Have you got a gun/would you kill someone?

Tools    





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.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I agree Camo. Really frightening that she was so matter of fact. Poor love was probably in shock but never the less.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I thought this thread deserved a bump in view of recent gun news. Can't believe it all went quiet to be honest.



No to guns hate them I'm glad I live in a country that owning of guns is considered a no no
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



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?

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

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
"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...".

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

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

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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, 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:

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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).

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
("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.

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



Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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?

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



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.



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".

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

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

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



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.
Really reaching here Rex


Like this is some Olympic level mental gymnastics
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



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. 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.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



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

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

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

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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!

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
Their shootability.
Hahahahaha.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
Stop dancing.
"Analogies which show my arguments are absurd is dancing."

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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."

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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!

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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."

Originally Posted by I. Rex
Democrats are awesome
No, they're not.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
Originally Posted by Omnizoa
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 silly
Not an argument.

tired
Not an argument.

and fully disproven
Citation.

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
Claiming that an argument has been refuted is not a refutation.

you tie yourself in knots
Projection.

trying to prove how its actually the best analogy ever
Strawman.

and when I laugh at you
Because 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 pointless
Logical consistency isn't pointless.

and largely irrelevant
Logical 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 one
You 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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.



I am so proud of you.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
Maybe you should follow your own advice then eh?
Predictable baseless retort. Back it up with something, I'm getting bored.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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?


How convenient that you "have humility" when it means asking leading questions which feed your pre-established narrative.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
(what, no "Im sorry"?)
No, because you don't even address my arguments.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
And that guns are designed to kill and cars are not.
Which I refuted extensively and you had no answer for.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
Now, dance dance DANCE little mouse!
After you're done evading.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
But lines have already been drawn. Legally. Constitutionally even.
I'm not the law. Or the Constitution.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
So why are some lines ok but not others?
That's what Yoda and I have been asking you repeatedly.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
It cant work if its not currently in place!
In other news, "Socialism has never been tried!"

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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? I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
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.

Originally Posted by I. Rex
(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.



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.



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?
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



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"

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.

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? 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.



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.



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."



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'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?