Parenting in the age of facebook

http://mashable.com/2012/02/13/dad-shoots-laptop-poll/

Watch the original vid (if you haven't seen it already), then read the follow-up comments. Good parenting or bad parenting? Overkill or just what you need to get through to a spoiled over-pampered generation of kids?

Oh hell yeah!!!

I wouldn't have been as nervous and it would have been shot with this:
Armalite AR-10 7.62 NATO


Of course that really isn't mine, but was the closest thing I could find quickly. My stock is different. Someday I may start a firearms opinion thread and post pics.....but without Brits that topic would die quickly :-O

So yeah, I agree. I was tough on my son. My dad was tough on me. I love my Dad to death and have a great relationship with my son today (he's 20). Our entitlement attitude starts at home. We have to teach responsibility. In the end she will be resentful for a time and things will be rough. Eventually she will grow up and realize what a brat she was.

What are your views on the public being allowed to own automatic weapons? Should there be any restriction on ordinance or weaponry?

Dennis324 wrote:What are your views on the public being allowed to own automatic weapons? Should there be any restriction on ordinance or weaponry?

Never has there been a lawfully purchased automatic weapon used to commit a crime. If they scare you, you may want to move out of Alabama. There are plenty of lawfully owned automatic weapons in that state. I myself do not own any since they are nothing more than a toy and are of no real use to me at the moment. I do plan on buying one someday. I really want an original BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). That is a real piece of American history and is quite the investment. My wife, on the other hand, really wants an actual WWII Tommy Gun just like her father used in the Ardennes. Before I follow through with these purchases, I want to establish a Federal Firearms Trust. That makes it much easier to obtain those types of firearms.

So I guess the question now becomes:
Would you want to prevent lawful citizens, such as my wife and I, from owning such weapons???

Marconius wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:What are your views on the public being allowed to own automatic weapons? Should there be any restriction on ordinance or weaponry?

Never has there been a lawfully purchased automatic weapon used to commit a crime. If they scare you, you may want to move out of Alabama. There are plenty of lawfully owned automatic weapons in that state. I myself do not own any since they are nothing more than a toy and are of no real use to me at the moment. I do plan on buying one someday. I really want an original BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). That is a real piece of American history and is quite the investment. My wife, on the other hand, really wants an actual WWII Tommy Gun just like her father used in the Ardennes. Before I follow through with these purchases, I want to establish a Federal Firearms Trust. That makes it much easier to obtain those types of firearms.

So I guess the question now becomes:
Would you want to prevent lawful citizens, such as my wife and I, from owning such weapons???

Yes.

But you didn't really answer my questions. You just said no legally purchased automatic weapon has been used in a crime and then said what sort of toys you and your wife want.

the questions STILL are...

(a)What are your views on the public being allowed to own automatic weapons?

(b)Should there be any restriction on ordinance or weaponry?

Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm afraid to live in Alabama.

(Btw...I'd love to have a BAR too. Brutally efficient weapon).

Dennis324 wrote:

Yes.

What would be the reasoning behind this???

Dennis324 wrote:But you didn't really answer my questions. You just said no legally purchased automatic weapon has been used in a crime and then said what sort of toys you and your wife want.

the questions STILL are...

(a)What are your views on the public being allowed to own automatic weapons?

(b)Should there be any restriction on ordinance or weaponry?

Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm afraid to live in Alabama.

(Btw...I'd love to have a BAR too. Brutally efficient weapon).

a) Why should lawful citizens not be able to own them???

b) Why should there be restrictions on what ammo lawful citizens can use???

Evidence shows that there is no reason to disallow us from owning and using these firearms and to keep us from doing so would be very Unconstitutional and would go against everything that document stands for.

Marconius wrote:
a) Why should lawful citizens not be able to own them???

b) Why should there be restrictions on what ammo lawful citizens can use???

Evidence shows that there is no reason to disallow us from owning and using these firearms and to keep us from doing so would be very Unconstitutional and would go against everything that document stands for.

Am a bit wary dipping on on this one as the whole guns thing is a serious hot potato in the US any time it's brought up AFAIK, and we don't have any guns over here so I can't speak from a position of personal knowledge. My only real comment on (a) and (b) there is "why would you want them?" The way I see it there is that you have 3 reasons to have a gun (besides "because I can" which isn't really a reason):

1) hunting
2) self defence in the home
3) self defence against an oppressive government who is trying to take away your rights

On 1), surely a rifle is better for hunting than an M-16 (or a BAR) - if not, what the hell kind of animals are you going after????
On 2) again, like 1, an automatic rifle is sort of overkill for self defence, if you live in an area that is so rough/dangerous you need to roll strapped with a fully auto, then it might be an idea to think about moving.....
On 3), if you're the kind of person who is of this opinion, then you probably don't recognize the authority of the government anyway so you're probably going to have several automatics in your secret bunker in the woods regardless.

And my only other comment on this is that as we don't have any sort of guns over here, we're pretty much fucked in the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse.

Besides, my main reason for starting this was more for the parent methods involved as opposed to the type of gun the dude was using to take the laptop apart with.....

Miles1 wrote:

Am a bit wary dipping on on this one as the whole guns thing is a serious hot potato in the US any time it's brought up AFAIK, and we don't have any guns over here so I can't speak from a position of personal knowledge. My only real comment on (a) and (b) there is "why would you want them?" The way I see it there is that you have 3 reasons to have a gun (besides "because I can" which isn't really a reason):

1) hunting
2) self defence in the home
3) self defence against an oppressive government who is trying to take away your rights

On 1), surely a rifle is better for hunting than an M-16 (or a BAR) - if not, what the hell kind of animals are you going after????
On 2) again, like 1, an automatic rifle is sort of overkill for self defence, if you live in an area that is so rough/dangerous you need to roll strapped with a fully auto, then it might be an idea to think about moving.....
On 3), if you're the kind of person who is of this opinion, then you probably don't recognize the authority of the government anyway so you're probably going to have several automatics in your secret bunker in the woods regardless.

And my only other comment on this is that as we don't have any sort of guns over here, we're pretty much fucked in the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse.

Besides, my main reason for starting this was more for the parent methods involved as opposed to the type of gun the dude was using to take the laptop apart with.....

You missed reason 4, which is the very reason the people who buy those weapons actually buy them. It is why I will buy one and why my wife will buy one........investment. Firearms are a big part of US history (as well as everyone else's I guess) and appreciate steadily in value according to how significant the model is in history or how rare it is. Firearms of that nature are not cheap. The average, apocalypse fearing guy out in his "bunker" (read basement) can't afford them. They are highly regulated by both local and the Federal government. An extensive Federal background check is needed and even then you must get personal approval from local law enforcement (a Federal Firearms Trust negates the need for local approval). All-in-all this is not something a person with nefarious plans or great mistrust of government will do.

Of course they are damned fun to shoot at the range.

That's all I will say about that since this thread has been hijacked way of course.

Still Miles, you never did give us your opinion on the punishment. Do you think it was overboard??? What would you have done???

BTW-Since zombies, according to TV and movies, are attracted to sound, you may not want a gun for the upcoming zombie outbreak. Get with the program and do what Daryl does......get a crossbow and a big knife (You guys do have The Walking Dead on TV over there don't you??? Great show!!!)

Marconius wrote:
You missed reason 4, which is the very reason the people who buy those weapons actually buy them. It is why I will buy one and why my wife will buy one........investment. Firearms are a big part of US history (as well as everyone else's I guess) and appreciate steadily in value according to how significant the model is in history or how rare it is. Firearms of that nature are not cheap. The average, apocalypse fearing guy out in his "bunker" (read basement) can't afford them. They are highly regulated by both local and the Federal government. An extensive Federal background check is needed and even then you must get personal approval from local law enforcement (a Federal Firearms Trust negates the need for local approval). All-in-all this is not something a person with nefarious plans or great mistrust of government will do.

Well, like I said, not being from a country that has guns in its culture (at least not legal ones), I didn't know that :-p

Still Miles, you never did give us your opinion on the punishment. Do you think it was overboard??? What would you have done???

Well, the points he made in the video were good ones, my only issue with the punishment would be why shoot the laptop? Guy said he'd spent like $130 on it the day before, there goes that $130 right there. I understand it for the "shock value" of shooting it on the video clip but he could have given the laptop away to someone who might get some use out of it.

BTW-Since zombies, according to TV and movies, are attracted to sound, you may not want a gun for the upcoming zombie outbreak. Get with the program and do what Daryl does......get a crossbow and a big knife (You guys do have The Walking Dead on TV over there don't you??? Great show!!!)

Yeah, I love that show. Like everything else though we get it on a few weeks time delay from over your side of the pond - at least, if you wait to watch it on TV that is.... :-) We're just on episode 6 of series 2 over here now. Apparently they're making a movie of "World War Z" now as well, although by all accounts they've royally fucked up the plot and it's nothing like the book. If you like zombie books as well, "Day By Day Apocalypse" is a good read.

There were still times in that show that they needed guns though - you can take out one zombie nice and quietly with the crossbow all right but sometimes you just need to pop a cap in multiple zombie asses at the same time.... We'd be reduced to throwing stuff at them over here:



:-)

Marconius wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:

Yes.

What would be the reasoning behind this???

Dennis324 wrote:But you didn't really answer my questions. You just said no legally purchased automatic weapon has been used in a crime and then said what sort of toys you and your wife want.

the questions STILL are...

(a)What are your views on the public being allowed to own automatic weapons?

(b)Should there be any restriction on ordinance or weaponry?

Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm afraid to live in Alabama.

(Btw...I'd love to have a BAR too. Brutally efficient weapon).

a) Why should lawful citizens not be able to own them???

b) Why should there be restrictions on what ammo lawful citizens can use???

Evidence shows that there is no reason to disallow us from owning and using these firearms and to keep us from doing so would be very Unconstitutional and would go against everything that document stands for.

I'm not against you owning a high powered semi-automatic weapon. I do think there should be special permits for owning such weaponry though (and I think there are).

What worries me about groups like the NRA is that it has become saturated with people who believe the 2nd amendment guarantees their right to own any sort of weapon created up to, and including, explosives, automatic weapons, even tanks and heavy artillery.

Of what use would owning such weapons be if not to attempt to cause harm? Yes, perhaps the occasional collector might have a use for them, but its doubtful that many people would buy these things simply as collectors' items. For every 1 collector buying a thompson machine gun or a BAR, there are likely 10 cartels hoping to posess similar weapons for nefarious reasons.

The good, law abiding people are not the ones to worry about. Its the criminal element, who would take advantage of such easily available weapons that good people use to acquire them that are the problem.

I talked with an NRA member a few years ago about this topic and he asked the same thing you did. I asked him why he wants automatic weapons and explosives. He told me it was his right and the people needed them to keep our govt in line! (I guess the vote doesnt do that). Plus who determines whether the govt is in line?

In the 30s local and state police had lots of trouble ending Bonnie and Clyde's reign of terror because they were outgunned. Clyde Barrow could usually outrun any pursuit, but if he wanted, he could turn his BARs on the police and shred them to pieces...anytime he wanted. FINALLY the police were able to match his weaponry and stop the outlaws.

You guys are probably too young to remember this, but in 1997 there was a gun fight in LA. Several bank robbers used armor piercing bullets, high powered weaponry and body armor to shoot it out with police. More than 200 police were on hand for the siege, which lasted more than an hour. Armored personnel carriers and dozens of police cars, fire engines and ambulances were called to subdue the attackers and attend to the wounded.

Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen. 9 elementary schools had to be shut down because of the danger to the children. I watched it all on tv as it unfolded. Police who initially arrived had only standard issue 9mm Barettas (what I own) and couldnt stop these guys for a long time and a lot of innocent people got hurt. Police actually had to burst into a local gun store and get better weaponry just to have a chance against these guys.

Source

Now there are 2 possible solutions to this problem.

1. Heavily regulate the weaponry allowed to civilians.
2. Make your local police arm themselves at AL Times likea soldier going into Iraq against Al Quaida.

I resigned from the NRA shortly after that and refuse all their attempts to get me to rejoin.

The 2nd Amendment give us the right to keep and bear arms. It does NOT, however, prevent our govt from regulating said arms. It says nothing about the type of arms we can have nor does it say the govt cannot decide what sort of arms we may have.



This is exactly why I will never, ever side with those who demand free unrestricted access to military grade high powered weaponry. I'm on the side of law enforcement. Those men and women put their lives on the line day in and day out and I dont think we should relax gun laws simply because someone wants to play with such weapons. The police are not our enemies. They are our friends and neighbors and have a tough job to do. I dont want to make their job tougher.

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:
a) Why should lawful citizens not be able to own them???

b) Why should there be restrictions on what ammo lawful citizens can use???

Evidence shows that there is no reason to disallow us from owning and using these firearms and to keep us from doing so would be very Unconstitutional and would go against everything that document stands for.

Am a bit wary dipping on on this one as the whole guns thing is a serious hot potato in the US any time it's brought up AFAIK, and we don't have any guns over here so I can't speak from a position of personal knowledge. My only real comment on (a) and (b) there is "why would you want them?" The way I see it there is that you have 3 reasons to have a gun (besides "because I can" which isn't really a reason):

1) hunting
2) self defence in the home
3) self defence against an oppressive government who is trying to take away your rights

On 1), surely a rifle is better for hunting than an M-16 (or a BAR) - if not, what the hell kind of animals are you going after????
On 2) again, like 1, an automatic rifle is sort of overkill for self defence, if you live in an area that is so rough/dangerous you need to roll strapped with a fully auto, then it might be an idea to think about moving.....
On 3), if you're the kind of person who is of this opinion, then you probably don't recognize the authority of the government anyway so you're probably going to have several automatics in your secret bunker in the woods regardless.

And my only other comment on this is that as we don't have any sort of guns over here, we're pretty much fucked in the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse.

Besides, my main reason for starting this was more for the parent methods involved as opposed to the type of gun the dude was using to take the laptop apart with.....

*Laughing* And everyone knows chainsaws are the preferred weapons against Zombies.

I agree with ya 100% though. I'm not against hunting weapons. And our Constitution has set up a system whereby we have legal and peaceful methods of addressing any concerns with our govt. Revolution is no longer necessary. We can thank the wisdom of our Founding Fathers for that. We have peaceful transfer of power all the time because of their genius.

Back to your original post tho...

I sympathize with that father. He was pretty fed up with his smart aleck daughter and decided to try to show her a thing or two.

However, I dunno if shooting her laptop is the best message to send. Surprised he hasnt received a visit by Child services or DHR for that. I mean...you cant even spank a child over here anymore thanks to politically correct looneys.

But yeah, I do sympathize with him.

Marconius wrote:You missed reason 4, which is the very reason the people who buy those weapons actually buy them. It is why I will buy one and why my wife will buy one........investment. Firearms are a big part of US history (as well as everyone else's I guess) and appreciate steadily in value according to how significant the model is in history or how rare it is.

So what, something like this so:

Lol!

I can understand wanting to invest in something, which is why I have invested in guitars. I also invest in silver and its worked out pretty well so far.

Dennis324 wrote:

I'm not against you owning a high powered semi-automatic weapon. I do think there should be special permits for owning such weaponry though (and I think there are).

What worries me about groups like the NRA is that it has become saturated with people who believe the 2nd amendment guarantees their right to own any sort of weapon created up to, and including, explosives, automatic weapons, even tanks and heavy artillery.

Of what use would owning such weapons be if not to attempt to cause harm? Yes, perhaps the occasional collector might have a use for them, but its doubtful that many people would buy these things simply as collectors' items. For every 1 collector buying a thompson machine gun or a BAR, there are likely 10 cartels hoping to posess similar weapons for nefarious reasons.

The good, law abiding people are not the ones to worry about. Its the criminal element, who would take advantage of such easily available weapons that good people use to acquire them that are the problem.

I talked with an NRA member a few years ago about this topic and he asked the same thing you did. I asked him why he wants automatic weapons and explosives. He told me it was his right and the people needed them to keep our govt in line! (I guess the vote doesnt do that). Plus who determines whether the govt is in line?

In the 30s local and state police had lots of trouble ending Bonnie and Clyde's reign of terror because they were outgunned. Clyde Barrow could usually outrun any pursuit, but if he wanted, he could turn his BARs on the police and shred them to pieces...anytime he wanted. FINALLY the police were able to match his weaponry and stop the outlaws.

You guys are probably too young to remember this, but in 1997 there was a gun fight in LA. Several bank robbers used armor piercing bullets, high powered weaponry and body armor to shoot it out with police. More than 200 police were on hand for the siege, which lasted more than an hour. Armored personnel carriers and dozens of police cars, fire engines and ambulances were called to subdue the attackers and attend to the wounded.

Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen. 9 elementary schools had to be shut down because of the danger to the children. I watched it all on tv as it unfolded. Police who initially arrived had only standard issue 9mm Barettas (what I own) and couldnt stop these guys for a long time and a lot of innocent people got hurt. Police actually had to burst into a local gun store and get better weaponry just to have a chance against these guys.

Source

Now there are 2 possible solutions to this problem.

1. Heavily regulate the weaponry allowed to civilians.
2. Make your local police arm themselves at AL Times likea soldier going into Iraq against Al Quaida.

I resigned from the NRA shortly after that and refuse all their attempts to get me to rejoin.

Dennis, I love you man and think you are a stand up guy who really does have the best intentions in mind. After reading this however, and don't get me wrong, I can see you really don't know much about guns and the current gun laws.

1) What defines a "high power rifle"??? Is it energy or is it velocity??? Most would have you believe it is velocity, but in reality it is energy that defines whether a firearm is high power or not. Now here's the thing.....military grade firearms are not high power. At most, as in case of the 7.62 NATO, they are standard power. A high power round, ie "magnum", was not offered in semi-auto until Beretta, Benelli, and Browning started offering them about 5-6 years ago. I wish I had one. My elk rifle is a single shot .300 Win Mag and it kicks like hell. That kick is exactly why military grade firearms are not "high power". Nothing about a 55 grain 5.56 "high power". In fact it is so "high power" it is illegal to use for whitetail hunting (it is not considered to have enough power to humanely kill a white tail).
2) No there is no special consideration for semi-auto firearms....even the "evil" black rifles. As long as you pass a federal background check, as you must for all firearm purchases, you can walk out of the store with it (unless the state has a waiting period...usually 3 days). You don't even have to register it. There is no difference between a semi-auto and any other action.
3) I see you have never read the intent of the 2nd amendment. The men who wrote it let us know exactly what they meant. The statement about votes keeping the government "inline" is exactly what those men did not want to hear. If there is no means to make that vote stand, then the vote is worthless. A famous man once said "A man with a firearm is a citizen. A man without a firearm is a subject." (kudos if you know who said that). The men who wrote the 2nd amendment fought for something special and they wanted to ensure it lasted. They knew that by making the citizen himself the militia was the only way to do that. As Jefferson said many years later (to the Supreme Court at the very first consideration of weapons banning by government) "Do not look at the 2nd amendment by the spirit of today. Rather judge the 2nd amendment by the spirit of the day in which it was written".(remember...you called these men genius on one thing....are they boneheaded on this) You be the judge. I like it the way it is now. All those things you do not want me to have......submachine guns, 50 cals, flamethrowers, etc......can be bought legally....if you have the time to go through the right forms and taxes.
4) Whether you admit it or not, you are scared to death of firearms. Just the thought scares you. I can tell because fear of the very worst rules your thought process on this. Look at all the bogus statements you made.....all fear driven.
a) Yeah Bonnie and Clyde had autos, but they were just like the ones today....bought illegally.
b) Dennis, I hate to tell you this, but the cartels already have 10X.....hell 100X the amount of legally purchased autos.....but they were also bought illegally.
c) Yeah those guys in LA had autos....illegally purchased autos. Yeah the police were outgunned. All the had was short ranged pistols and shotguns. The fight was stopped when several of them bought hunting rifles at a local store (rifle...all rifles are long ranged weapons so any long ranged weapon will outgun pistols and shotguns). Those so called "armor piercing bullets" were nothing more than cheap 5.56 surplus. There is no such thing as armor piercing bullets. Full metal jacket is as good as it gets for that caliber (the jacket keeps the bullet from fully expanding upon contact thereby allowing further penetration in hard surfaces). In fact that very same 5.56 is known for its lack of penetration (did you see how many rounds that guy ate through when he cut out a firing lane in that brick wall....at least two clips). The bullet is too light at only 55 grains.
d) I've already explained that buying one of these weapons is not at all easy and criminals DO NOT buy them LEGALLY. NEVER has a legally purchased automatic weapon been involved in a crime.
5) If you actually think the market for gun collection is "occasional" then you need to get out more brother. You know damn well firearms are big industry here and that firearms are a very big part of our history. Those two things should let you know that gun collecting is a multibillion dollar/year industry. Full autos make up a good portion (I'd say about 20% of sales but over 50% of the money)
6) If a citizen purchases a controlled weapon, like one of the ones you are afraid to let us have, that citizen cannot just sell it to another citizen. They must be consigned and the purchase procedure starts all over so those illegally purchase weapons never come from the pool that was/is legally purchased. Those that are legally purchased are tracked for the life of the weapon (so our government knows who has it and where they have it and what they use it for). Now this does not cover tanks, armored cars, warplanes, gunboats, etc. If you got the money, you can buy those at any time. They are registered just like any other vehicle of its type. Now try buying ordinance....that is another story all together.
Bottom line, you can ban all the guns you want. It won't matter. You will just stop us law abiding, well intended citizens from buying them. All those people you fear will still have access to them. So see Dennis, there really is nothing to fear from the bulk of us gun nuts....and yeah....I am a gun nut.


disclaimer: All weapons and ammo owned by me, except my Winchester 1892 (44 mag) trapper carbine (16" barrel), are kept in a gun safe that is rated for 2800 degrees for up to 3 hours. The '92 stays loaded with 10 rounds of 44 special and is propped by the nightstand. If you make it past the bulldogs, you gotta contend with that. For those that don't know....the 1892 is the rifle most used in westerns. John Wayne loved 'em. Funny thing is that the 1892 was made....well post 1892....which is after the wild west. Hollywood loved that model over the 1873 because it was lighter and could be had in .357 magnum, which could fire the very common...and very inexpensive...38 special brass. At just under 5 pounds, that 44 magnum of mine kicks like a little mule when I shoot the heavy loads, but nothing drops a big hog faster. Sorry, but even my disclaimer got sidetracked.

Dennis324 wrote:Lol!

I can understand wanting to invest in something, which is why I have invested in guitars. I also invest in silver and its worked out pretty well so far.

Gold and silver are very good investments. Prolly two of the best performing investments of the last 10 years. I invest in both. I also have an investment in the form of a classic Mustang (1971 Mach 1). While it hasn't appreciated as much as gold or silver, it has performed better than a 20 year CD. Firearm investments are like the investment in a classic car. It is first a purchase of desire with a secondary advantage of it appreciating in value over time. Hell a Walker Colt pistol is worth over $500,000 today. I would love one of those, but not because it is worth half a mil. Yeah that's really nice, but to be able to say that you actually possess a piece of history like that is awesome. That is what drives us. My car, as well as my collectible firearms, are not just a car and a bunch of guns......they are pieces of American history that can be touched. There is nothing better than that.

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:You missed reason 4, which is the very reason the people who buy those weapons actually buy them. It is why I will buy one and why my wife will buy one........investment. Firearms are a big part of US history (as well as everyone else's I guess) and appreciate steadily in value according to how significant the model is in history or how rare it is.

So what, something like this so:

A little tacky and unless originally made with gold plating.....it is worthless or at least close to it.

Made me chuckle though.

Marconius wrote:

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:You missed reason 4, which is the very reason the people who buy those weapons actually buy them. It is why I will buy one and why my wife will buy one........investment. Firearms are a big part of US history (as well as everyone else's I guess) and appreciate steadily in value according to how significant the model is in history or how rare it is.

So what, something like this so:

A little tacky and unless originally made with gold plating.....it is worthless or at least close to it.

Made me chuckle though.

Damn, I missed that the gun is an AK variant and not a BAR (just took a quick look at first). That is a VEPR 7.62X53R. Basically a cold war era Soviet sniper rifle. Great accuracy for an AK, but only fair when compared to NATO rifles of the day. Still with that plating, it is close to worthless unless you throw gang signs and really want a PIMP weapon. In that case, it is priceless.

Told you I was a gun nut.