Where were you a couple of posts ago when ExTank was talking about the original purpose of the Winchester Model 70 in 7mm Remington Magnum?
With gun threads - I try my best to stick to the OP and not go on about generalities. ExTank is right of course. And it is also inconsequential to the ostensible topic of this thread - that being media bias/war on guns.
Fair 'nuf.
I’ll just go on record by saying that anyone who advocates for gun control is a a spineless coward, and either a sexually inadequate person who is intimidated by the phallic symbolism of firearms.
Furthermore, they are all, each and every one, a racists, and a leftist/socialist/communist who is just itching to round up all gun owners and put them in liquidation camps.
Note that I’m not saying this about any particular poster, but just about anyone and everyone who advocates for more gun control.
Since similar comments directed at all gun owners have a history of passing the Mods “smell test” for “civil discourse” in Great Debates, I assume these comments will stand.
If not, oh well.
Actually, it nicely illustrates the “divide and conquer” stragtegy that gun-control nuts like to employ. Some guns are bad, some are “okay, for now.” Some calibers are bad, some are “okay, for now.”
Until the next du jour event, and the next round of “Will Someone PLEASE Think f the Children” round of ban proposals.
Seriously? People are trying to maintain that guns are not weapons? Really? Saying that something is not for ‘killing’ but for ‘hunting’ means that it’s not a weapon? Firearms?
I don’t get this. A weapon is a thing used to inflict injury. ‘Gun’ is a subcategory of ‘weapon’. While there are lots of things that can be wielded as weapons that are not intended to inflict injury, that’s exactly what guns are intended for. It doesn’t matter what you’re pointing it at or why, you’re going to hurt what you shoot. Yes, you can shoot at targets, but you’re still trying to damage it.
When I was in the Boy Scouts we had it drilled into us that the rifles and shotguns we were using were in fact weapons. It was part of instilling proper respect for them. They are designed to cause injury, misused can cause someone to get killed, watch what you’re aiming at or someone can get killed, don’t mistreat the gun or someone can get killed, you’re holding a weapon in your hand that can kill, etc.
Well, I wooshed you, but in the manner I was going for!
To make Eugene Stoner money.
Thanx for the enlightenment. My guess was going to be “Double standard”, btw.
You thought very, very wrong, ExTank. That’s not only insulting, it’s not a good way to respond to a mod note. I’m giving you a second warning here. Cool it or start a Pit thread.
Yes - a common tactic of gun control advocates is to divide gun owners and their interests, divide guns as good and bad as you say. This is easily demonstrated by gun control advocates playing lip service to hunters, talk about sporting purpose, etc. Rather than get into the weeds about original purpose of various cartridges I prefer to address these tactics holistically - that it doesn’t matter.
The type of comments that ExTank made can be routinely found in gun threads in GD and pass without comment. Clearly his post was parody of those.
Agree some consistency would be a treat.
I think you’re wrong (and I’m no gun grabber!).
Weapon is usage-specific. A rock can be a weapon if someone picks it up and threatens to hit someone with it, or actually does hit someone with it. Same with a pipe wrench, lead pipe, chef’s knife, pointy stick, etc…
Firearms are tools and can be weapons. They’re a little different in that they were originally designed and conceived to be weapons and the hunting and target shooting uses came along after the fact.
The thing with the gun control advocates is that their appeal is primarily based in emotion. Not all of them are appealing to emotion, but a great many do- saying that an AR-15 is a “weapon” and “designed to kill” are statements intended to appeal to emotions and fear, rather than logic and common sense.
You’d have the same argument if they were trying to ban knives- “They’re designed to CUT!” and “They’re pointy so they can stab!” with little regard for the fact that people use them to cut up vegetables, and that you can stab someone just as dead with a screwdriver.
There is of course a certain amount of lying done by me (the shooter), all of which is plausible. I’m focusing on your definition of a “pure” weapon which rejects all other possible applications. There are very few “pure” weapons a civilian can get hold of.
Aside from the dolt in the firing range, there’s also the classic dress-as-a-moose-and-walk-in-the-woods-during-hunting-season scenario. Same likely outcome: the shooter goes scott-free.
Umm, sure. Good luck with that at your murder trial. To remind you again of what you originally said:
If you honestly think police officers will be understanding of you when you intentionally murder another human being with the defense of “he was a dolt and shouldn’t have been there, so I had a right to kill him” you’re in for a real shock when you have to deal with reality.
I’ve read a great many bizarre ideas that were clearly not based on reason or logic here at the SDMB, but this idea that firearms are not weapons, that ‘weapon’ is an emotionally loaded term and ‘firearm’ is not has to be one of the most bizarre. A firearm is a weapon, full stop. This has fuck-all to do with one’s position on gun control or appealing to emotion. It has to do with the actual meaning of words in the English language. Find me one definition of the word firearm that doesn’t describe it as a weapon and isn’t a “there’s glory for you” definition ala smiling bandit who has admitted repeatedly that he doesn’t care what the actual definition of either word is in the English language and prefers “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
So has Fox News made any mistakes regarding the shooter’s armaments? Just curious, with no intent to excuse shoddy reporting from other sources.
You guys need to realize that when the primary thrust of your argument is a childish and ridiculous semantic game, it makes it seem that you have no argument.
I thought the primary thrust of the argument was the shooter used a Biden approved 12 gauge shotgun…
…but that the gun-grabbers still blamed the shooting on the evil AR15 because that better fit their agenda.
Same shit, different day.
Exactly. A Remington 870 is probably the most common shotgun in America. It’s used by hunters everywhere. You can’t conceive of a much more bland, boring “Fudd” gun. It’s the exact opposite of an evil, scary “assault weapon”. As Kable noted, even Joe Biden thinks shotguns like the Remington 870 are great.
Still, just like Cho using a Walther P-22 at Virginia Tech, it’s very possible to kill a lot of people quickly with one. Rather than let this truth be told and risk undermining their “assault weapons are evil” argument, the media seems intent on misleading people to believe that the shooter used an AR-15.
I’m a gun control advocate, and I don’t get the fixation on the AR-15 either. I think because it looks like the kind of gun popularized in movies, and used in real life by real soldiers, as an assault rifle, it’s perceived as scarier, but in practice, any gun can kill people whether it’s an AR-15, a shotgun or a handgun.
I think they should all be controlled.