Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago

12-12-2012 , 04:44 AM
It's not, but one round doesn't always do the job.
12-12-2012 , 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
A machine gun is a fantastic weapon if I'm attempting to quickly dispatch 100 men charging at me.
Or mowing down people in a shopping mall.
12-12-2012 , 08:58 AM
You're quite sure fully automatic weapons are cheap and legal and easily obtained, aren't you?

Just as a bit of trivia, when's the last time in the US a mass shooter used a weapon with F/A capabilities?
12-12-2012 , 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
You're quite sure fully automatic weapons are cheap and legal and easily obtained, aren't you?
according to the NRA-ILA site :
"The result of FDR's campaign was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government."

not sure about cheap...or how easily one is approved but at least it's legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
Just as a bit of trivia, when's the last time in the US a mass shooter used a weapon with F/A capabilities?
not 100% sure...but Carson City IHOP the shooter used a AK47 according to sources. which is F/A

also fully or semi automatic doesn't make much difference to me...and aren't you the one always telling everyone that semi is way more effective to kill...
12-12-2012 , 10:02 AM
I don't understand why DBL is complicit in taking away American's god-given rights to own fully automatic weapons. What happened to the cause!?!?!?
12-12-2012 , 10:03 AM
Which of these guns is more dangerous?
picture1
picture2

A semiautomatic weapon can fire a few hundred rounds a second too!

Etc.
12-12-2012 , 11:31 AM
Soooooo if full-auto is terrible for personal defence and purely cosmetic, why are jimmies getting rustled over the full-auto ban?
12-12-2012 , 11:49 AM
you need them for hunting LDO
12-12-2012 , 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
It's not a secret. It just involves routinely communicating with an array of black people of different ages and socioeconomic classes, which I doubt many of you do.
<-- lives in a predominately black neighborhood, has extensive experience with advertising for minorities, married to a mexican, girlfriend before her was black.

But yeah I probally know less about the subject than a 20 something from Iowa...
12-12-2012 , 01:16 PM
Seriously? The "I've boned more black girls than you" play?
12-12-2012 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Soooooo if full-auto is terrible for personal defence and purely cosmetic, why are jimmies getting rustled over the full-auto ban?
I'm not sure there are a whole lot of rustled jimmies over full-auto gun restrictions. Nibbles might get bent out of shape over them, but I don't know of many other ITF who is especially upset about them. The rustling of the jimmies typically ensues when gun-control advocates think assault weapons are fully automatic, and should be banned because of that.
12-12-2012 , 01:44 PM
they're "fully semi-automatic"
12-12-2012 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
If he has a full auto he's already (extremely likely) in violation of existing federal gun law.

You're certainly right about shot placement, but the other side of that argument is if I strike you in the "T" on your face, I'm very likely going to kill you with any caliber gun, even possibly an air pellet gun, assuming I've pumped it enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofball
why? you would prefer the guy have the slower firing gun in that scenario?

Will Others weigh in?
Because full auto fire is inaccurate and very difficult to control. It is basically only useful as suppressing fire or for fun blowing off money at the range. Even military units rarely use full auto except in limited situations or with mounted guns.
12-12-2012 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Soooooo if full-auto is terrible for personal defence and purely cosmetic, why are jimmies getting rustled over the full-auto ban?
Because it is pointless ******ation.
12-12-2012 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
they're "fully semi-automatic"


also, just had to highlight the hilarity here!

Quote:
not 100% sure...but Carson City IHOP the shooter used a AK47 according to sources. which is F/A

also fully or semi automatic doesn't make much difference to me...and aren't you the one always telling everyone that semi is way more effective to kill...
Wow. Just wow.

****in A Man... ****ing A.
12-12-2012 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeBlis
Yeah I know, it just drives me nuts in Walking Dead in particular. Its one of the WOAT. There might be 1 or two scenes that aren't totally cringe worthy. The gun handling alone kills the show, the sloppy lazy writing mutilates its corpse.
Hmm... Just curious what you hate so much about the show. I believe its one of the stronger shows on TV. I just watched an episode last night and was noting things like how they've had strong directorial choices of using sound to communicate internal states (I think sound is quite often completely neglected on TV), how the actors communicated quite often with facial expressions as opposed to clunky dialogue, the darkness of the show, how suspenseful the show is in that major characters are clearly never truly safe,...

I have a wife who doesn't really care for horror or gore... yet she watches and enjoys this show.

I admit that season 2 was drawn out a bit on the farm. Season 3 in comparison has been a roller coaster.
12-12-2012 , 02:47 PM
The Walking Dead is terrible, come on man. What are you comparing it to?
12-12-2012 , 03:15 PM
kurto,

What do you think of Lori? What does your wife think of Lori?
12-12-2012 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
The Walking Dead is terrible, come on man. What are you comparing it to?
Most television. I think most of it is horrid.

I was just having a conversation with someone about how lately TV has been so good for adults. With shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, American Horror Story (Season 1... didn't see season 2), Mad Men, .... and yes, Walking Dead.

I tend to think I'm harder on television then most people so I'm kind of surprised by all the negativity. Its so rare to have seen such dark visions created for television, I find it very refreshing.
12-12-2012 , 03:33 PM
I don't find The Walking Dead very dark. Uneven production values, terrible acting, sloppy writing, characters who seem to be going for "deep" but instead just come off as random(like Lori's bizarre mood-of-the-day phase)...

Breaking Bad is dark. The Walking Dead just has zombies.

Edit: Neblis' complaint seems weird, but next time any of you watch the show, try to pay attention to how the characters hold the guns and also note how the show disguises that they use CGI instead of blanks+squibs. For a show that is heavily about shooting zombies in the head, they bizarrely don't put a lot of effort into it.


Last edited by FlyWf; 12-12-2012 at 03:38 PM.
12-12-2012 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ
You're quite sure fully automatic weapons are cheap and legal and easily obtained, aren't you?

Just as a bit of trivia, when's the last time in the US a mass shooter used a weapon with F/A capabilities?
I have no idea, but if government regs have kept fully automatic mass shootings down, then I suggest we follow those regs for semi-auto rifles too.
12-12-2012 , 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
I have no idea
Relevant portion.
12-12-2012 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
I have no idea, but if government regs have kept fully automatic mass shootings down, then I suggest we follow those regs for semi-auto rifles too.
The $200 tax stamp is a few boxes worth of ammo and a few seconds of shooting for an automatic weapon. The multiple thousands of dollars the actual gun costs has more to do with keeping them from being used.


Government regulated speed limits aren't what keeps a bunch of Lamborghini's from being driven on the street.
12-12-2012 , 05:34 PM
Semi-auto civilian versions of common military rifles cost like $600. If full auto weapons were not so strictly regulated, they would be available at much cheaper prices.

I wonder if support of existing federal machine gun regulation is racist?
12-12-2012 , 05:41 PM
IDK, you're the expert on racism.

I just know what I've discovered through research.

      
m