Texas Church Shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2017, 04:43 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
This whole discussion is for the birds and besides the point. Facepalm

Supposedly we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

People with military grade weapons shooting into concerts and schools and churches violate that inalienable right.

Something needs to be done about it. It happens again and again.

No one needs to give up their precious guns as long as they are not military grade.

That is all.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 05:09 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 04:20 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  "I'll kill you more than you can kill me!" Logic?
Deflection and a strawman and really bloody ignorant in the face of multiple posts explaining exactly what I'm saying. There are morally and legally acceptable usages of force and the fact that it undermines your ridiculously biased narrative doesn't mean you can ignore the differences or ignore the fucking definitions of words.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that if someone started stabbing you in the stomach you would lay there and let it happen because you don't want to "answer violence with violence". Your moral posturing would go right out the window and we all know it. If someone tries to kill me it is both morally and legally acceptable for me to use force to stop them up to and including the use of lethal force if the situation warrants it.

You can not like it all you want but you can't show up to the conversation with your own special definitions of words and ignoring the law and commonly understood morality so you can make a nonsensical point backed up with a strawman argument and expect to be taken seriously.

I get that you don't like guns but make your point without resorting to dishonesty please.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
08-11-2017, 05:10 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 12:10 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 02:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  But some guy with a military grade weapon came and turned them into new statistics.

The shooter did not use a "military grade weapon". He used a Ruger AR-556 which is a variation on the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic civilian rifle, and not "military grade".
This seems a semantic debate over a nonsense term. (A term with no set definition) it's a sales marketing or media talk label.

To say it's am altered version but not what the military uses therefore not moilysry grade is to take the term to mean exactly what the military uses... but that's not a solely defined use of that term. Military grade also is used in selling these types of civilian owned pieces of gear and guns to equate it to what is similar to military used equipment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
08-11-2017, 05:17 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
Just as a matter of interest and to help me understand the various viewpoints the difference between military grade weapons and civilian equivalents is it just a case of full auto 3round burst v semi auto capability or are there other differences as well ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 05:26 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 05:17 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Just as a matter of interest and to help me understand the various viewpoints the difference between military grade weapons and civilian equivalents is it just a case of full auto 3round burst v semi auto capability or are there other differences as well ?

From my experience, military grade generally means overpriced piece of shit that breaks down a lot.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 05:29 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 05:09 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 04:20 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  "I'll kill you more than you can kill me!" Logic?
Deflection and a strawman and really bloody ignorant in the face of multiple posts explaining exactly what I'm saying. There are morally and legally acceptable usages of force and the fact that it undermines your ridiculously biased narrative doesn't mean you can ignore the differences or ignore the fucking definitions of words.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that if someone started stabbing you in the stomach you would lay there and let it happen because you don't want to "answer violence with violence". Your moral posturing would go right out the window and we all know it. If someone tries to kill me it is both morally and legally acceptable for me to use force to stop them up to and including the use of lethal force if the situation warrants it.

You can not like it all you want but you can't show up to the conversation with your own special definitions of words and ignoring the law and commonly understood morality so you can make a nonsensical point backed up with a strawman argument and expect to be taken seriously.

I get that you don't like guns but make your point without resorting to dishonesty please.
Still don't get it, do you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 05:29 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 05:26 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 05:17 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Just as a matter of interest and to help me understand the various viewpoints the difference between military grade weapons and civilian equivalents is it just a case of full auto 3round burst v semi auto capability or are there other differences as well ?

From my experience, military grade generally means overpriced piece of shit that breaks down a lot.
I asked for a definition of "military grade" a while back. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 05:34 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 05:10 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 12:10 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The shooter did not use a "military grade weapon". He used a Ruger AR-556 which is a variation on the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic civilian rifle, and not "military grade".
This seems a semantic debate over a nonsense term. (A term with no set definition) it's a sales marketing or media talk label.

To say it's am altered version but not what the military uses therefore not moilysry grade is to take the term to mean exactly what the military uses... but that's not a solely defined use of that term. Military grade also is used in selling these types of civilian owned pieces of gear and guns to equate it to what is similar to military used equipment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I believe AR-15 is what has been used a lot by these nitwits... There is no need for a weapon with it's capabilities to be in the hands of people who have not been vetted properly and who cannot prove that this type weapon is needed by them for? whatever such a reason could be.

Stop with the damn classifications. It's a freaking smoke screen and does not address the issue at all. Nobody needs a weapon that can kill hundreds of people in short order. No one.

Hunters need rifles, people need handguns for self defense, I am fine with that. But we don't need weapons that are killing so many people in short order.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
08-11-2017, 05:56 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-11-2017 05:10 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This seems a semantic debate over a nonsense term. (A term with no set definition) it's a sales marketing or media talk label.

To say it's am altered version but not what the military uses therefore not moilysry grade is to take the term to mean exactly what the military uses... but that's not a solely defined use of that term. Military grade also is used in selling these types of civilian owned pieces of gear and guns to equate it to what is similar to military used equipment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I believe AR-15 is what has been used a lot by these nitwits... There is no need for a weapon with it's capabilities to be in the hands of people who have not been vetted properly and who cannot prove that this type weapon is needed by them for? whatever such a reason could be.

Stop with the damn classifications. It's a freaking smoke screen and does not address the issue at all. Nobody needs a weapon that can kill hundreds of people in short order. No one.

Hunters need rifles, people need handguns for self defense, I am fine with that. But we don't need weapons that are killing so many people in short order.

I got ya, I only asked as someone coming from a non military and non gun culture background just incase I was missing something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 04:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  This whole discussion is for the birds and besides the point. Facepalm
It's really not though, it's extremely relevant to have a discussion on the matter, especially when people keep repeating talking points as justification for their position that are not accurate.

(08-11-2017 04:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  Supposedly we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Correct. Making the argument that you have the right to your life, but removing the only reasonable means of securing that life from threats of violence (which in this day and age is firearms) is not a morally consistent claim.

(08-11-2017 04:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  People with military grade weapons shooting into concerts and schools and churches violate that inalienable right.
He's not violating that right because he uses a "military grade weapons", he violates it because he is initiating force in an illegal and immoral manner. He would still be violating other people's inalienable rights if he killed people with a bolt action rifle, a handgun, a bow an arrow or a potato peeler, because it's the action of killing, not the method, that is the violation of rights.

(08-11-2017 04:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  Something needs to be done about it. It happens again and again.
We do do things when people violate other peoples rights. The US is a nation of laws, they jail offenders especially violent offenders.

(08-11-2017 04:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  No one needs to give up their precious guns as long as they are not military grade.
As I said before that is not a gun classification. Military grade just means it meets the minimum requirements for durability and reliability as set forth by the government. Given that their weapons are made by the lowest bidder its also synonymous with "low grade". A gun marketed as "military grade" does not mean it has military capabilities, ie full-auto fire. If you want to ban "military grade" guns well...that's almost all guns as most of them meet the minimum standards set by the military.

(08-11-2017 04:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  That is all.
Well first off that seems like a completely arbitrary line in the sand and it's one I don't even believe is accurate. The weapons used in these shootings (semi-automatic rifles) are responsible for about 2-3% of gun deaths each year, with handguns responsible for the vast majority (80%+). I find it very hard to believe that people that want to ban the guns that cause 2% of firearm related deaths a year are just going to be fine and dandy with the 80% of fire arms related deaths that a semi-auto rifle ban wouldn't touch. This is (one of many many) reasons I don't take Brian37 seriously when he constantly throws his hands up and says he doesn't want to ban all guns. If his moral outrage was internally and morally consistent he absolutely would want to ban all guns.
I don't believe gun control proponents will stop in the slightest if we banned every single high calibre semi-automatic rifle today. If they have an issue with the 3% they will have an issue with the 80%. "That is all," is not a statement I believe as it is not politically or morally consistent.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: