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

  • #61
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post

    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.

    But that is not what is being used



    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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?

    That is only one of the criteria that must be met. The others must be met as well.



    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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?

    All sorts of firearms. One might argue an AR-15 type weapon is more dangerous given the potential of harming others in other rooms or nearby domiciles.



    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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?

    When one person can use a cigarette to kill dozens and wound hundreds from a 30 story window that is 1000' away, we'll have that discussion. BTW, there has been significant regulation of tobacco. And smoking related issues have dropped significantly. You make the case for regulation for me. Thank you.



    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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.

    Actually it does. Especially to those who were affected. We know that a 5.56mm at that range is capable of inflicting significant damage and carnage.

    It's also why I detailed a configuration that is not specific to one caliber.


    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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...
    There may be those who believe in complete confiscation. I'm not one of them. I only want one particular group of weapons I specified to be regulated.

    We know regulation works in reducing the types of crimes that keep occurring.

    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Why would we prevent people from using any firearm legally?

    We do that know with effective results.

    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Herein lies the greater issue: they are inanimate objects that require the evil-doer manipulate them for evil purposes.
    Exactly. Good point. The goal is prevent evil-doer types from getting access to those types of weapons.

    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    This isn't like banning things that come to market, this is a change from legal ownership that Americans have enjoyed for years.
    There is precedent for that type of activity.

    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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...
    See earlier response regarding tobacco. We regulate tobacco, alcohol, and the others. The lethality of those items have been reduced as a result.
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    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?
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    That is the NRA narrative. That nothing can done. History and experience prove that is not true. Making things more difficult works.
    Last edited by scfire86; 04-07-2018, 10:06 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


    • #62
      History has shown in the US that banning something assuredly makes it more desirable. Need some examples? Look at alcohol during Prohibition, it actually increased though entirely banned. Certain illegal drugs have been banned for decades yet drug use continues and in fact the heroin and opiod epidemic kills thousands every year. It seems that the illegal trade of banned items is immensely profitable. I think if we ban certain guns the same thing will happen and a black market will appear. Well that is technically incorrect, it will expand because criminals are most often not getting their guns legally at this point.
      Crazy, but that's how it goes
      Millions of people living as foes
      Maybe it's not too late
      To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        [LEFT]
        We regulate tobacco, alcohol, and the others.
        Yet we see underage smoking and drinking and daily entries in the paper about who got a DWI last night. It's illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to underage individuals - heck, many places will card you no matter how old you are. But somehow the kids still get the stuff.

        The reduction of those activities hasn't come because of laws, etc. It'd been driven be economics (although you could probably consider taxes a form of regulation, I suppose). When I was a kid you could buy a whole carton of cigarettes for what you pay for a pack now. Less, actually. And the costs of getting a DWI have risen astronomically.

        But that hasn't prevented smoking and drinking. In fact, it's not unusual to read in those daily items about DWI that this is the second, third, or fourth time for that individual. If they want to drink and drive, they'll find a way. Drive by any bar in NY (where smoking is banned inside) and count the number of folks puffing away outside.

        I fully agree with background checks - but they should include significant information, which opens up a whole HIPAA can of worms. But it could happen. I know of someone (not me) who was seen for psychiatric reasons and had to prove to DMV for several years that they were capable. OTOH, that was from self admission...

        I disagree with bans on "military looking" weapons. If I were a gun manufacturer, I'd be making a fortune right now making conventional stocks to be used to convert the AR-15 to be less scary looking.

        There's a meme on FB about how a bolt action rifle with a scope might be considered a "sniper rifle" and suggesting they should be banned as well. As silly as that sounds, I'm sure it would please some folks to no end.

        Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

        Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
          Yet we see underage smoking and drinking and daily entries in the paper about who got a DWI last night. It's illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to underage individuals - heck, many places will card you no matter how old you are. But somehow the kids still get the stuff.

          The number of DUI incidents has dropped. Your point is anecdotal.



          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
          The reduction of those activities hasn't come because of laws, etc. It'd been driven be economics (although you could probably consider taxes a form of regulation, I suppose). When I was a kid you could buy a whole carton of cigarettes for what you pay for a pack now. Less, actually. And the costs of getting a DWI have risen astronomically.

          Which is regulation. Making my point that regulation works.



          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
          But that hasn't prevented smoking and drinking. In fact, it's not unusual to read in those daily items about DWI that this is the second, third, or fourth time for that individual. If they want to drink and drive, they'll find a way. Drive by any bar in NY (where smoking is banned inside) and count the number of folks puffing away outside.
          There is no perfect solution--the argument that the only laws that should be passed have to solve 100% of the problem is a logical fallacy.

          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
          I disagree with bans on "military looking" weapons. If I were a gun manufacturer, I'd be making a fortune right now making conventional stocks to be used to convert the AR-15 to be less scary looking.

          My definition of the firearms I believe should be regulated makes no mention of appearance. Mechanical configuration is the key factor.



          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
          There's a meme on FB about how a bolt action rifle with a scope might be considered a "sniper rifle" and suggesting they should be banned as well. As silly as that sounds, I'm sure it would please some folks to no end.
          I would not include that configuration.
          Last edited by scfire86; 04-08-2018, 09:53 AM.
          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
            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?
            I don't recall a single instance of an American lawmaker suggesting that guns already purchased should be confiscated. I read two newspapers front to back every day and have done so for 40 years. One paper is right-leaning and one left-leaning. Confiscation of weapons from American citizens is not something I've ever heard or seen proposed except as a total fear-mongering tactic by gun owners. Obama was the right's great boogeyman for eight years. Yet he barely even talked about gun control.

            With the conservative's 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, the idea of confiscation happening is downright laughable.

            Even liberals don't seriously suggest it.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
              My definition of the firearms I believe should be regulated makes no mention of appearance. Mechanical configuration is the key factor.
              But others have made that distinction. The Ruger Mini-14 Tactical is illegal in NY. The Mini-14 Ranch is legal. They are the same gun. The only difference is that the Tactical version has that scary military looking stock.

              I would not include that configuration.
              At this point, neither has the anti-gun crowd, but we'll be on the lookout for it.

              I don't recall a single instance of an American lawmaker suggesting that guns already purchased should be confiscated.
              No, but the Australian model has gotten a lot of press.

              Remember - there's a House bill that would outlaw all semi-auto weapons.
              Last edited by tree68; 04-07-2018, 11:54 PM.
              Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

              Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

              Comment


              • #67
                The most ironic part about even talking about confiscation is they would never get all of the firearms anyways. How can you track the rifle or handgun that grampa bought 70 years ago? Or a gun that has been in the same family since the civil war? Or the private sales or gifts made between friends and family? Confiscation is a pipe dream and never part of the plan as it clearly violates the Second Amendment. The truth is they will disassemble the Second Amendment legislatively by selectively banning components, then specific firearms, then regulating ammunition, and then before we know what happened we will have lost the Second Amendment. The chatter about confiscation is a diversion plain and simple.
                Crazy, but that's how it goes
                Millions of people living as foes
                Maybe it's not too late
                To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                  But others have made that distinction.

                  Can't speak for them. I only know what I would do.


                  Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                  The Ruger Mini-14 Tactical is illegal in NY. The Mini-14 Ranch is legal. They are the same gun. The only difference is that the Tactical version has that scary military looking stock.

                  My criteria would only regulate both of them if their magazine capacity is greater than 10 rounds.



                  Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                  No, but the Australian model has gotten a lot of press.

                  We know from experience and examples in other nations that regulation works. Many nations have both regulated firearms and are not ruled by tyrants.


                  Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                  Remember - there's a House bill that would outlaw all semi-auto weapons.
                  Haven't seen it. What's the number?
                  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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                    Haven't seen it. What's the number?
                    H.R.5087

                    It appears to amend the current ban on assault weapons.

                    It's a long read, and I haven't had the time to cross reference the changes to other laws that it calls for.

                    It's curious that one weapon I've mentioned is specifically exempted - the Mini-14.

                    It's also curious that someone took the time to list a large number of non-semi-auto weapons, right down to double-barreled shotguns. [Rhretorical question] Why would they have to do that if the weapons listed clearly don't meet even the criteria for a generic semi-auto weapon?


                    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                      H.R.5087

                      It appears to amend the current ban on assault weapons.

                      It's a long read, and I haven't had the time to cross reference the changes to other laws that it calls for.

                      It's curious that one weapon I've mentioned is specifically exempted - the Mini-14.

                      It's also curious that someone took the time to list a large number of non-semi-auto weapons, right down to double-barreled shotguns. [Rhretorical question] Why would they have to do that if the weapons listed clearly don't meet even the criteria for a generic semi-auto weapon?

                      I have no idea. I would not support that bill. I've been pretty specific in what weapons I would regulate.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                        But others have made that distinction. The Ruger Mini-14 Tactical is illegal in NY. The Mini-14 Ranch is legal. They are the same gun. The only difference is that the Tactical version has that scary military looking stock.


                        At this point, neither has the anti-gun crowd, but we'll be on the lookout for it.



                        No, but the Australian model has gotten a lot of press.

                        Remember - there's a House bill that would outlaw all semi-auto weapons.
                        What exactly IS the "Australian Model"?

                        What does that mean "outlaw all semi-auto weapons"? Does that mean confiscation or does it mean outlawing future sales?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I would regulate the specific type of semi auto weapons I detailed in a similar manner as full auto weapons. That would have tangible results.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by captnjak View Post

                            I don't recall a single instance of an American lawmaker suggesting that guns already purchased should be confiscated. I read two newspapers front to back every day and have done so for 40 years. One paper is right-leaning and one left-leaning. Confiscation of weapons from American citizens is not something I've ever heard or seen proposed except as a total fear-mongering tactic by gun owners. Obama was the right's great boogeyman for eight years. Yet he barely even talked about gun control.

                            With the conservative's 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, the idea of confiscation happening is downright laughable.

                            Even liberals don't seriously suggest it.
                            And 30 years ago , I would have doubted that the American people would (for the most part) accept the restrictions that have been imposed on flying. My take on the "confiscation" of gums will be tied to "concern" for mental health issues.
                            ?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post

                              And 30 years ago , I would have doubted that the American people would (for the most part) accept the restrictions that have been imposed on flying. My take on the "confiscation" of gums will be tied to "concern" for mental health issues.
                              What real "restrictions' have been imposed on flying? I see the security regulations as more of a nuisance than anything else. Unless I'm missing something.

                              I'm OK with guns being confiscated from people with mental health issues who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. It beats an involuntary trip to the psych ward.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by captnjak View Post

                                What exactly IS the "Australian Model"?
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

                                What does that mean "outlaw all semi-auto weapons"? Does that mean confiscation or does it mean outlawing future sales?
                                Basically outlaw sales, from what I've been able to discern. As I mentioned, you have to find the original statue and apply the modifications to make more sense of it.

                                More troubling to me is the listing of weapons exempted, since a most of them aren't semi-automatics - and it even says so in the bill. Why bother including them in the law? Maybe the next step is to make sale of them illegal, too - all they have to do is change a little wording and, voila! A minor amendment to a bigger bill that's sure to pass...
                                Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                                Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X