1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lemon Merchant, Apr 2, 2018.

  1. Takhisis

    Takhisis ΑΛΗΘΩС ΑΝΕСΤΗ

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    42,159
    Location:
    up yours!
    Would it make a difference to all these arguments the NRA keeps spouting if suddenly women started shooting men?
     
  2. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,186
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    They do. Women are more likely than men to use a firearm in a murder.

    I don't get what you are trying to say.

    J
     
  3. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    16,969
    Location:
    Canberra
    That's one of the more creative abuses of statistics I've heard recently
     
    hobbsyoyo, Lexicus and Timsup2nothin like this.
  4. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,066
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    The difference is Congress isn't currently considering legislation that would ban kneeling during the national anthem, but they are considering legislation that would effectively ban guns. One of those pieces of legislation being HR 5103. In that bill, Congress recognizes they can't outright ban firearms without the Supreme Court immediately striking it down, so they are going to try to be sneaky by raising taxes on firearm manufacturers and sellers, essentially making guns too expensive for people to buy, which of course will then put gun shops out of business and completely kill the civilian firearm market. And this is the intent of the bill since it clearly says manufacturers and sellers will be exempt from the new taxes when selling to government agencies.

    This isn't true at all. A firearm manufacturer intends for their product to be able to propel a projectile towards a target. That target can be anything from a deer to a steel plate. There is not a single firearm on this planet that is only capable of shooting people so your claim that firearms' only purpose is to kill people kinda falls flat.
     
  5. Chose

    Chose Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    669
    Location:
    USA
    I was just pointing out that claiming car manufactures are off the hook, because of the intended use is transportation, was in contradiction to the other point he was making. Yes of course it's not as simple as only foreseeability, although "reasonable risk" seems to just be begging the question.
     
  6. Takhisis

    Takhisis ΑΛΗΘΩС ΑΝΕСΤΗ

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    42,159
    Location:
    up yours!
    Does this apply to those companies which market their guns as fingerprint-proof and/or with suppressors, hiders, full-semi-automatic conversion kits, etc.?
     
  7. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,066
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    I've never seen a company use this as part of their marketing. Not saying they haven't, just that I haven't seen it so I can't really comment on it.

    The average person can't buy a suppressor without special licensing. They require the same license that one must have to legally purchase or manufacture machine guns. As for why someone would want a suppressor? Well, guns are loud. Also, going shooting is something people usually do in groups, so they'd like to be able to talk to each other while doing it. Wearing big noise-cancelling earmuffs aren't very conducive to that social aspect of shooting, so a suppressor would allow someone to shoot without wearing hearing protection and absolutely destroying their hearing in the process.

    Hunters could also find some use for suppressors since they need to be able to hear what's going on around them and, again, having to wear some kind of noise-cancelling ear protection really won't allow them to do that.

    EDIT: There is also the "being considerate" factor. Some people own enough land that they can legally set up shooting ranges on their property, but are still close enough to neighbors that the sound may disturb them. So to be considerate to those neighbors, someone may buy a suppressor to reduce the noise they make while shooting in their backyard.

    I assume you refer to the flash suppressor/hider here? If so, I can see you mention it because you think it's some kid of special feature on a firearm. It's not. The only purpose it really serves is to prevent a shooter from loosing their night vision once their eyes have adjusted to the darkness. They also do some sound reduction, but not in the same way as a sound suppressor. It only slightly reduces the sound for the shooter since the flash suppressor helps direct the sound away from the shooter. It doesn't do anything to actually make the weapon quieter though.

    So basically, it's a convenience feature for the shooter but it doesn't actually do anything to make the firearm itself any more effective at what it does.

    Again, I assume you mean the full-auto kits (nice reference to that video though)? Those also require special licensing to purchase, so those aren't being marketed to the average gun owner. To prove it, I just went to an online vendor and tried to purchase a full-auto conversion kit and the site wanted verification that I possessed the proper licensing before completing the transaction. And I'm probably on some government watch list now too.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
    cardgame likes this.
  8. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,067
    Location:
    Misery
    Allowing people to sue manufacturers when the product is used outside of its intended purpose is pretty dumb. How would the firearm industry as a whole survive such nonsense?

    Would you sue a cutlery company because your brother got stabbed to death by a CutCo knife?

    Also, I think a lot of moderates would feel better about gun control if the topic was amending the constitution instead of screwing with it. Anti-gun measures are being used (or are under consideration for being used) like anti-abortion measures in Texas, and neither one is okay.
     
  9. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy I swear..

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    15,788
    You jest, but the more I think about it, the more I think the line could slide there*. People need pariahs when they're mad and want control. They'll generate them, it's just a matter of where the lines are in society as to where they're generated from.

    *though obviously a stretch in current conditions.
     
  10. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,066
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    Now you are getting to the heart of what the anti-gun crowd wants. They don't care about destroying the livelihoods of people as long as it's people they disagree with.
     
  11. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,439
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    They didn't need to, because NFL owners, at the urging of the Supreme leader, fans and and other members of the government did it for them. We've been through this. You already tried to make a "but he can't do anything to them" claim and I pointed out to you that Big Jerruh had in-fact threatened to bench anyone who kneeled, thereby threatening their livelihood... you don't remember this?

    You dismissed the threat when it was directed at the NFL players but now you're howling about it when its directed at gun proponents. The difference isn't "Congress" the difference is your values.
    Yes it is true. What is stopping power and why is it discussed in the marketing of a firearm? What's ironic/funny is that when people make these kinds of specious arguments to you they get accused of playing games. A steel plate? :lol: Dude... C'mon:shake:
    This is a strawman. I never made that claim.
    Fixed that for you... Again, when I made this exact observation in the context of NFL protesters, you fought tooth and nail... not because I was wrong in principle, but just because you don't agree with the cause. Now you've once again proven my point.

    This isn't about livelihoods or principles or the Constitution or "rights" or any of that BS. This is about your beloved hobby and you not wanting anyone disturbing it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  12. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,066
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    It's not discussed for the marketing of a firearm, it's discussed for the marketing of ammunition. A small correction to your statement, but a correction that needed to be made. Anyway:

    It's discussed for hunting purposes. Hunters would like to know that the ammunition they are putting into their firearm is actually going to be able to stop and kill their target. For example: a 22LR round may be fine for a squirrel or other small critters, but you wouldn't use it on an elk.

    There are tons of sites out there that sell steel plate targets for people to shoot at. I'd link to them, but somehow I think the moderators would find some reason to infract it under their whole "inappropriate content" crap. Especially since this site bows down to the Google AdSense god.

    Yes you did, and no matter how much you deny it, I'm going to treat this discussion going forward as such.

    Again you fail to see the difference between a private organization and Congress. The 1st Amendment only protects you from government reprisals, but private organizations and individuals can stomp all over your 1st Amendment rights with impunity. Now if Congress had passed a law, or Trump issued an executive order that would impose fines on teams that didn't punish kneeling players, then your 1st Amendment argument would hold some weight.

    And that's what I argues back then. I didn't say they weren't being silenced and suppressed, I said their 1st Amendment rights weren't being violated. Which is correct because, again, the law does not obligate private organizations to respect any of your Constitutional rights. That's why you can be fired for a social media post, and that's why businesses can declare their business to be a "gun free zone" too. Their property, their rules.

    If my employer decided to fire me because I'm a gun owner, yeah I'd probably be whining about my rights being violated, but you could make the exact same argument I'm making right now and you'd be 100% correct. However, until Congress starts passing anti-kneeling laws, I'm going to continue to dismiss any comparison to this and the NFL protests.

    It's not a hobby, it's a right. And that's really why it is easy to dismiss arguments that compare firearm regulation to any other regulation. When someone whines about "but cars are regulated so why not guns?" that can be easily dismissed with "the Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to own or drive a car."
     
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  13. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,439
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    No I didn't and no matter how many times you try to hang this strawman on me, I'm going to keep calling it out. Please quote the post where I said that "firearms' only purpose is to kill people". You can't because, I've never said that and you know it. Your just saying that because that's what you want to argue against, which is textbook strawmanning. But its completely untrue, and you know its untrue, which is why you can't quote it.

    If you want to argue against the hypothetical "those people who say firearms only purpose is to kill people" and show those hypothetical people how wrong they are, fine, have at it. But I am not those people, and you know it. Leave me out of your arguments against those people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  14. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,029
    You're right. It does beg the question. That's why we have buildings and people in robes and an entire profession dedicated to arguing both sides and figuring out the answers to difficult questions that require weighing evidence and determining whether the risk a product poses is reasonable. And foreseeable. And whether, if the risk is a reasonable one, companies are mitigating the risk to the extent it is (here's that word again) reasonable.

    The Constition doesn't guarantee your right to own a gun, either. Every single Constitutional amendment has permissible, broad restrictions placed upon the enumerated rights in the name of public safety. The Second Amendment is no different in this regard.

    You're just using the Constitution as a shield because you don't have a practical argument to make.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2018
  15. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,439
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Which is why we have folks, including retired SCOTUS Justices talking now about doing away with the 2nd Amendment entirely.
     
  16. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    41,910
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    There are already pretty broad restrictions in place for firearms, especially considering they're a constitutional right.. Honestly, this is the major problem, that its a constitutional right. The reason why anyone can make a statement that any specific intervention is not allowed is because of the underlying rights.

    The 2nd Amendment really is the underlying problem. Socially, people have interpreted it in various ways, and so it's part of the culture and hard to get rid of. Or even replace. But it's the problem. Without it, the discussion becomes much more reasonable and is about self-defense, or being a hobbyist or whatever.
     
  17. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    19,150
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Actually, I don't care about destroying the livelihoods of people who make a living by selling deadly weapons. And after we get rid of the civilian firearm industry, we'll be coming for the defense contractors :cry:
    There's plenty of space on the proverbial wall for everyone who makes a living by facilitating the murder of children.

    They are not. The Second Amendment is about maintaining militias. It is not about protecting any right to individual gun ownership.
     
  18. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    4,336
    I have to admit, Commodore, you're the first gun proponent I've met, online or otherwise, who admits to this. This is the main reason I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. I'm not 100% against all gun ownership, but the 2nd makes most of these conversations pointless, because gun owners always have it to fall back on. I disagree that your enjoyment of guns isn't a hobby, it clearly is, but it's also a Constitutional right.
     
  19. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,439
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    The motivation of the discussion is about self-defense, or being a hobbyist, hunter, etc. Its just that as @metalhead (and you, and @EgonSpengler ) say... the discussion can't be reasonable, because the Constitution keeps getting used to turn the hobby into something more akin to a religion in terms of sanctity.

    For my part, I see great value in the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment and I wish that the SCOTUS would re-interpret it more along those lines. I also prefer manufacturer liability over a complex patchwork of inconsistent, politically-driven bans across multiple states... but if the position of gun advocates is that "the opposition just secretly wants to ban all guns forever so never give up, never surrender, don't give an inch or they'll take the mile"... well... "reasonable" is going to be elusive.
     
  20. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,186
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    Howso? He was claiming women did not use firearms against men. That is statistically untrue. Women use guns extensively.

    Handsguns primary purpose is to threaten to kill people. Is that close enough?

    J
     

Share This Page