Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Santti]

I find this mentally ill angle to be interesting. Because it's arguing that US has way more mentally ill people than most other countries.

It's difficult to disagree with it.

[Specialka]

The constitution is established law and fact. Your link and copy paste is not. It’s still not your argument.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah guys I’m not cool. Lol let’s just make up shit and attack people who don’t agree.

Constitutions are made to evolve.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1538518776806879242

Republican Senator Mike Lee, when asked about public support for various gun control measures on Fox News - showing overwhelming support for expanded background checks, raising the legal age to purchase an "assault rifle" (quotes for y'all ACTUA-LEE's), red flag laws, and even a ban on assault weapons (no quotes because this is a thing!) - falls back on standard rhetoric.

"People don't know what 'assault weapon' means and there's no universal definition! They don't know if the stock being made of wood, plastic, or composite matters! And it really, really, really matters!"

People need to elect better representatives.

[Svifnymr]

Well, part of it is due to the lack of understanding of what is being said. You think it's semantics to point out that the people drafting the laws have no clue what they're trying to legislate? They have a picture of a military rifle, and try to pick random cosmetic features that make it look like that. Does an adjustable stock contribute to the lethality of a firearm? Does a threaded barrel for a flash suppressor? Is the pistol grip what makes something dangerous?

Much is made of the rate of fire of an AR15 for example, but the rate of fire is "each time you pull the trigger", same as every other non-machinegun. The obfuscation of trying to make people think you're talking about machineguns is the hallmark of the entire Assault Weapon campaign going back to when the term was invented back in the 80's. Same way "Saturday Night Special" (lower priced firearms) "Sniper Rifle" (any rifle that's too accurate) or of course, the "Pocket Rocket" phase, trying to ban small concealable guns. It's just marketing.

All semi-automatic rifles fire the same rate.

And of course, they like to gloss over the many handguns and shotguns also included, majority of my handguns are "assault weapons" under a bunch of the various bills. As he said though, the definition varies by bill.

So I mean, just say you want to ban semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns, and stop playing the semantic game entirely. Of course that would be unpopular and go nowhere, so we get the buzzwords.

[Endus]

Well, part of it is due to the lack of understanding of what is being said. You think it's semantics to point out that the people drafting the laws have no clue what they're trying to legislate? They have a picture of a military rifle, and try to pick random cosmetic features that make it look like that. Does an adjustable stock contribute to the lethality of a firearm? Does a threaded barrel for a flash suppressor? Is the pistol grip what makes something dangerous?

The point is those questions don't even matter. We can just casually say "yeah, maybe, enough to ban 'em". Problem solved.

If you think you can identify exactly what features are leading to the apallingly high firearms violence and mass shooting rates, such that weapons with only those features can be banned and the numbers will normalize, by all means, express your "expertise". If you don't have that answer, then you're not making an argument, you're deflecting to semantics to try and prevent any change being made to reduce that rate of violence and homicide.

Much is made of the rate of fire of an AR15 for example, but the rate of fire is "each time you pull the trigger", same as every other non-machinegun.

Can you repeat-fire a bolt-action rifle as quickly as an AR-15? If you're gonna go on about technical differences, you're gonna need to make sure your own language is a hell of a lot more technically accurate than you currently are.

The obfuscation of trying to make people think you're talking about machineguns is the hallmark of the entire Assault Weapon campaign going back to when the term was invented back in the 80's. Same way "Saturday Night Special" (lower priced firearms) "Sniper Rifle" (any rifle that's too accurate) or of course, the "Pocket Rocket" phase, trying to ban small concealable guns. It's just marketing.

This just isn't an argument.

You can just define "assault weapon" however you like under the law. And then that's the definition.

And of course, they like to gloss over the many handguns and shotguns also included, majority of my handguns are "assault weapons" under a bunch of the various bills. As he said though, the definition varies by bill.

Who's "they"? And why are you pretending that any particular assault weapons ban proposal would inherently prevent any future handgun restrictions from being implemented?

So I mean, just say you want to ban semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns, and stop playing the semantic game entirely. Of course that would be unpopular and go nowhere, so we get the buzzwords.

This is just a straw man.

[Svifnymr]

The point is those questions don't even matter. We can just casually say "yeah, maybe, enough to ban 'em". Problem solved.

If you think you can identify exactly what features are leading to the apallingly high firearms violence and mass shooting rates, such that weapons with only those features can be banned and the numbers will normalize, by all means, express your "expertise". If you don't have that answer, then you're not making an argument, you're deflecting to semantics to try and prevent any change being made to reduce that rate of violence and homicide.

I guess you're incapable of understanding the point?

Can you repeat-fire a bolt-action rifle as quickly as an AR-15? If you're gonna go on about technical differences, you're gonna need to make sure your own language is a hell of a lot more technically accurate than you currently are.

Enfields were designed to work pretty quick actually. Neither it nor a lever action is as fast as a semiauto or revolver, true. I should have specified semi-auto here as I do later, but I figured readers could be less disingenuous as yourself.

This just isn't an argument.

You can just define "assault weapon" however you like under the law. And then that's the definition.

You demonstrate the point exactly, you cannot simply say you want to ban all semiautomatics, you need to keep redefining made up terms in order to make it fit, all the while dismissing discussion as semantics.

Who's "they"? And why are you pretending that any particular assault weapons ban proposal would inherently prevent any future handgun restrictions from being implemented?

The gun control crowd pushing the arguments, obviously. Are you not familiar with this multi-year thread and it's discussion topics? I'm not even sure why you think I said this bill means they won't keep trying to pass more bills to ban more, I mean, that's been the discussion forever.

This is just a straw man.

How is it a straw man? Why not refute the point instead of dismissing it?
Explain in simple words how any semi-automatic rifle is more or less lethal than any other of the same caliber. I'll even give you the first thing you'll go for is detachable magazine, but of course most semi-automatic hunting rifles and sporting rifles have such also, so how are they safe while others are not?

Do you simply not understand the firearms being debated on the most basic level?

[Endus]

Enfields were designed to work pretty quick actually. Neither it nor a lever action is as fast as a semiauto or revolver, true. I should have specified semi-auto here as I do later, but I figured readers could be less disingenuous as yourself.

You should really specify you meant the 1917 American Enfield (I presume, from context, at least). Since I was about to point out the original Enfield rifle was a muzzle-loader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1853_Enfield

A weapon I'm intimately familiar with, as I've performed firing demos with a later breach-loading conversion (the Snider-Enfield; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snider%E2%80%93Enfield )

If you're going to go off about technical details and terminology, you don't get to whine that I'm being "disingenuous" in holding you to the standard you tried to argue for.

You demonstrate the point exactly, you cannot simply say you want to ban all semiautomatics, you need to keep redefining made up terms in order to make it fit, all the while dismissing discussion as semantics.

Where did I say I want to ban all semi-automatics? You wouldn't be making shit up, would you?

Also, literally all terms are "made up", at some point. That's how we make new terms. That's just linguistics.

The gun control crowd pushing the arguments, obviously. Are you not familiar with this multi-year thread and it's discussion topics? I'm not even sure why you think I said this bill means they won't keep trying to pass more bills to ban more, I mean, that's been the discussion forever.

So you're trying to argue that nearly everyone in the developed world constitutes "they", and "they" all act as a hive mind with one single point of view on the subject.

That's bananas cuckoo and you should know it.

How is it a straw man? Why not refute the point instead of dismissing it?

It's a straw man because nobody made that argument.

Pointing that out is a refutation.

Explain in simple words how any semi-automatic rifle is more or less lethal than any other of the same caliber.

You can shoot more bullets in less time than a weapon without semi-automatic, selective, or fully-automatic fire.

That clearly makes them "more lethal" than a single-shot weapon of the same caliber. Not in a "per bullet", sense, but in a "number of shots fired before you can be stopped" sense.

This is so damned obvious it's shocking I even have to say it. More bullets fired in less time = more bullet wounds more quickly = greater lethality.

[PhaelixWW]

You can shoot more bullets in less time than a weapon without semi-automatic, selective, or fully-automatic fire.

That clearly makes them "more lethal" than a single-shot weapon of the same caliber. Not in a "per bullet", sense, but in a "number of shots fired before you can be stopped" sense.

This is absolutely hilarious.

You completely failed to answer the question that was actually being posed, and in doing so, you basically made the exact argument that you tried to call a straw man moments earlier.

Priceless.

[Endus]

This is absolutely hilarious.

You completely failed to answer the question that was actually being posed, and in doing so, you basically made the exact argument that you tried to call a straw man moments earlier.

Priceless.

He asked how a semi-automatic was more lethal than a single-fire weapon. The answer's pretty obvious.

What I called a "straw man" was his claim that I, personally, "want to ban semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns". I've never argued that all semi-automatics should be banned, nor shotguns in general. He made up an argument and stapled my face to the straw man, which was dishonest.

So no. You're either baiting me on purpose, or didn't actually follow that post thread.

[PhaelixWW]

He asked how a semi-automatic was more lethal than a single-fire weapon.

Except... no, he didn't.

You just read it wrong.

[Endus]

Except... no, he didn't.

You just read it wrong.

Explain in simple words how any semi-automatic rifle is more or less lethal than any other of the same caliber.

It's right there. I admit he didn't say "single-fire weapon", but he asked about "any other of the same caliber"; since the only distinguishment was that it not be semi-automatic, that leaves us with single-fire weapons like bolt-action or breech-loaded single-barrels, or selective-fire/fully-automatic weapons.

I chose to talk about one category, and how it was less lethal than a semi-automatic. I could have also pointed out that a fully-automatic weapon is more lethal. But it was a simple question, and I gave it an equally simple answer.

If he meant something other than this, he phrased the question incorrectly.

[PhaelixWW]

It's right there. I admit he didn't say "single-fire weapon", but he asked about "any other of the same caliber"; since the only distinguishment was that it not be semi-automatic, that leaves us with single-fire weapons like bolt-action or breech-loaded single-barrels, or selective-fire/fully-automatic weapons.

No, that's not all it "leaves us with".

The sentence actually meant:

Explain in simple words how any semi-automatic rifle is more or less lethal than any other [semi-automatic rifle] of the same caliber.

This is the only reasonable interpretation, considering the topic at hand. His earlier comment (which you deemed a strawman) clearly showed that he sees a difference between semi-automatic and manual weapons. Your interpretation of the question implies that he does not see a difference, in direct contravention of the evidence of his prior statement.

You made that wrong assumption because you failed to engage your brain and think about the subject critically, a common failing of yours.

I mean, the very next line of his should have made it abundantly clear, if the prior statements weren't somehow enough:

I'll even give you the first thing you'll go for is detachable magazine, but of course most semi-automatic hunting rifles and sporting rifles have such also, so how are they safe while others are not?

This should make crystal clear that he's talking about the difference between some semi-automatic weapons (so-called "assault weapons") and other semi-automatic weapons.

If he meant something other than this, he phrased the question incorrectly.

The question was phrased with a little vagueness, but he trusted you to understand what he meant, because the context was clearly there.

So, sure, it was his mistake to assume that you would be capable enough to get it, I guess.

[Endus]

No, that's not all it "leaves us with".

The sentence actually meant:

This is the only reasonable interpretation

I'm supposed to presume he meant something other than what he actually said, when there's a perfectly viable reading of what he did say, on its own?

That's crazy. I'll take people at their actual word, not the edited version someone else thinks I should have assumed out of nowhere instead

[PhaelixWW]

I'm supposed to presume he meant something other than what he actually said

Except... it's not "other than what he actually said".

when there's a perfectly viable reading of what he did say, on its own?

Except... it's not a "perfectly viable reading", as explained in the previous post, which you ignored.

You know, because you're massively disingenuous.

That's crazy. I'll take people at their actual word, not the edited version someone else thinks I should have assumed out of nowhere instead

Sure, you'll backpedal, deflect, and run away rather than address the point that was actually made.

I expect nothing different.

[Endus]

Except... it's not "other than what he actually said".

You literally had to change his wording to restrict it the way you wanted, because what he actually said didn't.

Even if he slipped up and was too generic, thats not my mistake.

As for the rest; you've got a bug up your ass about me for whatever reason and keep popping in just to engage in personal harassment. I'm doing you the favor of ignoring it.

[PhaelixWW]

You literally had to change his wording to restrict it the way you wanted, because what he actually said didn't.

Except... I changed no words. All I did was fill in what the context already did, but which you ignored.

Even if he slipped up and was too generic, thats not my mistake.

Except... it really wasn't too generic, as long as you didn't ignore all the relevant context, which was plentiful. And that is absolutely, 100% your mistake.

As for the rest; you've got a bug up your ass about me for whatever reason and keep popping in just to engage in personal harassment. I'm doing you the favor of ignoring it.

The "bug up my ass" is just that you consistently fail to engage in a serious discussion by ignoring any and all things that you don't want to see.

Just like you're ignoring this, not as some favor to me, but because you're wrong, and you know it.

Maybe you could try to move the discussion on by, oh, I dunno, answering the actual question that was posed? I keep trying to urge you to honest discourse, and you keep resisting it.

[Mayhem]

So are we finally in the stage of this thread where we have to talk about pointless technical terms again that do nothing but change the topic to something gun folks know something about?

The comparison to other countries should be so eye-opening that it could cure blindness, but here we are talking about semi-automatic firearms.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/u...rnd/index.html

288 school shootings within 11 years

so as this is from 2018, wonder how many happened since

2019: 24
2020: 10
2021: 34

2022: 27 so far

yeah, so, do all the other countries have no what is it, what could be the glaring difference between all of these countries?

I hear you say but drug cartels, but organized crime, but drugs and I raise you second place in school shootings since 2009:

Mexico: 8

Alright, let's continue to talk about semi-automatic weapons and magazines and idk

[Edge-]

So are we finally in the stage of this thread where we have to talk about pointless technical terms that do nothing but change the topic to something gun folks know something about?

Not finally, this has been where we've been at for years. With every person who doesn't use the precise technical language for firearms being told they can't have an opinion on them at all because they called a magazine a clip.

The comparison to other countries should be so eye-opening that it could cure blindness, but here we are talking about semi-automatic firearms.

See the past few pages of, "But there are no developed nations with a similar number of firearms and gun ownership so we simply can't compare the US to them."

[Mayhem]

Not finally, this has been where we've been at for years. With every person who doesn't use the precise technical language for firearms being told they can't have an opinion on them at all because they called a magazine a clip.

I knew i forgot something, just imagine a "again" in that statement.

See the past few pages of, "But there are no developed nations with a similar number of firearms and gun ownership so we simply can't compare the US to them."

So the only difference is also the only qualifier, brilliant.

[Endus]

Just like you're ignoring this, not as some favor to me, but because you're wrong, and you know it.

Nah. Me disagreeing with you about the context of a vague sentence isn't me being "wrong".

Maybe you could try to move the discussion on by, oh, I dunno, answering the actual question that was posed? I keep trying to urge you to honest discourse, and you keep resisting it.

Even if that was what was meant, there's muzzle velocity (admittedly more about the energy of the rounds used, but that's not "caliber" either), and regardless, the technical specifications, as I have extensively stated over and over, aren't even particularly relevant. Pick a standard and regulate based on that. If it's insufficient, amend it later on. This isn't complicated. And banning weapons that "look mean" is a completely reasonable stance to take even if there's no functional difference, if mass shooters are buying them for that look or they're otherwise being carried to intimidate.

Trying to focus on technical specifications is a deflection tactic, used to ensure we chase our tails about precise details rather than ever getting anything meaningful accomplished to actually lower gun crimes. Me not allowing myself to get distracted in that way is not me being "disingenuous", it's me not falling for bad-faith deflection tactics.