Yay, GUNS!

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, zapatos said:

Here is what your link says: 

Definition of assault rifle

: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire;  also  : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Please highlight the part that says "a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle." If you cannot do so, then please retract your claim.

 

Here, I highlighted it in bold with capital letters so that you won't miss it:

A RIFLE THAT RESEMBLES A MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BUT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY SEMO-AUTOMATIC FIRE

Are you seriously trying to suggest that an AR-15 or SIG MCX does not fit that category?

Quote

I can assure you that making such broad, negative generalizations about groups of people will not help you achieve gun control

It doesn't really matter what generalizations anyone makes at this point.  20 kids were gunned down at Sandy Hook in 2012 and gun-owners didn't do a damn thing.  That's all anyone needs to know at this point about the seriousness of your intent. 

 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Here is what your link says: 

Definition of assault rifle

: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire;  also  : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

 

Please highlight the part that says "a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle." If you cannot do so, then please retract your claim.

 

 

 

If it functions the same as an assault weapon it's an assault weapon... if it walks like a duck... I can't believe you would argue over such a trifle.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If it functions the same as an assault weapon it's an assault weapon... if it walks like a duck... I can't believe you would argue over such a trifle.

A .22 rifle does not function the same as an assault weapon. That is why they are not issued by the military. People cannot make up their own definitions for words that are in common usage, otherwise debate will be impossible.

8 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

Here, I highlighted it in bold with capital letters so that you won't miss it:

A RIFLE THAT RESEMBLES A MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BUT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY SEMO-AUTOMATIC FIRE

Are you seriously trying to suggest that an AR-15 or SIG MCX does not fit that category?

A RIFLE THAT RESEMBLES A MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BUT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY SEMO-AUTOMATIC FIRE

...is not the same as...

a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle

...no matter how many times you say it is. A .22 with a 30 round magazine will never qualify as an assault weapon.

Quote

It doesn't really matter what generalizations anyone makes at this point. 20 kids were gunned down at Sandy Hook in 2012 and gun-owners didn't do a damn thing. 

I really don't know how to respond to someone who knowingly uses logical fallacies and believes they are an acceptable form of debate.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

A .22 rifle does not function the same as an assault weapon. That is why they are not issued by the military. People cannot make up their own definitions for words that are in common usage, otherwise debate will be impossible.

A RIFLE THAT RESEMBLES A MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BUT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY SEMO-AUTOMATIC FIRE

...is not the same as...

a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle

...no matter how many times you say it is. A .22 with a 30 round magazine will never qualify as an assault weapon.

 

 You seem to be blatantly ignoring the definition of assault rifle to help your argument. 

Quote

The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle

"The semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle".  And what is an M16?  *drum roll please*  It is an ASSAULT RIFLE. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

So, we can move on.  Finally. 

Quote

I really don't know how to respond to someone who knowingly uses logical fallacies and believes they are an acceptable form of debate.

Or perhaps you don't know how to respond to the facts because you have no rebuttal argument. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This intellectual dishonesty is getting you nowhere. 

I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you can ask someone in the military if every weapon with a 30 round magazine constitutes an assault weapon. Or look at US gun laws and see if any of the assault style weapons they list include .22s.

Quote

"The semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle".  And what is an M16?  *drum roll please*  It is an ASSAULT RIFLE. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#NATO_standards

Yes, we all know that. But your claim was that a semi-automatic that has a 30 round magazine was an assault weapon. And a .22 rifle is not "a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle", no matter how many times you say otherwise. If you go to Congress to argue for new gun laws and get them to agree to a ban on assault weapons that can use a 30 round magazine, then afterwards try to enforce a ban on .22 rifles, you will be laughed at.

 

Quote

Or perhaps you don't know how to respond to the facts because you have no rebuttal argument. 

You really think it is a fact that no gun owners did anything after Sandy Hook? You really think it is a fact that generalizations don't matter? Again, I don't know how to respond to that.

You will never find common ground with gun owners if you start out by accusing them of all have the same uncaring traits. It is simply not true. Don't paint all gun owners with the brush you use for the NRA leadership and the scoundrels in Congress. You are capable of better, and your arguments are stymying meaningful discussion.

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you can ask someone in the military if every weapon with a 30 round magazine constitutes an assault weapon. Or look at US gun laws and see if any of the assault style weapons they list include .22s.

It's difficult to argue with you when you keep choosing to purposefully misrepresent the facts:

"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which incorporated the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, banned the manufacturing and importing of the rifle [AR-15] along with other assault rifles, but the ban ended in 2004.  The regulation of the rifle is now left up to the states, and several state regulations are described below"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"California

Penal Code section 12276 subdivisions (e) and (f) made it unlawful to sell an AK or AR-15 series rifle after August 16, 2000 in the state of California.  Certain features of the weapon may be removed to declassify it as an assault weapon, but it’s still illegal to sell in California.  It is legal to possess the weapon in California if it was possessed before December 31, 1999 and registered with the state before December 31, 2000."

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Colorado

In January of 2007, the Denver City Council passed a law that modified the city’s assault weapon ban.  It is legal to own an AR-15 or other assault rifles if they do not contain a magazine with 21 or more rounds. "

 

source: https://gun.laws.com/ar-15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the 1994 Federal Assault weapons ban, the AR-15 was on the list of banned firearms. 

And one more thing, the type of ammo that the AR-15 uses?  .45 and .22

 

But none of this seems to matter to you.  You prefer your own made up definitions. 

 

Quote

You really think it is a fact that no gun owners did anything after Sandy Hook? You really think it is a fact that generalizations don't matter? Again, I don't know how to respond to that.

You will never find common ground with gun owners if you start out by accusing them of all have the same uncaring traits. It is simply not true. Don't paint all gun owners with the brush you use for the NRA leadership and the scoundrels in Congress. You are capable of better, and your arguments are stymying meaningful discussion.

Generally I think there is a kind of fatalistic lethargy in the minds of gun owners when it comes to tackling this problem.  Their view is that guns make society safer, which is patently false, but yet they cling to this logical fallacy and promote less regulation and more consumption of firearms (driven by thought system 1).  They don't care about other people affected by gun violence, only themselves and their families, which is why they don't do anything substantive when tragedies occur.  Sure they like to pray about it, and if they are personally affected by it they pray and cry and believe their deceased loved one is in heaven.  But they don't want to actually do anything, that would require compromising their guns, which is their main priority above all else. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[John Cuthber]

The rest of the world does not have a shooting spree at a school every week.

It is not because we have a better definition of the phrase "assault rifle".

[arc]

Just wanted to provide some specification on this 22 cal. situation here. 

http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/VersusRound223vs556vs22lr

"The ubiquitous and inexpensive 22LR round can be fired through a large number of different rifles. It's also possible to design a conversion kit into any 223/5.56mm rifle, to shoot 22LR out of it. This is quite commonly done on the AR-15 platform with the 'Ceiner' conversion. One thing to be aware of, when considering a drop-in conversion, is that 22LR bullets are .223" in diameter, while 223/5.56mm bullets are .224" in diameter. While the 22LR bullet will readily travel down a 223/5.56mm barrel, it won't be a very tight fit and there will be a drop in accuracy compared to a barrel designed for 22LR. Another consideration is that the optimal twist rate for 22LR barrels is slower than any of the common 223/5.56mm twist rates."

-- SeanNewton - 07 Dec 2007

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Can you provide a poll or some other evidence verifying that?  The NRA has a core membership of 5 million, but there are many others who tacitly support their efforts. 

General support for backgrounds checks is around 90%

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

Even within the NRA, support is over 70% http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/18/lena-taylor/most-nra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/

 

And there's support for assault weapons ban

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283558-poll-majority-of-americans-support-ban-on-assault-weapons

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

1. That's a good way to lose all credibility.

2. While we're at it, we should also sue every bar that has ever sold alcohol to someone who then proceeded to hit someone while drunk. Sue every liquor store that has ever sold alcohol to someone who then gave it to minors. And then sue facebook for people posting stupid stuff on it. Then sue Instagram..... you get the idea.

Justice does not include guilty by association in my opinion.

1.Credibility is relative. Have pro gun advocates lost credibility by refusing to even entertain discussion?

2. It is funny you use drunk driving as your example. Numerous Bars have been sued and in nearly all states it is illegal to sell alcohol to intoxicated individuals. Laws use to be very lax regarding drunk driving up until the 1970's when groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) started suing and lobbying to get laws changed. They have been extremely successful. 

Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the long history of improving safety in industry through the courts. While it may seem like common sense in 2018 that cigarettes are unhealthy that wasn't always so. Tobacco companies were sued relentlessly and force to add warning labels and pay for public serve announcements  educating the public regarding the harm of tobacco. Think about that; a business (Tobacco) actually has to warn people against buying their product. Google "Unsafe at Any Speed" and read about all the legal tussles it took to improve automobile safety. 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cars can all still be bought and used in reckless or dangerous ways but the laws surrounding them have been significantly changed over the years and tipping points involved relentless legal action. Guns will continue to be sold but laws need to change. Pro gun advocacy groups have already proven repeated for decades they will not participate so the only recourse is to force them to participate. It worked for drunk driving, worked for cigarettes, worked for vehicle safety, and can work for guns. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

1.Credibility is relative. Have pro gun advocates lost credibility by refusing to even entertain discussion?

2. It is funny you use drunk driving as your example. Numerous Bars have been sued and in nearly all states it is illegal to sell alcohol to intoxicated individuals. Laws use to be very lax regarding drunk driving up until the 1970's when groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) started suing and lobbying to get laws changed. They have been extremely successful. 

Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the long history of improving safety in industry through the courts. While it may seem like common sense in 2018 that cigarettes are unhealthy that wasn't always so. Tobacco companies were sued relentlessly and force to add warning labels and pay for public serve announcements  educating the public regarding the harm of tobacco. Think about that; a business (Tobacco) actually has to warn people against buying their product. Google "Unsafe at Any Speed" and read about all the legal tussles it took to improve automobile safety. 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cars can all still be bought and used in reckless or dangerous ways but the laws surrounding them have been significantly changed over the years and tipping points involved relentless legal action. Guns will continue to be sold but laws need to change. Pro gun advocacy groups have already proven repeated for decades they will not participate so the only recourse is to force them to participate. It worked for drunk driving, worked for cigarettes, worked for vehicle safety, and can work for guns. 

Huh.

Sounds fair enough to me then.

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Generally I think there is a kind of fatalistic lethargy in the minds of gun owners when it comes to tackling this problem.  Their view is that guns make society safer, which is patently false, but yet they cling to this logical fallacy and promote less regulation and more consumption of firearms (driven by thought system 1).  They don't care about other people affected by gun violence, only themselves and their families, which is why they don't do anything substantive when tragedies occur.  Sure they like to pray about it, and if they are personally affected by it they pray and cry and believe their deceased loved one is in heaven.  But they don't want to actually do anything, that would require compromising their guns, which is their main priority above all else. 

1

Alright, to clear something up.

Gun owners who think guns make people safer, do not generally believe more guns means less gun violence.

If you try to tell them they're idiots for thinking that, they'll laugh at you. Or in your mind, shoot at you because they're crazy.

 

They don't draw correlations between guns and gun violence because it's obvious. More guns are equal to more gun violence.

What they DO draw a correlation to is the crime in general(Minus the gun parts). Home invasions while people are still home, robberies, etc.

 

If you compare most European countries, it's not that hard of a claim to see.

Let's take France.

Total crimes per 1000: 61.03

United States: 41.29

If you look at Germany: 78.89

 

 

That's a fairly large difference. In total crime.

However, as always, that's not the total picture.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

 

Violent crime in the U.S. is more common, so are murders, etc, etc.

Yet, crime per 1000 people is also significantly lower. With fewer victims of crime per 1000.

 

There's actually a lot of interesting statistics on there.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I appreciate your point of view, and your call for stricter regulations, although I don't see the point of semi-auto weapons, or unlimited numbers of them. I am basing this on your previously stated reasons for owning guns, and rate of fire, or magazine capacity make no difference to any of your reasons, other than 'bragging rights'.

2

I hate the idea of shooting someone, but in the event of a catastrophe, natural disaster, social break down, etc.

Having a semi-automatic weapon could be extremely useful. Looting during a natural disaster VERY often turns deadly. Walking down the road with a semi-auto discourages robbery attempts, Etc. The presence of a weapon more times than not will do more to steer someone away then actually having to shoot at them.

 

Another thing is a tyranical government(stay with me). Many people on this forum believe the current administration to be fascist. So, in the event that it somehow turns into a dictatorship...

And before you say civilians could NEVER defeat the military(this is very true. We'd be mowed down like the French charging the German MG's in WW1)

Civil wars aren't usually fought between the military vs civilians, it's usually loyalists vs revolutionaries. Some military on both sides, some citizens on both sides.

Either way, it's safe to say that while a civil war would be going on, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a weapon. And a hunting rifle seems less than ideal.

Because there'd be no police, you'd have to worry about attacks, and there'd be a lot less infrastructure. 

 

So, the other reason besides "bragging rights" is the idea it's better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

We should have ample protections on guns. I fully and 100% agree with you.

However, we don't agree on the usage of a semi-auto. I believe it's versatile, and a useful weapon to have in many instances. Even if it's not needed right at this moment.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

Assault rifle or not an assault rifle.

WTF is the difference to the parent of a child murdered by either?

Like thoughts and prayers, the assault rifle question does nothing to resolve the issue.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Assault rifle or not an assault rifle.

WTF is the difference to the parent of a child murdered by either?

Like thoughts and prayers, the assault rifle question does nothing to resolve the issue.

It has a lot to do with resolving it though.

If you label every gun an assault rifle even if it's not, you're going to be met with a lot more resistance when trying to regulate guns.

 

[rangerx]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It has a lot to do with resolving it though.

If you label every gun an assault rifle even if it's not, you're going to be met with a lot more resistance when trying to regulate guns.

 

When did I say all guns were assault rifles? I didn't but you've just framed it as though I did, merely to detract from the issue.

You proved my point.
 

Edited February 16, 2018 by rangerx

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

When did I say all guns were assault rifles? I didn't but framed it as though I did, merely to detract from the issue.

You proved my point.

 

That makes no sense.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

That makes no sense.

Denial, deflection, gaslighting.

That's how the gun lobby works. You just demonstrated it, in spades.

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

Denial, deflection, gaslighting.

That's how the gun lobby works. You just demonstrated it, in spades.

What am I denying?

What am I deflecting?

What am I gaslighting?

How did I demonstrate it?

Explain, please. My poor little gun lobby brain can't understand it.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

My poor little gun lobby brain can't understand it.

Case closed.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Case closed.

 

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What am I denying?

What am I deflecting?

What am I gaslighting?

How did I demonstrate it?

 

 

[rangerx]

That kids were assaulted by a rifle.

That kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths with access to dangerous weapons because of a lack of regulation.

That anything you don't understand is always someone else's fault.

In the last two pages.

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

That kids were assaulted by a rifle.

That kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths with access to dangerous weapons because of a lack of regulation.

That anything you don't understand is always someone else's fault.

In the last two pages.

Where did I deny kids were being assaulted?

Where did I deny that kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths?

Where did I blame anything I don't understand on someone else?

Point it out.

[rangerx]

15 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Could you point out to where I said there was one?

I fail to see it.

Additionally, the AR-15 isn't even an assault rifle.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where did I deny kids were being assaulted?

Where did I deny that kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths?

Where did I blame anything I don't understand on someone else?

Point it out.

 

It was YOU who introduced the assault rifle/not an assault rifle point into this discussion. Then you edited your post and gaslight anyone else who suggests otherwise.

[Raider5678]

9 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It was YOU who introduced the assault rifle/not an assault rifle point into this discussion. Then you edited your post and gaslight anyone else who suggests otherwise.

 

Define gaslighting.

 

I edited my post less than 60 seconds after I made it.

I do that a lot. Originally I was going to change to change assault to automatic but then opted to just get rid of the entire line.

When I clicked edit, nobody had quoted me yet. 

I did not purposefully try to gaslight anyone by editing a post.

 

 

Additionally, you didn't answer any of my questions.

You're going on tangents to accuse me of stuff and avoiding answering them.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where did I deny kids were being assaulted?

Where did I deny that kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths?

Where did I blame anything I don't understand on someone else?

 

47 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What am I denying?

What am I deflecting?

What am I gaslighting?

How did I demonstrate it?

 

[rangerx]

My point being, by introducing the assault rifle technicality, set a narrative that anyone who denies a AR-15  is an assault weapon is not fit to be in the discussion of gun control.

My sanity is not at bar here, nor is the sanity of others in this discussion. That's why your attempt at gaslighting fails.

 

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

My point being, by introducing the assault rifle technicality, set a narrative that anyone who denies a AR-15  is an assault weapon is not fit to be in the discussion of gun control.

My sanity is not at bar here, nor is the sanity of others in this discussion. That's why your attempt at gaslighting fails.

2

 

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Where did I deny kids were being assaulted?

Where did I deny that kids are being systematically murdered by psychopaths?

Where did I blame anything I don't understand on someone else?

What am I denying?

What am I deflecting?

What am I gaslighting?

How did I demonstrate it?

 

These should be simple questions.

You're failing to provide an answer for them.

This topic is about gun control(I think). 

Not about what you personally think of other members of this forum.