*** laws : what would you accept ?

[eponymous]

It is a slippery slope and Dunblane and Hungerford are perfect examples of this. And no, I'm not using that to curtail any sort of regulation...

Yes, it is a slippery slope argument. I recognize that it is. I'm saying I find the argument invalid, and I have given reasons for that conclusion. The implementing of severe *** restrictions in the UK does not support your conclusion because ***-related homicides have gone down, yet people in the UK are still very much free. They don't live under a Stalinist dictatorship. The slippery slope argument says that Americans are as good as enslaved once ***** *** restrictions are imposed, because the government won't rest until everyone's rights are stripped and we'll all be less free as a result. Based on how things played out in the UK, that wouldn't in fact be true.

But let me clear once again: I'm not in favor of banning guns, only regulating them.

...Besides the tons of laws already on the books I even said last page I had ideas about things we can do to at the very least see less of these massacres...

Yes, I would very much like to hear those ideas.

...Besides that you're all over the place with your posts. It's quite simple: what will banning AR's (which are not full-auto as incorrectly implied earlier) or similar weapons really do when the vast majority of ******* - even mass ******* (remember, Cho, who ******** 30, did with a couple handguns, not an "assault" rifle) - are done so with with handguns.

I am focused with laser-like precision on the fact that some weapons have zero practical value when it comes to self-defense in one's home, and only questionable value in the areas of hunting and sport, where many other weapons are not only better but more sportsmanlike. The zero-possibility of their being practical outweighs the extremely small chances of their being used to **** many people faster and more efficiently than other weapons that have legitimate practical value but won't **** so many so efficiently due to their limitations.

I see, however, that this is a fruitless discussion, as any attempt to find common ground will inevitably devolve into a debate over definitions. This is like trying to get people to agree that junk food makes us fat. The discussion quickly turns to a debate over what junk food is, when we all know that cheeseburgers, hot dogs and french fries are on the list.

Because Johan has a history here and I've been here for quite a bit of that history. Johan has a history of bashing America and Americans and I get sick of it sometimes. Insult to injury he thinks he is some authority figure on what happens on this side of the Pond and in America in general when most of the time he has no clue.

I appreciate that you've been around longer and have more experience with people here than I do. My point is that, as a relative new-comer, your statements seemed prompted more by anger and intolerance of other people's views because they were couched in incendiary terms, and I was suggesting that it isn't fair when anyone says such things for cheap points. Not against him, and not against you.

 

[eponymous]

Good grief.

Okay, let me put it another way, and then I'll shut up for a while:

I can use a chainsaw to cut butter, but why would I? The butter ***** works just fine, and the chances of hurting myself with a butter ***** are as close to zero as they could possibly be. There is, however, a possibility that I may hurt myself using a chainsaw. No matter how well trained I am, there is always some risk because it's a dangerous device. Furthermore, due to the nature of the differences between a chain saw and a butter *****, the possibility of being hurt using a chain saw (however unlikely) is higher than the possibility of being hurt using a butter *****. It doesn't matter how much higher, it's higher. And when you consider the fact that the chainsaw doesn't do the job better in the first place, there is no downside to using the butter *****.

Banning certain kinds of weapons (we can debate which ones later) hurts nobody. Not having any practical value in the first place, nothing is taken away, so nothing is lost. The possibility of one mass shooting by a single criminal or deranged person - however small those chances may be - outweighs the zero risk of banning something that has no practical value in the first place.

 

[Rey C.]

Well said, but I don't agree that a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons is a straw man argument. They may be used less to commit violent crimes, they may even be used substantially less, but they still can be so used, and it doesn't change the fact that many of these weapons have no practical uses. I venture to affirm that if someone you loved were ****** with such a weapon, you wouldn't be at all consoled that the chances were extremely low that it would happen. Not to mention the fact that such powerful firepower would likely **** many people, not simply one or two.

I see it as a straw man argument because you're focusing on something which accounts for almost no measurable contribution to the problem... it's just a sexy attention getter. The AK-47 variants, the AR-15 and other military style weapons (they're not actual assault weapons, BTW) are the Great White sharks of the civilian *** world. Their contribution to *** crimes and shooting deaths in the U.S. is almost nil, so one would not spend time focusing on them... except to try to make a point that really doesn't exist. What do people like to talk about and watch on TV, movies about shark attacks or movies about jellyfish attacks? Sharks, right? But what ***** more people every year? Jellyfish. They **** about 20 times more people than sharks. But like AK's, sharks are mean and scary looking. :eek:

Also, "such powerful firepower"??? You lost me. Through much of my ********* and all through my adult life I've been around firearms. There are many people who know much more about ballistics and firearms than I do, but I know a fair amount. And I have to tell you, a weapon's "power" is determined mostly by the round that it fires (along with its barrel length and some other factors). The 7.62x39mm that the AK (and SKS) fires is not that powerful... not at all. It's in the same range as the old .30-.30 that's been around for 100+ years. Like any round, it can certainly **** a person. But trust me, you'd much rather get shot at 100 yards by an AK than by a Weatherby .300 Magnum, for instance. I don't particularly want to get shot by anything or anybody, if I can avoid it. But I'd also rather take a round from an AK at 10-20 yards than a blast from a 12 gauge shotgun at that same range. But that's just me... because I've seen what various weapons and rounds do to wild game at various ranges. As for how I'd feel if a ****** member got shot and ****** by an AK... uh, an AK versus a Glock 22 or a Sig P226 or a Colt Detective Special .38, you mean? Well, of course I'd be sad, no matter how or what ****** them. But dead is still dead, right? :dunno: An AK or AR won't **** you any deader than that .38. And it's much more likely that if I know anyone who gets ****** by *** ********, it will be by a 9mm, .40 cal or a .38. I knew a girl in college that got stung by a jellyfish (she didn't die), but ya know, I've never met anyone who has even encountered a Great White shark while surfing or swimming in the ocean. I tend to focus on those things which are actual contributors to the primary issue.... and that helps lead to potential root causes and then solutions.

As for the practicality of the AK variants and the SKS, please define what is an acceptable level of "practicality". That's another subjective appraisal that I've often heard from those who speak about this issue. I've hunted with AK's. I've shot targets all day long with AK's. I've put more rounds through AK variants than probably any other weapon I've owned, except for the .22 rifles I had as a ***. Home or property defense? Within the confines of my home, I'd probably choose a small bore ****** (9mm or .40 cal.: light, easy to handle, very little recoil, yet effective at short range). But if I was dealing with coyotes or a bear bothering my horses, livestock or dog, me and Mr. AK would go outside and check on the problem. That is exactly the weapon that I would choose. A pack of 5-7 coyotes vs. my buddy? Pick him every time! He'll do ya right. :yesyes: You must be using some very stringent definition for practicality that I'm unaware of. To hunt rabbits? OK, no, I'd use a shotgun or a .22 caliber. Deer? It depends on where we were hunting. In open fields, I'd opt for a longer range (more powerful) rifle. Probably a good .270. In the woods though, I've used the AK many times. I'd use the AK to hunt deer any place where I'd use a shotgun or a ****** - but I'd prefer the AK (with the 5 shot mag). Elk, out west? Well, now we're talking about needing some real power. My Weatherby .338-.378 Magnum would be my choice. 700 yards, and unless you're just a horrible shot, you'll go home with some elk meat. I've hunted all kinds of game with all kinds of firearms. In another life, for a short time, I carried a concealed weapon on a daily basis. These days, I don't really hunt that much anymore and I live and work in relatively safe areas. I'm into them but I'm not what you'd probably call "*** crazy" these days. Cars, racing, trading stocks and trying to convince my girl to go lingerie shopping hold my interest more. But still, IMO, I'd say that the AK variant is anything but impractical. IMO, it's actually one of the most versatile and practical weapons one could own.

Also, by this same logic, we would have no compelling reason to ban military grade explosives or chemical or biological weapons. The fact that there cannot be any practical uses for them outweighs the inherent risk in their being used even once.

No, that does not follow my path of logic at all. The AK's and AR's that are available for civilian purchase are no more comparable to their military grade cousins than a firecracker or M80 would be to one of these military explosives that you're talking about. They're just semi-automatic rifles. They're not made by Satan and they're not magical.

My point about assault weapons in general is that it should be easy for people on both sides to find common ground here. Even if the possibility of people being ****** by an assault weapon is infinitesimal, it's still larger than 0, which are the chances that many of these weapons could have practical value.

A huge no-no in root cause analysis and (even) basic problem solving: picking the item that ranks lowest on the Pareto chart for purely emotional reasons. Devoting time and resources to the category that will yield the lowest, or almost no improvement in the overall condition, is very bad practice. :nono:

I agree that the longer the debate centers on things of this nature, the less likely we are to make any progress addressing the real problems. But we have to find common ground somewhere.

As I've mentioned, the concern that I have is that people will get caught up talking about provocative items like carbines with threaded barrels, bayonet lugs and flash hiders, when banning those items (again) will not matter one damn bit in addressing the overall problem. The corrective action methodology is so incredibly simple, if people would just use data instead of emotions. Define the problem, collect and measure data relating to the problem, analyze that data and then (using the data at hand) decide on practical solutions which address the largest contributions to the problem. Then re-measure and see what the results are. The solutions either helped, hurt or had no effect. Control, rinse & repeat. But (just like the health care debacle), this one will also be ruled by emotions and not data. In fact, I guarantee it. It's how our government functions now... it's what the people expect and accept and that's really why we're in the mess we're in - and I don't just mean with *** ********..

 

[Rattrap]

Not me. You got the wrong Yank. I'm an isolationist. Second Amendment proponent and firearm owner that I am, heck, you could even call me a pacifist. I'm sick and freaking tired of America "policing" the world. Bring all our troops home - all of them. Sure, we have some financial interests in certain places but this **** is ridiculous what we're doing as a government.

Well on this at least, we most definitely agree.

But (just like the health care debacle), this one will also be ruled by emotions and not data. In fact, I guarantee it. It's how our government functions now... it's what the people expect and accept and that's really why we're in the mess we're in - and I don't just mean with *** ********..

It's worse than that. It's what the people created and in some instances want. It's more "fun" that way.

 

[eponymous]

Rey -

There's nothing wrong with my logic. Yours is a well thought-out and extremely informative post, but in the midst of all the acronyms and specific capacities, you're not seeing the point, which is that people need common ground in any conversation. One always starts with the simplest and moves on to address the more complex. This isn't root cause analysis or (even) problem solving. This is about establishing baseline definitions and agreeing on shared principles. Once we agree on the problem(s), we can move to the problem-solving stage.

Put another way: since most *** crimes are committed with handguns and since handguns are extremely useful for defending oneself, are easier to conceal and in much wider circulation, they're where we want to get to, not where we should begin.

I actually didn't think assault weapons were worth spending much time discussing, but we're there now, so let's try to clear the air. I think you mean to call a focus on assault weapons a red herring, not a straw man argument. You seem to think that assault weapons are a distraction away from the real issue because they are used in so few crimes.

In fact, it's neither. I was trying to establish that something is greater than nothing. Some risk, for example, is acceptable if the payoff is significant. If all assault weapons have legitimate practical value, then my point is moot. But if I'm right that some guns are impractical for self-defense in one's home (as I imagine most rifles are, assault rifle or not) and some of those weapons are also not particularly useful for hunting because they are designed to spray bullets, not hit individual targets, then their value does not outweigh the risk. Powerful may have been the wrong adjective for someone with your technical knowledge. I meant it in the more plebeian sense of "being able to **** a lot of people" quickly & without reloading. I'm not under any delusions about whether someone is more or less dead depending on the caliber of bullet they're shot with. The comparison I had in mind wasn't an AK and its military grade counterparts, but a Derringer and a MAC-10, not unlike the difference between a firecracker and C-4.

So tell me: some guns are capable of ******* more people, more quickly and without reloading. Is that not true? Let's try to agree on this point before debating the meaning of the word 'actual'.

 

[DP_LOVER]

There is absolutely no need for ANYBODY to have to own an automatic weapon, other than in a military situation. These guns are designed for the sole purpose of ******* people and nothing more. Don't give me this bullshit excuse about needing one for protection because you don't. I live in the UK and in one of the most dangerous cities and I have never once felt the need to arm myself. Those who state that its their 'right' to carry a weapon and that they do it to protect themselves and their ****** are part of the problem in the US. Ban the weapons and you will instantly reduce the amount if people who have access to them. It's simple. Having background checks and making people be required to carry a license will not stop the guns falling into the wrong hands.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I see it as a straw man argument because you're focusing on something which accounts for almost no measurable contribution to the problem... it's just a sexy attention getter. The AK-47 variants, the AR-15 and other military style weapons (they're not actual assault weapons, BTW) are the Great White sharks of the civilian *** world. Their contribution to *** crimes and shooting deaths in the U.S. is almost nil, so one would not spend time focusing on them... except to try to make a point that really doesn't exist. What do people like to talk about and watch on TV, movies about shark attacks or movies about jellyfish attacks? Sharks, right? But what ***** more people every year? Jellyfish. They **** about 20 times more people than sharks. But like AK's, sharks are mean and scary looking. :eek:

Also, "such powerful firepower"??? You lost me. Through much of my ********* and all through my adult life I've been around firearms. There are many people who know much more about ballistics and firearms than I do, but I know a fair amount. And I have to tell you, a weapon's "power" is determined mostly by the round that it fires (along with its barrel length and some other factors). The 7.62x39mm that the AK (and SKS) fires is not that powerful... not at all. It's in the same range as the old .30-.30 that's been around for 100+ years. Like any round, it can certainly **** a person. But trust me, you'd much rather get shot at 100 yards by an AK than by a Weatherby .300 Magnum, for instance. I don't particularly want to get shot by anything or anybody, if I can avoid it. But I'd also rather take a round from an AK at 10-20 yards than a blast from a 12 gauge shotgun at that same range. But that's just me... because I've seen what various weapons and rounds do to wild game at various ranges. As for how I'd feel if a ****** member got shot and ****** by an AK... uh, an AK versus a Glock 22 or a Sig P226 or a Colt Detective Special .38, you mean? Well, of course I'd be sad, no matter how or what ****** them. But dead is still dead, right? :dunno: An AK or AR won't **** you any deader than that .38. And it's much more likely that if I know anyone who gets ****** by *** ********, it will be by a 9mm, .40 cal or a .38. I knew a girl in college that got stung by a jellyfish (she didn't die), but ya know, I've never met anyone who has even encountered a Great White shark while surfing or swimming in the ocean. I tend to focus on those things which are actual contributors to the primary issue.... and that helps lead to potential root causes and then solutions.

As for the practicality of the AK variants and the SKS, please define what is an acceptable level of "practicality". That's another subjective appraisal that I've often heard from those who speak about this issue. I've hunted with AK's. I've shot targets all day long with AK's. I've put more rounds through AK variants than probably any other weapon I've owned, except for the .22 rifles I had as a ***. Home or property defense? Within the confines of my home, I'd probably choose a small bore ****** (9mm or .40 cal.: light, easy to handle, very little recoil, yet effective at short range). But if I was dealing with coyotes or a bear bothering my horses, livestock or dog, me and Mr. AK would go outside and check on the problem. That is exactly the weapon that I would choose. A pack of 5-7 coyotes vs. my buddy? Pick him every time! He'll do ya right. :yesyes: You must be using some very stringent definition for practicality that I'm unaware of. To hunt rabbits? OK, no, I'd use a shotgun or a .22 caliber. Deer? It depends on where we were hunting. In open fields, I'd opt for a longer range (more powerful) rifle. Probably a good .270. In the woods though, I've used the AK many times. I'd use the AK to hunt deer any place where I'd use a shotgun or a ****** - but I'd prefer the AK (with the 5 shot mag). Elk, out west? Well, now we're talking about needing some real power. My Weatherby .338-.378 Magnum would be my choice. 700 yards, and unless you're just a horrible shot, you'll go home with some elk meat. I've hunted all kinds of game with all kinds of firearms. In another life, for a short time, I carried a concealed weapon on a daily basis. These days, I don't really hunt that much anymore and I live and work in relatively safe areas. I'm into them but I'm not what you'd probably call "*** crazy" these days. Cars, racing, trading stocks and trying to convince my girl to go lingerie shopping hold my interest more. But still, IMO, I'd say that the AK variant is anything but impractical. IMO, it's actually one of the most versatile and practical weapons one could own.




No, that does not follow my path of logic at all. The AK's and AR's that are available for civilian purchase are no more comparable to their military grade cousins than a firecracker or M80 would be to one of these military explosives that you're talking about. They're just semi-automatic rifles. They're not made by Satan and they're not magical.




A huge no-no in root cause analysis and (even) basic problem solving: picking the item that ranks lowest on the Pareto chart for purely emotional reasons. Devoting time and resources to the category that will yield the lowest, or almost no improvement in the overall condition, is very bad practice. :nono:




As I've mentioned, the concern that I have is that people will get caught up talking about provocative items like carbines with threaded barrels, bayonet lugs and flash hiders, when banning those items (again) will not matter one damn bit in addressing the overall problem. The corrective action methodology is so incredibly simple, if people would just use data instead of emotions. Define the problem, collect and measure data relating to the problem, analyze that data and then (using the data at hand) decide on practical solutions which address the largest contributions to the problem. Then re-measure and see what the results are. The solutions either helped, hurt or had no effect. Control, rinse & repeat. But (just like the health care debacle), this one will also be ruled by emotions and not data. In fact, I guarantee it. It's how our government functions now... it's what the people expect and accept and that's really why we're in the mess we're in - and I don't just mean with *** ********..

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rey C. again.

POTW

Rey, we need more intelligent individuals like you to step up to the plate at this time and state it succinctly as such.

epomymous continues to muddy this discussion by diverting his attention to the thing the media pushes as the culprit: the semi-auto rifle. Thousands of ******* occur in America annually and the vast majority of those using handguns. I will no longer post regarding eponymous lest he post even more erroneous nonsense than he continues to already, which wouldn't surprise me...

The media conveniently focuses on "assault" rifles as the culprit, which will just open the door for the grab of millions of handguns in America. That's the real crux of the matter.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

There is absolutely no need for ANYBODY to have to own an automatic weapon, other than in a military situation. These guns are designed for the sole purpose of ******* people and nothing more. Don't give me this bullshit excuse about needing one for protection because you don't. I live in the UK and in one of the most dangerous cities and I have never once felt the need to arm myself. Those who state that its their 'right' to carry a weapon and that they do it to protect themselves and their ****** are part of the problem in the US. Ban the weapons and you will instantly reduce the amount if people who have access to them. It's simple. Having background checks and making people be required to carry a license will not stop the guns falling into the wrong hands.

For fuck's sake. Glasgow? You know how to read in Scotland, or what? What in the hell are you bringing automatic weapons into this when it's been said a dozen times now here they aren't even legal, except under the most harsh and rigorous licensing?

God, people, if you don't know the issue at hand don't even bother posting.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Put another way: since most *** crimes are committed with handguns and since handguns are extremely useful for defending oneself, are easier to conceal and in much wider circulation, they're where we want to get to, not where we should begin. .

And there you have it folks, the "slippery slope" I was referring to. eponymous is just a double-talking provocateur whose end agenda rears its head quite clear here.

 

[Rey C.]

Rey -

There's nothing wrong with my logic. Yours is a well thought-out and extremely informative post, but in the midst of all the acronyms and specific capacities, you're not seeing the point, which is that people need common ground in any conversation. One always starts with the simplest and moves on to address the more complex. This isn't root cause analysis or (even) problem solving. This is about establishing baseline definitions and agreeing on shared principles. Once we agree on the problem(s), we can move to the problem-solving stage.

Put another way: since most *** crimes are committed with handguns and since handguns are extremely useful for defending oneself, are easier to conceal and in much wider circulation, they're where we want to get to, not where we should begin.

I actually didn't think assault weapons were worth spending much time discussing, but we're there now, so let's try to clear the air. I think you mean to call a focus on assault weapons a red herring, not a straw man argument. You seem to think that assault weapons are a distraction away from the real issue because they are used in so few crimes.

In fact, it's neither. I was trying to establish that something is greater than nothing. Some risk, for example, is acceptable if the payoff is significant. If all assault weapons have legitimate practical value, then my point is moot. But if I'm right that some guns are impractical for self-defense in one's home (as I imagine most rifles are, assault rifle or not) and some of those weapons are also not particularly useful for hunting because they are designed to spray bullets, not hit individual targets, then their value does not outweigh the risk. Powerful may have been the wrong adjective for someone with your technical knowledge. I meant it in the more plebeian sense of "being able to **** a lot of people" quickly & without reloading. I'm not under any delusions about whether someone is more or less dead depending on the caliber of bullet they're shot with. The comparison I had in mind wasn't an AK and its military grade counterparts, but a Derringer and a MAC-10, not unlike the difference between a firecracker and C-4.

So tell me: some guns are capable of ******* more people, more quickly and without reloading. Is that not true? Let's try to agree on this point before debating the meaning of the word 'actual'.

"Red herring". :hatsoff: Yes, my error. I need to lay off the eggnog apparently.


If this isn't something of a problem solving exercise, then why have you already moved to proposed solutions? Color me And yes, that is the exact reason that I think "assault weapons" are a distraction, as the data shows that they contribute little or nothing to the issue of *** ******** in America. But they do provide some sex appeal. And that's (IMO) why people remain fixated on them when there are discussions on this topic. No need to make this more complicated than it is. What is the issue? What are the primary contributors? What does the data show us about those contributors and the population? Leave the emotion and the tears at the door and get to work. As wordy as I am here, my meetings are actually pretty quick and efficient. Hard to believe, huh?

Firearms fall under many categories and some are special purpose. And yep, some are nothing more than cheap, inaccurate pieces of junk. I am not here to try to trick you into believing that all guns are entirely "practical" (even in the broadest sense of the word). What I am saying is, a great many of the ones which have been tagged as "assault weapons" are anything but. It is a misnomer used by those who are unfamiliar with firearms, and it is also used by the *** industry to "sexy up" their (mundane) offerings to get gullible rubes to buy them - these things have rather incredible markups on them right now.

You seem familiar with the last crime bill which ****** "assault weapons." Does it not strike you as odd that by simply removing the flash hider or bayonet lug, replacing the stock and ****** grip with a thumbhole stock and fitting a (still) detachable 10 round mag that the dangerous "assault weapon" suddenly became a socially acceptable "hunting rifle"??? It was exactly the same weapon as it was before. But people like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who don't know a shotgun from a pellet rifle, helped write that dandy of a bill... so all you ended up with were a small number of weapons being ****** outright and a great many others getting cosmetic overhauls which did not change the character of the weapon one iota. And then we find out that Johnny Cheung's pals at Polytech(?) were smuggling fully automatic AK-47's to L.A. street gangs. Who was Johnny Cheung? Well, he was one of Bill's heavy donors and a FOB (Friend of Bill, they called them) back then. And I believe he stayed in the White House a time or three. It was a feel good, bread & circuses bill. At the national level, on both sides, it's so clear why nothing effective happens in D.C. these days.

And yes, of course something is always greater than nothing. But in terms of the effort needed to get that particular something versus something else, how much are you willing to spend? I would suggest a better, proper cost/benefit analysis before people react with emotion and wind up with a Pyrrhic victory on this issue. That's all.


Premium Link Upgrade

I'd spend my time at the far left of this pareto. It seems that you're trying to rationalize why you'd spend your time at the far right. Yes, I understand picking a starting point. But that starting point doesn't have free entry. Think about it.

There is absolutely no need for ANYBODY to have to own an automatic weapon, other than in a military situation. These guns are designed for the sole purpose of ******* people and nothing more. Don't give me this bullshit excuse about needing one for protection because you don't. I live in the UK and in one of the most dangerous cities and I have never once felt the need to arm myself. Those who state that its their 'right' to carry a weapon and that they do it to protect themselves and their ****** are part of the problem in the US. Ban the weapons and you will instantly reduce the amount if people who have access to them. It's simple. Having background checks and making people be required to carry a license will not stop the guns falling into the wrong hands.

DP, with all due respect, automatic (and select fire) weapons were essentially ****** in the United States in 1986 in a bill signed by Ronald Reagan. And they've been under very tight controls since (someone help me here) the mid 1930's, I believe. And under Bill Clinton there was a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons, or more accurately, the cosmetic appearance of certain semi-automatic weapons. I'm not here to tell anyone what they need, don't need, should want or shouldn't want. I am simply stating that some of you don't realize that the weapons that you are speaking about are NOT the same ones used in military situations. They do look very similar to them - just as my car looks very similar to a car used in WRC racing. But my AK is not an "assault weapon" and my WRX is not a race car. I've toyed with the idea of getting an MP5. But considering the cost and the fact that it would (by law) have to be a 25+ year old weapon, I've relegated it to a fantasy - like producing a porn movie or becoming an SCCA pro racer. But if I got one, the ATF and my local police would know its location every minute of every day. These weapons, while socially "inappropriate" and fairly impractical, simply are not contributors to the *** ******** issue in America. I'm just trying (though not successfully) to make that factual point.

But if it will make people feel good to waste time and money trying to ban things that don't contribute to the actual problem at hand, have at it. I think you all mean well. I really do. But folks, in my world, you let the data lead you. You don't ***** it to go where you think it should.

 

[Rey C.]

POTW

Rey, we need more intelligent individuals like you to step up to the plate at this time and state it succinctly as such.

epomymous continues to muddy this discussion by diverting his attention to the thing the media pushes as the culprit: the semi-auto rifle. Thousands of ******* occur in America annually and the vast majority of those using handguns. I will no longer post regarding eponymous lest he post even more erroneous nonsense than he continues to already, which wouldn't surprise me...

The media conveniently focuses on "assault" rifles as the culprit, which will just open the door for the grab of millions of handguns in America. That's the real crux of the matter.

Thank you, Scott. I just get frustrated because I see people doing here what people do in my real life job: they want to focus on words on paper, thinking that will cure the problem. It never does. You can re-write procedures til the cows come home and you can ban anything you want. But unless the will and the ability to back those things up exists, it will be nothing more than a pointless, feel good exercise... and a waste of time and resources. And one thing many seem to be overlooking here, as they talk about banning this or that, who will enact these bans? What I mean is, how will they become law? How will that law be enforced?

It's already ******* for a felon to own or possess a firearm in the United States. Yet, when I was doing some transfer work at UCLA in the 80's, I saw a guy (I assume he was a gang-banger) with an Uzi under a trench coat. A fucking Uzi, man! I bet he had more felony convictions than I have teeth. It was probably ******* for him to even have a 9mm round in his pocket, yet he had a select fire Uzi under his coat???!!! The actual *** ******** problem in this country is not because of the simple presence of AK's or AR's. It is because of the possession of any and all guns by criminal street gangs, mentally deranged people (even if it's not long term mental illness) and career criminals. Now, am I right or wrong that there are already bans on these people owning or possessing firearms? So we're just going to put more words on more pieces of paper based on our emotional reactions to these poor, dead ******** and that's going to fix everything?

Members of my group worked on an investigation and corrective action project where a number of people died in a series of accidents years ago. And the hardest thing they had to do was make themselves follow the data and not let the pictures of those dead people guide them down the wrong path. It is hard. I do not deny that.

I have some ideas about how to lessen major violent crimes in the United States - specifically **** related violent crimes. But I wouldn't waste my time with street level dealers and dog & pony shows, putting dope on the table for local TV crews. Turn about 50 of my kind (to get into my group, you had to fit a certain "psychological profile") loose on this issue... and don't bother us about civil liberties for about six months. Just as one company told me to "just fix it - unless you **** someone, you can't be fired", the same could be done here. But the American people are soft and squishy these days. They want to believe that you can get to a happy place without making hard choices. And they focus too much on superficial cosmetic fixes that don't matter. They're in fantasy land... on the left and the right.

To make things better, I, and many other *** owners, may not like the ultimate solution. But as long as the proposed solution is real and addresses the true issue, I probably wouldn't kick that hard. But if it's just another feel good measure, like that last joke of a ban, as much as it would pain me (and you know it would!), I'll be standing over there with the NRA guys, the GOA zealots and Sarah P@lin (oh my gosh!!! :eek.

 

[Rey C.]

One other (last) point: while there are items in the poll OP that deal with criminal background checks and such, there has been very little discussion in this thread (by *** control advocates) about dealing with criminal behavior and placing a focus on those who are career criminals or belong to criminal enterprises. I am not questioning anyone's motives here. But I do find it interesting that there seems to be this fixation on things and not people. Not to be overly simplistic about it, but without the people, the thing poses no threat. Right? And who are the people who pose the greatest threat? Established criminals, no? So why is it that we are not talking about that troublesome portion of society and what can be done to control them and/or rehabilitate them? The once sane, but now whacked out guy who shoots up a school is bad news - no doubt. But he is (largely) an anomaly. But he makes the evening news. He's the sexy story. Even Fisher (of course, in his typical racist fashion ) pointed out that the number of innocent **** who have been ****** in Chicago this year dwarfed the number who were ****** in that elementary school. Who are these people committing the heinous crimes around our nation? It's generally not the anomalies. The independent career criminals, street gangs, biker gangs, **** cartels and ethnic mob members (Italian, Russian, Israeli, Asian, White supremacist, etc.) are not anomalies. They, and their associates, are responsible for an incredible percentage of the *** ******** in America. So we're not talking about them... why???

They have the full autos (*******). I don't. They do the drive-bys. I don't. They sell ***** in schools. I don't. They prostitute 12 year old girls. I don't. They pay off cops to look the other way while they smuggle *****, guns and money (HSBC and Bank of America, anyone?!) in & out of the country. I don't. But people like me are low hanging fruit and I'm not as likely to cause a major scene if you hassle me about what I have - but you can push people like me into a corner and radicalize us if your motives are not sincere and honest. So I guess that's why we're talking about legal *** owners and the types of guns they/we own, and not the people who are actually responsible for the greatest percentage of the violent crime in this country, relative to their representation in the overall population... and who are in ******* possession of weapons that I've only seen in magazines? Is that it? :dunno:

Don't fall for it, folks. Think! I can (probably) make you feel, but I can't make you think. You don't have to agree with me or anybody else, but think!!!

Premium Media Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[eponymous]

epomymous continues to muddy this discussion by diverting his attention to the thing the media pushes as the culprit: the semi-auto rifle. Thousands of ******* occur in America annually and the vast majority of those using handguns. I will no longer post regarding eponymous lest he post even more erroneous nonsense than he continues to already, which wouldn't surprise me

I don't understand what you don't get about starting some place. A starting point. A point of agreement. Something we can both look at and say, "Yeah, that's true." This is how dialogue works.

Actually, I never even brought up the question of assault weapons. The whole thing was an aside I wasn't interested in discussing yet. I cited a reason why I believed the slippery slope argument was a deflection, and one explanation led to another, and another to that. I'll take the heat for not knowing enough about the differences between various kinds of weapons. I thought the differences were academic while we agree on some basic principles at the outset. I thought fully automatic weapons in one's Living Room would be a place to start, but apparently I was wrong.

So if you don't want to talk about assault rifles, or semi-automatics weapons, then where do you propose to start?

If I were calling you a **** ****** fucker or accusing you of ******* ****** babies for sport, then I'd understand why you want to shut me down. But I'm not, and you know it. I'm still here trying to make some sense of everything and find some common agreement, so instead of demonizing me for being less than perfect, why don't you try to meet me half way? I think you'll find I have some valid points if you will but see past your frustration that the debate doesn't highlight what you think is most important.

 

[eponymous]

And there you have it folks, the "slippery slope" I was referring to. eponymous is just a double-talking provocateur whose end agenda rears its head quite clear here.

Okay, I'll add to this statement and say "without ********* the rights of law-abiding citizens." The point is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without ********* the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Don't you agree?

There is no double talk here, and I'm not provoking anyone. The slippery slope argument is considered an invalid argument form for a reason: it's a deflection. The fact that you're still making it suggests you're opposed to enacting any kind of sensible *** laws no matter what the situation.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Okay, I'll add to this statement and say "without ********* the rights of law-abiding citizens." The point is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without ********* the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Don't you agree?

There is no double talk here, and I'm not provoking anyone. The slippery slope argument is considered an invalid argument form for a reason: it's a deflection. The fact that you're still making it suggests you're opposed to enacting any kind of sensible *** laws no matter what the situation.

The only one deflecting is you. You said:

Put another way: since most *** crimes are committed with handguns and since handguns are extremely useful for defending oneself, are easier to conceal and in much wider circulation, they're where we want to get to, not where we should begin. .

It doesn't get any more clear than that. I didn't need to make my point, you made it for me with your very own post. Don't respond to me again. I'm done (in this thread at least) responding to you. Besides, Rey left ample evidence above for you to try to further deflect (good luck with that though as he's one of the most intelligent posters on this board - which is probably why you sidestepped his previous posts entirely.)

Good day to you and merry Christmas.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

So if you don't want to talk about assault rifles, or semi-automatics weapons, then where do you propose to start?

Start with Rey C.'s posts above which you conveniently avoided. Start there.

Merry Christmas

 

[Shifty]

Love how all the foreigners (Canadian and European alike) come out of the woodwork after a tragedy like this because they care so much about us evil Americans. Pathetic.

Don't like what's happening in our country, don't bother coming here. That is all.

Actually, you're pathetic. Backward, xenophobic and close-minded.

Your right to unload magazines at paper targets transcends everything. Or so it was written, back in the days of cannonballs and muskets. A God-given right.

You said it yourself BS, sick and twisted. And apparently, the solution is to arm everybody.

We'll forward our opinions (largely the world's opinions) if and when we wish to. Because, we like you are free.

What are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

And if you don't like it, don't bother coming to the board.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Shiftyyyyyyyyyyy. Been a while since we interacted. I believe the last time you gave me a neg. Care to give me another neg for nostalgia's sake?

Your right to unload magazines at paper targets transcends everything. Or so it was written, back in the days of cannonballs and muskets. A God-given right.

You said it yourself BS, sick and twisted. And apparently, the solution is to arm everybody.

.

Please, please, pleeeeeeeease show me where I ever said that you bald-faced liar.

 

[Shifty]

Shiftyyyyyyyyyyy. Been a while since we interacted. I believe the last time you gave me a neg. Care to give me another neg for nostalgia's sake?


Please, please, pleeeeeeeease show me where I ever said that you bald-faced liar.

Show me where I claimed that you did.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Show me where I claimed that you did.

You nitwit, it is posted right above you. You implied my solution was to "arm everybody."

Seriously, what got the ants in your pants, the fact that I believe in the Second Amendment and a law-abiding American's right to own a firearm, or the fact that I question the sincerity of some of the condolences of our neighbors of the world regarding shootings here.