General News Thread 2.0


Well let’s add a couple of visual aids. This is what 5.56x45mm NATO can do when you’re struck with it:


“Estimated range was between 5-10 meters. 20”-barreled M16A1 used. At that range, estimated velocity when bullet hit was @ 3200 feet per second.

Entrance wound is on the inner thigh, exit is the huge stellate laceration seen on the outer thigh. Based on the xray view of the femur bone, bone was NOT hit, but broke most probably due to the temporary stretch cavity created by the considerable hydraulic shock wave the M193 cartridge is known to create."

I think the argument is more about do you need something that powerful in the hands of the ordinary citizen with little to no credentials.

I guess “Hunting Deer” would be a couple of categories too high considering that visual example - a weapons buyer with hunting permits and credentials not withstanding.


I would like to think there are cases where you can trust a powerful weapon in the hands of someone with the proper understanding of their ownership and usage as well as having the proper military training and discipline.


If there is an argument that the 5.56mm NATO cartridge should be prohibited because it’s “too powerful”—when a weapon chambered in it is less powerful than a 12-gauge shotgun or .30-30 lever-action rifle—that is not an argument for prohibiting so-called assault rifles, which is what I was asking about in the first place.

What is it about a semi-automatic “assault rifle” that renders it less suitable for ownership by a private citizen than any other semi-automatic rifle?


Thinking of it, unconceilable weapons are way better and more importantly sooner to identify. Maybe this is what small guns make more dangerous actually.


Ah… well I guess it might also have something to do with the fact that weapons of that classification were also featured in other recent incidents like the Las Vegas Concert Shooting.

So admittedly it can also be down to that. I guess as @Urben points out for example, one can stretch the argument to concealables… so if you get 3 incidents involving small guns like the Kimber Raptor Micro 9, there would be calls against concealable carry weapons.

But just to clarify my position is at the very least there needs to be more credentials and vetting for gun ownership.


Gun control works well. Just ask Mexico :grin:


Yeah but the less firepower,slower rate of fire and smaller clip would turn situations like a school shooting into something smaller,not to mention the fact that not all shots would be lethal with a cheap basic pistol,some might even just get injured. Unless we are talking about a Deagle,that’ll blow a head off.


Desert Eagle… not “Deagle”… Deagle is some placeholder name when they stopped using authentic names starting with H2. :stuck_out_tongue:

But kidding aside, I also agree. But I don’t know… I always thought gun ownership rules were well defined so that wackos aren’t supposed to just buy guns like they’re buying toys.


Speaking of Mexico:

Basically, NSSF says the problem is not more gun control laws, rather the enforcement of them. They point out that there are already rules that supposedly make it illegal to purchase a weapon through someone else (which is cited as one of the chief means by which criminals and other unsavory elements get their guns), but that firearms retailers need to be more educated in identifying an attempted “straw purchase” and that gun owners and enthusiasts need to be also educated to discourage such activity.

And of course, in the Mexican example, half the guns being proliferated don’t even come from Mexico, so I guess one of the concerns here is that “It doesn’t matter what controls, bans, or laws are made in place… the wrong people are already using the wrong means to get the wrong guns.”

The Florida Shooter though appears to have been able to purchase guns directly - which definitely falls into the triple “wrong” stated above. So something wasn’t functioning properly there.


Makes sense. After all, the war crimes committed during that war would make any Viet Cong supporter angry. Not justifying anything.


Read it and I’m fucking blown away by this ‘person’. What an absolute cunt.


The most important bit is this:

The rest is just pushback rhetoric - which is sort of necessary (for their group/organization to avoid total dissolution) but isn’t helpful in the PR stakes.

However, similar to what happened with Squeenix’s announcement of letting IOI go, there are a couple of acknowledgements in there if people don’t allow anger to cloud their judgment.

I believe the significant part in there is the concession that there is an admission that the wrong weapons are somehow being obtained by the wrong people.

That said, I am sure this problem of improper gun proliferation is an age-old problem.


The damage has already been done. She’s made an ass of herself in public. The NRA is refusing to use their fucking brains and push for gun control. How much evidence that laws are too lax do you fucking need?


My understanding is that under current US gun laws it is already unlawful for Nikolas Cruz to have obtained a firearm.

So I think the question Gun Advocates are pushing for is that we talk about the problem of “Lax Enforcement” rather than “Lax Laws”.

Just saying that if I read their rather defiant (and understandably infuriating) statement, that is the only meaningful aspect of what they are trying to say.

I wonder if court hearings will focus on the store and other agents that enabled Cruz to obtain a weapon.


This sounds like the opposite of what I’ve read. That is, I read Cruz bought the rifle legally (in acordance with Florida law).
Am I missing something?


No you got it right.

Cruz supposedly got the gun “legitimately”… as in a store appears to have sold him a gun and issued him a receipt…but I think there’s argument about whether that should have happened in the first place. Various gun groups are posting stuff that indicates it already says Cruz should NOT have been able to obtain a weapon.

Cruz had a known history of mental illness.

This is why they’re bringing up the topic of “straw purchases” (without proof …yet… that Cruz used this method) and how every gun advocate should (if they are not already) be working with authorities and each other to make sure guns don’t end up in the wrong hands.

It’s not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s simple logic. A guy like Cruz gets a gun… your whole organization will suffer for it.

Also, think for a moment if you are a member of a Gun club or something. You would also be worried to learn that some lunatic could be at your club with a weapon they should not possess.

That’s why I’m thinking there’s going to be a lot of pressure from Gun Groups to learn how this wacko “broke the system”. But if I had to guess, the system was always a bit broken (or at least the enforcement of it).

Florida just ran out of luck with the wrong guy. And that information - how guys like Cruz acquire their weapons - could constitute common ground for both Gun Control Advocates and Gun Enthusiasts.


The Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473)—which a prospective firearm transferee must fill out before an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) initiates a background check by contacting the NICS (or a designated state Point of Contact)—contains the following question and information:

f. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.


This handbag said ‘reporters hate tragedies like this but love the boost in their rating’, someone should have said ‘NRA also hates tragedies like this but they love the profit from every gun sold’.

Some of these dumbass politicians are saying, arm the teacher, arm the janitor, arm the fucking mess lady, i mean, c’mon, i just want to become Batman for a day and rip their fucking heads up. People who love a few dollar bills more than lives of children and people :rage:


Yeah Fuck them. This Why we need Socialism.


Yeah I agree with you and cannot understand the mentality of “Guns caused a problem?Well,why don’t we,instead of fixing the source of the problem and improve how these powerful weapons are handed out like bread,JUST ADD MOAAAAR GUNZ?” It’s like saying "oh this fire is bad,lemme just spray gasoline on it. Maybe some wood too."
If they do end up arming the teachers I cannot wait for the “Teacher snaps and shoots up his class”/“Teacher threatens his young students with a glock”/“Teacher takes his students hostage” headlines. Then once this happens I can’t wait for the incredibly stimulating conversations that modern age intellectuals like “Grab-Her-By-The-Pussy” Donnie Trumpster are going to create,such as “Why not put an AK under all of the desks of each of the students too?With a drum mag,to give them self defence from the teachers we armed for self defence from the school shooters we armed that bought the guns for alleged self defence.This’ll make it right!”.
I find it both comical (sounds like something you’d see in a satire movie) and upsetting.