| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2012 12:12:01 PM · #351 |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:14:19 PM · #352 |
No, I am not. Read carefully. Read history carefully. Very rarely does this country act upon a single event. It is not until it becomes prolonged or horrific does this country act. Your use of the words "actually advocating" so so far wrong and misinterpreted that you really need to think and read more carefully.
Originally posted by Cory:
You are actually advocating for more tragedies to prevent tragedies. It's insane. |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:31:55 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
No, I am not. Read carefully. Read history carefully. Very rarely does this country act upon a single event. It is not until it becomes prolonged or horrific does this country act. Your use of the words "actually advocating" so so far wrong and misinterpreted that you really need to think and read more carefully.
Originally posted by Cory:
You are actually advocating for more tragedies to prevent tragedies. It's insane. |
|
Seems to me that my reading comprehension is still just fine.
(Emphasis added below)
Originally posted by PGerst:
That was exactly the point I made in an earlier post.
Unfortunately it seems like this needs to happen more and more and in every community for people to comprehend how bad the problem is. Most "experience" this from a distance, from the paper, TV. They say "oh, that's too bad, I feel sorry for them" but in the end, it didn't happen where they live and it will be forgotten far to easily for them. People who don't have kids won't be able to comprehend the feelings of losing a child. All they can do is complain how gun laws "affect them so much". At least they get to complain because they are alive.
So, this could easily become a way of life. Perhaps we should educate our young ones about the dangers of going to school. Unfortunately, so many posts here speak to that fact. You're right, it will be forgotten, and more children will die with the only thing they were guilty of was not brushing their teeth or cleaning their room.
Its sad really, and this entire thread makes me feel no better about the future.
Originally posted by sfalice:
We can quote statistics and blame the crazed shooter until the cows come home. Actually an 'expert' quoted in this morning's paper says we'll do that for about two weeks and then our attention will divert to the next subject. |
|
Originally posted by PGerst:
Well said.
As I stated in other posts, there are two pieces, people and guns. You need to take one out of the equation. Clearly, its reducing the availability of guns. How to accomplish that is a whole different story. And, as you so well pointed out, what politician is going to push this so boisterously when their job is governed by the votes of people who want no reduction?
It becomes a very sad horrific possibility that this needs to occur often enough to affect enough people to turn the voting over.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but there is no evidence that is sticking out at the moment that would convince me otherwise.
Originally posted by scalvert:
There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen. |
|
I'm just not sure that there's much room to interpret the above statements other than the way in which I have understood them. You really do seem to be advocating for more tragedies to occur so that it can prevent future tragedies.
Message edited by author 2012-12-17 12:34:19. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:33:53 PM · #354 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Cory:
What difference is there? I see no real difference other than the tool used. Please help me to understand why 20 dead kids under a car are so different from 20 dead kids with bullet wounds? |
Cars are deemed necessary, guns not so much. That's where the major difference lies. |
Additionally, guns are designed to kill. That is their function. It's not even a question of necessity, it's a question of purpose. |
No. Their function is to fire a projectile. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper, it might be to put food on the table, defend crops or livestock from pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger. |
Oh, c'mon! That's splitting hairs. Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. Granted, SOME guns now are intended for tamer pursuits, but... You can't eradicate the history of weaponry just by saying "the function of a gun is to fire a projectile." |
While it may be true that the original purpose for guns may have been to kill enemies more effectively, like so many other things initially developed for that same purpose, that original purpose has become but one of many. For example GPS...developed by the military to help troops navigate and better kill the enemy. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:39:20 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Seems to me that my reading comprehension is still just fine.
|
I don't know how you could even possibly miss his meaning. It straight up common sense that people don't want to act until a tragedy hits critical enough mass they feel it's effects.
Your reading seems just fine, but I don't think the comprehension is there yet. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:42:56 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
Originally posted by Cory:
Seems to me that my reading comprehension is still just fine.
|
I don't know how you could even possibly miss his meaning. It straight up common sense that people don't want to act until a tragedy hits critical enough mass they feel it's effects.
Your reading seems just fine, but I don't think the comprehension is there yet. |
SMH.
The "problem" as he states it is that this doesn't happen with enough regularity to cause a change in the laws. He would like to see a change in the laws. Therefore, he thinks that this happening with more regularity could actually be considered a "good" thing.
That's madness. I for one am glad that it's not common enough to be a huge issue, although, frankly, it seems like this year has been especially busy in terms of mad gunmen.
Message edited by author 2012-12-17 12:53:33. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:49:22 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Cory:
What difference is there? I see no real difference other than the tool used. Please help me to understand why 20 dead kids under a car are so different from 20 dead kids with bullet wounds? |
Cars are deemed necessary, guns not so much. That's where the major difference lies. |
Additionally, guns are designed to kill. That is their function. It's not even a question of necessity, it's a question of purpose. |
No. Their function is to fire a projectile. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper, it might be to put food on the table, defend crops or livestock from pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger. |
Oh, c'mon! That's splitting hairs. Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. Granted, SOME guns now are intended for tamer pursuits, but... You can't eradicate the history of weaponry just by saying "the function of a gun is to fire a projectile." |
While it may be true that the original purpose for guns may have been to kill enemies more effectively, like so many other things initially developed for that same purpose, that original purpose has become but one of many. For example GPS...developed by the military to help troops navigate and better kill the enemy. |
Let me try to reword it as I read your statement.
No. Their function is to fire a projectile and kill something. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person threaten to kill a person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper practice killing, it might be to put food on the table kill animals, defend crops or livestock from by killing pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger.
Still sounds like they are designed to kill. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 12:52:05 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
Let me try to reword it as I read your statement.
No. Their function is to fire a projectile and kill something. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person threaten to kill a person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper practice killing, it might be to put food on the table kill animals, defend crops or livestock from by killing pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger.
Still sounds like they are designed to kill. |
Quite perfectly true. No sensible person can argue with this position.
Now, the ethical question becomes the important bit: Is killing absolutely wrong? |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:05:16 PM · #359 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Cory:
What difference is there? I see no real difference other than the tool used. Please help me to understand why 20 dead kids under a car are so different from 20 dead kids with bullet wounds? |
Cars are deemed necessary, guns not so much. That's where the major difference lies. |
Additionally, guns are designed to kill. That is their function. It's not even a question of necessity, it's a question of purpose. |
No. Their function is to fire a projectile. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper, it might be to put food on the table, defend crops or livestock from pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger. |
Oh, c'mon! That's splitting hairs. Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. Granted, SOME guns now are intended for tamer pursuits, but... You can't eradicate the history of weaponry just by saying "the function of a gun is to fire a projectile." |
While it may be true that the original purpose for guns may have been to kill enemies more effectively, like so many other things initially developed for that same purpose, that original purpose has become but one of many. For example GPS...developed by the military to help troops navigate and better kill the enemy. |
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a car?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a knife?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a fork?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a baseball bat?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a rock?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a hammer?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a 2 by 4?
Yes, you can kill people with all of them but they almost always use guns because they are so effective. Guns were designed with the sole purpose of killing. I believe people should have the right to own weapons but I can't advocate the average citizen having access to a fully automatic assault rifle which was designed for the purpose of killing many people very fast. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:06:42 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by bhuge:
Let me try to reword it as I read your statement.
No. Their function is to fire a projectile and kill something. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person threaten to kill a person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper practice killing, it might be to put food on the table kill animals, defend crops or livestock from by killing pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger.
Still sounds like they are designed to kill. |
Quite perfectly true. No sensible person can argue with this position.
Now, the ethical question becomes the important bit: Is killing absolutely wrong? |
I don't think killing is wrong under some circumstances. I have no problems with hunting, or killing madmen that are on a rampage. But that doesn't mean we can't enact regulations and procedures that help reduce mass shootings that still allow for reasonable gun ownership.
I personally don't hunt and have never felt I needed to be armed in order to protect myself or my family. So I personally don't feel we need guns at all in our society, but I'm not deft enough to think that laws that work for me are OK by the general population. So lets stop talking about black and white gun control and instead talk about compromises. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:13:51 PM · #361 |
*sigh* Nope.
Used the word "possibly".
Please read for context and don't take the literal interpretation of ever single word.
Not responding to this any further.
Originally posted by Cory:
Seems to me that my reading comprehension is still just fine. |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:26:28 PM · #362 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I believe people should have the right to own weapons but I can't advocate the average citizen having access to a fully automatic assault rifle which was designed for the purpose of killing many people very fast. |
Holy shit. This is what really scares me.
They've convinced you that the "average" citizen can get such a weapon.
Those weapons are only available to criminals and the rich. The criminals can get pretty much anything, by definition, while the rich can pay the taxes that are required to legally own such weapons (along with the cost of the weapons and ammunition)...
The average citizen is, in fact, the precise demographic that is unable to procure such weapons.
The legislation that is always proposed simply takes on high-capacity clips (read the fun ones), and military "style" rifles, that look like their combat counterparts, but do not have full-auto or burst fire modes, nor can they be readily converted.
Silencers are also heavily taxed, and you'll need permission from the local Sheriff to own one in NM. *shrug*..
I don't mind more regulations, but I'd like it if I had some faith that the law would actually represent reality, and have a real effect, sans any nasty unintended side effects. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:33:44 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a car?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a knife?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a fork?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a baseball bat?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a rock?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a hammer?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a 2 by 4?
Yes, you can kill people with all of them but they almost always use guns because they are so effective. Guns were designed with the sole purpose of killing. I believe people should have the right to own weapons but I can't advocate the average citizen having access to a fully automatic assault rifle which was designed for the purpose of killing many people very fast. |
For your information....The "assault" weapons in question are semi automatic. The m4 / m16 that civillans can purchase don't have the 3 round burst like the military has. I am actually looking into getting one before the new year...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:54:36 PM · #364 |
double post.
Message edited by author 2012-12-17 13:58:28. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:57:02 PM · #365 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Cory:
What difference is there? I see no real difference other than the tool used. Please help me to understand why 20 dead kids under a car are so different from 20 dead kids with bullet wounds? |
Cars are deemed necessary, guns not so much. That's where the major difference lies. |
Additionally, guns are designed to kill. That is their function. It's not even a question of necessity, it's a question of purpose. |
No. Their function is to fire a projectile. The purpose of firing that projectile may be to kill a person, more likely it would be to defend a helpless person, it might be to put holes close together in a piece of paper, it might be to put food on the table, defend crops or livestock from pests/predators... In any event, the purpose for which the projectile is fired is determined by the person with their finger on the trigger. |
Oh, c'mon! That's splitting hairs. Guns were DESIGNED TO KILL. Granted, SOME guns now are intended for tamer pursuits, but... You can't eradicate the history of weaponry just by saying "the function of a gun is to fire a projectile." |
While it may be true that the original purpose for guns may have been to kill enemies more effectively, like so many other things initially developed for that same purpose, that original purpose has become but one of many. For example GPS...developed by the military to help troops navigate and better kill the enemy. |
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a car?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a knife?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a fork?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a baseball bat?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a rock?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a hammer?
When was the last time you saw a mass murder with a 2 by 4?
Yes, you can kill people with all of them but they almost always use guns because they are so effective. Guns were designed with the sole purpose of killing. I believe people should have the right to own weapons but I can't advocate the average citizen having access to a fully automatic assault rifle which was designed for the purpose of killing many people very fast. |
The hutus and the tutsis did a pretty good job with machetes, and I've seen at least one with fertilizer, but that's not really the point.
Aside from that, why do you bring up fully automatic weapons? While technically, a person can buy one, they are quite rare, very expensive and tightly regulated. Such a weapon wasn't used at Sandy Hook, nor Colorado Springs, Columbine...you'd likely have to go back to the days of Bonnie and Clyde or Al Capone to find a case where automatic weapons were used.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 01:57:13 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
|
For your information....The "assault" weapons in question are semi automatic. The m4 / m16 that civillans can purchase don't have the 3 round burst like the military has. I am actually looking into getting one before the new year... |
Hey,  Cowboy221977, I know you don't need this information, but just for the record:
Criteria of an assault weapon
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull. Wikipedia)
and
this from Senator Joseph Leiberman: "Assault weapons were developed for the U.S. military, not commercial gun manufacturers," [Joe] Lieberman said before the Newtown vigil Sunday night.
"This is a moment to start a very serious national conversation about violence in our society, particularly about these acts of mass violence," said the Connecticut senator, who is retiring at the end of the year. |
PS And I understand you were correcting the "fully automatic" rather than the 'semi-automatic', but still I wanted this to be clear to folks who are reading this thread.
:)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:06:08 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by bmartuch:
|
For your information....The "assault" weapons in question are semi automatic. The m4 / m16 that civillans can purchase don't have the 3 round burst like the military has. I am actually looking into getting one before the new year... |
Hey, Cowboy221977, I know you don't need this information, but just for the record:
Criteria of an assault weapon
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull. Wikipedia)
and
this from Senator Joseph Leiberman: "Assault weapons were developed for the U.S. military, not commercial gun manufacturers," [Joe] Lieberman said before the Newtown vigil Sunday night.
"This is a moment to start a very serious national conversation about violence in our society, particularly about these acts of mass violence," said the Connecticut senator, who is retiring at the end of the year. |
I have a 20 ga shotgun I got from my dad for quail hunting that fits that functional criteria. So does my .22 target rifle. That description ignorantly describes nearly any semi-auto as an assault weapon.
The bolt action 30-06 rifle was developed for the military. So was GPS, jet engines and the internet along with a host of other technologies. So? |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:16:52 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
[quote=bmartuch] |
|
I have a 20 ga shotgun I got from my dad for quail hunting that fits that functional criteria. So does my .22 target rifle. That description ignorantly describes nearly any semi-auto as an assault weapon.
The bolt action 30-06 rifle was developed for the military. So was GPS, jet engines and the internet along with a host of other technologies. So? |
Sorry, I made a correction to my post, which you probably missed.
"PS And I understand you were correcting the "fully automatic" rather than the 'semi-automatic', but still I wanted this to be clear to folks who are reading this thread.
:) " |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:21:05 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
[quote=bmartuch] |
|
I have a 20 ga shotgun I got from my dad for quail hunting that fits that functional criteria. So does my .22 target rifle. That description ignorantly describes nearly any semi-auto as an assault weapon.
The bolt action 30-06 rifle was developed for the military. So was GPS, jet engines and the internet along with a host of other technologies. So? |
Sorry, I made a correction to my post, which you probably missed.
"PS And I understand you were correcting the "fully automatic" rather than the 'semi-automatic', but still I wanted this to be clear to folks who are reading this thread.
:) " |
No, I caught it. I'm just telling you that the definition of Assault Weapon you posted is simply bunk. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:25:26 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
[quote=bmartuch] |
|
I have a 20 ga shotgun I got from my dad for quail hunting that fits that functional criteria. So does my .22 target rifle. That description ignorantly describes nearly any semi-auto as an assault weapon.
The bolt action 30-06 rifle was developed for the military. So was GPS, jet engines and the internet along with a host of other technologies. So? |
Sorry, I made a correction to my post, which you probably missed.
"PS And I understand you were correcting the "fully automatic" rather than the 'semi-automatic', but still I wanted this to be clear to folks who are reading this thread.
:) " |
No, I caught it. I'm just telling you that the definition of Assault Weapon you posted is simply bunk. |
Okay, good to know. As a civilian, I'm not in a position to expound on the merits of various weaponry.
Just trying to figure out the difference, as used by Cowboy, of the fully automatic vs semi automatic weapons under discussion.
Obviously, I and Wikipedia must have gotten it wrong.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:26:09 PM · #371 |
Who gives a flying shit about this semantic battle over fully/semi/non-automatic weapons?
A guns purpose is to incapacitate it's target. Arguing over semantics is pointless. It doesn't move anything forward.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:33:12 PM · #372 |
I could go on a batshit, crazy rampage right now, but I wouldn't shoot anyone...
Why?
No guns in my house.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:35:04 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I could go on a batshit, crazy rampage right now, but I wouldn't shoot anyone...
Why?
No guns in my house. |
Just chainsaws :-) |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:40:19 PM · #374 |
This article on CNN about the UK's gun control laws may be of interest. Just popping it here.
e.t.a- by posting that i'm not really offering up my opinion on the matter. The UK and the US are two very different countries and it's silly to compare. Like i say, just posting if anyone was interested.
Message edited by author 2012-12-17 14:43:42. |
|
|
|
12/17/2012 02:44:19 PM · #375 |
I know this will go no where but figured I would throw in some "facts" wrapped in some conclusions (using quotes since generally facts not supporting ones position are usually dismissed - no one is allowed their own facts, so that part of the paper should remain unless someone has a flaw in the data collected) from Oz where there was major gun reform in the mid 90's (although from a more restricted starting position from the US).....
Linkie |
|
