Have you got a gun/would you kill someone? [Archive]

Yoda

03-27-18, 06:51 PM

Considering the poisonous ultra extremist rhetoric that’s been coming from the NRA for decades I have no issues with those comments
And frankly the rhetoric has worked wonderfully on the right so why not some equal time on the left.
Thinking the other side is the one with all the extremist rhetoric, or the one that always wins because they're more cutthroat, is the political equivalent of a sports fan thinking the other team is getting all the calls. Everybody thinks this.

Seems to me the only way to combat that is to disavow all of it even if you feel like the other side does it more/did it first/does it worse/whatever. Otherwise, I don't see a difference between this and the "whataboutism" coming from this administration and its supporters.

...because they sure make it LOOK like they care about gun profits more than kids lives.
See, even this, as over-the-top as it is, is still actually more nuanced than what Hogg said! He said they want it to happen, don't care at all, et cetera. And there's been a pretty consistent failure to distinguish between figureheads at the NRA and politicians or members, too, which is part of what I'm getting at.

Lets not condemn frustrated terrified kids for saying what seems obvious to them because they are afraid of being shot in their class rooms and no adult seems willing to do anything about it.
Excusing what they say because they're frightened kids is fine, but it also precludes someone from holding them up as meaningful activists advancing serious arguments.

And if they don’t wield “disproportionate influence” then why do politicians routinely kill legislation that something like 85% of the country supports? How does that make sense?
You'll have to be more specific if you want a more specific response, but generally, abstract polls about contentious issues don't actually measure support well. They'll tell us, for example, that people support both lower taxes and more social services, even though the two are mutually exclusive. Saying "most people support X when asked independent of all the counterarguments people might make against it" isn't meaningful. That's not how we make laws, or even how we're supposed to make them: we make them by publicly and animatedly debating them.

This is particularly true when you poll something really broad like "gun control," which means wildly different things to different people. Particularly when many people seem to have no idea what is or isn't illegal already.

And I commend Rubio for appearing at that debate and bearing the brunt of the rage from the people who are sick of politicians who wont protect them because they don’t want to cross the gun lobby. Most of his peers are cowards who don’t want to even talk about gun control at all.
Agreed! So isn't it incredibly stupid that he's getting more flack than everyone else? Isn't that dumb, even from a completely Machiavellian perspective? And isn't it foolish and cynical, then, to elevate teenage victims, knowing that they'd probably do exactly this, because it might make for better optics?

Citizen Rules

03-27-18, 10:40 PM

Considering the poisonous ultra extremist rhetoric that’s been coming from the NRA for decades...

I'm not into arguing with people, so I won't try to match your verbosity with similar but opposing rhetoric. I would try to discuss with you, if you're open to that? I didn't follow what the student protesters said or what the response to them was? So all I can respond to is your comments on the NRA.

I'm not a NRA member. I image they are so stead fast in their beliefs because they feel well meaning but misinformed people want to take away their rights to own guns in an attempt to deal with school shootings. I'd bet the NRA would respond to you by saying banning gun ownership from law abiding citizens won't stop the deranged from killing people.

Personal I don't think it's possible to ban all gun ownership in America anyway so talk of that doesn't really help deal with future school shootings.

You know what would? Zero Tolerance for school bullying.

Bullying, taunting & harassing is a way of life at school, and it needs to stop, NOW. Ending school bullying wouldn't completely stop school shootings, but it would go further than any band-aid gun ban law would in ending the carnage.

Mr Minio

03-28-18, 01:36 AM

bullying This word feels familiar...

Guns don't kill people, *I* do.

I. Rex

03-28-18, 11:25 AM

Thinking the other side is the one with all the extremist rhetoric, or the one that always wins because they're more cutthroat, is the political equivalent of a sports fan thinking the other team is getting all the calls. Everybody thinks this.

Seems to me the only way to combat that is to disavow all of it even if you feel like the other side does it more/did it first/does it worse/whatever.

Sounds pretty but the problem is the other team has been playing that game for decades and its paid off in spades for them. So to say to the frustrated reasonable people who just want some common sense sane measures taken that ‘now now, play fair even though the other side has played dirty ball all this time and its worked’ is a bit disingenuous to me. Maybe more than a bit. And this is more about calling out the NRA specifically for what it is. Not about castigating the huge majority of hunters and gun owners who are reasonable decent people. Just the criminal syndicate that has fooled those people into thinking they are representing their rights and not using them as political fodder to enrich the gun manufacturers. So Im fully in support of demonizing the NRA at this point because trying to have a voice in the discussion hasn’t worked at all. They’ve twisted and lied and blackmailed and threatened their way to a strangle hold on the American political system that has allowed a fully and obviously insane guns-at-all-costs-with-no-restrictions mentality to flourish. And Im on on board with a scorched earth political approach in regards to the NRA (where you get voted out simply based on taking money from the NRA) because the NRA has been doing exactly the same with their rating system since the 80’s. Im definitely at the “by any means necessary” point on this topic because the alternative of shrugging our shoulders every time theres a mass shooting and every time a wacko takes an AR-15 to a class full of 1st graders seems insane to me.

And there's been a pretty consistent failure to distinguish between figureheads at the NRA and politicians or members, too, which is part of what I'm getting at.

As noted, my focus is the NRA. Not the average gun owner. Not the weekend hunter. They are more and more rejecting the rhetoric of the NRA as being less and less in touch with them and more and more an obvious front for insanity and greed. And yes I fully agree that politically embracing those gun owners and differentiating them from the wackos and the death dealers is paramount to making a movement work. I know Ive heard some of those kids say exactly that so I think they understand that as well.

Excusing what they say because they're frightened kids is fine, but it also precludes someone from holding them up as meaningful activists advancing serious arguments.

No more than having your first grader shot in his class room precludes emotional grieving parents from having any say on gun legislation because its only for "level headed unemotional adults"... Nonsense. They are the face thats going to make this movement work. And can you blame them? They dont think anyone else will do it since theyve failed to for decades so they think their only alternative is to do it themselves. More power to them. Will they sometimes come off sounding like scared kids? Sure. But this is life and death. This isnt a discussion about excise taxes. And they arent going to take 'be quiet and go back to the kids table' as a response to getting shot at. And anyway in a blink of an eye these kids are going to be in their 20's and 30's and voting by the millions. Better listen to them now...

You'll have to be more specific if you want a more specific response, but generally, abstract polls about contentious issues don't actually measure support well.

The 85% figure was about people supporting background checks I believe. Universal background checks for ALL purchases federally applied. And 72% support policies requiring people who want to buy or sell guns to obtain a license first which is a state by state issue right now. 70% of respondents even support letting law enforcement remove guns from a person's home in cases where they're considered a threat to another person. 70% also support some restrictions on assault rifles. And this is of course all stuff the NRA opposes. But significant majorities (including gun owners!) support it. And we get no where with that kind of stuff. Why?

Agreed! So isn't it incredibly stupid that he's getting more flack than everyone else?

I think its predictable that he caught flack that night (not sure about more than anyone else). I dont necessarily feel sorry for him though. Although he has back tracked some, he was still part of the problem for a long time. He was still willing to take NRA money and toe their line that allowed tragedies like this to happen. So its no surprise those kids would be furious with him. Maybe he does a full 180 in which case he should be embraced for doing so. But lets see what he does first. And lets give him credit if he does.

I. Rex

03-28-18, 11:36 AM

I'm not a NRA member. I image they are so stead fast in their beliefs because they feel well meaning but misinformed people want to take away their rights to own guns in an attempt to deal with school shootings. I'd bet the NRA would respond to you by saying banning gun ownership from law abiding citizens won't stop the deranged from killing people.

But almost nobody is saying we need to ban gun ownership. What most people who want a change in the country's gun policies are saying is that just need some sane reasonable laws about background checks and assault rifles and huge magazine availability and bump stocks etc. But that pouring MORE guns onto an avalanche of guns is never going to make the situation better. Are you surprised thats the NRA's response to school shootings? That we should arm teachers with hundreds of thousands of MORE guns? Guess who gains profits from that...

You know what would? Zero Tolerance for school bullying.

Im fully in support. And related to that we need more focus on counseling and recognizing problematic situations involving kids who slip through the cracks. We need to tighten those cracks. The real tragedy about this recent Florida school shooting is that the kid had impending explosion written all over him. So many failures lead to this. So many people and groups dropped the ball. To ignore kids who glaringly and obviously need help because we dont like to spend the money it takes to be preventive is about the most unforgivable of sins I can imagine.

Yoda

03-28-18, 12:19 PM

Sounds pretty but the problem is the other team has been playing that game for decades and its paid off in spades for them.
And people haven't been suggesting they have blood on their hands for decades? :skeptical: Like I said: everyone thinks this. With any opposing groups of significant size it's really easy to spotlight the extreme rhetoric and pretend it's emblematic on one side while dismissing similar examples on the other as isolated incidents not indicative of the movement.

Also, let's be clear, "that game" in this context is people suggesting that they don't care kids are dead, so it's not an example of playing "that game" to just take a firmer stand on gun control than you think is reasonable. The appropriate comparison would be gun rights advocates saying that gun control advocates want their homes to be invaded and their family raped and murdered.

Im on on board with a scorched earth political approach in regards to the NRA (where you get voted out simply based on taking money from the NRA)
Serious question: was there a Republican you even might have voted for otherwise? Because I can't imagine anyone taking this stance who wasn't going to vote against all of them anyway.

No more than having your first grader shot in his class room precludes emotional grieving parents from having any say on gun legislation because its only for "level headed unemotional adults"... Nonsense.
As far as I can tell this is a total non-sequitur. Nobody said victims or grieving parents did not have "any say on gun legislation." What was said was that you can't hold these teenagers up as serious activists advancing serious arguments one second, but then let them off the hook for any falsehoods or hyperbole because they're "frightened kids."

They are the face thats going to make this movement work.
Exactly. This is the real reason. It's not that they're making good, new, or even coherent arguments. It's just that people think the optics of arguing with them are bad, so it's politically useful to elevate them. Far from being a defense of this, pointing out that they're scared kids just highlights how cynical and damaging this elevation is.

And can you blame them? They dont think anyone else will do it since theyve failed to for decades so they think their only alternative is to do it themselves. More power to them. Will they sometimes come off sounding like scared kids? Sure. But this is life and death.
Yeah, gun owners think of it as life and death, too. Every political issue on the national stage is life and death, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend that anyone who disagrees likes dead people. That's obscene.

And as a thought experiment, every time you make an argument like this, replace "gun control" with "abortion restrictions" and "NRA" with "Planned Parenthood" and see if you feel the same way.

And they arent going to take 'be quiet and go back to the kids table' as a response to getting shot at.
They don't have to go back to the kids table, they just don't get to come to the adult's table and keep playing by kid's table rules.

And anyway in a blink of an eye these kids are going to be in their 20's and 30's and voting by the millions. Better listen to them now...
Teenagers are always considerably more liberal than their parents, yet somehow the massive wave of policy changes either never materializes, or ends up diluted and different by the time they all start voting. Why, it's almost as if growing up shows you that the world's problems aren't actually simple or easy to solve.

The 85% figure was about people supporting background checks I believe. Universal background checks for ALL purchases federally applied. And 72% support policies requiring people who want to buy or sell guns to obtain a license first which is a state by state issue right now. 70% of respondents even support letting law enforcement remove guns from a person's home in cases where they're considered a threat to another person. 70% also support some restrictions on assault rifles. And this is of course all stuff the NRA opposes. But significant majorities (including gun owners!) support it. And we get no where with that kind of stuff. Why?
If you could cite some of these numbers, I'd be happy to reply more specifically, though I've already explained how one-sided polling on single issues is a demonstrably poor way to measure actual political support.

I think it's a good general rule to be very skeptical of any belief that is too self-serving or too psychologically comforting. And the idea that almost everybody agrees with us, but an evil group is sabotaging some easily achievable social progress even though almost everybody wants it, definitely qualifies. It's borderline conspiratorial.

I think its predictable that he caught flack that night (not sure about more than anyone else). I dont necessarily feel sorry for him though. Although he has back tracked some, he was still part of the problem for a long time. He was still willing to take NRA money and toe their line that allowed tragedies like this to happen. So its no surprise those kids would be furious with him. Maybe he does a full 180 in which case he should be embraced for doing so. But lets see what he does first. And lets give him credit if he does.
Let's give him credit if he does a "full 180"? There's nothing magnanimous about saying you'll give credit to your political opponents if only they would completely surrender. How about giving them credit when they show up, listen to the disagreements, argue from principle, and openly discuss and advance compromises? Because that's literally what he's doing, and as I pointed out, he's getting more flack for it, not less.

This can't be brushed off as some incidental unfortunate byproduct of the debate: it is the direct and inevitable result of the this-is-life-and-death, scorched earth politics you're defending here. You keep asking why, why there isn't more progress on this front, while simultaneously defending people laying into the leaders who actually work to forge a compromise because they refuse to change their minds completely. Seems like there might be a connection there, eh?

Yoda

03-28-18, 12:37 PM

But almost nobody is saying we need to ban gun ownership.
I think the actual number of people saying this is higher than you think. But regardless, enve the ones that aren't seem to generally support far more significant gun control measures than the ones you're talking about. When questioned it's all background checks and bump stocks, but it's obvious a lot of people want it to go much further than that.

Some recent high-profile examples: former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens literally says we should repeal the Second Amendment. Rubio points out that a proposal would actually ban all semiautomatic weapons (more on this in a second), and the audience cheers! And liberals pass the video clip around excitedly! President Obama mentions foreign countries with much stricter gun laws as positive examples. Etc.

So yeah, not really hard to figure out where they're getting the supposedly crazy idea that maybe this is the camel's nose under the tent.

What most people who want a change in the country's gun policies are saying is that just need some sane reasonable laws about background checks and assault rifles
Define assault rifle, please.

The real tragedy about this recent Florida school shooting is that the kid had impending explosion written all over him. So many failures lead to this. So many people and groups dropped the ball.
Agreed, and this is a very important aspect of the debate: how many people seem to give off clear warning signs where nothing is done. It's a good default legislative posture to oppose new laws trying to prevent things that the proper application of existing laws could also have prevented.

I. Rex

03-28-18, 06:05 PM

And people haven't been suggesting they have blood on their hands for decades?

Because they do! They are in the business of making guns as easy as possible to buy for anyone and they don’t hide that fact. They oppose any legislation or suggestion that even hints at the tiniest of limitations or reasonable proposal. When confronted with the notion that this creates an environment where gun violence can thrive their answer is well we need to make sure more people have MORE guns then! Whats next when that doesn’t work? We need to make sure everyone has a gun in each hand? We need to make sure everyone walks around pointing their guns at all times just to be safe because keeping it holstered is one step away from confiscation? Hucksters and profiteers of death…

With any opposing groups of significant size it's really easy to spotlight the extreme rhetoric

But there is no Anti Rifle Association. The NRA has been operating in a vacuum for years and look where we are now. To see people grumbling about the effects of our ludicrous gun laws as equivalent “rhetoric” doesn’t fly for me.

"that game" in this context is people suggesting that they don't care kids are dead

Kids get shot and die. The NRA does nothing, says nothing and opposes anything politicians suggest in response to the kids getting shot. Do you think its really that extreme for those same kids to feel like the NRA doesn’t care about them? Sure seems to fit the picture. Otherwise prove them wrong. If Zuckerberg can say Facebook did things WRONG and we are willing to work with the government to limit data sharing so people stop getting hurt by it then why cant the NRA do the equivalent? Why must they have a defend guns at all costs mentality every single time?

Serious question: was there a Republican you even might have voted for otherwise? Because I can't imagine anyone taking this stance who wasn't going to vote against all of them anyway.

Remember tons of democrats are also bought and sold by the NRA as well depending on their district. So in primaries those democrats would be the focus of my ire. And yes I would happily support a republican that had a worse NRA rating then a democrat if and when that scenario was to happen. I have sent checks to republicans based on what I felt was them taking a gutsy and admirable stance on certain issues before (not necessarily gun control) and Ive added a note telling them Im a non-Republican who appreciates their thinking on XYZ and as long as they feel that way they have my support and my money. But the bottom line is this question is irrelevant. My concern is changing gun laws. I don’t care who you are. So my voting and donating will correspond accordingly. If both major candidates in an election have bad NRA ratings then I’ll make a judgment based on other factors of course not just look what little letter is next to their name.

What was said was that you can't hold these teenagers up as serious activists advancing serious arguments one second, but then let them off the hook for any falsehoods or hyperbole because they're "frightened kids."

You are saying they shouldn’t be putting themselves in the position of being “activists” for their own protection because they engage in hyperbole out of fear. First I would debate what is and what isn’t actually hyperbole. Secondly, Im not advocating that they officially be seen as “Movement Leaders” at the head of some bandwagon. As I stated before, I really worry about them (I actually wrote an open letter to Emma Gonzalez telling her she doesnt neeed to be our Joan of Arc on this and that she can walk away at any time. Its not her burden and she shouldnt let it destroy her because of our expectations.) but I AM glad they are doing what they feel is right. And “hyperbole” or not, they seem amazingly competent and well spoken whenever Ive heard them. More so then a lot of adults Ive heard on both sides.

But more importantly I hardly think alleged “falsehoods and hyperbole” disqualifies them from championing the topic NOBODY ELSE WILL. If you want to correct them on “falsehoods” then please do. That’s how any debate works. But don’t tell them they cant stand up and try to make a change because they are young and scared and not responsible or “experienced” like adults. If you don’t agree with them or don’t want the change they suggest then oppose them. Don’t tell them they shouldn’t talk. Or is this about you genuinely wanting some change but not liking that its kids who seem to be spearheading this right now? And if so who would you want doing that? If the answer is “adults”, than which adults? Because “adults” have tried before and it hasn’t worked.

It's not that they're making good, new, or even coherent arguments. It's just that people think the optics of arguing with them are bad, so it's politically useful to elevate them

Sure Im sure many people think that. But maybe they also are giving a new perspective on something that’s been said before by politicians or adult survivors. Maybe having your 12th grader say “someone my age shouldn’t be allowed to buy an AR-15” is much more personal than if a 50 year old is saying it. And frankly did you listen to ANY of those speeches they made? Some of them were fantastic. The notion that they were incoherent is mystifying to me. Im not sure what you watched. Im as dubious and jaded as the next guy about the average person, child OR adult and these kids made some pretty impressive speeches to me. And I believe in their passion. And Im not trying to use them. Just impressed with them completely.

And as a thought experiment, every time you make an argument like this, replace "gun control" with "abortion restrictions" and "NRA" with "Planned Parenthood" and see if you feel the same way.

Are we getting into a debate about abortion? Are you making assumptions on my opinions of abortion based on the political leanings apparent in my opposition of our current gun policies?

They don't have to go back to the kids table, they just don't get to come to the adult's table and keep playing by kid's table rules.

Again, if you disagree with points they are making counter them. Treat them as you would any other “activist” who has a point of view. If they site bad stats, point that out. If they get worked up and emotional respond to them the same way you would to an adult that gets worked up and emotional.

Teenagers are always considerably more liberal than their parents, yet somehow the massive wave of policy changes either never materializes, or ends up diluted and different by the time they all start voting.

Time will tell. Course if you look at the breakdown of under 30 voters in the past few elections you certainly wouldn’t disagree that the democratic candidate usually received a higher percentage of the youth vote. Yes people can grow more conservative over time but all you have to be is 18 to vote. Not 48. And I feel like the social media savvy of this particular generation makes them an interesting group to observe and see what they do and how they effect things. They are moving SO much faster than any generation I can remember before and that’s partially because of technology.

If you could cite some of these numbers, I'd be happy to reply more specifically

Im happy to dig them up. I understand your point about too general or purposefully misleading questioning leading to people saying YES far to easily but the one about “background checks” has actually been asked multiple different ways and the ranges are still always pretty high. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/ breaks that down pretty well if you want to have a look.

I think it's a good general rule to be very skeptical of any belief that is too self-serving or too psychologically comforting. And the idea that almost everybody agrees with us, but an evil group is sabotaging some easily achievable social progress even though almost everybody wants it, definitely qualifies.

So do you know of any sources that say the vast majority of people do NOT want background checks then? Or even a tiny majority? Or any of those gun issues? Or any sources that talk about citizens being fully on board with NRA rhetoric on the issue at all? I would genuinely love to look those over. And if there aren’t any than what are we supposed to think?

Let's give him credit if he does a "full 180"? There's nothing magnanimous about saying you'll give credit to your political opponents if only they would completely surrender. How about giving them credit when they show up, listen to the disagreements, argue from principle, and openly discuss and advance compromises?

Sure, all that. Credit is cheap. But he wont get my VOTE unless he makes a serious change in his views. Im not interested in being “magnanimous”. Im interested in getting someone in place who will make sane gun laws at this point.

You keep asking why, why there isn't more progress on this front, while simultaneously defending people laying into the leaders who actually work to forge a compromise because they refuse to change their minds completely. Seems like there might be a connection there, eh?

But they’ve never been willing to compromise before! That’s the point! FINALLY they are hemming and hawing and saying well… ok maybe… and you have the first glimpses of some reforms set in place in Florida. Don’t act like ANYTHING like that has happened in DECADES. And they are changing their mind because they are now fearing for their political lives JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE NRA. So again the tactic of absolutism that the NRA has been living by for all that time WORKS. And the notion that now that the other side is trying it is somehow unfair to these “compromisers” is absurd. Why weren’t they compromising all along? I bet you can guess why…

Citizen Rules

03-28-18, 06:48 PM

@I. Rex (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=98449)

Thanks for your reply to my questions.

I have another question for you.Ifyou were in charge of U.S. gun laws and could make or change any gun law....what laws or changes would you make?....and why?

Yoda

03-29-18, 11:16 AM

Because they do!
That's irrelevant. You defended extremist rhetoric by suggesting the NRA plays dirty and the gun control lobby hasn't, so it's okay for them to start. I'm saying this isn't true, it's been happening the whole time. The idea that they (the other guys!) are winning because our side is too decorous and civilized is pretty much always a pleasing fiction, and it is in this case, too.

When confronted with the notion that this creates an environment where gun violence can thrive their answer is well we need to make sure more people have MORE guns then! Whats next when that doesn’t work?
No joke, this was actually going to be my next question for you: what happens when we implement the "common sense" regulations and mass shootings still take place? I see the slogan for a lot of this is "Never Again," which sure seems to imply that any regulation would be theoretically justified, and more would be deemed necessary if and when that happened, right?

To see people grumbling about the effects of our ludicrous gun laws as equivalent “rhetoric” doesn’t fly for me.
Probably because you use an innocuous word like "grumbling" as if it were a fair summation of "why do you like dead kids?"

Do you think its really that extreme for those same kids to feel like the NRA doesn’t care about them?
No, because kids are bad at moral calculation and appreciating the complexities of even day to day life, let alone law and precedent. No idea why you're asking me this question, though. Did I say their feelings were invalid, or surprising?

You are saying they shouldn’t be putting themselves in the position of being “activists” for their own protection because they engage in hyperbole out of fear.
I certainly think this, but that's not what I'm saying to you, specifically, no. What I'm saying to you is that people (and I guess you're one of them) should stop elevating them because they think it'll be politically useful to do so. It's cynical, it's probably counterproductive (both on this issue and to discourse in general), and it's hard to imagine it's good for them. It stands to reason a lot of them have PTSD, and I'm pretty skeptical that the clinically accepted method of dealing with that is in the warm, therapeutic embrace of cable news.

First I would debate what is and what isn’t actually hyperbole.
Feel free. I don't see how some of it's even arguable, though, and my first instinct is not to bother arguing with anyone who can contort their views enough to convince them it is.

Secondly, Im not advocating that they officially be seen as “Movement Leaders” at the head of some bandwagon. As I stated before, I really worry about them (I actually wrote an open letter to Emma Gonzalez telling her she doesnt neeed to be our Joan of Arc on this and that she can walk away at any time. Its not her burden and she shouldnt let it destroy her because of our expectations.) but I AM glad they are doing what they feel is right. And “hyperbole” or not, they seem amazingly competent and well spoken whenever Ive heard them. More so then a lot of adults Ive heard on both sides.
I think this is one of those things that can't be separated from whether or not you like the content of their speech. Personally, I heard a lot about them before actually hearing them speak, and when I finally did, I was genuinely stunned at how vapid and simplistic most of it was. It's mostly cheap political theater and the sort of facile, why-doesn't-the-world-just-do-this-man reductive platitudes that pretty much every high schooler engages in.

I think there's a massive amount of frustration on the gun control side, and they're talking themselves into these kids as possible saviors because, well, they're desperate for saviors. Maybe they're right this time, but if so I think it'll be largely coincidental to that impulse.

But more importantly I hardly think alleged “falsehoods and hyperbole” disqualifies them from championing the topic NOBODY ELSE WILL. If you want to correct them on “falsehoods” then please do. That’s how any debate works. But don’t tell them they cant stand up and try to make a change because they are young and scared and not responsible or “experienced” like adults. If you don’t agree with them or don’t want the change they suggest then oppose them. Don’t tell them they shouldn’t talk.
Again, if you disagree with points they are making counter them. Treat them as you would any other “activist” who has a point of view. If they site bad stats, point that out. If they get worked up and emotional respond to them the same way you would to an adult that gets worked up and emotional.
That's exactly what I'm doing, and exactly what I was doing when you suggested I should go easy on them because they're "frightened kids."

Or is this about you genuinely wanting some change but not liking that its kids who seem to be spearheading this right now? And if so who would you want doing that? If the answer is “adults”, than which adults? Because “adults” have tried before and it hasn’t worked.
"Other stuff hasn't worked" isn't a defense of this, is my point, unless you're willing to do basically anything to achieve the gun control you want and the kids are just a means to that end. Which is certainly what it sounds like.

Are we getting into a debate about abortion? Are you making assumptions on my opinions of abortion based on the political leanings apparent in my opposition of our current gun policies?
That's usually a pretty safe assumption, but no. You keep suggesting that the NRA is some weird outlier, influencing law in a way out of step with public opinion, and I'm saying: not really, the same thing happens with abortion. It's not unique. I'm not even sure if it's rare.

The two issues are strikingly similar in a legislative/public opinion sense. Both are life-and-death, both have interest groups that profit from something and who reflexively reject nearly all restrictions on it, both have fairly strong support for their general position, while polls show huge majorities objecting to individual components on the edge of each issue, which somehow still don't become law.

Yes people can grow more conservative over time but all you have to be is 18 to vote. Not 48. And I feel like the social media savvy of this particular generation makes them an interesting group to observe and see what they do and how they effect things. They are moving SO much faster than any generation I can remember before and that’s partially because of technology.
I'm not going to disagree that all this is possible, but people have been pretending some liberal wave is coming for literally decades based only on the observation that young people are pretty liberal, so it seems pretty obvious that people become more conservative as they age. So I'm simply pushing back against the "wrong side of history" framing that progressives often use to try to shame or scare people into changing their minds. Like elevating victimized children to exploit the optics of arguing with them, it's essentially an attempt to bypass the debate rather than win it, which seems to be a disproportionately progressive pitfall.

Im happy to dig them up. I understand your point about too general or purposefully misleading questioning leading to people saying YES far to easily but the one about “background checks” has actually been asked multiple different ways and the ranges are still always pretty high. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/ breaks that down pretty well if you want to have a look.
I don't doubt it at all, but I suspect with some phrasings even being asked implies to the listener that we don't have any. And I was totally in support of this, too, until I got curious as to why on earth someone might oppose it, and read around a little and quickly realized the only way to do this would be to ban private sales, or else register every single gun owner. This wasn't obvious to me when I first heard the idea, and I don't think it's obvious to people being asked for a poll, either.

So do you know of any sources that say the vast majority of people do NOT want background checks then? Or even a tiny majority? Or any of those gun issues? Or any sources that talk about citizens being fully on board with NRA rhetoric on the issue at all? I would genuinely love to look those over. And if there aren’t any than what are we supposed to think?
You can simply think the polls on specific issues like this are not actually dispositive. I absolutely do not claim that most people are against background checks (which we already have, and which wouldn't have even prevented the last, what, half-dozen shootings?). I claim that "85% of the electorate wants this policy" isn't really true.

But they’ve never been willing to compromise before! That’s the point! FINALLY they are hemming and hawing and saying well… ok maybe… and you have the first glimpses of some reforms set in place in Florida. Don’t act like ANYTHING like that has happened in DECADES. And they are changing their mind because they are now fearing for their political lives JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE NRA. So again the tactic of absolutism that the NRA has been living by for all that time WORKS. And the notion that now that the other side is trying it is somehow unfair to these “compromisers” is absurd. Why weren’t they compromising all along? I bet you can guess why…
By definition anyone who starts compromising was not compromising before. So congrats, you've just advanced a negotiating posture that directly incentivizes people not to compromise, in the same post where you repeatedly wonder why this interest group won't give an inch.

Yoda

03-29-18, 11:17 AM

I have another question for you.Ifyou were in charge of U.S. gun laws and could make or change any gun law....what laws or changes would you make?....and why?
I'll echo this, I would also like to know. I'll piggyback on this to reiterate my question about the definition of "assault rifle," too.

I think it's a hallmark of any complex issue that it's easy to point out problems but hard to design workable solutions, and I can't think of a better way to demonstrate this than to ask people who want change to start describing what that change would have to look like, on paper.

I. Rex

03-29-18, 11:42 AM

I have another question for you.Ifyou were in charge of U.S. gun laws and could make or change any gun law....what laws or changes would you make?....and why?

Im definitely no expert on guns and I would ultimately defer to RATIONAL FAIR MINDED experts on the matter. (Which eliminates the NRA). But some obvious things that might help could include (irrelevant of the current unconstitutionality of any of these measures of course):

• A liability insurance requirement for every gun purchased just like we have with cars.
• Bulk gun sales limitations across the board.
• A federally mandated waiting period for gun sales across the board (mostly for
suicides).
• FULL background checks federally enforced in all states including gun show sales and
internet sales and sales between or gifts from private citizens (and ANY seller must
obtain a license to sell or gift their gun).
• Implementation of a comprehensive national gun registration system.
• The banning of high capacity magazines.
• Reimplementation of the 1994 assault weapons ban
• Allow government research on the health effects of gun use (the NRA currently has
coerced legislators to actually ban the use of government funds to researcher, track
and study the health effects of gun use and ownership, a policy so ridiculous that even
the politician that originally wrote the bill wants it repealed)
• Also abolish ALL doctor gag order laws in regards to guns (yes the NRA even got
politicians to ban doctors from talking to their patients about guns… even if they’ve
been shot with one…)
• Change minimum age requirements for gun purchase and gun use.
• A federal law mandating firearm locking devices/storage rules.
• In connection with that, I would also pour money into smartgun research, something the
NRA has stifled but could really make a difference in many of these school shooting
cases where kids get their parents guns not to mention the many accidental shootings
in the home by young kids who come across guns in the home and kill themselves or
their siblings with them.

And thats just a top of the head list of things Id like to see looked into. Of course LOTS of study and research is necessary too.

I. Rex

03-29-18, 12:03 PM

I'll echo this, I would also like to know. I'll piggyback on this to reiterate my question about the definition of "assault rifle," too.

I think it's a hallmark of any complex issue that it's easy to point out problems but hard to design workable solutions, and I can't think of a better way to demonstrate this than to ask people who want change to start describing what that change would have to look like, on paper.

Ill get to the larger post later but just to touch on this briefly, Im not at all interested in getting into a technical debate about the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "semi automatic carbine" or whatever. As noted in my list to Citizen I would be happy having the 1994 Assault Weapons ban back in effect as a starting point. And as you may know it either specifically identified weapons by specific make and model or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. There was a lot of loopholes in that law that kept it from being as effective as it should have but things have only gotten worse since it sunsetted in 2004. And clearly the crazies and mass shooters have some obsession with AR-15s for some reason so maybe it would at LEAST help there. I know the gun heads like to argue that that model isnt even really all that dangerous (!) compared to other guns but it seems to be the weapon of choice in these terrible events these days.

Yoda

03-30-18, 11:05 AM

Yeah, no rush and all that re: the other post, respond in your own time. And I'll reply in kind if you want to try to chop these down in length a bit.

Anyway, briefly:

Im not at all interested in getting into a technical debate about the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "semi automatic carbine" or whatever.
I don't see how someone can advocate restricting gun ownership while being uninterested in the "technical debate" of differences between them.

The way I saw one gun rights advocate put it was: "tell me how the guns you want to ban differ from the guns you don't want to ban." This is quite possibly the most reasonable request imaginable, but it gets brushed off like some kind of rhetorical trick or incidental detail. It isn't. It's, like, the one question you absolutely must ask and answer before proceeding with any meaningful legislation.

As noted in my list to Citizen I would be happy having the 1994 Assault Weapons ban back in effect as a starting point. And as you may know it either specifically identified weapons by specific make and model or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. There was a lot of loopholes in that law that kept it from being as effective as it should have but things have only gotten worse since it sunsetted in 2004.
Loophole kinda makes it sound like there's some obvious provision they forgot to include, but the reality is that the definitions were largely arbitrary and/or aesthetic (we still see shadows of how superficial this stuff is when people quietly move from talking about "assault rifles" to "assault-style rifles," which is basically a meaningless term), and I'm not sure it could have been otherwise. The hard reality is that pretty much any ban like this is either going to:

a) not ban guns people can use in mass shootings or
b) ban simple hand guns, too.

Sedai

03-30-18, 12:57 PM

I don't currently have a gun at this time. That is, while I do own several guns, which I grew up shooting in the 1980s, they are still back in Arizona where I grew up, under the care of my mother. I currently live in Massachusetts, and until recently, my interest in target shooting and other gun-related activities wasn't a part of my life.

That said, my wife and I have recently sort of gotten back into the activity with some military and ex-military friends of ours. We will both be taking our LTC class tomorrow from 1-5 PM. I doubt either of us will become regular concealed carry people, as I don;t see a need to walk around my small-ish town carrying a firearm, but we do want to own at least one pistol for home defense, and going to gun range to fire off a few. My wife really seems to enjoy it, and dammit if she isn't a crack shot, as well.

Not sure how I would react in a situation during which our lives were threatened, but i would like to think I would at least attempt to defend my family with whatever means were necessary. If someone was shooting at me, I would probably shoot back. I haven;t seen in that situation though, so who knows.

I've no interest in debating gun control on this here forum, so I will refrain from commenting there. I will however say that I am pretty much a center-right (Yes Yoda, it finally happened) leaning libertarian, and my wife is pretty much a right wing ****lord. ;)

We are both pretty heavily into defending freedom.

I. Rex

03-30-18, 04:40 PM

You defended extremist rhetoric by suggesting the NRA plays dirty and the gun control lobby hasn't, so it's okay for them to start. I'm saying this isn't true, it's been happening the whole time.

We will definitely continue to disagree here. I think its fairly obvious that the power curve on the gun issue has been occupied by the Godzilla that is the NRA for decades and there has been no equivalent on the other side.

this was actually going to be my next question for you: what happens when we implement the "common sense" regulations and mass shootings still take place?

Oh I don’t for a second think mass shootings will stop overnight if we finally had sane reasonable gun laws and regulations in place. We are awash in 300 million guns after all thanks to the insane policies pushed through by the NRA and their toadies and their general marketing campaign of OBAMA’S GONNA TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS!!! BUY LOTS OF THEM NOW!!! But I do think gun deaths (mass shootings are just a drop in the bucket remember) would reduce over time. Suicides. Domestic violence. Accidents. Passion incidents. Gun crime in poor and urban communities. We shouldn’t shrug and say lets do nothing just because common sense doesn’t work perfectly and instantly. Fires still happen despite smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. Should we say “screw it, lets give everyone 10 gallons of gasoline and a pack of matches”.

No idea why you're asking me this question, though. Did I say their feelings were invalid, or surprising?

So you are saying their unsurprising feelings disqualifies them from discussing this topic?

I'm saying to you is that people (and I guess you're one of them) should stop elevating them because they think it'll be politically useful to do so.

I think this notion is at the heart of this particular discussion we are having. I don’t think we are polar opposites on these feelings though despite your accusation that Im simply using them for political purposes (didn’t realize I had that kind of power). Ive noted a few times now that Im genuinely concerned for their well being considering what they are getting themselves into by opening their mouths on this topic and not shutting up and just being a victim and going away like others have. I applaud them for speaking their mind and their frustration and yes even their emotions on this issue. I applaud them for wanting to make a change because they see no one else doing it. I want them to know I fully support that because Ive ALWAYS supported those ideas. But I worry this will destroy some of them absolutely. I worry they wont be able to handle the vitriol and outright evil they will now be encountering from power players and endless anonymous troglodytes on the internet. And I worry that some fully unstable gun nut will play the pizzagate card because of something they heard on Alex Jones or read on the deep web and will show up on their doorstep spitting and fuming and brandishing a weapon. Similar things happened in Sandy Hook. So I REALLY worry about that… But its not my place to say you are disqualified from speaking about this. You need to delete your Twitter account because millions of other people have decided to add you. You need to refuse any appearance offered by media organizations to speak about your experience and your opinions on the matter. Who am I to do that? Who are you? Their age should not disqualify them from doing what they want. But I will ring my hands every day over the potential of tragedy that comes from being young and in a spot light as big as they are in now. And I will openly tell them you don’t need to do this if you don’t want to. And that you should never think you HAVE to for us. I consider myself a SUPPORTER not a PUSHER despite your accusations to the contrary.

By the way, I feel the same way about Malala Yousafzai too especially now that shes going back home to Pakistan. Do you also think she shouldn’t be acting like an activist for women’s rights in Pakistan? Or does that notion only apply to the gun issue and/or American kids?

Personally, I heared a lot about them before actually hearing them speak, and when I finally did, I was genuinely stunned at how vapid and simplistic most of it was. It's mostly cheap political theater and the sort of facile, why-doesn't-the-world-just-do-this-man reductive platitudes that pretty much every high schooler engages in.

See I just don’t see how you get that from some of the things Ive heard from them. Just because you aren’t Abraham Lincoln doesn’t mean you are an incompetent boob of a speech maker. I guess I went in expecting a typical high school book report sort of approach (and some that aren’t in that top group DID talk like that during the initial wave of interviews that happened when media organizations stuck mics in the face of any frantic looking survivor that stumbled out of the school). But the speeches I heard at the rally from some of these kids was levels above anything I would expect from a 10th grader. I will admit its still fully surreal to me to see the Hoggs (David and his little sister) for example on CNN in studio talking to Anderson Cooper like they are part of the normal pundit panel. But even there they don’t sound stupid. They are mostly talking about their feelings and their experiences and I think that’s really valuable.

I think there's a massive amount of frustration on the gun control side, and they're talking themselves into these kids as possible saviors because, well, they're desperate for saviors.

I pretty much fully agree with this statement. People have been so frustrated for SO long that when something FINALLY seems to be working of course you are going to grab hold of it and get energized by it. Maybe in 20 years when David Hogg writes a book about these heady days and how the pressure caused him to go into some kind of alcoholic spiral in his 20’s and broke up relationships, caused suicide attempts, etc. we will better understand having teenagers as the spear point of a movement so big and so passion educing to millions of people was not the ideal situation. Or maybe he will say my sacrifice was worth it considering kids had been being sacrificed for generations and no one was doing anything about it. Or MAYBE we will be talking to the right honorable Senator Hogg from Florida. Who knows…

That's exactly what I'm doing, and exactly what I was doing when you suggested I should go easy on them because they're "frightened kids."

No, Im saying you shouldn’t be telling them to be quiet and not involve themselves in this debate because they are young and frightened. Not that you shouldn’t argue with them about their points.

You keep suggesting that the NRA is some weird outlier, influencing law in a way out of step with public opinion, and I'm saying: not really, the same thing happens with abortion. It's not unique. I'm not even sure if it's rare.

The two issues are strikingly similar in a legislative/public opinion sense. Both are life-and-death, both have interest groups that profit from something and who reflexively reject nearly all restrictions on it, both have fairly strong support for their general position, while polls show huge majorities objecting to individual components on the edge of each issue, which somehow still don't become law.

On the edge? Polls show huge majorities supporting COMMON SENSE SIMPLE BABY STEP issues in gun control. What “edge” issues are you hinting at with abortion? Although honestly I have no interest in debating abortion here as I noted before. Nor do I see it as a relevant tie in to the issue about these kids fronting the gun movement. And anyway I see the abortion debate as being pretty equally divided.

people have been pretending some liberal wave is coming for literally decades based only on the observation that young people are pretty liberal, so it seems pretty obvious that people become more conservative as they age. So I'm simply pushing back against the "wrong side of history" framing that progressives often use to try to shame or scare people into changing their minds.

Well if that were true we wouldn’t have legal marijuana or gay marriage or interracial marriage or civil rights at all for that matter. No my friend, human cultural issues tend to move from a conservative (slavery, only men able to vote, school integration, etc.) point of view over time to a more progressive one I have found. Ironically, this can happen at the same time that conservativISM is flourishing and conservaTIVES are being elected over progressives because it tends to be glacial. So I think there will come a time when a certain generation will look in history books and say my god was it REALLY legal for an 18 year old to buy an AR-15? Was it REALLY illegal for doctors to talk about the effects of guns to their patients?? Did we REALLY allow the Russians to elect a reality TV personality and failed businessman to be President despite the now widely known revelation that he chocked a prostitute to death in the Green Room with a Forbes magazine because she wouldnt… oh sorry Im getting ahead of myself. :D

it's essentially an attempt to bypass the debate rather than win it, which seems to be a disproportionately progressive pitfall.

Get serious. The NRA hasn’t even allowed a debate since Brady caught them off guard after the Reagan shooting with his zealous push for gun law reform. And you blame the progressive for this one now? You said yourself earlier that it was “both sides” that have resorted to rhetoric which I don’t even agree with. Why is it now that the people who want reasonable gun laws and haven’t been listened to for decades are now ones being tricky and playing dirty ball? I still don’t understand this notion that if kids get mad and say they want to vote out NRA supporters and people who have felt that way all along say “yeah!” they are somehow being disingenuous and attempting to win the (non)debate (which is code for break the NRA strangle hold on our representatives) by “using” “brain washed” children.

the only way to do this would be to ban private sales

Or have anyone that wants to make a private sale obtain a license to do so. Doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.

or else register every single gun owner

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

I claim that "85% of the electorate wants this policy" isn't really true.

But many of those questions shown there note what amounts to essentially UNIVERSAL background checks. Not the loop hole ridden system we have in place now. And 85% (some polls as high as 90%) DO say they want this.

By definition anyone who starts compromising was not compromising before. So congrats, you've just advanced a negotiating posture that directly incentivizes people not to compromise

This logic doesn’t work for me. Their incentive is not losing votes or being publicly pilloried for having a stance on guns that seems to counter the feelings of the majority of those they represent. If overpowering NRA money requires putting them in a metaphoric arm bar until they scream mercy then so be it. That’s on them. Not on the fed up constituents who are doing it to them.

Yoda

03-30-18, 07:56 PM

Stirchley

03-30-18, 08:42 PM

if you're from the US, have you got a gun and would you kill someone if necessary?

If we still had our country house in the Catskills Mountains of New York State & we lived there year-round, most probably I would buy a gun. Where I live now in Connecticut we have a fully alarmed home & the cops would be here in a heartbeat. In the country our house was 7 miles from town with no security system. I would take lessons & be fully trained in how to handle a gun. I would never want to take someone’s life, but rather him than me.

I think that only people with good education should be allowed to keep a gun . There should be a certain limit of education below which you cannot keep a gun . Maybe only degree holders should be allowed to keep a gun. I think people with good educational qualifications will not kill anyone without provocation.

Not a single one of these statements makes any sense.

How many of those who carried out unprovoked shootings in US have been women ? Almost nobody?

What is your point?

Does keeping a gun appeal to the masculinity of men ? I have read some opinions of right wingers of the liberal movement robbing them of their masculinity.

Doesn’t India have nuclear weapons? Is this because Indian men feel impotent? Just asking.

Would America remain superpower if it abandoned it's aggro attitude--- brandishing guns and all ? China would become superpower . The other strongman would be Russia.

You think America is a superpower because we have guns?

I. Rex

03-30-18, 09:56 PM

While this debate has been mostly civil and you're obviously a reasonable and intelligent guy, as the discussion goes on there seem to be more and more instances where you repeat something back to me different from the way I said it. And usually, the disagreement seems to be based entirely on the part that's different or exaggerated. Here are some examples:

"People who want reasonable gun laws" is obviously not a fair description of "people who say the NRA likes dead kids" even if you think dead kid rhetoric is justified. I'm explicitly questioning the method, so you obviously can't just swap in a more easily defensible thing in your response.

My reference there was to your assertion that people (adults, me, or in your word “progressives”) who embrace and support these kids are “attempting to bypass the debate” by doing so. WE are the people who want reasonable gun laws. I wasn’t referring to any of the kids making statements you may find over the top but to the supporters of those kids who you say are undermining the debate by supporting them. Hope that’s clearer. And I did find it a little insulting that you think progressives are generally debate avoiders and tricksters and conservatives less so. Ive found the opposite to be true but, as you’ve already noted, this may also be one of those things that depends on whether or not you support the point of view of the debater.

Same problem as above: you're implying that I criticized these kids for "[getting] mad" or "[saying] they want to vote out NRA supporters." I criticized them for saying these people don't care about dead kids and laying into the people actually trying to compromise with them.

I guess my point is I don’t see that statement as being the absurd rhetoric that you insist it is when its directed at the NRA and their cronies from whom ive heard truly despicable statements. When its directed at Rubio? Yeah that’s probably different but was it directed at Rubio? And if so what was the context? Did they say “youd rather see us dead” or more like “you are showing that you are more concerned with gun rights then children’s rights”. Which is true in my book.

I also never used the phrase "brain washed," even though you've put it in quotes.

Well the brain washing part is something Ive heard commonly now from people who oppose these kids. “Brainwashed” and “crisis actors”. That’s why I put it in a second set of quotes right after the first quote and didn’t mash them together because Im pretty sure you did say “use” or “using” so it does need to be in quotes but if I put “brain washed” without quotes right after that it would look like I was calling them brain washed (clearly we need actual quotes and air quotes options!). So the effect ended up looking clunky. Didn’t mean to imply you had specifically used that term though.

Now, I've already got most of the rest of my reply written up (and I left out other examples because they were more an unexplained shift in topic than a change in something I'd personally said), and I'll almost always find time to carry on substantive/polite discussions as long as the other person cares to, but some of these misrepresentations seem pretty blatant, and my time budget for conversations like that is considerably low, so I'd like to address this before continuing.

Fair enough. I hope my replies make sense and you don’t see as further “misrepresenting”. I actually thought I tried to show the nuance and conflict I feel in my position over these kids. Not simply parrot some contrary point of view to your comments just for the sake of it. And I can also be a very rambling and stream of consciousness type of debater. :shrug:

Citizen Rules

03-30-18, 11:27 PM

I. Rex

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I was swamped with work:(...Good reply, thanks!...That doesn't mean I agree on all points that you made, but I can see you put some time and thought into your response:up:

I don't have a reply for everything you said but I will post a few of my thoughts:

• A liability insurance requirement for every gun purchased just like we have with cars. That's interesting, I've never heard of that suggesting before. Can't say I'm personal in favor of it, but it's interesting.

• Bulk gun sales limitations across the board.I'd think that would have already been a law. True story. At Christmas time I was shipping items and wrapping them in insert ads the kind that come in the mail telling you a certain store has great sales. One of the ads was from Cabela's sporting goods and it was a two page spread of guns. Nothing wrong with that. But one of the ads caught my eye it was a special price on AR-15s AND it said in the ad, no limit on sale purchases. That struck me as odd. It's not illegal, but how many AR15s does one person need to buy at one time? Image if someone bought 100 AR15s and the ammo to go with them. One might think were supplying a small army.

• A federally mandated waiting period for gun sales across the board. I believe most gun laws are per state, but yeah I would agree on a waiting period and a deep background check on all gun purchases.

• FULL background checks federally enforced in all states including gun show sales and internet sales and sales between or gifts from private citizens (and ANY seller must obtain a license to sell or gift their gun). Yes to background checks for sales to strangers, but I would be oppose to licenses for a father to past down an old heirloom gun to his son.

• Implementation of a comprehensive national gun registration system.As a would-be libertarian I'm opposed to that. Once the government knows who has guns, it becomes easy for them to seize them all.

• The banning of high capacity magazines. Wasn't that already done? Or maybe it was just in my state?

• Reimplementation of the 1994 assault weapons ban If I remember right that banned the importation of foreign made assault weapons, but not American made ones. Seems kind of unfair and protectionist to me.

• Change minimum age requirements for gun purchase and gun use. Yeah I would go for 21 across the board for gun and ammo purchase.

• A federal law mandating firearm locking devices/storage rules. I already do that, but I wouldn't mandate it unless their were minors in the house, then I would agree.

Yoda

04-03-18, 02:35 PM

Quick bump to say sorry, this fell on the back burner (last few days have been busy), will try to reply soon, and I appreciate that last response.

I. Rex

04-03-18, 03:17 PM

Woops, forgot to reply to Citizen myself!

I'd think that would have already been a law. True story. At Christmas time I was shipping items and wrapping them in insert ads the kind that come in the mail telling you a certain store has great sales. One of the ads was from Cabela's sporting goods and it was a two page spread of guns. Nothing wrong with that. But one of the ads caught my eye it was a special price on AR-15s AND it said in the ad, no limit on sale purchases. That struck me as odd. It's not illegal, but how many AR15s does one person need to buy at one time?

Yeah I don’t get that either. And I don’t get the obsession with that particular gun by these mass shooters. Is it really just about it being a “black” gun that’s cool among the gun crowd? Ive been told by gun people that theres not really anything in particular about it that would put it head and shoulders above all other guns. Im told it’s a solid target shooting gun, easy to handle and is sometimes used for hunting which I also don’t really get. Wouldn’t the high-velocity bullets damage the animals meat? Or do these hunters not care about utilizing the meat of the animal? Im not a hunter so I have no idea.

Yes to background checks for sales to strangers, but I would be oppose to licenses for a father to past down an old heirloom gun to his son.

I have no issue with work arounds if you are passing down (or even selling) an antique gun or something on that level. Certainly guns where it’s the monetary value of the gun that’s the issue and not if it can actually be used. But if you want to give your arsenal of AR-15’s or Glocks or something to your son I don’t see that as much different than a straw purchase. Just because they are related doesn’t make it any more safe. What if your son is mentally unstable? Or has a history of domestic violence? Remember Adam Lanza killed 20 1st graders with a gun his gun enthusiast mother gave him ready access to.

As a would-be libertarian I'm opposed to that. Once the government knows who has guns, it becomes easy for them to seize them all.

“would be” eh? So its not too late to save you then? :D And I have to say ive always found the argument that we should have crazy gun laws because theres that chance that the government will come and take all our guns, as kind of… I don’t know… paranoid? And silly? Yeah, I get it. We had a revolution against our King just a few short centuries ago and you never know when that kind of thing just might spark up again. But I don’t see it on the horizon no matter what the kooks said about Obama. And anyway, if the military has decided to ignore the Constitution, declare martial law and attack its own citizens they are going to assume EVERYONE they face is potentially armed, not pick all the houses that don’t show up on the registration list and waltz in without a precaution. And furthermore, even if you have a small arsenal of weaponry at your finger tips its just not going to make a difference when the military has helicopter gun ships… and tanks… and missiles… and a drone army that could reduce your compound to saw dust if they didn’t feel like holding back. But good luck with your hunting rifle! Me? I’ll be putting that money into a vehicle so that when the government gestapo come marching, I can high tail me and my family to Canada. And this despite the fact that I have to register my vehicle also, something everyone seems to think is fine while registering guns is crazy talk.

Wasn't that already done? Or maybe it was just in my state?

Theres like 8 states that have size limits on magazines. Which in my opinion makes the restriction largely worthless because theres still so many places where you can buy it legally. Im for it on a federal level.

If I remember right that banned the importation of foreign made assault weapons, but not American made ones.

Well there was an import ban on foreign made semi-automatic weapons in 1989 during the first Bush presidency. So once the 1994 assault weapons ban went into place the ban on those same foreign weapons was extended with the law and certain domestically made guns were added to the ban list by specific make and model. And it added a complex definition of what would be banned exactly (it also banned some semi-auto pistols and shot guns) based on particular features like folding stocks, bayonet mounts, grenade launchers, etc.

hell_storm2004

04-04-18, 12:56 PM

I dont, and I dont like it. Loathe it to be exact.

Sedai

04-04-18, 03:51 PM

“would be” eh? So its not too late to save you then? :D And I have to say ive always found the argument that we should have crazy gun laws because theres that chance that the government will come and take all our guns, as kind of… I don’t know… paranoid? And silly? Yeah, I get it. We had a revolution against our King just a few short centuries ago and you never know when that kind of thing just might spark up again. But I don’t see it on the horizon no matter what the kooks said about Obama. And anyway, if the military has decided to ignore the Constitution, declare martial law and attack its own citizens they are going to assume EVERYONE they face is potentially armed, not pick all the houses that don’t show up on the registration list and waltz in without a precaution. And furthermore, even if you have a small arsenal of weaponry at your finger tips its just not going to make a difference when the military has helicopter gun ships… and tanks… and missiles… and a drone army that could reduce your compound to saw dust if they didn’t feel like holding back. But good luck with your hunting rifle! Me? I’ll be putting that money into a vehicle so that when the government gestapo come marching, I can high tail me and my family to Canada. And this despite the fact that I have to register my vehicle also, something everyone seems to think is fine while registering guns is crazy talk.

This has been debunked so many times, I am surprised it still comes up. This stance shows a complete misunderstanding of how our military functions, as well as a complete misunderstanding of the type of people that are in our military. The military is sworn to protect and defend The Constitution of the USA, not a tyrannical government if one happens to take over. Our own military isn't going to launch missiles on our own cities. Now that is crazy talk.

Try to understand that the military, which is comprised of (mostly right leaning, AKA against big government) citizens that are just people, just Americans. Once you are done with basic training, the military is just like a job. It is not the gestapo. They are not radical loyalists to a tyrannical government. I have personally asked many, many people I know, in all branches of the military, what would happen if the proverbial **** hit that fan, and every single one of these people has stated that they would not only turn their own weapons on the tyrants, but they would actively arm the citizenry against the oppressive power.

Let's look at a real-world example that actually happened: The Ceausescu revolution in Romania. During this conflict, there was a loyalist secret police force, called The Securitate, as well as the military. In the early stages, the military were at first helping the tyrant, but very soon after, changed sides to help the citizens, and after a few days, opened their weapons stores to the oppressed citizenry and began arming them. This was a communist army in a communist occupied country that turned on the state after they were asked to attack their own citizens.

The US military is sworn to defend freedom and the US Constitution. They are not secret police, and they most certainly aren't communists.

I will end this post with a couple of quotes from some military friends and family:

Patrick Wood (Sergeant, US Army): "If anything ever goes does down, you know where I live, and I have a rifle ready for you."

Chris Errington (Airborne, US Army): I am a constitutional defender, first and foremost. I defend my family first and freedom second. I do not compromise in that regard.

I dunno, maybe these guys are outliers, but I doubt it.

I. Rex

04-04-18, 04:10 PM

Sedai

04-04-18, 05:20 PM

No I fully agree that the vast majority of sane military members would never go full SS on US citizens which is kind of the point of I dont understand why people have this paranoid worry that we need to stock up weaponry to fight the government when it inevitably turns on us. My description was simply an exploration of our chances if that scenario were to actually happen in theory.

I can see that angle. And just for the record, I am not getting my gun license to go full Rambo on the government, but more so for going to the range etc. My wife really enjoys it, as well.

And just remember, when thinking about this stuff, always try to keep in mind The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government:

Here (http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrinciplesOfGovernment.htm)

ynwtf

04-04-18, 08:59 PM

Citizen Rules

04-04-18, 10:21 PM

Reading this thread kind of depresses me. This post is going to come off silly. NOT my intent though.

I think there have been rational arguments made, even if extreme at times, that are relatable. While I may not believe X, Y, or Z, I can appreciate the perspective of one who does. That's reasonable to me and where I hope discussions can be built upon.

Does anyone in this thread have friends or acquaintances that actually DO pine for some justification of militant revolt? That believe the military IS the strong arm of a corrupt government as argument to keep and bear arms? That hope for an opportunity to play Rambo such as a violent protest spilling into the streets?

I dont mean to sound ridiculous!! But there is a lot of chest thumping down here that concerns me. I wonder how much of this gets dismissed as hyperbole or not really a thing by people from different regions or social pockets. Or does it exist there too?

I feel that I'm on an island at times so it's hard to judge or know the perspectives coming from different parts of the country. I do not know what influence or experience exists for others that form our opinions of what's normal or what we believe to be average.

I'm VERY curious.
You're on an island? Which one? When you say there's a lot of chest thumping down here, do you mean where you live? I've never heard anyone talking Rambo/revolt. I'm sure there's a few anarchist loonies out of the 325 MILLION people that live in America. But I don't think gun owners are about fantasizing some kind of goverment take over.

With all that said, the single most important reasons for Americans not to have their gun rights impeded, is the Constitutional guarantee that citizens can bear arms. That was written by our forefathers to offer a check and balance system over the goverment. Maybe it will never be needed, hopefully not, but the idea that the populace is armed keeps would be dictators at bay. Sounds crazy maybe, but this is what our Constitutional right to bear arms is all about.

hell_storm2004

04-04-18, 10:38 PM

Man... the size of some of the posts!!

This is futile debate to begin with. People who want it, will want it. People who don't, wont. That is basically it. Politicians won't try to change too much, coz it might directly impact their vote base. If someone wants to own guns, by all means, go ahead. The law allows it.

Camo

04-04-18, 10:52 PM

America and every other countries forefathers are fcking morons by todays standards, literally i think. Lets argue on todays merits.

ynwtf

04-04-18, 11:05 PM

You're on an island? Which one? When you say there's a lot of chest thumping down here, do you mean where you live? I've never heard anyone talking Rambo/revolt. I'm sure there's a few anarchist loonies out of the 325 MILLION people that live in America. But I don't think gun owners are about fantasizing some kind of goverment take over.

Figuratively. I'm in southeastern Alabama. Very red. Very conservative. Very black and white regarding matters of principle or morality with little to no room for discussion. IMO and experience.

People here (not all and surely not many, but enough to notice and see circles of support) do openly fantasize of taking action through violence against other Americans if, in their view, it's in defense of the Constitution or possibly only their strict understanding of it. As a matter of principle, they seem quite comfortable to entertain the possibility.

As someone politically left of center, I feel my island is based on my limited experience dealing with a very limited attitude toward this topic. This is what I see and it influences my view of the world around me. It is easy to just assume (wrongly, of course) that this is representative of average, which partly explains my political and social slants.

So I'm curious if others experience similar attitudes from those they know. As a side note, I'm also curious as to what extremes others may experience where they live that may similarly affect their opinions on matters for good or bad. Not necessarily just about guns. Perhaps others experience more left negative extremes that influence opinion. I'm looking for perspective.

Citizen Rules

04-04-18, 11:22 PM

Figuratively. I'm in southeastern Alabama. Very red. Very conservative. Very black and white regarding matters of principle or morality with little to no room for discussion. IMO and experience.

People here (not all and surely not many, but enough to notice and see circles of support) do openly fantasize of taking action through violence against other Americans if, in their view, it's in defense of the Constitution or possibly only their strict understanding of it. As a matter of principle, they seem quite comfortable to entertain the possibility.

As someone politically left of center, I feel my island is based on my limited experience dealing with a very limited attitude toward this topic. This is what I see and it influences my view of the world around me. It is easy to just assume (wrongly, of course) that this is representative of average, which partly explains my political and social slants.

So I'm curious if others experience similar attitudes from those they know. As a side note, I'm also curious as to what extremes others may experience where they live that may similarly affect their opinions on matters for good or bad. Not necessarily just about guns. Perhaps others experience more left negative extremes that influence opinion. I'm looking for perspective.
I'm from the other end of the spectrum a very liberal, very blue state, Washington. That's west coast, not the nation's capital. I'd venture a guess and say you're in a hot spot for red neck activity. I don't know about the rest of the nation but I've never heard any anti goverment, take up arms talk, ever. As far as other perspectives to one extreme or another, how's this...my state wants to give heroin to addicts. Which to me is nuts! but somehow our politicians (at least some of them) claim it's a good thing.

hell_storm2004

04-04-18, 11:28 PM

People here (not all and surely not many, but enough to notice and see circles of support) do openly fantasize of taking action through violence against other Americans if, in their view, it's in defense of the Constitution or possibly only their strict understanding of it. As a matter of principle, they seem quite comfortable to entertain the possibility.

Isn't that a bit overboard? I dont know, never been to Alabama. So I cant really say. But yes, there is definite difference in mentality when it comes to guns in US than in other countries. I am in Dallas which is mostly liberal. All of my friends own guns except one. And he is an ex army man. He says he's been around too many to want it. But rest all of them own it.

There was this one thread i read about a month ago, where a lady posted self defense weapons allowed in UK. Some of the answers she got, were hilarious. Ranging from some suggesting big potatoes, to hands/knees/fists. :p

Makes me wonder, about the how the mentality is different in two countries. Here there is a point of infatuation to guns, which is a little bewildering.

Captain Steel

04-04-18, 11:57 PM

Isn't that a bit overboard? I dont know, never been to Alabama. So I cant really say. But yes, there is definite difference in mentality when it comes to guns in US than in other countries. I am in Dallas which is mostly liberal. All of my friends own guns except one. And he is an ex army man. He says he's been around too many to want it. But rest all of them own it.

There was this one thread i read about a month ago, where a lady posted self defense weapons allowed in UK. Some of the answers she got, were hilarious. Ranging from some suggesting big potatoes, to hands/knees/fists. :p

Makes me wonder, about the how the mentality is different in two countries. Here there is a point of infatuation to guns, which is a little bewildering.

The best I ever saw was in a book series called Black Medicine: and one of the most surprising self defense weapons was... a baby. Yes, throw your baby at someone trying to assault you! First, it will give you an unsurpassed element of surprise as it will be the last thing the attacker would ever expect anyone to do - leaving them fumbling, aghast and perplexed. If they have a gun or a knife, they will instinctively drop their weapon to catch the baby (in the meantime you can incapacitate the assaulter in a variety of ways). Don't worry if they never catch the baby - babies are very flexible, can withstand a great deal of jostling and are cushioned for impacts, especially when swaddled. ;)

Another slightly more realistic option was to throw a cat at your attacker, if you're fast enough, you'll be able to release the cat before it latches onto you, but it will have it's claws out and ready to flay the next flesh it comes in contact with!

Steve Freeling

04-05-18, 12:19 AM

Yes, I do and given a situation where someone tried to harm my family or myself, I would if there was no other option.

hell_storm2004

04-05-18, 12:55 AM

The best I ever saw was in a book series called Black Medicine: and one of the most surprising self defense weapons was... a baby. Yes, throw your baby at someone trying to assault you! First, it will give you an unsurpassed element of surprise as it will be the last thing the attacker would ever expect anyone to do - leaving them fumbling, aghast and perplexed. If they have a gun or a knife, they will instinctively drop their weapon to catch the baby (in the meantime you can incapacitate the assaulter in a variety of ways). Don't worry if they never catch the baby - babies are very flexible, can withstand a great deal of jostling and are cushioned for impacts, especially when swaddled. ;)

Another slightly more realistic option was to throw a cat at your attacker, if you're fast enough, you'll be able to release the cat before it latches onto you, but it will have it's claws out and ready to flay the next flesh it comes in contact with!

That is interesting. Not married no kids. So that option is out. I might have to get a cat. I love cats, so just throwing them would be hard!! :)

Captain Steel

04-05-18, 01:02 AM

That is interesting. Not married no kids. So that option is out. I might have to get a cat. I love cats, so just throwing them would be hard!! :)

Rest assured, a cat will virtually never be harmed by throwing it at someone else - the face of the person you throw the cat at however....

Camo

04-05-18, 01:20 AM

Grew up with a cat, didn't get shot, don't remember ever being scared of guns, cat or not.

Camo

04-05-18, 01:21 AM

Grew up with a cat, didn't get shot, don't remember ever being scared of guns, cat or not.

Think i was scared of cats when i was like four though.

Don't think those cats had guns.

I. Rex

04-05-18, 08:57 AM

Clearly we need baby and cat control! Especially those dreaded assault cats! No regular pet owner needs one of those dangerous menaces in an average household. Crazies are now bursting into schools and throwing them at helpless kids. Back in my day we threw dogs at attackers and that worked just fine...

ynwtf

04-05-18, 11:06 AM

lol.
There's a cute animation on YouTube titled something like Gun Control Explained with Cats (or something along those lines). I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the msg, but the animation is kinda funny.

ynwtf

04-05-18, 11:21 AM

Isn't that a bit overboard? I dont know, never been to Alabama. So I cant really say. But yes, there is definite difference in mentality when it comes to guns in US than in other countries. I am in Dallas which is mostly liberal. All of my friends own guns except one. And he is an ex army man. He says he's been around too many to want it. But rest all of them own it.

There was this one thread i read about a month ago, where a lady posted self defense weapons allowed in UK. Some of the answers she got, were hilarious. Ranging from some suggesting big potatoes, to hands/knees/fists. :p

Makes me wonder, about the how the mentality is different in two countries. Here there is a point of infatuation to guns, which is a little bewildering.

Sadly, no. Depending on what social groups you hang around where I live, it can be pretty common. Keep in mind that I do live in a rural farm area, so that is a factor. Lots of country boys out here that drive old 4x4 trucks with the rebel flag trailing from a tennis ball topped CB antenna. I do not expect that to be normal across the country, but it is here depending on who you spend your time with.

So yeah, the conversation that was playing out just got me curious as to how other posters here sit with the attitudes common in their own regions/states. I think Citizen Rules offers a good view from another perspective, and was what I was fishing for. I wonder if I lived in that environment would I lean more conservative?

It's interesting to think on.

hell_storm2004

04-05-18, 12:42 PM

Sadly, no. Depending on what social groups you hang around where I live, it can be pretty common. Keep in mind that I do live in a rural farm area, so that is a factor. Lots of country boys out here that drive old 4x4 trucks with the rebel flag trailing from a tennis ball topped CB antenna. I do not expect that to be normal across the country, but it is here depending on who you spend your time with.

I still remember that Top Gear episode where the BBC crew were chased with guns and stones thrown at them when they were in Alabama. It was hilarious! I dont know if that was scripted or not. But from what i know it was genuine. :D

Where a person grows up and his/her surroundings do have an effect on a persons thinking. Since i grew up moving around, mostly in no gun countries, so i dont see myself with a gun or anyone in my family. Here in Dallas, almost everybody has them, but i certainly have not seen people going overboard with it. Dallas is a weird mix, 35/40+, they would mostly be red, below that age mostly blue. I guess that is sweeping generalization. But you would notice it if you live here for a while.

Camo

04-05-18, 06:08 PM

Have you got a gun?
Would you kill someone?
It wasn't Geraldo's fault!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6c_zfcE5XU
D'oh!

Dani8

04-05-18, 06:10 PM

I still remember that Top Gear episode where the BBC crew were chased with guns and stones thrown at them when they were in Alabama. It was hilarious! I dont know if that was scripted or not. But from what i know it was genuine. :D
.

Oh man I saw that episode and remember thinking they really did look frightened.

Dani8

04-06-18, 12:00 AM

Title: Have you got a gun/would you kill someone

Right now? I probably couldnt even pick it up so in a word - no.

Camo

04-06-18, 12:12 AM

Have you got a gun?
Would you kill someone?
It wasn't Geraldo's fault!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6c_zfcE5XU
D'oh!

I thought this was a good post that Yoda would have liked at least :(

hell_storm2004

04-06-18, 01:53 AM

Title: Have you got a gun/would you kill someone

Right now? I probably couldnt even pick it up so in a word - no.

:D

Sedai

04-06-18, 12:28 PM

America and every other countries forefathers are fcking morons by todays standards, literally i think. Lets argue on todays merits.

https://78.media.tumblr.com/4fc057c501740ff054d0aa0b8e2688a1/tumblr_nj3lmzU76m1sxvxiwo1_1280.jpg

Yoda

04-09-18, 05:11 PM

My reference there was to your assertion that people (adults, me, or in your word “progressives”) who embrace and support these kids are “attempting to bypass the debate” by doing so. WE are the people who want reasonable gun laws. I wasn’t referring to any of the kids making statements you may find over the top but to the supporters of those kids who you say are undermining the debate by supporting them. Hope that’s clearer.
It is clearer, yes. Thanks.

And I did find it a little insulting that you think progressives are generally debate avoiders and tricksters and conservatives less so. Ive found the opposite to be true but, as you’ve already noted, this may also be one of those things that depends on whether or not you support the point of view of the debater.
I'm sure there's a degree to which everyone unconsciously plays down their own side's culpability, but to be clear, I'm saying something very narrow: I'm saying progressives disproportionately fall into this specific thing. There are absolutely things that conservatives are more prone to fall into, they're just different things. Happy to expound on them if that makes it feel less like partisan sniping.

I don't think this is really such a controversial or partisan idea, though; it makes perfect sense that different worldviews would be more or less susceptible to different intellectual pitfalls.

I guess my point is I don’t see that statement as being the absurd rhetoric that you insist it is when its directed at the NRA and their cronies from whom ive heard truly despicable statements. When its directed at Rubio? Yeah that’s probably different but was it directed at Rubio? And if so what was the context? Did they say “youd rather see us dead” or more like “you are showing that you are more concerned with gun rights then children’s rights”. Which is true in my book.
I mean, I can Google the exact quotes, but I can't imagine you haven't heard most of it by now. People telling Rubio that looking at him is like looking down the barrel of a gun again, the whole stunt implying he values each student's life at $1.05. This would be pretty extreme if you threw it at pretty much anyone, but it's particularly absurd when tossed at one of the few people actually standing there, taking the abuse, and still trying to forge a compromise.

Part of this probably isn't resolvable, because it seems like I can give examples of extreme rhetoric, and you'll tell me it's not extreme because the thing it's confronting is just that bad. Suffice to say, it's easy to justify anything if you start with the premise that the other side is just awful, even though (again) everybody thinks that, which is precisely why we have to be careful to argue from shared or neutral premises in the first place.

Well the brain washing part is something Ive heard commonly now from people who oppose these kids. “Brainwashed” and “crisis actors”. That’s why I put it in a second set of quotes right after the first quote and didn’t mash them together because Im pretty sure you did say “use” or “using” so it does need to be in quotes but if I put “brain washed” without quotes right after that it would look like I was calling them brain washed (clearly we need actual quotes and air quotes options!). So the effect ended up looking clunky. Didn’t mean to imply you had specifically used that term though.
Fair enough.

I've heard people say that about the kids, too. I think that's pretty extreme. I don't think they're old or mature enough to consider the full measure of this debate or reliably express themselves in appropriate ways, however. And I definitely think lots of people want to manipulate them to their own ends in this debate and don't much care how it will effect them. You seem to, which is good, though the mere fact that you admit to wrestling with it suggests you understand the tension there.

Fair enough. I hope my replies make sense and you don’t see as further “misrepresenting”. I actually thought I tried to show the nuance and conflict I feel in my position over these kids. Not simply parrot some contrary point of view to your comments just for the sake of it. And I can also be a very rambling and stream of consciousness type of debater. :shrug:
I dig. No worries. Appreciate the response.

It's an unfortunate match, because when someone lists five or six things in quick succession I usually want to reply to each in turn, so when combined with the stream of consciousness stuff...ooo boy, the replies get out of hand quickly. Cynically, it's because most people who do that are just Gish Galloping or venting or whatever, but I realize for some it's just a habitual manner of communicating and not malicious or deceptive.

I think we can whittle this one back down to a reasonable size going forward, though, if there's even that much left to say.

Yoda

04-09-18, 05:12 PM

I owe you a reply to a few other things from the previous post, too. Hopefully today or tomorrow, if it's easier to wait and reply to it all. I can probably cut it down since some of the things in the first post were addressed in the second.

Either way, will make a serious effort to cull this down to the essential points. Sorry if it's a little unwieldy.

I. Rex

04-09-18, 05:53 PM

Bht88

04-20-18, 10:36 PM

Camo

04-20-18, 10:50 PM

guns are just guns

Are you cool with the fact that a deadly weapon is just part of your life? I'm just curious because like i was saying to Yoda the idea of our already bad knife problem turning into a gun problem is terrifying to me.[/QUOTE]

Who knows mang :(

Camo

04-20-18, 10:53 PM

Wish the early apes had discovered delicious coffee, would have probably saved us a lot of not great cups of coffee, i mean our coffee would have been pretty consistently solid!

Captain Steel

04-20-18, 11:03 PM

Wish the early apes had discovered delicious coffee, would have probably saved us a lot of not great cups of coffee, i mean our coffee would have been pretty consistently solid!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ruD6K7fhs0

Bht88

04-20-18, 11:10 PM

Are you cool with the fact that a deadly weapon is just part of your life? I'm just curious because like i was saying to Yoda the idea of our already bad knife problem turning into a gun problem is terrifying to me.

Who knows mang :([/quote]

What? bad knife problem..? I carry a knife everywhere I go now...
you wouldn't have any problem carrying a knife and or gun etc if you
lived the dangers of reality

Camo

04-20-18, 11:14 PM

if you lived the dangers of reality

What? Let's not be Assumy Assumenson here kinda makes you seem dumb.

Captain Steel

04-20-18, 11:31 PM

What? Let's not be Assumy Assumenson here kinda makes you seem dumb.

Assumy Assumenson! :laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hr-Ilwuryw

Dani8

04-20-18, 11:34 PM

everyone needs a gun(s) the gun laws here are cr1Q
someday everyone will have guns..

people kill/hurt people
guns are just guns
you need protection from everyone/everything

whos gonna police the police..

Id kill everyone that stands in my way

Who are you to tell everyone what they need? I'm serious. You must be pretty important. Same thing goes for your last comment. That's a pretty negative outlook on life. I'm sorry you feel that way. It must be a terrible burden to carry.

Bht88

04-20-18, 11:43 PM

What? Let's not be Assumy Assumenson here kinda makes you seem dumb.

what...? I don't know what that means...

dumb...? how..?

Who are you to tell everyone what they need? I'm serious. You must be pretty important. Same thing goes for your last comment. That's a pretty negative outlook on life. I'm sorry you feel that way. It must be a terrible burden to carry.

me,a 29 yr old man who is normal/sane (with proof) ... you need a gun for self defense... against EVERYTHING that tries to hurt you...
its NOT an outlook...its reality... you live in a tellytubbie world then?
I don't feel.. I see/know the reality of everything... I don't carry anything,except what I know exists...what Ive seen and NOT seen...
IF ANY of you actually knew me,met me,known me pretty well you'd totally be saying the opposite,but none of you have,have you...
don't make fast assumptions of people til you've met and verified what/who they are..

Camo

04-20-18, 11:49 PM

what...? I don't know what that means...

dumb...? how..?

You made a ridiculous and i might add wrong assumption based on practically nothing.

Camo

04-20-18, 11:53 PM

everyone needs a gun(s)

What about all of the people that live full and content lifes without ever touching a gun?
[/QUOTE]

Captain Steel

04-20-18, 11:54 PM

I don't own a gun.

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:08 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ruD6K7fhs0

Well I'll be. Women not shaving their armpits must have been desirable in the art deco period. Apologies for OT.

Back to guns - I cant answer such a hypothetical, I've decided. Would I kill someone? I can say doubtful, but who knows what tomorrow would bring. I live in a quiet suburban community where nothing happens until a poor young kid got killed 2 minutes walk down the road in the early hours of the morning. A gun wouldnt have saved him from whatever he was running from - he died instantly, apparently, from running straight into a parked garbage truck and decapitating himself. Sorry for the graphicness of such a post. Yes I did just make that word up.

Another time a gun was used in this 'burb a young guy shot his bestfriend in the head then blew his brains out infront of his mother as she stood on the staircase in horror. I didnt know the best friends but probably talked to them in passing, but I do know the mum and older brother who had to fly back from the other side of the country to console his mum who was out of her mind for quite some time. Absolutely tragic murder suicide that happened on an ASSumption. If the mum had a gun could she have stopped it? Once again, doubtful. She wasnt in the main part of the house when her son was killed but ran out when she heard the first blast. So would a gun have helped her? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Third example just because I like 3s - A young woman was abseiling into the bush at the end of my street. She fell and impaled herself on a broken branch that went straight through her femoral artery, then exsanguinated. I didnt know her because she's not from this village, but I do know her then bestie.

Onemore because it's a very important number and I just cant help myself - a dear, sweet older gentleman I knew when I was mixed up with the dog show crowd died instantly when a stray bullet hit him in the head. He was minding his own business eating a sandwich late at night while having his obligatory rest (professional truck driver). I have not stopped grieving for him and I dare say the rest of the people who knew him have not either. This man did so much for kids in need, even taking his dogs to visit them in shelters and children's wards at xmas, easter etc, and for women generally. Bob was always there to help his wife's girlfriends or anyone else when they were in trouble. A couple of young men got into an argument in a bottle shop carpark, two streetsaway and Bob was dead. Why! A gun would not have helped him. Vale Bob. I still miss you and hope we meet again one day.

OK that's enough. The room just filled up with dust (I stole that line from Yoda!!! Thanks, Yods)

Captain Steel

04-21-18, 12:10 AM

Well I'll be. Women not shaving their armpits must have been desirable in the art deco period. Apologies for OT.

That's funny, because I was wondering if that's what it was supposed to be, or just an awkwardly drawn line illustrating the underarm! :)

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:17 AM

what...? I don't know what that means...

dumb...? how..?

me,a 29 yr old man who is normal/sane (with proof) ... you need a gun for self defense... against EVERYTHING that tries to hurt you...
its NOT an outlook...its reality... you live in a tellytubbie world then?
I don't feel.. I see/know the reality of everything... I don't carry anything,except what I know exists...what Ive seen and NOT seen...
IF ANY of you actually knew me,met me,known me pretty well you'd totally be saying the opposite,but none of you have,have you...
don't make fast assumptions of people til you've met and verified what/who they are..

Yes I do live in a teletubbie world. How did you know?
Do you have a drone hanging over my house? *ahem if you do, you need a warrant for that if you intend using it, Yosemite Sam.

I dont particularly want to meet someone who thinks he can stand over people while he beats them over the head with his toy gun and broken attitude. I also dont care to know your age. I;m pretty sure no one asked for that info, unless I missed it. I still dont care for it.

See that last sentence of yours? Please read it until the penny drops. TIA. And have lovely weekend. Please dont kill too many people.

Bht88

04-21-18, 12:17 AM

You made a ridiculous and i might add wrong assumption based on practically nothing.

a made a ridiculous... ok... I think I'm done talking to you..
I think I see why dirk put you in his/her ignore list..

Camo, you are on my ignore list, but everyone deserves to live. Hope you find your peace.

What about all of the people that live full and content lifes without ever touching a gun?
what about them...? ya til they ACTUALLY need one..and they don't have one and they end up REALLY hurt if not dead
so better to be prepared then sorry.. do you visit a doctor when youre sick or dying or go to see one regularly in case you are sick and don't know it...? cancer screenings,physicals etc maybe they'll find the cancer early and cure it before its too advanced... do you buy home insurance before your house burns up? etc or do you wait after it burns up and your homeless...??? do you take precautions like this or walk around like duh everyone who exists is friendly..no one ever does bad things..

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:23 AM

That's funny, because I was wondering if that's what it was supposed to be, or just an awkwardly drawn line illustrating the underarm! :)

Hi Cap, I hope your settling/settled in after your recent move. Do you only post on weekends these days?

If you google along the lines of art deco greeting cards/ porn (it's not porn by today's standards) you'll see what the underground young men and husbands found totally seductive, and it was women (probably also young men) in their natural state. Very interesting. I;ll see if I can find some links. You know how much I love that period.

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:27 AM

a made a ridiculous... ok... I think I'm done talking to you..
I think I see why dirk put you in his/her ignore list..

what about them...? ya til they ACTUALLY need one..and they don't have one and they end up REALLY hurt if not dead
so better to be prepared then sorry.. do you visit a doctor when youre sick or dying or go to see one regularly in case you are sick and don't know it...? cancer screenings,physicals etc maybe they'll find the cancer early and cure it before its too advanced... do you buy home insurance before your house burns up? etc or do you wait after it burns up and your homeless...??? do you take precautions like this or walk around like duh everyone who exists is friendly..no one ever does bad things..

I laughed out loud at your first reply. Dirk has everyone on ignore until it suits him otherwise. He's like you - very angry.

But then I got the shts when you dared assume it was OK to talk over Camo about cancer. Pull your head in and stop ASSuming people need you to shout at them. You're so angry with the world and yourself in it you're spilling over with poo.

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:32 AM

OT for captain steel. I feel sure the OP wont mind.

Here you go. This is vintage pornography.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=porn+post+cards+art+deco&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdp7TwtsraAhXMa7wKHSbFBT8Q_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662

eta Yoda if you would prefer that not being here I'm fine deleting it and to pm to Cap which in retrospect I should have done anyway. Just say yay or nay and I shall comply

Camo

04-21-18, 12:34 AM

I don't own a gun.

Wish i could drop a great twist that i own four shotguns but i don't even own a pistol.

Camo

04-21-18, 12:36 AM

a made a ridiculous... ok... I think I'm done talking to you..
I think I see why dirk put you in his/her ignore list..

Who the hell is dirk and why doesn't he like me? :(

Bht88

04-21-18, 12:37 AM

Yes I do live in a teletubbie world. How did you know?
Do you have a drone hanging over my house? *ahem if you do, you need a warrant for that if you intend using it, Yosemite Sam.

I dont particularly want to meet someone who thinks he can stand over people while he beats them over the head with his toy gun and broken attitude. I also dont care to know your age. I;m pretty sure no one asked for that info, unless I missed it. I still dont care for it.

See that last sentence of yours? Please read it until the penny drops. TIA. And have lovely weekend. Please dont kill too many people.

sad if you really do... or are just kidding,either way sad
you might wanna get help and get in touch way reality if you ARE kidding then its a silly immature comment that a kid would say..
you have NOT replied a valid comment that has Authenticity
No..again with a silly comment.. I bet..let me clarify my comments were made to kill anyone/thing is self defense... maybe you misunderstood...? you don't care about my age.... hmmmm
do you have real adult conversations with anyone about things..? or do you just have a silly immature mind and don't take things seriously..?
I'll kill as many as I need to in self defense.. when someone tries to hurt you,youll probably be like a teletubby walking straight up to them and offering them some custard meanwhile theyre stabbing you to death..

ynwtf

04-21-18, 12:38 AM

Camo

04-21-18, 12:39 AM

That's genuine i don't think i know any member called dirk and it's horrible if i'm so bad that people i'm not even aware of are putting me on ignore. :(

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:39 AM

Wish i could drop a great twist that i own four shotguns but i don't even own a pistol.

My dad had a collection of shotguns when I was a kid (under my brother's bed at that. What an imbecile he was although things have changed a bit since then) but he only ever used them on his acreage. Thinking out loud as I type, he was a criminal lawyer and in retrospect he probably had them to safe guard against his clients when they turned up at our front door threatening to kill and/ or kidnap his kids. Holy sht what a memory. Making my eyes do somersaults.

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:40 AM

That's genuine i don't think i know any member called dirk and it's horrible if i'm so bad that people i'm not even aware of are putting me on ignore. :(

That's hilarious, and I totally believe you.

Dani8

04-21-18, 12:43 AM

sad if you really do... or are just kidding,either way sad
you might wanna get help and get in touch way reality if you ARE kidding then its a silly immature comment that a kid would say..
you have NOT replied a valid comment that has Authenticity
No..again with a silly comment.. I bet..let me clarify my comments were made to kill anyone/thing is self defense... maybe you misunderstood...? you don't care about my age.... hmmmm
do you have real adult conversations with anyone about things..? or do you just have a silly immature mind and don't take things seriously..?
I'll kill as many as I need to in self defense.. when someone tries to hurt you,youll probably be like a teletubby walking straight up to them and offering them some custard meanwhile theyre stabbing you to death..

Yes you are quite correct once again - I simply cannot take you seriously. Thanks for reminding me.

I. Rex

04-21-18, 10:37 AM

so better to be prepared then sorry.. do you visit a doctor when youre sick or dying or go to see one regularly in case you are sick and don't know it...? cancer screenings,physicals etc maybe they'll find the cancer early and cure it before its too advanced... do you buy home insurance before your house burns up? etc or do you wait after it burns up and your homeless...???

So your concern is simply 'the odds' of being attacked? Does this come from experience or just seem logical to you based on media reports/observation/your particular environment/etc?

As far as your analogies, going to the doctor wont cause your child to stumble on the doctor visit and shoot themselves with it. Getting home insurance wont cause you to set your house on fire during a fight with your wife because setting your house on fire is so much easier when you have insurance then when you dont. Nor will any of those things cause you to take your own life because you are depressed or drunk or careless or stupid or some combination. Or get you shot by your assailant because you feel bold enough to take them on because you have "insurance". Or by the cops because you come out of the house wielding your "insurance" and they dont know who the bad guy is. And the combination of all of those things I mentioned are much more likely then actually successfully defending yourself against an attacker about to kill you.

Also I'll note that no one will ever steal your "insurance" or buy their own "insurance" and then use it to kill a classroom full of first graders either...

So at best your analogy doesnt work because apples and oranges.

Citizen Rules

04-21-18, 01:24 PM

...Id kill everyone that stands in my way:indifferent:...If I see you walking down the street, remind me to step aside and let you pass. It would probably be for the best.

Captain Steel

04-21-18, 06:13 PM

I don't fly because, while the odds are I will never experience an incident much less a crash, that one time could take my life! And I best be ready by not putting my life at risk. Not moving is the best preparedness, I say. Instead, I spend my days shooting at the sun ...because of melanoma. Everything can kill me!!!

o.O

I feel the exact same way about LASIK - it would solve problems and make life a whole lot easier if successful... but the risk, slim as it is, is just too great

ynwtf

04-21-18, 06:31 PM

Dani8

04-21-18, 11:47 PM

I don't own a gun.

What's gun violence like in your current neighbourhood, Cap?

Captain Steel

04-22-18, 12:14 AM

What's gun violence like in your current neighbourhood, Cap?

Nonexistent in both my current and past neighborhoods.

Dani8

04-22-18, 12:22 AM

Nonexistent in both my current and past neighborhoods.

Goodstuff.Same as my teletubbie neighbourhood.

Luis

04-22-18, 12:35 AM

Don't own a gun, would I kill someone? I hope I never have to find out. But under extreme circumstances, I think we all would.

Bht88

04-22-18, 05:52 AM

...Id kill everyone that stands in my way:indifferent:...If I see you walking down the street, remind me to step aside and let you pass. It would probably be for the best.

In self defense only not literally

Hey Fredrick

04-22-18, 11:48 AM

So your concern is simply 'the odds' of being attacked? Does this come from experience or just seem logical to you based on media reports/observation/your particular environment/etc?

The odds of being attacked, while admittedly still low, are higher where I live than most places. For this reason we keep a weapon as do most of my neighbors. There's way to much bad stuff going on around here. Last summer was especially brutal. We had a rash of armed car jackings (in broad daylight), B and E, shootings, armed robberies, you name it, it was happening. And now we find out there is a pill mill operating down at the corner (currently being investigated by the Feds but still open) which is drawing some sketchy characters to the neighborhood. It's a rough part of town but it's not even the worst part of town. If some dude wants to throw a gun in our face and take the car fine, we'll give up the car because we are outgunned at that moment but if you break into our home there will be a fight. We do everything we can to avoid a situation like that, where someone breaks in (video surveillance, motion lights, BEWARE of DOG) but if they ignore all that and enter anyway, I'm going to assume that they're nuts and I don't want to be totally outmatched against a (potentially) armed nut. Plus, I have the advantage in that situation by knowing the layout of the house and probably a better close quarters weapon.

Something happened down the block from us a few years ago. A group of guys busted in and robbed a homeowner at gun point. It was completely random. They got what they wanted and were leaving. On the way OUT they shot him. For no reason. They just shot him. This stuff happens and I don't want it happening to me or my GF.

And finally, a couple years ago a guy in town was convicted of some drug charges. At sentencing they played a video of where this guy hung out. The first gun in the video - there is no way that THAT kid has THAT gun legally. If you want gun control this is where it should start - illegal guns. Get those off the street first. Where I live, if my weapon is taken from me but that kid still has his, what chance do I really have? Baseball bat? Knife? Not going to do me much good under gunpoint at distance. I'm not going to link to the frightening video played at sentencing but it's easily found on youtube. That particular video was taken about a mile and a half from my place.

I. Rex

04-22-18, 06:34 PM

Yeah thats why I was asking about his "particular environment". Because there can be reasons for owning that make more sense than others. And sounds like your situation calls for more "insurance" than the average one. I just hope you keep the gun safe and its only ever used to your advantage. In so many situations, guns end up hurting the owner or the owner's loved ones more and not a criminal. Thats just statistics. And the reality of a very dangerous powerful tool in the hands of a person who almost never uses it and may not be ready to use it during an emergency. Not saying thats the case with you at all but its super tragic when old Uncle Saul opens up on Aunt Gladys because he heard voices in the kitchen late at night. Or shoots himself in the spleen because its easy to buy a gun but its a pain to take it to the range regularly and practice with it and take the time to learn gun safety.

But yeah time and place is key. I know a woman who lives alone in rural New Mexico. The closest police faciity to her is something like 38 miles and she has domestic abuse victim history in her past including a stalking and threats (AND lives in an area where coyotes are apparently an issue). Because of all that she keeps a shot gun on her premises. She hates guns with a passion. She worries every day that something could go wrong or the gun could get stolen or half a dozen other scenarios and she isnt even sure she could shoot someone when it comes down to it (she has this notion that if she shoots NEAR them that might frighten them off). But she knows it would be foolish not to at least be prepared in her situation. And I fully support her choice to own one. Talk about a a perfect storm of reasons to be armed. But in so many cases gun ownership does not make as much sense. So many suburban wanna be heroes open carrying their assault rifle into Chipotle because they can, just itching for one of them "inner city types" to try something so they can satisfy their vigilante fantasies. And theres something wrong with that. But the NRA has programmed these losers into thinking crime is everywhere and that carrying a weapon strapped to their hip or across their chest is within their rights and therefore they should do it. So they go around their suburbs and in their nice safe well patrolled cul de sacs thinking bad guys are everywhere and if Im not armed to the teeth at ALL times I'll end up a statistic before the week is out.

But anyway, heres hoping you never need to use that fire arm at all. Heres hoping crime never visits your door. And heres hoping none of us will ever have to face the choice of needing to use deadly force on another human.

Dani8

04-23-18, 12:23 AM

If you want gun control this is where it should start - illegal guns. .

Impossible, I'm afraid. I live in Australia, gun control capital of the world. We have more illegal guns than before each buy back truce.

Bht88

05-05-18, 09:33 PM

y

I'm angry...? Have you ever met me? I'm "angry" with the world...? How? Why? All I've done is say that you need a gun for self defense.. are you against self defense..? Are you saying ANYONE has the right to abuse you and you have NO right to defend yourself that you just have to take it...take their abuse..?
Are you against the U.S. constitution? Do you think people have the right to freedom or do you think that ANYONE in authority in ALWAYS 100 % right and never abuses their power/authority..? Have you seen the countless police misconduct/brutality videos on YouTube? I'd like to know where you live..? Is everyone there completely good/perfect..? Are they nice/behave ALL the time..? Or do "live" in a 6 month old babies mentality ?.."thinking " ohh everything is nice,people don't hurt people
Everyone who exists is totally 100 % good"..? If my " poo" is nothing but the truth , reality,freedom then yes my "poo" is valued by MANY people for they like this "poo" the 2nd amendment right to bear arms SHALL not be infringed....mmmm that's some good "poo"

And no I. Rex. It's not " just simply the odds". You need a gun or a weapon for self defense why risk NOT carrying one when someone or animal tries to hurt you... Very illogical... I'd rather spend $500.00 usd to protect myself with a handgun then $500.00 USD on the " newest iphone"
How does a piece of metal that just sends emails,surfs the web,take pictures/videos,makes phone calls etc gonna protect ME,my family,pets ,house, business, property etc...?
I'd like to see anyone fight an attacker,mugger,rapist,child molester, domestic abuser with a cell phone...while the abuser IS armed.. with a knife or a baseball bat, a gun or a crowbar...if you have a gun holstered you immediately take it out remove the safety and shoot to kill... Very simple
It's not complicated.. everything I. Rex. Expierence and media reports. That's why you use guns safely,store them properly TEACH kids NOT to play with them..TELL them they are NOT TOYS...THEY ARE NOT TOY guns...they will kill you..they are NOT toy guns you buy at Walmart that are orange and made of plastic...they'll know the difference between a REAL gun and a toy.. people kill people I. Rex if you get into a " fight" with your wife/spouse/boyfriend etc then
It Should be resolved without physical violence..are you blaming guns for domestic violence ...? Or do abusers abuse others? Are you trying to say without guns domestic violence WONT/doesnt exist?
If you're " fighting" with someone alot you shouldn't EVEN be together...don't blame guns an abuser with ALWAYS be an abuser with or WITHOUT guns
Domestic violence existed even BEFORE guns were invented.. people have killed each other for thousands of years...way before guns existed...weird huh... Regarding sucicide.. really..? The exact same thing I just said about domestic violence and people killing each other applies here...hmmm until now I thought the ONLY way to kill yourself/someone was with a gun...I'm shocked... You don't hesitate to kill in self defense I. Rex..if you do then it's on you... The army,Marines,policeman don't... Why should you...?
If ANY of these people did in combat they'd be fired immediately... Do you think the U.S. Marines trained for nothing in WW II to go to Nazi Germany and "hesitate" when they saw German soldiers and just walk up to them and say "hi here I am,your enemy..kill me" ...??? Would you trust anyone of the people I mentioned to protect you if they hesitated...? Cops take risks Every day you're right when you say they don't know who the "bad" guy is...that's why you explain what explain what happened and or show them what happened like video evidence...I see more people with body cams now..they even put cams on their car...in case they get into an accident.. that's undeniable video proof of what happened..
Even police in some cities are REQUIRED to wear them now...it should be a REQUIREMENT everywhere... A body cam is very useful... Everyone should wear one (front and back) for Safety. Someday everyone probably will and maybe required to...its always a person's word against another..a stupid endless cycle of arguing..with video proof you will see who's right and who's lying...numbers don't lie. Nope if you look at statistics where people carry guns they tend to be areas where crime rates ARE lower than areas where guns are not allowed to be carried... NO one really dares to mess with a Texan for a reason...

Regarding the 1st graders...
The same thing I said before applies here..

Sry 4 the late replies been busy..and I'm posting this mobilely. Fyi

hell_storm2004

05-05-18, 10:53 PM

https://www.askideas.com/media/48/Funny-Karate-Meme-They-Spilled-My-Drink-I-Spilled-Their-Blood-Picture.jpg

How about this for self defense? We got fists of fury to fight?

Dani8

05-06-18, 12:32 PM

tl;dr that giant wad of text. What's wrong, bhtt- you really really look like you're having a bad weekend so I'll indulge you in the hope i can cheer you up a bit. I dragged myself through that until you asked me about the us constitution. WTH does the US constitution have to do with me, pray tell? You can roll that piece of paper up and stick it in your back pocket, love.

*skips off giggling to see what other things I can entertain myself with.

eta: just read my previous post in this thread *turns to sock poppet oh Ullo Guvna. This dude is hilarious.!!!

Bht88

05-06-18, 07:01 PM

---

Ok..I'm done talking to you...get help..

I bet you and that "sock" puppet will be very happy..
Enjoy your invisible cake
And punch parties

Dani8

05-06-18, 07:42 PM

Ok..I'm done talking to you...get help..

I bet you and that "sock" puppet will be very happy..
Enjoy your invisible cake
And punch parties

thanks but i thought you said that last time.Why so threatened? That's no way to have a civil conversation.

sock puppet says hi. He's pretty joyful today.

I'm pretty sure the cake was real and I was going to offer you some. Would you like tea with that or coffee? Are you even old enough to drink coffee? Never mind.

What's a punch party please? And i still demand an answer to my question about your silly lil piece of paper called the us constitution. TIA. Put those guns of yours down before explaining. I dont want my pretty lil head shot off, Yosemite Sam.

ynwtf

05-06-18, 07:53 PM

Are we talking Lambchop or Agro?

hell_storm2004

05-06-18, 10:37 PM

thanks but i thought you said that last time.Why so threatened? That's no way to have a civil conversation.

sock puppet says hi. He's pretty joyful today.

I'm pretty sure the cake was real and I was going to offer you some. Would you like tea with that or coffee? Are you even old enough to drink coffee? Never mind.

What's a punch party please? And i still demand an answer to my question about your silly lil piece of paper called the us constitution. TIA. Put those guns of yours down before explaining. I dont want my pretty lil head shot off, Yosemite Sam.

I think he is a NRA member!! :D

Yoda

05-07-18, 02:03 PM

Sorry, this fell by the wayside for awhile. I mostly agree with your summary of the key points (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1887674#post1887674) and will try to emphasize that, but I do think some of the more specific bits matter. So, I'll reply to those, but I've more or less cut the initial reply in half to try to compromise:

We will definitely continue to disagree here. I think its fairly obvious that the power curve on the gun issue has been occupied by the Godzilla that is the NRA for decades and there has been no equivalent on the other side.
You said yourself earlier that it was “both sides” that have resorted to rhetoric which I don’t even agree with. Why is it now that the people who want reasonable gun laws and haven’t been listened to for decades are now ones being tricky and playing dirty ball?
I'm grouping these because I think they're ultimately doing the same thing: implying unfairness that, when examined, really just boils down to "I'm upset that they're winning."

For the first quote, the discussion was originally about extreme rhetoric and the suggestion that the NRA plays "dirty." I offered examples of anti-NRA rhetoric that seems just as extreme (if not moreso), and you came back with a non-sequitur about the "power curve," as if we were merely discussing which side has better achieved their policy objectives. That the NRA is politically effective is not in dispute, though. What is in dispute is the idea that they've been effective because they have less civility or decorum than their political opponents, which I don't see any evidence for, and is exactly the kind of thing every political movement (and sports team fan base) thinks about its opponents.

Re: second quote and "haven't been listened to." Seems like another way of saying "haven't won the debate." It reminds me of people who say it's "time for a discussion about" X, even about things that have been discussed a lot (like gun control).

But I do think gun deaths (mass shootings are just a drop in the bucket remember) would reduce over time.
They already have (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/). Gun homicides are at something like a 20-year low. How many people--particularly people advocating new gun laws--know that?

Suicides. Domestic violence. Accidents. Passion incidents. Gun crime in poor and urban communities. We shouldn’t shrug and say lets do nothing just because common sense doesn’t work perfectly and instantly. Fires still happen despite smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. Should we say “screw it, lets give everyone 10 gallons of gasoline and a pack of matches”.
No, but neither would we adopt the notion that any time there's a fire we need more laws and WHY ISN'T SOMEONE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT ALL THE FIRE DO YOU LOVE FIRE OR SOMETHING.

By the way, I feel the same way about Malala Yousafzai too especially now that shes going back home to Pakistan. Do you also think she shouldn’t be acting like an activist for women’s rights in Pakistan? Or does that notion only apply to the gun issue and/or American kids?
Again, it doesn't even apply to the latter. I'm fine with them being activists. But I'm not fine with them being activists and then playing the "we're just kids!" card when they get called out like any other activist would. They even do it themselves. Look at this ridiculousness:

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/979434711415250944
See I just don’t see how you get that from some of the things Ive heard from them. Just because you aren’t Abraham Lincoln doesn’t mean you are an incompetent boob of a speech maker. I guess I went in expecting a typical high school book report sort of approach (and some that aren’t in that top group DID talk like that during the initial wave of interviews that happened when media organizations stuck mics in the face of any frantic looking survivor that stumbled out of the school). But the speeches I heard at the rally from some of these kids was levels above anything I would expect from a 10th grader. I will admit its still fully surreal to me to see the Hoggs (David and his little sister) for example on CNN in studio talking to Anderson Cooper like they are part of the normal pundit panel. But even there they don’t sound stupid. They are mostly talking about their feelings and their experiences and I think that’s really valuable.
Stupid? No, I wouldn't say any of them sound stupid. Just really superficial, and in a way that tells you they're not especially curious about the other side of the debate, or informed enough to really address it. I don't think they even know what they don't know.

And they are most definitely not "mostly talking about their feelings and their experiences." That's the stuff I have zero issue with. That's the stuff you expect them to talk about, and speak with authority about. I'm talking about the times (increasingly common) where they start reading into the motivations of others.

No, Im saying you shouldn’t be telling them to be quiet and not involve themselves in this debate because they are young and frightened. Not that you shouldn’t argue with them about their points.
Please explain the difference between objecting to the way they involve themselves in the debate, and objecting to the mere idea of them involving themselves in the debate. Because I sure don't remember doing the latter, or telling them to "be quiet."

You can literally say that about almost any issue.
Exactly. So let's stop pretending the NRA is some special example that requires us to posit a political conspiracy, horrendous corruption, or suppression of debate.

Yoda

05-07-18, 02:11 PM

Appreciate it. Some of the points have probably been debated enough. I would be happy to get back to the crux (at least what I think is the crux) of "should be we be looking to these kids as leaders in this movement". If I have it right your answer is "no because its wrong" and my answer is "ideally no because I worry about them but no one else can and its working!" :p
I'm not sure what we're really disagreeing about, then. I suggested it was kinda cynical and icky to elevate shooting victims out of sheer political effectiveness, and you seem to agree on some level--or at least understand--when you talk about your hesitation in encouraging it, and by admitting it's not "[ideal]." Whatever reasons are giving you that hesitation is what I'm talking about.

I. Rex

05-07-18, 06:04 PM

So let's stop pretending the NRA is some special example that requires us to posit a political conspiracy, horrendous corruption, or suppression of debate.

I'll get to the rest of this shortly but I found it delightfully ironic that just today the NRA appointed good old Ollie "Iran Contra" North to be their new President. Horrendous corruption indeed... :p

Yoda

05-07-18, 06:41 PM

I'll get to the rest of this shortly but I found it delightfully ironic that just today the NRA appointed good old Ollie "Iran Contra" North to be their new President. Horrendous corruption indeed... :p
Yeah yeah. :p

To be clear, in case this is even remotely serious, the "corruption" being discussed is the reference to campaign donations and other insinuations that the NRA must be doing something sketchy or awful that the more respectable and decorous gun control lobby is not.

None of this should be taken as a suggestion that the NRA is virginal or not over zealously defending its interests, either. It is. It's just not at all exceptional among interest groups in that regard, and there are plenty of other examples where hazy questions of precedent and court rulings prevent "common sense" measures on the other side of the political spectrum, despite broad public support when polled in the abstract.

Omnizoa

05-07-18, 11:01 PM

have you got a gun
No.

would you kill someone if necessary?
Absolutely.

I actually went to the march this weekend.
Of course you did.

Considering the poisonous ultra extremist rhetoric that’s been coming from the NRA for decades
Such as "Conservatives care more about guns than the lives of their own children"?

they sure make it LOOK like they care about gun profits more than kids lives.
That's what I thought.

Lets not condemn frustrated terrified kids for saying what seems obvious to them because they are afraid of being shot in their class rooms and no adult seems willing to do anything about it.
You're right, let's condemn the journalists shoving a microphone under their nose to serve an ideological narrative.

Remember when the NRA actually supported certain kinds of gun control measures?
You mean like regulating bump stocks (https://home.nra.org/joint-statement) not even a year ago? Yeah, I remember that.

the NRA has become a pseudo criminal syndicate as far as Im concerned.
"Pseudo" means false. Meaning they're not a criminal syndicate.

Profiteers of death.
Like the meat industry you support?

No better than the Tobacco lobby
Processed meat is a Class 1 carcinogen same as tobacco BTW.

if they don’t wield “disproportionate influence” then why do politicians routinely kill legislation that something like 85% of the country supports?
Even assuming your 85% stat is true, this non-specific legislation runs contrary to the 2nd Amendment. The constitutional status of a right serves to protect it against such legislation.

Sounds pretty but the problem is the other team
NO, no. You ****ed it. No "but the other team", STOP. Yoda is telling you not to fall into the trap of partisanship and the first thing you do is do exactly what he's warning you against.

the frustrated reasonable people
The frustrated reasonable people are waiting for people like you to stop obstructing traffic.

So Im fully in support of demonizing the NRA at this point because trying to have a voice in the discussion hasn’t worked at all.
"Do as I say or I'll slander you."

And Im on on board with a scorched earth political approach
Well that's at least consistent with your punching nazis rhetoric.

Im definitely at the “by any means necessary” point
No one should ever be at that point. I cannot imagine any circumstance where "any means" would be justified.

AR-15
Was waiting for that. AR-15s offer no features not already present in other guns and they make up a gross minority of gun deaths.

As noted, my focus is the NRA. Not the average gun owner.
Who you would nonetheless effect with "common sense" regulations.

There is no "common sense" in making any particular case for AR-15s, unless your definition of "common sense" is "the common ability to fall prey to political propaganda".

The 85% figure was about people supporting background checks I believe. [...] And we get no where with that kind of stuff. Why?
https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/background-checks-nics/

But almost nobody is saying we need to ban gun ownership.
I'm surprised you aren't saying it.

Define assault rifle, please.
OH-OH-SPAGHETTI-OHs.

Kids get shot and die. The NRA does nothing,
Clearly indisputable proof that NRA don't care if kids die.

What's your response to the car analogy? Surely you've heard of it.

Far more children die in car crashes than by guns. Clearly our current regulations are insufficient; we should ban sports cars because sports cars sound scary and they make up a minority of car crashes. What's that? You don't want to enforce a background check, credit check, and anal probing on all potential drivers? Why do you want kids to die?

First I would debate what is and what isn’t actually hyperbole.
Of course you would, you practically breathe hyperbole, the mild stuff doesn't even phase you anymore, you need that 100% Red Hot Puerto Rican Death Hyperbole to even feel anything.

And “hyperbole” or not, they seem amazingly competent
*ignorant

I hardly think alleged “falsehoods and hyperbole” disqualifies them from championing the topic NOBODY ELSE WILL.
Yeah, those news channels? Entirely run by kids. The camera? A kid. The reporter? One kid stacked on top of another kid. They run a business which caters exclusively to kids victimized by gun violence. Nobody else but these kids cares what they have to say, NOBODY ELSE.

Don’t tell them they shouldn’t talk. Or is this about you genuinely wanting some change but not liking that its kids who seem to be spearheading this right now?
I don't know about you, I Rex, but where I'm from emotionally charged prepubescent children who get on TV so long as they say what's politically trendy aren't exactly the sort of people I expect to have impartial and informed political views.

Because “adults” have tried before and it hasn’t worked.
I see you come from the Sarah McLachlan school of persuasion.

Maybe having your 12th grader say “someone my age shouldn’t be allowed to buy an AR-15” is much more personal than if a 50 year old is saying it.
"Personal". You think we should vote on what's "personal", I. Rex?

Are we getting into a debate about abortion?
*headdesk*

No, it's Reductio ad Absurdum.

Im not interested in being “magnanimous”.
He means being charitable, which you should be interested in if you want any reasonably intelligent or honest person to take you seriously.

Omnizoa

05-07-18, 11:23 PM

Oh boy, I. Rex's policy proposals:

• A liability insurance requirement for every gun purchased just like we have with cars.
"You should be forced to invest in a scam."

• Bulk gun sales limitations across the board.
"Your business should marginally suffer because it's marginally related to dead children."

• A federally mandated waiting period for gun sales across the board (mostly for
suicides).
"Find a faster way to kill yourself."

• FULL background checks federally enforced in all states including gun show sales and
internet sales and sales between or gifts from private citizens (and ANY seller must
obtain a license to sell or gift their gun).
"Your business is OUR business."

• Implementation of a comprehensive national gun registration system.
"So we know which doors to break down first."

• The banning of high capacity magazines.
"More bullets equals more dead."

• Reimplementation of the 1994 assault weapons ban
"Because grenade launchers cause so many deaths."

• Allow government research on the health effects of gun use (the NRA currently has coerced legislators to actually ban the use of government funds to researcher, track and study the health effects of gun use and ownership, a policy so ridiculous that even the politician that originally wrote the bill wants it repealed)
"Because only the NRA cares about how the government spends taxpayer money."

• Also abolish ALL doctor gag order laws in regards to guns (yes the NRA even got politicians to ban doctors from talking to their patients about guns… even if they’ve been shot with one…)
"Guns are for medicinal use only."

• Change minimum age requirements for gun purchase and gun use.
"We should listen to the youth by denying them rights."

• A federal law mandating firearm locking devices/storage rules.
"Got a gun in your house? Think it's safe from legislation just sitting in your closet? THINK AGAIN ****STICK!"

• In connection with that, I would also pour money into smartgun research, something the NRA has stifled but could really make a difference in many of these school shooting cases where kids get their parents guns not to mention the many accidental shootings in the home by young kids who come across guns in the home and kill themselves or their siblings with them.
"Let's take more money away from the market and spend it on things it doesn't know it wants yet."

And thats just a top of the head list of things Id like to see looked into.
You are just as authoritarian as I thought you were.

Omnizoa

05-07-18, 11:27 PM

Im not at all interested in getting into a technical debate about the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "semi automatic carbine" or whatever.
How convenient, most gun deaths are caused by handguns which are by and large semi-automatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol). Maybe we should ban "assault pistols"?

Powdered Water

05-08-18, 04:15 AM

Confused Gun Nuts Harass Wrong Emma Gonzalez

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_4trlUbw1Q

Bht88

05-08-18, 05:43 AM

"find a faster way to kill yourself "

I totally loled which is VERY rare..

Totally true they'll just find another way,there are countless.. " oh my God some depressed kid jumped off a bridge". BAN ALL BRIDGES quick.. Do a mandatory 11 day backround check on ANYONE trying to cross one EVERYWHERE
" Did you hear mr Brown killed himself in his own house with a rope HE bought at WALMART.. ban all ropes EVERYWHERE no one can buy rope WITHOUT being 18+ years old and they must pass a background check too
" A sad teenage girl slit her wrists in her bathroom with a razor" we need to put restrictions on people buying ANYTHING sharp. No razors no scissors no knives no forks etc until they pass a background check that takes 11 days
Until then only plastic spoons and forks and knives can be bought

Meanwhile some man is trapped in his car in a accident because his seatbelt is stuck and he CANT get out while his car is on fire and leaking gas
BUT because of the new 11 day background check on all purchases for sharp things he can't escape

Meanwhile a woman is sexually assualted at 11 pm in a dark parking lot but is STILL waiting for her backround check to clear so she cant buy a handgun or pocket knife to protect her.. all she was told to carry was a " whistle " .... A FN WHISTLE...

Meanwhile a mom and a child walk around their neighborHood in Arizona and encounter a rattlesnake near them
While stopping at the park

Yoda

05-08-18, 09:32 AM

Omni quoting that last part makes me realize that entire line of discussion was unceremoniously dropped, but it's actually pretty important.

Im not at all interested in getting into a technical debate about the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "semi automatic carbine" or whatever.

I don't see how someone can advocate restricting gun ownership while being uninterested in the "technical debate" of differences between them.

The way I saw one gun rights advocate put it was: "tell me how the guns you want to ban differ from the guns you don't want to ban." This is quite possibly the most reasonable request imaginable, but it gets brushed off like some kind of rhetorical trick or incidental detail. It isn't. It's, like, the one question you absolutely must ask and answer before proceeding with any meaningful legislation.

Sedai

05-08-18, 11:58 AM

Quick (OK, it got rather long) update on my experience going through the process to become licensed in Massachusetts, as well as the purchase of a firearm:

Started the process on March 31, 2018. My wife and I participated in a 4-hour safety course at Mass Firearms School in Holliston, MA. The course covered the handling and live fire of pistols and revolvers, the safe and lawful storage of both firearms and ammunition, concealed carry laws and practices, and an in-depth look at the process to acquire a license and purchase a firearm with a focus on remaining safe and lawful. The school was completely mobbed with people. There were cars parked up in the woods, all up and down the adjoining streets, and there was a line out there for registration. The school runs 4 classrooms that feature 3 courses per day (Morning, Afternoon, Night). Our class was full (20-25 people) and was full of an extremely diverse collection of folks that included a jolly elderly couple, a female Asian college student, two Brazilian paint contractors, two ladies in their 50s, and young fellow that had just moved to Massachusetts from out of state.

After completing the course on that Saturday, I called my town police station to schedule an appointment with the licensing officer. Depending on the town or city, this can be the chief of police, or in the case of my town, an officer whose main job it is to handle tasks of this nature almost exclusively. When the officer got on the phone, I explained that I had taken the course, and asked when I could come down to submit my application. The guy kind of chuckled, and sad "Well, I can probably get you in for an interview somewhere around April 25th, and it will most likely be in the evening, around 7PM. Everyone and their mother is applying right now."

!!!

So, same deal as the firearms school. People are just flocking to get this done right now. Keep in mind I live in one of, if not the most liberal state in the US. What follows is my experience with the police:

I arrived at the station and, after a wait of about 15 minutes, was brought into a small office by the licensing officer. He went over each detail and question section on my application. On one section of the application, I was asked to divulge any arrests, convictions, or court appearances I had been involved with over the course of my entire life. Although I have never been to court, and never officially booked while under arrest, I did have a couple of minor run-ins with police when I was about 12 or 13 years old. I once sneaked under a fence onto an Air Force base in Tucson, AZ with a fried who lived on base, and was subsequently caught by the base MPs. When my parents were called and found not to be home, I was turned over to the Tucson PD, who detained me until my parents could be contacted. On another occasion, Some friends and I ran around on a construction site playing and horsing around, during which some minor damage was done to some of the screens and a window of the building on site. Once again, police detained me until my parents arrived to pick me up. I made sure to explain each situation to the licensing office in the spirit of full disclosure. He stated that a couple of offenses such as these that occurred in the early 80s probably didn't need to be reported, but he included them on his report anyway, just to be thorough. He said they wouldn't affect his decision, and unless something else turned up on my full background check, he didn't see a problem. I was then taken back to the booking room, where my fingerprints and photo were taken and processed.

It was at this point that I revealed my true identity as a double secret triple agent for the people's republic of MoFo, which is a cover site for the KGB. We laughed and laughed and ate some chilled beets as I went over my plans to take over the entire town with a Walther PPK and a pouch full of Indian Head nickles.

Ok, that last part isn't true.

Anyway, the officer stated that the processing would cost $100, and would take upwards of two full months to complete due to the high demand - in other words, I am still in line to hear about my application as of today.

I will update once I find out about my LTC, and then I will begin the process of actually attempting to purchase a firearm.

I hope to illustrate that the misinformation I see tossed around online about being able to simply walk into a Cabela's and purchase an assault rifle without a license or background check just is not true.

More to come!

Gangland

05-08-18, 12:28 PM

I inherited a Remington Model 11-48 12 gauge shotgun from my grandfather which is in excellent condition and still fires. Though I've been meaning to get a pistol, this is the only firearm I own. I always thought that only dumb asses/rich people use shotguns for home defense, because you're basically destroying your own home when firing in it, but there was a night last year at 1:00-2:00 in the morning when my car alarm kept going off. Looking back it seemed it was just a problem with my car, but I sure as hell felt safer with a loaded Remington by my side when I went out a few times to investigate.

ynwtf

05-08-18, 12:44 PM

Here in Alabama, the only permit we need is for the conceal-carry of handguns. That application is an online PDF in my county. Even that has wiggle room if you can justify good reason for having one without a permit.

Age limits for purchase are either 18 or 21 depending on the type of gun. Other than that, you're good to walk into any store that is licensed to sell to buy whatever, so long as your background check doesn't have any red flags. No permits or training required.

My take on all this is to point out that, depending on your state's laws, things may very well be exactly what the other side is arguing for or against. It just may not be universally applied across the country and, as a result, not obviously visible to any one group of people.

*EDIT*
This got me curious so I wanted to look it up.

There is a $20 feel for application/renewal of the pistol conceal carry permit.
It takes 30 days to process.
Once you've been notified that you were granted a conceal carry permit, you must show state ID at the Sheriff's office within 30 more days to receive the permit.
That's it.

Citizen Rules

05-08-18, 12:47 PM

@Sedai (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=3422), great post! thanks for posting about all the steps that you had to take in pursuit of legally getting a gun. I hope the rest of the procedure goes smoothly for you.

...I always thought that only dumb asses/rich people use shotguns for home defense, because you're basically destroying your own home when firing in it, .... The BEST gun for home defense is a short barreled semi auto shotgun. The worst gun for home defense is the so called assault rifles. The AR15's bullet has so much velocity that it can travel through house walls exiting the house, traveling through a nearby house walls and killing an innocent bystander. Same goes for hi powered hand guns. A low velocity projectile is safest for home defense. With a shotgun you greatly reduce the danger of collateral injury as the shot won't as readily travel through house walls. Plus you can't miss with a shotgun. I did some training with a human size target using a small pistol in a mock self defense, where I pulled the gun and quickly fired like it was a self defense situation. Even at close range I missed the target almost every time.

Gangland

05-08-18, 01:25 PM

@Sedai (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=3422), great post! thanks for posting about all the steps that you had to take in pursuit of legally getting a gun. I hope the rest of the procedure goes smoothly for you.

The BEST gun for home defense is a short barreled semi auto shotgun. The worst gun for home defense is the so called assault rifles. The AR15's bullet has so much velocity that it can travel through house walls exiting the house, traveling through a nearby house walls and killing an innocent bystander. Same goes for hi powered hand guns. A low velocity projectile is safest for home defense. With a shotgun you greatly reduce the danger of collateral injury as the shot won't as readily travel through house walls. Plus you can't miss with a shotgun. I did some training with a human size target using a small pistol in a mock self defense, where I pulled the gun and quickly fired like it was a self defense situation. Even at close range I missed the target almost every time.

My mother-in-law has a sawed off double barrel shotgun that her late husband stashed in her house, which I think would be ideal and jokingly keep telling her to give it to me, but I know if I would shoot someone with that, I might as well shoot myself right after. I don't know how many felonies you'd get for using that, especially if it's unregistered.

Citizen Rules

05-08-18, 01:28 PM

My mother-in-law has a sawed off double barrel shotgun that her late husband stashed in her house, which I think would be ideal and jokingly keep telling her to give it to me, but I know if I would shoot someone with that, I might as well shoot myself right after. I don't know how many felonies you'd get for using that, especially if it's unregistered. Ha, yup, sawed off gun...bad idea:eek: at least legally.

Sedai

05-08-18, 01:49 PM

I think the idea with the shotgun has a few reasons for going that direction when considering home defense.

- It makes a huge boom and a very large flash.
- Loaded with bird shot, the chance of a fatality is reduced almost to zero. No one wants to kill anyone.
- As mentioned above, it's MUCH harder to miss with a shotgun.
- You can do that cool "rack the slide in one hand" like Linda Hamilton in T2.

OK, that last one isn't a real reason.

Dani8

05-08-18, 01:54 PM

Sedai

05-08-18, 02:03 PM

Hope all is well with you, Dani!

I. Rex

05-08-18, 05:01 PM

Oh boy, I. Rex's policy proposals

Oh look whos joined us to play hit and run chest thumping once again after all this time. Did you smell gub'ment gun conspiracy in the water or did it take you 40 days to sleep off trying to argue in support of Trumps Nazi friends? I love how you swoop in weeks later in these threads and attempt to instigate by throwing out simple minded smart ass one liners to comments that have already been discussed and rediscussed and replied to and counter replied to. But who knows, maybe you saying basically the same thing to the very same old comments will cause me to change my response from what it was originally. Shall we hold our breath and find out?

Although most of your commentary was pot shots and one liners, I do think you brought up some points that are worth analyzing:

On the NRA being in support of banning bump stocks: Indeed thats what they said initially after the Vegas massacre last year but they made it clear that they ONLY support the ATF being the one to enforce a ban. They did NOT want congress to make legislation banning them. And come to find out the ATF almost certainly doesnt have the legal authority to ban bump stocks, which is something the NRA knew full well when they made the proposal. It would require a long drawn out legal case that would be a reversal of what they specifically argued FOR in the past. And that would be very unlikely to be successful even if they could do it. And that way the NRA could chuckle and say "welp they tried but the court said no!" So no... they dont want any real change to making guns into fully automatic weapons so they can be used to kill dozens of people at a time. Theyll mouth platitudes as they usually do but their sinister Machiavellian plotting behind every attempt to make ANY reasonable change in gun operations continues no matter how many people it effects with deadly force.

On your tired old car analogy that Im frankly shocked you sited here since its been refuted so many times... My response is

1. cars arent designed SPECIFICALLY to kill things like guns are. They are designed to be a means of transportation. Whereas a gun is designed to shoot a projectile that is created to render a "threat" incapacitated. Do you see the difference? Furthermore, car manufacturers spend billions on making cars safer and safer to operate so as to MINIMIZE deaths and injuries resulting from use. And we have made enormous strides toward that goal over the past 100 years or so. Meanwhile, gun manufacturers spend billions on making guns MORE and MORE deadly and more and more easy to use to KILL. Do you see the difference again?

2. If you say we should only regulate guns the same way we regulate cars then I assume you are good with registering EVERY gun with a unique ID (like a VIN and/or a license plate) that the state and federal governments keep in a data base that shows owner information and EXACTLY what guns they own. Because we do that with cars. You should also be fine with required insurance on said guns just like we require on our vehicles. And I am assuming you would be fine on an age limit for operating a gun like we have with vehicles, extensive training required before you can legally operate one like we have with vehicles AND the requirement to pass a test before you can legally operate one. Oh and youll need to carry a license on your person at all times when you are operating the gun and also have access to legal forms noting that the gun is in fact registered and that it has passed a government endorsed inspection. Good on all that stuff? No? Then stop comparing gun regulation to vehicle regulation because youve got it a LOT easier when it comes to the object designed to KILL people as opposed to the object designed to move people around.

On your point that "AR-15's offer no features not already present in other guns and they make up a gross minority of gun deaths." I hear this defense a lot about AR-15s'. But what you ignore is that for whatever reason (I even asked people previously in this thread if they knew why) AR-15's are used in a huge percentage of mass shootings. One after another after another it seems. So you would think if this gun isnt anything particularly special for gun owners and gets continual bad press that makes ALL guns look worse because it seems to always be the gun of choice for the wackos shooting up movie theaters and schools then youd be fine with throwing it under the bus (so to speak...) even if you see it as arbitrary or pointless to do so. At least the gun control folks would be distracted from all the other hardware and then when mass shootings continue with other hardware you could say "see! It wasnt the AR-15 specifically! So there was no point in banning it!" And a gun friendly congress would once again allow the ban to expire or actively reverse it and youd have your AR-15 back AND the upper hand in the argument about if banning certain guns reduces mass shootings. Seems like a smart play to me if I was pro gun. Oh I know, I know... its that whole "slippery slope" thing that makes this a non starter. But the second amendment already legally allows certain kinds of regulations and indeed banning. And anyway, what if the ban works. AR-15's go away and school shootings drop precipitously. That would work well too because then a lot of the gun control crowd would now be satisfied that they wouldnt need to do anything else. The well publicized horrific cases will have dried up. And you still have access to an unchecked arsenal of other gun models that, as you say, "offer the same features" as the AR-15. Seems like a win win to me...

Oh and by the way, psuedo also means "closely resembling" or "apparently similar" just for the record...

I. Rex

05-08-18, 05:14 PM

Omni quoting that last part makes me realize that entire line of discussion was unceremoniously dropped, but it's actually pretty important.

But I did reply. I noted that at least bringing back the somewhat flawed Assault Weapons ban would be a good start.

As noted in my list to Citizen I would be happy having the 1994 Assault Weapons ban back in effect as a starting point. And as you may know it either specifically identified weapons by specific make and model or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun.

Im not sure how that can be a slipper slope issue when it specifically LISTS the models and characteristics that were banned. If it wasnt on the list it wasnt banned. It didnt result in the banning of all weapons once it was put in effect. Just those few mentioned.

Dani8

05-09-18, 12:31 AM

Hope all is well with you, Dani!

Well thankee, Sensai. I hope all is well with you and Mrs Sensai as well. Not much happening over this way with guns at the moment.Just lots of other inane and very regrettable deaths with youngsters. So tragic.

Bht88

05-09-18, 04:51 AM

Don't own a gun, would I kill someone? I hope I never have to find out. But under extreme circumstances, I think we all would.

Everyone's killed a spider in their life..don't over think it

Yoda

05-09-18, 10:19 AM

But I did reply. I noted that at least bringing back the somewhat flawed Assault Weapons ban would be a good start.
How does saying "I support banning these weapons" address me saying "people shouldn't support banning weapons when they can't define them"?

Yoda

05-09-18, 10:20 AM

On your point that "AR-15's offer no features not already present in other guns and they make up a gross minority of gun deaths." I hear this defense a lot about AR-15s'. But what you ignore is that for whatever reason (I even asked people previously in this thread if they knew why) AR-15's are used in a huge percentage of mass shootings. One after another after another it seems. So you would think if this gun isnt anything particularly special for gun owners and gets continual bad press that makes ALL guns look worse because it seems to always be the gun of choice for the wackos shooting up movie theaters and schools then youd be fine with throwing it under the bus (so to speak...) even if you see it as arbitrary or pointless to do so. At least the gun control folks would be distracted from all the other hardware and then when mass shootings continue with other hardware you could say "see! It wasnt the AR-15 specifically! So there was no point in banning it!" And a gun friendly congress would once again allow the ban to expire or actively reverse it and youd have your AR-15 back AND the upper hand in the argument about if banning certain guns reduces mass shootings.
I find it genuinely difficult to believe you really think this. Absolutely nothing in this debate, or any other political debate for that matter, gives us reason to believe this is how things would play out. Instead, people would move on to another restriction or another model of gun. Not to mention that "let's just ban this thing so you can prove your point" seems like a bad way of making law.

(This is ignoring the very real and very important issues of legal precedent, which are often treated as some kind of incidental detail.)

Luis

05-09-18, 02:19 PM

Omnizoa

05-09-18, 02:49 PM

Oh look whos joined us to play hit and run chest thumping once again after all this time.
I just started a new job because my old one got outsourced. I've also been spending much of my time researching the last 500 years of philosophy. I don't always have time to come down to MoFo and oppress the proletariat.

Did you smell gub'ment gun conspiracy in the water
No, I saw a gun control thread and you in it and at that moment I knew there was fresh propaganda to tear apart.

or did it take you 40 days to sleep off trying to argue in support of Trumps Nazi friends?
Trump has Nazi friends? News to me.

I mean... it's new as of the last time you failed to produce evidence that he does.

I love how you swoop in weeks later
I love how easy you are to refute.

and attempt to instigate by throwing out simple minded smart ass one liners
Like... "Citation"?

On the NRA being in support of banning bump stocks:
Aaaaand Strawman.

Damn, son, you quick. Barely started your post and already putting words in my mouth. I said regulating, not banning.

Indeed thats what they said initially after the Vegas massacre
Citation.

They did NOT want congress to make legislation banning them.
Sooo, they're liars. That is, if you can show they ever actually said they wanted bump stocks banned.

their sinister Machiavellian plotting
Oh, I haven't read Machiavelli yet. I did read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan though. Very interesting.

ANY reasonable change in gun operations
See, it's no mystery anymore since you listed your manifesto of "reasonable" changes, so I already know you're loading that word with a metric ****-ton of arbitrary, redundant, and illiberal legislation.

On your tired old car analogy
I knew you'd heard it. ;)

that Im frankly shocked you sited here since its been refuted so many times...
Oh please refute it.

1. cars arent designed SPECIFICALLY to kill
*clap* That's exactly what I thought you'd say.

See, the problem with 'naming that as the trait' is that my more generous representation of your position appealed to the consequences that a freedom to control a potential weapon may have. With this you've now dismissed consequences and now must contend that your proposals are justified on the grounds that "guns are specifically designed to kill people".

Alright, well let's debunk that, shall we?

Firstly, compare the number of privately owned guns currently in circulation to the number of people they've killed (contrast with the number of privately owned cars with the number of people who drive). You will find that even statistically, killing people is not what [privately owned] guns are predominantly used for, even adjusting for shots fired, you will find cases of self-defense pale in comparison to sport shooting.

Secondly, even were we to accept that guns exist exclusively to kill people, you are legislating against people who own guns for the purpose of self-defense in an attempt to curtail people who own guns for the purpose of murder. Implicit in your conflation of targets is an identical conflation in all other weapons, this includes knives. What is the meaningful distinction between a knife meant to cut meat and a knife meant to impale? The most optimal knives of either category are uniformly sturdy, sharp, and offer minimal resistance. Even knives intended for the kitchen are often advertised for their ability to cut through bone. Should these knives be regulated? Should we mandate that they all be fit with orange tips to distinguish them from knives designed to kill?

Thirdly, why does it matter? What difference does it make that guns are lethal weapons by definition? Why do the literal practical consequences of your policy proposals come second to your perception of guns? On a related note, why should your perception of anything come second to the consequences that justification permits? By the principal of explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion), this rationalization permits anything, such as:

A: "We should kill liberals."

B: "That seems like a bad idea, how would you like it if someone said 'We should kill conservatives?'"

A: "That's a false analogy because liberalism is a left-wing ideology."

Unless the fact that "liberalism is a left-wing ideology" implies some relevant consequences which themselves justify your genocide of liberals, you've not actually produced any tangible evidence to justify your proposal.

Yes, guns are lethal weapons. And? This statement is functionally meaningless without recourse to some consequences this mere status has. And again, let's be clear; your justification here is not that "guns are dangerous", which would be a hell of a lot more reasonable of a position to defend, but that "guns are designed to kill people", which implies the creation, trade, or use of a gun implies an intent to kill, and/or that public recognition of this purpose has some sort of consequences greater in magnitude than the actual danger they pose.

This is an absurd position to hold because it's entirely divorced from reality in every respect; it's an appeal to the status of a gun, not the actual tangible real-world effects a gun has. The only reason you must flee to this position is that it's superficially compelling to surface-level thinking and that if you actually were to argue the relative dangers guns pose, you would open yourself up to the car analogy which would reveal you to be a colossal hypocrite.

car manufacturers spend billions on making cars safer and safer to operate so as to MINIMIZE deaths and injuries resulting from use.
So do gun manufacturers. Let's look at Glocks, one of the most common handguns in the world:

Glock pistols are designed with three independent safety mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. The system, designated "Safe Action" by Glock, consists of an external integrated trigger safety and two automatic internal safeties: a firing pin safety, and a drop safety. The external safety is a small inner lever contained in the trigger. Pressing the lever activates the trigger bar and sheet metal connector. The firing pin safety is a solid hardened steel pin that, in the secured state, blocks the firing pin channel (disabling the firing pin in its longitudinal axis). It is pushed upward to release the firing pin for firing only when the trigger is actuated and the safety is pushed up through the backward movement of the trigger bar. The drop safety guides the trigger bar in a ramp that is released only when direct rearward pressure is applied to the trigger. The three safety mechanisms are automatically disengaged one after the other when the trigger is squeezed, and are automatically reactivated when the trigger is released. This passive safety system omits the manipulation of traditional on-off levers, hammers, or other external safeties as found in many other handgun designs. The ability to fire immediately, without worrying about an external safety, is one feature Glock has stressed as an advantage when selling its guns, especially to police departments.

In 2003, Glock announced the Internal Locking System (ILS) safety feature. The ILS is a manually activated lock located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design and, according to Glock, each key is unique. When activated, the lock causes a tab to protrude from the rear of the grip, giving both a visual and tactile indication as to whether the lock is engaged or not. When activated, the ILS renders the Glock unfireable, as well as making it impossible to disassemble. When disengaged, the ILS adds no further safety mechanisms to the Glock pistol. The ILS is available as an option on most Glock pistols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Safety

Meanwhile, gun manufacturers spend billions on making guns MORE and MORE deadly and more and more easy to use to KILL. Do you see the difference again?
You realize car manufacturers have long been making cars faster, sturdier, and more quiet, right? In a head-on collision, the car with the highest impact resistance is more lethal.

2. If you say we should only regulate guns the same way we regulate cars
I didn't. The implication was that you should regulate cars the same way you regulate guns.

Not only did you invert the point I was making, but you failed to comprehend a basic aspect of Reductio ad Absurdum; merely identifying a position you must also hold to be consistent is not an advocacy of that position.

I would argue that non-vegans must practice slavery and cannibalism to be consistent, however arguing this does not mean I support slavery and cannibalism, that's literally opposite of my position.

Good on all that stuff? No? Then stop comparing gun regulation to vehicle regulation
False dilemma.

On your point that "AR-15's offer no features not already present in other guns and they make up a gross minority of gun deaths." I hear this defense a lot about AR-15s'.
Yet remarkably you seem impervious to learning.

But what you ignore is that for whatever reason (I even asked people previously in this thread if they knew why) AR-15's are used in a huge percentage of mass shootings.
Is this "huge percentage" of "mass shootings" greater than the percentage of handguns?

So you would think if this gun isnt anything particularly special for gun owners and gets continual bad press that makes ALL guns look worse because it seems to always be the gun of choice for the wackos shooting up movie theaters and schools then youd be fine with throwing it under the bus (so to speak...)
Ah! Another excuse to whip out that philosophy I've been reading up on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

At least the gun control folks would be distracted from all the other hardware and then when mass shootings continue with other hardware you could say "see! It wasnt the AR-15 specifically! So there was no point in banning it!" And a gun friendly congress would once again allow the ban to expire or actively reverse it and youd have your AR-15 back AND the upper hand in the argument about if banning certain guns reduces mass shootings. Seems like a smart play to me if I was pro gun.
Or rational. An excerpt from that page I linked:

Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, sought to solve the problem of induction. He argued that science does not use induction, and induction is in fact a myth. Instead, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. The main role of observations and experiments in science, he argued, is in attempts to criticize and refute existing theories.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#cite_note-29)
According to Popper, the problem of induction as usually conceived is asking the wrong question: it is asking how to justify theories given they cannot be justified by induction. Popper argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs for an authoritarian answer". Instead, Popper said, what should be done is to look to find and correct errors. Popper regarded theories that have survived criticism as better corroborated in proportion to the amount and stringency of the criticism, but, in sharp contrast to the inductivist theories of knowledge, emphatically as less likely to be true. Popper held that seeking for theories with a high probability of being true was a false goal that is in conflict with the search for knowledge. Science should seek for theories that are most probably false on the one hand (which is the same as saying that they are highly falsifiable and so there are lots of ways that they could turn out to be wrong), but still all actual attempts to falsify them have failed so far (that they are highly corroborated).

And anyway, what if the ban works.
You know you've run out of arguments when you have to resort to "let's just try it and see what happens".

Oh and by the way, psuedo also means "closely resembling" or "apparently similar" just for the record...

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=44323&stc=1&d=1525887967

it specifically LISTS the models and characteristics that were banned. If it wasnt on the list it wasnt banned. It didnt result in the banning of all weapons once it was put in effect. Just those few mentioned.
That still begs the question of 'Why those few?'

Omnizoa

05-09-18, 02:58 PM

Relevant video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPfbrtp6ZqM

I. Rex

05-09-18, 03:33 PM

How does saying "I support banning these weapons" address me saying "people shouldn't support banning weapons when they can't define them"?

But that does define them. Or are you putting this question out in general to folks who havent defined them and just scream about "assault weapons"? Because Im not sure how much more definition you need then "here is a list of MODELS".

I find it genuinely difficult to believe you really think this. Absolutely nothing in this debate, or any other political debate for that matter, gives us reason to believe this is how things would play out. Instead, people would move on to another restriction or another model of gun. Not to mention that "let's just ban this thing so you can prove your point" seems like a bad way of making law.

(This is ignoring the very real and very important issues of legal precedent, which are often treated as some kind of incidental detail.)

I am almost completely serious actually in that the resulting scenarios seem to be it either working well and the bulk of the folks who were middle ground supporters of such a ban would then say great no need to do anything else than. And that would mean the fervor toward banning other guns would decrease OR it doesnt work because the shooters move onto a new gun which makes it clear that JUST banning isnt the answer to fixing the situation. Sure, there would be a minority of the regulation crowd that would then call for a flat out ban on all guns but thats never going to happen in Second Amendment America. So yeah I have actually thought about this before. I wasnt just throwing that out there as a debate booby trap for zoa.

BUT I will say my ultimate rational behind this theory is the fact that AR-15's seem to be the weapon of choice for these mass shootings. For some reason. No one seems to know why. But they are. So why shouldnt we AT LEAST be focusing on them SOMEhow. Doesnt that make sense?

And as far as legal precedent, this would be legislation not a court case. No different from the original assault weapons ban but with just ONE gun. The original assault weapons ban (which included the AR-15 by the way) set no legal precedent toward greater bans in and of itself. And in fact several localized bans were rejected when they attempted to piggy back on the wording of the 1994 law. So Im not sure thats a major issue.

Yoda

05-09-18, 03:48 PM

But that does define them. Or are you putting this question out in general to folks who havent defined them and just scream about "assault weapons"? Because Im not sure how much more definition you need then "here is a list of MODELS".
A list of models is arbitrary without a set of underlying criteria. Not a fan of arbitrary laws.

I am almost completely serious actually in that the resulting scenarios seem to be it either working well and the bulk of the folks who were middle ground supporters of such a ban would then say great no need to do anything else than. And that would mean the fervor toward banning other guns would decrease OR it doesnt work because the shooters move onto a new gun which makes it clear that JUST banning isnt the answer to fixing the situation. Sure, there would be a minority of the regulation crowd that would then call for a flat out ban on all guns but thats never going to happen in Second Amendment America. So yeah I have actually thought about this before. I wasnt just throwing that out there as a debate booby trap for zoa.
I believe you, but man (not saying this as a slight), I just can't even wrap my head around thinking this is how it would work. It seems super obvious to me that both gun owners and gun control activists would move right along to the next gun, or (more likely) to a broader category of guns.

BUT I will say my ultimate rational behind this theory is the fact that AR-15's seem to be the weapon of choice for these mass shootings. For some reason. No one seems to know why. But they are. So why shouldnt we AT LEAST be focusing on them SOMEhow. Doesnt that make sense?
Eh. Sort of. I get the thought process behind it, but something is going to be the most popular gun, and when it is that gets artificially amplified by demand and economy of scale. This isn't really mysterious and there isn't much reason to think the causality is flowing from this specific gun itself.

And as far as legal precedent, this would be legislation not a court case. No different from the original assault weapons ban but with just ONE gun. The original assault weapons ban (which included the AR-15 by the way) set no legal precedent toward greater bans in and of itself. And in fact several localized bans were rejected when they attempted to piggy back on the wording of the 1994 law. So Im not sure thats a major issue.
Laws need limiting principles, particularly if they abut Constitutional rights. This ties back into what I said about underlying criteria: what is the limiting principle that allows us to ban this gun and not an ordinary handgun?

Bht88

05-09-18, 04:31 PM

Everyone's killed a spider in their life..don't over think it

I'm not one to compare humans with arachnids, but to each their own I guess.

Side Note: I don't kill spiders, I normally trap them and put them outside.

Every living thing is a living thing..killing any living thing
in self defense is totally reasonable. Why let spiders come to your house and risk being bitten?
Especially a poisonous one..? Why put them outside..? So they can come back in a few days later? Will you do the same if a snake comes inside your house? Or a mountain lion in your backyard looking for food?
Or maybe a grizzly bear in your kitchen? Don't over think killing in self defense..killing something WITHOUT a legitimate reason IS murder..

Yoda

05-09-18, 04:34 PM

I feel like the threshold for killing humans, bears, and spiders, should be at least moderately different.

Luis

05-09-18, 04:49 PM

Every living thing is a living thing..killing any living thing
in self defense is totally reasonable. Why let spiders come to your house and risk being bitten?
Especially a poisonous one..? Why put them outside..? So they can come back in a few days later? Will you do the same if a snake comes inside your house? Or a mountain lion in your backyard looking for food?
Or maybe a grizzly bear in your kitchen? Don't over think killing in self defense..killing something WITHOUT a legitimate reason IS murder..

I was confused at first with your comment because you said "Don't over-think it" Now that I know you were talking about self-defense, well yeah, if it ever happens to me, I probably wouldn't overthink it. Which is why I put, "I hope I never have to find out". I still think it's important to measure different things with different scales buddy. A little spider with no intention to bite is not the same as a human charging at you with a chainsaw.

Yoda

05-09-18, 04:55 PM

"Sir, we've received reports of gunshots coming from your residence."
"I was defending myself. The Daddy Long Legs ran right at me."

I. Rex

05-09-18, 04:55 PM

I feel like the threshold for killing humans, bears, and spiders, should be at least moderately different.

are we talking a normal spider or a spider with a gun? :D

Yoda

05-09-18, 04:58 PM

The only thing that stops a bad spider with a gun is a good spider with a gun.

Or a centipede with a grenade.

Bht88

05-09-18, 06:04 PM

A little spider with no intention to bite is not the same as a human charging at you with a chainsaw.

Of course not but they do bite..who likes to be bitten by them? What if the species that bit you was poisonous? you won't know til it's too late , you could end up dead.. obviously you won't kill a small spider with a gun unless it's like a tarantula that's pretty reasonable.. unless you're a spider expert you won't know if it's poisonous..the same goes for snakes.isnt true that when there's an animal attack such a dog,rat,bat,snake,a possibly poisonous spider etc the hospital / doctors
Want you to bring in the animal to test if it was in fact a dangerous animal such as poisonous or infected with rabies?

Every living thing will defend itself and their loved ones..even a 5 year old has the knowledge/mentalality to kill insects such as spider and flies...they don't think about it,they just kill them I've heard of home invasions where an underage kid kills an intruder with a gun

https://www.google.com/search?q=kid+kills+home+invader&oq=kid+kills+home+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.6040j0j4&client=ms-android-sprint-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#scso=uid_FFnzWoytCquS0gLo4LTADg_0:1166

So kids ARE smart enough
To use guns. Dont blame "guns" when a sad kid brings a gun to school and kills a bunch of people..BLAME the sad kid

So proof that a normal sane kid can kill in self defense

Proof that a sad / depressed/
Sucididal / homicidal kid can use a gun because of his mental illness / insanity..

Guns are JUST guns..
Whatever they are used for(good things or bad)
Its UP to the holder..

EVERYTHING generally JUST IS..

Money is one If I have $10,000 USD and I donate it
To a charity that's good..

If I spend the money on alcohol drugs and kill someone because I was drunk or high while driving under the influence that's bad..

EVERYTHING can generally be used for good AND bad..

So you might as well ban EVERYTHING because everything can be used to do bad things

Ban all cameras because SOME people use them for child pornography

Ban ALL ALCOHOL because SOME people drink and drive,beat their wife's,abuse their children etc

BAN all drugs...OTC and prescription,illegal because SOME people get high with OTC and prescription drugs... NO one can buy medicine ANYMORE.. or manufacture it...if you have a headache. TOO BAD..if you have a stomachache TOO BAD.. if you have a itchy rash then you'll just have to live with it for the rest of your life..
If you fell down and broke your leg and are in lots of pain too bad ALL painkillers are BANNED..

Banning stuff like this
Doesn't work..

Remember when prohibition was enforced? How did that work out?

People have always done good things and bad since the history of time

People did the exact same things 500 years ago,1000,5000 and beyond

They STILL do (the present)

WHAT do you think the " future " holds...?

Dani8

05-09-18, 06:09 PM

"Sir, we've received reports of gunshots coming from your residence."
"I was defending myself. The Daddy Long Legs ran right at me."

Fark. I almost choked on my vegan muesli. This is so great.Gonna make sure it goes in the script Im supposed to be reading rather thanplaying on mofo. Thanks Yods!!!

Luis

05-09-18, 06:26 PM

ynwtf

05-09-18, 06:54 PM

I say kill everything. Shoot the spider, snake, bear, and mountain lion. They are all equally poisonous and serve no purpose to me other than providing justification to shoot them.

I am joking, btw.
o.O

In all seriousness though, I'm aware of my environment and the likelihood of encountering each of these dangers. Those are factors (though minimal, at best) in choosing where to live. I would argue that a child killing a spider is really a learned behavior and not instinctual from birth. OK, maybe snakes ;) Still though, either the kid learned that spiders are evil and deserves a shoe upside its many eyes, thrown from across the room (mom taught me that btw), or a spider just bit the kid and the kid reacted, carrying forward that memory association that spider=hurt=bad.

Learned behavior goes a long way. Especially if a child is not yet cognitively developed enough to understand the action and consequences of firing a gun at another human being. Sure, a kid may have shot an armed intruder, but I don't think that it would be difficult to find a sample of a kid shooting another kid because they were just playing around too. Just because a child learned how to shoot a firearm does not mean that child is actually aware of what they are doing other than having learned a pattern taught to them. Because they may not yet be able to comprehend what is at stake. I mean, children literally cannot perceive a perspective other than what they see before them, nor can they empathize (depending on the age, of course) to even begin considering what another person may see or feel, relative to their own world view. They may have absolutely no idea of what taking a life means past point barrel, pull trigger. Additionally, just because an example exists confirming one's view does not negate other, similar, examples showing the opposite.

As to the rest, I'm not sure I have it in me. I mostly just wanted to get specific on the above. I don't know why either. Just closing out the day and thought I'd check in here. Then I started typing, and then all that happened.

I'm also slowly obsessing over what I should have for dinner tonight and that's taking me attention away....

Yoda

05-09-18, 07:14 PM

Every ynwtf post:

<joke>
<long paragraph actually taking the topic seriously>
<apology for long paragraph>
<closing joke>

cat_sidhe

05-09-18, 07:20 PM

Every ynwtf post:

<joke>
<long paragraph actually taking the topic seriously>
<apology for long paragraph>
<closing joke>

Ooooh! Do me! Do me!

Dani8

05-09-18, 07:28 PM

I'm also slowly obsessing over what I should have for dinner tonight and that's taking me attention away....

Yeah food does that. Silly time waster it is.

Great post though, yn.

Dani8

05-09-18, 07:29 PM

Ooooh! Do me! Do me!

SLATTERN!!! Such a great word. Do me as well.

This is fun, and I'ma thread killer by the look of things daily so good, I like this post will be staring at erveryone all day.

I now know what one of my nurses kept yelling at me - STOP SAYING SORRY!!! Tank you, Ethan. No sorries.

Yoda

05-09-18, 07:31 PM

Actually we do have an Imitate a MoFo thread from back in the day. Probably shouldn't clutter up our serious "would you shoot a spider in the face?" thread too much.

Dani8

05-09-18, 07:33 PM

"would you shoot a spider in the face?" thread.

ROFLMAO. tHIS IS SO MUCH FUNNY, yODS!

Bht88

05-09-18, 09:46 PM

Actually Tarantulas are extremely harmless and very rarely do they bite, even if provoked. So it's a shame that a lot of humans kill them without bothering to learn more about them, they serve very well as pest control. So sometimes as human beings it's important to get informed instead of killing everything that makes us uncomfortable, a lot of things could be avoided with knowledge. (I'm not just talking about spiders)

I have heard that.. but most people are scared of
Spiders,women and children especially.even worse is when someone has a phobia for them

44363
•better safe than sorry I always say

Everything is learned behavior then,us humans learned touching fire is bad BUT good for cooking

We learned to make crude weapons from stones to hunt/kill for food

We've increased our weapon technology into guns

Soon we'll see blasters like in star wars and probably lightsabers

Children / people come from different levels of intelligence..who gets to "decide" if a kid IS TRIED as an adult,when a kid commits a crime?

Are mentally ill / insane people NOT guilty of any crime because they are insane?

Is a 30 year old "man" with mental retardation
NOT guilty of a crime because he has the " estimated mental capacity of a 8 year old"?

Is someone who was " temporary insane" not guilty too?

Is someone who suffers from sleep walking also NOT guilty of killing someone " in their sleep"?

• I've heard of stories where a person kills or rapes someone while "sleep walking"..

https://nl.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrJQ6CnlfNaohcApXERwCc5;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdmJidmtlBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNxcnc-?p=person+sleep+walking+killed+someone+in+their+sleep+and+found+not+guilty&ei=UTF-8&fr2=sp-qrw-corr-top&fr=crmas

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicidal_sleepwalking

"I'm also slowly obsessing over what I should have for dinner tonight and that's taking me attention away"

DONT over think it.. just pull out your ar 15
And shoot a few tarantulas and roast them over an open fire

Spiders are very popular in Asia I hear

hell_storm2004

05-10-18, 01:53 AM

pahaK

05-10-18, 02:55 AM

I don't have a gun. I would like to have but the legislation in Finland (most of Europe actually) is terrible and most likely getting worse. My opinion about the strict gun control is pretty much this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/af/0b/b3/af0bb35856ee0df5c8bf467b6b0eb9cf.jpg

Would I kill someone? Yes, I'm pretty sure I would if the situation demanded that. And after that in our European dream I would go to jail for at least manslaughter and excessive force as in here the only legal defense people have is to run away (even from their own home). In here criminals have way more rights than victims do.

Bht88

05-10-18, 04:45 AM

I dont have it in me for sure. Injure badly in self defense, but that is as far I will go. But never kill. Spiders even more. I will run away from a spider, big ones. But humans with a chainsaw, hacksaw, fists, dont matter. I can take a few down.

I grew up in an environment where guns are rare. And to be honest, for self defense it is over-kill. A baseball/cricket bat is more than enough.

Maybe not yet..but maybe one day when someone hurts you or your : friends family significant other etc. Things can change for good or bad then you'll see the EFFECTS of the victims who were or were close to being abused..
Trauma nightmares depression etc " injure badly " sometimes is NOT enough..people can come back.. I.E a random intruder breaks in your house you mess him up with your baseball bat injure him if you're lucky he doesn't have a gun the police arrest him if that he testifies that he didn't break in and says " he was just lost and he " thought" it was " his friends house" or some bs story..he may or may not be found guilty in a court of law then he bails out of jail and comes back when day this time maybe with a gun or a group of guys in the middle of the night.. 3 guys with guns vs you with a baseball bat
Who has the advantage?
As he now knows where you live and your name because it's on the police report and when you testify against him in a court of law as he DOES have the right to know who's accusing him of a crime..
You can't remain anonymous
And now he can Google your name and address and get more info about you...your friends family business
Etc because ALOT of these things are public record..
What's to stop him in getting revenge on you? Your house/family/property?
If you kill him in self defense there's NO WAY for him to testify in a court of law.. why give them the chance to turn it around on you..? I've heard of cases where an intruder breaks in a house and " sues" the home owners when they hurt him.. people can twist things around on you trust me.. you pretty much need to be already hurt by the intruder to "legally fight" back in case they say you " needed" to kill in self defense which is complete bs ... This stupid "rule" seems only to apply to citizens not the police
They don't wait to see "anything ". They just
Think that because they wear a badge they can do anything they "view " as correct self Defense behavior

" In here criminals have way more rights than victims do."

See what I mean..the justice system in a lot of places are stupid

I'm totally for guns everywhere.. it's not about " gun control". It's about " bad people control"..

Even Schools are stocking up on guns I hear

hell_storm2004

05-10-18, 11:17 AM

Maybe not yet..but maybe one day when someone hurts you or your : friends family significant other etc. Things can change for good or bad then you'll see the EFFECTS of the victims who were or were close to being abused..
Trauma nightmares depression etc " injure badly " sometimes is NOT enough..people can come back.. I.E a random intruder breaks in your house you mess him up with your baseball bat injure him if you're lucky he doesn't have a gun the police arrest him if that he testifies that he didn't break in and says " he was just lost and he " thought" it was " his friends house" or some bs story..he may or may not be found guilty in a court of law then he bails out of jail and comes back when day this time maybe with a gun or a group of guys in the middle of the night.. 3 guys with guns vs you with a baseball bat
Who has the advantage?
As he now knows where you live and your name because it's on the police report and when you testify against him in a court of law as he DOES have the right to know who's accusing him of a crime..
You can't remain anonymous
And now he can Google your name and address and get more info about you...your friends family business
Etc because ALOT of these things are public record..
What's to stop him in getting revenge on you? Your house/family/property?
If you kill him in self defense there's NO WAY for him to testify in a court of law.. why give them the chance to turn it around on you..? I've heard of cases where an intruder breaks in a house and " sues" the home owners when they hurt him.. people can twist things around on you trust me.. you pretty much need to be already hurt by the intruder to "legally fight" back in case they say you " needed" to kill in self defense which is complete bs ... This stupid "rule" seems only to apply to citizens not the police
They don't wait to see "anything ". They just
Think that because they wear a badge they can do anything they "view " as correct self Defense behavior

" In here criminals have way more rights than victims do."

See what I mean..the justice system in a lot of places are stupid

I'm totally for guns everywhere.. it's not about " gun control". It's about " bad people control"..

Even Schools are stocking up on guns I hear

That will never change fortunately.

And why would I assume the intruder always has a gun? Most of the other countries the chances are very very minimal to non-existent. What you are stating is mostly paranoia. That this might happen, that might happen. If the intruder testifies that he was just loitering, at least I wont have a manslaughter charge to my name. I will be able to live that. But not taking a life... intruder, bad, evil whatever you would like to label them as.

Its the mentality towards guns that is different here in US.

I was reading a thread somewhere, where a lady asked on a forum what are the legal self defense weapons that she can carry in the UK. The replies were downright hilarious but also revealing in the way people think about "weapons". If i can find the link i will share. The replies were mostly pepper spray, potatoes, hands/fists/knees.

And schools aren't stocking up on guns. That is not true.

I. Rex

05-10-18, 01:02 PM

I said regulating, not banning.

Oh let me bring you up to speed on official NRA language. They would never ever ever use the word "ban" and any kind of weapon in the same sentence unless its to say "we need to stop any attempt to ban...". But "additional regulation" is a term that allows them to tip their hat to the concept of change up to and including outright banning. They surely know any legislation or ATF action that results in a change in the availability of bump stocks would be somewhere between a ban and laws so draconian that it would in effect ban it from the vast majority of regular citizens. But they arent ever going to release an official statement saying "we want to ban..." even if they were talking about ICBM's.

And anyway the NRA releasing a carefully coded message about "regulating" bump stocks that they know full well wont result in any change hardly addresses my point about the NRA no longer supporting certain kinds of GUN control measures as they had in the distant past when they actually officially were in favor of the BANNING of many kinds of firearms. For example, they supported the National Firearms act of 1934 which outright banned machine guns among other guns and later on supported the Federal Firearms Act. They even were against open carry legislation in the 60's and 70's although primarily because they didn’t want the black panthers being able to legally walk around with rifles (or vibranium I assume). But all that semi-rational common sense stuff stopped in the 80's when the NRA became part and parcel of the gun manufacturing industry and tightened up even more so when mass shootings began to really become an issue shortly after. They found the mass shootings resulted in a spike of gun sales and a spike in gun sales resulted in the gun manufacturers filling the NRA's coffers with cash. So carnage was great for business! And contributed to a cycle that allowed them to get more and more powerful on the dead bodies of first graders.

Of course the real irony is that electing Republicans is BAD for business. But electing democrats might lead to restrictions. So probably the ideal situation for the NRA is lots of Republicans in office AND lots of mass shootings to scare the public into buying lots more guns.

All the way to the bank...

And as for your reply about the car analogy, I can always tell when you run up against an argument that confounds you because you go into lawyer gobbledygook mode and take 7 paragraphs to say pretty much nothing in the hopes that youll make me so dizzy that Ill concede your mistake as a point. Well sorry. I consider resorting to fine print arguing a sign of failure. Guns are tools for killing. Cars are tools for transportation. No dancing around those facts with verbiage.

Never said "exclusively", I said "specifically" as you yourself noted in my quote. So unless its your contention that killing is an incidental result of gun design and they are actually "exclusively" (or even "specifically") designed for something else entirely than the logic stands that guns are about killing. Whether thats killing humans or animals. Killin's killin. Sure you can use them to open a bottle of whiskey or knock your girlfriend out but Im thinking that’s not the primary thing going through the mind of the manufacturer when they are mocking up the next assault rifle.

And "other purposes like self defense" you say? Again, unless by self defense you mean throwing your gun at the mugger and running then Im thinking that’s pretty much the same way of saying "guns are a WEAPON. Guns are DESIGNED to KILL".

Oh and I never said gun manufacturers are making guns more dangerous to use for the owner ("accidental discharge" generally impacts the shooter more than anyone else) but more lethal to use AGAINST a target. Im not sure why you feel so compelled to site wikipedia in order to try to dodge that absolute fact. Guns today are more lethal than guns from 50 years ago (or 200 years ago for that matter Mr. Second Amendment). Cars have gotten faster sure but MUCH safer. The accident stats from the 30's versus the 60's versus today makes that plainly clear. Again no need to bob and weave on this one.

And don’t try to back track out of the analogy by saying oh I don’t support regulation. That wasn’t the point. The point was you insisting that "our current regulations are insufficient" on cars. Well if you dont actually believe that then don’t bring up the point.

And Im amused that my open theorizing on the prospect of banning the AR-15 resulted in you making yet more petty irrelevant pot shots and offering pointless wiki based philosophy citations in response. How bout trying to actually, you know, respond to the actual comment like Yoda did (and most people in discussion do) rather than using everything you see as an opportunity to try to insult and/or vomit your current irrelevant interests on us in the process. Cause it makes you look like incoherent grandstander. At best.

https://snag.gy/3yvwds.jpg

What part of "also" do you not understand?

https://snag.gy/Zuyh7e.jpg

https://snag.gy/CZ1jWc.jpg

That still begs the question of 'Why those few?'

I can only assume you ask this question because you want to be able to say after my response that banning one gun leaves the door open to banning any other gun, especially when other guns kill more people (although not in a high profile way like these assault rifles have been). To which my question would be then according to this logic how can we draw a line AT ALL? If you are worried that banning AR-15's will be the camels nose under the tent toward banning pistols and 22's etc. then how can banning grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons etc. not lead to the same thing? Also, why didnt the original assault weapons ban result in an avalanche of bans or other guns as well?

donniedarko

05-10-18, 06:29 PM

How convenient, most gun deaths are caused by handguns which are by and large semi-automatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol). Maybe we should ban "assault pistols"?

^

If liberals truly cared about saving childrens lives with gun bans then they'd go after handguns. Way more kids are killed annualy? What are the children in Chicago not as important as those in Parkland? That's what the point of banning semi autos is right, to save childrens lives

Bht88

05-11-18, 06:46 AM

Its not paranoia theyre possiblities..anything is possible

If he DOES have a gun
Then youre outmatched

ynwtf

05-11-18, 09:17 AM

That's exactly why I wear a parachute every time I fly commercial.

Hey Fredrick

05-11-18, 09:54 AM

And why would I assume the intruder always has a gun?

To be safe. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

Most of the other countries the chances are very very minimal to non-existent. What you are stating is mostly paranoia.

What's happening in other countries isn't really relevant to me. I read the local police reports and know what's going on around town. That's not paranoia. That's being informed.

If the intruder testifies that he was just loitering, at least I wont have a manslaughter charge to my name.

Don't loiter in my house. If somebody is loitering in my house (I call that breaking and entering) the chances of them testifying are minimal because 1- they won't be taking the stand. They'll be the defendant in a B and E trial or worse (especially for me) a murder trial or 2- they'll be gone and won't be saying anything. Confronting an intruder is not the time for 20 questions.

hell_storm2004

05-11-18, 11:34 AM

To be safe. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

What's happening in other countries isn't really relevant to me. I read the local police reports and know what's going on around town. That's not paranoia. That's being informed.

Don't loiter in my house. If somebody is loitering in my house (I call that breaking and entering) the chances of them testifying are minimal because 1- they won't be taking the stand. They'll be the defendant in a B and E trial or worse (especially for me) a murder trial or 2- they'll be gone and won't be saying anything. Confronting an intruder is not the time for 20 questions.

To be safe, i dont need a gun. That is my opinion.

What happens in other countries might not be important you, it is to me. I read the reports too. I live in a safe neighborhood, so crimes are mostly petty.

At the end of day, its all your perspective, isn't it? You are happy with the outcome of a shooting, by all means, its your choice. Not mine.

Bht88

05-11-18, 06:23 PM

"To be safe. Prepare for the worst, "
^
" To be safe, i dont need a gun. That is my opinion. "

You don't need one right now...since your safe
But when the " time " comes you'll be without one.. hopefully you never say. "Damn I should of bought one "

"
At the end of day, its all your perspective, isn't it? You are happy with the outcome of a shooting, by all means, its your choice. Not mine"

It's just reality.. "happy " that you weren't hurt...happy that youre Alive you probably wouldn't do well in a war,as a policeman etc you'll be a slave when the "spiders"
Try to take over the earth

Did your dad ever teach you to fight? Box? Etc

Dani8

05-11-18, 09:11 PM

A grandfather today in a farmhouse in Western Australia shot and killed 6 family members then himself. A gun in this situation was certainly not helpful.

Laurence

05-15-18, 07:25 PM

As a long-time member of the NRA and a gun owner, the answer is YES to both questions. In view of the high crime rate in our society, it is more important than ever that people learn to protect themselves.
These "marches" and their habit of blaming the NRA is nonsense. Blaming the NRA for shootings is like blaming the AAA for auto accidents! The NRA has always advocated the safe use of firearms, and conducts thousands of safety courses. No NRA member has ever been involved in a mass shooting.
And yes, if a malicious criminal came at me with a knife or gun intending to harm or kill me, I would certainly shoot him. Why stand there and just get murdered - unless you are suicidal to begin with? The right to bear arms for protection is one of our most important freedoms. [email protected]

I. Rex

05-15-18, 10:32 PM

No NRA member has ever been involved in a mass shooting

You only need look back at the most recent significant mass shooting to disprove this one.

The 19-year-old accused of killing 17 people at a Florida high school Wednesday was reportedly a member of the school’s marksmanship team, which received grants from the National Rifle Association (NRA). source (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374296-alleged-florida-shooter-member-of-school-rifle-team-given-grant)

So the NRA bankrolled this killer so he could become an even better shot. So much for your declarations.

Dani8

05-16-18, 02:05 AM

*backs out of thread slowly

Yoda

05-18-18, 02:01 PM

"NRA Member" now means "anyone who has participated in any program the NRA has supported"?

If you want to argue that the distinction doesn't matter for purposes of the argument, go ahead, but it seems weird to act like this is a definitive debunking, without making any acknowledgement of the difference or offering any attempt to explain it.

Also, the "bankrolled" part is just pure rhetoric. By that logic anyone who's committed a crime on government assistance was "bankrolled" by the government (or, ya' know, us). Terms like "bankrolled" should be reserved for giving funds to a specific individual, directly and purposefully, not anyone who may have taken advantage of some freely or easily accessible program.

I. Rex

05-18-18, 02:37 PM

The point is the NRA funded the program in which this kid was enrolled and through which he learned to become a better shot. And then he shot people with those skills. So the notion, as the poster implied, that the NRA is unconnected in any way to any shooting in the country's history is disingenuous at best. And certainly disgusting NRA propaganda considering how their policies have helped CREATE the kind of run away madness we are living in now. It amounts to citing a technical loop hole to avoid any responsibility and then bragging about it.

And last I checked my tax money doesnt go to funding 'ammunition stamps' or classes on how to make meth. I know, I know... "Sheer hyperbole". But my tax money being spent on feeding poor people doesnt go directly to teaching poor people to commit murder. It might feed or house them. But I dont think thats the same thing. Whereas teaching a future shooter to shoot better is a more direct relationship I think. Not that theres anything necessarily wrong with funding marksmanship programs, but dont act like they have no connection to this issue at all.

Powdered Water

05-18-18, 02:37 PM

Just to clarify. Did Laurence offer any explanations as to how he seems to know for sure that: "No NRA member has ever been involved in a mass shooting."?

Maybe that doesn't make him a a card carrying member. It doesn't make him nothing tho, either. Right? I'm not really trying to pick a fight here. I just find it interesting that your feathers ruffle at I.Rex's post but not the original claim. A claim that to me, is ridiculous and like Rex said, pretty easy to disprove. Even if the kid from the latest shooting isn't an official card carrying member of the NRA. That was just from Wednesday.

I. Rex

05-18-18, 02:41 PM

Bonito

05-18-18, 02:47 PM

latest shooting in Texas, 10+ dead

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/18/us/texas-school-shooting/index.html

A male suspect, believed to be a student, has been arrested in the shooting, and a second person -- also believed to be a student -- has been detained as well, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said.

Slappydavis

05-18-18, 02:49 PM

Obviously the tenor of this discussion is going to change with the Santa Fe shootings, but I do want to put it out there that NRA members, by in large, are good people. Trying to go down the route of going after members is going to be a crap-shoot.

The disastrous part of the NRA doesn't really lie in its membership, it lies in the fact that it operates on two drastically different levels: as a special interest with a large group of voluntary members (with whom I disagree, sure, but this is just another group of citizens with a common purpose) and as a corporate lobbying group for gun manufacturers (who hide their influence behind the first part).

Obviously, there are convenient alliances in many associations where dedicated people's interests will align with a particular industry, but there's no other group that has merged those two levels to the degree that the NRA has (I'm open to being disproven on this) and it creates problems because it allows the corporate influence of the gun manufactures to be effectively "laundered" through the special interest side.

Powdered Water

05-18-18, 02:53 PM

Someone (if they haven't already, I haven't checked) is going to start a live massacre channel on youtube.

Yoda

05-18-18, 02:58 PM

The point is the NRA funded the program in which this kid was enrolled and through which he learned to become a better shot.
That may be a point, but it's not the point. You quoted someone, and presented a fact, and then said "so much for your declaration." You did not just make your own point, you contradicted someone, and you did it with something that did not actually disprove what they said, and you didn't even make an attempt to explain why the (obvious) distinction between the two didn't matter.

And then he shot people with those skills. So the notion, as the poster implied, that the NRA is unconnected in any way to any shooting in the country's history is disingenuous at best.
How do you know this was his implication? Maybe he simply wanted to make a distinction between the NRA and its members. That's just consistent with what he said. So why stretch to the least charitable interpretation possible, and one at odds with its literal meaning? Just to create a more forceful disagreement? I think that's the disingenuous part.

And last I checked my tax money doesnt go to funding 'ammunition stamps' or classes on how to make meth. I know, I know... "Sheer hyperbole". But my tax money being spent on feeding poor people doesnt go directly to teaching poor people to commit murder. It might feed or house them. But I dont think thats the same thing. Whereas teaching a future shooter to shoot better is a more direct relationship I think. Not that theres anything necessarily wrong with funding marksmanship programs, but dont act like they have no connection to this issue at all.
Leaving aside that teaching someone to shoot is not teaching them to "murder" (and no, "but guns were designed to shoot things!" does not change the underlying logic, that's the genetic fallacy), this is pretty much a total non-sequitur. The point you're ostensibly responding to was about the phrase "bankrolling." Saying you like one kind of support and not another has literally nothing to do with that.

The last sentence is really what I'm on about here: the goalposts have immediately moved all the way from "I debunked your claim" to "don't pretend they have no connection," which is pretty much a total inversion of the burden of proof.

Powdered Water

05-18-18, 02:59 PM

Obviously the tenor of this discussion is going to change with the Santa Fe shootings, but I do want to put it out there that NRA members, by in large, are good people. Trying to go down the route of going after members is going to be a crap-shoot.

I find this interesting. I've talked to you on the board a little I read your posts so in turn I tend to think I "know" you a little. I couldn't honestly tell you tho if I've even ever met an NRA member. But then you say they are by and large "good people". Don't we maybe assume to often that people we don't really know are just good people?

Yoda

05-18-18, 03:02 PM

[/I]Maybe that doesn't make him a a card carrying member. It doesn't make him nothing tho, either. Right? I'm not really trying to pick a fight here. I just find it interesting that your feathers ruffle at I.Rex's post but not the original claim.
My feathers ruffle at bad arguments, particularly from people who I'm pretty sure know better. You've seen me yelling at plenty of conservatives over the last couple of years, for the exact same reason. I don't always have hope that I can convince people of stuff, but I do have hope that the process of disagreement and attempts at persuasion can be better, or at least more charitable. So while it's kind of a sad commentary that most of my "arguing" is just trying to point out when people aren't arguing fairly or well, improving that in the long-term is what's important to me.

Yoda

05-18-18, 03:04 PM

By the way, Adam Lanza and his mother received official NRA certificates for their involvement in pro-gun action (the mother) and for both of them participating in NRA endorsed shooting events. Is that also a perfectly fine loop hole that allows the NRA to declare they are free and clear of ANY connection to Sandy Hook?
Were there gun safety classes at these shooting events? Sight-unseen, I'll bet there were.

Seems to me it's lose-lose: either the NRA gets lambasted for not educating people in gun safety, or they do this kind of outreach and then they're "linked" to anyone who shows up for freely available events.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments about gun control, but I think this attempt to paint them as "bankrolling" or "training" people by holding public events is...well, "a stretch" is probably the most polite way to put it.

Slappydavis

05-18-18, 03:05 PM

I find this interesting. I've talked to you on the board a little I read your posts so in turn I tend to think I "know" you a little. I couldn't honestly tell you tho if I've even ever met an NRA member. But then you say they are by and large "good people". Don't we maybe assume to often that people we don't really know are just good people?
Almost all of my perspective comes from working on a gun control bill in the state legislature in early 2013 (after Sandy Hook). The individuals I met were actually really thoughtful and we had disagreements but I'm still proud of a lot of the dialogue. I also had a few calls that were just people wanting to yell at my boss, sure, but that's representation sometimes (though often they were not constituents). But when the lobbying efforts came in, that's when the bills (i.e. debate/conversation) died.

So maybe I'm biased, but in my experience the individuals from the NRA/Calgun were actually interested in a dialogue (for the most part) and the lobbying arms were just trying to protect their industry.

Also shoutout to the Brady Campaign, they were wonderful in the discussion too.

Powdered Water

05-18-18, 03:15 PM

So maybe I'm biased, but in my experience the individuals from the NRA/Calgun were actually interested in a dialogue (for the most part) and the lobbying arms were just trying to protect their industry.

No worries, I wasn't implying you were biased or anything. From what I read it seems the NRA really doesn't even have that many members So I was curious if you'd had any real contact with them is all.

cat_sidhe

05-18-18, 03:21 PM

My feathers ruffle

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cqVTev30iBQ/maxresdefault.jpg
https://kristendperkins.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/tumblr_lmhwmhfzpa1qkkljxo1_400.gif

Slappydavis

05-18-18, 03:25 PM

No worries, I wasn't implying you were biased or anything. From what I read it seems the NRA really doesn't even have that many members So I was curious if you'd had any real contact with them is all.
Oh yeah, I definitely don't think you were calling me biased. I was just saying that my perspective is kinda specific (and therefore probably a bit biased). Because the base of NRA/Calgun people that I interacted with also had a selection bias of being the most politically savvy and particularly interested in discussion because they came to us.

Also hey, stop rising in the FB league. Making me nervous.

Bonito

05-18-18, 03:29 PM

Dani8

05-18-18, 03:52 PM

Bullying is harsh everywherr, isn't it?

Powdered Water

05-18-18, 04:15 PM

Also hey, stop rising in the FB league. Making me nervous.

We go hard in this league bro. We had a guy that was in first place for a large chunk of the year last season until Yoder walked him down at the end. It was beautiful. You can't take a day off, that's for sure.

I. Rex

05-18-18, 04:45 PM

That may be a point, but it's not the point. You quoted someone, and presented a fact, and then said "so much for your declaration." You did not just make your own point, you contradicted someone, and you did it with something that did not actually disprove what they said

So I just spent some time researching the details of shooters being NRA members and what I discovered was that only the NRA releases this information. Since they are the NRA... And they dont share it with the press unless its to categorically declare that "so and so was NOT on our membership rolls!" They have not made this claim in every single case however and its widely believed certain shooters were NRA members (Henry Bello, Jared Lee Loughner, etc.) but the NRA has refused to confirm that fact.

Now there have been cases where NRA membership has been confirmed for a shooter who didn’t get the major press of some of the high extreme mass shootings (there was a road rage shooting a few years ago if I recall in Florida where the perpetrator declared himself a "proud" lifelong member of the NRA). But the NRA isnt letting us know about many of the big names.

I would submit this though... There are NO requirements for NRA membership other than that you pay your yearly dues. You don’t need to be a US citizen. You don’t need to be over 18. You dont even need to be sane. Or free of any history of gun violence. Just give us money and youre in. So, statistically, and since we don’t receive confirmation or denial for every single shooting in this country, it seems almost certain that NRA members have been involved in shootings in the past 100 years or so. Is THAT a fair and reasonable enough declaration for you? Or am I still playing fast and loose with the "truth"?

Frankly, I never thought to try to link NRA MEMBERSHIP in any direct way to being a mass shooter. I don’t believe that to be true. I was simply responding to the unproven declaration that there has never been one since we cant apparently know that fact. I do wonder why you didn’t call him on that declaration, by the way, but instead just chose to jump all over my case on technical grounds, simply for pointing out the NRA isnt unconnected to these shootings even if you start with the most recent one (not counting today...).

The point you're ostensibly responding to was about the phrase "bankrolling." Saying you like one kind of support and not another has literally nothing to do with that.

I stand by the use of "bankrolling". They provided the funds for this program. They therefor "bankrolled him so he could become an even better shooter". That’s technically correct since you like being technical. (I did not say "they bankrolled the mass shooting"). Whereas my tax dollars did NOT bankroll a poor person to take a program so they could learn to become better at stealing hubcaps. Or a thief at all. Keeping him from starving to death is just not even close to being the same. But we can continue to argue about meaningless semantics and avoid the obvious notion that the NRA has its fingerprints all over many of these shootings either through programs and certificate awardings (which, as you note, can be technically ignored in this context) or through the fact that many of these shooters have taken full advantage of the over excessive gun rights that the NRA has worked so hard to expand. Is there a distinction between a member and an organization? Absolutely, but we can differ on what we believe was the implication of a statement made by someone who seems willing to make an unproven technical statement as a matter of fact.

But Ill play your game. I suppose if he responds with "See! You didn’t provide absolute proof that any shooter has ever been an NRA member!" Then my response would be ok then prove to me every single shooter has not been an NRA member. In this case, thats a negative that could be proven because they either have been or havent been.

Dani8

05-18-18, 05:18 PM

Wow, Rex. I want to reiterate that I'm not touching the debate itself but I did not know that about NRA membership. Thanks for posting that.

Yoda

05-18-18, 05:34 PM

I do wonder why you didn’t call him on that declaration
Partially explained here (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1901548#post1901548), with the addendum that I saw his declaration and your response simultaneously.

but instead just chose to jump all over my case on technical grounds
It's not "technical" to point out that you didn't prove the thing you said you did, dude. At all.

If you'd simply argued with the implication or disputed how relevant the fact was (or even just expressed skepticism that it was true!), I'd have had no issue with it. And if you'd actually debunked what he was saying with a source, I'd have repped it in a heartbeat (I always rep that kind of thing). But you specifically said you'd debunked it and then threw in an extra jab with "so there goes your declaration." You don't get to simultaneously make a big point of emphasizing how you've smacked something down and then go "oh, I didn't realize we were getting all technical" when someone points out it wasn't really debunked.

Basically, if you wanna spike the football, don't try to turn someone else into a jerk for pointing out you didn't technically cross the goal line.

So, statistically, and since we don’t receive confirmation or denial for every single shooting in this country, it seems almost certain that NRA members have been involved in shootings in the past 100 years or so. Is THAT a fair and reasonable enough declaration for you? Or am I still playing fast and loose with the "truth"?
I'm not sure where the sarcasm or incredulity here is supposed to be coming from. Yes, that statement--different from the one you made and I responded to--is fair and reasonable. I'd have had zero issue with it if that's what you'd said.

I stand by the use of "bankrolling". They provided the funds for this program. They therefor "bankrolled him so he could become an even better shooter".
Bankrolling a program is different than bankrolling a person. This wouldn't be controversial in any other context. If you pay for people's dog training you didn't "bankroll" their dog fighting ring, and if you teach them a martial art you didn't "bankroll" them beating people up.

Even the word "bankroll" was clearly chosen for the insidious connotation it has over "fund" or "sponsor" or whatever. This kinda rhetoric seems pretty dissonant with the disparaging talk about "semantics."

But we can continue to argue about meaningless semantics and avoid the obvious notion that the NRA has its fingerprints all over many of these shootings either through programs and certificate awardings (which, as you note, can be technically ignored in this context) or through the fact that many of these shooters have taken full advantage of the over excessive gun rights that the NRA has worked so hard to expand.
Yeah, I've seen this kinda thing before. Obvious overstatement, someone points out it isn't accurate, person is chastised for distracting from <more nuanced version of the argument that should have been advanced from the beginning>. Nevermind that "you should be making the more nuanced version of this argument" was literally what I said. See below.

Is there a distinction between a member and an organization? Absolutely, but we can differ on what we believe was the implication of a statement made by someone who seems willing to make an unproven technical statement as a matter of fact.
Sure, but I already accounted for that with this part:

If you want to argue that the distinction doesn't matter for purposes of the argument, go ahead, but it seems weird to act like this is a definitive debunking, without making any acknowledgement of the difference or offering any attempt to explain it.

I suppose if he responds with "See! You didn’t provide absolute proof that any shooter has ever been an NRA member!" Then my response would be ok then prove to me every single shooter has not been an NRA member. In this case, thats a negative that could be proven because they either have been or havent been.
Please don't mistake my response to you for an endorsement of him. The fact that I think your response to him was unfair in no way implies that he's right, and my disagreeing with you is not some stealth way to take his side.

I think the problem here is that this is a serious issue and it's very easy to regard criticism, fair or not, as some kind of annoying roadblock to a righteous cause. Kinda reminds me of the whole "punching Nazis" in the face debate, where some people say "yeah, you can't punch people in the face for their beliefs" and the other side basically saying "BUT NAZIS." Same thing here: say something that isn't really true or overstate something, and when someone disputes it, it's "BUT PEOPLE ARE DYING." I see that as a reason to be more careful in talking about it, not less, and just in general I don't think being right about an important issue should generally be used as cover for cutting argumentative corners.

Citizen Rules

05-18-18, 05:56 PM

Is bullying really that harsh in the US? It sounds like a re-occuring theme here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting
Events
The alleged gunman is reportedly Dimitrios Pagourtzis, a 17-year-old male who attended the school. Another suspect in the shooting was later arrested.[8][1][9] Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez reported ten fatalities as of 11:17 AM (CT), and multiple injuries including two law enforcement officers[10]. According to at least one witness, the primary suspect was the victim of bullying by multiple students and coaches.[11][12] That's what I predicted this morning, when I first heard of the shooting, that bullying was involved. Stopping/curtailing bullying in school is a win win situation. I believe it would reduce the number of school shootings, and even if not, no one should be traumatized by their school experience.

Powdered Water

05-18-18, 06:05 PM

Good kids with guns can stop bad kids with guns. We need more guns to protect these children. That's my mantra. Less Parenting... more guns. I really think its caught on. Don't you?

I. Rex

05-18-18, 10:20 PM

Basically, if you wanna spike the football, don't try to turn someone else into a jerk for pointing out you didn't technically cross the goal line.

Ok I wont spike the football next time. But I think theres something to be said for managing a 90 yard gain even when the defense calls an illegal play. :p

but ok I think thats about enough sports analogies.

Even the word "bankroll" was clearly chosen for the insidious connotation it has over "fund" or "sponsor" or whatever.

Well I certainly see the NRA as insidious. So its apropos. Should I neuter my words despite my feelings?

Please don't mistake my response to you for an endorsement of him. The fact that I think your response to him was unfair in no way implies that he's right, and my disagreeing with you is not some stealth way to take his side.

I appreciate that acknowledgement although Im assuming as soon as you got to his post you were probably thinking to yourself "great, just a matter of time before Rex bites on that hook with something indignant and smart assy". And sure enough... Although I actually had a lot more counter points to a number of the statements he made. But I deleted most of them thinking its not worth breaking this message down like it has any merit in the least. But let me look up that bit about no NRA ever involved in any shooting cause that sounds ridiculous. And the VERY FIRST thing I find is the fact that the NRA bank... errr... I mean sponsored his marksmanship class. And to me that was 100 times worse than just being an NRA member so I lead and finished with that. That was my thinking process. I figured people would find that at least interesting. And if there was a response it would be along the lines of "wow really? They taught the shooter to shoot?" But instead I get, "well but you didn’t prove he was an NRA member though". In the future Ill try to stick with addressing the obvious fallacy rather than being distracted by a much more salient point even if it is just screaming to be shared in that context.

I think the problem here is that this is a serious issue and it's very easy to regard criticism, fair or not, as some kind of annoying roadblock to a righteous cause. Kinda reminds me of the whole "punching Nazis" in the face debate, where some people say "yeah, you can't punch people in the face for their beliefs" and the other side basically saying "BUT NAZIS."

Was I involved in that debate? Was that different from the "Trump defending Nazis" debate? Because I don’t remember calling for it. Personally, for the record, Im not for punching nazis as a rule (or running them over with my car despite Charlottesville and despite Blues Brothers). Nor do I support others doing it. I think its counterproductive in the long run. I will say you arent going to get me to feel sorry for the Nazi though.

I. Rex

05-18-18, 10:36 PM

As for the new shooting today in Texas, probably the most heartbreaking thing Ive seen about it so far (its been too early for the inevitable horrendous and harrowing melt downs by grieving furious parents who have lost a child) was the reaction by one student who when asked if there was a part of her that thought this wasn’t real — that this couldn’t happen at her school responded with:

“No. There wasn’t. It’s been happening everywhere. I’ve always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here, too.”

We've officially failed when our kids shrug and expect school shootings to happen to them...

Citizen Rules

05-18-18, 10:46 PM

....“No. There wasn’t. It’s been happening everywhere. I’ve always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here, too.”

We've officially failed when our kids shrug and expect school shootings to happen to them... School shootings are becoming a thing. It sucks. But I bet the girl who said that she felt like it was going to happen, isn't the only student who feels that way.

I can't believe as a nation we can't put our best minds on the problem and find a way to lessen the school shootings.

Camo

05-18-18, 10:54 PM

Think they've long became a thing, not becoming, during this debate Bonito (who is a very underrated member) posted an active shooting and this thread went on like always. Not saying it should have stopped because it changed nothing in regards to anything anyone was arguing but it's so frequent at this point that it's no longer shocking anyone. The 23rd School Shooting headline for the anti-gun people doesn't even register as anything significant anymore, there was ten victims but that's not quite twenty+.

I dunno, that sort of non reaction deeply disturbs me.

Dani8

05-19-18, 03:41 AM

I agree Camo. Really frightening that she was so matter of fact. Poor love was probably in shock but never the less.

Dani8

05-20-18, 06:32 PM

I thought this thread deserved a bump in view of recent gun news. Can't believe it all went quiet to be honest.

nebbit

05-20-18, 06:42 PM

No to guns :nope: hate them :yup: I'm glad I live in a country that owning of guns is considered a no no :yup:

Omnizoa

05-22-18, 05:30 AM

But that does define them. Or are you putting this question out in general to folks who havent defined them and just scream about "assault weapons"? Because Im not sure how much more definition you need then "here is a list of MODELS".
Again, why those models?
What makes them an "assault weapon"?
What makes these models necessary to ban while others models unnecessary to ban?

A list of models is arbitrary without a set of underlying criteria. Not a fan of arbitrary laws.
What Yoda said.

BUT I will say my ultimate rational behind this theory is the fact that AR-15's seem to be the weapon of choice for these mass shootings. For some reason. No one seems to know why.
The reason is patently obvious: They're popular. (https://www.nssf.org/msr/)

In the 1990s, sales of AR-15 style rifles increased dramatically, partly as a result of the introduction of the flat top upper receiver which allowed scopes and sighting devices to be easily mounted as well as new features such as free floating hand guards that increased accuracy. While only a handful of companies were manufacturing these rifles in 1994, by the 21st century the number of AR-15 style rifles had more than doubled. From 2000 to 2015, the number of manufacturers of AR-15 style variants and knock-offs increased from 29 to about 500. Today, AR-15 style rifles are available in a wide range of configurations and calibers from a large number of manufacturers. These configurations range from standard full-sizes rifles with 20 inch barrels, to short carbine-length models with 16 inch barrels, adjustable length stocks and optical sights, to long range target models with 24 inch barrels, bipods and high-powered scopes.
Estimates vary as to how many of the rifles are owned in the United States. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated that approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in the U.S. within the broader total of the 300 million firearms owned by Americans.
There's just a ton of them in circulation, it would be a statistical anomaly if they weren't represented in mass shootings. Take the most popular semi-automatic sporting rifle in America and replace it with a Remington or a Barrett and you'd have the same result.

Oh let me bring you up to speed on official NRA language.
Oh, you're gonna interpret for me? With your penchant for charity? Dude, I'll just paste it into Babelfish.

"additional regulation" is a term that allows them to tip their hat to the concept of change up to and including outright banning.
But is not outright banning.

Kinda like how a positive number is not necessarily 3, even though a positive number can be 3. Even though it almost certainly isn't 3 because the NRA would never ever ever use the word "3" and any kind of number in the same sentence unless its to say "we need to stop any attempt to reach 3...".

They surely know any legislation or ATF action that results in a change in the availability of bump stocks would be somewhere between a ban and laws so draconian that it would in effect ban it from the vast majority of regular citizens. But they arent ever going to release an official statement saying "we want to ban..." even if they were talking about ICBM's.
It's endlessly curiously how the totally plausible and charitable explanation of "they want everyone to be free to own a gun provided they've demonstrated the competence to carry one safely" just flits around on the periphery of your considerations.

And anyway the NRA releasing a carefully coded message
See, this is why I wouldn't trust you to interpret alphabet cereal, you start inventing "coded messages" and "dog whistles" out of thin air.

They found the mass shootings resulted in a spike of gun sales and a spike in gun sales resulted in the gun manufacturers filling the NRA's coffers with cash. So carnage was great for business! And contributed to a cycle that allowed them to get more and more powerful on the dead bodies of first graders.
I like to paint pretty pictures with words too:

I'm imagining a vacant desolate black hellscape, in the center writhes a visceral entanglement of rusted chains, endlessly screeching back and forth over each other, sending high-pitched vibrations splitting into the void, before a distant groan echoes back across the wastes as someone appalled by the vacuous nature of your arguments struggles to comprehend why you thought that sounded even remotely intelligible.

To be clear, I'm not about to suggest that the NRA has no conflict of interest in their business dealings, but it's patronizing to suggest that it's the NRA alone, or people brainwashed by the NRA who have any sort of reasonable objection to your policy proposals.

Of course the real irony is that electing Republicans is BAD for business.
I hazard to imagine how Democrats are any better.

And as for your reply about the car analogy, I can always tell when you run up against an argument that confounds you because you go into lawyer gobbledygook mode and take 7 paragraphs to say pretty much nothing in the hopes that youll make me so dizzy that Ill concede your mistake as a point.
Okay, so I'd just like to really emphasize this bit here:

This is a really ****ing ****ty thing to do.

I've taken the effort to not only deconstruct one of your arguments, but do so in so many ways that there is absolutely nothing in the way of salvaging it. However, presenting the most thorough and damning case I could make against you... you hold against me, for apparently confusing you. The charitable and honest response to my arguments, if you don't understand them, is to ASK what I mean by the particular things I say, that way I can inform you and you can learn, and we can communicate more effectively.

But you're so ****ing insistent on getting that hand up on the bat that you take all of what I say, dismiss it out of hand and casually insinuate that I'm trying to confuse you, rather than simply and clearly explaining to you exactly where and how you've went wrong.

You've ignored my argument, and substituted a malicious motive in it's place. That's ****ing disgusting. But even worse than that is that I don't think you actually misunderstood anything I said, assuming a mistake on your part is me being charitable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor), but the evidence suggests that you're not simply so thick as to not understand the points I'm making, it suggests that you KNOW what I'm saying makes sense and you don't have an argument! If you did you would ask me what I mean, or challenge particular things I say. It wasn't that long ago that I wrote an entire breakdown of one of your posts and you ignored all of it save one point, which suggests you could only conceive of one counter-argument out of a baker's dozen.

It is my honest opinion that you only argue against cases you think you can salvage some ego out of attacking, while baselessly dismissing the rest as nonsense in an attempt to maintain an air of superior political knowledge, which you've demonstrably failed to substantiate on virtually every front.

Actually learning this **** takes effort, and admitting you don't know something requires humility which cedes the advantages you perceive as attached to being someone with answers. It makes perfect sense why you're doing what you're doing, I. Rex, the path of least resistance often runs counter to reality in favor of social normativity.

It's for this reason that you and I will never see eye to eye on things. You'll get emotionally swept up in children on corporate television parroting gun control talking points and read into them a meaningful source of inspiration, turn around and then accuse the NRA of being a criminal syndicate and of doing some of the most heinous things anybody could ever have on their conscience. Whereas, I'm just over here watching all three of you following what appears from your own individual perspectives to be the path of least resistance. You get an emotional high from children whinging about guns on television, the children get national attention for demonizing the NRA, and the NRA defend themselves from people like you because it's in their political and financial interest.

You're all just sheep. And yes, I will gladly insult you in this way because you insult me by ignoring my arguments and baselessly accusing me of subterfuge.

BUT, your post isn't done, so if for no other reason than to clear away the possible interpretation of this post as an Ad Hominem let's hack away at whatever vain attempts you've thrown up to defend your position:

Guns are tools for killing. Cars are tools for transportation. No dancing around those facts with verbiage.
I wasn't. The point was that those facts are 100% incontrovertibly irrelevant without respect to the consequences they imply.

Never said "exclusively", I said "specifically" as you yourself noted in my quote. So unless its your contention that killing is an incidental result of gun design
No, my contention is that killing is "incidental" to gun use. Guns are historically weapons, however well below half of these weapons actually result in peoples' deaths. So, a mass shooting, for example, constitutes a fringe unconventional use of a firearm.

Sure you can use them to open a bottle of whiskey or knock your girlfriend out but Im thinking that’s not the primary thing going through the mind of the manufacturer when they are mocking up the next assault rifle.
No, they're probably expecting people to use it for hunting, competitive sport shooting, or collecting (that is if it's not a conventional home defense weapon).

And "other purposes like self defense" you say? Again, unless by self defense you mean throwing your gun at the mugger and running then Im thinking that’s pretty much the same way of saying "guns are a WEAPON. Guns are DESIGNED to KILL".
It sure didn't sound like you were being that general.

Oh and I never said gun manufacturers are making guns more dangerous to use for the owner
No you didn't, you failed to specify, and as a result you succumbed to the car analogy a second time. You appeals to cars being improved to keeping the driver safer says nothing about the safety of the people they hit with it. The same goes for guns.

("accidental discharge" generally impacts the shooter more than anyone else) but more lethal to use AGAINST a target. Im not sure why you feel so compelled to site wikipedia in order to try to dodge that absolute fact.
I'm not sure why you think I would even have any sort of reason to dodge, the point was clearly to demonstrate that gun manufacturers, like car manufacturers, have historically installed various safety measures on their products to keep their users safe. Your point obviously isn't so absurd as to suggest that car manufacturers have made cars less lethal to be hit by, so your argument is a garbage equivocation and the analogy runs through.

Guns today are more lethal than guns from 50 years ago
What do you think the top speed on this beast was?:

https://addisabram.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/electric2.jpg

Cars have gotten faster sure but MUCH safer. The accident stats from the 30's versus the 60's versus today makes that plainly clear.
Which, again, if you were comparing apples to apples, would have to compare to gun accidents.

And Im amused that my open theorizing on the prospect of banning the AR-15 resulted in you making yet more petty irrelevant pot shots and offering pointless wiki based philosophy citations in response.
The Problem of Induction specifically describes the problem with using inductive arguments.

What part of "also" do you not understand?
I dunno, what part of "'resembles' implies the thing is not what you're likening it to" do you not understand?

I can only assume you ask this question because you want to be able to say after my response that banning one gun leaves the door open to banning any other gun, especially when other guns kill more people (although not in a high profile way like these assault rifles have been). To which my question would be then according to this logic how can we draw a line AT ALL?
That's a good question. Thing is, I'm not drawing lines.

Also, why didnt the original assault weapons ban result in an avalanche of bans or other guns as well?
Did it stop you from advocating more regulations?

No?

Then it didn't work.

Omnizoa

05-22-18, 05:41 AM

You only need look back at the most recent significant mass shooting to disprove this one.
The 19-year-old accused of killing 17 people at a Florida high school Wednesday was reportedly a member of the school’s marksmanship team, which received grants from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
So the NRA bankrolled this killer so he could become an even better shot. So much for your declarations.
This was really ****in' funny.

Omnizoa

05-22-18, 06:04 AM

The point is the NRA funded the program in which this kid was enrolled and through which he learned to become a better shot. And then he shot people with those skills. So the notion, as the poster implied, that the NRA is unconnected in any way to any shooting in the country's history is disingenuous at best.
This is the fattest load of **** I've seen outside of r/****PoliticsSays.

They didn't say "the NRA is unconnected", they said "No NRA member", and by "involved" they obviously meant perpetrating. The claim is "No NRA member has perpetrated a mass shooting", and you treating the other person as dishonest by contradicting it with "the NRA gave a grant to his school tho".

disgusting NRA propaganda
I cannot even begin to describe how much I detest the way you think.

By the way, Adam Lanza and his mother received official NRA certificates for their involvement in pro-gun action (the mother) and for both of them participating in NRA endorsed shooting events. Is that also a perfectly fine loop hole that allows the NRA to declare they are free and clear of ANY connection to Sandy Hook?
Are we seriously trying to play 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon with the NRA and mass shootings? I swore against alcohol.

Should I neuter my words despite my feelings?
YES. Your FEELINGS are secondary to FACTS.

Omnizoa

05-22-18, 06:10 AM

I realize I'm multi-posting, last thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioX1WILgK_Y

donniedarko

05-22-18, 09:25 AM

I. Rex

05-22-18, 05:18 PM

Again, why those models?

What makes them an "assault weapon"?

Many of the manufacturers themselves (theres like two dozen) call them assault rifles. They very often advertise and market them as "assault rifles". There are actual gun magazines NAMED "Assault Rifles" and "Assault Weapons". So what do the manufacturers and the gun folks know that we dont exactly? They seem to think its an actual existing category of weapon and because it sells so well they are happy to use that language in their marketing of it.

But lets reverse the question. Are you implying that all guns are the same? And that its impossible to focus on any one kind of gun over another? And that guns cant have defining characteristics? Or be put into types?

What Yoda said.

So then you are good on bans as long as there is a "set of underlying criteria" right?

The reason is patently obvious: They're popular. (https://www.nssf.org/msr/) There's just a ton of them in circulation, it would be a statistical anomaly if they weren't represented in mass shootings.

But they are represented FAR more often then they even occur statistically. So that doesn’t work. If it was just about statistics they should only show up in 3% of mass shootings (at best) based on the numbers you provided. Theres something else to it. And no, "they are popular because they are popular" isnt a very helpful response. Ive heard people talk about what they find attractive about them before. Their reputation with the military. Their shootability. Their modular design. Etc. And those are certainly all legitimate reasons for a gun buyer to choose one. But thats not enough. There is some association with them in particular that makes mass shooters want to use them especially. I still want to know what and why that is.

Kinda like how a positive number is not necessarily 3, even though a positive number can be 3. Even though it almost certainly isn't 3 because the NRA would never ever ever use the word "3" and any kind of number in the same sentence unless its to say "we need to stop any attempt to reach 3...".

Stop dancing. The concept that the NRA would never want to officially publish anything that announced it was in a support of a ban on a firearm is hardly a reach. Even if they are willing to write something off privately. They still wont actually endorse such an action. Their number one scare tactic is the "slippery slope" prospect of one ban leading to another and to another after all.

It's endlessly curiously how the totally plausible and charitable explanation of "they want everyone to be free to own a gun provided they've demonstrated the competence to carry one safely" just flits around on the periphery of your considerations.

And its interesting to me that someone who distrusts the government's motivations and competence so often seems to be implying here that the NRA is all puppies and unicorns and just wants to innocently and with absolutely no ulterior motive defend the rights of people to buy lots and lots and LOTS of guns but that has nothing to do with making money for the gun manufacturers and thereby power for themselves. Its just an incidental aspect of them doing the right thing by making it super easy for any lunatic to buy a gun, no matter how powerful, any time they feel like it. As long as they "carry it safely".

See, this is why I wouldn't trust you to interpret alphabet cereal, you start inventing "coded messages" and "dog whistles" out of thin air.

This from you. If you don’t like the word "coded" then replace it with "selected" if that helps. But if you have a hard time with this concept then Im assuming you also have a hard time with any form of advertising or marketing because its exactly the same thing. They are just choosing their publicly expressed language very carefully. Can you blame them really?

I'm imagining a vacant desolate black hellscape, in the center writhes a visceral entanglement of rusted chains, endlessly screeching back and forth over each other, sending high-pitched vibrations splitting into the void, before a distant groan echoes back across the wastes as someone appalled by the vacuous nature of your arguments struggles to comprehend why you thought that sounded even remotely intelligible.

Every word I said in that quote is absolutely accurate. Feel free to prove it otherwise. So your response of "Im just gonna say this is dumb and not address it!" doesn’t really change anything about it.

but it's patronizing to suggest that it's the NRA alone, or people brainwashed by the NRA who have any sort of reasonable objection to your policy proposals.

Where did I suggest that exactly? Pretty sure over the course of this thread Ive made it clear more than once that there are reasonable perfectly law abiding gun owners who have never and would never use their gun in a manner I would have an issue with who may have differing views on this. Shoot, I even cited a friend who was a gun owner and HOW I FULLY SUPPORTED HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE GUN. And those "policy proposals" were simply a response to Citizen's question about what are some of things I have thought about in terms of potential changes I feel might be helpful. It wasn’t some manifesto or list of laws Ive been sending to my congressman every two weeks to enact or face my wrath. Ive also made it clear that I definitely don’t have all the answers (oh look zoa! another opportunity for you to selectively quote me so you can take another meaningless cheap pot shot at me as is your normal habit!) but that I believe certain things and Im willing to let people know those things and hear their feedback on it. Of which "yer stupid!" Isnt super helpful by the way. But if it allows you feel superior knock yourself out.

I hazard to imagine how Democrats are any better.

Democrats are awesome for the NRA! Put a democrat in office and people trip over themselves to buy up all the guns they can for fear that its just a matter of time before he or she declares martial law and takes them all away and then cancels the Fourth of July and makes Christmas officially a muslim holiday. Put a republican in office and gun manufacturers teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure the dems will try to enact laws closing loopholes on background checks and trying to limit access to certain guns but how has that worked for them in the past 40 years or so?

I've taken the effort to not only deconstruct one of your arguments, but do so in so many ways that there is absolutely nothing in the way of salvaging it.

You’ve done no such thing of course. You cited a silly tired and fully disproven talking point copied and pasted so often by the same yahoos you say you want me to know you arent one of. And when I pointed all that out you tie yourself in knots trying to prove how its actually the best analogy ever and when I laugh at you about that and show you no no it isnt you (predictably) puff out your chest and go into full "HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT MY POINTLESS SPINNING AND SPUTTERING!!" mode. Well your attempt to force me to argue over something entirely pointless and largely irrelevant hasnt worked yet and wont work in this instance either. Try to bait me all you want with challenges to enter your silly bogus obfuscation zone. Im not buying it. Its all clearly a dance. And Im not interested in asking you questions about every distantly tangential wikipedia post and stupid obscure philosophy citation that has nothing to do with anything in the end. But thanks anyway. Happy to ask you questions when its entirely relevant of course. And I already have many times. But spare us your silly fake shock at me not playing your silly argument for argument's sake game, ok? The car analogy is a terrible one and we both know that. And Ive already fully shown you exactly why. But then we both know you didn’t need me to even do that. You just are now bent on taking on the challenge of proving yourself right no matter what. Truth and relevance be damned!

Actually learning this **** takes effort, and admitting you don't know something requires humility

Maybe you should follow your own advice then eh? Because you are the poster child of acting like you know everything and being condescending toward everybody else who dares threaten your desperate need to be superior at all costs. You havent spent one second of your time on this site showing any amount of humility ever. But I have, in this very thread, asked others WHY certain guns are such a top choice for mass shooters because "I DON’T KNOW". Or WHY legislation just seems to go nowhere because "I DON’T GET IT". So your move... Try showing some humility or just continue being a d bag and pretending you know everything and continue trying to intimidate others that don’t bow down to that notion in every post you make. Whacha gonna choose?

You'll get emotionally swept up in children on corporate television

Yep, sorry for letting people shooting children force emotion out of me. What a puss I am! Why cant I be indifferent and contrary just for the fun of it like you?! Why must terrible preventable things that continually happen to children cause me to generate any sort of emotion at all? And then to turn around and feel support for them when I see them on TV?? What a rube!

BUT, your post isn't done...

Ah! And I see now that you’ve had your tantrum about me not being interested in going down your pointless and completely baseless rabbit hole you’ve noticed ive actually made some replies to your silly argument after all... (what, no "Im sorry"?) Well don’t get too excited because as I noted all of your rambling on this point does not overturn the simple notions I pointed out already that cars are currently regulated more than guns. And that guns are designed to kill and cars are not. Now, dance dance DANCE little mouse! Try in vain to disprove those points with verbal web winding and micro point distractions! But, again, Im not biting. What is obviously obvious remains obvious and isnt some huge illusion bubble you have popped with your oh so superior intellect and logic gymnastics.

That's a good question. Thing is, I'm not drawing lines.

But lines have already been drawn. Legally. Constitutionally even. So why are some lines ok but not others?

Did it stop you from advocating more regulations? No? Then it didn't work.

It cant work if its not currently in place! What kind of argument is this? Were you with me before 2004 when it expired and heard me say we need more bans on top of this ban? Theres a big difference between saying that and saying "we need a ban like that again".

The claim is "No NRA member has perpetrated a mass shooting"

Do you agree with this?

Are we seriously trying to play 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon with the NRA and mass shootings?

I think you are five degrees too far in this reference actually. Again, its not about NRA members shooting up schools which is what the original poster insisted has NEVER happened, and which I hashed through with Yoda in regards to my response not being a direct counter of this statement because funding shooting clubs isnt the same as being an NRA member (you seem to love to bring up stuff as new that Yoda generally has brought up and called me on already and that we have then discussed. Not surprising I guess...). My notion is that of course the NRA bears some responsibility in our gun culture and therefore the proliferation of these horrible regular shootings. Is that a statement about NRA MEMBERS in shootings? No. Reread that post. Its already been admitted. But it IS a condemnation of the NRA itself. Absolutely.

I. Rex

05-22-18, 05:20 PM

Really reaching here Rex

Which? The not address the NRA membership thing? Noted. But everything else was within bounds. Right?

Omnizoa

05-23-18, 10:31 AM

Many of the manufacturers themselves (theres like two dozen) call them assault rifles.
Even if true, that doesn't answer the question.

what do the manufacturers and the gun folks know that we dont exactly?
If you admit you don't know what the criterion for something is, don't use it in an argument.

But lets reverse the question. Are you implying that all guns are the same?
I will buy a gun and shoot myself before I say something so ****ing ignorant.

So then you are good on bans as long as there is a "set of underlying criteria" right?
That is not what he said, he's challenging you to define the criterion so that your claims may be shown to be consistent.

But they are represented FAR more often then they even occur statistically.
In MASS SHOOTINGS, which is already a statistical outlier!

So that doesn’t work. If it was just about statistics they should only show up in 3% of mass shootings (at best) based on the numbers you provided.
If you completely eradicate the agency of the shooter and their intellectual ability to choose weapons so as to optimize the results with the amount of effort they're willing to put into it!

It's no ****ing mystery why people who want large numbers of people dead choose guns with large numbers of bullets!

And no, "they are popular because they are popular" isnt a very helpful response.
It is literally the answer to your question. AR-15s, by their design and price-point, appear in greater number because they are greater in demand.

Their shootability.
Hahahahaha.

But thats not enough. There is some association with them in particular that makes mass shooters want to use them especially. I still want to know what and why that is.
It's because they're POPULAR! OH MY GOD.

Stop dancing.
"Analogies which show my arguments are absurd is dancing."

The concept that the NRA would never want to officially publish anything that announced it was in a support of a ban on a firearm is hardly a reach.
I never suggested it was.

Their number one scare tactic is the "slippery slope" prospect of one ban leading to another and to another after all.
"'Legal precedents' are a scare tactic."

And its interesting to me that someone who distrusts the government's motivations and competence so often seems to be implying here that the NRA is all puppies and unicorns
You know, it's a ****in' effort not to knee-jerk react to your obvious partisan slander by seeing the NRA as a put-upon victim, but that's really what you're doing here. You don't need to lie about Hitler, Hitler is plenty bad enough as it is, STOP MAKING ME DEFEND HITLER.

just wants to innocently and with absolutely no ulterior motive defend the rights of people to buy lots and lots and LOTS of guns but that has nothing to do with making money for the gun manufacturers and thereby power for themselves.
Of course it is. But, because you're endlessly dishonest in a way that takes my breath away; your criticism isn't merely that the NRA advocates policies which make them money, it's that they bankroll dead children.

Its just an incidental aspect of them doing the right thing by making it super easy for any lunatic to buy a gun, no matter how powerful, any time they feel like it. As long as they "carry it safely".
Just like a knife,
just like a car,
just like literally every other ****ing thing under the ******* sun that could conceivably be used as a weapon.

By your logic, the man at OfficeMax who sells you a pen is responsible for the toddler you stab in the throat with it.

BY YOUR LOGIC. Your inability to comprehend these 3 simple words in conjunction with each other constitutes the entire gap between both sides of this debate: You are oblivious to the logical and legal precedents you are setting, and likewise your propositions are consistently reducible to absurdity. Every. Single. Time.

This from you. If you don’t like the word "coded" then replace it with "selected" if that helps.
Your choice of words is secondary to the intent. Your intent remains unchanged, and your intent is to be intellectually dishonest about your opponent's positions. It doesn't matter what language or words you use to express this intent.

But if you have a hard time with this concept then Im assuming you also have a hard time with any form of advertising or marketing because its exactly the same thing.
****ingggggg WHAT.

They are just choosing their publicly expressed language very carefully. Can you blame them really?
Not all advertisements are attempts to read malicious intent into the motives of their competitors!

Every word I said in that quote is absolutely accurate. Feel free to prove it otherwise.
"Accurate" here meaning "dripping in a obvious and deceitful use of language". I'm not going to explain why "on the dead bodies of first graders" is ****ing bull****, it's already been explained to you.

Where did I suggest that exactly?
In literally every single post you've ever made on the topic, including the one I'm responding to now.

By all means though, backpedal. BACKPEDAL HARD.

Pretty sure over the course of this thread Ive made it clear more than once that there are reasonable perfectly law abiding gun owners who have never and would never use their gun in a manner I would have an issue with who may have differing views on this. Shoot, I even cited a friend who was a gun owner and HOW I FULLY SUPPORTED HER RIGHT TO HAVE THE GUN. And those "policy proposals" were simply a response to Citizen's question about what are some of things I have thought about in terms of potential changes I feel might be helpful. It wasn’t some manifesto or list of laws Ive been sending to my congressman every two weeks to enact or face my wrath. Ive also made it clear that I definitely don’t have all the answers (oh look zoa! another opportunity for you to selectively quote me so you can take another meaningless cheap pot shot at me as is your normal habit!) but that I believe certain things and Im willing to let people know those things and hear their feedback on it. Of which "yer stupid!" Isnt super helpful by the way. But if it allows you feel superior knock yourself out.
Nowhere in this wall of text do you dispute the claim I put forward. I will repeat it:

"...it's patronizing to suggest that it's the NRA alone, or people brainwashed by the NRA who have any sort of reasonable objection to your policy proposals."

Democrats are awesome
No, they're not.

for the NRA! Put a democrat in office and people trip over themselves to buy up all the guns they can for fear that its just a matter of time before he or she declares martial law and takes them all away and then cancels the Fourth of July and makes Christmas officially a muslim holiday. Put a republican in office and gun manufacturers teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure the dems will try to enact laws closing loopholes on background checks and trying to limit access to certain guns but how has that worked for them in the past 40 years or so?
That's a good ****in' question. It's a shame you ask it without any kind of self-awareness.

I've taken the effort to not only deconstruct one of your arguments, but do so in so many ways that there is absolutely nothing in the way of salvaging it. You’ve done no such thing of course.
Not an argument.

Here's your chance to refute all of what I've said in regards to your pitiful defense of "guns are for killing tho". I fully expect you to live down to my expectations by completely missing the point, jabbering on about something wholly unrelated to the consequences I've argued are chiefly relevant to the debate, and still maintaining a smug attitude by the end of it. Go.

You cited a sillyNot an argument.

tiredNot an argument.

and fully disprovenCitation.

talking point copied and pasted so often by the same yahoos you say you want me to know you arent one of. And when I pointed all that outClaiming that an argument has been refuted is not a refutation.

you tie yourself in knotsProjection.

trying to prove how its actually the best analogy everStrawman.

and when I laugh at youBecause you have no argument.

about that and show you no no it isnt you (predictably) puff out your chest and go into full "HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT MY POINTLESS SPINNING AND SPUTTERING!!" mode.Strawman.

Well your attempt to force me to argue over something entirely pointlessLogical consistency isn't pointless.

and largely irrelevantLogical consistency isn't irrelevant.

hasnt worked yet and wont work in this instance either.No kidding. You still haven't refuted my argument from consequentialism, by the way. Just reminding you that this is where you should be doing that, but you're not doing that.

Try to bait me all you want with challenges to enter your silly bogus obfuscation zone. Im not buying it. Its all clearly a dance. And Im not interested in asking you questions about every distantly tangential wikipedia post and stupid obscure philosophy citation that has nothing to do with anything in the end. But thanks anyway. Happy to ask you questions when its entirely relevant of course.****in' amazing self-reinforcing logic there:

"If I don't understand it, it's not relevant, therefor I don't have to understand if it's relevant."

And I already have many times. But spare us your silly fake shock at me not playing your silly argument for argument's sake game, ok? The car analogy is a terrible oneYou gave exactly 2 reasons why this is the case (you numbered them):

"1. cars arent designed SPECIFICALLY to kill things like guns are."

I refuted this and you called my arguments "lawyer gobbledygook". That's not argument.

"2. If you say we should only regulate guns the same way we regulate cars"

I didn't say this, therefor your argument is irrelevant.

In total, you presented 2 arguments. One was irrelevant, the other was refuted. Your claim that "the car analogy is terrible" does not stand up to scrutiny, therefor my claims are sustained.

and we both know that.
False. You believe it, I do not.

And Ive already fully shown you exactly why.False. You've provided 2 fallacious justifications.

But then we both know you didn’t need me to even do that.False. Your propositions require justifications.

You just are now bent on taking on the challenge of proving yourself right no matter what. Truth and relevance be damned!And thus ends the wall of text that should have included a refutation of my arguments in defense of the car analogy, but does not, and in fact does exactly what I expected you to do: Miss the point, ramble off-topic, and assert intellectual superiority.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/GQnsaAWZ8ty00/giphy.gif

I am so proud of you.

Maybe you should follow your own advice then eh?
Predictable baseless retort. Back it up with something, I'm getting bored.

Because you are the poster child of acting like you know everything and being condescending toward everybody else who dares threaten your desperate need to be superior at all costs. You havent spent one second of your time on this site showing any amount of humility ever. But I have, in this very thread, asked others WHY certain guns are such a top choice for mass shooters because "I DON’T KNOW". Or WHY legislation just seems to go nowhere because "I DON’T GET IT". So your move... Try showing some humility or just continue being a d bag and pretending you know everything and continue trying to intimidate others that don’t bow down to that notion in every post you make. Whacha gonna choose?

https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/i_know_you_are_pee_wee_herman.gif

How convenient that you "have humility" when it means asking leading questions which feed your pre-established narrative.

Yep, sorry for letting people shooting children force emotion out of me. What a puss I am! Why cant I be indifferent and contrary just for the fun of it like you?!
Why can't you care about children without forfeiting your intellectual integrity? It's a ****in' problem, dude.

Why must terrible preventable things that continually happen to children cause me to generate any sort of emotion at all? And then to turn around and feel support for them when I see them on TV?? What a rube!
What a puppet of legacy media. You're trying to shame me for not being as gullible as you when a political organization shoves sad children in front of the camera.

If CNN comes out tomorrow and claims a straight white male used an AR-15 to kill ten trillion disabled transgender black toddlers, I'M STILL not going to trust them at face value. ****in' shocker. I guess I'm just a callous emotionless ******* then.

Ah! And I see now that you’ve had your tantrum about me
Which you've mostly skipped because if it didn't describe you accurately you could have argued against it.

(what, no "Im sorry"?)
No, because you don't even address my arguments.

Well don’t get too excited because as I noted all of your rambling on this point does not overturn the simple notions I pointed out already that cars are currently regulated more than guns.
Which is irrelevant.

In literally no way does this overturn a single thing I said.

And that guns are designed to kill and cars are not.
Which I refuted extensively and you had no answer for.

Now, dance dance DANCE little mouse!
After you're done evading.

Try in vain to disprove those points with verbal web winding and micro point distractions! But, again, Im not biting.
And this is why I think you're the most reprehensible person on this website; because you admit, well after the fact, that you're not even receptive to arguments in the first place.

What is obviously obvious remains obvious and isnt some huge illusion bubble you have popped with your oh so superior intellect and logic gymnastics.
You heard "mental gymnastics" somewhere and thought that sounded clever, huh?

EDIT: Ah, donniedarko just used it. Figures.

But lines have already been drawn. Legally. Constitutionally even.
I'm not the law. Or the Constitution.

So why are some lines ok but not others?
That's what Yoda and I have been asking you repeatedly.

It cant work if its not currently in place!
In other news, "Socialism has never been tried!"

Were you with me before 2004 when it expired and heard me say we need more bans on top of this ban?
You're telling me that you wouldn't legislate to stop mass shooters with revolvers and pump-action shotguns (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/21/gun-debate-santa-fe-shooting-nra-parkland-violence-school/630321002/)? I don't believe you.

Do you agree with this?
Whether I agree with the claim or not is irrelevant to the fact that you've resolutely failed to falsify it honestly.

(you seem to love to bring up stuff as new that Yoda generally has brought up and called me on already and that we have then discussed. Not surprising I guess...).
That's because Yoda is a hell of a lot more forgiving than me.

Yoda

05-23-18, 10:56 AM

Many of the manufacturers themselves (theres like two dozen) call them assault rifles. They very often advertise and market them as "assault rifles". There are actual gun magazines NAMED "Assault Rifles" and "Assault Weapons". So what do the manufacturers and the gun folks know that we dont exactly? They seem to think its an actual existing category of weapon and because it sells so well they are happy to use that language in their marketing of it.
Juicy Fruit commercials make it look like chewing their gum will instantly manifest a surf board and transform your above-ground pool into a giant punch wave flecked with anthropomorphic cherries, but I don't assume they know something important about their product that I don't. How people market a product is rarely a useful way of evaluating it in reality.

But lets reverse the question. Are you implying that all guns are the same? And that its impossible to focus on any one kind of gun over another? And that guns cant have defining characteristics? Or be put into types?
Pretty sure he's implying that the "types" and "characteristics" are largely cosmetic and incidental to the problem of shootings. If all guns were either red or blue you could group them that way, but it'd be totally silly to introduce a bill just banning blue guns for being the more popular of the two, wouldn't it?

So then you are good on bans as long as there is a "set of underlying criteria" right?
No, because of the distinction between necessary and sufficient criteria.

Being able to define a group of things that should be banned is not automatically an argument for doing so, but it is absolutely the bare minimum if you want to.

Powdered Water

05-23-18, 03:48 PM

You may have valid points Omnizoa. But the swearing and just downright mean things you say? How is that helping? Can you just talk to someone with a different view and be okay with the possibilty you may never agree? I ask you again. Why you so mad bro? Do you see any similarities between the argument you and Yoda had several months ago in the Trump thread and this conversation you're having with I Rex?

I. Rex

05-23-18, 05:45 PM

Even if true, that doesn't answer the question.

Lol! So your response is that the manufacturers who create the guns know what assault rifles are but I need to tell you what it is they clearly know. And if I dont then assault rifles don’t exist!

I will buy a gun and shoot myself before I say something so ****ing ignorant.

Just as an aside, the NRA will happily defend your right to buy that gun to shoot yourself with. So... youre welcome?

It's no ****ing mystery why people who want large numbers of people dead choose guns with large numbers of bullets!

Ah! So now we are getting somewhere. I think you have something here. Seems like good logic to focus on high capacity magazines then as well right? Could the fact that assault rifles like the AR-15 tend to do more damage to human flesh than handguns also be something that attracts killers to it for the very same reason?

It is literally the answer to your question. AR-15s, by their design and price-point, appear in greater number because they are greater in demand.

But... again... no single model is as overrepresented in mass shootings as the AR-15. Even based on the statistics YOU provided. Im not sure why you keep circling back to "but theyre popular!" when Ive already responded to that at least twice. I advise you to keep exploring this bit about their large magazine capacity and thereby giving them the ability to shoot as many people as possible. If I were a potential mass shooter that would probably get my attention. Also the fact that they are designed for a series of fast aimed shots on a battlefield (semi-auto specifically) which would be great when running through hallways trying to pick off small targets like children. And the ammunition they usually use goes MUCH faster than the ammo that is generally used in handguns which is heavier and slower (and even faster than most other common rifles). And a superfast bullet does more damage. Again, maybe something attractive to a potential killer. I don’t know. Maybe its something else. But just hazarding a guess, these particular aspects seem like they would be frighteningly compelling to someone bent on carnage of defenseless people.

Hahahahaha.

Is that a funny word for you? That’s a direct quote from a writer at Gun News Daily. But I guess he doesn’t know what he's talking about.

"'Legal precedents' are a scare tactic."

How did those legal precedents work out for the Assault Weapons ban again? Or the full auto ban for that matter?

STOP MAKING ME DEFEND HITLER.

Ha ha! That’s your choice. You are free to call me names AND still call them out for being the blood money hucksters that they are. Or whatever vice you are willing to label them with. But you don’t. That’s your call not mine.

your criticism isn't merely that the NRA advocates policies which make them money, it's that they bankroll dead children.

Nope, its that they are perfectly content with maintaining a culture that results in dead children. And to take advantage of mass shootings that result in dead children to strengthen themselves and the manufacturers they represent monetarily. All that is disgusting to me. And quite true.

Just like a knife,

just like a car,

just like literally every other ****ing thing under the ******* sun that could conceivably be used as a weapon.

When mass knifing becomes an out of control issue resulting in the regular massacre of innocent children let me know. When lunatics start buying cars so they can run over first graders in their classrooms let me know. At that point we can fuss back and forth about the evil National Car Association and which amendment gives us the right to drive whatever we want. But until then, my advice is to focus on the WEAPON that is the number one no brainer logical choice for KILLING people in mass shootings. And, as noted, Im only talking about a subset of guns. Not even all of them! So your attempt to distract from that by citing people using tooth brushes and lawn chairs to kill people is completely irrelevant and doesn’t address the issue. But as we know that’s a pattern of yours.

Your choice of words is secondary to the intent. Your intent remains unchanged, and your intent is to be intellectually dishonest about your opponent's positions.

No that’s the difference between you and I. I just wanted to point out that the NRA was full of crap when it came to the bump stock issue which you insisted showed they were willing to be accommodating to some kind of compromise on a gun issue. I wanted to point out that they absolutely have no intention of doing ANYTHING that would cause its current status to change AT ALL and I provided sources to prove that. But your intention was to use careful wording so you could then say "ah ah ah I didn’t technically san BAN" when we both know the NRA is "offering" a "regulation" procedure that’s carefully calculated to result in NO "regulation" be that banning or diminishing of any kind. So it makes my initial point. But then you didn’t comment on that fact at all. You instead choose to condemn ME for playing clever with words when YOU just did that yourself! So who exactly is being intellectually dishonest again?

Not all advertisements are attempts to read malicious intent into the motives of their competitors!

Which is not something I said. But using careful language to manipulate people into making assumptions about a product IS a fairly common aspect of advertising and marketing.

I'm not going to explain why "on the dead bodies of first graders" is ****ing bull****, it's already been explained to you.

It sure hasn’t. Show me exactly where you proved that was untrue.

In literally every single post you've ever made on the topic

Again, SHOW ME and PROVE that. Because I don’t see it. And I just provided you with evidence that its NOT in fact the case which you ignored.

Nowhere in this wall of text do you dispute the claim I put forward.

I will repeat it: "...it's patronizing to suggest that it's the NRA alone, or people brainwashed by the NRA who have any sort of reasonable objection to your policy proposals.

What are you talking about? I specifically addressed that claim. How are you unable to see that in what i said exactly? Or are you saying I see "reasonable perfectly law abiding gun owners" who I acknowledge might have "differing views on this" AND my own friend WHOM I SUPPORT as either "the NRA" or "people brainwashed by the NRA" and yet Im being patronizing to them by SUPPORTING THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS to own a gun? Explain to me how that works exactly.

That's a good ****in' question. It's a shame you ask it without any kind of self-awareness.

It’s a shame you make no attempt to answer it. But I guess understandable...

Here's your chance to refute all of what I've said in regards to your pitiful defense of "guns are for killing tho".

Thank you for doing EXACTLY what I said you would in my last post. You play right into predictions so easily. But sorry theres no amount of dancing and huffing and puffing and chest thumping and demanding you can do to prove that guns are no more a "weapon" than a car is (or a lawn chair or a balled point pen...). Or that cars were designed with killing force in mind. I mean its so elementary! And you look so ridiculous trying to spin and bob and weave and make it look otherwise. And ALL of that nonsense is undermined all the more by the fact that we currently regulate vehicles EVEN MORE than we do guns!

By the way you are repeating your memes and your standard commentary. In every way you have become more and more predictable.

Why can't you care about children without forfeiting your intellectual integrity?

I can. Why cant you care about children even if they say things you disagree with?

What a puppet of legacy media. You're trying to shame me for not being as gullible as you when a political organization shoves sad children in front of the camera.

Oh what was that about ME being patronizing? Are you suggesting it’s ONLY the media alone or those "brainwashed" by the media "who have any sort of reasonable objection to your policy proposals" :D

If CNN comes out tomorrow and claims a straight white male used an AR-15 to kill ten trillion disabled transgender black toddlers, I'M STILL not going to trust them at face value. ****in' shocker. I guess I'm just a callous emotionless ******* then.

Well you are definitely that, irrelevant of this whole discussion. That’s been well established since your favorite hobby is to try to pick fights with people anonymously on the internet over anything that fancies you. But that aside, CNN doesn’t make me believe these kids were any more effected by a shooting than any other news organization. And they could appear on Pawn Stars for all I care and talk about what happened to them and I would still feel enormous empathy for them. But your constant mumbling obsession and fixation with how "legacy media" has the ability to somehow magically alter the very things we see and words we hear is an endless source of amusement. But I can see why you cling to it since it allows you to call any citation that counters anything you say as bogus even when its just straight simple indisputable facts.

And this is why I think you're the most reprehensible person on this website

I cant tell you how delighted I am that you feel that way because it means your attempts at forcing me to acquiesce to your insistence that everyone bow down to your apparent superiority or else, have continued to be a failure one after the other. Sorry slick, you cant get your way all the time. :D

I'm not the law. Or the Constitution.

Is this your way of saying there shouldn’t be any lines at all and so therefore you don’t have to answer the question?

That's what Yoda and I have been asking you repeatedly.

No that’s what Ive been asking YOU. Ive already made it clear what I consider over the line. Why keep avoiding telling me where you think lines could be drawn reasonably? Or do you think no regulation whatsoever is the answer?

In other news, "Socialism has never been tried!"

More dodging of the obvious point.

You're telling me that you wouldn't legislate to stop mass shooters with revolvers and pump-action shotguns (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)? I don't believe you.

If you think I have been advocating for banning all revolvers and shot guns then you havent been paying attention to what Ive said in this thread. Which seems to be a recurring theme with you.

Whether I agree with the claim or not is irrelevant to the fact that you've resolutely failed to falsify it honestly.

Yet another dodge. Ive already (several times) acknowledged that funding shooter clubs does not = being an NRA member. But you wont answer the question I asked. Why exactly?

That's because Yoda is a hell of a lot more forgiving than me.

Eh I think the important difference is hes a lot less insecure and doesn’t resort to hostility and intimidation tactics as a means of "discussion". Plus he doesn’t dance nearly as much. Not that I'm saying youre a bad dancer Yoda. Just I've never had the pleasure.

I. Rex

05-23-18, 05:47 PM

Juicy Fruit commercials make it look like chewing their gum will instantly manifest a surf board and transform your above-ground pool into a giant punch wave flecked with anthropomorphic cherries, but I don't assume they know something important about their product that I don't. How people market a product is rarely a useful way of evaluating it in reality.

So are you saying the manufacturers don’t believe that "assault rifles" are an actual definable thing? They just use the terminology for convenience alone? Its seems a bit duplicitous if true. They can define these guns as something for certain things but adamantly refuse to acknowledge they are that same thing in other contexts.

Pretty sure he's implying that the "types" and "characteristics" are largely cosmetic and incidental to the problem of shootings.

Do you (or he) really believe that though? That the type of gun and the guns characteristics are "incidental" to their tendency to be used in mass shootings? I find that hard to swallow.

Being able to define a group of things that should be banned is not automatically an argument for doing so, but it is absolutely the bare minimum if you want to.

All right fair enough. Definitions exist so this is certainly possible then. And I would suggest that if they "should be banned" then we don’t need any further argument for doing so. But maybe you meant that I FEEL should be banned based on evidence that i have. Which is also fine.

Powdered Water

05-23-18, 05:54 PM

I bet there's video of Yoda dancing at his wedding. I bet he can even carry a tune.

Yoda

06-22-18, 10:47 AM

Oops, forgot to respond to this:

So are you saying the manufacturers don’t believe that "assault rifles" are an actual definable thing? They just use the terminology for convenience alone? Its seems a bit duplicitous if true. They can define these guns as something for certain things but adamantly refuse to acknowledge they are that same thing in other contexts.
I'm saying they're not assault rifles.

If you're asking me to guess why someone might market them that way, I'd say it's probably just to make them seem cooler, which is obviously lame and crappy because guns are a powerful responsibility. That said, I'd kinda like to see a link on this, to make sure this isn't some case where one guy with a shop makes a flyer and it gets passed around and becomes a prop in a national debate.

But yeah, people selling things can be kinda duplicitous about making those things sound different from their reality. The fact that there's more than one World's Best Coffee sign tells us as much.

Do you (or he) really believe that though? That the type of gun and the guns characteristics are "incidental" to their tendency to be used in mass shootings? I find that hard to swallow.
I said they were incidental to the problem of shootings. Which is to say, they don't make shootings easier or more likely, because they're not any more effective in that regard. It's entirely possible that they get used more often because they look cool, or look like the gun that was used before, or something else. My money's on it being a boring old economy of scale, though, where the most popular models of anything get produced more (and more efficiently), which in turn helps to make them more popular.

All right fair enough. Definitions exist so this is certainly possible then.
It is, but the problem here is that once someone educates themselves on basic gun functionality and terminology, they inevitably see the problem: that there's no way to ban these so-called "assault rifles" (or "assault-style rifles," for people who've been dinged for using the phrase incorrectly but otherwise don't want to alter their argument) without banning ordinary handguns.

So, we either get a largely ineffectual cosmetic restriction, or we get legislation that really does want to "take your guns away."

Yoda

06-22-18, 01:35 PM

I bet there's video of Yoda dancing at his wedding. I bet he can even carry a tune.
I'm not sure if there's video. I'm also not sure it really qualified as "dancing."

I definitely cannot carry a tune.

I. Rex

06-23-18, 03:36 PM

I'm saying they're not assault rifles.

While I think its pretty ridiculous that a well known widely accepted category of weapons that is acknowledged in name by the manufacturers, by the sellers, by the military and by scores of gun experts and which is cited as such in dozens of books on guns, doesn’t exist technically because "a gun is a gun", Im willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the slippery slope argument you are making. But if that’s the case, then by the logic of that argument we cant have ANY restrictions on ANY type of weapon. Right? Because a gun is a gun is a gun. Do you agree with that?

I said they were incidental to the problem of shootings. Which is to say, they don't make shootings easier or more likely, because they're not any more effective in that regard.

You don’t think a weapon that’s by design better at killing while mobile, easier to control and aim and that delivers ammunition in a way that’s more damaging then most guns isnt more effective at killing? And therefore likely more attractive to a potential mass shooter whose primary focus is to maximize their kill count? And I certainly also buy the concept that "cool" looking weapons are popular with these nuts but I don’t think that’s the only thing that runs through their head when selecting which ones to use.

So, we either get a largely ineffectual cosmetic restriction, or we get legislation that really does want to "take your guns away."

Again, the answer cant possibly be just "all or nothing" because we already have "something" built into our laws AND our Constitution. So why cant we simply adjust that "something" if we have been ok with "something" since at least the 30's? Unless of course you are actually for full out anything goes. But if you arent, if you are ok with banning fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers and bazookas etc., than how can you rule out one more weapon distinction based on the fact that it could lead to a ban of ALL guns?

But let me step back here. You guys have been peppering me with MY concepts of what would be the best course of action to deal with mass shootings. How about you guys give me YOUR take on what could/should be done exactly that you think could help the situation in this country. You can limit your focus to JUST mass shootings if you wish since that was kind of what weve been focusing on here or you can tell me what it is you think should change with the current status quo in regards to the overall much larger issue of gun deaths in America. Is your response "nothing at all. Everything is fine" or do you envision certain actions that can be taken that seem reasonable to you?

Yoda

06-23-18, 04:05 PM

While I think its pretty ridiculous that a well known widely accepted category of weapons that is acknowledged in name by the manufacturers, by the sellers, by the military and by scores of gun experts and which is cited as such in dozens of books on guns, doesn’t exist technically
That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying assault rifles (meaning automatic weapons) are already illegal, not that they don't exist.

Im willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the slippery slope argument you are making. But if that’s the case, then by the logic of that argument we cant have ANY restrictions on ANY type of weapon. Right? Because a gun is a gun is a gun. Do you agree with that?
I do not. Some guns fire continuously, like machine guns. Those are meaningfully different and, appropriately, already illegal.

You don’t think a weapon that’s by design better at killing while mobile, easier to control and aim and that delivers ammunition in a way that’s more damaging then most guns isnt more effective at killing?
When did we establish that the AR-15 is "better at killing while mobile" or "easier to control and aim" and "delivers ammunition in a way that's more damaging than most guns"?

The AR-15 is a semiautomatic. That means you pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out, the same as in a plain old glock. A glock, for reference, is more or less exactly what probably pops into your head when you hear the word "handgun."

Again, the answer cant possibly be just "all or nothing" because we already have "something" built into our laws AND our Constitution. So why cant we simply adjust that "something" if we have been ok with "something" since at least the 30's? Unless of course you are actually for full out anything goes. But if you arent, if you are ok with banning fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers and bazookas etc., than how can you rule out one more weapon distinction based on the fact that it could lead to a ban of ALL guns?
Because nobody, despite decades of political activism, has provided an effective definition that doesn't do that.

But let me step back here. You guys have been peppering me with MY concepts of what would be the best course of action to deal with mass shootings.
I don't think I have. I'm simply saying you should probably have a basic understanding of the thing you want to restrict.

How about you guys give me YOUR take on what could/should be done exactly that you think could help the situation in this country. You can limit your focus to JUST mass shootings if you wish since that was kind of what weve been focusing on here or you can tell me what it is you think should change with the current status quo in regards to the overall much larger issue of gun deaths in America. Is your response "nothing at all. Everything is fine" or do you envision certain actions that can be taken that seem reasonable to you?
I do have a few actions that seem reasonable to me, but they're more focused on people and improved enforcement of existing laws than restricting guns themselves. And I categorically reject the unstated assumption that, when we have a problem, the solution must be a legal one.

That said, I noted earlier in this thread that overall gun violence is down, which just kinda got skipped over:

They already have (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/). Gun homicides are at something like a 20-year low. How many people--particularly people advocating new gun laws--know that?