After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746870]That doesnt matter, you're still trying to argue it, are you not?
Theres no excuse to be ignorant on a topic if you choose to involve yourself in discussion of it.[/QUOTE]
The important factor is that if there are important differences in uses, that those are taken into account in differentiation
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52746867]you'd have to be suffering heavy cognitive dissonance if you think guns weren't invented for killing, and aren't mass produced and sold in america mainly for killing (self defense, other)[/QUOTE]
So my 12lbs AR-10 in 6.5 creedmoor that I built specifically for long range target shooting is made for killing?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746876]Is this a shitpost?
This thread is discussing firearms, not missiles.[/QUOTE]
... I'm saying if someone has an m16 and uses it as a hunting rifle only, it doesn't make everything all better
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746880]The important factor is that if there are important differences in uses, that those are taken into account in differentiation[/QUOTE]
And i'm asking you to define those differences to understand if you even know the difference.
How can you argue for something if you dont know what you're talking about?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746885]... I'm saying if someone has an m16 and uses it as a hunting rifle only, it doesn't make everything all better[/QUOTE]
A rifle isnt a fucking missile, my dude.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746838]I'm not a hunter or a target shooter, so looking to me for those specifics is silly[/quote]
So basically you're either trolling or have no idea what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746887]And i'm asking you to define those differences to understand if you even know the difference.
How can you argue for something if you dont know what you're talking about?[/QUOTE]
Because that has nothing to do with it? We're not deciding upon the exact laws right now, so what the differences are doesn't matter, just acknowledging that when the time came, those differences would be established
[editline]4th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746889]A rifle isnt a fucking missile, my dude.[/QUOTE]
Don't be pedantic, it's an analogy
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746885]... I'm saying if someone has an m16 and uses it as a hunting rifle only, it doesn't make everything all better[/QUOTE]
Good thing it's not an M16. You seem to support target shooting firearms, and that's exactly what my AR15 is built for. So there should be no problem here. That is, unless you want to move a goal post.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52746890]So basically you're either trolling or have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
What
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746893]Because that has nothing to do with it? We're not deciding upon the exact laws right now, so what the differences are doesn't matter, just acknowledging that when the time came, those differences would be established[/QUOTE]
Doesnt matter, stop making excuses. You choose to involve yourself in a conversation, you should inform yourself on what its about before making an argument.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746893]Don't be pedantic, it's an analogy[/QUOTE]
Its a poor one.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52746888]did i say every gun ever is made for killing? no. i said most guns are sold for the purpose of self defense + use at the range
count the amount of people in gun debate threads who say they purchased their gun to defend their home/family/self versus people who strictly say "i use it for shooting targets"[/QUOTE]
You said guns in America are produced mainly for killing. That's a pretty blanket statement there bud, which in of itself implies that all firearms primary function is to kill. Of course that just be a misunderstanding due to poor wording there.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746897]Good thing it's not an M16. You seem to support target shooting firearms, and that's exactly what my AR15 is built for. So there should be no problem here. That is, unless you want to move a goal post.[/QUOTE]
If it would fit the not yet made criteria of what defines a hunting weapon from a military one, then yes I suppose it would be just fine
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746905]If it would fit the not yet made criteria of what defines a hunting weapon from a military one, then yes I suppose it would be just fine[/QUOTE]
You keep saying this but you refuse to explain what the difference is in your mind.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746902]Doesnt matter, stop making excuses. You choose to involve yourself in a conversation, you should inform yourself on what its about before making an argument.
Its a poor one.[/QUOTE]
No, this is you getting caught in the irrelevant details of non existent laws, in a conversation about whether there should be any laws at all.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746905]If it would fit the not yet made criteria of what defines a hunting weapon from a military one, then yes I suppose it would be just fine[/QUOTE]
We already have that. It's selective fire modes. That's why regular guns can only be up to semi-auto, and 3-round and full auto are heavily regulated and licensed.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746909]No, this is you getting caught in the irrelevant details of non existent laws, in a conversation about whether there should be any laws at all.[/QUOTE]
"Irrelevant details" :huh:
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52746908]You keep saying this but you refuse to explain what the difference is in your mind.[/QUOTE]
I'm not an expert, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say where the dividing line would be, I'm just saying that there should be one somewhere
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746874]In that case it seems to me that it would be the same as a hunting rifle then[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746905]If it would fit the not yet made criteria of what defines a hunting weapon from a military one, then yes I suppose it would be just fine[/QUOTE]
The point is that AR-15s, and other weapons that frequently get labels like 'weapon of war', 'designed for mass murder', 'no legitimate purpose', etc., they're all functionally no different from hunting rifles. So when someone says they want to ban military weapons but leave hunting and sporting weapons alone, that idea makes no sense, because there's no distinction between the two. Any ban intended to cover weapons that are 'especially' dangerous (eg semi-automatics) is going to also take out a whole shitton of perfectly ordinary hunting weapons in the process. Any ban that specifically targets weapons 'designed to kill' is going to have the nonsensical outcome of banning hunting rifles built from WW1-vintage bolt-actions while leaving semi-automatic target rifles alone.
The only explicitly military characteristics like explosive ammunition or fully-automatic fire modes are already heavily restricted by the 1934 NFA.
I understand that if you're not knowledgeable about guns it can be annoying to essentially be challenged to draft legislation about them on the spot- but the point is that we know guns well enough to know that there aren't any hard distinctions you can write legislation around.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746916]Yes[/QUOTE]
They're not irrelevant.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746913]I'm not an expert, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say where the dividing line would be, I'm just saying that there should be one somewhere[/QUOTE]
As stated above, there already is one. At one time it was more stringent at the federal level, because people decided to ban things based on arbitrary features rather than function. Of course you'd never get semi-autos banned in general without some sort of upheaval, so that's the easiest thing to do. Then again people just put lipstick on a pig and all of a sudden is legal again when defined by arbitrary features, thus nullifying any law defining as such whatsoever.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746915]The point is that AR-15s, and other weapons that frequently get labels like 'weapon of war', 'designed for mass murder', 'no legitimate purpose', etc., they're all functionally no different from hunting rifles. So when someone says they want to ban military weapons but leave hunting and sporting weapons alone, that idea makes no sense, because there's no distinction between the two. Any ban intended to cover weapons that are 'especially' dangerous (eg semi-automatics) is going to also take out a whole shitton of perfectly ordinary hunting weapons in the process. Any ban that specifically targets weapons 'designed to kill' is going to have the nonsensical outcome of banning hunting rifles built from WW1-vintage bolt-actions while leaving semi-automatic target rifles alone.
I understand that if you're not knowledgeable about guns it can be annoying to essentially be challenged to draft legislation about them on the spot- but the point is that we know guns well enough to know that there aren't any hard distinctions you can write legislation around.[/QUOTE]
The distinction would have to be based on capability imo, for example for the sake of argument, if the definition of a hunting rifle vs a military rifle was semi automatic only, then regardless of what it looks like, any gun that fits that criteria would be accepted under that category
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746893]Because that has nothing to do with it? We're not deciding upon the exact laws right now, so what the differences are doesn't matter, just acknowledging that when the time came, those differences would be established
[editline]4th October 2017[/editline]
Don't be pedantic, it's an analogy[/QUOTE]
Your argument remains irrelevant though.
People own guns for a variety of reasons, but the right was reserved by the people to facilitate killing people and to dismantle a despotic government.
Banning firearms for hunting? Think about the time when the constitution was written. You couldn't ban hunting firearms because a huge portion of the country would starve. They reserved the right specifically for weapons to kill people.
This concept makes many uncomfortable, and it should. It should always be the reminder that governments trend towards corruption and that maintaining a fair system is a constant endeavor because nobody wants revolution.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746929]The distinction would have to be based on capability imo, for example for the sake of argument, if the definition of a hunting rifle vs a military rifle was semi automatic only, then regardless of what it looks like, any gun that fits that criteria would be accepted under that category[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you just defined what the law already is.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52746934]Your argument remains irrelevant though.
People own guns for a variety of reasons, but the right was reserved by the people to facilitate killing people and to dismantle a despotic government.
Banning firearms for hunting? Think about the time when the constitution was written. You couldn't ban hunting firearms because a huge portion of the country would starve. They reserved the right specifically for weapons to kill people.
This concept makes many uncomfortable, and it should. It should always be the reminder that governments trend towards corruption and that maintaining a fair system is a constant endeavor because nobody wants revolution.[/QUOTE]
That's a side of the debate that I have less of a set opinion on
"military style" is a stupid distinction. There are automatics and semi automatics. Both were military style at some point. It's a scare tactic to make uninformed drones think people are running around with m16s and machine guns. If you are against things because of cosmetic features you are a fool. If you're gonna propose shitty legislation at least be specific.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746929]The distinction would have to be based on capability imo, for example for the sake of argument, if the definition of a hunting rifle vs a military rifle was semi automatic only, then regardless of what it looks like, any gun that fits that criteria would be accepted under that category[/QUOTE]
If you mean that semi-automatic is hunting and automatic is military, then yes, that is currently how the law works.
If you mean that semi-automatic means military, then say goodbye to hundred-year old hunting rifles and shotguns, Olympic target pistols and all the .22 plinkers, all sorts of weapons never intended for military use and wholly unsuited for killing people to begin with.
Then say hello to a legion of pissed off gun owners and moderates, who even if they can't kick you out of office (see: 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which was far more limited yet cost Democrats control of Congress) will immediately turn to making revolvers and other 'technically not semi-auto' systems every bit as effective through their considerable ingenuity.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746997]If you mean that semi-automatic is hunting and automatic is military, then yes, that is currently how the law works.
If you mean that semi-automatic means military, then say goodbye to hundred-year old hunting rifles and shotguns, Olympic target pistols and all the .22 plinkers, all sorts of weapons never intended for military use and wholly unsuited for killing people to begin with.
Then say hello to a legion of pissed off gun owners and moderates, who even if they can't kick you out of office (see: 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which was far more limited yet cost Democrats control of Congress) will immediately turn to making revolvers and other 'technically not semi-auto' systems every bit as effective through their considerable ingenuity.[/QUOTE]
Thankfully there will always be conservatives to shoot down the terrible laws like that. The one silver lining I am hoping for from the Trump Administration.
What would the problem be with Americans deferring to UK style gun laws? My boss goes hunting every weekend, and frequently goes to gun shows and competitions. Do you need anything more?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52746913]I'm not an expert, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say where the dividing line would be, I'm just saying that there should be one somewhere[/QUOTE]
But this is the exact reason why pro-gun people are unwilling to work with you. You don't understand how guns work, what their full capabilities are, or what's already out there. Many are supportive of certain measures to ensure only qualified and stable people can acquire guns. But when they see legislation requests like "Ban silencers, because it will make shooters undetectable", or "Remove pistol grips on rifles because they look scary" they realize those politicians really have no idea what they're legislating about. And that leads to ineffective and overbearing laws that help nobody. We have a lot of regulation on the books already, but it's not being enforced properly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.