Gun owners keeping it classy

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Because the argument raised was that the purpose of these weapons is to kill, and yet that is the least likely thing to be done with them by people who own them.

Thanks, what if the number was 2x, or 20x what it is, would that be significant enough for you to want to address the problem?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Uh...

You can regulate how much you drink and not get drunk. You can't regulate how much lead you put in a person. One usually does the trick.

Wth? Ummmm yes, you can regulate how much lead you put in a person...

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

You are still dodging, as you know the point I am making. You are advocating that certain weapons be banned, which don't cause deaths at any where near the level alcohol does. So, why do you advocate banning or severely restricting firearms when there is a substance that causes many, many more times the destruction? Would you advocate banning alcohol as well?

Or for that matter, why not advocate severely restricting handguns? Yes, there is the self-defense angle mentioned, which is arguable based on what I've seen in the other threads, but the harm caused by people with handguns far outweighs that done with "assault weapons" even if you count suicides alone.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Polaris

How about pest control? Since this country stupidly eradicated apex predators less than 100 years ago to the point that prey animal populations exploded, measures have to be taken. As I said, I don't personally do it, and I would like to see these animals controlled by their natural predators, but unless a decent ecological balance is restored I don't see a way around it.

Pest control?? Really, assault weapons are the only way to control so-called "varmints"? Sorry, but I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that other measures -- traps, poison, even more traditional guns that don't burp out clouds of bullets every second -- could not be employed that don't have the side effect of serving as weapons of mass murder. And in any case, is anyone seriously proposing that the designers of the weapons shown in the OP gave any thought to their being used to thin out prarie dog colonies? If so, talk about overkill -- does it really take one of those massive bullets to dispatch a mere prarie dog?

Quote:

Anthrax has no sporting applications. You cannot shoot targets with anthrax. Unlike semi-automatic civilian weapons (both scary and not) there is no purpose other than as a means to cause harm. It's apples and lawn flamingos.

Totally untrue. I happen to be quite interested in microbiology, and I might well be fascinated by anthrax -- or any other organism -- from a purely scientific view. And so long as I don't weaponize and use it, why not? Just because you're not into this hobby doesn't mean it's invalid. Sporting applications are hardly the only interesting pastimes which one can enjoy.

Quote:

Nobody has said Sandy Hook was justified. What has been said is that people who own military style semi-automatic firearms responsibly vastly outnumber those who don't, and they should not have their rights violated in a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible crime. What has also been said is that others steps should be taken by level-headed people. Reactionary emotionally-based legislation is always bad.

For weapons supposedly designed to kill (again, so were Winchester rifles), they do it remarkably little based on the numbers owned.

But the bolded part is the crux of my point. Sandy Hook must be justified in some way, as a regrettable but acceptable risk outweighed by the societal benefit provided by the weapons that make future Sandy Hooks possible (and probably inevitable). This differentiates assault weapons from say cars, whose benefits are both vast and obvious despite their associated risks. If the only justification is "I want to own assault weapons" -- and I've still seen essentially no real practical application these devices provide to the public beyond recreational -- then I personally cannot understand it. It doesn't mean I'm right and those who disagree are wrong; it just means I don't understand. And that's one of the things that troubles me about the image in the OP.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

Well, how about this: Alcohol is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about guns, gun control, etc.?

Is it irrelevant because you now see the hypocrisy of attacking firearms when there is a substance that serves a much, much less relevant purpose in society but yet kills thousands more?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Or for that matter, why not advocate severely restricting handguns? Yes, there is the self-defense angle mentioned, which is arguable based on what I've seen in the other threads, but the harm caused by people with handguns far outweighs that done with "assault weapons" even if you count suicides alone.

To be honest, I am still working on getting the anti gun crowd to stop labeling semi automatic rifles as assault weapons. It's a process, but someone must counter the ignorance.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Or for that matter, why not advocate severely restricting handguns? Yes, there is the self-defense angle mentioned, which is arguable based on what I've seen in the other threads, but the harm caused by people with handguns far outweighs that done with "assault weapons" even if you count suicides alone.

My position has evolved to support that. I understand it will take generations to address the gun culture we have. I think the results are worth it.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I did, thanks. It's still just as funny and stupid as the first time.

Are you sure that in addition to causing people to drive intoxicated and commit crimes, alcohol doesn't also make people sprout horns and a third eye? Maybe alcohol also makes people spontaneously travel through time. I mean, if you're going to say something nonsensical, you might as well really go for it.

Am I to understand that you do not think alcohol is a contributing factor to crimes/deaths caused in the United States?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Thanks, what if the number was 2x, or 20x what it is, would that be significant enough for you to want to address the problem?

Ideally, 1. However in the real world that's a dishonest question I cannot answer.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Wth? Ummmm yes, you can regulate how much lead you put in a person...

I decide to drink. I decide to have one or two. I've regulated how many I can put in myself.

I decide to shoot someone. Doesn't matter how many I put in him.

That's why comparing alcohol to guns is silly.

Get it?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

My position has evolved to support that. I understand it will take generations to address the gun culture we have. I think the results are worth it.

Which results? Getting handguns/rifles out of the hands of law abiding citizens and only into the hands of criminals? To each their own, but I must say that position seems a bit ill advised.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I decide to drink. I decide to have one or two. I've regulated how many I can put in myself.

I decide to shoot someone. Doesn't matter how many I put in him.

That's why comparing alcohol to guns is silly.

Get it?

What about the decision NOT to shoot someone? Does that not count?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Sandy Hook must be justified in some way, as a regrettable but acceptable risk outweighed by the societal benefit provided by the weapons that make future Sandy Hooks possible (and probably inevitable).

That's exactly the point I've tried to make multiple times. The response is the "have you stopped beating your wife" canard. I would just like to see gun people make their case for agreeing that Sandy Hook is justified to enable them to have their guns. While I haven't said it here, I've asked elsewhere for them to then take that justification and present it the those directly impacted (Newtown, Aurora, etc).

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Alcohol is regulated.

As are fire arms.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Am I to understand that you do not think alcohol is a contributing factor to crimes/deaths caused in the United States?

No. You are to understand that when someone says alcohol makes people drive intoxicated or commit crimes, I laugh at that person because it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

What about the decision NOT to shoot someone? Does that not count?

Of course it does. Apparently my ability to articulate is not at the level of some others.

I guess I'd compare it to a car accident vs a plane crash. Sure - plane crashes happen less often, but they're usually a bit more final. - what with the fireball and 400mph impact and all.

Alcohol can be a fender-bender. Getting shot? Not so much.

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Is it irrelevant because you now see the hypocrisy of attacking firearms when there is a substance that serves a much, much less relevant purpose in society but yet kills thousands more?

<sigh>


One more time.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No. You are to understand that when someone says alcohol makes people drive intoxicated or commit crimes, I laugh at that person because it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

What fantasy land do you live in where alcohol is not a contributing factor to driving intoxicated and committing crimes? Or are you making that argument that "Alcohol doesn't make people committ crimes, people commit crimes."? Strange, I think I have heard that argument somewhere before in relation to firearms...

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

<sigh>


One more time.

Lol. You have no rebuttle to the position so you link to somebody elses previously refuted work.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Of course it does. Apparently my ability to articulate is not at the level of some others.

I guess I'd compare it to a car accident vs a plane crash. Sure - plane crashes happen less often, but they're usually a bit more final. - what with the fireball and 400mph impact and all.

Alcohol can be a fender-bender. Getting shot? Not so much.

But yet, alcohol STILL kills more then firearms. So what point was it you were trying to make again?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

What fantasy land do you live in where alcohol is not a contributing factor to driving intoxicated and committing crimes? Or are you making that argument that "Alcohol doesn't make people committ crimes, people commit crimes."? Strange, I think I have heard that argument somewhere before in relation to firearms...

Do you understand the difference between being a contributing factor in committing a crime, and making someone commit a crime?

If not, maybe your six year-old can explain it to you.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

But yet, alcohol STILL kills more then firearms. So what point was it you were trying to make again?

Apparently one that will be ignored, should I be able to articulate it properly.

Nevermind.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

That's exactly the point I've tried to make multiple times. The response is the "have you stopped beating your wife" canard. I would just like to see gun people make their case for agreeing that Sandy Hook is justified to enable them to have their guns. While I haven't said it here, I've asked elsewhere for them to then take that justification and present it the those directly impacted (Newtown, Aurora, etc).

None of us committed crimes with guns, one lone nutcase in Newtown did. Why should the actions of a mentally unstable individual impact me?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

None of us committed crimes with guns, one lone nutcase in Newtown did. Why should the actions of a mentally unstable individual impact me?

Because life sucks and it's not fair.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Pest control?? Really, assault weapons are the only way to control so-called "varmints"? Sorry, but I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that other measures -- traps, poison, even more traditional guns that don't burp out clouds of bullets every second -- could not be employed that don't have the side effect of serving as weapons of mass murder. And in any case, is anyone seriously proposing that the designers of the weapons shown in the OP gave any thought to their being used to thin out prarie dog colonies? If so, talk about overkill -- does it really take one of those massive bullets to dispatch a mere prarie dog?

You really don't have any clue about the weapons under discussion, do you? We're not talking about fully-automatic weapons here. We're talking about semi-automatics, that fire one round per pull of the trigger. Not clouds or sprays of bullets. They aren't machine guns.

And those bullets are small. The Bushmaster is generally a .223 Remington - the same bore diameter as a .22 Long Rifle (a caliber one of the weapons in the 1994 AWB was chambered for), the same one generally used in Olympic shooting sports not involving shotguns. It's anything but massive. The other caliber generally used is .308 Winchester, which is a common round for deer hunters.

The Henry and Winchester rifles I mentioned earlier fire larger rounds.

Originally Posted by Stellafane

But the bolded part is the crux of my point. Sandy Hook must be justified in some way, as a regrettable but acceptable risk outweighed by the societal benefit provided by the weapons that make future Sandy Hooks possible (and probably inevitable). This differentiates assault weapons from say cars, whose benefits are both vast and obvious despite their associated risks. If the only justification is "I want to own assault weapons" -- and I've still seen essentially no real practical application these devices provide to the public beyond recreational -- then I personally cannot understand it. It doesn't mean I'm right and those who disagree are wrong; it just means I don't understand. And that's one of the things that troubles me about the image in the OP.

I know you don't understand. You're not knowledgeable at all about the weapons we're discussing - otherwise you wouldn't call them "assault weapons" (because they're not). And that's fine. I'd personally be willing to compromise on their ownership (since you are correct, recreation is by and large the only reason to own them) by keeping them restricted to ranges. It's the outright banning based on bad information and hysteria that I oppose.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Apparently one that will be ignored, should I be able to articulate it properly.

Nevermind.

If understand correctly, alcohol can be consumed in moderation, while someone cannot be shot in moderation. Is that the gist of what you have been saying?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

If understand correctly, alcohol can be consumed in moderation, while someone cannot be shot in moderation. Is that the gist of what you have been saying?

Exactly.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Because life sucks and it's not fair.

Wow. With reasoning like that we can all go home, folks!

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Lol. You have no rebuttle to the position so you link to somebody elses previously refuted work.

There is no rebuttal because you have no position; you have a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

But keep being proud of that.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

You are still dodging, as you know the point I am making. You are advocating that certain weapons be banned, which don't cause deaths at any where near the level alcohol does. So, why do you advocate banning or severely restricting firearms when there is a substance that causes many, many more times the destruction? Would you advocate banning alcohol as well?

No I'm not dodging actually, although perhaps I didn't make myself adequately clear when I responded to you originally. So I'll try again:

* I cannot understand how public availability of assault weapons can be justified, given that their sole designed purpose is to kill lots of people quickly.

* Alcohol is certainly recreational and does indeed result in many deaths through a variety of ways. However, it cannot be purposely used to the same deadly effect as an assault weapon, directly killing many people in a single event -- as noted in my farcical example, no one can walk into a school with a bottle of alcohol and kill 26 people with it.

*And in any case, the deadly effects of alcohol hardly lets assault weapons off the hook -- two wrongs and all that.

Would I advocate banning alcohol? Well, personally I don't consume it, and I wish very much people didn't abuse it to the extent they do. Given our previous experience with Prohibition, a ban on alcohol, however well-intentioned, may be unworkable -- it may be just too ingrained in our culture. Assault weapons, on the other hand, can be far more easily eradicated from public availability. And as evidenced in other countries, this can be done quite effectively and beneficially.

So I hardly think that alcohol serves as a very good model for assault weapons. Just because the former may be difficult to do much about doesn't mean we should give the latter a pass. And getting back to the OP, I think there'd be quite an outcry if the boy in the photo were hoisting a bottle of Jack Daniels to his lips. Yet he can go out and blast away on that weapon he's holding, so long as he's under parental supervision.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Wow. With reasoning like that we can all go home, folks!

Is it not true? What am I missing? People are punished for the sins of others constantly. Doesn't make it right, but you deal with it.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Is it not true? What am I missing? People are punished for the sins of others constantly. Doesn't make it right, but you deal with it.

Of course it happens, it just doesn't make it a very equitable way to conduct policy in a democracy. "Too bad, take it and like it," is more in line with Qadaffi's Libya.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Exactly.

Logical fallacy. You are comparing the endstate of the destruction caused by guns but not the endstate of destruction with alcohol.

For example, you can shoot safely by going to a range, and you can drink safely by doing so in moderation.

However, you cannot safely shoot someone in the chest just as you cannot safely drive your car drunk into someone. Get it?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Of course it happens, it just doesn't make it a very equitable way to conduct policy in a democracy. "Too bad, take it and like it," is more in line with Qadaffi's Libya.

Well, Quad asked why it should affect him, and I told him. I don't make policy, I just stated it.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Logical fallacy. You are comparing the endstate of the destruction caused by guns but not the endstate of destruction with alcohol.

For example, you can shoot safely by going to a range, and you can drink safely by doing so in moderation.

However, you cannot safely shoot someone in the chest just as you cannot safely drive your car drunk into someone. Get it?

And yet accidents at ranges still happen.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

None of us committed crimes with guns, one lone nutcase in Newtown did. Why should the actions of a mentally unstable individual impact me?

You're forgetting the mother of the "lone nutcase" who provided him with training and access to her guns.

Which I think is what a lot of us find the most concerning. Crazies and criminals will always find ways to carry out their acts of atrocity. But what about the otherwise law-abiding citizens who facilitate these atrocities through their own carelessness and irresponsibility?

As a gun-owner, do you not feel any responsibility to safeguard the rest of us from the misuse of your firearms? And if so, do you agree that stricter enforcement needs to take place in order to ensure gun-owners are taking the necessary steps to safeguard the public from the misuse of their firearms?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Well, Quad asked why it should affect him, and I told him. I don't make policy, I just stated it.

A'ight, groovy.

I would ask a similar question, more along the lines of "how can I still be able to purchase an FN FAL one day and still take steps to avoid another Sandy Hook?"

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

No I'm not dodging actually, although perhaps I didn't make myself adequately clear when I responded to you originally. So I'll try again:

* I cannot understand how public availability of assault weapons can be justified, given that their sole designed purpose is to kill lots of people quickly.

Assault weapons aren't publicly available. You must first obtain a Class 3 weapons license, and then pay for a tax stamp for each assault weapon you purchase. I am not familiar with any class 3 weapons license holder ever committing crimes with an assault rifle. Perhaps you are referring to semi automatic rifles? The ones that look scary like the assault weapons but do not have the same functionality?

Quote:

* Alcohol is certainly recreational and does indeed result in many deaths through a variety of ways. However, it cannot be purposely used to the same deadly effect as an assault weapon, directly killing many people in a single event -- as noted in my farcical example, no one can walk into a school with a bottle of alcohol and kill 26 people with it.

So your issue is that an semi auto rifle that look scary like an assault weapon (Let's just assume this is what you are reffering to) can cause more destruction at once? So your argument is based more on emotion, rather then the actual figures of total numbers killed correct?

Quote:

*And in any case, the deadly effects of alcohol hardly lets assault weapons off the hook -- two wrongs and all that.

But yet here you are advocating a ban on semi auto rifles that look scary like assault weapons but no solution to alcohol.

Quote:

Would I advocate banning alcohol? Well, personally I don't consume it, and I wish very much people didn't abuse it to the extent they do. Given our previous experience with Prohibition, a ban on alcohol, however well-intentioned, may be unworkable -- it may be just too ingrained in our culture. Assault weapons, on the other hand, can be far more easily eradicated from public availability. And as evidenced in other countries, this can be done quite effectively and beneficially.

You just referenced how alcohol is ingrained in our culture. What about firearms and rifles? That is not ingrained in our culture? 50 million households with firearms seems pretty prevalent to me. So your excuse for not going after alcohol is that it would be too hard? Given the amount of destruction it causes, doesn't that seem like a bit of a handwave in favor of something that causes far, far less deaths?

Quote:

So I hardly think that alcohol serves as a very good model for assault weapons. Just because the former may be difficult to do much about doesn't mean we should give the latter a pass. And getting back to the OP, I think there'd be quite an outcry if the boy in the photo were hoisting a bottle of Jack Daniels to his lips. Yet he can go out and blast away on that weapon he's holding, so long as he's under parental supervision.

Shooting the weapon under parental supervision at a range causes no harm to anyone. A child consuming alcohol is devastating to his body. Big difference.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

And yet accidents at ranges still happen.

And yet, people attempt to drink in moderation but still end up getting drunk and driving...

ETA: And I am glad that you acknowledge the logical fallacy you committed.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Exactly.

That would be a valid point if the only thing that you could do with a gun was shoot other people. What others have been saying is that it is possible to use firearms in a way that doesn't endanger the lives or safety of others, much like there is a way to use alcohol in a way that doesn't endanger the lives or saftey of others.