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. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    2,315
    Gender:
    Male

    Yea gun deaths passed up auto deaths last year iirc. The majority of those were suicides. My focus for now has to be on saving others before saving people from themselves. Moving to universal healthcare might help the suicide problem, although you still have the cultural problem, particularly in the military.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/guns-cars/460431/

    Well 21 states.
     
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,717
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The correlation between suicides and gun availability actually would suggest that the suicides might be some of the lowest-hanging fruit around...if we can take away the guns.
     
    Estebonrober likes this.
  3. Broken_Erika

    Broken_Erika Nothing

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,602
    Location:
    Glasgnopolis, Grottland
    cardgame likes this.
  4. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    2,315
    Gender:
    Male
  5. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Oh you can edit this

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    7,184
    Interesting use of the word "all" there. It seems you're obsessed with the letter of the law and completely ignoring the spirit. I get that you don't agree with the spirit in the first place, but surely you can acknowledge that it exists. And surely you can acknowledge that if the spirit of the law behind banning "machine guns" is because they can be used to swiftly and simply mass murder crowds of people, then banning devices and methods that allow you to achieve similar ease and speed with other weapons is not only the sensible thing to do, but in fact the only logical thing to do.
     
    hobbsyoyo, EgonSpengler and Lexicus like this.
  6. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,196
    The law actually does cover this: "The term ["machinegun"] shall also include[...] any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun". Commodore was arguing that the rate of fire of a machine gun isn't the defining feature, because the law doesn't specify that - evading the spirit of the law, as you say. Similarly, a proponent might argue that a bumpstock isn't a part of the gun, it's an accessory, like a belt isn't a part of your pants. Not just evading the spirit of the law, but also ducking the point of the debate, which I usually read as a disregard for the people being killed.

    For reference: Appendix A, National Firearms Act, U.S.C. Chapter 53 opens a pdf from atf.gov.
     
  7. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,717
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I mean that's ultimately what this is about. I believe Commodore has been pretty explicit before in framing the victims of gun violence as the price of freedom. Ultimately there is little point in arguing with that view, because that is a values difference that cannot be resolved by getting agreement on any set of facts.
     
  8. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,196
    Yes, I think so too. I actually appreciate Commodore's candor on that point. I've had these debates with a number of gun enthusiasts over the years, mostly in anonymous web forums where they could feel free to speak their minds, and to my memory he's the first to own that.

    I'm also not sure if I've seen Commodore pretend that guns aren't a superior means for killing people (e.g. "you can kill someone with a hammer, a kitchen knife, or a bottle of bleach, but you're not trying to take those away"). It's always ironic when a gun proponent sounds like they don't understand the most basic fact about guns. It's hard to know whether they're that ignorant about guns, or they've run out of things to say and are just throwing a Hail Mary in the hope that I'm that ignorant about guns. I could imagine a gun enthusiast assuming that gun control advocates know nothing about guns, and that's probably true often enough.
     
  9. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,717
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    He's not the first I've encountered to own that. If you press them hard enough you can get virtually every "gun rights advocate" to admit it. Many of them seem to genuinely believe that if you took the guns away we would have gulags or death camps instead.
     
  10. Broken_Erika

    Broken_Erika Nothing

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,602
    Location:
    Glasgnopolis, Grottland
    Take away all the guns, and the Queen of England could walk in and start ordering you around!
     
  11. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,715
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    But again, the bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun.

    You're right, I haven't done that. Taking such a position is something that I believe weakens the argument for keeping the 2nd Amendment since the reason the 2nd Amendment exists is to ensure the population has access to the same level of firepower the government has access to in order to either help defend the nation against a foreign power or to throw off the government itself should it go completely off the rails.

    Not that we absolutely would have those things, just that it would make it easier for a hypothetical tyrannical government to do those things. I mean, look at Israel as an example. Do you think they'd be able to do what they do to the Palestinians as easily as they are able to do it if the Palestinians were armed with rifles instead of rocks?
     
  12. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,721
    Location:
    Southern Idaho
    But again, only technically.

    We already had concentration camps for American citizens with the 2A fully intact. It didn't matter at all.

    also, [israel quarantine thread].
     
  13. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,715
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    No, not technically. A machine gun is not merely a gun that fires quickly, which is the mistake a lot of people are making. Hell a high rate of fire, while certainly a feature of many machine guns, is not even a requirement. A machine gun is a firearm that is capable of continuous fire with a single engagement of the trigger.

    The use of the bump stock still requires the trigger to be engaged for each individual shot.

    It didn't matter because those Americans didn't exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Rights, much like guns, only help you if you actually use them.
     
  14. cardgame

    cardgame Sensual Kitten

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    12,721
    Location:
    Southern Idaho
    But we've already shown that we don't care. Arguing that we need this or else the government could feasibly set up gulags or whatever is a null point when they have already done so while the right was in place. I mean, Q.E.D.
     
  15. Commodore

    Commodore Technology of Peace

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,715
    Location:
    The Tiberium Future
    So you're arguing that when people stop caring about a right, it's okay to take that right away?

    But it's not really a null point when there are also plenty of examples of the right helping the people deter the government from what they believe is an overreach of their authority. As much as I don't like Bundy, him and his ilk were able to get the government to back down for a while over that whole land dispute thing. And the reason the government backed down for a bit was because they didn't want to get into a shootout with him and his little posse, something that wouldn't have been an issue for the government without the 2nd Amendment.

    And that's just the most recent example. There are plenty of other examples throughout US history. The Coal Wars being another one. Also consider this: If an armed citizenry really is the insignificant threat to the government you are making it out to be, then why are they trying so hard to disarm the citizenry? And no, it isn't because they care about our well-being or public safety.
     
  16. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,473
    Location:
    Canberra
    Hang on wait
     
  17. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    2,315
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't heard anyone talk about disarming the USA. Not one person even after all of our shootings. . .
     
  18. Colonel

    Colonel Sandbox

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,151
    Location:
    Back in the Good Ole USA
    Firearms are a institutional norm in the US. It is ingrained in our culture and has been instrumental in the development and progression of the American way of life. People/politicians/etc throughout this country and others are constantly bringing up full confiscation, this however will never occur.
     
  19. Estebonrober

    Estebonrober Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2017
    Messages:
    2,315
    Gender:
    Male

    Who is bringing this up? Please list anyone actually serious in nature. I've got my ear to the ground generally and I'm not hearing this anywhere. Ever.
     
    hobbsyoyo likes this.
  20. Colonel

    Colonel Sandbox

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,151
    Location:
    Back in the Good Ole USA
    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns


    It may not always be out right said but a majority of democrats do indeed eventually want to ban all guns. Also to be fair, at the current time this will never come to pass but give it fifty years for the demographics to change and we may well see this. The portion of the population who own guns is getting smaller and smaller (legal gun owners that is). In 50 years I suspect that the portion of the population owning firearms for personal use will be somewhere around 30-35%.
     

Share This Page