Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2013, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2013 08:57 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Gun Control
“TBD, you clearly didn't read my OP or initial responses very well, and seem to be taking an adversarial stance simply because of the subject and our prior discussions. Knock it off.”

I shall try again then before I address the rest of this latest reply.

“I look at guns in terms of the social cost versus benefit.”
As do those who would consider themselves gun critics.

“As an example of what I mean, consider alcohol. Alcohol has many social costs, including drunk driving accidents, alcohol poisoning, alcoholism, numerous diseases of the liver and other body parts, and it overall costs the US billions of dollars a year. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed by alcohol, either directly or indirectly.”
And while alcohol is not illegal, there are laws that deal with some of the other issues you mention. Chiefly those were other people are harmed or affected by alcohol consumption when they are not the ones consuming it. Drunk driving is of course deemed illegal, but not all driving after the consumption of alcohol. The social cost of prosecuting every person who took the wheel after consuming a beer with dinner would be pointless as there is no indication that alcohol at such low levels generates any negative benefit to the consumer or any impairment to the consumer that might affect others.

Alcohol poisoning goes along with the consumption of anything in excess, it is harmful. Acetaminophen is highly toxic in large doses, but great at getting rid of a headache. Water in too large a quantity at once can cause death too, or even just consuming too much in a day can have the same effects as dehydration. If an individual chooses to consume alcohol in large quantities and affect themselves in a negative way, that is their choice. But to equate it to someone using guns in a negative way would mean that someone would have to be forcing the alcohol on others. We do indeed frown upon that and it is indeed illegal, hazing incidents on college campuses for instance. I suppose you could argue that they are still willingly consuming it and that those telling them to drink more are not forcing them to do anything. Anyone who consumed enough alcohol knows how the power of persuasion changes after a few too many in too short a timeframe.

Alcoholism still seems to be the only disease you can get yelled at for having. In this case, the alcohol has become essential to the body. I don’t know of an equivalent for guns, unless one is a hoarder, but that is a general psychiatric issue that is not inherent to guns.

Alcohol does indeed cost the US billions of dollars a year and people do indeed die via the problems listed above. And some of them are innocents who were affected by others. There is a key difference between the financial cost and livelihood cost of alcohol vs guns though, alcohol is consumed by the individual and first and foremost affects that person. It has the effect of lowering inhibitions and generating severe depression. It has an effect on the brain that leads people to making very poor choices at the moment. And in any one of these cases, the alcohol is not what actually impacts other people. It isn’t the alcohol that actually causes the drunk driver to start the car. It is not the agent that kills anyone (with the exception here being alcohol poisoning or withdraw from it for alcoholics, but these too only affect the individual). It is certainly true it has an impact, which is why we have laws delegating when someone has consumed too much alcohol to be deemed fit for public presence or driving on public roads. It is the reason why bartenders are tasked with cutting someone off if they have had too much. It is why cops often watch bars late at night to see who stumbles to their car. It is why cab drivers leave their cards with the bartenders. It is why there are people who go into addictions counseling specifically to help people with alcohol addictions and consumption issues.

Once again, I don’t know of the equivalents for guns. What can be safely said is that when an individual uses a gun in an improper way or in an unsafe way, they are putting not only themselves at risk (similar to alcohol poisoning) but others (similar to drunk driving). Presumably the individual making the poor choice is not under the influence of any substance, therefore they should be well aware of their actions and the subsequent consequences. One cannot say the same for alcohol. And while someone may look severely depressed and has a gun, or really angry and has a gun, there exists no law that would enable a cop to take preventative action (like pulling a drunk driver over before they pull out of a parking lot).

“However, alcohol is fun and people want to use it. Additionally it provides a lucrative industry which benefits the economy. So alcohol is legal and tolerated.”
I don’t think most alcoholics would necessarily agree with your assertion that it is “fun” (at least not always). It certainly is a lucrative industry. That industry however has not lobbied congress on laws surrounding it so as to increase the legal limit for drunk driving. It has not campaigned to put more alcohol in the hands of young kids for photo opportunities.

“Guns have social costs as well. Accidental deaths, murders and robberies and other crimes, mass shootings, and (arguably) suicides (I don't count them since I think everyone has a right to end their life if they choose).”
In the case of accidental gun deaths, we are not always talking about the accidental death of the user. Back to your comparison with alcohol, there is no equivalent I can think of other than hazing. Which is highly illegal and those that contribute to the accidental death of someone via overconsumption of alcohol are indeed prosecuted. And is a great argument for required training with a firearm before you are allowed to own one.

Murders. I suppose you would compare this to drunk driving. If a cop suspects someone of being intoxicated while driving, they have legal precedent to pull them over, give them a sobriety test, and arrest them so as to prevent any potential harm. If someone who owns a gun is walking up to a house with it concealed, in full sight of a police officer, with intent to kill, how does the officer know this? How does one stop a murder from occurring? I don’t know the answer to this question. I do believe that those individuals who typically commit premeditated murder with a firearm exhibit some signs beforehand (depression, aggression, etc), and some sort of screening on a yearly basis might detect this. It might not allow for prevention of a murder, but it could provide some insight into the individual doing it, and may indeed help to catch and prosecute them.

Robberies. Obviously any weapon could be used here. We know the statistics from other countries with more stringent gun laws don’t necessarily curtail robberies. They do however curtail the frequency of death in such situations though.

Mass Shootings. Arguably the most important factor here is mental health, but guns are none the less the instrument used in a mass shooting. We go back to Australia and the changing of the laws that has led them to be mass shooting free for 10+ years. Better gun laws can and do have an impact on the reduction of mass shooting frequency.

Suicides. You want to dismiss them under the argument that someone should have the right to take their own life. I don’t disagree with that necessarily, but I do disagree that one should be allowed to do it on impulse. I can’t list all of the impulse buys I wish I had not made, and in many cases it is an impulse buy I can’t take back. So is suicide. When the UK switched from coal furnaces to electric heat, the number of suicides via carbon monoxide inhalation plummeted. And suicide rates overall also dropped, and stayed there. Why? Because a lot of people committed suicide this way on impulse, and it was very effective. People didn’t suddenly stop having fewer suicidal thoughts because they had electric heat, but they no longer had as effective a method with so easy use. The result was time. Time to think about it again. Some still chose to take their life (this still goes back to mental health and encouraging people to talk with a counselor or friend before finalizing that decision) and some decided not to or were unsuccessful. The important thing about the latter 2 categories? They didn’t finish the job, otherwise the suicide rate would have come back up. Mental health is a big factor in reducing impulsive suicides and depression that leads to it, but if we go back to Australia, suicide rates overall have also dropped and stayed lower since after the change in gun laws. So, once again, it helps.

“But guns also have benefits. Self defense, hunting, pest elimination, and just the joy of shooting. If you haven't fired a gun before you may not understand the last one, but there is a real atavistic thrill to throwing lead at a target, the kick of the recoil, the smell of burnt gunpowder. On top of all this, guns are also a major, multi-billion dollar industry, and common civilian access to guns means that many people who join the military already have experience with firearms and are more effective marksmen and soldiers than those with no firearms experience.”
Self defense. I certainly won’t argue that someone does not have the right to protect themselves. But those countries with more stringent gun laws, have a lower murder rate and lower violent crime. If someone comes up to me to rob me and they have a gun, my best form of self defense is to give them what they want. Sure, I lose possessions in this process, but no one loses their life. While I would be deeply mad and frustrated at someone for robbing me, that does not mean they deserve death as a punishment. If someone assaults me I have a right to fight back. If they assault me with a gun, I’m probably already dead. Not a nice comforting thought, but there it is. If they can’t get a gun in the first place, I have a better chance of defending myself. I don’t see an issue with people concealing and carrying though. Granted they are deemed mentally fit and competent with the firearm. I don’t think someone should drive if they are mentally unfit, medically unable, or not competent, so why not hold those wanting to carry a gun for self-defense to the same standard?

Hunting/pest elimination. Places like Australia still allow hunting. And farmers there and in the UK can have guns to protect their livestock. Hunting is a recreational use of guns and requires a yearly hunting license and there are limits on how much you can kill and when (except for crows and some other varmints). I’m okay with these.

Joy of shooting. I’d equate this to the joy of driving for car enthusiasts. Who are still required to have a valid driver’s license and insurance if they want to exercise their passion on public roadways. Once again, if more stringent gun laws are put in place, it would not mean the end of pleasure shooting. It would mean something like our restrictions on cars too. Cars have to have certain safety features and emission standards to be road-worthy. But I can still own and drive a car with no taillights that does 200 mph for driving on a track if I have the cash and the time.

Now, let’s move on to the rural vs urban areas and trying to decipher between the costs and benefits of guns in each. It is certainly true that rural areas have lower numbers of emergency responders, and longer response times. Rural areas also have substantially lower crime. Guns in these areas are more often used for pests than humans and accidental injury via gun is probably more likely while hunting than not. But self-defense is a weaker argument for areas with less crime overall. And guns still play a role in escalating domestic issues. Meaning that you are less likely to be shot by a stranger than your spouse in rural areas. I don’t see any reason to take their guns away, but I also don’t see any reason that they shouldn’t be subject to some sort of evaluation of their mental state (here I am reminded of the older gentleman in Alabama earlier this year that killed the bus driver and took the boy hostage. This is the same man who was to be in court within a few days of that incident over gun charges.)

In urban environments, crime is much higher. Classically, crime is higher in the areas with lower median income and higher numbers of gangs. Chicago’s numbers this year (so far) are showing that increased police presence in these areas can curtail some of this. And once again, if the bad guy can’t get the gun in the first place, then robbery or theft with a gun is less likely. And indeed, most of these robberies and thefts are with illegally acquired guns, but these guns were originally purchased legally somewhere along the way. Make the illegal sell of a legal gun more difficult or easier to track, and one can reduce the number of guns making it onto the streets illegally. This means closing loopholes for gun sales. As was mentioned by a few here on this thread, individual sales don’t require background checks and sales via the internet can be done completely anonymous. And there is no clear definition for what constitutes and individual seller and professional seller, as there is with car sales. If I sell a few cars a year, I don’t have to be licensed to do so. But if I sell a certain number or more (varies from state to state), I am required to be licensed. This doesn’t exist (as a federal standard) for gun sales.

“Since most rural areas are very conservative, lower income, and religious, gun ownership is stigmatized as something for right-wing nutjobs. Gun owners are easily stereotyped as bible thumping, Confederate-flag waving, violent meat heads. This stereotype is so common that it's a near ubiquitous characterization used in anti-gun circles. In fact it's often far from the truth.”
The stereotype that exists around pro-gun advocates is because of news agencies like Fox News that promote the pro-gun agenda. Asserting that not every gun owner is a religious nutjob on an atheist forum is preaching to the choir. I am well aware that you are not a religious rightwing nutter, but your views coincide with them on this issue (as they are very vocal on this issue). I don’t want to have someone like Jim Carrey (if he is indeed liberal-minded on gun laws) on my side of the issue as I know he is also on the anti-vaccine side and I don’t consider him very reputable, but I don’t get to decide who I am associated with in this debate any more than you do.

“The anti-gun movement is based largely in cities and suburbs, and is largely based on an emotional bias. They see only the cost of guns in their area, only the crime and murder, and don't see the benefits that drive the pro-gun movements. They combine this with the stereotype of the Republican meat head gun owner, and suddenly you have an extremely emotionally charged position that considers the opposition both morally and intellectually inferior. It's a toxic mindset.”

The preceding paragraph is where you criticize those who stereotype the pro-gun side, and then you begin your stereotyping. I live in a small town currently and was raised in one. My town has a grocery store about 5 minutes away, a few gas stations, 3 restaurants, a coffee shop, and a few businesses, and an Advance Autoparts, a Subway, and a McDonalds. I can walk to the town hall, and only a mile away from, a little pond for some fishing. My arguments against guns are not emotional, but based off of the statistics. I see the benefits you outline around guns, but I do not value them as you do. In the same way that I can’t reason my wife into valuing sci-fi, you are unlikely to get me to value recreational shooting or hunting. And I am fine with those that use their guns for these activities, but in the same way that I am okay with some enjoying a 1953 Corvette, with a license, training, and insurance in the event that they have an accident that harms someone else.

“Statistics do show that many people are killed with guns. But if it's pointed out that cars or alcohol kill many more the only response is, "It's not the same!" When you ask why, the most common answer is, "Guns are DESIGNED to kill people!" Bullshit. The vast majority of guns will never be fired at a person. Ever. For every bullet fired at a person there are hundreds of thousands fired at paper, cans, soda bottles, dirt, deer, varmints, or other targets. The majority of people don't own guns primarily for self defense; they own them because they enjoy shooting. Self-defense is largely a secondary concern outside of major urban conurbations where you are actually likely to be robbed.”

Cars and alcohol are still different. And we have laws around prevention of death via them that enable discretion via law enforcement. I don’t want a cop arresting me because of one beer, but I am more than willing for the cop to have the power to give me a sobriety test to make sure I am fit to drive. It will be an annoyance, but I accept that annoyance as part of my responsibility as a driver. I don’t want a ticket for texting and driving, but accept that if I get one, it is my responsibility.

Also, for someone claiming the high ground of not engaging in an emotionally-charged argument, the last sentence of the preceding paragraph and this one in almost its entirety, fail you.

And people advocating for more stringent gun laws are aware that not every bullet will be fired at a person and that there are indeed other things they will be aimed at. I have to pay taxes on my car, get a license, get it renewed, have my eyes checked, purchase insurance, etc. And the argument could be made that driving is a necessity for some, but I have to jump through these hoops even if I am doing it for recreation. I still have not heard an argument as to why the gun owner should not.

“The anti-gun movements have a valid concern; that high crime and murder rates in their areas might be alleviated by there being fewer guns available. But a blanket ban on guns, or meaningless bans on arbitrary features like pistol grips or flash suppressors (of all things!) or specific patterns of gun, are worthless and reactionary efforts. And the emotionally-charged, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, and disgustingly prejudiced stance they take against gun owners does nothing but polarize the debate and make a reasonable compromise less likely to be reached.”
This paragraph is almost not worth addressing, as you don’t really try to make anything other than an emotional point. Let me just say this, you think the stance of the gun critic is the only one taking an emotional stance? You dismiss the statistics in this post, but the gun critic can use them in support of their argument. Your defense of guns in this post is based solely on anecdotal testimony.

Now, on to your first reply to me.

“I didn't claim to have a numerical cost/benefit analysis. If you demand one, look into putting one together yourself since that seems to be your thing. But the emergency responder comments were mainly secondary. The intangibles are significant. I mean, what's the objective benefit of alcohol in our society? Quantify it. I'm not sure it could be done, but if it were I'd bet that the costs would far outweigh the benefits. But we allow alcohol. Why? Because people enjoy it. Or consider the costs versus benefits of swimming. What's the objective social benefit of swimming pools? Not much. But the cost is high; more children drown each year than are killed by guns. But we hear nothing about banning swimming pools, or even much about educating the public on the risks.”
You did indeed not claim to have a “numerical cost/benefit” analysis, but you did say that “I look at guns in terms of the social cost versus benefit.” And then later you say “In other words, guns have many benefits and few costs in the rural areas, but have few benefits and very high cost in cities.” The implication here is that you are doing a cost/benefit analysis. If you indeed had, I wanted to see it in order to see how you did it and how you weighted it. If you didn’t do one, I wanted you to clarify that you were indeed providing your anecdotal testimony and opinions on guns as a reaction to the gun critics, and that this is your reason for dismissing their arguments, and not statistics that support your anecdotal testimony or opinions.

I have already addressed the swimming pool example, so I won’t repost that.

“And I didn't generalize that all anti-gun people want to ban guns. Read it again. Some do, some only want idiotic, reactionary restrictions like a ban on AR-15s or guns with a pistol grip.”

I’ll re-paste this here

“The anti-gun movements have a valid concern; that high crime and murder rates in their areas might be alleviated by there being fewer guns available. But a blanket ban on guns, or meaningless bans on arbitrary features like pistol grips or flash suppressors (of all things!) or specific patterns of gun, are worthless and reactionary efforts. And the emotionally-charged, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, and disgustingly prejudiced stance they take against gun owners does nothing but polarize the debate and make a reasonable compromise less likely to be reached.”

Now, I’ll jump to your last reply.

“I nowhere said that I made a cost/benefit analysis. I said that it was useful to look at it in those terms. Not a subtle difference. Like you pointed out, it's difficult, if not impossible, to do a fair numerical cost/benefit analysis because different people weight different factors differently. However, you can quite easily spot a relative difference between urban and rural populations, even if one cannot pin an exact number on them. If you can't grok(sic) that method of comparison, then I feel sorry for your limitation.”

It is indeed useful to look at guns as a cost/benefit analysis, and the statistics support the conclusion of high cost, both in terms of $$ signs and lives. You put more weight on your opinions of recreational gun use to even it out, and I don’t see any weight to that argument, nor do I see any data to back it up. It is anecdotal evidence and your opinion, and I disagree.

Don’t feel sorry for my “limitation” as you don’t need to try and jump to insult to win points. I clearly understand the difference between rural and urban populations. I didn’t exactly feel safe in Syracuse when I lived there, but in geology, one of the biggest threats we constantly have to worry about are paranoid land owners who think we are trespassing on their land. A colleague of mine was sent back down a road to the sound of gunshot just this last week in Central New York/Central PA. And by road, I mean a public road. And many a land owner isn’t even willing to allow you to come and ask for permission, lest you want to test the claim of the “trespassers will be shot” signs on driveways?

“Bringing up alcohol and pools is not a tangent. It's the very point I'm making: these things have social costs and benefits which may be impossible to accurately numerically tabulate. But the magnitude of the costs can be grasped, at least, and is quite obviously greater than the magnitude of the benefits. But we allow and encourage those things anyway, because of their intangible benefits that cannot be numerically calculated; social interaction for alcohol, and fun for pools.”
I addressed these in this post, but I’ll restate it here. Me in a swimming pool means I am a hazard to myself. Me with too much alcohol means I am a hazard to myself and others if I am in public. Me with a gun means I am hazard to myself and others, whether in public or not. We have lifeguards at pools, cops watching for drunk drivers and setting up roadblocks, and people with guns who use them for nothing illegal and those who intend to do something illegal with them. All I am asking for is some way to reduce the latter.

“Guns have intangible benefits; the psychological reassurance of guns to those who feel they need them and the fun of shooting. And they also have quite concrete benefits like hunting and self-defense. For many people in rural areas, these things far outweigh the costs, which are also lower in rural areas. “
I am sure that these things do outweigh the costs for these individuals, but not for me. And I am not advocating for these people to have to stop doing these things, so I am not sure why you bring it up.

“The latter half of my post is about the emotionally charged and unproductive basis for most anti-gun arguments. And before you say something redundant, I'm aware not all people opposed to guns want to ban them entirely. I'm not, contrary to some opinions, an idiot, and I'd appreciate you taking the time to actually try to understand what I say, instead of looking for the first cheap shot you can think of, like in your earlier posts in this thread.”

And yet, in your previous responses to me, you make it sound as if I have argued for these blanket bans on guns. And the latter half of your first post is full of cheap shots, I address you in the manner in which you address me.

“Some people want to ban guns. They exist. They're idiots, but they exist.”
These people exist. They are not necessarily idiots, just perhaps pacifists or idealists or romanticists or come from a culture that does not value guns the way the gun culture in the US does. If you want me to stop taking “cheap shots” at you, stop making it so easy by taking cheap shots at everyone else.

“Some people want to ban certain types of guns, and/or impose significant restrictions. You're one of these people, no? I don't know if you still believe in your ammo regulation idea (garbage, by the way, as I explained at great length), but I do recall you quoted the recent Feinstein bill pretty much verbatim a while ago, as what you think gun regulation should look like. I argue that the regulations proposed are entirely useless at preventing or mitigating crime or homicides. A pistol grip or a forward grip or a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud does not make a gun any more lethal, and yet you think that those features should be things for which firearms should be banned? And that AR-15s should be banned, but functionally equivalent guns should not? The ideas proposed are ridiculous.”

I wasn’t aware I had regurgitated any information from the Feinstein bill, at least not knowingly. But I do indeed support certain limitations on which guns are appropriate (as I also don’t see the need for stock cars on streets) and sufficient limits and regulation/taxes on ammunition (as we also tax gas and don’t allow any just any substance to be combusted for vehicular use. Like leaded gasoline.). You assert my opinions are “garbage” on the matter of ammunition. I don’t see Chas jumping in here to call your insults out.
As for the bit about “I argue that the regulations proposed are entirely useless at preventing or mitigating crime or homicides.” I disagree, and I would add that they would help curtail mass shootings. See, Australia.
“A pistol grip or a forward grip or a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud does not make a gun any more lethal, and yet you think that those features should be things for which firearms should be banned?”
If these don’t make a gun more lethal, then what do they do? What is their purpose?

“And that AR-15s should be banned, but functionally equivalent guns should not? The ideas proposed are ridiculous.”
I don’t believe I ever pointed out the AR-15 specifically, but I don’t see it as needing to be singled out. I would support a classification of guns into the categories of home self-defense, public self-defense, hunting, sport and recreational shooting. Or some version thereof. Each category has certain guns and gun types that would fall under that category (like shotguns and pistols for home self-defense, but pistols only for public self-defense, while hunting rifles and shotguns qualify for hunting, and weapons like the AR-15 as recreational/sport). Each category is taxed differently, including taxation of the ammunition differently (which could include little to minimal taxation on any weapon or ammunition for self-defense). Regulation is handled differently as would be registration. You register the conceal and carry pistol, as well as any weapon for recreation shooting.

“It may be because some people are just as willing to lie about guns as others are to lie about evolution.”
Another cheapshot, by you. Afford me one of my own. Some people don’t want to look at the statistics that exist against their position and prefer to use anecdotal evidence to ignore it, just like YEC’s.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
12-06-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: Gun Control
There's a lot there, so it's going to take some time to get to it all. But one easy to answer bit, right away:

Quote:“A pistol grip or a forward grip or a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud does not make a gun any more lethal, and yet you think that those features should be things for which firearms should be banned?”
If these don’t make a gun more lethal, then what do they do? What is their purpose?

A pistol grip makes the gun more comfortable. So does a forward grip, for some people. A barrel shroud lets you touch the barrel of the gun after firing for an extended period without burning yourself. Bayonet lugs. Um. Who sticks a bayonet on the end of a full size rifle, and goes to rob a liquor store? Bayonet lugs are a feature of antique military weapons, which are usually collectable. Flash suppressors reduce muzzle flash, and most also function as muzzle brakes, which reduce recoil. Flash suppressors make the gun easier to shoot; they do not, contrary to some beliefs, make the shooter invisible.

A note: pistol grips are considered "assault weapon" features for the primary purpose of singling out the AR-15 and other firearms using modern ergonomics, rather than for any property of the pistol grip itself.



Also, grow a thicker skin. Big baby.

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
12-06-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:00 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  There's a lot there, so it's going to take some time to get to it all. But one easy to answer bit, right away:

Quote:“A pistol grip or a forward grip or a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud does not make a gun any more lethal, and yet you think that those features should be things for which firearms should be banned?”
If these don’t make a gun more lethal, then what do they do? What is their purpose?

A pistol grip makes the gun more comfortable. So does a forward grip, for some people. A barrel shroud lets you touch the barrel of the gun after firing for an extended period without burning yourself. Bayonet lugs. Um. Who sticks a bayonet on the end of a full size rifle, and goes to rob a liquor store? Bayonet lugs are a feature of antique military weapons, which are usually collectable. Flash suppressors reduce muzzle flash, and most also function as muzzle brakes, which reduce recoil. Flash suppressors make the gun easier to shoot; they do not, contrary to some beliefs, make the shooter invisible.

A note: pistol grips are considered "assault weapon" features for the primary purpose of singling out the AR-15 and other firearms using modern ergonomics, rather than for any property of the pistol grip itself.



Also, grow a thicker skin. Big baby.

More insults, what a surprise. That last one made me cry.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 12:06 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 12:00 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  There's a lot there, so it's going to take some time to get to it all. But one easy to answer bit, right away:


A pistol grip makes the gun more comfortable. So does a forward grip, for some people. A barrel shroud lets you touch the barrel of the gun after firing for an extended period without burning yourself. Bayonet lugs. Um. Who sticks a bayonet on the end of a full size rifle, and goes to rob a liquor store? Bayonet lugs are a feature of antique military weapons, which are usually collectable. Flash suppressors reduce muzzle flash, and most also function as muzzle brakes, which reduce recoil. Flash suppressors make the gun easier to shoot; they do not, contrary to some beliefs, make the shooter invisible.

A note: pistol grips are considered "assault weapon" features for the primary purpose of singling out the AR-15 and other firearms using modern ergonomics, rather than for any property of the pistol grip itself.



Also, grow a thicker skin. Big baby.

More insults, what a surprise. That last one made me cry.

I thought we were making some progress on this discussion. Why don't you knock off the crap, Phaedrus?

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
12-06-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 12:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  More insults, what a surprise. That last one made me cry.

I thought we were making some progress on this discussion. Why don't you knock off the crap, Phaedrus?

Meh, no need to mediate anything. He is welcome to take the conversation any which way he pleases, as long as it is not expected for me to refrain from doing the same.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 12:21 PM
RE: Gun Control
I'm being far more restrained than any of a dozen of our members are toward any random theist. Calling I and I or PleaseJesus idiots wins me applause, but slipping even a side-long insinuation at TBD causes upset, so much that a moderator must intervene? Is it because he has lots of posts? Or because his name is purple? Or the number of rep points he has? Please clarify the rules here.

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
12-06-2013, 12:21 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I'm being far more restrained than any of a dozen of our members are toward any random theist. Calling I and I or PleaseJesus idiots wins me applause, but slipping even a side-long insinuation at TBD causes upset, so much that a moderator must intervene? Is it because he has lots of posts? Or because his name is purple? Or the number of rep points he has? Please clarify the rules here.

What moderator has stepped in to do something?

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 12:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I'm being far more restrained than any of a dozen of our members are toward any random theist. Calling I and I or PleaseJesus idiots wins me applause, but slipping even a side-long insinuation at TBD causes upset, so much that a moderator must intervene? Is it because he has lots of posts? Or because his name is purple? Or the number of rep points he has? Please clarify the rules here.

What moderator has stepped in to do something?

Chas, or it so it appeared.

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
12-06-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:23 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 12:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What moderator has stepped in to do something?

Chas, or it so it appeared.

He made a suggestion as a member. I think mod interventions are always posted as either some formal message with different colored text, or as a pm.

Chill.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Gun Control
(12-06-2013 12:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 12:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  I thought we were making some progress on this discussion. Why don't you knock off the crap, Phaedrus?

Meh, no need to mediate anything. He is welcome to take the conversation any which way he pleases, as long as it is not expected for me to refrain from doing the same.

I was kind of hoping you'd refrain, too. Drinking Beverage

Oh, well.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: