The Gun Control Debate Thread

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

55 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

. . or the proposal to create a national database of Nazis?  

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe saying "we has the wisdom" isn't that best argument when you are making bad arguments to begin with.

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[thinwhiteduke]

On 10/2/2015 at 8:35 AM, endzone_dave said:

If every person who hears voices in their head is going to go out and shoot a bunch of people then we need to rethink the 2nd amendment.  We aren't there yet but it looks like that's the direction we are moving in.

 

"I hate the world so I'm going to kill a bunch of people" is getting more and more popular.

what if the voice is cool..like a Morgan Freeman or Barry White voice?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

there's a lot there to go through.

 

i'll start with this part of one of the tweets: "There's also support among gun owners for age restrictions on guns like the AR-15 (we specifically used AR-15 in the poll, since when you generalize, you get into trouble)"

 

I think that cuts both ways... it's been beaten to death but I think that generalization works both ways, for good and bad. It's a model - not a feature set. You ban by the model, you'll wind up with functionally similar guns being legal. You ban by the feature set, you're going to wind up with people who support "banning AR-15's" changing their minds all the sudden.

 

(you can replace "banning" with any form of increase restriction)

Edited March 9, 2018 by tshile

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

there's a lot there to go through.

 

i'll start with this part of one of the tweets: "There's also support among gun owners for age restrictions on guns like the AR-15 (we specifically used AR-15 in the poll, since when you generalize, you get into trouble)"

 

I think that cuts both ways... it's been beaten to death but I think that generalization works both ways, for good and bad. It's a model - not a feature set. You ban by the model, you'll wind up with functionally similar guns being legal. You ban by the feature set, you're going to wind up with people who support "banning AR-15's" changing their minds all the sudden.

 

(you can replace "banning" with any form of increase restriction)

 

I read that tweet and immediately thought of you and Peter. How do you win in this particular situation? Can you even? 

 

I mean this is the beginning of the same discussion we always have I think, isnt it? Its so got damn frustrating cause I see both sides and I dont know whats in between . 

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

there's a lot there to go through.

 

i'll start with this part of one of the tweets: "There's also support among gun owners for age restrictions on guns like the AR-15 (we specifically used AR-15 in the poll, since when you generalize, you get into trouble)"

 

I think that cuts both ways... it's been beaten to death but I think that generalization works both ways, for good and bad. It's a model - not a feature set. You ban by the model, you'll wind up with functionally similar guns being legal. You ban by the feature set, you're going to wind up with people who support "banning AR-15's" changing their minds all the sudden.

 

(you can replace "banning" with any form of increase restriction)

 

Only if you assume that, when people hear (or say) "banning AR-15s", they assume that AK-47s (semi-auto version) will still be allowed.  

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Only if you assume that, when people hear (or say) "banning AR-15s", they assume that AK-47s (semi-auto version) will still be allowed.  

What?

 

There's a hell of a lot of guns that are functionally similar (in ways that matter for the topic at hand) to the AR-15, but aren't AR-15s.

 

22 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I read that tweet and immediately thought of you and Peter. How do you win in this particular situation? Can you even? 

 

I mean this is the beginning of the same discussion we always have I think, isnt it? Its so got damn frustrating cause I see both sides and I dont know whats in between . 

Peter's big point through that type of discussion has always been that if you take that line of approach (banning feature set or model) the industry will just create something that does the same thing but gets by the regulations. I think he has a point, but have not studied how they handled the AWB back in the 90's like he has, so I can't really speak to it. I trust him on it though.

 

I keep falling back on this because I think it's what makes most sense, but my thinking that sort of blinds me to alternatives... establish a rate of fire limit. Then it doesn't matter how long the barrel is, whether the stock is detachable or fold-able, whether it's a gas powered rifle, has a scope, takes attachments, has a flash suppressor....

 

It would also apply to handguns, which is a bonus (because handguns are a huge problem but AR-15's get all the discussion)

 

if it fires more than x bullets per minute/second, or more, you can't own it without a FFL. FFL's are about the only thing in gun control that functions the way the pro-control people want, even if they don't like the weapons it allows you to own.

 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

What?

 

There's a hell of a lot of guns that are functionally similar (in ways that matter for the topic at hand) to the AR-15, but aren't AR-15s.

 

 

Yes, I'm aware of that.  (That's why I invented the image of some hypothetical, semi-auto, AK-47 clone.  To represent "some weapon that has the same capabilities as an AR-15, but isn't an AR-15".)  

 

But I'm certain that, if you try hard enough, you can find some word in there that you can seize on, to avoid what I actually said.  

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Yes, I'm aware of that.  (That's why I invented the image of some hypothetical, semi-auto, AK-47 clone.  To represent "some weapon that has the same capabilities as an AR-15, but isn't an AR-15".)  

 

But I'm certain that, if you try hard enough, you can find some word in there that you can seize on, to avoid what I actually said.  

The condescension doesn't help me understand what you were trying to say.

 

It's fine if you don't want to bother.

[Larry]

I'll try again.  

 

You seem to be fixated, every time somebody uses the phrase "banning AR-15s", with 

 

1)  Assuming that they are proposing a law which will head "It will henceforth be illegal in the US to possess any firearm which is referenced by the model number 'AR-15'.  (But if the manufacturer assigns it a different model number, then it's cool)"  

 

2)  Pointing out that this proposal (which you assume they're making) is stupid.  

 

I think your repeated assumption is incorrect.  (Well, #1 is incorrect.  #2 is true.)  Maybe there are a few people like that.  (There's a lot of people in America, and some of them get some really stupid ideas.  I just don't think there's many of them.)  

 

My assertion is that, when the phrase "banning AR-15s" is used, it's a shorthand for "banning weapons which are functionally similar to it".  (What I personally read that phrase as, is "banning clip fed, semi-auto, rifles".  Since, to me, that's the characteristic that makes the AR-15 what it is.  For example, I don't care how many different ways it has, for someone to attach a flashlight to it.  Or what colors of grips you can buy for it.)  

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

I'll try again.  

 

You seem to be fixated, every time somebody uses the phrase "banning AR-15s", with 

 

1)  Assuming that they are proposing a law which will head "It will henceforth be illegal in the US to possess any firearm which is referenced by the model number 'AR-15'.  (But if the manufacturer assigns it a different model number, then it's cool)"  

 

2)  Pointing out that this proposal (which you assume they're making) is stupid.  

 

I think your repeated assumption is incorrect.  (Well, #1 is incorrect.  #2 is true.)  Maybe there are a few people like that.  (There's a lot of people in America, and some of them get some really stupid ideas.  I just don't think there's many of them.)  

 

My assertion is that, when the phrase "banning AR-15s" is used, it's a shorthand for "banning weapons which are functionally similar to it".  (What I personally read that phrase as, is "banning clip fed, semi-auto, rifles".  Since, to me, that's the characteristic that makes the AR-15 what it is.  For example, I don't care how many different ways it has, for someone to attach a flashlight to it.  Or what colors of grips you can buy for it.)  

 

I understand your frustration, but... the tweet to which I was specifically referring to said this

"(we specifically used AR-15 in the poll, since when you generalize, you get into trouble)"'

 

I was commenting on that - in both directions. 

 

It wasn't out of the blue, and I wasn't the on who brought it up, the people pushing the article was. I simply commented on it.

[visionary]

I think she was referring to a polling issue, though I’m not sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by visionary

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I understand your frustration, but... the tweet to which I was specifically referring to said this

"(we specifically used AR-15 in the poll, since when you generalize, you get into trouble)"'

 

And your response was to assume that there were a large number of people (large enough for you to comment on) who wanted to ban a model number, and who would change their opinion when they found out that the proposal would also ban other military weapon clones.  

 

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And your response was to assume that there were a large number of people (large enough for you to comment on) who wanted to ban a model number, and who would change their opinion when they found out that the proposal would also ban other military weapon clones.  

 

 

I didn't say military style weapons.

 

I said functionally similar weapons.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

My assertion is that, when the phrase "banning AR-15s" is used, it's a shorthand for "banning weapons which are functionally similar to it".  (What I personally read that phrase as, is "banning clip fed, semi-auto, rifles".  Since, to me, that's the characteristic that makes the AR-15 what it is.  For example, I don't care how many different ways it has, for someone to attach a flashlight to it.  Or what colors of grips you can buy for it.)  

Go ahead and ban clip fed weapons.  They are almost non-existent.  AR-15's are magazine fed.

 

You probably mean magazine fed weapons though.  Once again showing why it is important when discussing gun control, to actually know what the **** you are talking about regarding guns.

[twa]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

They stand a good chance of winning, allowing no gun purchases is too far.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Go ahead and ban clip fed weapons.  They are almost non-existent.  AR-15's are magazine fed.

 

You probably mean magazine fed weapons though.  Once again showing why it is important when discussing gun control, to actually know what the **** you are talking about regarding guns.

 

Banning magazine fed weapons would be going too far, in my opinion.  

 

I'm pretty certain that this ia a magazine fed weapon:

 

 

And that this is a semi-auto, magazine fed weapon.  

 

 

You probably mean removable magazine weapons though.  Once again showing that if you intend to try to attack people for failing to use the language you demand, as a lead in to announcing that anybody who doesn't use the language you demand should "know what the **** you are talking about regarding guns.", you should use more precise language yourself.  

 

Or, maybe, react to what they said, instead of attempting to cherry pick one word and then claim that it invalidates the entire post, and the poster.  

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Larry

[twa]