I note that while typing this, a large number of other excellent responses have been posted. I will take the time to digest those once I get home, just wanted to let you all know that I'm not ignoring you.


I don't think that it's "absurdly inaccurate" to employ a bit of light hyperbole in exploring the "other side" of an issue which, in this specific forum, tends to be treated in a somewhat one-dimensional manner.


That (specifically the "pocket" reference) would be an example of the aforementioned hyperbole. In this case, the reader is intended to interpret the statement as exposing the hilarity of some of the explanations put forward to justify the "need" for access to weapons originally designed for the exclusive use of the US Military and its allies in a large-scale combat role (note 1).



Yes, that seems to be what some people (note 2) fear.



I don't really see how anything that I have written is sad or absurd. I will admit that it obviously runs contrary to the undertone of certain persistent threads on this forum such as "The new warrior cop is out of control" (note 3), however I'm fairly confident that anything which I have stated as a fact is, in fact, factual (note 4).






Notes:

1 = The weapon now known as the Armalite AR-15 was the outcome of a development competition issued in 1957/58 by the US Army Continental Army Command (CONARC), to produce a low-recoil, small-caliber fully automatic rifle. This was done after several studies conducted by the US Army Operations Research Office (ORO) during WWII and the Korean war demonstrated that directing large amounts of randomly aimed fire towards the enemy was more effective at producing large-scale casualties than selectively aimed fire from larger caliber, semi-automatic rifles, a concept known colloquially as "spray-and-pray". In other words, the AR-15 was specifically designed to be the exact opposite of a "sporting" rifle.


2 = "some people" should be interpreted to mean "those who are simultaneously the most vocal about "gun rights" and also the least well-informed about both the constitutional and legislative underpinnings of same."


3 = If anything, such threads are much better examples of "hysteria and absurdity," inasmuch as the use of cherry-picked news stories from marginal sources in order to generate a sustain an atmosphere of paranoia and hysteria, and to suppress attempts at rational analysis and discourse.


4 = For instance, last week I played a game with my niece while we were driving through town, sort of like the "punch buggy" game, in which we each called out every time we saw either a gun store or a book store. For that portion of US-41 (the main road through Port Charlotte, Florida, along which >90% of the strip malls and consumer retail businesses are located) which extends from the Peace River bridge at the south-eastern most end of town to Veterans Highway at the north-western most end of town, gun stores outnumber book stores by approximately three to one, and I am counting the little religious bookstore owned by the local Catholic church in that figure. We also decided to count WalMart in both categories, as they sell both guns and books.

Because the current legislation is inadequate. Also the NY SAFE Act isn't a significant piece of legislation that is prohibiting or revoking gun ownership, but hey, it was only 20 5-year-olds and a handful of teachers.

Point still stands: what are you guys so afraid of?

No amount of legislation would have prevented that tragedy. If anything the legislation that made that school a "gun free zone" put those children in greater danger than anything else. You ever notice that every single mass shooting takes place in a gun free zone?

Nice victim blaming.

Here are some people... Some prominent political figures...
No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Keep in mind that the ones openly stating they want all firearms banned for civilians are ignorant in trying to accomplishing their own goals. And don't be fooled. There are plenty of politicians who would like to see all firearms banned. However, they are actually half intelligent people who know that to achieve something of that magnitude, you have to pick at it, slowly, over time. And they know to openly state, "oh yes, all guns should be banned" would be political suicide to most. There are politicians who at EVERY corner will vote against guns, EVERY chance they get. The 2nd amendment is not something the people will ever get back if it is lost, and in my opinion the "overreaction" by so many is warranted in protecting it.

That's one thing I do agree with. I don't agree with gun free zones. Except bars. And if you are caught intoxicated while carrying a firearm, you should have the hammer come down on you hard. Private property, excluded, of course business owners and land owners have the right to deny bearing arms.

Really I must have missed the part where I mentioned that it was the fault of the 5 year olds that they were not armed. If I blamed anyone it was the politicians who decided to pass a law that disallows lawful citizens from carrying adequate equipment to properly defend themselves against those that ignore such laws as "gun free zones", theft of weapons, and murdering other people. The only gun free zones should be those enforced by metal detectors and armed guards, much like court rooms and prisons.

You cannot prevent every tragedy with legislation. The fact is mass shootings and gun deaths in this country are statistically rare and have been steadily declining for decades. Stop with the fear mongering.

Nobody has taken your guns or is coming for your guns.

What are you afraid of?

If you go back through his posts in this thread, that's all he has to offer. :giggle:

Well I was talking about among the people here in this discussion. Politicians are idiots anyway, so of course some of them are calling for such harsh regulations and restrictions. I don't think the majority of common people would call for complete banning of guns, aside from some of the really crazy and ignorant ones. And in those cases is better to just ignore them and let them be crazy by themselves and not give them the satisfaction of a response.

I fear nothing. I have never been in a situation for which a gun is necessary and likely will never find myself in one. However, I am adamently against legislation for the sake of legislation. I am also against people telling others what they can't do when therr is a large amount of statistical data that proves said behaviour is not really a problem. The same reason I support the legalization of marijuana.

I'm just curious what people are afraid of. :)

The gun rights crowd has won the argument and the second amendment isn't going anywhere.

And in case anyone has forgotten, this thread started out more as a, why can't we have a discussion about this like reasonably intelligent people, thread. This topic always seems to be so polarized, and almost right away people take a defensive posture and become very hard headed and refuse to listen to what the other side has to say.

We already know what the 2nd amendment says, and that there are some politicians pushing for strict restrictions. Not to put words in Joe's mouth, but maybe this thread was meant more for a discussion on sociological aspects of this argument, not so much the specifics about laws and rights. Why people are so resistant to discussion on this topic and why simply stating an opinion contrary to your peers is equal to political and social suicide.

Or maybe that's just me wanting to talk about that over a pissing contest about who interprets the 2nd amendment and legislation more accurately.:p

It can't be discussed intelligently because the anti-gun side is driven by knee jerk emotional reactions to tragedies instead of using calm logic. They are often completely ignorant on the subject matter and resort to fall back arguments like guns are scary and why do you NEED a gun as if these are valid arguments.

Then you have the pro-gun side that has become incredibly paranoid and unwilling to negotiate after years and years of having various states and districts place ever increasing restrictions on the LEGAL ownership of firearms without ever giving anything back or even addressing the root causes of the real reasons for the unecessary violence. Would you continue to negotiate about restrictions on your freedom of speech if everytime we were done negotiating I took away a bit more of your freedom without ever giving in to a single one of your demands. Keep in mind we started with almost no restrictions on weapons so just allowing me to keep some of what I already had is not conceding anything.

The words assault rifle are use of fear mongering. Without it, your question is simply, "who need to own a gun?". To which the answer is, anybody who wants to be able to protect themselves.

I imagine, bad guys with guns, whether from the public of govt.

This is an appeal to emotion. Neither cars nor personal pools are designed specifically for killing but they sure are more efficient at it in your society and mine. Your point is moot when look at statistically, so just stop while you are behind, or fuck off to the 'ban assault pools' thread.

See above.

Once again, pointing out which is designed to kill is stupid. Kinder surprise isn't designed to kill but they are still banned in the USA aren't they? People won't ban cars because they are not scared of them and they pose no threat to govt.

Yes it is. And if only the criminals are allowed to have guns where does that leave you?

Firstly, what's inadequate about it? Secondly, mentioning that 0.000000006 % of the population got killed in one go and no one changed the rules is once again, fear mongering. Its just another appeal to emotion. When a bus crashes and kills 40 do we banning assault buses?

No, he blamed those who made the rules. Also victim blaming is a completely rational thing. If I am a 5 foot tall 90lb guy with a dodgy ankle and I limp through the hood and get rolled wearing a whole heap of gold chains carrying a macbook pro, well guess what, I could have avoided it, so I am partially at fault. Just like my insurance company wont cover my car when it is left unlocked with the keys in it.

Firstly, people have taken guns, and are still coming for more guns. So no.

I was going to quote more, but I am pretty sure that covers it. Also I come from a country with gun regulation and much more assault than pre gun regulation.

Look at the violent crime per capita on these charts.
Australian gun control 1996, UK super strict gun control 1997.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389049984

Dann

Who is this Dunning Kruger Affect troll?

There were/are numerous attempt to regulate/confiscate/control etc on the graves of those children.
There have been ongoing attempts to ban/regulate/register (with paths to confiscation that are being played out already in CA) etc...
I don't think i'll continue to answer your ignorant goading simple passive aggressive statements. Obviously we know where you stand.

Argh I get so tired of simpletons.

I love it when a car community really comes together to discuss politics. :bowrofl:

Abandon ship!

If you were planning to kill a bunch of people, would you give up on your plan if guns were illegal? Would the legality, or even the availability of guns deter you at all from going forward with your plan?

I just feel like if someone really wants to kill a bunch of people they're going to do it regardless of whether guns are available to them or not. I see gun regulations being absolutely useless on premeditated murder.

On the other hand some regulation, restriction, education, and safety certainly seems like it would go a long way in preventing impulse and accidental shootings. I just wish some common sense on both sides could be applied to gun laws.

I haven't seen actual numbers on the subject, but I would be willing to make a guess that premeditated gun related shootings only make up a very small percentage of overall gun related shootings/deaths. Those non meditated cases are the ones that matter in this argument. Of course a criminal with intent will get a gun either way, but a person that is unstable and untrained can have a gun, which can also lead to tragedy. Guns turn people into cowards. Like I've heard a LOT of old people say, younger people today are pussies and scared to take an ass whooping. You might get your ass beat, but you live to fight another day. Same applies to cops. Most of them are cowardly with gun in hand, too scared to put themselves in the line of actual danger, so they shoot first and ask questions later. Even in situations that would likely be non life threatening to them.