Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Ambulance used in bombing.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    I feel much more at ease in Trump country, where I know that the bulk of the gun owners know how to properly use their weapons than I would in, say, south Chicago...

    Are those considered terrorist acts? Like the mass shootings that have taken place. Many times in Trump country!

    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    And London just surpassed NYC in the number of homicides this year. The bulk of which were committed with...... (wait for it).... knives.

    Are those considered acts of terrorism as well? This is example is a false equivalency. When one person can use a knife to kill or injure hundreds from a 30 story window that is a 1000' away you will have a point. Until then it is the usual deflection.

    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    But, back to the subject at hand - ambulances are stolen from time to time, although as yet none have been used for anything other than a getaway vehicle.
    You should have led off with this point and stuck to it.
    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by captnjak View Post
      I see it as a race issue (maybe an economic issue on my less cynical days). Every Monday morning the NY Daily News prints what amounts to a "roundup" of shootings that occurred the prior weekend. The locations are almost always in minority neighborhoods. There is rarely a weekend when this does not occur. The article generally appears around 10-20 pages into the paper. Young black men killing each other apparently is not newsworthy.

      These are not terrorist acts.

      Originally posted by captnjak View Post
      I think there is a difference between high powered/high velocity rifles and knives or cell phones or vehicles, all of which contribute to deaths. These rifles were originally conceived, designed, manufactured and sold with the purpose of killing large numbers of humans quickly. Not true about those other objects. There is very little demonstrable need for these type weapons in the public sector. Most people seem to buy them because they want them. They are cool. They are fun.

      I would have no problem regulating them along the same lines as full automatic weapons. Owning that type is very onerous. And coincidentally there are very few crimes committed with them.

      Originally posted by captnjak View Post
      The fact that many laws have not been effective is not a valid reason to stop passing laws that we feel can help. I think an age limit is wise. I think "bump stocks" should be out. I think real back ground checks are necessary. And yes, better compliance with the laws already on the books would be swell. The kid from FL was practically begging to be stopped. Yet no one did.
      It is a logical fallacy to believe that we should only pass a law if it will be 100% effective.
      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        These are not terrorist acts.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]


        I would have no problem regulating them along the same lines as full automatic weapons. Owning that type is very onerous. And coincidentally there are very few crimes committed with them.

        [LEFT][COLOR=#161616][FONT=Arial][SIZE=12px]
        It is a logical fallacy to believe that we should only pass a law if it will be 100% effective.
        I never said they were terrorist acts. I simply responded to another brother's post.

        You brought up white males with guns committing terrorist acts. Can you name some? Most of the big newsworthy acts we have seen do not fit the criteria for a terrorist act. I don't mean to split hairs but terrorism is a specific type of endeavor. An unstable guy shooting a bunch of people doesn't fit the criteria.

        I realize there are not a large number of crimes committed with these weapons. But the ones committed are generally large scale. They allow killing from a distance. I have to wonder how many of these guys would be willing to knife 30 people to death, assuming they could even pull it off before being stopped. Up close and personal is a whole different deal. These so-called assault weapons make it a very impersonal and distant act. Even a handgun would require a certain amount of physical closeness.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by captnjak View Post

          You brought up white males with guns committing terrorist acts. Can you name some? Most of the big newsworthy acts we have seen do not fit the criteria for a terrorist act. I don't mean to split hairs but terrorism is a specific type of endeavor. An unstable guy shooting a bunch of people doesn't fit the criteria.

          Terrorism as defined as having a political goal. I'm not sure those individuals fit that criteria either.

          Originally posted by captnjak View Post
          I realize there are not a large number of crimes committed with these weapons. But the ones committed are generally large scale. They allow killing from a distance. I have to wonder how many of these guys would be willing to knife 30 people to death, assuming they could even pull it off before being stopped. Up close and personal is a whole different deal. These so-called assault weapons make it a very impersonal and distant act. Even a handgun would require a certain amount of physical closeness.
          I agree.
          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by captnjak View Post
            I think there is a difference between high powered/high velocity rifles and knives or cell phones or vehicles, all of which contribute to deaths. These rifles were originally conceived, designed, manufactured and sold with the purpose of killing large numbers of humans quickly. Not true about those other objects. There is very little demonstrable need for these type weapons in the public sector. Most people seem to buy them because they want them. They are cool. They are fun.
            This is where we start to see only parts of the facts being shown by the media: the most common of the "assault weapons" calibers (5.56/.223) is far from being a high powered/high velocity round as compared to most other common rifle cartridges. The US military adopted this round over the much heavier and more powerful .308 round that was the standard. It allows soldiers to carry more into combat needing resupply less. The downside is/was less lethality. Very well documented history of soldiers being let down by the small and light rounds. Like so many other things, commonality among fores makes for efficiency.

            And while the AR15/M16/M4 platform and those similar may have been designed for military purposes, they possess no part or design that makes them more lethal, albeit the ability to accept a magazine, which a significant number of traditional hunting rifles do. The ability to accept any magazine allows for high capacity mags. While high capacity magazines are clearly contributing factors in mass killings (fewer reloads) they by no means are the key feature that they've been made out to be. Most of these nutjobs carry multiple weapons allowing them to reload while having another defensive weapon immediately at hand in case someone tries to rush them.

            And while I'd still not agree that a modern rifle has no demonstrable need by typical citizens (best home defense choice for many) they are surely owned by most who just want them for one reason or another. We must be very careful as a country if we start to use "need" as the criteria for ownership. One might ask why any of us need a car that exceeds the speed limit? Or a second home when so many are homeless?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
              And while the AR15/M16/M4 platform and those similar may have been designed for military purposes, (snip) We must be very careful as a country if we start to use "need" as the criteria for ownership. One might ask why any of us need a car that exceeds the speed limit? Or a second home when so many are homeless?
              Folks buy on looks - if it looks sportier, sexier, etc, it'll sell. The auto industry has spent billions (and this used to be annually) to essentially re-package exactly the same vehicle. And people would trade in last year's for this year's.

              The packaging thing for weapons can be illustrated by the Ruger Mini-14. It comes in three "packages." Two are military-style stocks. One has a "traditional" wooden stock. Some places have banned the "military" style, but you can still buy the wooden stock version - and it still has exactly the same action as the "military" version.


              Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

              Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
                This is where we start to see only parts of the facts being shown by the media: the most common of the "assault weapons" calibers (5.56/.223) is far from being a high powered/high velocity round as compared to most other common rifle cartridges. The US military adopted this round over the much heavier and more powerful .308 round that was the standard. It allows soldiers to carry more into combat needing resupply less. The downside is/was less lethality. Very well documented history of soldiers being let down by the small and light rounds. Like so many other things, commonality among fores makes for efficiency.


                When the Army determined it wanted to shift from .30 to .22 caliber it requested certain requirements. Amongst those were;
                • Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards
                • Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards
                • Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 Garand)

                We know from Las Vegas this round has the ability to kill or wound hundreds of individuals from a 30 story window at a distance of 1000'.

                Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
                And while the AR15/M16/M4 platform and those similar may have been designed for military purposes, they possess no part or design that makes them more lethal, albeit the ability to accept a magazine, which a significant number of traditional hunting rifles do. The ability to accept any magazine allows for high capacity mags. While high capacity magazines are clearly contributing factors in mass killings (fewer reloads) they by no means are the key feature that they've been made out to be. Most of these nutjobs carry multiple weapons allowing them to reload while having another defensive weapon immediately at hand in case someone tries to rush them.

                I agree that aesthetics should not be the determining factor in this issue. The weapons that should be regulated should have all of these characteristics:

                1. Semi automatic (specifically recoil and/or gas operated actions).
                2. Centerfire
                3. Magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.

                History in the US and elsewhere shows that regulation works.

                Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
                And while I'd still not agree that a modern rifle has no demonstrable need by typical citizens (best home defense choice for many) they are surely owned by most who just want them for one reason or another. We must be very careful as a country if we start to use "need" as the criteria for ownership. One might ask why any of us need a car that exceeds the speed limit? Or a second home when so many are homeless?
                There are other weapons that are just as capable for home defense that do not fit the criteria I stated.
                Comparing weapons of this type to your other items is a false equivalency. When a second home or car that exceeds the speed limit can be used to kill dozens and wound hundreds from a 30 story window that is 1000' away then regulation should be considered. Until then it is just another deflection attempt.
                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
                  This is where we start to see only parts of the facts being shown by the media: the most common of the "assault weapons" calibers (5.56/.223) is far from being a high powered/high velocity round as compared to most other common rifle cartridges. The US military adopted this round over the much heavier and more powerful .308 round that was the standard. It allows soldiers to carry more into combat needing resupply less. The downside is/was less lethality. Very well documented history of soldiers being let down by the small and light rounds. Like so many other things, commonality among fores makes for efficiency.

                  And while the AR15/M16/M4 platform and those similar may have been designed for military purposes, they possess no part or design that makes them more lethal, albeit the ability to accept a magazine, which a significant number of traditional hunting rifles do. The ability to accept any magazine allows for high capacity mags. While high capacity magazines are clearly contributing factors in mass killings (fewer reloads) they by no means are the key feature that they've been made out to be. Most of these nutjobs carry multiple weapons allowing them to reload while having another defensive weapon immediately at hand in case someone tries to rush them.

                  And while I'd still not agree that a modern rifle has no demonstrable need by typical citizens (best home defense choice for many) they are surely owned by most who just want them for one reason or another. We must be very careful as a country if we start to use "need" as the criteria for ownership. One might ask why any of us need a car that exceeds the speed limit? Or a second home when so many are homeless?
                  I agree that showing need should not be the criteria for how we live our lives and what we decide to own. I generally believe the less restrictions on us the better. But we have to acknowledge the differences between houses, cars and deadly weapons. I don't pretend to have the answers. I don't think more laws that can't or won't be enforced is a real answer. I acknowledge the fact that millions of people are responsible gun owners.
                  But I also think there are some common sense steps that can be taken without being an infringement on our rights. I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had. Of course both sides of the debate dig their heels in and go berserk at everything they hear from the opposition. Welcome to USA circa 2018.
                  You can BUY a car that goes 100 MPH but you can't legally DRIVE it at 100 MPH (outside a track setting). Would you accept a law that says you can BUY an AR-15 but you can't ever legally USE it (outside a range)?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    We know from experience that regulation works. In addition to the items I specified above I would require universal registration.
                    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                      We know from experience that regulation works. In addition to the items I specified above I would require universal registration.
                      As long as people abide by the regulations. The determined will find a way around them. And the law abiding will again be penalized for the actions of a very few.

                      How many people would a box van filled with ANFO have killed in Las Vegas? Or the same truck simply driven into the crowd?

                      I know, I know - deflection. Is blaming the shooter deflection? Nobody blamed the guns in the Texas Tower incident.
                      Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                      Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by tree68 View Post

                        As long as people abide by the regulations. The determined will find a way around them. And the law abiding will again be penalized for the actions of a very few.

                        How many people would a box van filled with ANFO have killed in Las Vegas? Or the same truck simply driven into the crowd?

                        I know, I know - deflection. Is blaming the shooter deflection? Nobody blamed the guns in the Texas Tower incident.
                        But box vans, fuel oil and fertilizer all serve important roles in our society. Combining them into a weapon is not the same as them being a weapon BY DESIGN. People have used ANFO because they could NOT LEGALLY GET products designed solely as explosives.

                        Since people have used ANFO should we just give up and make dynamite, C4, etc widely and legally available? Or do we continue to attempt to at least slow down the criminals?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by tree68 View Post

                          As long as people abide by the regulations. The determined will find a way around them. And the law abiding will again be penalized for the actions of a very few.

                          I have no problem making it more difficult for the determined. We know that regulation works based upon experience in the United States.

                          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                          How many people would a box van filled with ANFO have killed in Las Vegas? Or the same truck simply driven into the crowd?

                          The topic is guns.


                          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                          I know, I know - deflection. Is blaming the shooter deflection? Nobody blamed the guns in the Texas Tower incident.
                          See above posts.
                          Last edited by scfire86; 04-07-2018, 12:47 PM.
                          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by captnjak View Post

                            Since people have used ANFO should we just give up and make dynamite, C4, etc widely and legally available? Or do we continue to attempt to at least slow down the criminals?
                            We regulate those materials. Hence their limited use as weapons of choice.

                            Anti gun safety advocates don't realize that when they use those example they are inadvertently making the case for regulation.
                            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by captnjak View Post
                              Welcome to USA circa 2018.
                              You can BUY a car that goes 100 MPH but you can't legally DRIVE it at 100 MPH (outside a track setting). Would you accept a law that says you can BUY an AR-15 but you can't ever legally USE it (outside a range)?
                              I believe the more equivalent law already exists: You can buy an AR15, but you cannot kill innocent people.

                              Why would we prevent people from using any firearm legally? Herein lies the greater issue: they are inanimate objects that require the evil-doer manipulate them for evil purposes. This isn't like banning things that come to market, this is a change from legal ownership that Americans have enjoyed for years. How about we ban cigarette? Seems to kill more people by orders of magnitude than "assault rifles", they have no positive purpose" and they cost the rest of us billions in healthcare? Maybe alcohol is on the list? Seems we're going the other way on Mary-Jane...

                              A person intent on killing a great number of persons will find a method. At this point we have a large number of firearms in circulation, is it realistic to think we'll remove them from every American household or is it possible we can work on other solutions that are less polarizing and get to the root of the crime of mass murder?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post

                                When the Army determined it wanted to shift from .30 to .22 caliber it requested certain requirements. Amongst those were;[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
                                • Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards
                                • Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards
                                • Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 Garand)

                                We know from Las Vegas this round has the ability to kill or wound hundreds of individuals from a 30 story window at a distance of 1000'.


                                I agree that aesthetics should not be the determining factor in this issue. The weapons that should be regulated should have all of these characteristics:

                                1. Semi automatic (specifically recoil and/or gas operated actions).
                                2. Centerfire
                                3. Magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.

                                History in the US and elsewhere shows that regulation works.

                                [LEFT][COLOR=#161616][FONT=Arial][SIZE=12px]
                                There are other weapons that are just as capable for home defense that do not fit the criteria I stated.
                                Comparing weapons of this type to your other items is a false equivalency. When a second home or car that exceeds the speed limit can be used to kill dozens and wound hundreds from a 30 story window that is 1000' away then regulation should be considered. Until then it is just another deflection attempt.
                                1.Its pretty easy to show that most of the criteria on the list at the top are more easily accomplished by more common hunting cartridges.
                                2. Banning all centerfire cartridge firearms is likely the real end game that proves many to vote against any anti-gun measure. Likely effective at preventing firearms homicides, but will not stop evil people from committing heinous acts. History also shows that this form of regulation was effective in other countries, need we name them?
                                3. So you are an expert in yet another field: home defense. So tell us "all knowing" what is as effective at stopping a home invasion?
                                4. My point of banning ownership of any objects based on need is not at all unreasonable, it's the first question asked: "why do you need an A15?"
                                How about cigarettes? Why do we as Americans need them? Do they not cost us lives and dollars in great numbers?
                                5. The Vegas shooting doesn't prove the lethality of any particular weapon over another. Certainly other cartridges could have inflicted far greater wounds due to basic ballistics.

                                I'm by no means against better regulation, I'd happily register my firearms, be fingerprinted, await background checks, etc. As a law-abiding American I have no issue except to prevent a gun grab, which until recent years are thought was just "conspiracy theory", but now...

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X