Guns, Guns, Guns.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 18 of 44

PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:48 AM

Quote:

You're a smart man. How can you not see how an assault rife is more of a problem in these situations than a pistol or a hunting rifle? Assault rifles are designed with killing multiple people in mind. That is there function.

Hello,

I wanted to address this first, because I hear the word assault rifle a lot.

I will respond to your other message presently.

I can see that an assault rifle would be more of a problem in these situations if they were used in these situations. However, assault rifles currently have restrictions that make them both difficult and time consuming to obtain while being cost prohibitive.

I think this is why legal assault rifles and other legal fully automatic weapons are rarely used in crime. As for the illegal ones, I'm not sure what reasonable steps can be taken against them. They are already illegal.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:07 AM

Quote:

All right Anthony, setting aside the gun-as-manhood thing, (which I guess isn't evident unless you're a non-gun person coming across the gun measuring and comparing threads that crop up here time to time)

Hello,

I am left to wonder why two girls can talk about their favorite things, even compare and contrast them, without being accused of using these things as vagina stand-ins or masturbatory symbols. I'm sure such a statement would be vulgar and inappropriate to a woman. I'm not sure why it's deemed appropriate to say such a thing to a man.

Quote:
let's talk limits.

I will speak to you of limits, but understand that I do not consider the types of firearms available to be the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness and mass murder. I consider it, in fact, to detract from the point and take away from solving the actual problem.

Quote:
Obviously allowed: rifles that are not automatic and must be manually reloaded after two shots. Handguns that are easily concealable in purse or belt that carry 5-6 small caliber bullets, for self-defense.

I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for these obviously allowed items. Your emphasis on conceal-ability and caliber is interesting to me. I believe I understand why you wish to limit magazine size.

Quote:
Obviously not allowed: any fully automatic weapon, any weapon that fires more than 10 bullets in a short amount of time with a short reload time (short meaning that a schoolroom full of 6 year old would have 0% chance of fleeing before the reload was done.) Uzis, rocket launchers. Not OK.

In your desire to disallow fully automatic weapons, I see a callback to the assault rifle thing from before. Having desired to disallow fully automatic weapons, I'm curious about the inclusion of Uzis. What about a semiautomatic Uzi with a 10 round magazine?

Military rocket launchers are virtually impossible to obtain currently. But for the sake of argument, I'm not particularly comfortable with these things in private ownership, either. I do think civilians should be able to build and buy hobbyist rockets, however.

I am pretty uncomfortable with fully automatic weapons, but since legal versions of this weapon are so rarely used in crime, I feel this may be a case of banning something without any actual cause to do so. Why infringe on someone without cause?

Quote:
What are your extremes? And again, for the love of TPTB, please do not go into the loving details of your personal favorites. What do you think is OBVIOUSLY a gun everyone should have a right to, and what it not?

I think that civilians should obviously be entitled to purchase non-automatic slugthrowers of less than cannon caliber. (Say 20mm, except with certain shotguns and antique styled arquebusses and blunderbusses, which may have wide gauges.)

As an aside, I'd be willing to completely outlaw magazines exceeding 10 rounds and also fully automatic weapons if the constabulary were similarly limited.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

SIGNYM

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:26 AM

Quote:
I will speak to you of limits, but understand that I do not consider the types of firearms available to be the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness and mass murder. I consider it, in fact, to detract from the point and take away from solving the actual problem.

You've taken a big step onto illogic. If frem and geezer follow your logic (haven't checked back into the thread yet to find out) they've followed the same Wile E Coyote step.

Let's start with: I agree with you. The type of firearm available isn't the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness. (mass murder is another problem.) What does the "type of firearm available" do?? It allows a single person (sane or not) a more or less efficient force multiplier with which to impose his or her will.... or insanity... on a larger group of others.

What I find inexplicably strange is that two of three people who both claim that violence isn't "the answer" appeal to violence as "the solution". How do you explain that? Either you think non-violence works to achieve the world you want, or you don't. If violence works, then is it also not an equivalent problem?

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:36 AM

Quote:
Let's start with: I agree with you. The type of firearm available isn't the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness and mass murder.

Hello,

I'm glad we agree on this much.

Quote:
It allows a single person (sane or not) a more or less efficient force multiplier with which to impose his or her will.... or insanity... on a larger group of others.

Is this the actual concern, and the reason for the desire to limit magazine size? I have seen the desire to limit magazine size frequently mentioned in these sorts of conversations. I feel that it is being suggested that it's simply not safe to give human beings too much ability to mow down their fellow man. Perhaps even a seemingly sane person might misuse the ability. Or perhaps a legitimately sane person might have his immense firepower appropriated by a criminal or maniac.

Is this the actual concern? Please tell me if this is so, because it seems like it might be a legitimate concern if true.

Quote:
What I find inexplicably strange is that two of three people who both claim that violence isn't "the answer" appeal to violence as "the solution". How do you explain that?

Violence is the last tool in the toolbox of a man who has completely run out of better ideas. That does happen from time to time. It's not 'THE solution' or even 'the PREFERRED solution' but rather 'the last option.'

I do think it's an option that should be available to be employed as a last resort. Unlike some people, you won't find me grinning about the prospect.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

JO753

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:02 AM

Quote:

Maybe if she had military training and hardware.

You haven't been keeping up with the state of the art.

1,000 yards sounds crazy to me too. But it's actually nothing special these days with a good quality rifle and scope. And next month anybody with 20 grand and a hankerin for the latest gizmoz who haz never fired a gun in their life will be able to hit the bullz eye at that distance on their 1st shot.

http://www.gizmag.com/trackingpoint-precision-guided-firearms-scopes-d
igital/25264/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6ef65f1da8-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

JO753

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:21 AM

Anybody want to help?

http://wh.gov/nlxi

Its just a petition, so likely to get nowhere, but it's just a couple uv clicks.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I wanted to address this first, because I hear the word assault rifle a lot.

I will respond to your other message presently.

I can see that an assault rifle would be more of a problem in these situations if they were used in these situations. However, assault rifles currently have restrictions that make them both difficult and time consuming to obtain while being cost prohibitive.

I think this is why legal assault rifles and other legal fully automatic weapons are rarely used in crime. As for the illegal ones, I'm not sure what reasonable steps can be taken against them. They are already illegal.

--Anthony

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and has not been renewed. Now there is still a ban on fully automatic weapons, but that is not an issue.

Unlike the movies full auto setting on weapons was never meant to gun down swarms of people but to put rounds down range to suppress enemy movements. Accuracy goes to hell in full auto. The newer versions of the M-14 no longer even have a full auto setting for this reason.

When I'm talking about assault rifles in this case I'm taking about guns like the AR-15. They are designed for combat and are very efficient weapons for killing multiple people.

Now I understand that other weapons could be used, and that gun control is only a piece of the puzzle. Mental health problems and the failure to our health care system to deal with them are a huge part. Also the fact that ammo is not restricted more.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:15 PM

Quote:

When I'm talking about assault rifles in this case I'm taking about guns like the AR-15. They are designed for combat and are very efficient weapons for killing multiple people.

Hello,

Assault Rifles have, at the minimum, a burst fire mode which qualifies them as fully automatic weapons under Federal law. Assault weapons were never banned by the assault weapons ban. Instead we have:

Quote:
When I'm talking about assault rifles in this case I'm taking about guns like the AR-15. They are designed for combat and are very efficient weapons for killing multiple people.

There is nothing magical about an AR-15. It is functionally identical to any semiautomatic rifle. So I am left to conclude that your issue is either with A) appearance, B) magazine capacity, or C) the semiautomatic action itself.

Which is it?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

GEEZER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I continue to have misgivings, Geezer. Although perhaps some of your ideas are salvageable in regards to addressing the problem. Just not the forced confinement and treatment thing. Did you watch Dollhouse? See Sierra's backstory? Bad enough as the system currently is without giving MORE power for that.

I am wide open for suggestions as to how to do something, in a responsible manner, about getting potentially dangerous folks into treatment voluntarily.

Unfortunately, until the mental health system can be changed, we have to deal with what we got. It's pretty obvious that there are folks who are too dangerous, to themselves and others, to be left without care. Letting them go until they harm others isn't a very good solution. Neither is confiscating the property of millions of folks who've broken no laws, and are extremely unlikely to ever do so.

So to me the treatment option, even if sometimes involuntary, seems a less bad solution.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You've taken a big step onto illogic. If frem and geezer follow your logic (haven't checked back into the thread yet to find out) they've followed the same Wile E Coyote step.

Let's start with: I agree with you. The type of firearm available isn't the principle problem when confronting the issue of madness. (mass murder is another problem.) What does the "type of firearm available" do?? It allows a single person (sane or not) a more or less efficient force multiplier with which to impose his or her will.... or insanity... on a larger group of others.

Don't know about Frem and Anthony, but my general point has been that maybe we'd be better off trying to deal with madness and insanity rather than their tools. Some of my comments have been what I thought were obviously hyperbole, to match some of the more empassioned ones I've seen, but apparently I forgot the [hyperbole][/hyperbole] UBB codes.

I'm still trying to get someone to talk about treating the people, rather than the tools, as a solution, but I'm afraid the "blame the guns" dogma is far too entrenched.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

PREV PAGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT PAGE