Third-graders are selling AR-15 raffle tickets in Missouri - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=download;53142848]I think we raffled a knife a few years back at my gun club, and I've certainly seen beer (among other alcohol) raffled in fetes and such. Haven't seen smokes raffled though. So yeah, we will actually do raffle those things.[/QUOTE] Raffling alcohol, tobacco, and knives is kind of weird too sorry.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53142844]What "the problem" is is a matter of perspective and defining the question. If someone was addicted to ice cream and had significant health problems because of it, the "root" problem would be their addiction, but we could easily minimize the impact of the addiction by replacing the ice cream in their diet with an alternative that was healthier. It's the same with our approach to guns. While they're not the [I]root[/I] of the proble per se, they make the problem significantly worse and exacerbates the impact it has on the population.[/QUOTE] This is a fairly bad example. When some people have an issue with ice cream addiction you don't ban ice cream for every person. Which is what most gun control advocates want.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;53142878]This is a fairly bad example. When some people have an issue with ice cream addiction you don't ban ice cream for every person. Which is what most gun control advocates want.[/QUOTE] The entire US as a country is the one with the proverbial "ice cream addiction". The analogy is more holistic than individualized. The analogy works like individual : ice cream :: country : guns, not group of individuals : ice cream :: group of individuals : guns. In case it wasn't obvious I dont support any sort of universal gun ban btw. I'm also curious if there are statistics out there to back your sentiment of "most gun control advocates want guns banned for literally everyone" up.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53142861]Raffling alcohol, tobacco, and knives is kind of weird too sorry.[/QUOTE] So you've never seen a bottle of wine in a raffle? That's actually bizzare.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53142861]Raffling alcohol, tobacco, and knives is kind of weird too sorry.[/QUOTE] Alcohol in raffles(especially primary school fetes) is normal here in Australia. Is it really that weird?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53142402]Why not this gun? The father of one of the players has a hand in manufacturing it so he can get this nearly thousand-dollar rifle at way less than retail for the raffle. I don't get the squeamishness around AR-15s and I guess I never will. It's just another type of rifle. As someone who owns one, I don't assign any particular extra value to it. It's just another sporting rifle among a few that I own. I like to shoot it sometimes because it's a softer shooting gun than the heavier Mausers and stuff that I also have.[/QUOTE] what's the sporting purpose of it?

[QUOTE=krail9;53142921]what's the sporting purpose of it?[/QUOTE] For clarification, because the whole sports thing can be a bit confusing, "Modern sporting rifle" is a term coined to designate the AR-15 and its derivatives as a way to disrupt the common misconception that "AR" means Assault Rifle. This being said, the actual sporting purpose of it is, well, sports. You can shoot it for fun in a safe and sometimes competitive environment and it's very popular in that regard since it's a highly modular gun with more availability of spare parts than possibly any other gun that exists in the US.

[QUOTE=download;53142900]So you've never seen a bottle of wine in a raffle? That's actually bizzare.[/QUOTE] I have. It's weird.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53142936]I have. It's weird.[/QUOTE] How is it weird?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53142825]Honestly - I'm secure in my position because I know the facts. This is my life; I grew up around guns, now I teach other people to handle them responsibly. You aren't going to get anywhere by trying different combinations of scary emotional words and "THE CHILDREN" because I know it's bullshit. Between my personal experience, the combined experiences of the people I've grown up with, and the research I've done, I have a pretty good grasp on the actual problems the US is facing. Gun saturation isn't ideal but it's not actually THE PROBLEM and there's no practical way to do anything about it regardless, so I'm a lot more concerned with the actual problems this country is awash in. You're secure in your position because you think you know the facts. You have no real exposure to these things - if you do, it certainly pales in comparison to what Americans who live with them have had. You know what you see on the news and what your government tells you about The Evil Guns and you've taken it upon yourself to tell everyone else, too. But it's tripe. You aren't "disgusted," you aren't baying for the children, you've just completely given up making rational arguments because you don't know enough to form one. So the way I see it there's two ways we can move forward here. Way one is you figure out quick you aren't going to manipulate me with bullshit emotional arguments and move on to find someone else to lie to. Way two is you admit you don't know what you're talking about and educate yourself, with or without talking to us maturely, so you can actually carry a rational discussion. Whichever it's gonna be, I'm not hearing "b-b-but the children!" anymore tonight.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I can't really tell the point that you're making here. You keep talking about "the problem" and "the facts" but aren't giving any specifics. Which problem are you addressing? Which facts do you know that others allegedly do not? Why do you keep acting like this is a situation in which people are attempting to somehow manipulate you? People legitimately do feel that way. They aren't doing it to "win". If somebody says that something disgusts them, it likely actually does. If "the problem" that you're talking about is gun violence, I absolutely fail to see how the guns themselves could not be seen as the problem when you look at the statistics of the matter.

[QUOTE=phygon;53143003]I'm sorry, I can't really tell the point that you're making here. You keep talking about "the problem" and "the facts" but aren't giving any specifics. Which problem are you addressing? Which facts do you know that others allegedly do not? Why do you keep acting like this is a situation in which people are attempting to somehow manipulate you? People legitimately do feel that way. They aren't doing it to "win". If somebody says that something disgusts them, it likely actually does. If "the problem" that you're talking about is gun violence, I absolutely fail to see how the guns themselves could not be seen as the problem when you look at the statistics of the matter.[/QUOTE] It’s because the same willfully ignorant people keep spouting emotional nonsense/reactionary garbage which is easily debunked by a damn google search for the umpteenth thread about guns. Although some people in this thread are making an effort to learn about the issues.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53142936]I have. It's weird.[/QUOTE] You might be the only one. Free booze is a blessing, assuming you like to drink of course.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53142935]For clarification, because the whole sports thing can be a bit confusing, "Modern sporting rifle" is a term coined to designate the AR-15 and its derivatives as a way to disrupt the common misconception that "AR" means Assault Rifle. This being said, the actual sporting purpose of it is, well, sports. You can shoot it for fun in a safe and sometimes competitive environment and it's very popular in that regard since it's a highly modular gun with more availability of spare parts than possibly any other gun that exists in the US.[/QUOTE] They're also good for hunting. You can change calibers just by snapping on a different upper - you don't even need to re-zero it, or get a different magazine. You can build it as a short, handy carbine for hunting pigs in thick brush, or into a long-range precision rifle for mountain goats. For bigger game though, you'd want to get an AR-10, which is pretty much the 15's bigger brother. Same advantages there: caliber interchangeability, and you can configure it however you like.

I mean, I would even find this weird if it were about a sharpened medieval sword getting auctioned for a kids baseball team.

[QUOTE=phygon;53143003]I'm sorry, I can't really tell the point that you're making here. You keep talking about "the problem" and "the facts" but aren't giving any specifics. Which problem are you addressing? Which facts do you know that others allegedly do not? Why do you keep acting like this is a situation in which people are attempting to somehow manipulate you? People legitimately do feel that way. They aren't doing it to "win". If somebody says that something disgusts them, it likely actually does. If "the problem" that you're talking about is gun violence, I absolutely fail to see how the guns themselves could not be seen as the problem when you look at the statistics of the matter.[/QUOTE] You have the memory span of a goldfish or what, phygon? Remember how we just discussed this for 18 something pages in another thread and I wrote a Michael Crichton novel about my take on it? You were there buddy. I'm not going to repeat the same arguments I've already made at people who have already read them within the past 2 days. [editline]19th February 2018[/editline] & yes Duck I was talking to BF, not you. If you want to shoot some time the offer I made the other fella stands.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53143507]You have the memory span of a goldfish or what, phygon? Remember how we just discussed this for 18 something pages in another thread and I wrote a Michael Crichton novel about my take on it? You were there buddy. I'm not going to repeat the same arguments I've already made at people who have already read them within the past 2 days. [editline]19th February 2018[/editline] & yes Duck I was talking to BF, not you. If you want to shoot some time the offer I made the other fella stands.[/QUOTE] Not really sure where the personal insults are coming from friendo, I was talking about this specific post because you didn't actually came any specifics, you were just stating that you "knew the facts" and that others did not know the facts. I was asking about that particular post for clarification, and stating that your assertion that people are making claims for the sole purpose of manipulating you is false. Speakingr that in that thread, you admitted that you were unaware of how effective gun bans were in reducing gun violence + violence in general when someone linked a study talking about how effective it was in other countries. Granted, that's not to say that I'm in favor of a gun ban, because I am not. It would, at this current time, be infeasible and would result in criminals still having guns but law abiding citizens losing their ability to protect themselves and sport. But guns are most certainly the source of gun violence.

[QUOTE=phygon;53143615]Not really sure where the personal insults are coming from friendo, I was talking about this specific post because you didn't actually came any specifics, you were just stating that you "knew the facts" and that others did not know the facts. I was asking about that particular post for clarification, and stating that your assertion that people are making claims for the sole purpose of manipulating you is false. Speakingr that in that thread, you admitted that you were unaware of how effective gun bans were in reducing gun violence + violence in general when someone linked a study talking about how effective it was in other countries. Granted, that's not to say that I'm in favor of a gun ban, because I am not. It would, at this current time, be infeasible and would result in criminals still having guns but law abiding citizens losing their ability to protect themselves and sport. But guns are most certainly the source of gun violence.[/QUOTE] This might be a bit nitpicky but guns aren't the source of gun violence, they're the vehicle used to carry it out. That's not to say that the presence of guns and our unique gun culture don't inform the frequency of violent crime carried out with guns (and the lethal rates of violent crime as a whole), but I feel like from a semantic standpoint the statement "guns are most certainly the source of gun violence" gets torn to shreds under any kind of scrutiny and massively oversimplifies the situation.

[QUOTE=phygon;53143615]Not really sure where the personal insults are coming from friendo, I was talking about this specific post because you didn't actually came any specifics, you were just stating that you "knew the facts" and that others did not know the facts. I was asking about that particular post for clarification, and stating that your assertion that people are making claims for the sole purpose of manipulating you is false. Speakingr that in that thread, you admitted that you were unaware of how effective gun bans were in reducing gun violence + violence in general when someone linked a study talking about how effective it was in other countries. Granted, that's not to say that I'm in favor of a gun ban, because I am not. It would, at this current time, be infeasible and would result in criminals still having guns but law abiding citizens losing their ability to protect themselves and sport. But guns are most certainly the source of gun violence.[/QUOTE] Emotional arguments are manipulative. The entire post I was replying to is concentrated manipulation juice. "The children!!!" and "TERRIFYING ASSAULT WEAPONS" and "GUNS ARE MADE TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE" are emotional statements designed to manipulate and play on feelings rather than facts. Not to mention I didn't "admit" anything in that thread except that I misunderstood some statistics about "firearms incidents" in the UK which caused me to reassess my opinion of the UK gun ban specifically, with all of the unique factors that apply only to the UK's case. Don't try and twist my words to weaken my position. In other words I didn't just bat away good information. I accepted it and learned something from it and applied it to my position. Can you say you've done the same?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53143639]Emotional arguments are manipulative. The entire post I was replying to is concentrated manipulation juice. "The children!!!" and "TERRIFYING ASSAULT WEAPONS" and "GUNS ARE MADE TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE" are emotional statements designed to manipulate and play on feelings rather than facts.[/quote] I admit that those are emotional statements, but I disagree that they are made for the purpose of manipulating. People don't go from having an agenda to forming an opinion, they go from forming an opinion to having an agenda. Additionally, nobody in this thread stated that assault weapons are "terrifying", and certainly nobody claimed that guns were made to murder innocent people. You're arguing against strawmen. [quote] Not to mention I didn't "admit" anything in that thread except that I misunderstood some statistics about "firearms incidents" in the UK which caused me to reassess my opinion of the UK gun ban specifically, with all of the unique factors that apply only to the UK's case. Don't try and twist my words to weaken my position. [/quote] ...Why are you continuing to treat this like this is me doing some sort of personal attack on you? It isn't, at all. I was merely pointing out that in that thread, you posted that you realized that weapons bans are more effective than you had thought. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139007]These are both good posts, good info. I didn't know any of that. I cede that the gun ban in the UK has been more effective than I thought (but perhaps still less effective than many think) & that I was mistaken to use that in my argument. I also didn't realize London represented that much of a chunk of the UK population.[/QUOTE] Granted, I'm still not entirely sure of what your argument even is since when I asked for clarification you didn't offer any, so I don't know. Maybe it does weaken your position. [quote]In other words I didn't just bat away good information. I accepted it and learned something from it and applied it to my position. Can you say you've done the same?[/QUOTE] I absolutely can. Absolutely all that my statement in this thread was asking for clarification on your post, and stating that less guns = less gun violence, which is in all honesty a fairly weak point to make that doesn't say a whole lot; I only said it because your post seemed to imply otherwise. [editline]19th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;53143631]This might be a bit nitpicky but guns aren't the source of gun violence, they're the vehicle used to carry it out. That's not to say that the presence of guns and our unique gun culture don't inform the frequency of violent crime carried out with guns (and the lethal rates of violent crime as a whole), but I feel like from a semantic standpoint the statement "guns are most certainly the source of gun violence" gets torn to shreds under any kind of scrutiny and massively oversimplifies the situation.[/QUOTE] I would agree if the statistics didn't say otherwise. Countries that have had effective gun bans have absolutely seen a decrease in gun violence. I'm not claiming that guns are the source of violent crime, only that they allow specifically gun violence to happen, which is kind of self-evident. I perhaps worded my post incorrectly; guns are not the [I]source[/I] of gun violence, but guns allow gun violence to happen, and guns are a necessary part in gun violence being carried out. So if one were to claim that "the problem" is gun violence, then guns are indeed an intrinsic part of "the problem".

[QUOTE=phygon;53143674] I would agree if the statistics didn't say otherwise. Countries that have had effective gun bans have absolutely seen a decrease in gun violence. I'm not claiming that guns are the source of violent crime, only that they allow specifically gun violence to happen, which is kind of self-evident.[/QUOTE] Thats ignoring literally every other reason why those statistics are different.

[QUOTE=phygon;53143674] I would agree if the statistics didn't say otherwise. Countries that have had effective gun bans have absolutely seen a decrease in gun violence. I'm not claiming that guns are the source of violent crime, only that they allow specifically gun violence to happen, which is kind of self-evident. I perhaps worded my post incorrectly; guns are not the [I]source[/I] of gun violence, but guns allow gun violence to happen, and guns are a necessary part in gun violence being carried out. So if one were to claim that "the problem" is gun violence, then guns are indeed an intrinsic part of "the problem".[/QUOTE] Of course they have a decrease in gun violence with less guns. What actually needs to be observed is if that's significant when controlling for the other factors that go into those statistics and observing the impact of other sources of violent crime (especially, when regarding the latter, in the context of the relative absence of guns). I agree much more with the claim "guns allow specifically gun violence to happen", but honestly that's just common sense (which you admitted). It's probably a more effective way to word your stance in the long run though. And yeah I agree, guns are indeed an intrinsic part of the problem. I think once coming to that conclusion, you can get into get into a more developed discourse that investigates as to why it affects the US so adversely (in terms of specific causes/effects instead of generic and vague ascribing) and in terms of actual solutions. It also gets a little philosophical in terms of "how much value do we ascribe to freedom and human life (and how much value do we ascribe to both of those concepts [I]in the context of each other[/I])" which is something I don't think any of us have come to a firm conclusion with yet and probably wont. It's become pretty clear to me over time that one's opinions on this debate come from highly individual and complex personal philosophies. It's definitely a more difficult problem to solve than most people give it credit for, especially in the US.