Meh, she's just another selfish poster siding with horrible people when there is one point of intersection with them. It's nice to know she'd vote for internment camps and for anti-LGBQTI laws if it meant she could keep her hand gun...

I wouldn't. But you can keep making baseless assertions all night if you like.

Pretty amazing we go from me describing a few ways in which hand guns are practical to me voting for internment camps and anti LGBTI laws. Why hasn't anyone mentioned the one armed person thing? I'm sure we could get to me supporting republicans cutting everyone's arms off.

I agree that the gun could easily make her less safe. I was responding to the poster who mentioned how terrible it would be to live with that kind of fear - and I wouldn't have the slightest idea of what life would be like for her after the fact.

If owning a gun helps to give her piece of mind with the trade-off being that her life may be a fraction of a % less safe, I wouldn't judge.

Not sure it's quite that simple. UK had 230 deaths from people over the drink driving limit last year (up from 200). And as far as alcohol goes we drink more in the UK than the US.

So the problem seems to be something more than alcohol

You do. You've already said you carry a gun for self defence. That's driven by fear.

He lasted what, a week before going back to Lirva-posting. Containment sub-forum when?

course, but only stuff that matters. bump stocks and all that bollocks dont matter. the fact that ppl on the gun control side in america even entertain such talk is a massive win for the NRA

the issue is this: easy access to guns make it really trivially easy for anyone to kill another person, and as a result loads of people are being murdered

it dont matter what fancy accessories ppl like to have hanging off their gun, or what classification of gun it is, or how large the magazine is. they all belong in the bin

--

as an aside, i always find it amusing when gun buffoons say stuff like actually that's not even technically a semi-automatic in these sorts of conversations. no1 cares

'do bad things sometimes'


Rather glib way of waving away thousands of needless deaths every year.

I don't think Lirva is AIDSing up the thread in the old trollish Lirva way. It's more of a matter as when you're a hangun owner and your defense of ownership is because lolbears when you and some huge % of gun owners are never in proximity of said lolbears you should probably can come up with a better justification that the rest of us might be empathetic with.

The thing is there are very few to almost no places that outright ban all guns. In a lot of places you can use a gun for hunting, target practice, etc. You just can't or it's very difficult to just own a gun to carry around with you for no particular reason or keep one at home for no particular reason.

We can do the same here without the lurid fantasies of jack booted thugs kicking down doors for guns. Just take a page out of the voter suppression handbook and make it very difficult to get a gun while still making it technically possible to get.

this same poster telling you to educate yourself also opined the other day for a return to the good ol' days of principled fiscal conservatism embodied by the likes of GWB, for example

In order for a handgun to protect against a bear you pretty much have to shoot the bear in the mouth on a certain angle or get it in the eye. The skull is too thick for just about any non .50 cal handgun. The bullet will not penetrate the bones of a bear.

If it was on the same ballot as protecting your current 2A rights you'd vote for it anyway, that's what you've said isn't it?

We flipped a vast number of Congress seats from people with an A from the NRA to people with an F. I don't buy this at all

My understanding is they were literally talking about handgun's designed for hunting bears.

Oh **** FF is Lirva? Jesus this all makes a lot more sense all of a sudden

It actually does matter, because they are legal in the vast majority of states in the US, and that's a problem.

In the US you can buy semi automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47. Semi automatic means when you pull the trigger and the hammer strikes, it fires a round and cycles another round into the chamber of the barrel. You let off the trigger and pull it again and it fires again. Your rate of fire is limited to how fast you can pull the trigger, let off the trigger, and pull it again.

Compare now with fully automatic guns. With fully auto, you pull the trigger and keep it pulled and it keeps firing rounds. Your rate of fire is greatly increased and is only limited by the design of the gun.

Bump stocks are ... wait, I clearly better describe to you what a stock is first. The stock is the butt end of a rifle which you press up into your shoulder when you raise the gun into firing position.

Bump stocks are stocks with springs in them. They are attached to semi auto versions of AK-47s or AR-15s, and when the gun is fired the recoil compresses the spring which then forces the gun forward and back into your trigger finger. This essentially makes semi automatic rifles fully automatic, and I think these should be banned federally.

nobody ****ing cares, jesus christ

we already ****ing know what they do you stupid ****

I'm looking down the hole at the end of the long thing right now and nothing's happening. Is this like one of those kaleidoscope things where you have to pull the lever to advance the slide?

yes well that all sounds very bonkers i must say

im fine with allowing bump stocks to stay legal, they will be fairly harmless when all the guns have been melted

The bump stocks thing is like the woman who gets asked if she'll be paid to sleep with a guy for a million bucks and says yes but won't for a dollar.

Bump stocks don't make a gun fully auto they just reduce the time it takes to pull the trigger repeatedly. If they should be banned because they're dangerous we've already decided that the rate that bullets can go out of a barrel is the problem, we're just disagreeing on how fast.

like its seriously lol that the current mainstream debate in america on this whole issue is 'shall we ban this accessory which turns a semi automatic weapon into a quasi-automatic one, so that we can save a handful of sklansky lives next time a cretin decides to take some people with him on the way out (which will almost certainly be very soon)'

that's where the battle lines are drawn currently. really. ****ing daft

I saw a revolver advertised as "bear stopping" at a gun store once. That thing was huge. It looked like the cylinder was repurposed from a Gatling gun.



(LOL at us for even discussing the bear attack scenario)

i think it's only fitting that EV in a political context be referred to as Dlansky Bucks

btw i would be willing to sign up for the extirpation of bears from mainland usa if it means we can get rid of guns