|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Dennis The Menace 
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 20 2012, 11:22 pm |
|
   |
http://www.latimes.com/news....4.story
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 756
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 12:00 am |
|
 |
I would actually call it a poorly supported emotional case for banning legitimate firearms erroneously called assault weapons.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 12:07 am |
|
|
Then lay out your arguments why
If you attempt to make an argument use direct quotes from the article so we make sure you're
not using any strawman arguments
if you can't then it would be you using emotion
BTW I guess that other thread was deleted?
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 12:28 am |
|
|
No I don't know why that was deleted
Where are the quotes from the article I linked in the first post? I didn't see you quote
from the article. I mean your initial response was about the article I linked to correct
and not just some generic reply based on the title? So rebut the arguments made by the author
that you made your initial statement about
Beyond that the issue are assault weapons(I understand you don't like that nomenclature
but I assume you understand what we are trying to refer to by the phrase) not specifically
one type of assault weapon such as the AR15. Also you say "a useful firearm for the average
gun owner"? Is that the issue here? Is that what we are debating? If they are useful?
Useful as defined by what criteria and how is that criteria relevant to the issue laid out
by the article?
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6031
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 9:39 am |
|
|
Maybe this is a good reason for no further gun control:
http://www.infowars.com/communi....isarmed
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
kyle2193
Group: Members
Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2008
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 10:18 am |
|
|
Do you know what the difference between a AR-15 and a Remington Model 7615 is? Cosmetics.
They are both semi auto, .223 rilfes that can accept large capacity magizines. One looks like a hunting rifle and one looks like military issue, but they are the same gun.
Anyway, the AWB really didn't do anything the first time around. Most of these guys don't use 'assult weapons', the two deadliest ones in history both used pistols.
What they do all have in common is a history of untreated mental illness. But hey, it is easier to write a law about guns so we can say we did something.
--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 10:55 am |
|
|
It's a better, more cost effective tool for killing things.
It appeals to the thrifty psychopaths out there.
Why take four guns to the elementary school Adam - when you only needed one to get the job done?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 11:05 am |
|
|
The empty vessel that is conservative/libertarian ideology.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2346
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 11:07 am |
|
|
How clueless does one have to be to think it's easier to rid the world of mental illness than to enact tougher restrictions on access to guns? Montecristo could never find an answer to my question but maybe you can. Why should the mentally ill be denied gun ownership but people who drink should not? More crimes are committed by drunks than the mentally ill.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2346
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 11:15 am |
|
|
(Three @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:10 am)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:00 am)
QUOTE But yeah, I'm sure there's little chance it will penetrate drywall and kill a neighbor accidentally. Not saying little chance, but testing shows much less of a chance than most projectiles from many popular handguns, older style hunting rifles, or shotguns shooting buckhot. Do you have data showing otherwise? Cheers,
You don't seem to realize you just completely defeated your own argument. The fact that there are more dangerous handguns out there than a weapon of choice of mass murderers, demonstrates just how absurd it is that people have these things hiding under their pillows.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2346
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 11:26 am |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:25 am)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:07 am)
QUOTE Why should the mentally ill be denied gun ownership but people who drink should not? Did I say deny gun ownership to the mentally ill?
You going to pretend that's not what you were promoting in your last post? Okay. Whatever works. Seems like it'd be easier to admit you said something you didn't really think through clearly than to change tune midstream.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2346
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 12:56 pm |
|
|
People were assaulted by someone using weapons but they weren't assault weapons. Great logic.
All you've done with those two references is demonstrate more weapons need to be labelled as assault weapons. Do you people ever think before you post?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
hiking_tiger
sekk, plyndre, og deretter brenne
Group: Members
Posts: 4753
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 1:28 pm |
|
|
(Three @ Dec. 21 2012, 9:52 am)
QUOTE
(Dennis The Menace @ Dec. 21 2012, 12:28 am)
QUOTE No I don't know why that was deleted
Where are the quotes from the article I linked in the first post? I didn't see you quote
from the article. I mean your initial response was about the article I linked to correct
and not just some generic reply based on the title? So rebut the arguments made by the author
that you made your initial statement about
Beyond that the issue are assault weapons(I understand you don't like that nomenclature
but I assume you understand what we are trying to refer to by the phrase) not specifically
one type of assault weapon such as the AR15. Also you say "a useful firearm for the average
gun owner"? Is that the issue here? Is that what we are debating? If they are useful?
Useful as defined by what criteria and how is that criteria relevant to the issue laid out
by the article? AR-15 because of its design characteristics and modularity (change components for different calibers and sighting options) is one of the most versatile firearms out there. For home defense it is light and easy to shoot and hit with for even the relatively inexperience or those of small frame/many women. It has less of a chance of overpenetrating and going thru multiple walls than even many handgun and shotgun loadings. It also has advantages to someone living on rural properties or who may be a long way away from police response. For hunting, with changes in components and thus calibers, it can be effectively and legally used on almost all game in N. America with the exception of bird hunting. The design is inherently accurate and ammo is relatively cheap so it is widely used in target shooting competitions and shooting sports. It is not just a murder's weapon, though any firearm can be used for the wrong purpose. If you are really interested beyond just the debate, PM me. Regards,
This is where I am. Who cares what the frame is that the projectile is launched from? Is the AR-15 more "assaultish" than something else? No.
I could go in for a limit on magazine capacity, but see no reason to ban one style of weapon over another. The latter gets you onto the slope where an elk rifle might be considered a sniper rifle and banned.
--------------
“Sometimes you have to be ready to receive the information before it can take hold.” – C. Schwarz
“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.” – Attributed to the Buddhism tradition…
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
kyle2193
Group: Members
Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2008
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 2:30 pm |
|
|
(HighGravity @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:26 am)
QUOTE
(kyle2193 @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:25 am)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Dec. 21 2012, 11:07 am)
QUOTE Why should the mentally ill be denied gun ownership but people who drink should not? Did I say deny gun ownership to the mentally ill? You going to pretend that's not what you were promoting in your last post? Okay. Whatever works. Seems like it'd be easier to admit you said something you didn't really think through clearly than to change tune midstream.
You are free to check my post history, the problem is squarely mental illness and I've voiced it as such. Limiting gun access to the mentally ill won't work for a slew of reasons, including you can develop an illness after you legally purchace a firearm.
What we can do is work towards treating the illness before they get to the point where shooting people seems like a good idea.
It is better for society in more ways than just the reduction of mass shootings and would be more effective.
--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4071
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 2:38 pm |
|
|
The Judge made many good points, the same ones that have been voiced in the threads here.
We need to take serious steps to make guns less deadly, and we need to start now.
The NRA has missed a great oppotunity to get on the side sanity and growing public opinion, by sponsoring technical improvements to all guns that would make tthem inoperable to all but the registered and licensed owner.
Not a big surprise, just one more obvious oppotunity squandered.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 21 2012, 2:40 pm |
|
|
(Montecresto @ Dec. 21 2012, 9:24 am)
QUOTE
(Dennis The Menace @ Dec. 21 2012, 12:28 am)
QUOTE No I don't know why that was deleted
Where are the quotes from the article I linked in the first post? I didn't see you quote
from the article. I mean your initial response was about the article I linked to correct
and not just some generic reply based on the title? So rebut the arguments made by the author
that you made your initial statement about
Beyond that the issue are assault weapons(I understand you don't like that nomenclature
but I assume you understand what we are trying to refer to by the phrase) not specifically
one type of assault weapon such as the AR15. Also you say "a useful firearm for the average
gun owner"? Is that the issue here? Is that what we are debating? If they are useful?
Useful as defined by what criteria and how is that criteria relevant to the issue laid out
by the article? Stop using assault weapon and AR-15 in the same sentence. There's no connection. Are you ignorant of this fact, or willfully deceptive??
Do you have reading comprehension problem?
WTF didn't you understand about when I said 'I understand you don't like that nomenclature but
I assume you understand what we are trying to refer to by the phrase"?
Now are people like you going to have a pissing match because I used the term "assault
weapon" to divert the issue at hand?
Added:
Its especially anidiotic response from you because the title of the thread is about
'assault weapons' not AR15s. Oh but then you ask why did I bring up AR15s then? Because
Three brought it up first. So the guy that you responded positively to in your post 6
actually did the conflating first. So if you have a problem with someone conflating an AR15
with an 'assault weapon' then take it up with three who responded with the AR15 example when
the topic was on 'assault weapons'(the clear implication is that Three considers an AR15 and
'assault weapons')
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
