Yay, GUNS!

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Forgive me, but that sounds a lot like "Talking about what one would do if non-existing conditions existed almost always is just cover for doing nothing."

As I said, you should buy it from an individual, not a dealer. Preferably an individual who will not replace it. Shoot, buy it from some old lady who has one that used to belong to her dead husband. We need to stop making excuses for why things cannot get done, and find ways to do them.

No, you are creating your own conditions. I didn't call on you to say you'd give your gun(s) up if it would save a life. You offered that false dichotomy up all on your own. It is you calling for people to purchase Assualt Weapons and destroy them, I am not. 

What I have called for is no more purchasing of items that provide the gun industry with more money. Something your suggestion would 100% do. The contradiction involved is on your side. I do not purchase any of the items I am asking others not to. I am doing what I am asking others to.  Meanwhile your proposal is purely argumentative nonsense. You have no intention to follow through with the recommendation yourself. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which one?

He created an SBR, which stands for a short barrel rifle.

So to be confused with an SRB, which is a solid rocket booster.

 

Either way, you have to have a license to do so. I doubt he's going to be prosecuted unless he tries to shoot the thing, but legally you're not allowed to just saw one in half without the proper paperwork, etc because it can make the gun much more unstable, deadly, etc.

 

50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think individual action is a great idea. I would call on everyone here to purchase a gun from an individual (not a dealer) and cut the gun in half. 

 

I'm 15, and I'm saving for a house. I'll avoid buying an $800 AR-15, sawing it in half, and posting the video on youtube to make a point.

That being said, if I had the money I would.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

He created an SBR, which stands for a short barrel rifle.

 

TBH I thought that too, he needed to cut through near the trigger to render it useless.

[Raider5678]

Just now, dimreepr said:

TBH I thought that too, he needed to cut through near the trigger to render it useless.

Exactly.

I don't doubt that he actually got rid of it, he wasn't showing any major red flags of him lying in my opinion, but still.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Exactly.

I don't doubt that he actually got rid of it, he wasn't showing any major red flags of him lying in my opinion, but still.

No, his intention is honorable, unless he gets really close to what he's aiming at. 

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

He created an SBR, which stands for a short barrel rifle.

So to be confused with an SRB, which is a solid rocket booster.

 

Either way, you have to have a license to do so. I doubt he's going to be prosecuted unless he tries to shoot the thing, but legally you're not allowed to just saw one in half without the proper paperwork, etc because it can make the gun much more unstable, deadly, etc.

But you don't actually know that he didn't file the paperwork and get permission, or did he specifically say he did not?

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

But you don't actually know that he didn't file the paperwork and get permission, or did he specifically say he did not?

I'm certain if he had gotten the paperwork, he would have realized the massive sentence that could come from not filing it, and would have pointed it out in the video right before he sawed it in half.

We can assume two things, he did or he didn't.

For some reason I get the feeling he didn't.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It is you calling for people to purchase Assualt Weapons and destroy them, I am not. 

 

I am aware of what I called for, but thanks for reminding me.

Quote

What I have called for is no more purchasing of items that provide the gun industry with more money. Something your suggestion would 100% do.

No it would not. If you purchase from an individual (not a dealer) and they do not replace it, it will not provide the gun industry with more money.

Quote

  Meanwhile your proposal is purely argumentative nonsense. 

Frankly I'm shocked that you feel taking guns out of people's hands is argumentative nonsense. Police departments buy and destroy guns all the time. The guy in the video took a gun out of people's hands and you called it "Excellent". Yet when I propose we take it upon ourselves to do something concrete and not just leave it up to others, you dismiss the idea as nonsense. I wonder why that is.

[Raider5678]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Frankly I'm shocked that you feel taking guns out of people's hands is argumentative nonsense. Police departments buy and destroy guns all the time. The guy in the video took a gun out of people's hands and you called it "Excellent". Yet when I propose we take it upon ourselves to do something concrete and not just leave it up to others, you dismiss the idea as nonsense. I wonder why that is.

1

Because it's "not enough" I'd assume.

Most of the gun debate in this thread seems to be revolving around this premise:

 

Both sides are intelligent enough to realize something needs to change.

One side wants gun control, and the other side wants.......gun control.

However, one side doesn't want as much gun control as the other. Let's call that side 1.

Side 2 wants more gun control then side 1.

Side 1 proposes gun control, taking guns away, destroying guns, etc.

Side 2 says that's not enough, opposes side 1, and then blames side 1 for being against gun control, not doing enough, and being the reason there isn't already better gun control.

 

Do I think side 2 is doing it on purpose? No. I honestly believe both sides have the best of intentions. 

Both sides want to reduce gun violence.

One side wants more measures than the other.

However, that being said, surely we can agree on at least some gun control, even if it's not as much as Side 2 would like and more then Side 1 would like.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Because it's "not enough" I'd assume.

Most of the gun debate in this thread seems to be revolving around this premise:

 

Both sides are intelligent enough to realize something needs to change.

One side wants gun control, and the other side wants.......gun control.

However, one side doesn't want as much gun control as the other. Let's call that side 1.

Side 2 wants more gun control then side 1.

Side 1 proposes gun control, taking guns away, destroying guns, etc.

Side 2 says that's not enough, opposes side 1, and then blames side 1 for being against gun control, not doing enough, and being the reason there isn't already better gun control.

 

Do I think side 2 is doing it on purpose? No. I honestly believe both sides have the best of intentions. 

Both sides want to reduce gun violence.

One side wants more measures than the other.

However, that being said, surely we can agree on at least some gun control, even if it's not as much as Side 2 would like and more then Side 1 would like.

 

Who knew which side would start?

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Frankly I'm shocked that you feel taking guns out of people's hands is argumentative nonsense. Police departments buy and destroy guns all the time. The guy in the video took a gun out of people's hands and you called it "Excellent". Yet when I propose we take it upon ourselves to do something concrete and not just leave it up to others, you dismiss the idea as nonsense. I wonder why that is.

Calling for people to do something which you yourself would not do makes it argumentative nonsense. Feel free to prove me wrong by buying and Assualt Weapon and destroying it. 

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who knew which side would start?

I'm too young to understand this I'd assume.

Could you elaborate?

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Calling for people to do something which you yourself would not do makes it argumentative nonsense. Feel free to prove me wrong by buying and Assualt Weapon and destroying it. 

Oh, come on.

Your argument for it being pointless was not based on "You wouldn't do it yourself" it was very clearly based on "It would make the problem worse." 

Read below:

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What I have called for is no more purchasing of items that provide the gun industry with more money. Something your suggestion would 100% do. The contradiction involved is on your side

 

 

When buying and destroying guns to take them off the streets makes the problem worse then just not buying them and letting them on the streets, I'll believe you.

Your logic is "it makes sense to me, so it must be true."

If masses of people were buying and destroying guns, do you not realize there'd be fewer people to buy guns? Especially if the people doing it are already gun owners?

[iNow]

On 2/18/2018 at 11:11 AM, iNow said:

Knock it off. This is why this:

 

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your argument for it being pointless was not based on "You wouldn't do it yourself" it was very clearly based on "It would make the problem worse." 

It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up. Why should I entertain a suggestion they (Zap) themselves won't??

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up. Why should I entertain a suggestion they (Zap) themselves won't??

Well, it would be a sign that you don't always think only your ideas are valid, and it would get a gun out of circulation, and it would be something concrete instead of just talking about it, and it could save a life, and maybe it would prompt others to do the same. On the other hand, I am the one who brought it up so perhaps it is best you trivialize and ignore the suggestion. As it turns out the only real suggestion you made was something that doesn't affect you anyway since you don't shoot. When you don't drive a car anymore, perhaps it will be time to suggest that we all give up our cars too, to fight global warming.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Do the right thing for the right things sake alone is never the wrong option

 

[Raider5678]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up. Why should I entertain a suggestion they (Zap) themselves won't??

Okay? I didn't mention who's suggestion it was.

I said you very clearly and explicitly stated that his idea would just make it worse: 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What I have called for is no more purchasing of items that provide the gun industry with more money. Something your suggestion would 100% do.

 

I provided reasoning for why it would most likely help, and not hurt the argument.

And the best you could come up with in return was "It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up."

I don't give a damn if it came from the most hell-bent gun owner advocate on the planet, I'm open-minded enough to ponder if it'd work or not.

 

You sat there accusing us of just trying to work around problems and not come up with actual solutions because we didn't want to do anything.

The solution Zapatos proposed was to actively destroy guns. Yours was to not buy guns and ammunition.

Which of those requires sitting and not doing anything?

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Well, it would be a sign that you don't always think only your ideas are valid, and it would get a gun out of circulation, and it would be something concrete instead of just talking about it, and it could save a life, and maybe it would prompt others to do the same. On the other hand, I am the one who brought it up so perhaps it is best you trivialize and ignore the suggestion.

I explained why I didn't feel it would work. Additionally I don't recommend things I myself am unwilling to do. 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As it turns out the only real suggestion you made was something that doesn't affect you anyway since you don't shoot. When you don't drive a car anymore, perhaps it will be time to suggest that we all give up our cars too, to fight global warming.

That is your assumption. For all you know I own a an armory of weapons. 

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up. Why should I entertain a suggestion they (Zap) themselves won't??

That is your assumption. For all you know I've purchased and destroyed an armory worth of weapons.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

That is your assumption. For all you know I own an armory of weapons. 

 

 

In that case, you're just an outright liar and a hypocrite. 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I do not purchase any of the items I am asking others not to. I am doing what I am asking others to.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

said you very clearly and explicitly stated that his idea would just make it worse

And?

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That is your assumption. For all you know I've purchased and destroyed an armory worth of weapons.

You've already stated in previous posts that you do not feel giving up anything you may have is necessary or useful. 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

People buying assualt weapons and destroying them without an assualt weapons ban in place on Manufacturing would not lead to less assualt weapons in circulation. Rather it would lead to yet another market to sell assualt weapons in. The people destroying them market. 

I haven't actually called on anyone to give up guns or accessories they already have. Rather I have said gun enthusiast should stop buying more. Stop feeding the industry. To that end I am right there. I am not buying ammunition, targets, shooting glasses, and etc. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

In that case, you're just an outright liar and a hypocrite. 

Nope, 3rd time today (2 different threads) you have misrepresented my position. 

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

And?

And, rather than pointing fingers for trivial matters, why not actually address something?

And, rather than throwing out solutions simply because you're assuming things, why not ask how they can help?

And, rather 

 

You know what, forget it.

This debate goes nowhere.

It's achieved nothing.

It's done nothing.

It'll never accomplish anything.

It'll never mean anything.

Nothing we say here matters, it'll be forgotten in a matter of days.

Nothing we say here will ever make anything change.

We can't come up with even a partial solution, it's all or nothing.

My way or the high way.

If the literal fate of the world laid single-handedly on us coming up with an agreement, we'd screw it up. Everyone would die. Poof. Gone. Forever.

This isn't about trying to come up with a solution, it's about letting the other side know they're wrong. 

 

We could sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker then we could convince one man by using logic.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

And, rather than pointing fingers for trivial matters, why not actually address something?

I addressed zap and explained why I don't feel it would work. What do you need me to clarify? 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And, rather than pointing fingers for trivial matters, why not actually address something?

And, rather than throwing out solutions simply because you're assuming things, why not ask how they can help?

And, rather 

 

You know what, forget it.

This debate goes nowhere.

It's achieved nothing.

It's done nothing.

It'll never accomplish anything.

It'll never mean anything.

Nothing we say here matters, it'll be forgotten in a matter of days.

Nothing we say here will ever make anything change.

We can't come up with even a partial solution, it's all or nothing.

My way or the high way.

If the literal fate of the world laid single-handedly on us coming up with an agreement, we'd screw it up. Everyone would die. Poof. Gone. Forever.

This isn't about trying to come up with a solution, it's about letting the other side know they're wrong. 

 

We could sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker then we could convince one man by using logic.

 

 

I agree. This is a waste of time. And it is not fun or enlightening anymore, at least for me.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Thread temporarily closed pending review.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Staff have decided to leave this thread closed, since it seems to have run its course. If people would like to open more directed threads on the many aspects of gun control, you are welcome to do so.