Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

Except when the argument is bullshit, which yours was.

A false equivalency isn't a strawman. A strawman is literally the rephrasing of your opponents argument in a means that makes it easy to discredit.

[NineSpine]

Except when the argument is bullshit, which yours was.

If you think my argument is bullshit, feel free to provide a counterargument. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean that my argument is magically a specific fallacy that you don't understand the definition of.

- - - Updated - - -

The vast majority, ok, what is the rest? That is what many are fighting against.

No, many are not fighting for more than that. That's the point. Every time people try to do something reasonable, people flip their shit and accuse them of wanting to ban all guns.

[TZucchini]

The vast majority, ok, what is the rest? That is what many are fighting against.

You support licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales? Welcome to the "paranoid gun-control" crowd, friend.

- - - Updated - - -

No, many are not fighting for more than that. That's the point. Every time people try to do something reasonable, people flip their shit and accuse them of wanting to ban all guns.

I don't even want much more outside of that beside mandatory training and mental health evaluations tied in with background checks.

[Stormdash]

Good, that's what the vast majority of the gun control argument is for.

Ha. That is just the incremental approach. I don't think public safety is meaningfully advanced at all by adding that hurdle in private sale. It is just a regulatory hurdle to discourage gun ownership in general.

[TZucchini]

Ha. That is just the incremental approach.

Conspiracy theories are not allowed on these forums. Sorry.

[NineSpine]

Ha. That is just the incremental approach. I don't think public safety is meaningfully advanced at all by adding that hurdle in private sale. It is just a regulatory hurdle to discourage gun ownership in general.

I don't care what you think. I care what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that regulating the flow of guns meaningfully dries up the illegal market.

[petej0]

No, many are not fighting for more than that. That's the point. Every time people try to do something reasonable, people flip their shit and accuse them of wanting to ban all guns.

That is not the perception. When you have events like Columbine, Sandy Hook, VA Tech, the Sorority Shooter, Ft Hood, Aura Theater shooter, and even Gabby Giffords. These events would not have been stopped by any of this legislation. All these weapons were bought legally by people who were legally allowed to buy and own weapons.

So the gun control crowd is out there, people like Diane Feinstien saying we need to reintroduce a weapon ban on "evil looking weapons".
spouting shit they know nothing about and Stats that they havent researched etc... It makes gun rights people push back aggressively because people are jumping on this out of emotion and not logic.

You support licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales? Welcome to the "paranoid gun-control" crowd, friend.

No, I am a reasonable. I live in the real world and leave my emotions about the subject at the door. If gun control advocates are not willing to leave emotion out of the debate why should they expect a gun rights advocate to leave theirs out of the debate?

[Rukentuts]

Ha. That is just the incremental approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I don't think public safety is meaningfully advanced at all by adding that hurdle in private sale. It is just a regulatory hurdle to discourage gun ownership in general.

Studies have tied a correlation with homicide to gun ownership.

[Mistame]

Studies have tied a correlation with homicide to gun ownership.

Repeatedly posting this will not make it less irrelevant.

[NineSpine]

That is not the perception. When you have events like Columbine, Sandy Hool, VA Tech, the Sorority Shooter, Ft Hood, Aura Theater shooter, and even Gabby Giffords. These events would not have been stopped by any of this legislation. All these weapons were bought legally by people who were legally allowed to buy and own weapons.

The guns used in Columbine were bought legally without background checks at a gun show. The legislation I am talking about would have directly prevented those guns from getting into their hands. Their only options would have been to steal them or, as two high school losers, track down an illegal arms dealer. The VA Tech shooter (who killed a girl I went to High School with) was able to buy his guns without any licensing requirement or mental health screening. He was able to get the guns even though he had been declared mentally defective. In Colorado, there is no mechanism for stopping a mentally unstable person from buying a gun, even if they had been declared so beforehand. Holmes was able to buy some of his weapons ONLINE. He needed to pass no mental health screening or licensing standards.

So the gun control crowd is out there, people like Diane Feinstien saying we need to reintroduce a weapon ban on "evil looking weapons".
spouting shit they know nothing about and Stats that they havent researched etc... It makes gun rights people push back aggressively because people are jumping on this out of emotion and not logic.

No, I am a reasonable. I live in the real world and leave my emotions about the subject at the door. If gun control advocates are not willing to leave emotion out of the debate why should they expect a gun rights advocate to leave theirs out of the debate?

Know what would handicap the fringe gun banners? Reasonable restrictions that work.

[Rukentuts]

Repeatedly posting this will not make it less irrelevant.

How is somebody making a contradicting statement about public safety irrelevant to a post about homicide?

Are homicides not part of public safety anymore?

[NineSpine]

How is somebody making a contradicting statement about public safety irrelevant to a post about homicide?

Are homicides not part of public safety anymore?

Apparently you are not familiar with the fact that the gun rights whiners are just engaged in an endless, massive case of special pleading.

[Mistame]

How is somebody making a contradicting statement about public safety irrelevant to a post about homicide?

Are homicides not part of public safety anymore?

Correlations between gun ownership and homicides are irrelevant.

[Rukentuts]

Correlations between gun ownership and homicides are irrelevant.

To public safety? How?

Because you're giving the appearance that it's just a nasty fact to see.

[Stormdash]

Conspiracy theories are not allowed on these forums. Sorry.

What conspiracy? Gun control advocates aren't shy or coy about their real interest. Whether it is ideas like "$1000 bullets" or liberal utopian speeches by fictional Presidents (i.e. "I'm gonna get the guns", Michael Douglas, The American President), it is no secret that the gun control lobby's ultimate preference, and therefore ultimate endgame, is that private citizens don't own firearms. You going to honestly say that you don't think it would be best if nobody owned them? Not if you are being honest. And all gun control advocacy, every "common sense" regulation, needs to be understood through that lens -- small, gettable goals on the long road to gettin rid of private gun ownership, if not by banning it than by making it intolerably inconvenient or expensive.

[Mistame]

To public safety? How?

To anything.

[petej0]

The guns used in Columbine were bought legally without background checks at a gun show. The legislation I am talking about would have directly prevented those guns from getting into their hands. Their only options would have been to steal them or, as two high school losers, track down an illegal arms dealer. The VA Tech shooter (who killed a girl I went to High School with) was able to buy his guns without any licensing requirement or mental health screening. He was able to get the guns even though he had been declared mentally defective. In Colorado, there is no mechanism for stopping a mentally unstable person from buying a gun, even if they had been declared so beforehand..

The Columbine kids used his uncles guns, Was the uncle legally allowed to purchase a weapon? If so, then it does not matter where he bought them, he would have passed the background check anyway.

The VA Tech shooter passed his background check, his Dr did not contact the proper authorities so that he would have been denied in his background check. That is a system failure, not a lack of laws.

Holmes was able to buy some of his weapons ONLINE. He needed to pass no mental health screening or licensing standards.

I did not see that the Colorado shooter bought weapons online. I only read he purchased ammo on line. Do you have a source?

He was still able to pass the federal background check.

[Stormdash]

I don't care what you think. I care what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that regulating the flow of guns meaningfully dries up the illegal market.

I care what appellate courts will think, clearly more than you do.

[Rukentuts]

To anything.

Still not getting the whole bolded how there. If you have a problem with how homicides tie into public safety, you have to say how. Handwaving isn't becoming.

[Mistame]

Still not getting the whole bolded how there. If you have a problem with how homicides tie into public safety, you have to say how. Handwaving isn't becoming.

That's the point. Correlations don't tie anything to anything. They merely suggest a link, which makes them irrelevant (invalid).