Are the majority of illegally possessed firearms manufactured illegally, or stolen?
If underground manufacturing is the problem, perhaps targetting those who create the weapons can stem the tide. If on the other hand they are being stolen, who exactly are they being stolen from-all those friends and neighbors who are armed to the teeth to protect “parasites” like me?
Your blatant hypocrisy would be laughable if there weren’t so many politicians who shared your views.
In case you can’t see past the plank in your eye, it’s the gun control advocates who are advocating laws that are defined by the banning of guns based on insignificant details. After all, it’s the anti-gun side who passed a law that permitted a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip, or a semi-automatic rifle with a bayonet mount, but banned a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip and bayonet mount.
If you have a problem with people pointing out that there is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of cosmetic features, and that you morons should at least have the balls to advocate laws that could have any positive effect, then you can go to hell.
No doubt. However, the fact that you are an unstable, dishonest asshole is not a reason why other people should be restricted. It is a reason why you should be restricted. Oh, if only there were a place where dishonest, law-breaking, thieving, potentially murdering shitbags could housed together, away from society…
I live in a country with Strict gun control. By strict, I mean handguns are illegal. any definition of “assault rifle” you can imagine is illegal. you need a licence even for a small shot gun. It’s a guess, but I’d be pretty certain that over 99% of people in my country do not have guns or access to guns.
I can put a sign opn my door saying “no gun inside” and it won’t make a lick of difference to the type of crime I am most likely to encounter.
None of my neighbours have guns. The police on the beat don’t carry guns. The vast majority of people who break into houses don’t carry guns. If I’m being held up, It’s far more likely that the person who does would have a knife or a syringe than would have a gun.
I am most likely to encounter crime against an unarmed (by that I mean guns) person committing the crime. If a person was willing to shoot a gun and kill someone in the middle of committing a crime, he or she would be far more likely to shoot if they thought I was armed (or could possibly go for a weapon) also.
A syringe or a knife or a bat the chances are that I can put safe distance between me and the assailant. even if I had access to a knife or a syringe or a bat on my person I’ll unlikely to try and escallate the situation to a point where I would make the assailant want to use his weapon.
We have herd immunity from very little access to guns, euither criminal or legal.
(yes, the amount of criminals who are getting armed is rising, but that is more to do with inter-gang disputes and more serious crime rather than stickups, mugging or burglaries.
I’m neither flabbergasted nor particularly surprised that you want to hijack a thread to discuss your idiosyncratic personal philosophy. Hence my attempt to avoid that eventuality. Since this thread is no prize peach anyway, I’ll suppose I’ll let you do it.
The Cliff’s Notes on Moral Responsibility:
Some people believe certain actions are right and others are wrong. The reasons why they believe this and the contents of those beliefs vary, but the phenomenon is universal. Indeed, some argue that we’re evolutionarily hard-wired to have these beliefs.
Moral responsibility is just another way of saying that someone has done something morally wrong. We use the term when generally talking about a moral wrong that is somewhat removed from the moral ultimate consequences for which we are placing blame. For example, if I intentionally install faulty electrical wiring in your apartment, I am morally responsible for a fire that you die in.
Moral responsibility matters because people act on their beliefs. They might make morally wrong actions illegal or otherwise legislate against them. Or they might simply change their personal behavior toward those they regard as morally wrong–say by refusing to cooperate (buy from, live with, etc.) with the those people. Because many moral beliefs are widely shared, the collective actions that result after the assignment of moral blame can be significant.
Wow, touched a nerve, eh?
I’m mostly responding to people in this thread who have suggested that media reports are biased against guns because they said that an AK47 was used, when it might have really been something that only looked like an AK47. I’m saying that pointing out the details about the weapon might make you feel powerful, but it doesn’t matter one bit to the facts of this circumstance.
Perhaps if this guy were able to “full auto rock and roll” he might have managed to kill the fourth officer instead of shooting him in the hand, but otherwise it’s of no matter that he was said to have an AK47 instead of a reporting the specific modifications that were made so that this AK47 only looked like an AK47.
ETA: You might want to look up the definition of hypocrisy. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Allow me to cut n’ paste verbatim something that I posted to a sister board of this one:
Never? I think you’ll want to back off from that statement. Otherwise, like gonzomax, you’ll have pretty much renounced any claim to being taken seriously in future gun threads.
So if they don’t use obfuscatory NRA euphemisms, they’re showing “bias?” Right.
The gun nuts don’t get to decide what terminology is “correct,” just because calling a spade a spade is embarrassing to them.
Who said what you purported to suggest they had?
Come on. You know better than that. The problem is calling a spade a trowel. They use specific terms which were coined by the military, police or the manufacturers decades ago, not “gun nuts”. The terms mean very specific things. The media should endevor to get facts right but rarely do. I am not a gun nut and I can see that clearly.
-
This is not a hijack. If I started a thread to say that all people who eat meat are flarkers, you think it would be a hijack to discuss what it means to be a flarker?
-
Your example of the malicious electrician is inapposite here. He performed an action that caused harm, and existing laws fully address the issue. Therefore, saying that the action was morally wrong adds nothing to the discussion–it’s already illegal. Plus, the OP of this thread is saying that a group of people are doing something morally wrong for having certain beliefs, which is clearly different than taking action that causes harm.
-
The last part of your post is where I think the problem comes in. People say that X is morally wrong, so ity’s OK (or desirable) to outlaw X. However, I think that policy should be made by fully investigating and discussing the actual real-world effects of competing policy positions. Therefore, saying X is morally wrong is not sufficient to outlaw X and is harmful in that people use it as a shortcut to a full investigation of all real-world ramifications.
The incidents where guns are used in self-defense are so rare as to be worthless as a justification for owning them. Statistically, a gun in a household is far more likey to be used on someone in the household than on an intruder. For every story like this, there are ten where somebody shot their own kid or spouse, or a kid found the gun and shot somebody else, or the owner shot themselves. There are even cases where intruders have shot the owners with their own guns. The chances of accidental discharges, or of the gun being picked up by people who are either inept or malicious are far greater than the chance that anyone’s going to break into the home, and even if someone does break into the home, the chances are low that the owner will be able to respond in time.
And let’s be honest. People don’t own guns for self-defense. That’s the justification they give, but even if they had the greatest security system in the world and Secret Service protection, they would still want to own guns. They own guns because they get off on owning guns. Just be honest about it.
If you handwave any harder, you’ll be airborne.
I’ll take that as an admission that you’ve got nothing to come back with.
It’s funny that you should say this. I went to the Orlando Sentinel website to check out the referenced story. The article was there, and does have Charles Johnson’s account of driving off a pair of intruders, firing at them even when one was holding a gun to his wife’s head.
Eyebrow raising aspects of that story aside, I respond to your post because to get to the article in the archive, I had to go to the main page first, and couldn’t help but notice this story:
My point is not to play dueling anecdotes. It is statistically more likely that a gun in the home will end up accidentally killing someone than being used in self-defense.
I think guns are pretty cool. My neighbor just bought a WWII era M1 Garand, and that was pretty awesome to see. However, he doesn’t keep his weapons in his house because of his concern about his children. If I didn’t think it were more likely that my family would more likely end up suffering as a result, I might have a firearm in the house too.
Back off from the never and we’ll talk. Otherwise, it’s clear that you have nothing to hold up your end of the debate but your own irrational conviction.
Maybe you shoul understand that sometimes rhetorical language is not meant to be taken absolutely literally. I’m sure that guns have been used to pound nails too. That doesn’t mean it’s a reason that anyone owns them.
Yes, if everyone generally agreed on what it meant to be a flarker. If I say that turtles’ eggs are blue, and we had an interesting thread about turtle biology, it would be a hijack for you to argue that colors don’t exist. But as I’m indulging your hijack, we can stop arguing about it.
It’s only inapposite because you insist on conflating the law and morality. But to make you happy, I’ll offer a different example. You fire your hard-working and intelligent secretary because you find out that she’s gay and you hate gays (and you’re in Colorado, say). If she then cannot afford to feed her kids until she finds a new job, some people would hold you morally responsible.
Or, in case, you don’t like that one, here’s another: You’re sitting by a pool sipping a nice Lagavulin. Suddenly an infant falls in. As you watch the infant sink the bottom and turn blue, you do nothing. You could have easily saved the infant, but you chose not to. You didn’t want to get your hair wet. In most states, that’s totally legal. Nevertheless, many would hold you morally blameworthy.
No, he isn’t. He’s saying that lying to people sometimes has moral consequences.
You’re right that morality is an insufficient condition for lawmaking. But outlawing is not the only recourse. There are lots of other options, as I already enumerated. In our present example, it might involve people no longer giving money to the NRA. Or voting for politicians who are funded by the NRA. Etc. In the example of individual moral blame for actions that are otherwise legal, people might simply ostracize you and refuse to be your friend.
So then any human life SAVED by a gun is “worthless” ?
Even real AK-47s that come in parts kits are not “modified” so they are no longer an AK47. Any American “assault weapons” imported prior to 1986 are put together on a US receiver (which lacks the “third pin” that allows the firearm to operate in select-fire capacity). Because the BATFE has deigned that the actual firearm is the receiver, even parts kit AKs never started life as true AKs.
Even so, if fully-automatic firearms were easily obtainable at stores in the US, I think we would find that the average joe doesn’t know how to use one to great effect. Full-automatic in a rifle with a standard 30 round magazine is going to empty that magazine really fast (AK47s fire 650 rounds per minute) and unless the operator recognizes that full-auto in such a weapon is only good for suppressive fire (and some specialized room-clearing situations), then he is going to end up reloading long before he can kill the thirty people that a 30-rd mag theoretically allows him to. Thus, it is possible and even likely that the fully-automatic weapon is less deadly in the hands of an unskilled user than a similar-looking one in semi-automatic configuration.
No, they aren’t, but they are showing their lack of expertise in firearms. So, tell me, what makes you think that gunsmiths, manufacturers and firearms instructors working in the public sector and elsewhere are using “obfuscatory NRA euphemisms?” Experts in the firearms field use those terms because they are more correct and have been in use much longer. Furthermore, you’re the guy not calling a spade a spade. For instance: The intermediate rifle calibers are 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm. Standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) and high-capacity magazine (100 rounds). Submachine gun and pistol caliber carbine, note that the latter actually uses a closed-bolt action because open-bolt (the Uzi’s normal operation) is illegal in all recent semi-automatic firearms.
NRA publications never call a magazine a “clip” because it is technically is a device used to load a magazine (modern magazines have rendered clips pretty much obsolete). This has nothing to do with NRA euphemisms or rhetoric, it has to do with using the appropriate nomenclature.