|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
26th January 2013, 03:50 PM | #1001 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
|
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
26th January 2013, 04:09 PM | #1002 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,248
|
|
26th January 2013, 04:12 PM | #1003 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
26th January 2013, 04:16 PM | #1004 |
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,994
|
|
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East |
|
26th January 2013, 05:34 PM | #1005 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 273
|
Re: 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban
This is why I oppose this bill. How is banning pistol grips and barrel shrouds going to stop gun massacres? We are better off having congress do nothing at all. Look at the mess they made trying to stop the crack epidemic. Google johnny st lawrence
|
26th January 2013, 05:43 PM | #1006 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
If they don't have anything to do with the effectiveness of the weapon, why oppose banning it?
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
26th January 2013, 05:45 PM | #1007 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
26th January 2013, 05:46 PM | #1008 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
26th January 2013, 07:15 PM | #1009 |
AI-EE-YAH!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
|
Because it shows that the lawmakers are not focusing on what they need to be focusing on. Instead, they are banning things that have absolutely zero effect on gun violence, when they could be attempting to figure out how nutcases keep getting a hold of firearms, and making legislation to address that issue.
|
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken |
|
26th January 2013, 07:17 PM | #1010 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
Not so long ago I got a warning for a post I made that was deemed not to be civil and/or polite.
That was, I believe, the first I've ever had - I generally do my best to keep discussion at a high level without name calling or rudeness. So, let me phrase his carefully... ...if I had any doubts about thaiboxerken's motives or intent in his or her posting here, I no longer do. |
26th January 2013, 07:23 PM | #1011 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
26th January 2013, 07:33 PM | #1012 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
26th January 2013, 07:33 PM | #1013 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
There is a specific straw man that keeps coming up about 'assault weapons'. People against the classification or the banning of certain features explain how those features don't directly make the weapon more dangerous or more deadly. People for some form of ban answer with some variation of, 'oh, so they do nothing, what's wrong with banning them?'
Well 'nothing' is not what a lot of the features do. I think the confusion, in addition to the normal motivations for straw men creation, stem from a different perspective on guns each group has. To one group, guns are only weapons and everything about them must be about killing. Every feature is about killing. To those who actually are familiar with them or use them, this is as silly as wonder why cargo racks are put on some cars if they don't make them go faster or more efficiently. There are aspects of guns that aren't there for directly killing but for comfort, ease of use (not just hitting, but cleaning/carrying/etc), robustness, personal preference, and yes, fashion. I hope this helps. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
26th January 2013, 08:24 PM | #1014 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
27th January 2013, 09:28 AM | #1015 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
27th January 2013, 10:17 AM | #1016 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Pretty much sums up his ignorant position nicely.
|
27th January 2013, 10:35 AM | #1017 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
27th January 2013, 10:58 AM | #1018 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
I think it's important not to generalize as that's led to a lot of straw man creation around this issue.
The person, xyz, says this on the issue. Not a straw man. This side of the debate says this on the issue because xyz said it. A straw man. It happens constantly on both sides of the debate, generally with the 'ban most/all' being thrown at the more restriction side and the 'guns are the only thing stopping governmental rape camps/tyranny/diet soda enforcement' thrown at the less restriction side. Note that there is substantial middle to which almost everyone agrees, yet people might be too far on either side to actually see it as a middle. Myself included. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
27th January 2013, 11:05 AM | #1019 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
27th January 2013, 12:22 PM | #1020 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Mostly as they get much better political mileage - thus the CDC moving the "children" category to include persons 18-25 (the group most likely to be killed during crimes/shooing each other and the move which I was unaware of until today on Amazon in a thread on same: (begin quote and full text of post )In reply to an earlier post on Jan 27, 2013 10:34:14 AM PST
Stephen284 says: Robert, if yo go to the CDC website you can see the data for all death categories, including firearms. "Firearms Deaths" are not murders; they include suicide (67%) in addition to police and and other lawful self-defense shootings. This increases the numbers and inflames people because they read "Gun Deaths" as murders. This is intentional. Also, in the list are "Children." CDC and our politically motivativated left side now consider "Children" to include 18-25 year olds." Yes, this is where the bulk of criminal shootings occur. So, how to get the number up; add in suicides, and the largest group, then change the definition of "Children" to include 18-25 year olds and there you go, lot's of "Children" are being shot. It's not true, but who bothers to look at how the stats are compiled? By the way, on CDC you can separate into sub-categories and get a better picture of what is really going on. However, in no case are gun related deaths anywhere near illness, vehicle accidents, or drownings. Firearms deaths of all groups is below "Drownings." While on CDC you can download their data for use in an Excel Spreadsheet. Here is one link: Click here: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe You can click on any category and expand it to see the sub-categories. If you further click on a code you will see how they are defined. There are at least three people on the forum who will constantly mislead you and send you to various links that have fuzzy logic and appear to support their argument. Further review will reveal the agenda driven propaganda behind their posts. My recommendation, stick to CDC, DOJ, and FBI Stats. They of course are the most reliable. (end quote - and full text of same) (Me again): Of course, I am sure that none of our anti-gun people are aware of that fraudulant use of terms by the CDC - because I certainly wasn't - but I am very glad someone else did their proper homework on this |
27th January 2013, 01:53 PM | #1021 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
|
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
27th January 2013, 02:18 PM | #1022 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
|
"fraudulant"... I assume then that someone is pressing charges, suing for damages or in some way trying to put an end to the fraud? Would that be you? Please let us know the details so we can follow the charges/law suit.
There aren't as many dead people as claimed. That's okay, but damn, you gotta stop the fraud. |
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive. |
|
27th January 2013, 02:39 PM | #1023 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,382
|
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01...t-straight-as/
Yes, we must have our guns, we must. Points them at children, this guy he does. Sorry, there needs to be some vetting for gun purchasers. |
27th January 2013, 02:40 PM | #1024 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
27th January 2013, 07:54 PM | #1025 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Oh, you mean like a barrel shroud? Or a rocket launcher attachment?
|
27th January 2013, 07:59 PM | #1026 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
You know what other accessories the military uses? They use slings. Why doesn't a sling make it an assault weapon? Swivel swings? Three point systems?
The accessories do have specific purposes. No one argued the opposite as far as I can tell. That doesn't mean that the purpose is to make it directly more deadly, or those that do make it more deadly aren't also used for other reasons, or that those that make it more deadly would change outcomes in the problematic scenarios. If there are specific design elements or accessories you'd like to argue the merits of, go ahead. That might actually make some headway. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
28th January 2013, 07:08 AM | #1027 |
No Ordinary Rabbit
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
|
What "accessories" are you talking about?
Pistol grips don't make a firearm more deadly...it's about comfort for the shooter. There are two accessories I can think of that actually assist a shooter...a scope or a laser sight (neither of which is being talked about as a qualifier for an "assault weapon"). All others are cosmetic at best. It's like banning ground effects and hood scoops for Honda's because it makes them look fast. |
__________________
-------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit! |
|
28th January 2013, 10:52 AM | #1028 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 7,870
|
Admittedly has a "propaganda" feel to it, but worth a watch regardless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA About firearms confiscation in Australia. |
28th January 2013, 11:13 AM | #1029 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
28th January 2013, 11:32 AM | #1030 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
28th January 2013, 11:41 AM | #1031 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
Barrel shrouds help cool off the barrel. How's that just cosmetic?
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
28th January 2013, 11:45 AM | #1032 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
It doesn't make the gun any more deadly, as all it does is protect the barrel from warping over long periods of time of heating and cooling cycles, and protects the users hands from being burned.
Doesn't make the gun more deadly, or able to fire more quickly, or anything else performance wise. Hence, you're wrong, again. Thanks for playing. |
28th January 2013, 11:49 AM | #1033 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
so a warped barrel doesn't decrease the performance of the gun?
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
28th January 2013, 12:14 PM | #1034 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
|
It does, but it simply won't be a factor with the crimes you claim you want to address. It makes weapons less durable for recreational shooters, and makes burns more likely.
It doesn't make it easier for spree killers, or gang violence, or even shoot-outs with police. Again there are more things accessories address than 'kill easier' or 'cosmetic'. |
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong |
|
28th January 2013, 12:41 PM | #1035 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Thank you. TYR is of course correct.
The warping of a barrel is not measured with a stop watch, but with a calender. Now, if you're talking about a barrel shroud on say, and M60 fully auto belt fed, you'd have a small point. But, we're talking about S-A weapons, not full auto belt fed guns. |
28th January 2013, 01:05 PM | #1036 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,927
|
Can you explain how a barrel shroud helps cool off a barrel? If it is a cloth or metal shroud that insulates the barrel, then it holds in heat. If it surrounds the barrel without touching it allowing air to circulate around the barrel, it does nothing to cool the barrel.
If you take a look at a firearm, you will see that most of them have some means of covering or partially covering the barrel. In the case of rifles the fore end or shroud exists to allow the shooter to hold the front of the firearm or support it on a rest to steady it. Simply resting the barrel on a rest or supporting it with the bipod degrades accuracy. If the barrel gets hot, then the shroud also allows the front of the firearm to be held without burning the hand. Recoil operated pistols normally have the barrel partially or fully covered to allow for proper operation. It is usually only revolvers or blow back handguns that lack any sort of cover for the barrel as it is usually not needed. Is it too much to ask that you learn a bit more about firearms before embarrassing yourself here? It is counterproductive to do otherwise. Ranb |
28th January 2013, 01:25 PM | #1037 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
It may be partially my fault. I've always understood that a barrel shroud helped keep the barrel cool over periods of heating and cooling. Am I wrong in this?
|
28th January 2013, 01:30 PM | #1038 |
No Ordinary Rabbit
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
|
|
__________________
-------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit! |
|
28th January 2013, 02:42 PM | #1039 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot.
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
28th January 2013, 02:52 PM | #1040 |
No Ordinary Rabbit
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
|
Thank you for playing along...
But, it was a trick question. They are the same exact rifle (they are both Ruger Mini-14 models). The bottom gun holds the same exact magazine that the top one does. The "shroud" you're referring to is only on the top of the barrel...it has absolutely zero to do with "burning your hand" as your hand would never be there to begin with. The pistol grip, once again, is cosmetic. Some people like them, some don't. It's a preference. It does not have a defining advantage over the stock grip. Bottom line? They both operate and shoot the same exact way. The only difference here? Looks. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh, other than the government trying to ban the black one because it looks scary. |
__________________
-------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit! |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|