• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Florida High School Shooting

Page 77 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
jackstar7 said:
Doesn't this run counter the talking point about how criminals will get guns no matter what?
Click to expand...
Thank god there's not some hole in the law that would allow people who shouldn't have guns to get them anyway without being found out without having to steal them. Background checks will catch that every time amiright?
 
mdram said:
most gun owners are open to discussion, and even some more restrictions

the problem is no matter what we suggest, all we get it

"its not enough! ban them all!"

once ant's are open to a logical discussion, we can continue
Click to expand...

ivwshane said:
That's complete bullshit and typical of gun nutters. When you can't argue the merits, change the argument. You are fooling no one.
Click to expand...

How is it complete bullshit and typical of gun nutters? Just a few responses ago that's exactly what fskimospy asked for.

fskimospy said:
I've already said this many times, I would go for a near total ban of all firearms, regardless of type with potential exceptions for say, shotguns stored in the home for home defense. I think we talked about that earlier in this thread when the primary concern was the bear patrol wasn't up to snuff at protecting our children's delicious faces.
Click to expand...
 
jackstar7 said:
Hey dildog, when someone makes an assertion, it's great if they back it up.

Good to see you again jumping in when no one was talking to you, since it is something you complain about on the regs.
Click to expand...

I complain about people jumping in and answering my questions? Really? Perhaps you should.... back that up?

Dollars to doughnuts the best you can do is when I complained about people jumping in and not understanding what was going on. But go ahead and backup your claim.
 
realibrad said:
I complain about people jumping in and answering my questions? Really? Perhaps you should.... back that up?

Dollars to doughnuts the best you can do is when I complained about people jumping in and not understanding what was going on. But go ahead and backup your claim.
Click to expand...
I like how you had to pendant it up immediately, adjusting what I said to what you needed it to say.

Thank you for making my case perfectly.
 
Wow I was operating on old information. My state lifted the blanket NFA ban a few years ago. I've been not putting in for an SBR and suppressor for absolutely no reason. Wow I feel dumb.
 
fskimospy said:
Uhmm, did you not see the rather large caveat to that? What he said and what I said are not even close.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you just want to ban all rifles, carbines, handguns, and handguns but are fine with shotguns. That's nothing at all like "ban them all". That's kinda like saying you want to ban gays, transgenders, bisexuals, queers, questioning, intersex, pansexual, 2-spirited, asexual, and allies but lesbians are still OK.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah, you just want to ban all rifles, carbines, handguns, and handguns but are fine with shotguns. That's nothing at all like "ban them all". That's kinda like saying you want to ban gays, transgenders, bisexuals, queers, questioning, intersex, pansexual, 2-spirited, asexual, and allies but lesbians are still OK.
Click to expand...
Guns are really such an emotional topic for you. You should get some distance from this to re-align your perspective.
 
glenn1 said:
Yeah, you just want to ban all rifles, carbines, handguns, and handguns but are fine with shotguns. That's nothing at all like "ban them all". That's kinda like saying you want to ban gays, transgenders, bisexuals, queers, questioning, intersex, pansexual, 2-spirited, asexual, and allies but lesbians are still OK.
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard and it doesn't merit a response. As to my larger point you are correct, exempting an extremely common type of firearm is nowhere even remotely close to 'banning them all'. I mean this is just common sense.

If you guys can't discuss this issue rationally without resorting to dishonest representations then it's not possible to discuss.
 
fskimospy said:
That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard and it doesn't merit a response. As to my larger point you are correct, exempting an extremely common type of firearm is nowhere even remotely close to 'banning them all'. I mean this is just common sense.

If you guys can't discuss this issue rationally without resorting to dishonest representations then it's not possible to discuss.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to instruct mdram to amend his statement to the more accurate "ban them all (except shotguns)" if that makes you happy. A semi-auto shotgun loaded up with saboted slugs still seems like it would be a ready substitute for mass shootings however.
 
fskimospy said:
That has to be one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard and it doesn't merit a response. As to my larger point you are correct, exempting an extremely common type of firearm is nowhere even remotely close to 'banning them all'. I mean this is just common sense.

If you guys can't discuss this issue rationally without resorting to dishonest representations then it's not possible to discuss.
Click to expand...

extremely common would be exempt?
great, the ar15 is safe. it is the most common rifle sold
 
mdram said:
extremely common would be exempt?
great, the ar15 is safe. it is the most common rifle sold
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about safety or that commonality was the criterion used. I simply said that saying someone is banning all guns when they are exempting one of the most common types of guns is a false statement.
 
The amount of pedantry and other rhetorical bullshitting going on from the gun-security forces is really something to behold. You'd think we were threatening their children... oh wait...
 
realibrad said:
uuuu pedantic uuuu
Click to expand...

You're really struggling with this one, haha.

3cpAS6L.jpg
 
jackstar7 said:
The amount of pedantry and other rhetorical bullshitting going on from the gun-security forces is really something to behold. You'd think we were threatening their children... oh wait...
Click to expand...

I hear guns are employed somewhere between 100,000 - 1,500,000 times a year in defensive use. It is hard to gauge just how many lives are saved by guns, not really measurable. But trust the number is significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top