• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

another shooting at ft hood.

I stole the joke from one of ABsuperman's 1911 videos. When he was explaining the difference between the Series 70 and 80, he merely said that "this one says '70'".

I was fucking dying.
 
jlagman said:
"Just so you don't forget"

*then completely dodges my question about how different things can be the same but how calling them the same illustrates that you know the difference*

You called them the same thing two years ago, multiple times, even after people tried to correct you. People who don't know shit about shit spout buzzwords that they don't really understand to make themselves sound like they're knowledgable of the subject all the time; like when someone uses the blanket term "assault rifle" to describe semi-autos. So you can use Google and spell "full-auto" and "semi-auto", big deal. When you copy an paste a definition from Wikipedia, then ignore a crucial part of that definition and deem two different things to be the same, your lack of comprehension becomes painfully evident.

The fact of the matter is, you ignored the full-auto criteria in the very same fucking definition you copied and pasted, then tried, over a course of pages and days, to tell us that different things are the same and you wonder why no knowledgable firearms enthusiast takes your seriously.
Click to expand...

No no no no,

Go back and read it, take it slowly, I posted that defintion because it meets the key criteria, full auto and used by military. You in your haste to write off anyone who disgress with your point of view thought I ignored a portion.


"ARs are assault rifles because they are "the same weapons as front line soldiers" "

Really, as per usual I am wanting you to quote that.




Still can't provide your explanation of

"Key (SA = Semi Auto and FA = Full Auto)"

that I posted 6 months before you showed me that they are different.
 
The question in the thread two years ago was essentially "why not call them assault rifles?" When I explained how semi-automatic fire immediately disqualified it as being classified as an "assault rifle", you copied and pasted a definition you didn't quite understand, ignored a crucial portion of it, tried to convince people that two different things were in fact the same, then after getting your ass handed to you by like a dozen different people who actually shoot and know stuff about guns, you got all pissy and denied any valid claims on your ignorance about firearms.

The quotes are out there for everyone to see, good luck trying to explain to people that you actually know what you're talking about.
 
jlagman said:
The question in the thread two years ago was essentially "why not call them assault rifles?" When I explained how semi-automatic fire immediately disqualified it as being classified as an "assault rifle", you copied and pasted a definition you didn't quite understand, ignored a crucial portion of it, tried to convince people that two different things were in fact the same, then after getting your ass handed to you by like a dozen different people who actually shoot and know stuff about guns, you got all pissy and denied any valid claims on your ignorance about firearms.

The quotes are out there for everyone to see, good luck trying to explain to people that you actually know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Still can't provide your explanation of

"Key (SA = Semi Auto and FA = Full Auto)"

that I posted 6 months before you showed me that they are different.
 
Quick recap of the thread in question.

1) HIMBOB does not see a problem with using the term "assault rifle" loosely because they're "basically the same thing"

2) The mechanics of an actual assault rifle are explained, HIMBOB even copies and pastes a definition but because he doesn't fully understand what is written, is convinced that they're a still a problem and what we've tried to explain to him "doesn't fucking matter"

3) It is explained to HIMBOB that actual assault rifles, are very rare, have to be pre '86 and cost upwards of 5 figures to own. He begins spouting some shit about "hunting humans" and makes a mountain out of a molehill of the small number of actual, existing, legal assault rifles which aren't even used in crimes and completely dodges the fact that he did not fully comprehend the definition of "assault rifle" and was using it as a misnomer the whole time

4) Courtesy fades, his pride swells and HIMBOB goes down in flames, trying to (futilely) convince himself and others that he knew what he was talking about the whole time
 
HIMBOB said:
Still can't provide your explanation of

"Key (SA = Semi Auto and FA = Full Auto)"

that I posted 6 months before you showed me that they are different.
Click to expand...

And you still can't tell me how when different things are somehow "basically the same", it must mean you know what you're talking about.
 
jlagman said:
Quick recap of the thread in question.

1) HIMBOB does not see a problem with using the term "assault rifle" loosely because they're "basically the same thing"

2) The mechanics of an actual assault rifle are explained, HIMBOB even copies and pastes a definition but because he doesn't fully understand what is written, is convinced that they're a still a problem and what we've tried to explain to him "doesn't fucking matter"

3) It is explained to HIMBOB that actual assault rifles, are very rare, have to be pre '86 and cost upwards of 5 figures to own. He begins spouting some shit about "hunting humans" and makes a mountain out of a molehill of the small number of actual, existing, legal assault rifles which aren't even used in crimes and completely dodges the fact that he did not fully comprehend the definition of "assault rifle" and was using it as a misnomer the whole time

4) Courtesy fades, his pride swells and HIMBOB goes down in flames, trying to (futilely) convince himself and others that he knew what he was talking about the whole time
Click to expand...

As per usual, don't explain what happened in your view (which I have told you is incorrect) FUCKING QUOTE ME.

Why is it so hard for you to quote me, I literally said it apparently and after all this time you still can't quote it????


Here I will provide context,


You said,
In before someone incorrectly uses the word "assault" to describe a type of rifle.


I said,
What is so bad about the term assault rifle?
I think 99% people who use the term, consider it the same as the wiki definition
"An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies."
That second line is really what we are talking about, Weapons of Modern War. You do not need the same weapon as your frontline soldiers.
Is there another name which is better and easier to use?

You replied,
This fits the acceptable definition of an assault rifle:
(Picture of army dude with a rifle with grenade launcher)
This does not:
(Picture of some guy with a near visually identical rifle beside the lack of launcher)
You're too focused on the latter part of the definition to realize that while the latter looks like the former, they're very different.


In the same convo and few hours later,
I said
 
Anyway its home time now so I shall be off,

I look forward to coming back some time later and seeing no quotes of what you claim I lierally said and you offering no reasonable explanation for how I knew something 6 months before you told me it.
 
7437 said:
How would you even identify a target if everyone has a gun?
Click to expand...

Honestly, when I'm being shot at in a place I'm not legally allowed to carry a weapon, the last thing on my mind will be how the security team is going to deal with the shooter after I'm dead.

Obviously, an active shooter situation is very chaotic, and identifying the shooter will be difficult if everyone is going Rambo. With that said, it's preferable to sticking your head between your legs and kissing your ass goodbye.
 
Last edited:
Phelly2 said:
Honestly, when I'm being shot at in a place I'm not legally allowed to carry a weapon, the last thing on my mind will be how the security team is going to deal with the shooter after I'm dead.

Obviously, an active shooter situation is very chaotic, and identifying the shooter will be difficult if everyone is going Rambo. With that said, it's preferable to sticking your head between your legs and kissing your ass goodbye.
Click to expand...

I wont argue that for the person who is immediately in front of an active shooter, having a gun would be a good thing. That is pretty common sense. The problem is with friendly fire related to literally everyone else.

The military has enough problems not shooting each other in the field when they are fighting a force that is not dressed the same way they are. On the same token, most bases have police forces on them now, and the police are also not known for exactly for showing restraint when facing a man with a gun. Having other armed people would create chaos on a base in that situation, and far more deaths would result.

The current policy of having people get to shelter obviously has some issues, like their response time, but it is the best option.
 
ANOTHER fucking thread ruined by people stubbornly arguing semantics.
 
HIMBOB was explained what assault rifles really were and how in fact really rare they are, he looked up the definition for fuck's sake, but then still acted like they were some epidemic on every corner street in America. To any rational person, they would take that to mean that HIMBOB didn't really understand the definition because he kept insisting that they were "basically the same thing".
 
7437 said:
Having other armed people would create chaos on a base in that situation, and far more deaths would result.
Click to expand...

There is no possible way you could know that with any amount of certainty. It's a really tired argument that has never even happened in a civilian armed self-defense scenario, much less on a base full of trained service members.

I don't know why you are so intent on denying our active duty service members the means to effective self-defense any time they aren't in an actual war zone. It obviously hasn't done much in the way of stopping psychos from carrying guns onto the base and shooting people.

Don't you think allowing service members to carry on base would be a huge deterrent for a potential mass murderer?
 
jlagman said:
HIMBOB was explained what assault rifles really were and how in fact really rare they are, he looked up the definition for fuck's sake, but then still acted like they were some epidemic on every corner street in America. To any rational person, they would take that to mean that HIMBOB didn't really understand the definition because he kept insisting that they were "basically the same thing".
Click to expand...
I really don't know what bug is up your ass. He's repeatedly stated that assault rifles include full automatic. He also has said he doesn't have a problem with semi-automatic being legal. The rest looks like you putting words in his mouth.
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
so because you have to move your finger more times to fire doesn't make it an assault rifle...


is that what youre saying
Click to expand...

Never bothered to check to see if you were using the word correctly? It sounds scary so it serves its propaganda purpose regardless of accuracy.
 
Last edited:
45ACP said:
There is no possible way you could know that with any amount of certainty. It's a really tired argument that has never even happened in a civilian armed self-defense scenario, much less on a base full of trained service members.

I don't know why you are so intent on denying our active duty service members the means to effective self-defense any time they aren't in an actual war zone. It obviously hasn't done much in the way of stopping psychos from carrying guns onto the base and shooting people.

Don't you think allowing service members to carry on base would be a huge deterrent for a potential mass murderer?
Click to expand...

In a word, no. I trust the military knows what they are doing, and that the civilian sector should not get involved. DOD 5210.56 worked great for 20 years, and in the last two there have been problems. That sounds a lot like the issue isnt the directive, but a different security problem.
 
7437 said:
In a word, no. I trust the military knows what they are doing, and that the civilian sector should not get involved. DOD 5210.56 worked great for 20 years, and in the last two there have been problems. That sounds a lot like the issue isnt the directive, but a different security problem.
Click to expand...

And soldiers being allowed to carry firearms worked great for much longer than that. Was there ever a shooting on a military base prior to that directive? If not, there was no reason to implement it in the first place.

IMO, we are starting to see the results of such a directive. Unintended consequences and all.

It's pretty well accepted that the areas of this country with the strictest gun control laws tend to have the highest rates of gun violence. I don't see why that logic can't be applied to military bases as well. Take away the good guy's means of self-defense and the bad guys start to take advantage.

Do you really believe there would have been MORE mass shootings had the "no guns on base" policy been repealed after the first one? You think things would be worse than they are now? Seems unlikely to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Neph
International Mass shooting at Bondi Beach, Sydney Australia. Death toll rising.
36 37 38
Replies
743
Views
24K
Scerpi
Scerpi

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,219
Messages
58,425,042
Members
176,034
Latest member
Screamer

Share this page

Back
Top