Guns, Guns Guns

How many of those riots involved the outcome of a football (soccer) match? How many people have been killed at soccer games by fists and clubs? there have probably been more spectators killed at soccer matches in any given country than have been killed at all the pro sporting events in the US. Don't get me wrong. There have been several riots and near riots in the US over the results of games. We just don't kill people over their alligence (sp.) to a particular team. Our riots, for the most part, are about discrimination, whether it be social or institutional.

I don't count those. The Rodney King riots had nothing to do with sports.

KNick wrote:How many of those riots involved the outcome of a football (soccer) match? How many people have been killed at soccer games by fists and clubs? there have probably been more spectators killed at soccer matches in any given country than have been killed at all the pro sporting events in the US. Don't get me wrong. There have been several riots and near riots in the US over the results of games. We just don't kill people over their alligence (sp.) to a particular team. Our riots, for the most part, are about discrimination, whether it be social or institutional.

Donnachaidh wrote:I've noticed a tendency in your posts to be almost universally negative toward the USA no matter what the topic is, often in an incredibly rude way.

And if you actually cared to read around a bit rather than whine, you would notice that one, i´m not "almost universally negative...etc...", and two, i guess truth hurts or something? Because i most certainly isn´t being "incredibly rude" in the part you quote.

If i really was seriously nasty i guess you would spontaneously combust if you think that is "incredibly rude".

And in regards to USA in general? What i do is largely reacting to all the BS.
You have so much inane dogma, a bunch of crap about how "you" are different from the rest of the world, most of which is even blatantly evident that it is rubbish, and yet so many believe religiously.

Donnachaidh wrote:I'm sure many other people on the forum would appreciate it if you could be more polite about how you make your points (whether positive or negative).

Sorry, i prefer honesty rather than indirect personal attacks like your splendid little above showoff of your astute understanding of writing like a politician.

But as you can notice above, i can do that silly dishonest crap as well.

Donnachaidh wrote:Riots aren't actually all that common in the USA.

No, but my point wasn´t about the number of riots, but how those riots almost inevitably seem to lead to looting.
And it also seem to happen during natural disasters and similar events.

And even if you just look at probabilities of rioting, USA still goes well above the average for the "rich" nations.

Donnachaidh wrote:Also you're talking about at a nation that has about 1/2 the population of all of Europe, so the odds of any incident occurring in the USA are much higher than in any one European country.

Uh, no really... Duh. I was obviously comparing relative to population.

PeterZ wrote:
20 people rush in at a store owner armed with a full automatic that he has practiced with. He fires in short bursts. Compare that to the same owner firing a semi-auto AR type rifle.

The full auto will fire more bullets and potentially hit more attackers. If that was my family and lively hood at risk, I would own and be practiced in the full auto. You can feel free to choose the semi-auto.

And the end result is still the same.

Because unless you start murdering people because they LOOK like they MIGHT rush at your store or house, then once they DO it, unless you´re an absolute whiz with that gun, AND don´t have any bad luck, AND the attackers are also not lucky...
Well, they´re still almost certain to overrun you.
With automatic fire, you´re going to spend on average about 3 shots per person you aim at.
Which means the other 10 or 15 or so, are going to reach you while you´re trying to reload.

And if they scare off if you start shooting? Then they would have scared off no matter what you were shooting with.

If you know the future, you would have bought a business elsewhere and avoided the problem altogether.

It is assumed they are warned off. If you find some of the footage of that 6 day Rodney King riot, you will know that after a couple days most businesses were barricaded with armed men manning those barricades. If I can stop 10 or 15 of the attackers, that means only 5-10 trying get past the barricade as I reload. Who knows if I will survive? I'll still take my chances with the full automatic.

Tenshinai wrote:
And the end result is still the same.

Because unless you start murdering people because they LOOK like they MIGHT rush at your store or house, then once they DO it, unless you´re an absolute whiz with that gun, AND don´t have any bad luck, AND the attackers are also not lucky...
Well, they´re still almost certain to overrun you.
With automatic fire, you´re going to spend on average about 3 shots per person you aim at.
Which means the other 10 or 15 or so, are going to reach you while you´re trying to reload.

And if they scare off if you start shooting? Then they would have scared off no matter what you were shooting with.

Tenshinai wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:I've noticed a tendency in your posts to be almost universally negative toward the USA no matter what the topic is, often in an incredibly rude way.

And if you actually cared to read around a bit rather than whine, you would notice that one, i´m not "almost universally negative...etc...", and two, i guess truth hurts or something? Because i most certainly isn´t being "incredibly rude" in the part you quote.

If i really was seriously nasty i guess you would spontaneously combust if you think that is "incredibly rude".

And in regards to USA in general? What i do is largely reacting to all the BS.
You have so much inane dogma, a bunch of crap about how "you" are different from the rest of the world, most of which is even blatantly evident that it is rubbish, and yet so many believe religiously.

Donnachaidh wrote:I'm sure many other people on the forum would appreciate it if you could be more polite about how you make your points (whether positive or negative).

Sorry, i prefer honesty rather than indirect personal attacks like your splendid little above showoff of your astute understanding of writing like a politician.

But as you can notice above, i can do that silly dishonest crap as well.

Cutting apart a single paragraph - a single thought in well written English - is an excellent way to hide what someone was trying to say in order to make them look like they said something different. You should have noticed I never said whether or not you were correct (in fact I would agree with much of what you said about the dogma), I was prefacing my request for you to be civil.

My intent was to politely request that you treat others politely, not insult you. The fact that you chose to take that way says a lot about your mindset.

There is a HUGE difference between being honest and being rude. While it is slightly more difficult to be polite while being honest, it certainly isn't impossible. My intent was to ask you to extend that effort to the rest of the people on this forum. I would hope at a minimum you can extend that courtesy to those who have not done anything rude to you.

Tenshinai wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:Riots aren't actually all that common in the USA.

No, but my point wasn´t about the number of riots, but how those riots almost inevitably seem to lead to looting.
And it also seem to happen during natural disasters and similar events.

And even if you just look at probabilities of rioting, USA still goes well above the average for the "rich" nations.

Donnachaidh wrote:Also you're talking about at a nation that has about 1/2 the population of all of Europe, so the odds of any incident occurring in the USA are much higher than in any one European country.

Uh, no really... Duh. I was obviously comparing relative to population.

If you preface any typed statement with "Uh" everything you say after that will have a condescending tone, whether that is your intent or not.

And if you bothered to research you'd have found that your statement simply isn't true.

Couple of points to consider. Since we banned semi autos (full autos were always illegal here) we haven't had any mass shootings, however we have had several deliberate mass burnings in either bushfires or hostels.
In a military situation soldiers are trained to use their assault weapon in semi auto mode as it is normally more effective that way, giving time to aim and not having the muzzle rise that full auto causes. Full auto is reserved for repelling human wave attacks.

As to needing a gun in a private setting that can fire more than ten rounds, depends if you are a good shot or not.

namelessfly wrote:

Annachie wrote:The thing that gets me though, apart from states trying to make it easier to loose track of lefal guns, is why any civilian would need an assault style weapon in the first place.

I vividly recall a close encounter that I once had with trespasser / drug dealers who were on my property to harvest hallucinogenic mushrooms that it turned out they were marketing to kids at the local middle school. There were two that I recognized from a previous encounter plus three more hiding in the brush to ambush me. When things got tense, I pointed out that while there were five of them and only one of me, there were eighteen rounds in my Glock. Three of them bravely ran away and the other two were not so tough.

The point is that while FBI statistics confirm that mass shootings are extremely rare even in the US, killings involving multiple assailants, either armed or not armed, are extremely common.

The more cogent question is why would you want a gun that can fire only one, or six or ten rounds?

With an educated trigger finger, the difference in effectiveness between full auto and semi auto is not profound.

Magazine capacity is profoundly important when dealing with multiple assailants or even a lone attacker.

For mass shootings against sheeple who will not act to defend themselves (look up Springfield Oregon and Kip Kinkle an an example of how PEOPLE respond), magazine capacity is not so relevant. The shooter can reload.

Of course a shotgun or rifle with a tube magazine has an effectively unlimited ammo capacity.

PeterZ wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
1. If rapid fire from a handgun or rifle doesn´t stop a group of people, then automatic fire isn´t going to make much of a difference as they´re already determined or crazy enough to accept that some of them get hit(and probably assume/hope that it isn´t them).

2. Maybe you should start by asking why that kind of looting happens so often in USA, and rarely elsewhere? Well, except 3rd world nations...

20 people rush in at a store owner armed with a full automatic that he has practiced with. He fires in short bursts. Compare that to the same owner firing a semi-auto AR type rifle.

The full auto will fire more bullets and potentially hit more attackers. If that was my family and lively hood at risk, I would own and be practiced in the full auto. You can feel free to choose the semi-auto.

I don't dispute the full auto might only have a marginal impact over the same gun in a semi- automatic. That advantage no matter how small might come in handy in that final rush if not scare the mob after the initial assault.

Its illegal but I would prefer the automatic rifle to be legal rather than Mary Jane.

Tenshinai IIRC if one is convicted of drunk Driving in Sweden one loses the privilege of driving for life. What are the statistics of before and after this law was passed of drunk driving rates?

Poker