The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[metatron]

Are you starting to see why "law" does not always equal "justice" and why the government absolutely should not have a monopoly on lethal force?

Yeah, that's exactly the same situation. You got me there.

And there we have it again:
Laws change. Justice is eternal.

Edited: See Below.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wait, Commodore is your son?
So you and his mom... oh, right, figure of speech.
Obnoxious figure of speech.

I agree. Which is why I removed it.

Buddy

 

[Estebonrober]

Its like telling a pedestrian who gets hit by a drunk driver they had a legal obligation to get out of the way



in the same post, no less

The pedestrian is actually required by law to do his best to get out of the way. This prevents absurdities like intentionally allowing people to hit you so you can make claims.

Well we can't exactly force other countries to abide by our Constitution, now can we? And while the US Constitution only applies to legal residents of the US, the Bill of Rights contained within it is just the codification of the general philosophy that drove our war for independence. Part of that philosophy being that every human being has a natural (or God-given if you are the religious type) right to defend themselves and their property in any way they see fit. That philosophy is also why a lot of Americans, even ones that support gun control, look down on "duty to retreat" laws that exist in some states and Europe. The idea that one has a legal obligation to retreat from an attacker just seems outright ridiculous to a lot of Americans.

So see above. This in practice fails to provide justice in any real sense of the term and stand your ground laws have already caused multiple incidents where an aggressor has used those laws to try and defend their shooting of what is basically innocent civilians (See recent Florida man case).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/us/florida-stand-your-ground-fatal-shooting/index.html

So you are legally wrong, judicially wrong, and morally wrong on this count. Congratulations.

 

[Commodore]

At the moment a lot of people don't agree with the way you can buy assault rifles.

There is not a single person in the US right now outside of the military and law enforcement that legally owns or can legally purchase an assault rifle. When you want to start using the correct terms for things instead terms that help you demonize the thing you want to get rid of, then we can have a serious conversation.

 

[Estebonrober]

There is not a single person in the US right now outside of the military and law enforcement that legally owns or can legally purchase an assault rifle. When you want to start using the correct terms for things instead terms that help you demonize the thing you want to get rid of, then we can have a serious conversation.

Why must we ban guns or limit guns beyond normal common sense means. Background checks good, mental health checks good, person to person sales go through FFL dealers good. Why the constant insistence that we ban this gun or that type of gun etc? Instead of focusing on taking this or that simply reform the manner in which they are procured. The left and the right could find alot more common ground if the conversation were approached in this manner as opposed to the we need to ban this or that frame. Also noting that the current method for gun control always falls back to some level of confiscation or banning, frame the conversation better and you might get somewhere.

Yea I want the background checks and ban on high capacity high velocity rounds.

7 rounds per clip, limits on actual velocity of rounds sold otc or online. Then you can have whatever rifle you want and can rig them if civil war actually does break out.

Yea I get gun nuts annoyance at laymen not understanding gun terminology. Like when people tell me about their illnesses after a wikipedia search.

That said many of us here have addressed you specifically and it seems you just don't want to address honest discussion on gun control.

 

[Commodore]

So another thing I'd like to bring up is Dick's Sporting Goods. Earlier this year Dick's decided it would no longer sell any firearm to any person under the age of 21 and they would also no longer sell AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. Since that decision, the company's sales have been consistently declining and their stock price has been declining with it. For obvious reasons, the shareholders panicked and at a recent shareholder meeting, several shareholders confronted Dick's executives about the decision and some even demanded they reverse it in order to bring customers back since a large portion of their customer base are pro-2nd Amendment people. When confronted with this shareholder backlash, Dick's executives dug in and doubled down on their policy and said they wouldn't reverse the decision regardless of what it does to the company's sales or stock price.

Here's the problem with that: Executives in publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to do what is in the best interests of both the company itself and the shareholders with "best interests" usually being interpreted as the policy that maximizes profits and minimizes losses. So with Dick's executives openly stating to shareholders they are not going to change a policy which has been shown to be harmful to both the company and shareholders, I'd say that opens those executives up to legal action and to be removed from their positions by the shareholders.

Just wanted to bring that up to show boycotts do work and to illustrate the point that politics has no place in business.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is not a single person in the US right now outside of the military and law enforcement that legally owns or can legally purchase an assault rifle. When you want to start using the correct terms for things instead terms that help you demonize the thing you want to get rid of, then we can have a serious conversation.

Yeah that was a key component to the argument I made.

Tells me all I need to know.

 

[Berzerker]

The pedestrian is actually required by law to do his best to get out of the way.

Where is this law?

 

[Commodore]

Yeah that was a key component to the argument I made.

It actually is a key component. Mostly because you, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd, knowingly use the term incorrectly because you know it makes the firearms in question sound scarier than they actually are in order to win public support for your position.

Semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles. If you really want the military terminology for a semi-automatic rifle, the term you are looking for would be battle rifle. But even that's not a good term since the definition of battle rifle is even more ambiguous than the definition of assault rifle is. So how about we stick to calling them what they actually are? Semi-automatic rifles. Using any other term tells me that you are more interested in propaganda and fearmongering to advance your agenda than you are in having an honest discussion.

Also:

Yeah, that's exactly the same situation. You got me there.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I was using hyperbole to illustrate why your statement of:

The government should not hesitate and use all the means at their disposal to bring these people to justice.

is an extremely dangerous and, quite frankly, stupid way of looking at things. That statement from you also demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of justice at all since you clearly believe that laws equal justice.

 

[Estebonrober]

Here's the problem with that: Executives in publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to do what is in the best interests of both the company itself and the shareholders with "best interests" usually being interpreted as the policy that maximizes profits and minimizes losses. So with Dick's executives openly stating to shareholders they are not going to change a policy which has been shown to be harmful to both the company and shareholders, I'd say that opens those executives up to legal action and to be removed from their positions by the shareholders.

This is a whole thread in itself. That requirement has held up lots of good work in the world, i t is completely subjective and completely asinine and it should be repealed.

 

[Estebonrober]

Where is this law?

It varies from state to state. . .

https://www.injuryrelief.com/car-accident-law/negligence-arguments/failure-to-take-evasive-action/

You are required by law (think common sense) to avoid the accident if you can. So yea, if you can you should avoid confrontation and shooting people.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It actually is a key component. Mostly because you, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd, knowingly use the term incorrectly because you know it makes the firearms in question sound scarier than they actually are in order to win public support for your position.

Wrong. What you quoted was part of an illustration. Replace Assault Rifle with any kind of rifle and it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles. If you really want the military terminology for a semi-automatic rifle, the term you are looking for would be battle rifle. But even that's not a good term since the definition of battle rifle is even more ambiguous than the definition of assault rifle is. So how about we stick to calling them what they actually are? Semi-automatic rifles. Using any other term tells me that you are more interested in propaganda and fearmongering to advance your agenda than you are in having an honest discussion.

So replace where I said Assault Rifle with Battle Rifle in the illustration and it didn't make a lick of difference to my argument. Which is odd for being a key component to my argument isn't it?

edit: I'll show you
It's the price of living in society. At the moment a lot of people don't agree with the way you can buy guns. So what's their play according to you? Get armed to the teeth to overthrow people being able to buy gus? But then those who want to buy guns would oppose that how? Oh yeah. Arm themselves to the teeth. You can see where this is going right?


No sir, good old fashioned ignorance in boring stuff like how rifles are named is the source of me calling it assault rifles. Meanwhile, you've made a big song and dance about the naming of rifles, and still have to address the argument which was illustrated. Which of course is the entire point of you focusing on that, because you have to rely on the Ad Hominem: "you are more interested in propaganda and fearmongering to advance your agenda than you are in having an honest discussion (therefor your argument in bunk and I can avoid addressing it)"

How about you address the argument in that post if you're so interesting in honest discussion? I'll be a lad and re-post the key component of it:

In a democracy civilised discourse is the means to campaign for change, not the threat of weapons. Weapons don't state logical arguments, they only project force when someone is willing to use it. It has no reasoning behind it.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I was using hyperbole to illustrate why your statement of:

is an extremely dangerous and, quite frankly, stupid way of looking at things. That statement from you also demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of justice at all since you clearly believe that laws equal justice.

Quote the whole thing while you are accusing me of not being interested in honest discussion:

Some guy is breaking the law, but the government hesitates to turn the situation into a bloodbath when they want to uphold the law, because the guy breaking the law is armed to the teeth. Alternatively: The government should not hesitate and use all the means at their disposal to bring these people to justice. Including tanks and fighter jets. Bundy doesn't want to surrender? Make his little ranch a nice hot crater.

This is presenting the alternatives the government has. Not resorting to violence, and have anyone who can arm themselves to the teeth get away with breaking the law or spend a lot more of those precious tax dollars in dealing with said person, or go Tienenman Square on his behind.

Now, I feel it's safe to say, you and me both don't want the latter option. But you seem to be happy with the former situation. Justifying it: "Sure, reducing the government's ability to enforce laws overall can make society more dangerous, but I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's way of thinking on the matter 'I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery'". Which is a strawman, since you're not being enslaved. So your argument is: I am willing to make society more dangerous to prevent a danger that doesn't exist.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Executives in publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to do what is in the best interests of both the company itself and the shareholders with "best interests" usually being interpreted as the policy that maximizes profits and minimizes losses.

This is a whole thread in itself. That requirement has held up lots of good work in the world, i t is completely subjective and completely asinine and it should be repealed.

Agreed, this is a thread-worthy topic by itself. I'm of the opinion that this idea is mostly a legal fiction. I don't think statutes to this effect are nearly as wide-ranging as proponents believe but it's a persistent myth that has held up not only good works but good economic policy. This is the myth that robber barons used to gut businesses left and right in pursuit of short term profits for the owner class at the expense of literally everyone else in the economy.

 

[cardgame]

On the one hand, ignorance by anti-gun activists is actively hurtful to their cause because how can you regulate a topic you don't understand?

On the other hand, every modern military uses semi-auto firing modes because going full auto is stupid in 99% of situations. Especially if your targets aren't shooting back - you don't need the extra bullets downrange if they're going to miss. So there's really a distinction without a difference, the assault rifle/full auto "discrepancy" between M4A1 and AR-15 is just pedantry to claim that the left doesn't understand.

Now, on other topics like the famous "shoulder thing that goes up" and flash hiders the 2A crowd is correct and the left is being hysterical. You may argue that there is plenty of hysteria over the AR-15 as well, since something like 93% of all firearm homicides are committed with handguns. The AR-15 category is just flash and pizzazz for the media and not meaningful policy.

 

[Farm Boy]

You get meaningful enforcement out of idiots when they pass likeminded laws though.

The board should just go ahead and fire the executives at Dick's. But they probably did something idiotic like give them a massive severance package full of yachts and blowjobs. Actually, I'm just sort of fine with Dick's dying. Let it sink.

 

[rah]

Didn't Walmart stop selling guns in certain stores or something like that? Their sales didn't go into the crapper.
I applaud any business that takes a stand knowing it will probably hurt their bottom line, so while I was never a big fan of Dick's my opinion of them went up and I actually bought something from them that I normally would have gone somewhere else for.

 

[Farm Boy]

We actually need more hunters. But that's in the "Bad PR" 7%.

No respect earned, no respect given.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No one is saying we don't need hunters.

 

[rah]

We actually need more hunters. But that's in the "Bad PR" 7%.

No respect earned, no respect given.

They didn't stop hunters from buying guns, just high school students.

 

[Farm Boy]

They didn't stop hunters from buying guns, just high school students.

Erm, no. Just no.

21, not high school students, and who do you think hunters are? Where do they come from? Soundbite is not deserving of respect.