Bloodnok
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Events
Forums
UPGRADE
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Bloodnok
-
-
Incorrect. There are currently over 4m air weapons in the UK, they aren't illegal at all. You can even walk down the street with one in a bag.
The issue with military weapons is that they have big magazines and are easy to carry lots of ammo. Imagine if you only had single shooters, it's hard to deny there would be less massacres.
Well it's sad to hear that the police lied to my grandfather then, does not surprise me though.
I can shoot a bolt action rifle quite quickly, especially my Lee Enfield (I would imagine some of the UK members on this site know how fast the bolt is on one), no need for a semi-auto. Bolt action rifles can do plenty of damage, in a closed area or at long range.
-
These attacks are not all blitz attacks, just because in one instance a person may not be able to have a gun at hand doesn't mean they should be denied the right to ever have a gun. Being frail doesn't mean you can't shoot a gun, young children can easily shoot a .22.
My issue is the carrying of a firearm at any time under the pretext of it being simply for personal protection. Very few people of this ilk
would have had any formal training in incident management. By that, I mean bad guy shows up, pulls gun, 'good guys' pull their guns and start blazing away as wellI'd like to have the opportunity to shoot back if a bad guy shows up and pulls a gun on me. I'm sorry but I don't have any sympathy for the types of people that would attempt to take anything from me by force. If they're pulling a gun on me they've already decided that my life isn't worth as much as whatever they might be after. Just because you may give the person whatever they want doesn't mean you won't be dead once you do.
As for military weapons, they should not be publicly available. Period. Or the ammunition.
You might as well say that you think all semi-automatic weapons should be banned and all ammunition. There is nothing special about "military weapons". Only that they can hold larger magazines. All the other "military" features do nothing to make a gun more deadly. A collapsible stock and pistol grip don't enhance a firearm in the least, they just make them more comfortable shoot. Saying these are bad things is like saying an adjustable seat makes you speed. Actual weapons used by the miltary are fully automatic, that's not what was used in Sandy Hook.. There is nothing special about the ammunition used in a gun like an AR-15, it's the same as used for target practice and hunting.
I do agree that anyone carrying a gun should have formal training in its use. That's not just at the range, but getting someone to understand the implications of using a gun against someone. Not everyone can handle that. Most people when they first go out shooting are frankly nervous and scared of them. That changes once they're comfortable with it, but there is a learning period.
This absolute fear of weapons leads to this kind of nonsense: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22524862/second-grade-loveland-student-reportedly-suspended-imaginary-weapon
-
There are plenty of stories where a person has protected themselves from the "bad guys" with firearms. This happened just today not far from my office: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23971590&nid=148&title=man-attempts-to-rob-gas-station-owner-brandishes-pistol&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-2 No society is perfect, and there will always be people out there willing to do harm to others.
How about these people, all attacked within the past week:
I bet this woman would have been safer if she had a gun to protect herself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21299512
And maybe this guy: http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/man-attacked-with-a-stick-as-he-walked-home-1-5368192
And how about this gentleman, I think he might disagree: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10194395.Drug_addict_attacked_man__64__in_his_Boscombe_home/
"I am an older man and I am quite frail. I offered no resistance. I was terrified and I genuinely thought he was going to kill me. I believed I would be dead by the end of it all. I feel completely devastated by the attack and I can’t stop thinking about it. I feel scared a lot of the time.” No one should be left to feel like this in their own home, nobody.
UK gun laws have taken away one of the best ways one can defend themselves, I'm sorry but the idea that banning guns will make the world a "bad guy" free place ridiculous. The wild west might have died out, but there's still plenty of scum on this earth that doesn't care about anyone but themselves.
But I agree, there's a whole lot involved in this whole discussion. I imagine this thread could go on forever without a single mind changed. I'll certainly never agree that I should turn in my guns, and it seems like most on this site won't agree that I should be allowed to have them. One thing about Obama increasing gun rights, he didn't do anything. There were multiple lawsuits by gun owners to get unconstitutional gun laws repealed. Meaning people got rights back that should not have been taken in the first place.
And before anyone thinks I'm one of those "god given rights" people I most certainly am not. I just enjoy shooting and don't think anyone has the right to take away a hobby that I enjoy and a tool that I can use to defend myself. In fact I got hooked on shooting after shooting my Dad's break-open pellet gun at my Grandpa's house in Scarborough. A pellet gun that the police told my grandpa had to be turned in. Wonder how many shootings have occurred with one of those, it's a good thing it's no longer in a closet terrifying people.
-
Most people in the US don't buy semi automatic rifles to defend their home, most use a shotgun or handgun. The majority buy them because they are fun to shoot. Much like we buy fast cars. I don't need a car that does 100+ MPH, but they sure are fun to drive.
If some crazed kid stole a car and drove into a crowd of people at 100 mph, you wouldn't be clamoring to add speed limiters to all cars. You'd likely want to punish the individual, not the car and all law abiding car owners that don't drive into crowds of people.
-
-
-
Wow, scary. Why on earth would they be clamping the rear brake lines to do front brakes?
-
-
This has been our forecast since last week, finally getting above freezing. I still have snow on my street that first fell Christmas Eve. It's just been so cold this winter. Coldest it's been at my house so far is -5.5°F. As nice as it is living with mountains on each side, we get inversions where warm air traps cold air in the valley and that also traps all the pollution. Makes for some very nasty air if we don't get any storms to sweep it away.
What's everyone using to get around in the snow? This is my snow mobile:
-
http://www.abc3340.com/story/20597951/ore-sheriff-says-he-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws
So is the Constitution held above the law, or are they meant to go hand in hand?
Laws are held up to the constitution and will be struck down if the courts deem them to be unconstitutional so in a manner of speaking, yes.
Here's a good website that describes the term assault rifle and how it is used in US politics: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
-
Calling them "coffin shaped targets" is a great way to sensationalize what the application is. And it's not targeting 4 year olds, they just rated it 4 and up. Parents should be in full control of what apps their kids are playing anyway.
Playing Duck Hunt with a *gasp* controller shaped as a gun didn't lead me to going around shooting up ducks, this is no different then that.
-
Just a heads up for anyone looking for 235/60/15's. After waiting for months tirerack.com finally has these in stock. I've had these on back order forever hoping they'd come in. So now just in time for winter, they've arrived. I've been wanting to keep the stock tire size and up until now the BF Goodrich Radial was the only option, and going with an S rated tire just seemed wrong.
-
Thas exactly the point! There are people in the USA who think its ok to give a child a gun to take to school. As for your reference to the UK, no idea of its relevance, this isn't a competition.
Sorry, I missed the part where they said the parents actually gave the gun to the kid. This was local to me so I heard it on the news, didn't bother reading the article. Not sure where HuffPo got that the kid was given the gun. It has not been mentioned in any of our local papers, only that the gun was left behind by a relative and that the kid took it to school. I only mentioned the UK b/c you mentioned "your country is fcuked", wasn't trying to compete, I'm sure it would be a never ending battle of articles about stupid people.
By the way, I don't know all the details yet regarding the CT shooting, but it seems to me there ought to be thresholds of safety and competency training and certification/registration before you can buy more and more powerful weapons. I just don't think the same creds that get you a Ruger .22 should be enough to get you a Bushmaster AR-15.
I could definitely go along with that. Here in Utah for instance we have a stepped license for motorcycles based on their size, you could easily apply something like to various firearms. I'd like to see a lot more firearms training really. Guns aren't toys, sadly some people treat them that way.
-
Time to pull down the shutters, your country is fcuked!
This is a parenting/common sense problem. An 11 year old should not have had access to the gun in the first place. I'm sure I could pull plenty of stories out of the UK and tell you your country is fucked.
As someone that owns multiple firearms, most semi-automatic I would never support the banning of such weapons. I don't hunt, but I love driving out to the middle of nowhere to do some target shooting. Many of the people that are clamoring to ban all guns are generally people who have never touched one and are scared of them. I have taken quite a few people out shooting that have never done so before that are now gun owners themselves.
I think one of the bigger problems with gun control anywhere is that it's implemented by politicians. I bet most here believe that the assault weapons ban that was in place several years ago banned fully-automatic weapons. It didn't. It merely stated that guns couldn't have more then a certain number of "evil" features, like a collapsible stock. I think if anything more should be done by legal gun holders to secure their guns, a problem highlighted by that article. If you own a gun legally you should be required to secure them from people that can't own them, like children. Too many times guns are taken from homes by children, robbers etc that could have been prevented by a good safe.
-
Like others have said you can't rationalize. It was an irrational act by someone that obviously had problems that were ignored/avoided. I think there was a lot more going on with this young man that we will ever know. People will say he was a good/happy kid but he obviously wasn't. It's easy to go around blaming guns for this, and I'm sure people will try to find something like video games, movies, or TV to accuse as the cause. Everything but blaming the person that did it. The gun was merely a tool that he used, it didn't tell him to commit this act. He could have just have easily grabbed a knife and started stabbing, or driven a car through a large group of people.
If anything needs to be done there should be more support for people that have mental problems. Banning guns takes away one of many options a person has to kill people. I think there's also more that can be done to prevent people from entering a school and attacking children.
To those that are mocking the arming of teachers, why is that such a bad idea? Nobody complains when a pilot is armed, or there's an air marshal on board. How is arming a teacher any different? What happened at this school is proof that nobody had any way to protect themselves. For those of you living outside the US what would you do if someone entered your workplace and started attacking people with a large knife or gun? I know where I work there would be several guns drawn upon any attacker.
-
Quote:
However, the number of companies involved in F1 has dropped significantly in recent years on the back of the global recession. Many companies believe that despite the massive exposure F1 provides it simply isn’t providing them with a sufficient return on their initial investment.
http://www.marketresearchworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3947&Itemid=77
Quote:
Singapore Internet users also gravitate towards online video platforms like YouTube, with the global online video community being part of the top five downstream websites visited by Singaporeans
http://www.marketresearchworld.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3443&Itemid=77
Group Lotus isn't paying for the sponsorship of the Lotus F1 team so what investment are they losing?
-
It would be nice to see the new Exige in the hands of Top Gear whenever the next season starts. They always seem to have good things to say about Lotus. It's pretty much an international show at this point with massive viewership. I think Lotus really need to get the Elise/Exige back here in the US and if the show can get people here clamoring for the new one that would be great. There's lots of people that watch the show here. And like the F1 team, it's all free advertising.
-
You have to add the views of everyone that saw the commercials repeatedly during SPEED's coverage of the F1 race if you want to use youtube views as a basis for advertising. I doubt too many people log on to youtube to watch a commercial about a deodorant.
I just think it would have been nice if they could have snuck one of the Evora race cars in somehow. But as Bibs said it's all free for Group Lotus, so any exposure to the name ain't bad.
-
I think any news that doesn't involve firing someone or cancelling cars is a good thing. It's nice that Lotus F1 has been having a good year too (other then some of Grosjean's incidents). I was surprised to see commercials with the Lotus F1 partners and it's definitely one more thing to get the name out there. I just wish there was some involvement from Lotus Cars. There's a lot of people that look at me like I'm daft when I say my Esprit is a Lotus, they have no idea who they are and the commercials do nothing to expose people the car side of Lotus. It doesn't help that Lotus only has the Evora here in the US.
First I heard of the "The Host", checked out the trailer and looks like they've got a chromed out Evora in it, should get people asking "What car is that?"
-
Can't wait for this race, I really hope it goes well and turns into a good race. I'd like to see F1 stick around longer then it did at Indy. The first corner is bonkers, all fingers and toes will be crossed that Kimi and RoGro get through unharmed. I thought about going too but wanted to wait for organizers to sort out the kinks this first year.
You guys that are going better post up some pictures.
-
If it's in the guard rail it would be easier to fill with expanding foam
(not that I'm advocating anyone do that of course ) -
Not fair, the only tunnel around here is about 10 car lengths long. The best you get is a quick blast under a low hanging overpass.
-
What a race! I was on the edge of my seat for this one. Shame Grosjean went out, he did a great job getting up to 5th after losing a tire at the start. And nicely done by Vettel to get 3rd from the back of the grid.
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" - Kimi
-
The front definitely doesn't look right, too much wheel gap for sure. Can't say I'm a fan of the larger wheels on older Esprits, I think they need some rubber.
This is a ridiculous thing to say "Too many details to list". It looks like a clean swap, but with so few pictures it's hard to tell.
How do you rationalise the Connecticut shooting?
in General Chat
Posted