Gun Control

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

And they are virtually the same as the hunting rifles that your favorite website, Outdoor Life, recommends, aren't they?

Nope, those hunting rifles are all bolt action hunting rifles, not semi auto military style assault weapons. They do not recommend semi auto military style assault weapons for hunting big game like elk or moose at 600 yards.

Quote :

You must not have read the link I posted.
Here it is once more.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting?cmpid=obinsite

I looked at your link and I'm wondering why none of those military style semi auto weapons didn't make the 50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years' list. Holy crap, here's another list that does not include any semi auto military assault weapons:
This year's Top Ten Deer Rifles from American Hunter
http://www.nrablog.com/post/2012/12/04/This-years-Top-Ten-Deer-Rifles-from-NRAs-American-Hunter-magazine.aspx

Oh shit, here's another list without an AR 15 type rifle:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/6x6.htm

My point is that semi auto military style assault weapons that are capable of shooting 20, 30 or 100 high velocity rounds without reloading are virtually the same as weapons that are used by the military on the battlefield. That's why those weapons and magazines should be banned to the general public.
Point #2:
When Wayne LaPierre and the gun nuts claim that the media is lying about the .223 Bushmaster AR-15 and other semi auto weapons like them are not really as lethal as the military version, it's a bald faced, blatant lie.

Quote :

Whether you call something an 'assault weapon' or a 'hunting rifle', there is no functional difference whatsoever among semiautomatic weapons, is there?

Of couse there is.
Some semiautomatic weapons can only fire 4, 5, or 6 rounds. Others like the AR-15 type have the capability to fire 10, 20, 30 or 100 high velocity rounds. That's the a big difference.

Quote :

And others use a variety of military weapons...

You seriously think military weapons should be available to the public?

edge540 wrote:

I looked at your link and I'm wondering why none of those military style semi auto weapons didn't make the [b]50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years'[/b

I couldn’t tell you.
What I do know is that your bible, Outdoor Life, recommended them as hunting rifles.

edge540 wrote:

You seriously think military weapons should be available to the public?

No.
But I do think that all semi-autos should be available to the general public.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

If that's the case, then how in the hell can you justify a weapon like this?

Competitive riflery sports.

Heretic wrote:

At least the argument for gun control is, at its core, an attempt to save lives. The argument against? Better target practice.

Range shooting must be god damn orgasmic.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Range shooting must be god damn orgasmic.

Range shooting is an activity that harms absolutely no one, and it is a reality that is not going away, no matter how much it makes you cry.

I see. So high powered sniper rifles should be allowed so people can engage in rootin' tootin' target shootin'? Give me a frickin' break!

While it's undeniably true that "range shooting" harms no one, it totally ignores the fact that high powered sniper rifles are designed for the purpose of killing people at long distances.

If the rationale for owning any weapon is "hunting" and "self defense," then the fact that a sniper weapon can be also be used for "target shooting" is totally irrelevant.

I'll ask you again, what's the real reason to allow weapons like these? If there is another justification, then I'd really like to hear it.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

While it's undeniably true that "range shooting" harms no one, it totally ignores the fact that high powered sniper rifles are designed for the purpose of killing people at long distances.

High-powered sniper rifles are designed for the purpose of hitting a target at long range. Whether or not that target is a human being is solely the decision of the person holding the weapon; it is not a decision made by the weapon itself. Once again, you seem to be blaming the weapon rather than the shooter, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've never "blamed the weapon rather than the shooter." If you can find any statement from me where I said that, feel free to point that out. Good luck with that.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

If the rationale for owning any weapon is "hunting" and "self defense," then the fact that a sniper weapon can be also be used for "target shooting" is totally irrelevant.

I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Can you clarify?

Sure - Since the "target" that a sniper rifle is designed for is not
inanimate, no matter how you try to spin it. A sniper rifle is not a weapon that is suited for "hunting" or "self defense."

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I'll ask you again, what's the real reason to allow weapons like these?

And I’ll tell you again – long-distance target shooting for the serious gun enthusiast.

That's just bullshit, Jack, and I suspect that you know that.

happy jack wrote:

I have seen sale prices for the Barrett M107 .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle, the one we have been discussing, and the prices range from $10,000 to $12,000. Do you think that something so highly priced would be the weapon of choice for someone who has just gone off the rails?
I certainly don’t.
I am not aware of any events where such an expensive and professional high-powered sniper rifle was used in mass shootings.
Are you?

Nope. But that's not what I'm trying to get at... I want to know the real reason why you think that it's necessary to provide the populace with sniper rifles. Like I said, I'm not buying the "target shooting" bullshit.

Scorpion wrote:

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've never "blamed the weapon rather than the shooter." If you can find any statement from me where I said that, feel free to point that out. Good luck with that.

You’re kind of doing it right now by saying that the sniper rifle is “designed for the purpose of killing people at long distances”, when the sniper rifle, in and of itself, can do no such thing. Regardless of what it is designed for, without a human being to operate the weapon and choose the target, the sniper rifle is no more or no less lethal than any other weapon. It cannot and will not jump out of its box, unbidden, and begin shooting at human targets 1000 yards away.

Scorpion wrote:

A sniper rifle is not a weapon that is suited for "hunting" or "self defense."

It may not be suited for hunting or self-defense, but it is very well-suited for long-distance target shooting for the serious gun enthusiast.

Scorpion wrote:

I want to know the real reason why you think that it's necessary to provide the populace with sniper rifles.

Because there are gun enthusiasts out there who may choose to use them in a perfectly legal and harmless activity, such as punching holes in paper targets while engaging in competitive riflery.
Why do you feel that it is within your pay grade to deprive them of that right?

Scorpion wrote:

Like I said, I'm not buying the "target shooting" bullshit.

By your own admission, we’ve eliminated the sniper rifle’s usage for hunting, self-defense, and murder.
What does that leave us with?
Target shooting.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've never "blamed the weapon rather than the shooter." If you can find any statement from me where I said that, feel free to point that out. Good luck with that.

You’re kind of doing it right now by saying that the sniper rifle is “designed for the purpose of killing people at long distances”, when the sniper rifle, in and of itself, can do no such thing. Regardless of what it is designed for, without a human being to operate the weapon and choose the target, the sniper rifle is no more or no less lethal than any other weapon. It cannot and will not jump out of its box, unbidden, and begin shooting at human targets 1000 yards away.

I saw no reason to state the fact that someone has to shoot a weapon in order for it to be dangerous. That's self evident and not a topic of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

A sniper rifle is not a weapon that is suited for "hunting" or "self defense."

It may not be suited for hunting or self-defense, but it is very well-suited for long-distance target shooting for the serious gun enthusiast.

You're missing the point. This is a military weapon. It isn't manufactured for "target practice." I suppose that it can be used for target practice, but that's not why it's manufactured, is it?

When you want to have an honest discussion, let me know.

Scorpion wrote:

I saw no reason to state the fact that someone has to shoot a weapon in order for it to be dangerous. That's self evident and not a topic of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, the fact that someone has to shoot a weapon in order for it to be dangerous is self-evident (to you and me, at least – I’m not so sure about everyone else on this board, not to mention numerous colossally ignorant politicians), but you appear to be implying that because a sniper rifle is designed to kill people that it is not possible to use it for any other purpose, and that is clearly not true. If a sniper rifle is aimed at a person, there is a good chance that it will kill that person. But if it is aimed at a piece of paper with circles printed on it, which it is in the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of cases, there is no harm done (except to your sensibilities).

Scorpion wrote:

You're missing the point. This is a military weapon. It isn't manufactured for "target practice." I suppose that it can be used for target practice, but that's not why it's manufactured, is it?
When you want to have an honest discussion, let me know.

Actually, there are innumerable products used for purposes other than that for which they were manufactured. I would contend that, given virtually any sniper rifle, the ratio of rounds fired through that weapon in order to actually take a life and the rounds fired through that weapon in order to shoot at inanimate targets is, at a bare minimum, 1: 1000, and even that is a very, very conservative estimate. And the lives taken, we seem to agree, are invariably tactical military targets selected under legitimate battle conditions. I have never heard of one of these rifles being used in a civilian death. I could be mistaken, but I have never heard of it.


What exactly is your definition of an “honest discussion”?
One in which I tell you that you are right, then slink away, never to be heard from again?

Well put.



http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/

A letter written by an 8-year Marine veteran to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the architect of the comprehensive 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, has gone viral.
The author of the letter, Cpl. Joshua Boston who was deployed to Afghanistan between 2004-05, told CNN that he opposes gun registration because it will lead to confiscation. Moreover, that passing more gun control laws will only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless.


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

happy jack wrote:

Well put.

The author of the letter, Cpl. Joshua Boston who was deployed to Afghanistan between 2004-05, told CNN that he opposes gun registration because it will lead to confiscation.
2004-2012

"well put"?....confiscation"?...yeah right, LOL.
Just what we need, another paranoid, low information gun nut spewing idiotic nonsense.

Quote :

"...some woman..."

Oh no, a "woman" is threatening his manhood.

So jack, you think these should also be available to the public like the .50 cal. Barrett?
You know, if you have a "shortage" problem, this baby should do it.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I saw no reason to state the fact that someone has to shoot a weapon in order for it to be dangerous. That's self evident and not a topic of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, the fact that someone has to shoot a weapon in order for it to be dangerous is self-evident (to you and me, at least – I’m not so sure about everyone else on this board, not to mention numerous colossally ignorant politicians),

No, I seriously doubt that anyone, whether they post here or not, believes that a weapon that isn't discharged is dangerous.

happy jack wrote:

but you appear to be implying that because a sniper rifle is designed to kill people that it is not possible to use it for any other purpose, and that is clearly not true. If a sniper rifle is aimed at a person, there is a good chance that it will kill that person. But if it is aimed at a piece of paper with circles printed on it, which it is in the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of cases, there is no harm done (except to your sensibilities).

Yes, it's possible to use a gun for another purpose, again, that's self evident. And you have no idea what my "sensibilities" are, either.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

You're missing the point. This is a military weapon. It isn't manufactured for "target practice." I suppose that it can be used for target practice, but that's not why it's manufactured, is it?
When you want to have an honest discussion, let me know.

What exactly is your definition of an “honest discussion”?
One in which I tell you that you are right, then slink away, never to be heard from again?

No, not at all. An honest discussion, in this instance, after 18+ pages, would involve advancing beyond meaningless, bumper sticker platitudes, and the mischaracterization of the views of everyone who disagrees with you. I think that we all understand the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic, that guns can't spontaneously kill people, and on and on, ad nauseum.

Frankly, the way you've approached this subject has, at least in my humble opinion, been rather infantile. I don't know why that is. I can only guess that either you're spectacularly uninformed, or are incapable of defending your positions (beyond reciting the same tripe, over and over), or you're not discussing the subject in good faith.

Scorpion wrote:

No, I seriously doubt that anyone, whether they post here or not, believes that a weapon that isn't discharged is dangerous.

Really?
Can you explain why a certain poster on this very thread appears to believe that the sentence, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”, is a false claim?

Scorpion wrote:

No, not at all. An honest discussion, in this instance, after 14+ pages would involve advancing beyond meaningless, bumper sticker platitudes, and the mischaracterization of the views of everyone who disagrees with you. I think that we all understand the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic, that guns can't spontaneously kill people, and on and on, ad nauseum.

Frankly, the way you've approached this subject has, at least in my humble opinion, been rather infantile. I don't know why that is. I can only guess that either you're spectacularly uninformed, or are incapable of defending your positions (beyond reciting the same tripe, over and over), or you're not discussing the subject in good faith.

To which “bumper sticker platitudes” are you referring?
And please show me when and where I’ve mischaracterized everyone’s views.
And this “tripe" of which you speak – examples, please.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

No, I seriously doubt that anyone, whether they post here or not, believes that a weapon that isn't discharged is dangerous.

Really?
Can you explain why a certain poster on this very thread appears to believe that the sentence, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”, is a false claim?

Really? Let's see a citation. I can't "explain" anything unless I know what was said. I also don't know who a "certain poster" is, either. Go ahead and post what he said and I'll be happy to discuss it.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Well put.

The author of the letter, Cpl. Joshua Boston who was deployed to Afghanistan between 2004-05, told CNN that he opposes gun registration because it will lead to confiscation.
2004-2012

Just what we need, another paranoid, low information gun nut spewing idiotic nonsense.

Quote :

"...some woman..."

Oh no, a "woman" is threatening his manhood.

Well, jes' look at yew, edge.
Former best friend to all those Iraq and Afghanistan vets, now ripping one who actually served.

The Iraq and Afghanistan vets I know are not ignorant, paranoid gun nuts who spew idiotic nonsense.

BTW, are there Iraq and Afghanistan vets who did not "actually serve"?

So jack, you think these should also be available to the public like the .50 cal. Barrett?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

No, I seriously doubt that anyone, whether they post here or not, believes that a weapon that isn't discharged is dangerous.

Really?
Can you explain why a certain poster on this very thread appears to believe that the sentence, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”, is a false claim?

Really? Let's see a citation. I can't "explain" anything unless I know what was said. I also don't know who a "certain poster" is, either. Go ahead and post what he said and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Based upon the below post (page 6), and paying special attention to the included link, what conclusion would you come to?
That this poster believes that the sentence, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is true?
Or that he believes it is false?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Straw purchasers should be punished according to the law.

Yeah right.
Too bad republicans, the NRA and the gun loons don't feel that way.

I don't speak for Republicans, the NRA, or the "gun loons", and they don't speak for me.

Right...it's just a coincidence that you parrot all their talking points

Quote :

[b]guns don't kill people, people kill people

Bumper-sticker slogan of NRA supporters, which states an obvious fact and insinuates that gun-control proponents are ignorant of it. It is grounded in the belief that gun-control would be ineffective because situations where someone would not have died if a gun had not been present do not arise or are much more rare than situations when fear of retaliation deters violence.
NRA guy: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Regular person: Don't guns enable people to kill people?
NRA guy: No, that never happens.
Regular person: Statistics show much less gun violence in comparable countries with gun-control.
NRA guy: Using statistics is unfair.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guns%20don%27t%20kill%20people%2C%20people%20kill%20people

The answer to your question is right in front of you, in this fictional "exchange."

Quote :

NRA guy: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Regular person: Don't guns enable people to kill people?

It's hard for me to believe that you can't see it, but all this says is that people use guns to kill people. It does not say, or even imply, that a gun can kill someone by itself.

In short, this is a "straw man" type of argument that you're using, and you're apparently unaware of the fact that you're doing it...

happy jack wrote:

Call it a platitude, or call it whatever you will, but the statement, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", is an entirely valid and factual statement, is it not?
I find it puzzling that it is so often ridiculed by the grabbers.

There's nothing "puzzling" about it. It's factual, but it misrepresents the arguments that the "grabbers" (as you call them) are making.. in short, it's a "straw man."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm

Quote :

A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument.

The person.

Now how do we stop them from getting guns and shooting children?

Or should we not care about dead children, since it might interfere with your range shooting?

Yeah, we need moar guns cuz we need to be like Colombia.

Quote :

More Guns = More Killing

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: January 5, 2013

In the wake of the tragic shooting deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association proposed that the best way to protect schoolchildren was to place a guard — a “good guy with a gun” — in every school, part of a so-called National School Shield Emergency Response Program.

Indeed, the N.R.A.’s solution to the expansion of gun violence in America has been generally to advocate for the more widespread deployment and carrying of guns.

I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.

Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world.

“A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down,” said Rebecca Peters, former director of the International Action Network on Small Arms. “It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.”

As guns proliferate, legally and illegally, innocent people often seem more terrorized than protected.

In Guatemala, riding a public bus is a risky business. More than 500 bus drivers have been killed in robberies since 2007, leading InSight Crime, which tracks organized crime in the Americas, to call it “the most dangerous profession on the planet.” And when bullets start flying, everyone is vulnerable: in 2010 the onboard tally included 155 drivers, 54 bus assistants, 71 passengers and 14 presumed criminals. Some were killed by the robbers’ bullets and some by gun-carrying passengers.

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0