[QUOTE=ExTank]
ETA: It is not a defense; it is a statement of fact, made to correct an incorrect statement.
What point do you think is being made, what truth is being served, when incorrect statements are presented as fact?
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me to be an arbitrary and useless determination, kind of like saying a roman candle that blinded a kid is different than a bottle rocket that did the same thing.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
Here it is again. What point do you think you are making with this defense?
[/QUOTE]
Which scares people more: an M-16 with full-automatic capability, or an AR-15 without that capability?
At a glance you can’t tell the difference, but one is not like the other. By conflating the two you play on the ignorance of people that don’t know the difference, causing them to support things like the AWB of 1994, where the weapons banned were different only in appearance from common hunting rifles.
Look, I admit that I am partial to guns, being a gun owner and a vocal self-defense advocate. But what really bothered me about the AWB of 1994 was not that the weapons were controlled. It wasn’t magazine capacity limits. Both of those were superficial at best and easily adapted to. No, what bothered me was the demonization of certain weapons which had only one thing in common: people couldn’t tell the difference between the banned weapons and their already insanely controlled lookalikes, and people like the Brady Campaign played on that with an emotionally driven campaign that made no attempt to make the distinction.
All I ask is that you be honest. I attempt to be honest to a fault, could you please do me that same courtesy?
[QUOTE=The Controvert]
Actually, I would welcome this. Because then the parents could call the cops and they would arrest the nutjob and confiscate the weaponry before innocent people are harmed.
[/QUOTE]
Your position is a crock. As to the parents, parents do not allow their kids to become teenage gunmen. Their kids do it in spite of them. You think you’re suddenly going to resolve a few millenia’s worth of children doing things behind their parents back by passing some law? Laughable.
As for the kids, kids who become teenage gunmen are at the point where they don’t care about the consequences for others. They, like, kill them, you know? And put their parents through absolute hell already. Oh, but now under your scheme they’re not going to do it because although they’re happy to kill random innocents and themselves and make their parents pariahs, they wouldn’t want to make their parents (how many unhappy teens don’t hate their parents?) into criminals? What a joke.
You say this latest guy cared for his family. Sure he did. He had a funny way of showing it.
Next time I’m speeding towards a brick wall with no steering I’m not going to touch the brakes because they’re not going to bring me to a complete halt before I hit.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Which scares people more: an M-16 with full-automatic capability, or an AR-15 without that capability?
At a glance you can’t tell the difference, but one is not like the other. By conflating the two you play on the ignorance of people that don’t know the difference, causing them to support things like the AWB of 1994, where the weapons banned were different only in appearance from common hunting rifles.
Look, I admit that I am partial to guns, being a gun owner and a vocal self-defense advocate. But what really bothered me about the AWB of 1994 was not that the weapons were controlled. It wasn’t magazine capacity limits. Both of those were superficial at best and easily adapted to. No, what bothered me was the demonization of certain weapons which had only one thing in common: people couldn’t tell the difference between the banned weapons and their already insanely controlled lookalikes, and people like the Brady Campaign played on that with an emotionally driven campaign that made no attempt to make the distinction.
All I ask is that you be honest. I attempt to be honest to a fault, could you please do me that same courtesy?
[/QUOTE]
About what am I being dishonest?
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
About what am I being dishonest?
[/QUOTE]
Your dismissive stance about an important distinction. Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Your dismissive stance about an important distinction. Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
[/QUOTE]
What lie did I tell?
Simple question. Why is it so hard to answer?
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
What lie did I tell?
Simple question. Why is it so hard to answer?
[/QUOTE]
We’re making the point that there is a difference between a milspec weapon, which has been used in exactly two crimes since 1934, and a semi-automatic lookalike that has more in common with a hunting rifle than the weapon it resembles.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
We’re making the point that there is a difference between a milspec weapon, which has been used in exactly two crimes since 1934, and a semi-automatic lookalike that has more in common with a hunting rifle than the weapon it resembles.
[/QUOTE]
OK, fine. You got nothing.
A rifle that can fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds is more like a hunting rifle than a military weapon. You stick with that belief. Good for you. Feel free to join the real world anytime.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
OK, fine. You got nothing.
A rifle that can fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds is more like a hunting rifle than a military weapon. You stick with that belief. Good for you. Feel free to join the real world anytime.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, it’s a fact that you either cannot or will not recognize. So we’ll keep calling you on your misinformation as long as you maintain your obstinate refusal to understand.
I live in the real world. That world can’t be changed by wishing something away, or by asserting something that is blatantly false.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
It seems to me to be an arbitrary and useless determination, kind of like saying a roman candle that blinded a kid is different than a bottle rocket that did the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
Fair 'nuf. In this regard, you are correct that for all practical purposes, dead is dead; whether from a revolver, a semi-auto, or an Uzi, the bullet that kills doesn’t care.
But when crafting legislation to curtail ownership, or restrict transcations of certain types of firearms, would it not be wiser to perhaps target the types most frequently used in violent crime? To concentrate law enforcement efforts at specific areas, segmewnts of society, most involved in violent crime, and the trafficking of the “tools of the trade?”
These distinctions are important, unless you simply want to ban as many weapons as possible as some sort of precursor to eventually enacting total bans.
As has been pointed out, 10 of millions of firearms of all types are already in circulation in this country, and are never used in a violent crime; to what end, what purpose, does blithely, ignorantly mislabeling entire categories of firearms serve?
On the other hand, there are dozens of different tools in my tool chest; why distinguish between open-end wrenches and box-end wrenches? Phillips and flat-head screwdrivers? What purpose is served with such artificial, meaningless distinctions?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Like I said, it’s a fact that you either cannot or will not recognize. So we’ll keep calling you on your misinformation as long as you maintain your obstinate refusal to understand.
I live in the real world. That world can’t be changed by wishing something away, or by asserting something that is blatantly false.
[/QUOTE]
I accept your assertion. My assertion is that hunting is a sport in the 21st century in the U.S., not a lifestyle. You don’t need a rifle that will fire 30 rounds in a minute to feed your family, noone does. You can insist all you want that a semi-automatic rifle is a hunting weapon, and most of the world will disagree with you. I wish nothing in regards to this discussion, other that to disabuse you of the notion that your views are mainstream.
As I understand it the distinction **Lamar ** is seeking to draw is between weapons that are most suited for hunting and those that are most suited for stopping a large number of large targets (humans, say) in a short period of time.
I’m assuming that no one is arguing that people normally fire much more than handful of shots (probably less) at a game animal in a short period of time.
That being so, and assuming that I’ve got **Lamer’s ** position stated correctly, I’m having a bit of difficulty not seeing the distinction he’s drawing.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
As I understand it the distinction **Lamar ** is seeking to draw is between weapons that are most suited for hunting and those that are most suited for stopping a large number of large targets (humans, say) in a short period of time.
I’m assuming that no one is arguing that people normally fire much more than handful of shots (probably less) at a game animal in a short period of time.
That being so, and assuming that I’ve got **Lamer’s ** position stated correctly, I’m having a bit of difficulty not seeing the distinction he’s drawing.
[/QUOTE]
Despite having the “Lamer” argument, the point is, why does a regular citizen need or even want a weapon like this? If as you say it is not needed by a hunter, what benefit to society does a weapon like this bring? And if none, what is the problem with removing it if it will bring a reduction in innocent deaths?
Apologies re your name. Otherwise we appear to be in furious agreement.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
Despite having the “Lamer” argument, the point is, why does a regular citizen need or even want a weapon like this? If as you say it is not needed by a hunter, what benefit to society does a weapon like this bring? And if none, what is the problem with removing it if it will bring a reduction in innocent deaths?
[/QUOTE]
Want? Because it’s fun. Firing different kinds of weapons is quite enjoyable.
Need? Why does anybody need anything? I need it as much as you need whatever it is that interests you, and I don’t have to justify that any more than you have to justify buying something that you don’t “need” but want.
Benefit? The same benefit that anything else has for me: self-gratification. What benefit does your car have to society? We wouldn’t even miss your tax contribution, but we certainly notice your pollution. What benefit does a 57-inch HD plasma television bring to society? The 19-inch CRT is just as good.
Remove it from society. It won’t make any difference, not one little bit. I think you know that. You have to know that. So, what were we talking about again?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Remove it from society. It won’t make any difference, not one little bit. I think you know that. You have to know that. So, what were we talking about again?
[/QUOTE]
NO.
Removal of a large number of weapons would disturb a small number of Americans and make the country a lot safer. You can’t possibly believe that removing a huge ammount of weapons from society wouldn’t have an impact on violence, could you?
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
If you deny them guns, they’ll just make bombs or poison or something.
[/QUOTE]
It’s hard for me to imagine an alienated 19-year-old in the U.S. using a bomb or poisoning to “get back” at the people he so resents. Bombs are used by the politically disaffected, and poisoning is used by ex-KGB operatives.
These alienated people use guns because guns are sexy–at least, the culture makes them sexy, through video games and action films: the things that teenagers are bombarded with.
I have no research to back this up, but my suspicion is that it’s a question of male impotence, and in particular, teenage (or long-repressed teenage) male sexual angst. Notice how rarely a female goes on a gun toting rampage. Firearms give the sexually inadequate male a sense of otherwise (self-perceived) absent power. This guy was just rejected by his girlfriend and fired at his job.
Unlike gangbangers (who aren’t normally experiencing this kind of psychological meltdown), they don’t typically have any experience with screwed-up drive bys–it’s all a video game, until they see all the blood, and then they kill themselves when they see that it really isn’t a video game.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
As I understand it the distinction **Lamar ** is seeking to draw is between weapons that are most suited for hunting and those that are most suited for stopping a large number of large targets (humans, say) in a short period of time.
I’m assuming that no one is arguing that people normally fire much more than handful of shots (probably less) at a game animal in a short period of time.
That being so, and assuming that I’ve got **Lamer’s ** position stated correctly, I’m having a bit of difficulty not seeing the distinction he’s drawing.
[/QUOTE]
The distinction is so-called “good guns” (or, “okay-at-best-guns”) and “bad guns.”
The weapon the mall shooter used is used in a vanishingly small percentage of violent crimes. As has been pointed out up-thread (yet again), it is the horrific nature of these types of shooting that shine an incessant media spotlight on the dark recesses of our minds, and imprint, through blaring repitition, the idea that hordes of killers are lurking “NEAR YOU THIS VERY MOMENT!” armed with weapons that look, to the untrained eye, exactly like military-grade weapons, and were purchased without so much as a second glance from a shifty hayseed at a Gun Show ™ in Ardmore, Oklahoma two nights ago.
The numbers of innocent deaths aren’t going to be moved by much more than a fraction of a percent by banning scary guns with higher magazine capacities; the guns are already here, and without sweeping door-to-door searches-and-siezures, they aren’t going away.
The people who want to kill other people (for money, fame, or spite) aren’t going to give a shit what the law says, or how many of those “scary, bad guns” were confiscated.
Why do I need it?
Why do you need free speech? Freedom of Religion? Freedom from religion? The right to a fair trial?
I need it because too many self-righteous pricks in this country think they know how everyone else should live. What they should wear. How they should think. How much they should pay in taxes, and what should happen to them if they don’t follow the Party Line. Whether people should live as victims in their own homes while waiting for the police to arrive when some asshole starts kicking in your door at 3:00 AM. Whether people should do as they are told, when they are told, or whether they are free to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
I need it for when the thieving asshole and his three buddies decides they deserves my stuff (and a little fun-time bouncy-bounce with the missus in the bargain) and come kicking in my door at 3:00 AM in the morning.
I need it because too many ignorant fucktards want to draw an arbitrary line between “good guns” and “bad guns,” and by buying these “bad guns,” and defending other’s right to do so, I am defying such meaningless distinctions in the society that I live in.
I need it because a certain segment of society wants to draw distinctions between “good guns” and “bad guns,” and then confiscate and destroy all the “bad guns.” And then, after all the “bad guns” are gone, again draw an imaginary line between “good guns” and “bad guns” from the remaining pool of firearms, and again confiscate and destroy all the “bad guns.” Rinse and repeat three or four times, and you get the gun-free society they desire.
I need it because too many well-meaning-but-otherwise-clueless do-gooders are unwilling or unable to draw a distinction between normal, everyday people like me, a law-abiding, tax-paying, responsible gun-owner, and nut-jobs like the mall-shooter in Nebraska.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
NO.
Removal of a large number of weapons would disturb a small number of Americans and make the country a lot safer. You can’t possibly believe that removing a huge ammount of weapons from society wouldn’t have an impact on violence, could you?
[/QUOTE]
You think 48% of 300,000,000 is a “small number of Americans?”