:rolleyes:
No, but a open season on deer is still a open season. :rolleyes:
And can I guess where you are going with this? Unless the gun control law completely and totally bans the possession of every gun to everyone it’s not a “gun ban”. Right? :rolleyes: Thereby there has never been or will be a gun ban"?
and lets not hijack this with your odd definition of “gun ban” since even the people who wrote the dammed law say you are wrong.
Yes, it’s tautalogically an open season on deer. I don’t see how leaving off the specifier improves accuracy or clarity, and whatever improvement it offers in linguistic efficiency seems hardly worth the effort.
Well, that would strike me as a clearer use of the term.
“Gun ban” = all guns are forbidden.
“Assault weapon ban” = guns of that specific type are forbidden.
“Semiautomatic gun ban” = ditto.
“Gun restrictions” = guns might be available subject to bans of some types and limitations on acquisition, use, etc.
“Gun regulation” = as above, but perhaps less onerous.
If you want to stick with “gun ban” to cover all five of these situations (and any other possible variant that isn’t full and free availability with no regulation whatsoever where anybody can make and/or sell a gun to anybody at any time anywhere in the U.S.), nobody will stop you, but it’s a self-inflicted limitation on your vocabulary and I can see why it would constantly derail the discussion. Your eyeroll button would get all worn out. Won’t somebody please think of the poor overworked eyeroll buttons?
I’m surprised we’re still posting here after we were banned from this board.
Sure, technically it was HurricaneDitka who was banned. But according to your logic, that means everyone was banned.
I’m not going there. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. A ban on firearms is a ban on firearms. I didn’t think I would have to put so much effort into explaining something that simple.
My point throughout this thread has been that the NRA and its supporters have been making up imaginary threats about guns being banned. And here you are doing it. Thanks for the help I guess.
I thought the answer was pretty clear but in case you didn’t understand.
By “ban on firearms” I mean any ban on firearms.
Your question was stupid.
I find the SBR regulations to be restrictive, I don’t think it’s a ban on firearms.
So can you address the point I made or are you just here for the popcorn?
Why does that surprise you? There’s even some black members of the NRA Board of Directors.
But generally the NRA is very white and male.
It is about 40% female.
It’s about 40% minority
It’s about 23% Democrat
But there is a reason why minority gun groups have sprung up (and their membership has surged since Trump got elected).
So applying Little Nemo logic, the Alabama Human Life Protection Act isn’t a ban on Alabama women having abortions since that law doesn’t prohibit Alabama women from having an abortion in non-Alabama states/countries. I’ll alert the Planned Parenthood.
So applying Little Nemo logic, Prohibition wasn’t a ban on alcohol as industrial alcohol was still allowed as was medicinal.
The 55 national speed limit wasnt a ban on going over 55 as police and fire engines could still exceed 55, and so could cars at race tracks. And so forth.
You are putting words in his mouth. This makes your arguments look weak.
What is that even supposed to mean?
No, that’s a stupid argument.
Let’s say I eat beef but not chicken or any other kind of meat. Can it fairly be said that i eat meat? Do I have to eat all meat before you can say i eat meat? You are polaying a semantic game.
Noone is actually confused about what is being said.
The NRA doesn’t do what you said it does.
When the NRA talks about gun bans, all the gun nerds like me know full well exactly what they’re talking about.
ISTM that so far gun control people on this site have been wrong about
the gun industry being the “real money” behind the NRA
pretty much everything ever said by the gun control crowd about the assault weapons ban
what an automatic weapon is
how much regulation of guns already exists
the effect of widespread gun ownership on suicide
who commits most of the crimes with guns
In general, do you think the gun control side of the debate or the gun rights side of the debate has been more accurate about the facts?
Sorry, guys. I’m going to have to give you both an F in Little Nemo Logic. Maybe you can take some remedial courses over the summer and try again next year. Here, let me help.
The Alabama law would prohibit all abortions in Alabama. So, yes, that’s a ban on abortions. Now if the law only said that women couldn’t get an abortion in the third trimester, it would be a restriction on abortions but not a ban on abortions. Because some abortions would still be legal.
See, guys? It’s not that hard. You just to understand the difference between a restriction and a ban.
Now try it yourself with the alcohol and speed limit examples. I think you can do it.
If a ban on assault weapons can be said to ban firearms which aren’t assault weapons, like say handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles, then why can’t it be said to ban other things which aren’t assault weapons like automobiles, computers, or toasters? If you’re going to say a law bans things which it doesn’t ban, where do you draw the line?
Let me break it down for you.
Is a handgun (to give one example) a firearm? Yes or no?
Would a ban on purchasing or owning assault weapons apply to handguns? Yes or no?
(And no cheating. You’re not allowed to use an imaginary law. If you claim an assault weapon law would ban handguns, you have to provide an example of such a law. Or at least a bill that was submitted.)
So if the laws still allow you to purchase and own handguns, are you allowed to purchase and own firearms? Yes or no?
And if you are allowed to purchase and own firearms, is the sale and ownership of firearms banned? Yes or no? (I’ll give you a freebie on this one. The answer is no.)
No, it isn’t, it’s a logical consequence of failing to appreciate nuance as happens when a call for gun regulation is described as a call to ban guns.
No, you’re trying to flip it around, saying that someone who eats beef but not chicken or other meats doesn’t eat meat because they don’t eat particular varieties of meat, analogous to saying that someone who might want to ban certain types of guns wants to ban guns, period. It’s not our fault you’re trying to bury the relevant distinctions for your own purposes.
There certainly are people who do want to ban guns, i.e. ban the sale and possession of all firearms. It doesn’t support your position if you insist in viewing all calls for regulation as equivalent to this particular view. Frankly, I’m a little surprised at your insistence on this position and refusal to recognize the problem with it, but we’re living in an alternative facts world, now.
Oh, I know what you’re saying; it’s a rather cheap rhetorical device meant to get an emotional response, i.e. any call for regulation is exactly the same as government agents smashing their way into your house to confiscate your guns. I’m not even slightly confused by that, and I doubt anyone is.
So this is all semantics. NOONE is confused about what is being said, including you. If you ban guns then you are banning guns even if you are not banning all guns.
If I banned books by gay authors. I am banning books even if I am not banning all books.
You are engaging in semantics. Everyone understood that the OP meant a total ban in his first post. Perhaps it is confusing for the gun control crowd because of they are low information debaters on this topic but pretty much none of the gun rights side is confused. Noone is riled up because they think that an assault weapons ban is a complete ban on firearms, they are riled up because assault weapons bans are stupid, unnecessary and do not meaningfully improve safety in our communities. They are basically a feel good measure to placate low information gun control voters who think they have achieved something by banning cosmetic features on a gun.
And not ALL proposed regulations are gun bans, only the ones that actually ban guns.
You know, somebody once said *"I don’t feel the main agenda of the NRA is to oppose actual gun control laws. It’s main agenda is to create a fear of hypothetical gun control laws. They’re presenting themselves as the solution to a problem that only exists in people’s minds because they created it.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton never actually said they wanted gun confiscation. So if we didn’t have the NRA going around claiming that they wanted gun confiscation, the subject would never have come up. The single issue voters you spoke of wouldn’t have had the issue."*
That person was me. In this thread. And I’m feeling vindicated by history as you attempt to do the very thing I described.
You’re taking a ban on one type of gun and calling it a ban on guns. Why? Because “a ban on guns” sounds scarier than “a ban on assault weapons”. So you’re part of a movement to scare people by talking about a law that doesn’t exist.
No-By “ban on firearms” you mean “ban on any firearms”, and my question is necessary because clarification is really necessary in conversations of this sort. Using your self-serving definition a ban on dangerously defective firearms is a “ban on firearms”, as is a ban on selling firearms to people serving time in prison.
If you are not banning all guns, then it is more accurate to say:
you are banning some guns
versus
you are banning guns.
Do you really see these statements as equivalent:
(2) is only applicable if the implied “some” between “banning” and “books” is strongly implicit. I don’t see what you gain by determinedly leaving it out.
If semantics meant “useful precision”, you’d be right, but it doesn’t so you’re not. This isn’t some petty nitpick, and since you reference the OP, let me quote the relevant sentence in full:
He seems to think, and was rapidly and repeatedly corrected on this point, that other countries ban the private ownership of guns. This is in fact very rare, and even in the liberal democracies (i.e. places where “liberal politicians” have influence, as opposed to flat-out dictatorships), guns are tightly regulated and licensed but not universally banned. If you want to correct someone’s confusion on the issue, start with him.
You’re right to challenge bans on “assault weapons” for the simple reason that it’s a meaningless arbitrary category of questionable relevance to crime prevention. The rest of your minirant about “low information debaters” is strawmanning and silly.
If it’s not a total ban on guns, then you should include a “some” in this sentence. Normally, it wouldn’t matter, but this whole thread was stated by a “low information debater” who thinks total gun bans exist in other liberal democracies, so obviously accuracy should matter in the responses. If the thread had been started by a “low information debater” on the other side of the spectrum, i.e. someone who states as fact that every single American walks around wearing a holster and is looking for an excuse to draw and start shooting, that would be worth correcting, too.
Yes, it’s an open season… on deer. If it was absolutely clear that we were having a discussion of deer hunting, then we could forego this specific detail because the context would consistently imply it. But then someone jumps into the conversation with “Open season is just like The Purge!”, and now we have to make clear that we just mean deer. If that person keeps invoking the Purge, then I guess we can make a few good-faith efforts to clarify, but after a while it’s clearly a waste of time.
I’m just fine with you saying it’s a gun ban (assuming the gun control law in question actually does involve banning at least one gun), as long is it’s clear that you understand that it’s not a total gun ban and you’re not trying to imply there is no difference between the two.
This may seem picky, I cheerfully acknowledge, but the NRA’s message is consistently one of irrational fear and anger, and recognizing nuance is like kryptonite to such emotions. I’ve got a few more good-faith efforts to make before I figure this is a waste of my time.
Could you please stop your semantic hijack so we can actually discuss the OP?