Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ulfhedinn]

I am sure it has been pointed out before but the poll question is a stupid one... assault weapon is a political term that means nothing.

Assault rifles (the guns military use) already have bans in place so... yeah.

[Stormdash]

"Assault weapon" has never meant anything other than "scary looking gun".

[lockedout]

"Assault weapon" has never meant anything other than "scary looking gun".

I got scared when I first read your post.

[TZucchini]

"Assault weapon" has never meant anything other than "scary looking gun".

Actually the term was defined during the federal assault weapon ban.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

[wwolfwp]

Assault weapons or weapons that are deemed to look like assault weapons? Maybe a ban on assault Big Gulps and assault salt next. Will it be considered racist to take weapons away from gang bangers? Maybe we can rewrite the Constitution to read "shall be infringed upon." Because as we all know...that was simply a typo anyways.

[TZucchini]

I need to prove that large organizations have people who write press releases for them?

bwaahahahaha

Try again Tiny. Re-read your claim, and apply some critical thinking.

You claimed that they "carefully worded the release to specifically harp on fear."

^^^^^

You're going to have to prove this.

[Ghostpanther]

Actually the term was defined during the federal assault weapon ban.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

Some of those are just dumb. Why would it be a bad thing to have a barrel shroud safety feature which prevents burns to the operator? Or how does a gun being heavy make it more deadly? I think common sense just goes right out the window with some of those.

[lockedout]

Actually the term was defined during the federal assault weapon ban.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

So like he said almost every gun, in other words the term means nothing specifically but everything else.
Safety feature makes the gun an assault weapon? "Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator"

[Stormdash]

Actually the term was defined during the federal assault weapon ban.

Exactly -- it's a term made up by political staffers to describe subject matter about which they know nothing. "Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything, though, in the arms industry. It's just a made up word to describe the smattering of traits you pulled from the language, all of which amount to... "scary-looking gun".

[TZucchini]

Exactly -- it's a term made up by political staffers to describe subject matter about which they know nothing. "Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything, though, in the arms industry. It's just a made up word to describe the smattering of traits you pulled from the language, all of which amount to... "scary-looking gun".

I'm not exactly sure how a pistol grip or a folding stock make a firearm "scary-looking." They certainly provide a level functionality ideal for combat type situations. Which is why nearly every single army in the world uses them.

[Mentia]

Exactly -- it's a term made up by political staffers to describe subject matter about which they know nothing. "Assault weapon" doesn't mean anything, though, in the arms industry. It's just a made up word to describe the smattering of traits you pulled from the language, all of which amount to... "scary-looking gun".

On point.

I'm actually suprised that they don't call them "terrorist weapons" now. Or maybe even "weapons of mass child deaths".

[Tinykong]

Try again Tiny. Re-read your claim, and apply some critical thinking.

You claimed that they "carefully worded the release to specifically harp on fear."

^^^^^

I know you typically don't, so I'll ask:

Did you even read the link you posted?

[Rukentuts]

Or maybe even "weapons of mass child deaths".

Stormdash doesn't care if "a million toddlers die".

[TZucchini]

I know you typically don't, so I'll ask:

Did you even read the link you posted?

Prove your statement Tiny. Prove that the some board got together and carefully worded their statements to specifically harp on fear.

[Mentia]

Stormdash doesn't care if "a million toddlers die".

That would be horrible but it still wouldn't warrant the ban of firearms.

[Tinykong]

Prove your statement Tiny. Prove that the some board got together and carefully worded their statements to specifically harp on fear.

So said anything about a "board" PRE? If you could stop making up posts, that would be great.

Organizations have people who write press releases for them. If you need this proven to you... lol

And, I'll ask again because apparently you're having a very hard time reading lately: did you read what you posted?

From your link:

We believe that private ownership of military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines represents a grave danger to the public, as several recent mass shooting incidents in the United States have demonstrated. Although evidence to document the effectiveness of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 on the reduction of overall firearm-related injuries and deaths is limited, our organizations believe that a common-sense approach compels restrictions for civilian use on the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines and firearms with features designed to increase their rapid and extended killing capacity. It seems that such restrictions could only reduce the risk for casualties associated with mass shootings.

This paragraph is specifically worded to harp on the ignorance (that you also engage in lol) about tacti-cool features of firearms and the fear generated by the media.

Terms like: military-style assault weapons, grave danger to the public, rapid and extended killing capacity

This is anti-gun rhetoric. Which was obvious both by you posting it, and you subsequently stroking it off.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the term was defined during the federal assault weapon ban.

Different legislation have used different qualities and/or features. There is no consistent and accepted distinction.

[TZucchini]

This is anti-gun rhetoric. Which was obvious both by you posting it, and you subsequently stroking it off.

We don't know 10 sentences of ducking and dodging. All you had to respond with was "I can't prove that people are carefully wording their statements to specifically harp on fear."

[Mentia]

All you had to respond with was "I can't prove that people are carefully wording their statements to specifically harp on fear."

Isn't that an unfalsifiable claim? All someone has to do is deny it, case closed. You can neither prove or disprove that statement.

That being said, I think it's common sense to believe that someone will carefully word their article if they are trying to push a certain agenda. Don't you think so?

[TZucchini]

Isn't that an unfalsifiable claim? All someone has to do is deny it, case closed. You can neither prove or disprove that statement.

It's certainly an un-provable claim. So I'm not really sure why Tiny made it to begin with. He demands proof from others, but demonstrates none himself. Quite hypocritical really.

[Tinykong]

I can't prove that

You would be the expert on this.

I just showed how it's been carefully worded. I mean, ~50 deaths a year is a "grave danger" to the public?

Notice how they aren't engaging in the ridiculous "financial cost of fear" you were blathering about yesterday? They stuck to casualties, at least it's somewhat grounded in reality.