. But, a chance is a chance, and so doing some basic precaution work is never a bad idea.

>I still don't really see the need for something like that in a modern society unless you frequently go hunting. But I guess owning a hunting rifle CAN be justified for that reason, hunting. Other types of fire arms don't have that kind of justification.
Depends on what you mean by "other rifles", but, I'll say that the AR-15 works as an excellent small game rifle. 223/5.56 is a light round that's not going to destroy the meat, and so in some situation where I'm having to hunt for a meal, I'd probably go with it. Sure, if I'm going after larger game, it'll be a bit more work, but, you can still kill a dear with it and I'm more likely to see the small stuff in my yard, odds are.

And, of course, self defense is another good reason, besides.

 No.1034583

File: 1589753027282.jpg (160.61 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034576
If you're really strapped for cash, while I can't vouch necessarily for exactly how reliable it is, the semi-auto Hatfield SAS 12 gauge Walmart sells is a pretty good choice. Think I picked up mine for something around 250$ with tax, and a good 12 gauge shotgun'd do excellent for any home defense issues you might face.
It's worked well enough for me with whatever I've run through it. Little heavy, and it's not the best machined, but it seems to get the job done well enough.

Apparently they go on sale now and again for 200$. I got mine for the 230$ pricetag

 No.1034585

A rifle is a pretty terrible option for home defense and I'd be skeptical of any firearm advice from someone who argued otherwise.

 No.1034591

File: 1589757404482.jpg (69.02 KB, 600x635, 120:127, 1583731336447.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034585
>A rifle is a pretty terrible option for home defense
Why?  I have 9mm JHP ammo that I can shoot from either my Glock or my Ruger PC Carbine with 16.1-inch barrel.  I think I'm more likely to actually hit my target if I use my carbine, and I live alone and don't plan to actively clear my apartment if someone breaks in, so maneuverability doesn't really concern me.  Do you think really I would be better off with my Glock instead of my carbine?

And for people who do need maneuverability, I think a short-barrel rifle (SBR) might be a good choice if they're willing to go thru the NFA process and pay the $200 tax stamp to acquire it.

In my situation, I don't know of anywhere where I can practice with a shotgun.  (The governor of my state closed the state gamelands and the outdoor shooting ranges on state property.)  So that rules out a shotgun for me.

 No.1034595

File: 1589757884781.png (507.05 KB, 431x620, 431:620, 1387402610579.png) ImgOps Google

>>1034585
Depends on what you mean by 'rifle' I suppose, but, I'd say they'd be pretty solid.
Maybe if you've got a full sized deal, long barrel and stock, bolt action, five rounder, I'd agree. But, an AR15 is plenty short enough with the standard 16 inch barrel to be usable, and any sidefolder's going to be compact enough to use most anywhere.

They might not be the 'best', but, it's pretty hard to beat 30 round capacity on a stable platform. If you're not wanting to deal with ATF nonsense, or make a "pistol" that's basically just a SBR, basic AR-15 is a pretty excellent choice.

 No.1034602

File: 1589759103281.jpg (80.73 KB, 736x488, 92:61, 0991cdf3caaba06b22c9dc06d5….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034591
If you're going to deal with a tax stamp, personally I'd probably go with something like this, in terms of shape.
Personally would want a proper ground-up thing, instead of a slap on stock, but the ability to take glock magazines is pretty rather nice.

Ideally for me, you'd have a pistol-caliber platform with at least 30 round magazines, foregrip, and a sidefolding stock, with my personal caliber preference being something like 10mm.
Assuming you're dealing with in-door situations, that'd cover most anything I could think of. Sidefolder with a barrel only to where the foregrip'd be means you've got all the same maneuverability of a pistol, if you really need it

 No.1034603

.270 WIN is a good round.

 No.1034617

>>1034582
I live in the part of the country called "Tornado Alley", so I know all about "bad storms" knocking out the power. But I live in a big enough city that we've never run out of food.

Yeah, if you live in Banjo Country, that might be a concern. You might wanna keep a hunting rifle and a fishing pole around just in case. But what I'm saying applies to me and not necessarily everyone. I prepare for potential power-outages and natural disasters by keeping a small amount of non-perishable foods, enough for a day or  two, and bottled water around. I do not feel like I need a hunting rifle as things are now.

If I say that no one needs and AR-15, and that society would be safer if we didn't have the tools for mass-shootings around, you'll just try and nit-pick and be overly technical on what is and isn't an "automatic rifle" to avoid discussing the actual topic. That people should not have access to weapons that can kill hundreds of people in seconds.

>>1034583
The gun I considered purchasing was around that price-point to begin with. And it wasn't a rifle, it was a 9mm handgun for self-defense.

But I'm still undecided if I need to buy a gun, or if owning a gun would even be morally right. Even if as a non-white person I would be completely justified in buying a gun for self-defense in Trump's America, I don't want to let fear or paranoia dictate my actions and potentially put me in danger. That's exactly what we criticism them for. So I'll wait until I have steady income, and really seriously contemplate the purchase then.

 No.1034623

File: 1589806199006.jpg (422.07 KB, 1260x1936, 315:484, 1373336036370.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034617
I don't think it's as "middle of nowhere" as you assume for areas where food may be a concern. But, maybe you've got a lot more faith in the system than I do. Personally, I see large cities as more vulnerable, not less so. Bum-fuck nowhere means you're likely to have someone growing things, after all.

>You'll just try and nit-pick and be overly technical on what is and isn't an "automatic rifle" to avoid discussing the actual topic.
Is that really a nitpick?
I would have thought the actual characteristics about the platform you're talking about is highly relevant to whether or not someone "should" own it. As with any subject, being "overly technical" is how you actually find the difference between logically founded rationale, and simple paranoia caused by misinformation.

For example;
>That people should not have access to weapons that can kill hundreds of people in seconds.
The AR-15 is not some magic laser deathbeam. I rather doubt the ability to kill a hundred, let alone hundreds in seconds.

>And it wasn't a rifle, it was a 9mm handgun for self-defense.
There aren't that many actually good cheap pistols at that price. Not unless you're dealing with surplus, anyway. Assuming you want to concealed carry, you're going to want something both reliable and safe. I wouldn't trust half the super cheapo brands out there.
Handguns are a fair ways more finicky with that than rifles.

A gun on its own just like any other inanimate object isn't immoral or going to put you in danger. It's how you use it that determines that. As long as you take effort to be safe, and understand the difference between self defense and murder, you should be fine.

 No.1034651

>>1034617
>keeping a small amount of non-perishable foods, enough for a day or  two,
FEMA recommends at least a 3-day supply.  Personally I keep at least 5 days of non-perishable food that I don't need to cook.  And to prepare for COVID-19 supply-chain disruptions, I'm keeping a month of food (some of which requires cooking, such as dry rice and beans).

>AR-15 ... kill hundreds of people in seconds.
Nobody can even pull the trigger hundreds of times in mere seconds, never mind actually aim and hit people.

>people should not have access to weapons that can kill hundreds of people in seconds.
Unfortunately, many common items can be used to commit mass murder.  Most of the rhetoric against AR-15s comes from ignorance and prejudice.  The AR-15 looks different from traditional hunting rifles, and this unfamiliar appearance makes a lot of people overly scared of it.  But most of the defining features of so-called 'assault weapons' are mostly cosmetic and don't affect how deadly the weapon is.  For example, the pistol grip?  The AR-15 has a pistol grip because its buffer-tube design prevents it from having a traditional stock grip, not because a pistol grip is somehow deadlier.  

>But I'm still undecided if I need to buy a gun, or if owning a gun would even be morally right.
I'd recommend trying to enumerate the costs (including opportunity costs) and benefits.  Especially if you're low on cash, you might be better off forgoing the firearm and instead buying a fire extinguisher or a greater supply of non-perishable food.  A firearm doesn't do much good unless you train with it and practice regularly.  In addition to the cost of the gun itself, you'll need to buy ammo and cleaning equipment and cleaning supplies.  You'll also need to store your firearms properly, the details of which depends on your living situation (do the guns need to be secured against other people living with you?) and the local climate (guns can corrode, especially in humid climates, if you don't use a suitable rust inhibitor).  

 No.1034652

>>1034651
My name fell off.

 No.1034658

File: 1589823674882.jpg (70.68 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 23319303_10154847905371697….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034651
>>1034623
See, this is what I mean. Nitpicking, avoiding the real issue. Most of the deadliest mass shootings in America used these AR-15 weapons. 2017 Law Vegas shooting. 58 killed, 413 wounded. He used Ar-15s. 2016 Orlando Nightclub shooting. 49 dead, 53 wounded. 2012 Sandy Hook shootings. 26 killed, mostly children. If you don't see an issue here, you ignoring the forest for the trees.So If you take the 400 that were wounded in Las Vegas into account, then my claims of "hundreds of people" were not that hyperbolic at all. But still, it's avoiding the real debate and real issue to get caught up in minute details of numbers like that. These guns are used to kill mass amounts of people in a very small window of time.  We should be debating why anyone needs a weapon like this, not the amount of people and size of the timeframe.

 No.1034659

>>1034623
>>1034651
The gun I considered purchasing was called the Smith and Wesson "SD9 VE" the "SD" stands for "self-defense" I'm told, and it seemed to be best value for it's cost. I took into account the availability and cost of the 9mm ammo as well. I also considered taking classes for it, as that is (was?) required to get a conceal carry license. But like I said, I did not end up purchasing it and will be deliberating greatly before I do, if I do.

 No.1034660

File: 1589824594364.jpg (212.76 KB, 600x800, 3:4, Tacticalfork.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1034658
You believe it to be "nitpicking" to avoid the "real issue", frankly, because you're uneducated on the subject. It's not "nitpicking" to point out something blatantly untrue, is blatantly untrue.
You ascribe a mythical level of capability to an arm that you know little to nothing about. Instead of doing research, you declare that ignorance to be perfectly valid, and insist anyone calling out your misinformation is just "nitpicking".
It doesn't work that way.

The third most deadly shooting, Virginia Tech, was done with semi-auto pistols. 2nd if we discount the Las Vegas lot, given the rather heavy amount of suspect circumstances there. Though it wasn't "seconds" anyway, even there.
The 6th most deadly was also a handgun.
And it's not like the AR-15 is the only rifle used, anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Handguns've been used for many mass shootings for ages, and as I understand it, make up the majority.
They're certainly far more prominent in crimes, besides. Leading to the outlook of many gun owners on this particular subject that it's not something based in reason or logic, but rather just flat emotion, paranoia, and a lack of education. Especially given the things always chosen to ban, being largely just attachments that do little besides make the firearm more comfortable for the shooter.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 No.1034663

>>1034660
>>1034660

So, from the perspective of an outsider deliberately rejecting any dogmatic stance on this topic as grossly irresponsible, I might like to comment on sidestepping the actual issues here and calling out hypocrisy wh3n I see it.

The real issue isn't what weapon they use or if they have access to them.

I might say mental health is the issue but the majority of mass shootings and gun violence by "lone wolves" are committed by perfectly mentally healthy individuals. (and on a side note, those same politicians that repeat that rhetoric are also the ones who defund mental health programs)

One doesn't have to be mentally ill to believe nonsense if they are terrified enough.

The real problem with guns in this country is that we're in a culture of fear. And one that romanticizes violence as the solution to one's oppression, thus fearful people having a bias to see what they are afraid of as a threat to their existence and justifying potentially violent responses.

To me the two biggest symbols of what's the core of the problem would be Jodi Mann and Robert Ussery, who in early 2018 were harrasing and arrested after making death threats to the pastor of the Sutherland Springs first Baptist church, a year after 26 of his congregation were killed and 20 other seriously wounded in a mass shooting at his church the year before... because they were convinced he was a "crisis actor".

Now, some might claim that they were, themselves mentally ill. But this conspiracy theory wasn't even new, they picked it up from people like Alex Jones and other promoting similar conspiracy theories. Again, you don't have to be mentally ill to believe nonsense if you are full of fear.

Honestly, conspiracy theorists are reprehensiblly intellectually irresponsible cowards. We don't shame people enough for their intellectual irresponsibility in this country, and the fearful mindset of these mass shooters who at some level are pissing themselves out of fear of the actually innocuous ways other  other people excersize their own freedoms.

 No.1034664

File: 1589830213935.png (202.64 KB, 506x418, 23:19, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>1034663
>I might say mental health is the issue but the majority of mass shootings and gun violence by "lone wolves" are committed by perfectly mentally healthy individuals.
I think this depends a lot on what we call "mentally ill". From what I see, it seems to usually be from largely hopeless individuals believing there's not really anything they can do, beyond something like this.
This seems to be especially the case with school shootings, as it seems the one main tying factor is they're social outcasts as I understand it.
Maybe this falls under "mentally ill", maybe it doesn't. Depends on who you ask, I suppose. It's not something I put a lot of consideration towards, as honestly, I suspect most everyone is to some level anyway and it seems like a rather lousy excuse.

>The real problem with guns in this country is that we're in a culture of fear.
Violent incidents happen around the world. It's not like they're unique. Frankly, violent outbursts are par the course for humans.
I agree that there's a problem with people too fearful. But, I'd say what exactly we're referring between the two of us are quite radically different.
The 24/7 news cycle is I would say a destructive force on society. It gives you every single day, every single hour, something to be worried about beyond your realistic control. Leads to irrationality and panic, depression and a feeling of hopelessness. I'd say it's why so many people these days seem not only incapable of self reliance, but downright hostile to the idea.

To the idea that mass shooters are "conspiracy theorists", though, frankly, I do not believe that in the slightest. I don't think there's anything to back up such an idea. I'm not even sure where you picked it up, as I've never seen the phrase "fearful" attached to a mass shooter. Most of them seem quite calm, from what I have seen. Hopeless, yes, but not fearful. Certainly not "conspiracy theorists".

And of course, what exactly falls under "conspiracy theory" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder...

 No.1034666

>>1034664
>From what I see, it seems to usually be from largely hopeless individuals believing there's not really anything they can do, beyond something like this.

which doesn't necessarily indicate that they are mentally ill, when a person is feeling like you've lost everything and have no future because you've not had a particularly fortunate, feeling on edge and generally terrified is a typical response to that.

>I think this depends a lot on what we call "mentally ill".

From my perspective and from my perspective on human psychology, it seems like these individuals "count" as mentally ill whenever it's convenient for the sake of rhetoric.

>The 24/7 news cycle is I would say a destructive force on society. It gives you every single day, every single hour, something to be worried about beyond your realistic control. Leads to irrationality and panic, depression and a feeling of hopelessness. I'd say it's why so many people these days seem not only incapable of self reliance, but downright hostile to the idea.

Yes the fact that violent outburst happen everywhere indicates something universal about human beings and fear.

>The 24/7 news cycle is I would say a destructive force on society. It gives you every single day, every single hour, something to be worried about beyond your realistic control. Leads to irrationality and panic, depression and a feeling of hopelessness. I'd say it's why so many people these days seem not only incapable of self reliance, but downright hostile to the idea.

And what do you think motivate the media? I mean, exploiting the human negativity bias is a winning strategy in a market where, ultimately, success depends on how much attention you can draw.

That's probably a fact that no matter what, commercial news media will, inevitably, have to be very negativistic, thus the reason we need better media literaccy and just better education in general so that our reasoning about what is most likely true and whatever boring but crucial news the media are not likely to reporting, because it's boring.

And of course, all this means having the discipline for critical thinking skills and bravery to question ideas that feel safer to not doubt.

>To the idea that mass shooters are "conspiracy theorists", though, frankly, I do not believe that in the slightest. I don't think there's anything to back up such an idea. I'm not even sure where you picked it up, as I've never seen the phrase "fearful" attached to a mass shooter. Most of them seem quite calm, from what I have seen. Hopeless, yes, but not fearful. Certainly not "conspiracy theorists".

I am not generalizing them, however the plans to murder mass shooting survivors for being "crisis actors" is something I see as indicative of a common lack of self doubt, and given that they are humans than the most likely explanation for that lack of self-doubt ultimately boils down to fear.

>And of course, what exactly falls under "conspiracy theory" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder...

This is BS. A conspiracy theory is any theory in which some social event is explained as being part of a secret plan. A paraniod on is one in which this plan is assumed to have hostile and nefarious intentions.

The problem with conspiracy theory is their tendency to be rendered unfalsifiable, typically in some form where all evidence to the contrary and the lack of confirming evidence is treated as if it's actually evidence of a cover-up. Hence the lack of intellectual discipline to them.

 No.1034667

File: 1589832662714.png (18.17 KB, 249x290, 249:290, Cornered.png) ImgOps Google

Soft reminder that if you're going to have a particularly serious discussion about gun control it probably belongs on /townhall/.

 No.1034668

>>1034666
>which doesn't necessarily indicate that they are mentally ill,
Which is the problem. It depends on your classification.
Depression, as I'd say this falls under, is something some'd call "mentally ill".

> it seems like these individuals "count" as mentally ill whenever it's convenient for the sake of rhetoric.
Understandable. I think the reverse is equally as true, though.
It's a problem I have with terms like that to begin with.
I'd rather examine the root, regardless of if we call it "mental illness" or not, for most those types of things.

>And what do you think motivate the media? I mean, exploiting the human negativity bias is a winning strategy in a market where, ultimately, success depends on how much attention you can draw.
Oh, that's absolutely why. As a natural side effect of simple biology and instinct, people are more mindful of risks, dangers, threats, and so on. So these things capture the interest more easily.
Problem is, that's a great feature to have for what's directly tangible and in front of you, but absolutely horrible for vague overarching threats well beyond your control.

Big complaint I have there is an obsession with maxing out the economic scale, for things. It's why I rather hate corporations in general.
It's something I always try to relay to people, but, just because EA makes a lot of money by being horrible doesn't mean you can't make a decently large pile of money while sticking with your passions and integrity.
Corporations inevitably abandon that, though, as they're ultimately beholden to their stockholders, and the stockholders are detached from anything but profit really.
But that's a more complex topic.

>however the plans to murder mass shooting survivors for being "crisis actors" is something I see as indicative of a common lack of self doubt
I'm skeptical of how prevalent such plans are.
There's always some loon wanting to do something, after all. Usually the don't do anything, as they're a fair ways from competent.
I don't mean to dismiss them entirely, I just don't think it's indicative of some "common" aspect of humanity.

I will say it's my stance that fear, if anything, builds self doubt. Outside fears can only really distract from that self doubt.

>This is BS. A conspiracy theory is any theory in which some social event is explained as being part of a secret plan.
If by that you're not distinguishing whether or not they could or ultimately are true, then sure. But, most people tend to use "conspiracy theory" as a flat absolute falsehood.

I had assumed you were using it towards the more common usage, typically a dismissive maneuver for dismissing conflicts as beyond even consideration or examination.
It's something of an annoyance. Another one of those items a lot of people use depending on its convenience to their rhetoric.

 No.1034669

>>1034667
I've made a new /townhall/ thread for it here: http://ponyville.us/townhall/res/4945.html

 No.1034671

File: 1589837255481.jpg (116.66 KB, 691x607, 691:607, t02200193_0691060713339192….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Direct impunchment is same as rifle shits where he eats. You see it? Bolt fly forward, chopping cartridge from top of magazine and over feed mouth. Bolt squeezes cartridge into fire chamber. When operator falls the trigger, the hammer shovels the firing pin into primer head. Primer head burst, discharging main propellor charge and bullet is farted from chamber down barrel. Gas pressures inside barrel push on bullet and on walls of barrel but also into hole facing bolt edifice. Gases full of copper, lead, and carbon fouling sewage push backward through hole because gaseous pressure, bolt edifice flies to rear, expunger grasps and expunges the empty shell. Then all whole begin again. Is basically same as shits where he eats.

In piston style rifle is also gas tube. Gaseous pressure flows through gas block hole to piston face. Gaseous with carbon, lead, and carbon fouling flows against piston inside gas tube. Rifle in this way shits in toilet but cartridges feed in clean area. Piston can be affixed to bolt edifice like example in Kalashnikov sistema or separately only giving shove to bolt edifice like in Simonov sistema.

 No.1034701

File: 1589855042326.gif (138.9 KB, 500x600, 5:6, 156321.gif) ImgOps Google

Preferred predator rifle?

 No.1034715

File: 1589861368649.png (24.71 KB, 665x868, 95:124, 327712__safe_oc_artist-col….png) ImgOps Google

>>1034701

The predator didn't really use any rifles, did he?  I vaguely remember some guns, but not any rifles.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]