what is....

[fskimospy]

It is not true, it is Boolean false. How can you be OK with the phrase "nobody wants to take your guns away" when YOU LITERALLY WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY?

Because what I want is meaningless from a policy perspective. The phrase is meant to indicate that there is no meaningful threat to gun confiscation on the legislative horizon for you and that's true. I will always work to change that as gun restrictions are quite important to me but it's unlikely that I'll succeed.

Anyways trust me, in casual conversation like this you do not want to limit yourself to only boolean true statements.

For example:

1) 'Everybody loves this restaurant, we should go there'.
2) 'DOES EVERY HUMAN ON PLANET EARTH REALLY LOVE THIS RESTAURANT? HOW CAN YOU BE OKAY WITH SAYING THAT?'

 

[mdram]

To be clear, I believe an assault weapon ban alone is not effective because it comprises such a low percentage of killings. As there's little legitimate reason to own them I'm entirely in favor of banning them, but only as part of a more comprehensive ban. Personally I would support a ban on nearly all firearm ownership outside of perhaps a shotgun in the home or something of that sort.

and that is why 2a supporters are fighting. we see it as a step toward a bigger ban. sorta give an inch, they take a mile.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

dp

 

[fskimospy]

and that is why 2a supporters are fighting. we see it as a step toward a bigger ban. sorta give an inch, they take a mile.

I would hope that if you looked at the empirical research on gun ownership you would see that they fail at the primary purpose people purchase them for, which is self defense. They actually make things worse. It's hard for me to think of many rational reasons someone would want to own something for personal safety when it makes them less safe.

Personally I'm perfectly fine with exceptions for some rural areas, gun clubs where people can check out firearms for sport shooting or hunting, etc, it's just basically that gun ownership in the home is worse than useless and that's a public health issue we can fix.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

You quoted me above saying I wanted to take away guns. Where did I say that? Can you point on the forum where the bad post touched you?

You agreed with no assault weapons in exchange for an increase in revolvers. How could we arrive at no assault weapons without taking away millions of them from people who own them? That was a bad post and it touched me in a place that made me feel sad Thanks a lot! Now I am sad.

 

[trenchfoot]

I look at "assault rifles" from this particular perspective: They are various civilian versions of shoulder fired weapons of war specifically designed to kill as many of the enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible before the user himself gets killed by the opposition using similarly designed and purposed weaponry. How those tools of war got re-purposed for profit is just businesses doing what they are meant to do. That the NRA got taken over by these businesses, well, therein lies much of the problem.

While in uniform, I've never ever heard the phrase "assault weapon/rifle" being used simply because it was a given what those weapons were used for: "to kill as many of the enemy before being killed". There was no parsing of intent and purpose, unlike how these weapons of war are being used by the civilian sector. Rationalize to your heart's content for having them for all I care.

From some of the attitudes that I get at the range I frequent, these weapons of war are simply toys to have fun with. I have no problem with that at all other than what a difference of opinion I have from actually using them in combat. I simply don't like them anymore because of what I had to use them for. I actually used to get the feeling of how impotent this weapon was when it came time to defend myself with it so it's kind'a funny to see some folks get "that look"and a hard on from squeezing off a few from their toys. The only version I actually liked was the Stoner in the sniper config. Much better at keeping the bad guys as far off as possible.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Because what I want is meaningless from a policy perspective. The phrase is meant to indicate that there is no meaningful threat to gun confiscation on the legislative horizon for you and that's true. I will always work to change that as gun restrictions are quite important to me but it's unlikely that I'll succeed.

Anyways trust me, in casual conversation like this you do not want to limit yourself to only boolean true statements.

For example:

1) 'Everybody loves this restaurant, we should go there'.
2) 'DOES EVERY HUMAN ON PLANET EARTH REALLY LOVE THIS RESTAURANT? HOW CAN YOU BE OKAY WITH SAYING THAT?'

1) I HATE this restaurant
2) Nobody hates this restaurant.

I can say both of the above and claim that they are both true so I pass fskimospy logic class!

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Because what I want is meaningless from a policy perspective. The phrase is meant to indicate that there is no meaningful threat to gun confiscation on the legislative horizon for you and that's true.

1) You are arguing for confiscation of guns: true or false?
2) You are arguing that the phrase "nobody wants to take your guns" is accurate. True or false?

 

[vi edit]

You agreed with no assault weapons in exchange for an increase in revolvers. How could we arrive at no assault weapons without taking away millions of them from people who own them? That was a bad post and it touched me in a place that made me feel sad Thanks a lot! Now I am sad.

Someone proposed a hypothetical that I agree to, nothing more. In reality, I support the banning of future sales of "assault style" rifles and would encourage a generous buyback program for existing firearms under that profile. In no way do I encourage or think that outright confiscation would be effective or well received.

Future banning is not the same as "taking your guns". I'd like to see the government give you a very generous offer to buy them back and destroy them, but I don't envision Obama coming around to every house and taking them from you.

 

[SMOGZINN]

and that is why 2a supporters are fighting. we see it as a step toward a bigger ban. sorta give an inch, they take a mile.

Yes, realistically that is what is going to happen. We are going to ban 'assault weapons.' Don't worry, we will come up with some definition of what that is, and what that definition is doesn't really matter because it is not going to work. So then we will either expand the definition, or pass a new law banning more guns. Then we just keep iterating on that process until most people can agree that gun violence is under control. Then we will have found that right ratio between the freedom to own a gun vs. freedom to not be shot by a gun.

We don't have to get it right on the first try, or even the hundred and first. What is important is that we keep working at it until we get it right.

I should also point out that the word 'ban' in this instance probably just means 'severely restrict' in the same sense that owning fully automatic weapons is 'banned' in America.

 

[mdram]

I actually used to get the feeling of how impotent this weapon was when it came time to defend myself with it

interesting, can you explain why you thought it was impotent.
just curious.
i find the 5.56/.223 to be a mediocre round for anything other than punching paper

 

[fskimospy]

1) You are arguing for confiscation of guns: true or false?
2) You are arguing that the phrase "nobody wants to take your guns" is accurate. True or false?

Both true, didn't we already cover this? 'Nobody' in this case does not refer to 'not one single person on the planet', it refers to the fact that no one is advancing proposals to take your guns.

Let's take an example:

It's OK to have emotion. In the end, literally everyone on every side is pissed off and sad that this happened. NOBODY wants this. Everyone seems to disagree on the solution.

So do you have a proposed solution or are you just gonna spend your time shitting on people who disagree with you?

At least one person clearly did want that, the school shooter. You made a boolean false statement and you knew it. I personally think what you wrote was entirely reasonable, but it was clearly false. This is silliness, let's stop discussing it.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Someone proposed a hypothetical that I agree to, nothing more. In reality, I support the banning of future sales of "assault style" rifles and would encourage a generous buyback program for existing firearms under that profile. In no way do I encourage or think that outright confiscation would be effective or well received.

Around 100 murders are committed per year with these weapons. Out of the 14,000ish. Almost all of these would happen anyways (with a different weapon) even if you had a magic wand that could remove all current/future ownership of them (which you can't). What are you proposing, what is the cost, and what is the benefit?

Future banning is not the same as "taking your guns".

Yes it is! You are taking away my future gunz!!

I'd like to see the government give you a very generous offer to buy them back and destroy them, but I don't envision Obama coming around to every house and taking them from you.

And when has any government ever done this and when has it ever succeeded? Sorry, I don't hate/fear Obama.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Both true, didn't we already cover this? 'Nobody' in this case does not refer to 'not one single person on the planet', it refers to the fact that no one is advancing proposals to take your guns.

Let's take an example:

At least one person clearly did want that, the school shooter. You made a boolean false statement and you knew it. I personally think what you wrote was entirely reasonable, but it was clearly false. This is silliness, let's stop discussing it.

Nicely done. You are right. I knew it. I am corrected now. Mass shooters want to mass shootings to happen. I was wrong to say that nobody wants mass shootings to happen. I could have more accurately said "neither side" instead of nobody. See? People should correct themselves when wrong. Will you?

Meanwhile, you want to take guns away. And legislators do too. And so do lots of others. Hopefully you will correct yourself too and stop arguing that we should say that nobody actually wants this.

 

[vi edit]

Can't just focus on deaths. Also have to look at injuries. Over 500 people were injured in the Vegas shooting. While not dead, a perforated colon for the rest of your life is not exactly a fun thing. You have to look wider than just the death stat.

 

[jackstar7]

Nicely done. You are right. I knew it. I am corrected now. Mass shooters want to mass shootings to happen. I was wrong to say that nobody wants mass shootings to happen. I could have more accurately said "neither side" instead of nobody. See? People should correct themselves when wrong. Will you?

Meanwhile, you want to take guns away. And legislators do too. And so do lots of others. Hopefully you will correct yourself too and stop arguing that we should say that nobody actually wants this.

Which legislators want to take guns away? Do they have a majority yet? When can we start taking them away?

Because I'm out here saying I want to take them away from you and every other citizen as well as basically all cops, too.

I'm your bogey-man!

 

[Starbuck1975]

It’s the tool of a well regulated militia

 

[mdram]

Which legislators want to take guns away? Do they have a majority yet? When can we start taking them away?

Because I'm out here saying I want to take them away from you and every other citizen as well as basically all cops, too.

I'm your bogey-man!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns

Majority of Democrats want to ban semi-automatics, half want to ban all guns

 

[UNCjigga]

and that is why 2a supporters are fighting. we see it as a step toward a bigger ban. sorta give an inch, they take a mile.

And I think that's the wrong way to go...I see way too many progressives calling for an outright ban or even repeal of 2A, but I've always been more interested in beefing up the "well regulated militia" requirement of 2A.

I'd be all for a national gun registration and licensing program similar to what we have for automobiles. Allow anyone of a legal age (determined by states) and clear juvenile/medical/criminal record (no violent offenses, not a danger to self or others) to purchase and own "Class 1" firearms: bolt action rifles, break action shotguns, single shot pistols, revolvers or antique guns. No semi-automatics of any kind.

Moving up to the next class license and so on/so forth would require a specified amount of training, active hunting permits, ROTC and/or military service, perhaps a higher age limit, and background checks. Open carry/concealed carry and transport permits would be earned on the license, accordingly. You can also have a points system--i.e. convictions for domestic violence, substance abuse or violent felonies could count as points against your license or loss of license.

I don't see why something like this would need more than just a basic federal structure (background checks, weapon classification, registration and forensics database, perhaps tying permits to Real ID etc.) while allowing states the leeway to determine age limits, no carry areas, hunting/game permit exemptions etc.

 

[fskimospy]

Nicely done. You are right. I knew it. I am corrected now. Mass shooters want to mass shootings to happen. I was wrong to say that nobody wants mass shootings to happen. I could have more accurately said "neither side" instead of nobody. See? People should correct themselves when wrong. Will you?

Meanwhile, you want to take guns away. And legislators do too. And so do lots of others. Hopefully you will correct yourself too and stop arguing that we should say that nobody actually wants this.

The whole point is you weren't wrong, you were just talking like a normal human being. I find no value in attempting to hold people to these ridiculous standards since the whole point is to communicate and I specified to you exactly what I meant. This is silliness.

 

[vi edit]

Fox News Poll - 60% think that assault weapons should be banned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...vor-gun-measures-doubt-congress-will-act.html

 

[Jhhnn]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns

Majority of Democrats want to ban semi-automatics, half want to ban all guns

It also says nearly half of Republicans would also ban sales of semi-automatics. Put both groups together & that's a strong majority, isn't it?

Or just go with the Hastert tule...

 

[mdram]

Fox News Poll - 60% think that assault weapons should be banned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...vor-gun-measures-doubt-congress-will-act.html

but again, no one can define what an assault weapon is, other than by looks
or saying "an ar-15" or "what the military uses"

 

[jackstar7]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns

Majority of Democrats want to ban semi-automatics, half want to ban all guns

Sweet.

With the blue wave coming, we should have all those guns pretty soon.

 

[vi edit]

I honestly do not think a majority of people even understand how many firearms are classified as "semi-automatic".

I hunted for years with a 20 gauge "semi auto" shotgun. It held three rounds and looked almost exactly like this:

https://www.cabelas.com/product/sho...rting-semi-auto-shotguns/2629933.uts?slotId=0

I by no means think those types of weapons should be banned.