Yay, GUNS!

[john5746]

This little debate between Newt and Piers spells out much of this discussion concerning assault rifles/clips

 

 

First, Newt brings up Chicago, then mentions "we don't know - maybe mental health". Then says handguns are the most often used firearm in deaths.

 

I thought Piers made a very cogent argument. Ar-15's apparently have little use, except for fun or in mass killings. Newt wants to hide behind larger problems that don't have obvious answers. Look away, over there!

 

I could make the same argument with Nukes vs regular bombs. Much more people have been killed with conventional bombs and they will be used much more often, so why try to keep Nukes so secure? Why worry so much? Look away, over there!

[Iggy]

This little debate between Newt and Piers spells out much of this discussion concerning assault rifles/clips

 

First, Newt brings up Chicago, then mentions "we don't know - maybe mental health". Then says handguns are the most often used firearm in deaths.

 

I thought Piers made a very cogent argument. Ar-15's apparently have little use, except for fun or in mass killings. Newt wants to hide behind larger problems that don't have obvious answers. Look away, over there!

 

I could make the same argument with Nukes vs regular bombs. Much more people have been killed with conventional bombs and they will be used much more often, so why try to keep Nukes so secure? Why worry so much? Look away, over there!

 

I only watched the first 28 seconds of the clip, but I can tell you you're entirely wrong. The debate ended when Newt asked "how many people have you had on that have successfully defended themselves with firearms?". Piers immediately said "never mind that purposeful biased mistake on my part... look over there!". Then Piers asked the stupidest question yet imaginable: "How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15?". Never mind that if the answer were "one" then Piers would have no business telling that person that they should have better off been dead, he completely ignores the future. How many people will successfully defend themselves with an ar15 if they aren't deprived of having one? Let's hear you, or Piers, or anyone else answer that.

[john5746]

I only watched the first 28 seconds of the clip

I only read this much of your post.

[Iggy]

Illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of.

[John Cuthber]

I guess this

"How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15?"

was the wrong question. He should have asked

"How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15 who could not have used a different gun instead?".

Because that question makes this "How many people will successfully defend themselves with an ar15 if they aren't deprived of having one? " redundant.

 

the issue here was the particular type of gun, rather than any gun.

[Iggy]

I guess this

"How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15?"

was the wrong question. He should have asked

"How many people have successfully defended themselves with an ar15 who could not have used a different gun instead?".

Because that question makes this "How many people will successfully defend themselves with an ar15 if they aren't deprived of having one? " redundant.

 

the issue here was the particular type of gun, rather than any gun.

 

How many people have committed a massacre with an ar15 when they just as easily could have used a different gun?

 

Who can't play this game?

[john5746]

How many people have committed a massacre with an ar15 when they just as easily could have used a different gun?

Fair question. The whole idea is to try and limit gun/clips that maximize carnage in the least time. Kind of the reason machine guns are regulated.

[Iggy]

So you imagine that massacres with small guns and small clips are acceptable? You're all for them? "If you're gonna take out a bunch of people, at least use a shotgun" is your line?

 

That doesn't work for me.

 

The people need regulated. The guns are dangerous regardless.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Iggy

[zapatos]

I think the point was to make it more difficult for a massacre to occur.

[rigney]

Illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of.

Wasting your time with that explanation Iggy. Illteracy can be corrected with help and time, but stupidity goes clean to the bone and forever. You might find this link interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKpLhNiC8zg

Edited January 27, 2013 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

So you imagine that massacres with small guns and small clips are acceptable? You're all for them? "If you're gonna take out a bunch of people, at least use a shotgun" is your line?

 

That doesn't work for me.

 

The people need regulated. The guns are dangerous regardless.

No, nobody said that, so it's a strawman, and, as such, a breach of the site's rules.

The point is that people say they need guns for defence.

Piers pointed out that you certainly don't need an assault rifle for defence, in much the same way you don't need a machine gun.

Machine guns are banned because they have no legitimate civilian use. Assault rifles should also be banned for the same reason.

The (slightly questionable) link is that an assault rifle makes it easier to kill lots of people in a hurry. Banning them would make massacres less likely and less lethal.

[Moontanman]

I think we should stop calling these weapons assault rifles or insinuating they are more dangerous that other semi auto weapons... they are not. They are not military weapons either, no military would arm their men with these rifles.

 

I think the real problem with these guns is the false bravado that comes with them, protect the proletariat from the government, horse feathers... home protection... this is critical, no one should ever fire a high powered weapon inside a building, it's simply not fair to your neighbors who could be killed many houses away with a high powered rifle... Hunting... I have called these assault rifles high powered weapons but compared to a real hunting rifle they are not, a 30.06 packs much more fire power and kills much cleaner and if it is semi automatic can be fired just as fast as these pretend military riffles.

 

That leaves these "assault" weapons with only one real use, they are toys, collectors items fun for target practice but not much practical use for anything else...

[Iggy]

No, nobody said that, so it's a strawman, and, as such, a breach of the site's rules.

The point is that people say they need guns for defence.

Piers pointed out that you certainly don't need an assault rifle for defence, in much the same way you don't need a machine gun.

Machine guns are banned because they have no legitimate civilian use. Assault rifles should also be banned for the same reason.

The (slightly questionable) link is that an assault rifle makes it easier to kill lots of people in a hurry. Banning them would make massacres less likely and less lethal.

 

I suppose it could in principle help, but it feels like a red herring. People have and could effectively use different weapons.

 

I have called these assault rifles high powered weapons but compared to a real hunting rifle they are not, a 30.06 packs much more fire power and kills much cleaner and if it is semi automatic can be fired just as fast as these pretend military riffles.

 

But compare a 30.06 to an AR10. Hard to draw the line.

[overtone]

 

I don't think you remember saying "as Iggy pointed out"
earlier in the thread as if I was your greatest ally.

Nope. No claim of alliance was made, express or implied. You are imagining things. I quote to a purpose relevant to my argument, anyone. Follow my argument, and you will see that any claims made in that quote were quite otherwise.

 

The way you were beating your chest with Engels name and trying to beat
someone else over the head with it made me want to thoroughly show that
you
had no business throwing the name around.

Your personal problems should be managed, not posted. You are the only one beating chest here, between the two of us anyway.

 

And it's tiresome. Other people have motives for posting that have nothing to do with one-upmanship and chestbaeating and so forth, and your inability to recognize that is a handicap that has led you to a series of false, (and worse: irrelevant), public assertions about me.

 

I have every right to remember things I have read, and to employ them in addressing the issue of wingnut framing as it has come to dominate US political discourse - in gun control, particularly. Your deflection of that into complaints about imaginary personality and character flaws is essentially a troll, relative to the thread. It's completely off topic, and since you don't know anything about me, you can't even do it right.

 

Like this:

I'm sure you dream in shades of Red Dawn, and that's fine for the purposes of this discussion too.

- - -

Maybe
if you knew more about the guy, but you're far too right, and far too
uninformed about the left of the 1800's to be doing it.

Just give up trying to tell me what my ideology is, what I have and have not read, and so forth. You are always going to be wrong, because you have no relevant information and several relevant blind spots.

 

"What did Engels have to say about gun rights" means "You have no
freaking idea what Engels had to say about guns or why he said it, so
please get back on your side of the aisle". Do you get it?

Well, yeah, you were wrong. I got that right off.

 

Truth told, I'm beginning to wonder how someone so deeply versed in classical left ideology of the 1800s could be unfamiliar with what Engels had to say on this topic - when even a casual stone skipper like myself has run into examples more than once over the years. For a second there I thought you might be able to help me find the damn quote (have you read his letters?) but I no longer think that's likely - doesn't appear to be your idea of a "leftist approach".

 

Although if we're reduced to "analyzing" for content a back and forth on youtube CNN involving the stellar Newt Gingrich and Piers Morgan, you may have a point.

[Moontanman]

But compare a 30.06 to an AR10. Hard to draw the line.

 

 

True but one is no more dangerous than the other, semi auto is just that semi auto, semi auto comes in everything from 12 gauge shot guns to 22 riffles, actual machine guns are not available to the general public...

[john5746]

I think we should stop calling these weapons assault rifles or insinuating they are more dangerous that other semi auto weapons... they are not. They are not military weapons either, no military would arm their men with these rifles.

 

I think the real problem with these guns is the false bravado that comes with them, protect the proletariat from the government, horse feathers... home protection... this is critical, no one should ever fire a high powered weapon inside a building, it's simply not fair to your neighbors who could be killed many houses away with a high powered rifle... Hunting... I have called these assault rifles high powered weapons but compared to a real hunting rifle they are not, a 30.06 packs much more fire power and kills much cleaner and if it is semi automatic can be fired just as fast as these pretend military riffles.

 

That leaves these "assault" weapons with only one real use, they are toys, collectors items fun for target practice but not much practical use for anything else...

I'm not a gun expert and don't care to be one. I have at least shot a 30.06 and it would be interesting to try and shoot a round a second and actually be on target. I doubt you will see people with 30.06 and a 100 round drum. But they are effective at killing, as is any gun. I think they would be more effective at taking out a cop or other opponent.

 

Your last statement is a big part of the issue. There seems to be no utility in these things, so why do we need them? Cost benefit analysis. Benefit is fun, cost is lives. We can call them "fun guns" or "small pee-pee widgets" if it makes you feel better. Still want to get rid of them.

 

I do think we need to embrace the gun culture, something like Switzerland. But its hard to expect people to embrace things that have no real purpose.

[Moontanman]

This topic has lurched back and forth from one extreme to the other with some people taking the position that guns should be freely available in all their forms and others taking the position that no guns should be allowed at all... Is there no middle ground?

 

Why is does so much of this thread boil down to "I love guns" vs "I hate guns" Did no one simply grow up around guns that that were simply tools? A quite specific tool but just a tool, no love no hate involved.

 

I don't sit around polishing my gun dreaming of the day I'll get to use it as some gun owners are portrayed nor do I fear it so much I keep it locked up out of reach and useless...

 

I have lots of dangerous tools, my skill saw, my chain saw, lawn mower, weed eater, reciprocating saw, drills, knives, the list goes on, I love none of them (well except for maybe my lawn mower) I hate none of them (well except for maybe my weed eater) but the rest are tools, tools that have to be used in the proper way with proper safety precautions taken.

 

Love, hate, politics, fear, these things do not belong in this debate, all they do is muddy the water... Politicians are using this muddy water to further their own agendas with no regard to anything but votes and fear is the main ingredient, fear that I will lose my gun or fear that I will use my gun to kill needlessly... to really reach an agreement in this the fear has to be removed to a safe distance so the heart of the matter can be exposed ...

 

I grew up around guns, guns were everywhere in the house, easily accessible, if you needed a gun you simply picked one up and put it to use... I won't lie, if you picked up a gun you better have good reason to do so or you risked a severe ass kicking but the idea of guns being inherently dangerous simply wasn't part of my up bringing but neither was the idea of I love my gun and you'll have to take from my cold dead hands...

 

Most of this debate is as weird as snake suspenders to me...

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We're having trouble locating a Moderator that isn't already involved in this discussion to post a modnote about avoiding personal invective and keeping things civil. So I'm going to do it without pointing any fingers and I hope we can all calm down just enough that I won't have to exclude myself from this discussion. Confront the ideas, not the person!

[Moontanman]

I'm not a gun expert and don't care to be one. I have at least shot a 30.06 and it would be interesting to try and shoot a round a second and actually be on target. I doubt you will see people with 30.06 and a 100 round drum. But they are effective at killing, as is any gun. I think they would be more effective at taking out a cop or other opponent.

 

Your last statement is a big part of the issue. There seems to be no utility in these things, so why do we need them? Cost benefit analysis. Benefit is fun, cost is lives. We can call them "fun guns" or "small pee-pee widgets" if it makes you feel better. Still want to get rid of them.

 

I do think we need to embrace the gun culture, something like Switzerland. But its hard to expect people to embrace things that have no real purpose.

 

 

Then you should outlaw 22 rifles, most of them are used to shoot targets of some sort, occasionally they are used to shoot at varmints but so are the pretend assault rifles. They look scary, they are no more dangerous than the non scary ones..

 

I've shot a semi auto 30.06, it takes some practice but you can shoot multiple times accurately, I prefer bolt action, safer, more reliable and more practical but then I am not a gun lover, practical is the most important thing to me, not fire power...

 

The guns that shoot a 223 round are fun to shoot, plastic jugs full of water are great targets, you get a nice satisfying explosion...

 

As far as 100 round drums, I agree, I see no need for that.. but there is semi auto shot gun with a 100 round barrel clip I'll take over the world heh heh heh

[Iggy]

True but one is no more dangerous than the other, semi auto is just that semi auto, semi auto comes in everything from 12 gauge shot guns to 22 riffles, actual machine guns are not available to the general public...

 

No, I agree they're dangerous, and often equally so. That's why I think it is a red herring. Banning assault rifles wouldn't do it I'm quite sure.and very sad to say.

[rigney]

Quote Moontanman: I think we should stop calling these weapons assault rifles or insinuating they are more dangerous that other semi auto weapons... they are not. They are not military weapons either, no military would arm their men with these rifles.

 

I think the real problem with these guns is the false bravado that comes with them, protect the proletariat from the government, horse feathers... home protection... this is critical, no one should ever fire a high powered weapon inside a building, it's simply not fair to your neighbors who could be killed many houses away with a high powered rifle... Hunting... I have called these assault rifles high powered weapons but compared to a real hunting rifle they are not, a 30.06 packs much more fire power and kills much cleaner and if it is semi automatic can be fired just as fast as these pretend military riffles.

 

That leaves these "assault" weapons with only one real use, they are toys, collectors items fun for target practice but not much practical use for anything else...

 

That is, until they get into the wrong hands. Then, even a .177 air rifle can be lethal at close range. A .22 cal. or larger bore projectile fired from a rifle can travel over a mile and still be deadly.

No, I agree they're dangerous, and often equally so. That's why I think it is a red herring. Banning assault rifles wouldn't do it I'm quite sure.and very sad to say.

Guns are only guns until they are in the wrong hands and then they are killing machines. Mac Davis wrote this for Elvis more than 40 years ago but there is as much or more truth in it today as when it was written. Psychopaths seem to kill as if locked in a dream world closet filled totally with exasperation. Desperation and anger best describe this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5EEdEehm8

Edited January 28, 2013 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

"Guns are only guns until they are in the wrong hands and then they are killing machines."

Really, what are they for in the right hands: opening beer bottles, scaring birds, lighting cigarettes?

[Moontanman]

"Guns are only guns until they are in the wrong hands and then they are killing machines."

 

I agree this is not exactly a good analogy...

 

Really, what are they for in the right hands: opening beer bottles, scaring birds, lighting cigarettes?

 

 

No they are for hunting, sport, fun, and protection...

[overtone]

 

Love, hate, politics, fear, these things do not belong in this
debate, all they do is muddy the water... Politicians are using this
muddy water to further their own agendas with no regard to anything but
votes

Love, hate, and fear may not belong, but politics is the central arena here. This is one of the very few - maybe the only, in the US - political matters in which "extremists on both sides" actually have jammed the discussion.

 

The position that anything anyone calls a gun is equivalent to any other, that differences in degree do not create, at some point, differences in kind - that (for example) increasing the fire rate and magazine size of a rifle-based weapon does not at some point change its nature and create special public risks that we all need to take into account, is one. The position that gun owners need to justify their ownership of weapons to strangers, on these strangers's scale of overall statistical public good from overall public presence of any firearms anywhere and with anyone, or give them up, is the other.

 

There are plenty of people milling around in the general and varied middle grounds, which actually exist in this matter, and they appear to be surprised they do not have a voice - but we got here after thirty + years of organized and intentional degradation of the public discourse. If you drive out the thoughtful and informed and reasonable and generally wise from the public arena, they will be missing when these issues come up.

[Moontanman]

Love, hate, and fear may not belong, but politics is the central arena here. This is one of the very few - maybe the only, in the US - political matters in which "extremists on both sides" actually have jammed the discussion.

 

The position that anything anyone calls a gun is equivalent to any other, that differences in degree do not create, at some point, differences in kind - that (for example) increasing the fire rate and magazine size of a rifle-based weapon does not at some point change its nature and create special public risks that we all need to take into account, is one. The position that gun owners need to justify their ownership of weapons to strangers, on these strangers's scale of overall statistical public good from overall public presence of any firearms anywhere and with anyone, or give them up, is the other.

 

There are plenty of people milling around in the general and varied middle grounds, which actually exist in this matter, and they appear to be surprised they do not have a voice - but we got here after thirty + years of organized and intentional degradation of the public discourse. If you drive out the thoughtful and informed and reasonable and generally wise from the public arena, they will be missing when these issues come up.

 

 

Yeah, I feel the same way, reason is being ignored and that means reasonable people are being ignored. We can argue back and forth all day with people who do not live in the USA and all we establish is that their culture is different from ours and a direct comparison really can't be made.

 

As a gun owner I feel very much disenfranchised in this national debate, where are the people who are not gun lovers or gun haters? People who simply have guns for practical purposes?

 

Sometimes it feels like polarization is the only thing our political system is good at...