Ukrainian War: Prelude to Worse?

[ScytheBearer]

Guns are simply a tool, nothing more.

The US government itself has spent 40 BILLION plus on buying guns for people to use in Ukraine, as well as countless billions of $$$ from other countries for the same purpose = To protect themselves from others - Where is your outrage over that?

 

Where were the calls to outlaw SUV's when a racist terrorist rammed his through a local Christmas Parade (comprising of and being watched by hundreds of children)?

 

The problem is not the guns, or any other weapon, they are just a tools, and neither are the laws that govern their distribution. The problem is the culture, society, and governments that create people who WANT to commit these crimes, whether it be a school shooting, or invading another country.

 

...

 

Instead, you engage in divisive rhetoric, malign an entire country of people with no factual basis, and parrot false claims and provably failed ideologies.

 

Saying guns aren't the problem and that guns are just tools and that it is a societal or cultural problem is pretty simplistic.

 

I will not deny that American society and some of it's cultural quirks are not a contributor to the issues around mass shootings. But they are not the reason that America has had 33 mass shootings (four or more shootings victims at one time and place) in the last three weeks. The availability of military grade high volume rapid fire weapons in the hands of untrained and undisciplined civilians is also a contributing factor.

 

Saying that gun control doesn't work is also a fallacy. The rest of the world has some very strict gun control and they do not have mass shootings. America's neighbor to the North has strict gun control, and their mass shootings in 2021 numbered eight, while America had that many in the first two days of 2021.

 

So, I agree that there is a mental health issue associated with the problem of mass shootings. But without the ready availability of the "tools" to initiate a mass shooting, the problem is greatly reduced.

 

Personally, I think all those folks need their potent high volume rapid fire military weapons to compensate for their impotence elsewhere. And not just sexual impotence, but social and cultural impotence. People feel marginalized for a whole host of reasons and need to puff themselves up somehow. And a gun accomplishes that puffery quite well. They may not be able to read the safety manual, but they can pull the trigger and that gives them a measure of the power they seek.

 

For me. it's simple. The equation is gun + social/cultural problem + willingness to kill = mass shooting. Take any one of the variables out of the equation and the problem ceases to exist. Which variable is easiest to control? Which is America least willing to control?

 

 

Now, back to the subject, that $40 billion was not just for guns, but for ammo, body armor, and some crew served weapons systems ("howitzers", mortars, anti-tank weapons, and anti-aircraft, etc). Weapons and equipment truly meant to stop an aggressor.

[HeyYou]

Gun laws have become more restrictive over time, not less. Of course, the AR-15 has been on the market since around 1962, yet the prevalence of mass shootings are an advent of recent history. So, what has changed? Society. And not for the better. Where did that change come from? Social media? The democrats? Something else? Doesn't really matter any more, the change is here, and continuing, and we have only been seeing MORE mass shootings. Would banning 'assault rifles' make a difference? Likely not. as pistols and shotguns are usually the weapons of choice. Mainstream media just pushes the narrative that every mass shooter has used a so-called 'assault rifle'.

 

Also, the AR-15 is NOT a "military grade" weapon. It is SEMI-automatic. No military in the world equips their combat troops with semi-auto weapons. Those are all selective fire.

 

We haven't sent any AR-15's to Ukraine, now have we? They get M-4's (an AR-15 variant) and howitzers.

[xrayy]

 

i don`t argue with you about nra and the related problems anymore. we all know the facts and the too obvious problems. how ever you and many americans try to turn this facts pro more weapons while claiming you/they love their children. how short sighted in my opinion! do you really think this 200 year old "buy weapons it is our right and our tradition" experiment in ths us will work out in the end ? how many shoodings do you need to understand why this problem exists all over the world but on a much lower level in the rest of the civilized world ?

 

correct would be: you all us americans love your weapons and your (in the meantime) crude cowboy traditions and obviously mostly forget also about the security of your children and life at all and the value of lives reating them with a much too low priority. it is obvious and that simple. even bloody shootings seem not change that. so nothing to argue. Just be happy.

As he spews on about gun control..... Hhhhmmmm.....

 

I am not going to engage any further here. This thread is NOT about gun control in the US, it's about the war in Ukraine. Think you can stick to the topic?

 

this topic exists because someone mighty with mental disorder urges dependent people to use heavy weapons uncontrolled against another nation. the children mass shooting is the same happend on a much lower level but also with a pronounced mental disorder of one man leading to a fatal result just because of uncontrolled use of weapons in the wrong hands. ask psychologists why such people exist. but they exist and we see the results: if they control weapons it is too late and they are a permanent danger for any civilization and any individuum - especially in a country with non existing or not working weapon laws and weapon control.

[ScytheBearer]

Gun laws have become more restrictive over time, not less. Of course, the AR-15 has been on the market since around 1962, yet the prevalence of mass shootings are an advent of recent history. So, what has changed? Society. And not for the better. Where did that change come from? Social media? The democrats? Something else? Doesn't really matter any more, the change is here, and continuing, and we have only been seeing MORE mass shootings. Would banning 'assault rifles' make a difference? Likely not. as pistols and shotguns are usually the weapons of choice. Mainstream media just pushes the narrative that every mass shooter has used a so-called 'assault rifle'.

 

Also, the AR-15 is NOT a "military grade" weapon. It is SEMI-automatic. No military in the world equips their combat troops with semi-auto weapons. Those are all selective fire.

 

We haven't sent any AR-15's to Ukraine, now have we? They get M-4's (an AR-15 variant) and howitzers.

 

One of the lessons learned in Vietnam was that most people didn't have enough fire control and / or trigger discipline to adequately handle an automatic weapon. Thus, most military personnel are now issued semi-automatic weapons. Few are issues what are called squad assault weapons (SAW) which are capable of automatic fire. A few other units are issued weapons which have "burst fire", where three rounds are fired per trigger pull vs one or "empty the magazine". But the general rule is that most units do not get automatic weapons for everyone.

 

So the AR15 IS a military grade weapon, capable of a high volume of fire in a short period of time.

 

With that, you can blame any political party you want, any nonprofit organization you want, or any extremist organization you want. You can twist the truth any way you want, but the reality is simple; without the guns, there are no mass shootings. Americans who are too stupid or too insane to join with the rest of the world and keep these weapons out of the hands of civilians.

 

Now, back to the subject under discussion.

 

The support to Ukraine by America, Canada, the EU and several other nations is more than likely to drive Putin and the Russian army into a frenzy wherein they escalate.

[Mktavish]

Guns as a tool ? Tool to do what job , or what is the intended outcome ?

Safety and freedom I suppose ?

Surely there are other tools for this purpose ?

 

I find it ironic that many think it is a tool to protect them from oppressive government Which governance is the act of "Active Agreement" among a society.

In which the right to bear arms is only granted by the act of agreement. So were you to disagree with the governance resorting to violence ... you would then no longer be granted any right outside of the action that creates rights.

 

But suppose we go the opposite direction to solve gun violence ... and step up having more armed citizens.

And suppose body armor has an evolution making it more effective and prevalent.

Do the good guy citizens then need to step up to armor piercing in all situations ? Or do we start banning body armor ?

 

And what is the value in education if/when it becomes just a high security babysitting facility ?

[HeyYou]

 

Gun laws have become more restrictive over time, not less. Of course, the AR-15 has been on the market since around 1962, yet the prevalence of mass shootings are an advent of recent history. So, what has changed? Society. And not for the better. Where did that change come from? Social media? The democrats? Something else? Doesn't really matter any more, the change is here, and continuing, and we have only been seeing MORE mass shootings. Would banning 'assault rifles' make a difference? Likely not. as pistols and shotguns are usually the weapons of choice. Mainstream media just pushes the narrative that every mass shooter has used a so-called 'assault rifle'.

 

Also, the AR-15 is NOT a "military grade" weapon. It is SEMI-automatic. No military in the world equips their combat troops with semi-auto weapons. Those are all selective fire.

 

We haven't sent any AR-15's to Ukraine, now have we? They get M-4's (an AR-15 variant) and howitzers.

 

One of the lessons learned in Vietnam was that most people didn't have enough fire control and / or trigger discipline to adequately handle an automatic weapon. Thus, most military personnel are now issued semi-automatic weapons. Few are issues what are called squad assault weapons (SAW) which are capable of automatic fire. A few other units are issued weapons which have "burst fire", where three rounds are fired per trigger pull vs one or "empty the magazine". But the general rule is that most units do not get automatic weapons for everyone.

 

So the AR15 IS a military grade weapon, capable of a high volume of fire in a short period of time.

 

With that, you can blame any political party you want, any nonprofit organization you want, or any extremist organization you want. You can twist the truth any way you want, but the reality is simple; without the guns, there are no mass shootings. Americans who are too stupid or too insane to join with the rest of the world and keep these weapons out of the hands of civilians.

 

Now, back to the subject under discussion.

 

The support to Ukraine by America, Canada, the EU and several other nations is more than likely to drive Putin and the Russian army into a frenzy wherein they escalate.

 

Um. No. The standard US army (and marines, etc.) rifle is selective fire. A fair few of them also have a 'burst' fire mode. (fires three shots for each pull of the trigger.)

[Mktavish]

 

 

Gun laws have become more restrictive over time, not less. Of course, the AR-15 has been on the market since around 1962, yet the prevalence of mass shootings are an advent of recent history. So, what has changed? Society. And not for the better. Where did that change come from? Social media? The democrats? Something else? Doesn't really matter any more, the change is here, and continuing, and we have only been seeing MORE mass shootings. Would banning 'assault rifles' make a difference? Likely not. as pistols and shotguns are usually the weapons of choice. Mainstream media just pushes the narrative that every mass shooter has used a so-called 'assault rifle'.

 

Also, the AR-15 is NOT a "military grade" weapon. It is SEMI-automatic. No military in the world equips their combat troops with semi-auto weapons. Those are all selective fire.

 

We haven't sent any AR-15's to Ukraine, now have we? They get M-4's (an AR-15 variant) and howitzers.

 

One of the lessons learned in Vietnam was that most people didn't have enough fire control and / or trigger discipline to adequately handle an automatic weapon. Thus, most military personnel are now issued semi-automatic weapons. Few are issues what are called squad assault weapons (SAW) which are capable of automatic fire. A few other units are issued weapons which have "burst fire", where three rounds are fired per trigger pull vs one or "empty the magazine". But the general rule is that most units do not get automatic weapons for everyone.

 

So the AR15 IS a military grade weapon, capable of a high volume of fire in a short period of time.

 

With that, you can blame any political party you want, any nonprofit organization you want, or any extremist organization you want. You can twist the truth any way you want, but the reality is simple; without the guns, there are no mass shootings. Americans who are too stupid or too insane to join with the rest of the world and keep these weapons out of the hands of civilians.

 

Now, back to the subject under discussion.

 

The support to Ukraine by America, Canada, the EU and several other nations is more than likely to drive Putin and the Russian army into a frenzy wherein they escalate.

 

Um. No. The standard US army (and marines, etc.) rifle is selective fire. A fair few of them also have a 'burst' fire mode. (fires three shots for each pull of the trigger.)

 

 

What restrictions are you specifically talking about ? Is this detail about fire rate one of them ?

But with laws/regulations being that of a reactive nature ... then Time,technology and population density would of course give rise to those reactive measures.

And I would say technologically speaking ... the average citizen now has more freedoms granted than there was before , including personal armament.

 

Or are we really talking about the ticky tack consumer freedom of choice vs educational choice , in the current generation of children ?

[HeyYou]

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

[Mktavish]

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

 

Well again ... isn't that in the nature of consumer choice ... rather than personal defense and self preservation ?

Pistol grips / High capacity magazines / pump action (better than bolt action) for the consumer choice of how best to preserve your liberty ?

What about less than lethal options in still satisfying the castle doctrine core principal ?

 

IDK ... where does the luv of guns pervert what is the right of self preservation ?

[HeyYou]

 

Restrictions on weapon 'style', (pistol grips, flash supressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) magazine capacity, and so on. Rate of fire really isn't relevant, as full-auto, or burst-fire weapons are prohibited for the civilian population. (and have been since around 1934.....)

 

Side Note: At one time, the dems wanted to classify pump-action shotguns as "assault rifles" as well.

 

Well again ... isn't that in the nature of consumer choice ... rather than personal defense and self preservation ?

Pistol grips / High capacity magazines / pump action (better than bolt action) for the consumer choice of how best to preserve your liberty ?

What about less than lethal options in still satisfying the castle doctrine core principal ?

 

IDK ... where does the luv of guns pervert what is the right of self preservation ?

 

Personally, I think banning something on the grounds of what it 'looks like', is idiotic. Restricting magazine size is rather useless as well. I can change magazines in my various mag-fed weapons in under 2 seconds. So, if you are only allowed a 10 round magazine, just carry more of 'em. But, the politicians passing these laws, have no clue.... Which I suppose, really isn't surprising either.

 

I have a couple rifles that would be classed as "assault weapons" by the left. None of them have ever fired a shot that they weren't directed to. None of them have killed anyone. They wait patiently in the gun safe, for me to come and get them..... They don't whine about being locked away in the dark either. They are very well behaved.