Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-06-2013, 02:43 PM
Re: Gun Control
His reply was the result of my response you seem to have issue with. As such, your assumption that it was an emotional one is incorrect. There was no discussion in his reply, he reasserted what he said in his OP and then dismissed most of what I said.

In any event, let him defend himself and his arguments.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 02:46 PM
Re: Gun Control
And if you brought up SUV's and banning them while dismissing criticisms of your position, then I would indeed tell you that your conversation might be better at home with those who would afford you the dialogue you seek. As I said in my first response, he doesn't actually address gun control in his OP. It is a series of anecdotal dismissals of gun critics via his opinions on recreational gun use and his views on urban vs rural violence. I didn't see anything that seemed to invite actual discussion.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 02:38 PM)JAH Wrote:  Not sure why a new thread was started but OK.

Some ten years ago I was living in Oakland CA and one night on the way home from the bar a kid (probably older than 10 but less than 13) pointed a gun at me and took all my money, since I only take cash and keys with me when I go to the bar on foot he only got maybe $20. My abject fear prevented it from surfacing but I was somewhat amused by the thought that if the kid fired the thing it would almost certainly knock him over. The pistol was at least a .32 and the kid was that small and did not know how to handle it. I will say without equivocation that whoever owned that gun and allowed or did not prevent that small child from taking it should never be allowed to own any guns.

The problem is that there are so many guns in circulation in the US that preventing the unqualified or dangerous from owning guns, is if not impossible damn close.

Reasonable restrictions are a different story. Someone mentioned the AR-15, there are readily available parts that can convert the civilian model (at least the older ones, I think the newer ones cannot be) to full auto. Who needs a full auto gun for personal use and further since the AR-15 is designed strictly for killing it does to much damage to be a useful hunting rifle. Banning this and other potentially full auto weapons would be to my mind reasonable.

More thorough background checks on even rifle purchasers seems like a reasonable restriction. Regulation of sales at gun expos should also be considered.

The sad truth is that as mentioned above there are so many guns in circulation in the US that almost any restrictions are useless. That fact has turned me away from any hope of future gun controls having any but a minute effect.

If any care, I first started taking my fathers .22 target rifle (a beautiful vintage 1930 or so model 70) to the range about 50 years ago. Also in late July I will be at a remote location in northern Sonoma Co. and part of the fun will be walking out on the back flat and shooting .22 pistols at targets set up on a dead and fallen tree trunk.

One not so minor quibble.

The idea that there are "readily available parts that can convert the civilian model ... to full auto." is almost urban myth. First, parts really aren't readily available.

More importantly, it is already illegal to do so and would land you in federal prison and cost you a very substantial fine.

Wikipedia Wrote:Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations. A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute. For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-06-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 02:46 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And if you brought up SUV's and banning them while dismissing criticisms of your position, then I would indeed tell you that your conversation might be better at home with those who would afford you the dialogue you seek. As I said in my first response, he doesn't actually address gun control in his OP. It is a series of anecdotal dismissals of gun critics via his opinions on recreational gun use and his views on urban vs rural violence. I didn't see anything that seemed to invite actual discussion.

Sorry, Beard, I don't understand the highlighted sentence.

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
11-06-2013, 02:56 PM
Re: Gun Control
If your proposal and response were not about addressing criticisms of your point but a reassertion of your original post and what were intended to be rhetorical questions, I would take it as an indication that you had no interest in discussion but preaching instead. I would then suggest that you go to a site to preach to the choir, instead of insulting me or calling my objections a fetish.

You don't have any reason to heed that suggestion, but I don't intend for you to. Just a suggestion to be honest about your intentions of preaching and not conversation.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 03:06 PM
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 02:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If your proposal and response were not about addressing criticisms of your point but a reassertion of your original post and what were intended to be rhetorical questions, I would take it as an indication that you had no interest in discussion but preaching instead. I would then suggest that you go to a site to preach to the choir, instead of insulting me or calling my objections a fetish.

You don't have any reason to heed that suggestion, but I don't intend for you to. Just a suggestion to be honest about your intentions of preaching and not conversation.

Me? I wasn't preaching. Or is this addressed to the OP?

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
11-06-2013, 03:16 PM
Re: Gun Control
Op. I was addressing a hypothetical.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 03:16 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Op. I was addressing a hypothetical.

OK.

You know I have expressed the willingness to have reasoned discourse on this whole subject. The threads tend to unravel, though. Dodgy

It's complicated, it's nuanced, and it's emotional.

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
11-06-2013, 04:24 PM
Re: RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 02:38 PM)JAH Wrote:  Reasonable restrictions are a different story. Someone mentioned the AR-15, there are readily available parts that can convert the civilian model (at least the older ones, I think the newer ones cannot be) to full auto. Who needs a full auto gun for personal use and further since the AR-15 is designed strictly for killing it does to much damage to be a useful hunting rifle. Banning this and other potentially full auto weapons would be to my mind reasonable.

More thorough background checks on even rifle purchasers seems like a reasonable restriction. Regulation of sales at gun expos should also be considered.

This is false. These parts cannot be easily bought, and on top of that, you need to know how to mill the magical 3rd pin hole for the auto sear carrier timer.

This is also a moot point BC effective full auto fire is very remote and takes some serious skill to apply. If an active shooter wanted to rack up the highest score, he would be best served staying in semi and using his sights, contrary to Hollywood/most people's "understanding" of those evil black rifles.

How exactly can you have a more though background check? A person is either legally able to purchase a firearm, or they aren't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBlackKnight's post
11-06-2013, 04:34 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 04:43 PM by Phaedrus.)
RE: Gun Control
(11-06-2013 02:38 PM)JAH Wrote:  Reasonable restrictions are a different story. Someone mentioned the AR-15, there are readily available parts that can convert the civilian model (at least the older ones, I think the newer ones cannot be) to full auto. Who needs a full auto gun for personal use and further since the AR-15 is designed strictly for killing it does to much damage to be a useful hunting rifle. Banning this and other potentially full auto weapons would be to my mind reasonable.

More thorough background checks on even rifle purchasers seems like a reasonable restriction. Regulation of sales at gun expos should also be considered.

Just a quick note, the idea that an AR-15 can be easily converted to full auto is a myth. It takes a skilled machinist to do it, requiring at minimum a lathe and several hours. This is already illegal to do and is covered by the National Firearms Act. There are autosears available for sale; but the vast majority are ATF honeytraps designed to catch people who want a full-auto AR. There are legal autosears for the AR-15, but they had to be ATF registered before 1986, so there's a limited supply and cost upwards of $1500, and they fall under the same restrictions as it takes to purchase any full automatic firearm.

Additionally, AR-15s don't do "to[sic] much damage to be a useful hunting rifle". The opposite is true. The AR-15 is on the lower end of what's needed to hunt deer, but for many people it does suffice. In some states it's legal to hunt with an AR-15, in others it's disallowed because the minimum calibre is 0.240". Not because it's "too powerful", but because it's too weak. And that's only for a standard AR-15 firing 5.56. There are also abundant rifles on the AR-15 platform firing a myriad of different cartridges, including handgun rounds like .22LR, 9mm and .40, and larger rifle rounds like 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8mm SPC, 6.5mm Grendel, etc.


All new gun purchases require a background check. All of them. The only "loophole" is used guns, when you're selling from person to person without an FFL middleman. If I want to sell my rifle to my neighbor Joe, I can just go next door, take his $500, and give him the rifle. Done. The reason gun owners oppose putting restrictions or background checks on that is because it A.) would bring in a lot of paper work, hassle, and administrative fees to sell your gun, and B.) wouldn't stop people from buying guns illicitly anyway since the government has no way to track the sale of a used gun if you don't do the paperwork.







I'll get to you BeardedDude, cool your tits.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: