[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2016 05:05 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(13-06-2016 09:59 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-06-2016 09:40 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Who you calling "us", kimo sabe. I for one want nothing to do with your idiotic insurrection fantasies.

Keeping a mossberg in your house is great for home invaders or burglers, but you have to leave the house some time.

I do. I have to actually navigate the 1/2 mile of my neighborhood streets between my house and my work which is guarded by heavily armed and highly trained DoD police. And that's not even every day since I can telework. I know I'm always pissing in my pants for that 20 minute walk I have to make through my suburban neighborhood. It's fucking frightening.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 05:03 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2016 05:14 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(14-06-2016 10:47 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I just checked out bear attacks in the US. Pretty rare. In Australia in the last few weeks we've had 2 fatal shark attacks and 1 fatal saltwater crocodile attack.

Just checked out of interest.

Just recently I read about an elk hunter in Montana who accidentally stumbled across a sleeping black bear 3 feet away. Bear tackled him and knocked the gun out of his hands. Dude survived by sticking his arm down the bear's throat until it gagged and ran away. Dude said, "My gramma told me that big animals have a very strong gag reflex. I don't blame the bear, it was every bit as scared as I was."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
15-06-2016, 06:12 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(15-06-2016 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Very amusing, but I actually do customer support. Successfully.
Obviously a caracature but I hope this expresses how I feel when trying to have a gun control discussion with you.

(15-06-2016 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Customer support is very different from dealing with the repeated willful ignorance of many anti-gun people.
Just listen and learn so that you can make yourself understood.
I'm interested in having a civil, on focus, discussion with you and others regarding the gun debate.
From my side I often just assume the gun enthusiasts are nutty and say outrageous stuff and I find it difficult to apply my own common sense when interpreting what some gun enthusiasts write. So perhaps I shake my head too often and think, but that's F'n crazy!
Perhaps from your side you assume gun control advocates are ignorant, and just shake your head think, Argh these guys don't know what they are talking about.

When we talk on forums, we arent' writing a legal document. We do not have to be so precise such that our comments will stand up in court and all observers will interpret it absolutely the same way.
So when I'm trying to describe the difference between a semi-automatic and a bolt action in terms of ability to point at people and shoot in quick succession (i.e making the semi-automatic more dangerous than the bolt action). I might simply say "Yes, and high capacity magazines, with an action that allows a shooter to keep shooting without losing aim seems to be a potential for a disaster."

Why you would interpret that to mean, "Oh my god, this guy doesn't know that there is recoil" is beyond me. As I have told you before I have used guns before, I have some experience, and recoil is basic stuff. So you can saftly assume that I know there is a recoil.
So what could I possibly mean when I loosely say "keep shooting without losing aim"? If you think about the difference between firing these two guns perhaps you could consider what I might mean. But anyway you just simply choose to tell me I'm wrong, without offering anything and without attempting to continue with the conversation.
But in response, I choose to elaborate further.
"You pull the trigger, sure there is some kickback but your face remains on the stock, your eye remains looking at the sights, your finger remains near the trigger.
As opposed to a bolt action where you have to remove your have from the trigger and work the bolt. While you are working the bolt, you are moving the gun and losing sight of your target."

Is that clear enough what I meant? Have we got over the silliness of focussing on whether there is recoil or not?
Perhaps from that elaboration the focus can be on my elaboration rather than my use of the word "aim"
But then someone else chimes in an talks about "sight-picture which recoil disrupts". What is even the point of this comment. I've already let you know that I know there is a recoil. So why continue focusing on this rather than focusing on getting the conversation to flow forward?
It just makes no sense.
I am here to discuss my thoughts on the gun control debate, not to get a lesson in gun terminology. Just like the customer having problems with their computer wants to get the problem sorted, they don't want to get a lesson in computer jargon. If they don't use the right terms, but you understand what they are talking about, then move on. Don't dwell on pointing out their mistakes. It's like some idiot worrying about your spelling or grammar and losing the whole point of what is being discussed.
I understand you are a gun enthusiast and you get excited about these details. But perhaps in discussions with non enthusiasts you could, for the sake of getting communication flowing, try to interpret (in a generous way) what the non enthusiast is saying. If you are unable to, then ask for clarification rather than just pointing out errors.

Anyway, your style is your style. All I am saying is in my experience it is almost impossible to have a civil discussion with you with regards to gun control. I feel the focus delves away from the intent, that discussion is shut down without any attempt to try and understand.
This is just my feedback to you. Just expressing my own experience and frustration in trying to have a gun conversation with you. At no point do I perceive myself as a gun expert, and I know that I am not up with the play on all gun lingo and stuff. I don't own a gun, I don't assemble them, I don't read gun magazines. I don't want to have a lesson on these things, I just want an "on topic" discussion about gun control.
Just as I can have conversations with non computer people about computers, can't you have conversations with non gun enthusiasts about guns. Wouldn't you try to avoid using gun lingo when discussion with non gun people? I try to avoid using computer lingo when discussing the topic with people that know little about computers. I certainly don't take it as an opportunity to teach them lingo or to point out their mistakes. I try and get the gist of what they are saying and I run with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 07:27 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(15-06-2016 06:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Very amusing, but I actually do customer support. Successfully.
Obviously a caracature but I hope this expresses how I feel when trying to have a gun control discussion with you.

Then don't if it's so frustrating.

Quote:
(15-06-2016 04:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  Customer support is very different from dealing with the repeated willful ignorance of many anti-gun people.
Just listen and learn so that you can make yourself understood.
I'm interested in having a civil, on focus, discussion with you and others regarding the gun debate.

As am I.

Quote:From my side I often just assume the gun enthusiasts are nutty and say outrageous stuff and I find it difficult to apply my own common sense when interpreting what some gun enthusiasts write. So perhaps I shake my head too often and think, but that's F'n crazy!
Perhaps from your side you assume gun control advocates are ignorant, and just shake your head think, Argh these guys don't know what they are talking about.

Well, that seems to be the problem. I don't make assumptions.

Quote:When we talk on forums, we arent' writing a legal document. We do not have to be so precise such that our comments will stand up in court and all observers will interpret it absolutely the same way.

We do need to be accurate when trying to draw a line between this type and that type.

Quote:So when I'm trying to describe the difference between a semi-automatic and a bolt action in terms of ability to point at people and shoot in quick succession (i.e making the semi-automatic more dangerous than the bolt action). I might simply say "Yes, and high capacity magazines, with an action that allows a shooter to keep shooting without losing aim seems to be a potential for a disaster."

And that statement is still inaccurate.

Quote:Why you would interpret that to mean, "Oh my god, this guy doesn't know that there is recoil" is beyond me. As I have told you before I have used guns before, I have some experience, and recoil is basic stuff. So you can saftly assume that I know there is a recoil.

Your statement demonstrated either a lack of understanding about recoil or a disregard of accurate communication.

Quote:So what could I possibly mean when I loosely say "keep shooting without losing aim"? If you think about the difference between firing these two guns perhaps you could consider what I might mean. But anyway you just simply choose to tell me I'm wrong, without offering anything and without attempting to continue with the conversation.

I did further elaborate about your innaccurate statement about firing a bolt action rifle.

Quote:But in response, I choose to elaborate further.
"You pull the trigger, sure there is some kickback but your face remains on the stock, your eye remains looking at the sights, your finger remains near the trigger.
As opposed to a bolt action where you have to remove your have from the trigger and work the bolt. While you are working the bolt, you are moving the gun and losing sight of your target."

And I pointed out that that was also inaccurate.

Quote:Is that clear enough what I meant? Have we got over the silliness of focussing on whether there is recoil or not?

No, your statements are still not clear as they are not accurate.

Quote:Perhaps from that elaboration the focus can be on my elaboration rather than my use of the word "aim"
But then someone else chimes in an talks about "sight-picture which recoil disrupts". What is even the point of this comment. I've already let you know that I know there is a recoil. So why continue focusing on this rather than focusing on getting the conversation to flow forward?

This demonstrates that you still don't understand enough about aim, recoil, sight picture, etc. But instead of simply asking for clarification, you instead attack those who point out that you are, in fact, being inaccurate.

Quote:It just makes no sense.
I am here to discuss my thoughts on the gun control debate, not to get a lesson in gun terminology. Just like the customer having problems with their computer wants to get the problem sorted, they don't want to get a lesson in computer jargon. If they don't use the right terms, but you understand what they are talking about, then move on. Don't dwell on pointing out their mistakes. It's like some idiot worrying about your spelling or grammar and losing the whole point of what is being discussed.

What I understood from your words is that you didn't have sufficient understanding of the difference in firing a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto.

Quote:I understand you are a gun enthusiast and you get excited about these details.

Oh, goody. More assumptions.

Quote:But perhaps in discussions with non enthusiasts you could, for the sake of getting communication flowing, try to interpret (in a generous way) what the non enthusiast is saying. If you are unable to, then ask for clarification rather than just pointing out errors.

When there is no particularly good reading of the statement due to inaccuracy, I am not going to assume one.

Quote:Anyway, your style is your style. All I am saying is in my experience it is almost impossible to have a civil discussion with you with regards to gun control. I feel the focus delves away from the intent, that discussion is shut down without any attempt to try and understand.

It is not my problem that you refuse to learn enough to actually have a fruitful discussion.

Quote:This is just my feedback to you. Just expressing my own experience and frustration in trying to have a gun conversation with you. At no point do I perceive myself as a gun expert, and I know that I am not up with the play on all gun lingo and stuff. I don't own a gun, I don't assemble them, I don't read gun magazines. I don't want to have a lesson on these things, I just want an "on topic" discussion about gun control.

You can't have a discussion on gun control without a minimum knowledge of the subject. That includes a better understanding of firearms than you have so far demonstrated and a willingness to learn which you have just stated you do not have.

Quote:Just as I can have conversations with non computer people about computers, can't you have conversations with non gun enthusiasts about guns. Wouldn't you try to avoid using gun lingo when discussion with non gun people?

That isn't the problem. The problem is your misuse of firearms terminology and workings.

Quote:I try to avoid using computer lingo when discussing the topic with people that know little about computers. I certainly don't take it as an opportunity to teach them lingo or to point out their mistakes. I try and get the gist of what they are saying and I run with it.

Go right ahead. That usually leads to misunderstanding and continued ignorance.

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
15-06-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(15-06-2016 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, that seems to be the problem. I don't make assumptions.
Oh god, really?
I often cringe when trying to talk to you. I should expect these types of arrogant responses by now.
(15-06-2016 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  This demonstrates that you still don't understand enough about aim, recoil, sight picture, etc. But instead of simply asking for clarification, you instead attack those who point out that you are, in fact, being inaccurate.
<Bangs head on table>
I think you miss the point completely.
We aren't debating the meaning of the terms "aim", "recoil" or "sight picture".
We were talking about the ability for different types of guns to be used to rapidly and accuratley shoot at people. A semi-auto allows you to get back into position (aimed at your target) much quicker than a bolt action.
But of course you are going to find some flaw with what I've just said.
Why do things have to be spelled out so precisely to you before you can comprehend it?
Anyway, don't answer that, I don't really care.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2016 08:46 PM by Chas.)
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(15-06-2016 07:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, that seems to be the problem. I don't make assumptions.
Oh god, really?
I often cringe when trying to talk to you. I should expect these types of arrogant responses by now.
(15-06-2016 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  This demonstrates that you still don't understand enough about aim, recoil, sight picture, etc. But instead of simply asking for clarification, you instead attack those who point out that you are, in fact, being inaccurate.
<Bangs head on table>
I think you miss the point completely.
We aren't debating the meaning of the terms "aim", "recoil" or "sight picture".
We were talking about the ability for different types of guns to be used to rapidly and accuratley shoot at people. A semi-auto allows you to get back into position (aimed at your target) much quicker than a bolt action.
But of course you are going to find some flaw with what I've just said.
Why do things have to be spelled out so precisely to you before you can comprehend it?
Anyway, don't answer that, I don't really care.

You can't intelligently discuss that when you misunderstand how those firearms behave.
You continue trying to argue while being willfully ignorant.

You are the one who brought differences in aiming into the discussion as an important point, yet you refuse to listen to corrections of your misunderstandings.

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
15-06-2016, 08:42 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(15-06-2016 02:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 01:58 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No, it's more like saying cancer has many causes, many of which interact to bring about the tumor, and it behooves us to examine them all.
There are many reason why criminals have access to guns, having a mass of guns in the country is only one cause, but working on that cause helps.

Felons don't have legal access to guns. The perpetrator of this deed, to my knowledge, has no criminal record. As for illegal ownership of firearms (which is not the case here), I'm thinking that if a person is willing to break the law against killing a man, a law against owning his a gun is not much of a deterrent.

As for a mass of guns being publicly available, it's true, Pandora's Box has already been opened; there are well over three hundred million guns in America as I write. Do you have a reasonable solution to closing it? Or is this simply Internet railing on your part? Let's hear your proposed solution.

I'm open to smart conversation, but I've yet to see it from you. I've yet to see you acknowledge your rudeness to me, for that matter.

I'll wait, I suppose ... over to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
15-06-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(15-06-2016 08:42 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  As for a mass of guns being publicly available, it's true, Pandora's Box has already been opened; there are well over three hundred million guns in America as I write. Do you have a reasonable solution to closing it?
This right here is the crux of the entire gun control argument. The thought of reducing the number of guns in circulation by any significant amount after the US just experienced the worst domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 strikes me as very unrealistic.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
15-06-2016, 09:56 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
It's a deep problem for my country. How many of those guns are legally owned by responsible owners? How to remove the illegal ones from the streets without impinging the rights of lawful owners?

It's very easy to shout mayhem, but a damned sight more difficult to actually address the issue at hand
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 10:10 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
There are literally millions of gun owners in the US. The false logic would have several mass shootings every fucking day. But, that isn't the case, is it? No. Far from it. What are we looking at, .00001 percent of gun owners shooting up night clubs? Less than that! Would you feel more safe if we added one or two more decimal places?

Get real, and stop making the extreme exception to the rule, the rule.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: