I’ve been reading this exchange for a while and I have to ask from what authority, some have found the ability to redefine “ban”? A ban does not rely on ALL things being banned to be called a ban. By it’s simplest definition, ban means to legally or officially prohibit. If all black rifles are prohibited from being sold, then yes they are banned.
You might want it to mean something else, but wanting doesn’t make it so.
By applying the slippery slope fallacy. It’s an easy avoidance tactic, however pathetic.
Then your word “ban” means nothing. There is nothing that you cannot find some example of that does not have a restriction, so everything and everything is banned.
If you want to say that you are using the word “ban” to mean any and all forms of restriction and regulation, at least make that very explicit, so that people don’t react emotionally to the word “ban” as if it is actually removing people’s ability to buy guns.
Yes, it is.
That would be the definition of a strawman, as what you stated is not an argument that I have made.
I have, on two separate occasions, with you specifically, “trotted them out” and I don’t feel like wasting the time on you specifically again when the last two times, you completely ignored them.
Don’t pretend that people don’t post things just because you refuse to read them.
If you sell a gun to an unknown individual who turns out to be a criminal from out of state, what law did you break?
So you agree, that if something is officially or legally restricted, it is banned. A ban on black rifles IS a gun ban. Correct?
You are the only person to think that if a wide class of guns are banned, such as handguns, then that is somehow not a “ban”.
Restricting the sale of certain gun to those over 21 is a “restriction”. Making the possession of a wide number of guns is a “ban”.
Each thread stands on it’s own. Either put up or shut up as they say.
If you have no reason to believe that person is a unlawful buyer, nor a out of state resident, then none. Same thing if said person presents a false ID to a gun seller.
No there are a few others in this thread who have taken it upon themselves to redefine the word.
You must be speaking to a strawman next to me, as I did not say that, not at all, I simply responded to:
You said that if some guns are banned, it is a gun ban. Therefore, if some cars are banned, it is is a car ban. If some t-shirts are banned, it is a t-shirt ban.
My point is that you are trying to use the word “ban” in an emotional way, to imply that a “gun ban” means that you can no longer get a hold of any gun, or even that there is confiscation going on, when really what you mean is that there is a particular gun that you cannot buy.
That there is a hevy restircion on machine guns would be consider to be a “gun ban” by you.
This may be true, but if you want to use the word in that fashion, you have to acknowledge that it simply doesn’t mean anything at all anymore.
If you want to play semantics, then that’s fine, but it is not a restriction, it is a ban on selling guns to people under 21. Far more of a ban, as it means that someone under 21 cannot get a gun at all, unlike the bans you complain about that mean that there are a few models of gun that you cannot purchase.
I have no desire to play your games here. You know exactly where I stand here, we’ve been through this before, and I have no desire to waste my time putting together the nuances of reasonable gun control only for you to completely ignore it once again.
Well, you almost have it. If it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had reason to believe that the person was an unlawful buyer. Then that is a loophole. You can sell any gun you want to to anyone, as long as you don’t ask them if they are eligible to posses or purchase it.
I don’t know why you fight so hard to say that this is not a loophole. This is the exact loophole that many criminals use to get their hands on their guns.
False ID is different from no ID, don’t you think?
Not only that you cannot “buy” that would be forcibly taken from you under threat of prison, and no recompense made. That sir, is a “ban”.
Nope, but the fact that they are totally banned in California does mean a local ban.
Not a few models- *an entire class of guns.
*
No, I don’t. Each thread stands on it’s own. So, when asked to put up or shut up, you choose- neither.
Because the federal Government, it’s agencies and the courts do not call it a loophole. We depend on those that pass our laws, those who enforce them, and those the rule on them to define terms, not some single lone poster on a MB.
Yeah, see, if you go back to where those statements were made, no one said “some guns are banned”. My, how those goalposts keep moving around! Look at posts #324 and #328 in particular. The term “gun ban” is used without qualification. To a native English speaker a “ban” on something plainly means that you can’t have the named item, period, in any form, not that you can’t have certain models or certain features. By your logic the United States has, as I said, a “car ban”. In fact your logic is even worse, because earlier you considered that a ban on high-capacity magazines was a “gun ban”. So even things that aren’t guns at all are a “gun ban” in your world. I guess requiring seat belts is a “car ban”, too. Sorry, that’s just not what that word means.
Nope. My argument was with respect to your statement “When the government requires magic non existent technology in order to purchase a firearm” and I correctly said that if this was the case, it would be impossible to purchase firearms, and I don’t know anywhere where this condition prevails. Turns out, what you really meant was that California requires new semi-automatic handguns sold in the state to have microstamping technology, and since manufacturers aren’t providing it yet, if you want a semiautomatic handgun right now you’re limited to the several hundred older models that are exempted, or some other kind of firearm. So, you don’t need “magic” in order to “purchase firearms”. Your statement was incorrect, hyperbolic, and misleading.
Again, by using much broader terminology than is applicable, you are distorting the facts beyond all recognition for dramatic and emotional effect. I’m not the one redefining words, I’m the one trying to understand your contrived hyperbole to find out what the real facts of the matter are.
That situation is a ban on those specific items, yes, some of which aren’t even guns. I have no problem with the word “ban” when it’s properly qualified so it accurately describes the thing that’s being banned. I have a problem when it’s used without qualification such that it exaggerates and misleads by implying something much greater than the actual facts. You’re justified in calling this a ban on those specific items. You’re even justified in being pissed off about it. It is not even remotely correct, however, by the rules of the English lexicon, to call it a “gun ban”.
And I’ll point and laugh at your meaningless Orwellian redefinition of language such that, according to your new definitions, it’s possible to say that the US has a nation-wide ban on cars.
No, a ban on black rifles is a “black rifle ban”. The first sentence is wrong, too. If something is legally restricted, it’s restricted, not banned. Those two words are not synonyms. Every country in the world has legal restrictions on guns and motor vehicles. None ban them, AFAIK.
If you can’t argue your case without distorting the language beyond all recognition, you must not have much of an argument.
Lets go to post 324 and read down a bit to get context: "*Your side says that we are making shit up when we say that you want to ban guns; you claim that you merely want reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and felons. When we ask what those reasonable regulations are, you reply “assault weapons ban.”
*
So that is a specific ban on a certain type of gun.
But can we call it a ban?
Yep, that’s even what one version was called:
"
T*he Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), officially the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law, which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as “large capacity.”
The 10-year ban was passed by the US Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the US Senate, and was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton on the same day. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban’s enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.
Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded.
Studies have shown the ban had little effect in criminal activity. Other studies, using sources such as Mother Jones, a report prepared for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and a New York Police Department report, have shown small decreases in the rate of mass shootings followed by increases beginning after the ban was lifted.[1]*
Now down to post 328 : "Do you seriously contend that the UK and Australia have not “banned guns”?
So has Australia “banned guns”? Many guns were banned, but of course not all.
So can we call it a gun ban?
Well, the New York Times says it is. So does the Washington Post. So does the BBC. So Did Obama.
“In Sydney, thousands of banned firearms were collected in 1997 as part of the Australian government’s buyback program …”
An inquest said the gun may have been in circulation before pump action shotguns were essentially banned in 1996
The law banned semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.
Less than two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre, all six Australian states agreed to enact the same sweeping gun laws banning semi-automatic rifles and shotguns - weapons that can kill many people quickly.
Pretty much, every newspaper and news source in the world disagrees with you.
But now as to the meaning of the word ban: ban1
ban/Submit
verb
1.
officially or legally prohibit.
“he was banned from driving for a year”
synonyms: prohibit, forbid, veto, proscribe, disallow, outlaw, make illegal, embargo, bar, debar, block, stop, suppress, interdict; More
noun
1.
an official or legal prohibition.
“a proposed ban on cigarette advertising”
synonyms: prohibition, veto, proscription, embargo, bar, suppression, stoppage, interdict, interdiction, moratorium, injunction
“a ban on soliciting”
Well, that agrees with Bone and I. A Ban on handguns or a ban on assault weapons is a gun ban.
Ah, semantics… where all discussions end up sooner or later.
Every newspaper and news source in the world uses the word “ban” the way I want it to be used. You don’t understand the argument.
Pay careful attention to this statement from my last post, immediately preceding. I’ve put it in bold in case you’re hard of seeing:
Do you understand that statement? Clearly you do not. Every one of the examples you have – every single one, without exception, references a specific type of ban in the manner that I stated is correct usage rather than misleading exaggeration:
An assault weapons ban (not a “gun ban”)
In Sydney, thousands of banned firearms were collected in 1997 (they collected those weapons that were now banned, not all firearms)
The law banned semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. (not a “gun ban”)
and so on.
As I repeatedly stated, when someone says “gun ban”, it is a clear statement of “a ban on guns” by the meaning of English as it is spoken and understood. It’s misleading scare tactics, and usually intentional when used by gun advocates. In fact we can see this very thing in action right here, in the part of post #324 from UltraVires that you didn’t quote. He says “When we ask what those reasonable regulations are, you reply “assault weapons ban.” When we point out that what you call assault weapons are really no different than most hunting rifles, you claim that is why guns need to be banned!” – i.e.- “the dishonest gun control miscreants like me say we need to ban assault rifles, and when it’s pointed out that assault rifles are just like most hunting rifles, we say we need to ban most hunting rifles, too, then – i.e.- a general gun ban”. That’s the fairy tale you guys like to spin, and that’s why “gun ban” is such a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious phrase with the gun zealots. They love it because what it implies is scary and unreasonable. Trouble is, no one has ever proposed such a thing.
Any statement that the US has anything plausibly definable as a “gun ban” in place, that we are not only in fear of a slippery slope but have actually arrived at its bottom, is ridiculous on its face, and can only be understood as a profession of ideology rather than factual analysis.
That’s rich coming from the person typing multiple lengthy posts trying to redifine the word ban when I just spent a couple seconds on the Google box and came up with a four word definition. I have distorted nothing.
Officially or legally prohibit. Look it up…
If you would like to show us a definition stating that something is only banned if every subset and possible variation are prohibited too, I’m all ears.
Nor has anyone made the statement that “***all ***guns are banned”. Your entire complaint is without merit.
If there are 1000 guns, and the government bans two of them, here are some permutations of how that can be described:[ol]
[li]The government has banned guns[/li][li]The government has banned some guns[/li][li]The government has banned all guns[/li][/ol]
#1 and #2 are accurate. #2 would be more precise. #3 is wrong.
Your complaint seems to be that I and others have been implying #3, however that’s a strawman. I am saying #1 which is perfectly accurate. But sure, every time you run into the argument that states #1, I encourage you to make perfectly clear, you don’t want to ban *all *guns! That should be the mantra of gun control advocates actually. “We don’t want to ban *all *guns!” Maybe you can convince the Democratic Party of your commitment to precision and they can add it to their platform. Everyone else who has been paying attention to this issue in the US knows perfectly well that gun control advocates want to ban guns. Most probably do not want to ban all guns, but they are gun banners none the less.
I’m using the definition of the word. You on the other hand are trying to assert that a ban on types of guns is not a gun ban.
Look at what you’re saying: * When any gun is banned it is not a gun ban. * It is to laugh.
You seem to be enjoying turning this into a pointless semantic diversion, when my intent here is clear and simple, and which I can illustrate by example.
Suppose I’m running for office in a country that has no automotive safety or emission standards, and part of my platform is to introduce such standards, modeled on the reasonable US federal standards. They would be phased in over time to minimize disruption, and when they became mandatory, every new car manufactured or imported would have to meet them. This is not anticipated to be a problem, and existing older cars would be exempt.
That’s my plan, and I think it’s reasonable. I’m campaigning and a TV reporter asks me if I can explain my automotive standards policy in a few words.
“Certainly,” I reply. “I want to ban cars.”
Do you agree that this:
(a) in no way even remotely describes my policy proposal?
(b) would be subject to widespread misunderstanding and generate a torrent of angry opposition based on that misunderstanding?
(c) was therefore an incredibly stupid thing to say?
So why do you think it’s fair to say it about an exactly analogous gun standards policy? Could it be that from the standpoint of gun advocates, point (b) would be a feature, not a bug?
You are? It sounds misleading to me.
No, they dont. No one thinks that a gun ban means a ban on all firearms for everyone. Rifles, shotguns, handguns, for civilians, police, military. Such a thing does not excist.
Handguns are guns, so when handguns are banned it is a gun ban, pure and simple.
Indeed, he is correct. That is exactly what has been proposed.
The reason why this analogy fails is that you have no opposition to cars simply because they are cars. Indeed, you support the idea of automotive transportation, but want to make it marginally safer without impeding the positive results of the car.
Your comments in this thread show that you have no such similar thought about guns. A better analogy would be if you proposed a 25mph speed limit, wanted to raise the driving age to 30, or said that no person should be able to own a car more powerful than the Ford Fiesta.
To work off your analogy, our side has no problems with quality controls to ensure that a gun doesn’t blow up in your face or that ammunition made of lead should be restricted.
Your proposals are absolute bans of certain types of firearms. Just because, for now, you would let Elmer Fudd keep his rabbit gun does not make it any less so.
No, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. We’re discussing what the word “ban” means, and how it should be used in clear and honest communication. Your side has already made it very clear that it’s appropriate to use the word “ban” without qualification to describe any kind of restriction or prohibition on any subset, make, model, or feature of an item, to wit:
Let me repeat that: Your side has already made it very clear that it’s appropriate to use the word “ban” without qualification to describe any kind of restriction or prohibition on any subset, make, model, or feature of an item. My policy proposal describes restrictions or prohibitions on certain subsets, makes, models, or features of cars, as noted here and here. Therefore according to the arguments presented by your side, my statement, “I want to ban cars”, is a correct description of my policy proposal. **Your side aready established this. This is not in dispute if you accept their argument. **
So read my story again and answer the question. Is “I want to ban cars” a clear and honest statement of the facts in my example? Yes or no?