Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 02:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 02:40 PM)Sam Wrote:  Even so, its besides the point... Since the Sandy Hook shooting, the anti-gun side have been calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, with high capacity magazines.

Whether that applies to one category, or several isn't part of the debate... If the constitution were amended to outlaw weapons with those characteristics/capabilities, we wouldn't need to fart about with definitions.

But the Constitution or the courts would have to fart around with the definition and you would have to understand the definition.

How so?

Just as an example... If it was decided that semi-automatic rifles were to be outlawed. Surely, anything that fell into that criteria would become illegal, be it an assault rifle, assault weapon or whatever terms are used.

British gun laws work like this... Contrary to what a lot of people think, guns are not illegal in the UK, they are simply heavily controlled, and with certain types being forbidden...

British law states that fully or semi-automatic rifles are forbidden. What classes of weapon that includes is irrelevant... It simply outlaws any weapon capable of fully or semi-automatic fire. Regardless of caliber, whether its gas operated or blowback... It covers all bases.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
16-10-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 02:55 PM)Sam Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 02:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  But the Constitution or the courts would have to fart around with the definition and you would have to understand the definition.

How so?

Just as an example... If it was decided that semi-automatic rifles were to be outlawed. Surely, anything that fell into that criteria would become illegal, be it an assault rifle, assault weapon or whatever terms are used.

British gun laws work like this... Contrary to what a lot of people think, guns are not illegal in the UK, they are simply heavily controlled, and with certain types being forbidden...

British law states that fully or semi-automatic rifles are forbidden. What classes of weapon that includes is irrelevant... It simply outlaws any weapon capable of fully or semi-automatic fire. Regardless of caliber, whether its gas operated or blowback... It covers all bases.

Fine, that is a clear definition using a well-defined word.

The point I have been making is that the language has to be clearly understood, contrary to your assertion that the words didn't matter.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Gun Control
Sam this is what I saw from you:

"It doesn't matter what the specific definitions are if we all know what we are talking about."
"Here is a specific definition so we all know what we are talking about."

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 02:03 PM)Sam Wrote:  But does it really matter, whether or not one person refers to it by the wrong name, or by a common name, when both sides know exactly what object they are talking about.

Does it really affect the debate if one person calls something a "machine gun", and the other calls it a "selective fire rifle" or whatever? In my opinion, its nothing more than a diversion tactic... Evading real issues by focusing on triviality.

If someone talks about assault rifles being available for public purchase, whether or not that's technically the correct term, everyone knows that they mean semi-automatic rifles, with large magazines.
There are two aspects to the term "assault rifle"

1. In gun terminology an "assault rifle" has a specific meaning. It means a gun which has the ability to switch between semi automatic and full automatic mode. Possibly more to it than this as well.

2. The term "assault" is the opposite of "defense", a rifle that is suited to make an assault is not necessarily a suitable defense weapon. Most pro gun control people are worried about assaults rather than defense. Common sense would suggest in order to reduce massacres then guns suitable for making such an assault ought to be removed from society. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about calling a gun suitable for making assaults an "assault rifle". Many people have opinions on guns within society, not everyone is upto speed with gun terminology.

I think people argue very strongly on this term because "assault rifle" could be either argued as being a rifle suitable for making assaults, or a rifle with a selective firing mechanism.

But to quote Shakespear, "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". The argument should be fought on the dangers the gun presents rather than the label people put on the gun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 02:55 PM)Sam Wrote:  How so?

Just as an example... If it was decided that semi-automatic rifles were to be outlawed. Surely, anything that fell into that criteria would become illegal, be it an assault rifle, assault weapon or whatever terms are used.

British gun laws work like this... Contrary to what a lot of people think, guns are not illegal in the UK, they are simply heavily controlled, and with certain types being forbidden...

British law states that fully or semi-automatic rifles are forbidden. What classes of weapon that includes is irrelevant... It simply outlaws any weapon capable of fully or semi-automatic fire. Regardless of caliber, whether its gas operated or blowback... It covers all bases.

Fine, that is a clear definition using a well-defined word.

The point I have been making is that the language has to be clearly understood, contrary to your assertion that the words didn't matter.

Sure, but these terms are widely understood. At least I've never known anyone discussing this issue to be ignorant of their meaning.

My point is that debates on the issue, have a tendency to descend into arguing over minor technical details. Usually because somebody made a simple mistake... referring to something by the wrong terminology or by a common name etc.

Whether its intentional or not, its invariably those who are in favor of guns that steer the discussion that way, and it diverts attention from the real issue.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 03:13 PM)Sam Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Fine, that is a clear definition using a well-defined word.

The point I have been making is that the language has to be clearly understood, contrary to your assertion that the words didn't matter.

Sure, but these terms are widely understood. At least I've never known anyone discussing this issue to be ignorant of their meaning.

My point is that debates on the issue, have a tendency to descend into arguing over minor technical details. Usually because somebody made a simple mistake... referring to something by the wrong terminology or by a common name etc.

Whether its intentional or not, its invariably those who are in favor of guns that steer the discussion that way, and it diverts attention from the real issue.

Actually I find most people wanting blanket bans to be really ignorant of guns. So they say one thing and mean another while railing about a third thing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 03:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 02:03 PM)Sam Wrote:  But does it really matter, whether or not one person refers to it by the wrong name, or by a common name, when both sides know exactly what object they are talking about.

Does it really affect the debate if one person calls something a "machine gun", and the other calls it a "selective fire rifle" or whatever? In my opinion, its nothing more than a diversion tactic... Evading real issues by focusing on triviality.

If someone talks about assault rifles being available for public purchase, whether or not that's technically the correct term, everyone knows that they mean semi-automatic rifles, with large magazines.
There are two aspects to the term "assault rifle"

1. In gun terminology an "assault rifle" has a specific meaning. It means a gun which has the ability to switch between semi automatic and full automatic mode. Possibly more to it than this as well.

2. The term "assault" is the opposite of "defense", a rifle that is suited to make an assault is not necessarily a suitable defense weapon. Most pro gun control people are worried about assaults rather than defense. Common sense would suggest in order to reduce massacres then guns suitable for making such an assault ought to be removed from society. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about calling a gun suitable for making assaults an "assault rifle". Many people have opinions on guns within society, not everyone is upto speed with gun terminology.

I think people argue very strongly on this term because "assault rifle" could be either argued as being a rifle suitable for making assaults, or a rifle with a selective firing mechanism.

But to quote Shakespear, "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". The argument should be fought on the dangers the gun presents rather than the label people put on the gun.

That's an interesting take on it. Consider

The term 'assault rifle' is being misused because it is being confused with the not-very-well-defined term 'assault weapon'.

The term 'assault weapon' is a made-up scare term that subsequently made it into legislation, e.g. the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, or the 1994 legislation, The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the federal assault weapon ban.
The 1994 law regulated 19 specific firearms as "semiautomatic assault weapons".

The term has no one definition, and the laws that use that term do not apply to automatic or selective-fire (assault rifles) weapons.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 03:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Actually I find most people wanting blanket bans to be really ignorant of guns. So they say one thing and mean another while railing about a third thing.

I'm not sure that makes sense. If you want a blanket ban you probably don't have any specifics like "assault rifles" in your argument. You want them all banned.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 03:13 PM)Sam Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Fine, that is a clear definition using a well-defined word.

The point I have been making is that the language has to be clearly understood, contrary to your assertion that the words didn't matter.

Sure, but these terms are widely understood. At least I've never known anyone discussing this issue to be ignorant of their meaning.

My point is that debates on the issue, have a tendency to descend into arguing over minor technical details. Usually because somebody made a simple mistake... referring to something by the wrong terminology or by a common name etc.

Whether its intentional or not, its invariably those who are in favor of guns that steer the discussion that way, and it diverts attention from the real issue.

I haven't really seen that except when the first error was egregious, a correction is attempted, and derailing ensues.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 03:38 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 03:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Actually I find most people wanting blanket bans to be really ignorant of guns. So they say one thing and mean another while railing about a third thing.

I'm not sure that makes sense. If you want a blanket ban you probably don't have any specifics like "assault rifles" in your argument. You want them all banned.

An "Assault Rifle" Ban is a blanket ban as it is a wide ban on an entire class of weapons (ill defined in this case).

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: