|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| madoka wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
And some Aimpoints? Lousy shot, eh? |
You keep reaching for those straws little man!  |
Tell that to someone who hasn't been shooting longer than you've been alive and never was in the military, boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What has your inability to make a point or argue effectively have with your shooting record or military experience? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| What has your inability to make a point or argue effectively have with your shooting record or military experience? |
It's called taking it down to his level. If you'd paid attention to the discussion, you'd know I've already made my points, one of which is that semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines...civilians have no use for those. Only takes one bullet to kill a deer or stop a man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Only takes one bullet to kill a deer or stop a man. |
Ugh... wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| As far as the .223 goes, people in the media keep asking why anyone would want to protect their house with an Assault Rifle, but they do not seem to get into how the round loses energy quickly after an impact. Shoot a lighter .223 projectile through a sheet rock wall, which is a thin/light building material, and it will lose a great deal of energy and tumble. Far safer round down range than one from a .40 cal handgun exiting a wall, I believe. Depends on the ammo chosen, of course, but it is far more lethal up close, yet safer after expending the energy due to the tiny bullet. |
Maybe, but I think people buy them because 1) they were trained on them while they were in the military, and so that's what they are familiar with, or 2) they fantasize about having been in the military. |
Not really.
A shotgun with OO buckshot can do more damage indoors, but they recoil more and generally carry 5 to 8 rounds.
The AR-15 with the .223 round is valued for home defense because it has very little recoil, is very powerful, and excluding current panic buying, ammo is plentiful and relatively cheap (for rifle ammo). Various loadings for various purposes can be purchased. The AR-15 platform can also be customized very highly with different parts all-around, making for different sizes, lengths, attachments like lights/lasers, etc., etc.
I promise you -- if all AR's and similar guns were banned tomorrow and every single one were stricken from the USA, the next atrocity would take place with a shotgun. Then all we'd hear about is how evil shotguns are, and why they need to be banned.
The anti-gun crowd does not want dialogue, they do not want reduced magazines, they do not want the removal of AR's -- they want capitulation. Be it step-by-step or all at once, there is no in-between with these people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Only takes one bullet to kill a deer or stop a man. |
Ugh... wrong. |
Ugh...Right. I'm a hunter and I've served in the military. One shot, one kill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Only takes one bullet to kill a deer or stop a man. |
Ugh... wrong. |
Ugh...Right. I'm a hunter and I've served in the military. One shot, one kill. |
Every single time?
Reality trumps your so-called experience.
Would you care for some stats, or would you like me to allow you to back out now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madoka
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
Ugh...Right. I'm a hunter and I've served in the military. One shot, one kill. |
Every single time?
Reality trumps your so-called experience.
Would you care for some stats, or would you like me to allow you to back out now? |
No, no, don't tell him to stop! This is hilarious. I suppose next he's going to post videos of himself leaping off buildings in Counter-Strike and taking out other players with headshots on his way down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Only takes one bullet to kill a deer or stop a man. |
Ugh... wrong. |
Ugh...Right. I'm a hunter and I've served in the military. One shot, one kill. |
Every single time?
Reality trumps your so-called experience.
Would you care for some stats, or would you like me to allow you to back out now? |
Right. Sounds like you're the one who's backpedaling.
So, you're going to argue that it takes more than a bullet to kill a deer or stop a man? Gee, I wonder how you Americans won the American Revolution, then. After all, all you had were those worthless muskets. 
Last edited by 12ax7 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madoka wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
Ugh...Right. I'm a hunter and I've served in the military. One shot, one kill. |
Every single time?
Reality trumps your so-called experience.
Would you care for some stats, or would you like me to allow you to back out now? |
No, no, don't tell him to stop! This is hilarious. I suppose next he's going to post videos of himself leaping off buildings in Counter-Strike and taking out other players with headshots on his way down. |
Better yet, I'm going to claim I earn a fortune (because there couldn't possibly be anyone here who earns more than I do), take pictures of my car keys and other toys I've purchased on credit, and post them here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nora
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was intended NOT as a law protecting rights, but as a reaffirmation of the common law rights that were already assumed to be had. Any argument that the second amendment is no longer valid is wrong � the people had the right to keep and bear arms BEFORE the Constitution, during the Constitution, and if it is ever repealed, the people will still retain that right. It�s one of the inalienable rights that humans have � the right to defend oneself � and it cannot be taken away.
The idea that we needed the 2nd amendment and militias to defend ourselves from the British as a foreign enemy is crap. WE WERE British � we were fighting our own government. Ergo, as long as we have a government, we have a need for firearms.
As for the nitty gritty details about assault weapons � define that term. The 1994 crime bill was horseshit. You want to take my bayonet lug? Fine. I can�t have a grenade launcher attachment point? Big deal. I can only have a ten round magazine? Jungle style a couple of those together � problem solved.
Someone made a comment about fully automatic weapons. Do your homework. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1986. To own one, it must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986. You have to fill out ATF paperwork, pay a $200 transfer tax, and get a signed permission slip from the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction in which you reside � permission that can be denied. Since 1986, show me a single case where an automatic weapon was used to commit a crime in the US.
Captain Corea made a comment about gun owners not willing to talk about gun control. As a lifetime NRA member, I�m more than willing to talk about gun control. The problem is that none of the ideas that the Brady Campaign (or others) come up with will do anything to reduce crime. Magazine capacity is pointless as you simply carry a couple of extra mags. Naming guns specifically doesn�t do anything when those guns aren�t the ones being used to commit crimes. See the link below for a list of common guns being used in crimes. Although it is 10 years old, it�s still accurate. Every single gun on that list is a handgun, save for the Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun. No AR-15, no AK-47, no street sweeper tec 9 uzi etc� Yet these are the guns that are the real problem? Get real.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html
If we want to talk about reducing crime, we need to talk about racism. Swamp mentioned black crime. The fact is that 1 in 3 black men will go to prison during their lifetime in the United States. Canada can talk about how it�s multicultural too, but Canada (and any other country for that matter, minus South Africa) can�t say a single thing when it comes to racism and oppression. This discrimination pushes minorities into crime, it plants the idea that they will become criminals and it reinforces that idea constantly to the point that the number one killer of a black male aged 15-34 is murder at the hands of another black male. Yet we ignore the guns that ARE used in crime while attempting to ban guns that are NOT used in crime, while calling people racists for pointing out the racist system that is to blame for the lions share of deaths.
On that subject, why the argument about GUN deaths? Who gives a damn about HOW they are murdered? �Thank God I live in England. I KNOW I won�t be SHOT to death, just possibly stabbed in the face with a Phillips head screwdriver. Thank heavens for gun control!�
Long story short, guns are not the problem. Assault weapon is a term that has no meaning. The Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 resulted in no reduction in crime as �assault weapons� are NOT used in violent crime. Banning the AR-15 will result in ZERO reduction in crime this time around. The shooting in Newtown was an aberration, a blip on the screen that will not push the national numbers in any statistically significant way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nora wrote: |
| The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was intended NOT as a law protecting rights, but as a reaffirmation of the common law rights that were already assumed to be had. Any argument that the second amendment is no longer valid is wrong � the people had the right to keep and bear arms BEFORE the Constitution, during the Constitution, and if it is ever repealed, the people will still retain that right. It�s one of the inalienable rights that humans have � the right to defend oneself � and it cannot be taken away. |
Actually, you're wrong. Bearing arms wasn't a right during the colonial times, it was a duty required by law. It was required for the purpose of protecting the colonies. The concept of the "right to bear arms" began developing during the War of Independence. The fact it was only mentioned in a few of the state constitutions of that time should suffice to prove that the concept was still in its infancy and had not found broad acceptance.
| nora wrote: |
The idea that we needed the 2nd amendment and militias to defend ourselves from the British as a foreign enemy is crap. WE WERE British � we were fighting our own government. |
Right, because you hadn't just fought a war against the British and mistreated the Loyalists, many of which went/escaped to Canada, from where the British could have invaded.
| nora wrote: |
| As for the nitty gritty details about assault weapons � define that term. The 1994 crime bill was horseshit. You want to take my bayonet lug? Fine. I can�t have a grenade launcher attachment point? Big deal. I can only have a ten round magazine? Jungle style a couple of those together � problem solved. |
Easier solution: ban semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns.
| nora wrote: |
| Someone made a comment about fully automatic weapons. Do your homework. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1986. To own one, it must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986. You have to fill out ATF paperwork, pay a $200 transfer tax, and get a signed permission slip from the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction in which you reside � permission that can be denied. Since 1986, show me a single case where an automatic weapon was used to commit a crime in the US. |
As if it isn't difficult to convert an AR-15, for example, to fully auto.
In any case, show you a single case, eh? All right...Took me a whole 3 seconds to find this one on Google, and I didn't even bother to check for more since one is enough to prove you wrong:
On September 15th, 1988, Patrolman Roger Waller used his fully automatic MAC-11 to kill a police informant. He and his accomplices pleaded guilty in 1990.
As for the rest of your comment...Are you kidding? Is it the NRA's propaganda that gave you the false impression that gun crimes is a black thing only? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jimskins
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nora wrote: |
The second amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, was intended NOT as a law protecting rights, but as a reaffirmation of the common law rights that were already assumed to be had. Any argument that the second amendment is no longer valid is wrong � the people had the right to keep and bear arms BEFORE the Constitution, during the Constitution, and if it is ever repealed, the people will still retain that right. It�s one of the inalienable rights that humans have � the right to defend oneself � and it cannot be taken away.
The idea that we needed the 2nd amendment and militias to defend ourselves from the British as a foreign enemy is crap. WE WERE British � we were fighting our own government. Ergo, as long as we have a government, we have a need for firearms.
As for the nitty gritty details about assault weapons � define that term. The 1994 crime bill was horseshit. You want to take my bayonet lug? Fine. I can�t have a grenade launcher attachment point? Big deal. I can only have a ten round magazine? Jungle style a couple of those together � problem solved.
Someone made a comment about fully automatic weapons. Do your homework. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1986. To own one, it must have been manufactured and registered before May 19, 1986. You have to fill out ATF paperwork, pay a $200 transfer tax, and get a signed permission slip from the chief law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction in which you reside � permission that can be denied. Since 1986, show me a single case where an automatic weapon was used to commit a crime in the US.
Captain Corea made a comment about gun owners not willing to talk about gun control. As a lifetime NRA member, I�m more than willing to talk about gun control. The problem is that none of the ideas that the Brady Campaign (or others) come up with will do anything to reduce crime. Magazine capacity is pointless as you simply carry a couple of extra mags. Naming guns specifically doesn�t do anything when those guns aren�t the ones being used to commit crimes. See the link below for a list of common guns being used in crimes. Although it is 10 years old, it�s still accurate. Every single gun on that list is a handgun, save for the Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun. No AR-15, no AK-47, no street sweeper tec 9 uzi etc� Yet these are the guns that are the real problem? Get real.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html
If we want to talk about reducing crime, we need to talk about racism. Swamp mentioned black crime. The fact is that 1 in 3 black men will go to prison during their lifetime in the United States. Canada can talk about how it�s multicultural too, but Canada (and any other country for that matter, minus South Africa) can�t say a single thing when it comes to racism and oppression. This discrimination pushes minorities into crime, it plants the idea that they will become criminals and it reinforces that idea constantly to the point that the number one killer of a black male aged 15-34 is murder at the hands of another black male. Yet we ignore the guns that ARE used in crime while attempting to ban guns that are NOT used in crime, while calling people racists for pointing out the racist system that is to blame for the lions share of deaths.
On that subject, why the argument about GUN deaths? Who gives a damn about HOW they are murdered? �Thank God I live in England. I KNOW I won�t be SHOT to death, just possibly stabbed in the face with a Phillips head screwdriver. Thank heavens for gun control!�
Long story short, guns are not the problem. Assault weapon is a term that has no meaning. The Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 resulted in no reduction in crime as �assault weapons� are NOT used in violent crime. Banning the AR-15 will result in ZERO reduction in crime this time around. The shooting in Newtown was an aberration, a blip on the screen that will not push the national numbers in any statistically significant way. |
I think the reason the focus is on gun deaths is pretty straightforward. It's easier to kill someone with a gun. If matey-boy had walked into that school with a screwdriver do you think he would have killed so many? You could also say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun because it is a bit less personal, standing 25 yards away (or further) and spraying somone requires a bit less guts than standing toe to toe with someone and stabbing them. Also it's much more realistic and easier to enforce a ban on guns. Banning stabbing weapons is impossible, you can craft a shiv out of almost anything.
I'm quite interested to see how this issue develops. As a Brit I've always flipped between finding the USA's gun laws ridiculous and being quite jealous of them. I have a shotgun licence and like to shoot clays whenever I get the chance and go on the occasional rough shoot. I would love to have a blast around with an AR-15 or other guns i only see in computer games, but from my own view and the points made above it seems a good first step to me would be to ban all handguns (or at least make it so they can only be stored at and used at a shooting range). After we went through Dunblane I came to agree with the view that handguns have no purpose other than to kill people. And if you feel you need to keep a handgun to protect yourself then you have to question what kind of society you are living in. Maybe America is that violent a country, I don't know. We have a lot of muggings in the UK but I always feel safe in the knowledge that the guy's more likely to pull out a potato-peeler than a Beretta. In situations where people are a bit jumpy it's much easier to make a mistake with a gun than a knife.
I also should add that I found the NRA's spokesman's response to the incident rabid at best. The gun lobby is really letting itself down if it is being represented by such people of little tact and intelligence. But I'll give them that (at least for a gun-loving country such as the US) regulation is better and more realistic than prohibition.
Just my two cents, as you say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Only takes one bullet to kill a deer or stop a man. |
Ugh... wrong. |
Ugh...Right. I'm a hunter and I've served in the military. One shot, one kill. |
Every single time?
Reality trumps your so-called experience.
Would you care for some stats, or would you like me to allow you to back out now? |
Right. Sounds like you're the one who's backpedaling.
So, you're going to argue that it takes more than a bullet to kill a deer or stop a man? Gee, I wonder how you Americans won the American Revolution, then. After all, all you had were those worthless muskets. |
I can't tell if your one shot, one kill (hunting perhaps) is sarcasm or serious but anyone who has been in the military knows that is very rarely the case.
Garbielle Giffords
| Quote: |
| On January 8, 2011, Giffords was shot in the head. |
I forget, how did that one turn out again?
| Quote: |
| It has been one of the more lingering questions surrounding the shooting of Sean Bell: How can anyone sustain 19 gunshot wounds and live to tell about it? |
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/doctor-tells-of-a-19-gunshot-wound-survivor/
| Quote: |
| A man in North Carolina was shot roughly 20 times in 1995 and lived to tell about it. The rapper 50 Cent was shot nine times in 2000 and has since released three albums. And in 2006, Joseph Guzman survived 19 gunshot wounds during the 50-shot fusillade by police detectives that killed Sean Bell. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0
| Quote: |
| Finally on March 6th, 1940, some lucky bastard shot Hayha in the head with an exploding bullet. When some other soldiers found him and brought him back to base, he "had half his head missing." The White Death had finally been stopped, for about a week. In spite of having come down with a nasty case of shot-in-the-face syndrome, he was still very much alive, and regained consciousness on March 13, the very day the war ended. |
http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*beep*.html
Say what you will about the last article, a couple of the guys I googled checked out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose I'm a radical pacifist insofar as I would never, under any circumstances, shoot somebody or otherwise inflict violent harm. (Dont bother with the what ifs.) Thats just me & a deeply held principal.
I started this thread & I'm not surprised it brought out some gun enthusiasts. A question I asked earlier has gone unanswered. Quoting myself & re-asking:
"I assume some of the gun-heads who posted above live in Korea now & had to leave their weapons at home. Has your quality of life diminished as a result?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
