Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

Guess I just need to learn to read minds then.

[Eroginous]

Guess I just need to learn to read minds then.

Reading comprehension works too.

[Wells]

Reading comprehension works too.

You keep saying this word. I don't think you know what it means.

[PhaelixWW]

You have nothing to back up your claim. In fact its literally impossible to back up. Its just nonsense.

Wells, can you honestly say, with a straight face, that you think Feinstein is atypical of gun control advocates in failing to follow the most basic tenets of firearm safety, such as always making sure the chamber is empty and never pointing the barrel at a person? Do you honestly think that most gun control advocates wouldn't act with the same ignorance of proper gun safety?

Because that's basically what he was saying. Anecdotal evidence aside, it's an obvious assumption.

To expect gun control advocates to be masters of the use of guns is like suggesting anti drunk-driving advocates are expected to be teetotallers binge drinkers.

Nobody is talking about being "masters of the use of guns". We're talking about basic, common sense things like always acting like the gun is loaded (safety on, finger off the trigger, pointed safely away from any person) even though you've just checked to make sure that it isn't loaded.

And your analogy is garbage. Gun safety is the responsible side of gun ownership. Teetotaling Binge drinking is the irresponsible side of alcohol consumption. A more apt analogy would be "anti drunk-driving advocates are expected to know how to not drink too much".

People who try to argue for the restriction of firearms by appealing to public safety should be the most likely to know how to handle a firearm safely.

Edit: We were both using "teetotaling" in its opposite meaning. I always think it means what I think you think it means, but "teetotaling" actually means complete abstinence from alcohol, so we should replace it with "binge drinking", for example.

No, I don't. I think democratic voting is an inalienable human right, and should not have arbitrary 'requirements'.

Too bad we're not talking about democratic voting. We're not talking about John Q. Public voting on anything. We're talking about elected officials voting on a bill before the legislature. Elected officials have a duty to be knowledgeable and understand what they're voting on. If they don't even understand the subject matter at hand, then they are grossly negligent and fraudulently representing their constituents.

so people need to know the intricacies of how a gun works to understand what its function is? what a horrible argument. it's akin to me saying you have to know how to make gunpowder in order to use it

Straw man.

Legislators should understand the real impact and effectiveness of something if they are voting on whether or not to ban them. You don't need to be able to draw a schematic of a trigger assembly in order to understand what "semi-automatic" means and how it's in a completely different class of effectiveness compared to "automatic".

[Wells]

Wells, can you honestly say, with a straight face, that you think Feinstein is atypical of gun control advocates in failing to follow the most basic tenets of firearm safety, such as always making sure the chamber is empty and never pointing the barrel at a person? Do you honestly think that most gun control advocates wouldn't act with the same ignorance of proper gun safety?

Nope I can't say that. Because it would be pure speculation with nothing to back it up. Just like what he said.

[PhaelixWW]

Nope I can't say that. Because it would be pure speculation with nothing to back it up. Just like what he said.

You can't say that you "think" something? Because it would be pure speculation? You're off your rocker, friend.

You're confusing stating something as fact and stating an opinion. I'm asking if you're of the opinion that Feinstein is atypical of gun control advocates.

Way to "move the goalposts" as you always, inevitably say.

[xylophone]

You can't say that you "think" something? Because it would be pure speculation? You're off your rocker, friend.

You're confusing stating something as fact and stating an opinion. I'm asking if you're of the opinion that Feinstein is atypical of gun control advocates.

Way to "move the goalposts" as you always, inevitably say.

I can't remember if it was Wells or Ninespine, but I remember I was told to find a source when I made the comment that most environmentalist types are on the left side of the American political spectrum.

[Atrea]

Too bad we're not talking about democratic voting. We're not talking about John Q. Public voting on anything. We're talking about elected officials voting on a bill before the legislature. Elected officials have a duty to be knowledgeable and understand what they're voting on. If they don't even understand the subject matter at hand, then they are grossly negligent and fraudulently representing their constituents.

False.

There is no duty or legal requirement for elected officials to be competent - only the expectation of it.
I know we all expect competency, but if Paris Hilton was voted into a public office, then you're stuck with an imbecile.
(For a real world example, you can use George W. Bush.)

If you don't like how dumb the official you elected is, then don't vote for them again. That is how democracy works. Your vote is pluralized in electing a representative - who in turn uses that power to vote on your behalf. That is still part of the democratic process, and is still a very key part to democracy, even if it is one step higher than the voting populace.

Furthermore, the number of bills that go before the legislature is simply staggering - to the point that nobody could possibly be an expert on everything that hits the floor. (Although they would have you believe otherwise.) You have bills that address everything from school budgets to tax code reform, to selecting military officers for promotion, and all points in between. Suffice to say, your issue is not important enough for everyone to be an expert on it -- no matter how seriously you take the issue.

Finally, the use of out-of-context soundbites from one individual to paint an entire ideology - along with all of those who support it - is asinine. I support strong gun control, for public safety. I believe public safety trumps the right of personal safety.

With that being said, I hold a current PAL (Possession & Acquisition License -- basically, a gun license - you need one even if you don't own a gun, but if you ever use one) and gaming license, and have completed the CFSC (Canadian Firearms Safety Course) as is a requirement of being granted a PAL. I have demonstrated before even being allowed to own a gun that I am knowledgeable in the safe use, discharge, transportation, storage, and maintenance of them. To suggest then, that I don't know as much about gun safety, merely because I think strong controls are necessary, is preposterous. Yet that is the argument put forward.

[PhaelixWW]

There is no duty or legal requirement for elected officials to be competent - only the expectation of it.

I'm not talking about competence. The oath of office is a vow that they make to faithfully employ their mandate. If they're too stupid to understand the concepts about which they're voting, that's one thing. But they're not too stupid. They just don't bother to educate themselves. That's not "well and faithfully discharg[ing] the duties of the office."

Or if you feel you can prove that Feinstein, et. al, are too stupid to understand this concept, then feel free to make that attempt.

Furthermore, the number of bills that go before the legislature is simply staggering - to the point that nobody could possibly be an expert on everything that hits the floor. (Although they would have you believe otherwise.) You have bills that address everything from school budgets to tax code reform, to selecting military officers for promotion, and all points in between. Suffice to say, your issue is not important enough for everyone to be an expert on it -- no matter how seriously you take the issue.

And yet, we're not really talking about some unknown, first-term Representative. We're talking about the sponsors of the effing bills. So... yeah.

To suggest then, that I don't know as much about gun safety, merely because I think strong controls are necessary, is preposterous. Yet that is the argument put forward.

That's not at all what was said. He didn't say that "nobody who is a gun control advocate can possibly know anything about gun safety", he was simply saying that the average gun control advocate doesn't really know much about gun safety.

That's like saying "Summer days are warmer than winter days." Sure, the warmest day in winter is possibly warmer than the coldest day in summer. But in context, it's a fricking "duh" statement.

To fail to understand that it's not a universal statement but a general statement is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. That this topic has even progressed to this point is shameful.

[belfpala]

Do you honestly think that most gun control advocates wouldn't act with the same ignorance of proper gun safety?

Wait.

I'm sorry that this is several posts late, but I'm pretty sure you just said most gun control advocates would act with ignorance of gun safety....

Ok, logging off for a few more pages. /bai.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm sorry that this is several posts late, but I'm pretty sure you just said most gun control advocates would act with ignorance of gun safety....

Yes. I'm saying that I think that many, if not most, gun control advocates (especially the ones pushing legislation) would be unfamiliar with even the basics of proper firearm handling safety. The classic example of which is Dianne Feinstein muzzle-sweeping a room with her finger on the trigger.

Edit: I think this about sums it up:

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think the demographic of gun control advocates is limited mostly to people who own guns and know how to use, keep, and store them properly, and those who don't even own guns and would never own one and do not bother educating themselves on proper handling but it probably wouldn't matter because the likelihood of a gun being in their hands is small. Feinstein obviously falls into the latter category, and was caught by a cameraman demonstrating her lack of knowledge of safe handling. Although I suppose because Feinstein does it, all advocates of gun control are ignoramuses who would demonstrate equally poor gun handling?

Yay sweeping generalizations.

[Poodles]

i think it's funny when conservatives pretend there is no difference between INTENTIONAL MURDER and ACCIDENT. selective perception much?

I think it's funny when progressives pretend there is no difference between suicide and murder...

See how that goes? Both sides skew the statistics with ease...

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think it's funny when progressives pretend there is no difference between suicide and murder...

See how that goes? Both sides skew the statistics with ease...

I think it's funny when the widespread and extensive use of cars is discounted in the argument when gun usage is extremely limited.

I think it's funny when someone can't make a proper counter point to argue statistical significance either, and just makes snarky responses that don't actually contribute to the conversation.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Yes. I'm saying that I think that many, if not most, gun control advocates (especially the ones pushing legislation) would be unfamiliar with even the basics of proper firearm handling safety. The classic example of which is Dianne Feinstein muzzle-sweeping a room with her finger on the trigger.

Edit: I think this about sums it up:

It's pretty ridiculous to take a single snapshot photo of Feinstein, then use that as evidence that gun control advocates are unfamiliar with firearm safety.

If you kept a camera on gun rights advocates all day, I'm sure you'd have thousands of snapshots showing them handling their firearms in a improper manner.

I mean I'd more or less agree that gun control advocates know less about firearm safety than gun rights advocates, but using a snapshot as evidence isn't sufficient.

[Wells]

You can't say that you "think" something? Because it would be pure speculation? You're off your rocker, friend.

You're confusing stating something as fact and stating an opinion. I'm asking if you're of the opinion that Feinstein is atypical of gun control advocates.

Way to "move the goalposts" as you always, inevitably say.

Why would I hold an opinion of something I have absolutely no clue about? That's kind of a dumb thing to do.

[rhandric]

Why would I hold an opinion of something I have absolutely no clue about? That's kind of a dumb thing to do.

Gun control advocates do exactly that.

[Wells]

Gun control advocates do exactly that.

See there we go again.

[Tinykong]

If you kept a camera on gun rights advocates all day, I'm sure you'd have thousands of snapshots showing them handling their firearms in a improper manner.

So, because incompetence is common place, it is somehow acceptable?

[belfpala]

So, because incompetence is common place, it is somehow acceptable?

What kind of mental contortions do you go through to come up with this stuff?