Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#152 Jan 09 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So let's hear a non Bullshi*t argument in support of a proposed piece of gun regulation. Not just broad (and meaningless) statements like "assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting", but an actual proposed set of restrictions and a justification for said restriction which meets the criteria I outlined. I want to hear how the proposed restrictions would affect both criminal uses of guns and legal uses of guns, and how those affects are both positive *and* in accordance with the 2nd amendment rights. When writing said proposal remember that rights should only be infringed if there's a significant and provable gain to be had. Preferably a gain which is itself a right (like life, property, etc). Anything even remotely close to an even choice or trade off should never be done if it involves infringing a right.

Waste of time if you're declaring yourself arbiter of what qualifies and what doesn't. You're too wrapped up in preserving the party line to ever say anything but "no, we need more guns for everyone!"

Now, if you're saying such a proposal should be put to the people and if they decide it's a worthy interpretation of our rights then you'll happily accede to the proposal, that's something else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 Jan 10 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
More school shootings
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#154 Jan 10 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
More school shootings

Yeah, but with a shotgun. What good would an assault weapon ban have done there!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#155 Jan 10 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
He only managed to kill one, and assault rifle gun guy killed 20?

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#156 Jan 10 2013 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
Not to mention the first person he shot didn't even need medical treatment! Smiley: schooled

ETA: Apparently, this person was not actually shot, I got that from a very preliminary report. My bad.

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 12:31pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#157 Jan 10 2013 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Wounded"?

How will the government know we're serious about tyranny if we only wound our school students with gunfire?

SECOND AMENDMENT FAIL.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Jan 10 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Wounded"?

How will the government know we're serious about tyranny if we only wound our school students with gunfire?

SECOND AMENDMENT FAIL.


This guy is on the job.
#159 Jan 10 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes in weapons and tactical training is threatening to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.

Well, thank God our nation's weapons are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I might need to get a gun so I can defend myself once this guy shoots me in the name of owning guns.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Jan 10 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
My issue is primarily with the justifications being used for various proposed regulations with regard to firearms. They seem to be less based on an assessment of facts and more on emotional reactions.

Nope. They aren't. They're based on the fact that *access* to firearms that can kill a lot of people quickly by people seeking to use them in a crime is increased in proportion to their general availability.


Sure. And access to firearms that can be used to defend people quickly and easily against potential assailants also increases in the same proportion. What's missing is an assessment that on net firearm ownership (or whatever specific aspect of that ownership you choose to focus on) in the US is sufficiently more harmful than helpful that it justifies infringing the 2nd amendment. Just saying "this can be used to do harm, so lets decrease its availability to the public" isn't a very strong argument.

Quote:
Just like high explosives.


Just like a lot of things. But perhaps we should look at other factors which differentiate them rather than just declaring them the same because both can cause harm and access increases in proportion to general availability.

Quote:
The issue is really one of complexity. Semi-automatic firearms are reasonably complex. I could make one at home out of stock metal, but most would be armed robbers can't. That's the crux of the gun control argument. Why make it easy to acquire reasonably complex killing machines designed to kill en masse quickly?


That's a terrible argument. Revolvers are about as equally unlikely to be constructed from scratch by a random would be robber. The fact that something is hard to make at home isn't a great justification for restricting it either.

Quote:
The 2nd amendment is law, and that's fine, but there's ample space to enforce the "well regulated" text along with the "not be infringed" text. We'll set aside for a moment that a stockpile of 10,000 assault rifles isn't going to help you against the flying killer robot if the government decides to kill you.


Neither will 10,000 packages of tissue paper. Yet, amazingly, we don't argue that's a great reason to ban them. Yes. I'm being sarcastic. You're arguing every single aspect of the issue except the one that really matters.

Quote:
The original idea that this right would somehow keep governmental military power in check is long, long dead.


No, it's not. This is a claim that those who support gun control repeat over and over though. I suppose if you say it often enough, it must be true.

Quote:
Restricting cyclic rate or mag capacity is a perfectly rational thing to do, likely to lead to a decline in the death toll of these sorts of events.


There is very close to zero evidence that reducing magazine capacity has ever had any effect on the rate of such events, or the death toll when they do occur. Well, that's not entirely true. There's decent evidence that if the Colorado Theater shooter had brought several 10 round magazines instead of one 100 round mag, he would almost certainly have killed several times more people. That's probably not the kind of outcome you imagine would happen though.

And cyclic rate? Outside of automatic or selective fire weapons (which are illegal already) that's not really an issue either.

Quote:
It would be objectively better if that were the case.


If that were the case, maybe. Again, we'd have to weigh this against the right being infringed. Objectively, we could argue that if we limited all vehicles to a top speed of 25 mph, we could save tens of thousands of lives a year. That does not mean it's what we should do though.

Quote:
If it isn't the case, there's virtually no harm. Hunters don't need 25 shots, and honestly, neither do people defending themselves or their homes. Nobody gets to the sixth shot, really, in a legitimate defensive situation, a Colt Navy would be as useful as Glock 17 (although not so amazingly well designed and smooth to operate, @#%^ing Austrians know how to make killing people effortless, I'll give them that)


Except that the basic concept of rights themselves preclude the idea of the government restricting people to just what they need. The fact that you don't think someone needs something is also a terrible reason to restrict it. People don't need pie, so why don't we make pie illegal? A free society only restricts actions when such restriction is absolutely necessary to protect the liberties of others, and even then as cautiously and in as minimal a manner as possible. The concept that we should restrict something just because we don't think someone needs it is in complete opposition to the principles of a free society.

Quote:
These are the sort of laws you're worrying are based on emotion...making 35 shot clips for Chinese AK clones illegal. They aren't.


Yeah. They're based on emotion Smash. People see a long magazine hanging out of a semi-automatic rifle, especially one with military styling, and they get scared. Cause that looks like a military weapon. It's why the term "assault weapon" was adopted by the anti-gun folks. To reinforce this knee-jerk fear response. The reality is that the frequency with which the number of shots in a magazine actually has any effect on the outcome of a shooting is so incredibly low as to be somewhat meaningless, and as often as not decreases rather than increases it.

So yeah. Emotional.

Quote:
They're considered policy decisions.


Based on emotional reactions of the public, fueled by half truths and fear. I get that.

Quote:
There are no "take all the guns away!" laws even being considered. No one's adversely effected by the laws being considered who isn't involved in an ongoing dispute with a Mexican drug cartel.


Today. But the arguments being used are about taking (nearly) all the guns away. The actions proposed today are only as minimal as they are because those proposing them think that's the most they can get away with. Today. Failing to see the end goal of a cause is pretty foolish, isn't it?

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 2:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Jan 10 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Except that the basic concept of rights themselves preclude the idea of the government restricting people to just what they need. The fact that you don't think someone needs something is also a terrible reason to restrict it. People don't need pie, so why don't we make pie illegal?

Bad analogy. Can you see why? What am I saying, of course you can't. Here's an actual working analogy:

"People don't need pies that are 9 feet across and served at 2700 degrees, why don't we ban that specific sort of pie?"

Edit: To which my response would be "yes, let's ban those sorts of pies".

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 5:08pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#162 Jan 10 2013 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
The gun as a defensive tool...I find that to be amusing.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#163 Jan 10 2013 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
"People don't need pies that are 9 feet across and served at 2700 degrees, why don't we ban that specific sort of pie?"

Edit: To which my response would be "yes, let's ban those sorts of pies".


Why? Assuming no one wants a pie that's 9 feet across and served at 2700 degrees, then there's no reason to ban them. But on the off chance that someone might want such a pie, the government should have no reason at all to restrict their right to one. I'll point out that there is no current ban on 9 foot wide pies served at 2700 degrees on the books. Therefore, such pies are legal to own right now.


In a free society we start with everything being legal, and only make illegal as few things necessary to maximize the liberty of those within the society. Whether someone needs something is irrelevant. I don't need pick fuzzy bunny slippers (regular slippers work just fine at keeping my feet warm, right), so why not ban those? The answer is that a government which does that is an authoritarian one, and is actively infringing the rights of its citizens.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Jan 10 2013 at 4:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The gun as a defensive tool...I find that to be amusing.


Why? Do you know how often each year guns are used to defend people from crimes in the US?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#165 Jan 10 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The gun as a defensive tool...I find that to be amusing.


Why? Do you know how often each year guns are used to defend people from crimes in the US?

Best defense is a good offense?

When I think defensive tool, I'd think of something like body armor. But that's probably just me. Smiley: rolleyes

Mandatory government-subsidized flak jacket for all kids under 18. There's your answer! Smiley: nod

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 2:32pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#166 Jan 10 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Why? Assuming no one wants a pie that's 9 feet across and served at 2700 degrees, then there's no reason to ban them. But on the off chance that someone might want such a pie, the government should have no reason at all to restrict their right to one. I'll point out that there is no current ban on 9 foot wide pies served at 2700 degrees on the books

Actually you can't serve food above 500, but that's not important. What's important is if there were big hot pie spree killings happening, the idea that the Little Debbie corporation would fight tooth and nail to preserve big hot pie rights is ******* insane.

The larger point is that there is no "doing ABC to firearms is like XYZ" analogy that works, at all. They are a special case, hence their specific mention in the 2nd amendment. In our law and culture they are a unique case. Argue the merits of the actual unique case. Now, don't get confused. Analogies used to argue that they *shouldn't be* a special case work just fine.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#167 Jan 10 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The gun as a defensive tool...I find that to be amusing.


Why? Do you know how often each year guns are used to defend people from crimes in the US?

Best defense is a good offense?

When I think defensive tool, I'd think of something like body armor. But that's probably just me. Smiley: rolleyes


And not terribly practical either. Interestingly enough, guns are arguably the most defensive of all personal weapons. A knife or club requires that one get close to use, which automatically blunts their defensive effectiveness (once someone's close enough for you to hit them, they're close enough to hit you). A gun can be used at range, allowing one to threaten or harm someone else, while remaining out of harms reach. It also can be used to protect someone else at range, by threatening to shoot an assailant if he doesn't back away. Something you can't do with melee weapons. And the fact that you can fire multiple rounds increases this defensive capability. If I fire my one shot from my bolt action rifle at one assailant, and either miss (or there's more than one), I'm completely vulnerable to attack. Whereas if I've got a number of shots, no one's going to risk approaching me because the odds of me missing all the shots I might get off are low.


I honestly find it strange that someone wouldn't realize the innate defensive properties of firearms. They are primarily used (even by criminals) to keep others at bay, not to kill them. The guy you have to fear when being robbed isn't the guy with a gun, but the guy with a knife. He's vastly more likely to actually use it.

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 3:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Jan 10 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
While they may be used to hold others at bay, that is at the threat of damage.

They are intrinsically an offensive weapon, as they damage, not protect, which is what I think of when I think of defense. That is why I think it is funny. A shield I would consider a "Defensive Tool", or body armor, or armor plating. A projectile that damages flesh not so much.

ETA Not sending an email, don't need to sign my name Smiley: lol

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 4:06pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#169 Jan 10 2013 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
While they may be used to hold others at bay, that is at the threat of damage.


So do most forms of self defense. It's not like there's a lot of people defending themselves from crime by wearing armor and carrying a shield.

Quote:
They are intrinsically an offensive weapon, as they damage, not protect, which is what I think of when I think of defense. That is why I think it is funny. A shield I would consider a "Defensive Tool", or body armor, or armor plating. A projectile that damages flesh not so much.


Sure, but that's really just semantics. I was talking about people defending themselves from criminal acts. How one does that isn't really the point. I'm pretty sure I'm much more capable of defending myself and my home from an intruder with a 9mm pistol than I am with a shield. More importantly, as I observed earlier, I can defend someone in the area with the use of a firearm. Something I can't really do with a shield or armor. At least, not terribly effectively.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Jan 10 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I find that to be amusing.


Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
which is what I think of when I think of defense.


Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
That is why I think it is funny.


Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
A shield I would consider a "Defensive Tool".


Apparently I am wrong to find humor in what I find humor in, or to have my own opinions, which I don't try to hold forth as anything except my own opinions.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#171 Jan 10 2013 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,340 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm much more capable of harming an intruder with a 9mm pistol than I am with a shield.


Speaking of semantic, FTFY
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#172 Jan 10 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,668 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm much more capable of defending myself and my home from an intruder with a 9mm pistol than I am with a shield.
Maybe one that doesn't know which calibers do what.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#173 Jan 10 2013 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Apparently I am wrong to find humor in what I find humor in, or to have my own opinions, which I don't try to hold forth as anything except my own opinions.


And apparently I'm wrong to comment on and respond to someone posting their opinions on a public forum on the interwebs. What is the world coming too! Smiley: dubious
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#174 Jan 10 2013 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm much more capable of harming an intruder with a 9mm pistol than I am with a shield.


Speaking of semantic, FTFY


Spoken like someone who's never been hit with a shield.

Intruder breaks into front door of home. I point pistol at him. He runs away (or stays until the cops arrive, kinda his choice). Odds of anyone being physically injured? Very small.

Intruder breaks into front door of home. I stand before him with my trusty shield strapped to my arm. Intruder goes "WTF?", laughs and attempts to push me out of the way to get to my stuff. I then clock him in the teeth with the edge of the shield (or he overpowers me). Odds of anyone being physically injured? Very high.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#175 Jan 10 2013 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
gbaji wrote:
Intruder breaks into front door of home. I point pistol at him. He runs away (or stays until the cops arrive, kinda his choice). Odds of anyone being physically injured? Very small.


Assuming the home invader is unarmed and you are there with your pistol waiting for him to bust your door down.

Otherwise, he just shoots you as you go for your gun hidden away in the side table of your bedroom or the drawer in the desk of your in home office.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#176 Jan 10 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji is ALWAYS packin'.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (65)