Gun Control Debate #3

[Blef]

The "guns don't kill people...." argument is a black and white fallacy in any case.

Just thought I would put this graph in here too

 

[fiver]

It's always interesting imo, to watch people during a US gun control debate start bringing other topics into the discussion. It appears to be a means of deflection to distract others from the on-point arguments.

The problem is imo, the deflectors come across as having no empathy for lives lost forever, dreams that will never be reached, families and relationships that are forever destroyed ..... the list goes on.

Do guns belong in the hands of people with no empathy for others? My vote is no fwiw.

i absolutely agree. my vote would be no as well

 

[Blef]

i have some questions. i think i know where you are going, i just want you to say it

1. what is an assault rifle?
2. define high capacity magazines.
3. what are gun show/private sales?

Assault rifles are the semi automatic rifles that look like military style weapons. We know what they are, they show up at almost every mass shooting, and if assault weapon is a good enough term for Dick's to use then I feel it's ok for me to use it too.

A high capacity magazine. Any magazine that holds a high number of ammo. Personally why should anyone need a magazine with more than 6 bullets in it? Even a hunter would have trouble arguing why a magazine would need more than that.

Gun show/private sales, where you go in, lay your money down and walk out with whatever gun your heart desires, minus the checks you would have elsewhere. They are documented as being so.

 

[flourish]

Just some information about Websleuths:

BAITING, TROLLING, INCITING CONFLICT

“Trolling” or making posts with the intention of creating problems on the forums is obviously against the forum guidelines. This includes registering an alternative ID for the sole purpose of creating problems on the forums.

A member who visits WS only to incite "conflict" will be designated a "troll", and find his/her account temporarily or permanently suspended. This includes but is not limited to outing members, bringing drama from other websites to Websleuths, trashing members in any way, hyper-focusing in the smallest details with the intent to annoy and create conflict, and any other reason Websleuths deems to be inciting conflict.

WS maintains zero tolerance for members who create posts intended to antagonize other members.

WS also reserves the right to require that a minimum number of posts, term of membership, or other criteria be met to allow posting on certain topics.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information&highlight=baiting

There's a lot of great information in that thread. We get lots of new people and/or people coming out of lurk-mode, so just making sure everyone knows the rules and expectations here. The first post of this thread also has some guidelines from Tricia.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or making any accusations, just putting a reminder out there I know one of the reasons I came to WS and stayed here is on account of the moderation and rules--we all forget them sometimes, myself included, but it's good to get a refresher sometimes, IMO.

 

[KaaBoom]

Bad logic. If you want those things to be treated equally, that is fine with me, but I don't think you will like the results. After the Oklahoma City bombing we restricted the sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. We regulate and restrict alcohol and driving. We regulate and restrict bomb making materials. We need to start regulating and restricting firearms the same way. More people are killed by guns then the other two problems combined.

 

[watergirl62]

I already posted about the laziness of the "guns don't kill people..." saying in thread one. It's a ridiculous saying. A gun is a killing machine, designed solely to kill and maim. There is no other purpose for a gun.

The "guns don't kill people...." argument is a black and white fallacy in any case.

Just thought I would put this graph in here too

I'm confused. Can you please compare and contrast the US and Brazil from your graphs in a sentence to reiterate what your point is? TIA. [emoji18]

 

[flourish]

One of the articles and/or quotes about/from Dicks referred to "modern rifles." I was wondering if perhaps that term would cause less "correcting" and increase clarity. IDK shrug.

The first dictionary definition that comes up on google for "assault rifle" is "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Dictionary.com's definition is a bit longer, "
assault rifle

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire."

Yawn. Smells like deflection.

Assault rifles are the semi automatic rifles that look like military style weapons. We know what they are, they show up at almost every mass shooting, and if assault weapon is a good enough term for Dick's to use then I feel it's ok for me to use it too.

A high capacity magazine. Any magazine that holds a high number of ammo. Personally why should anyone need a magazine with more than 6 bullets in it? Even a hunter would have trouble arguing why a magazine would need more than that.

Gun show/private sales, where you go in, lay your money down and walk out with whatever gun your heart desires, minus the checks you would have elsewhere. They are documented as being so.

 

[fiver]

Assault rifles are the semi automatic rifles that look like military style weapons. We know what they are, they show up at almost every mass shooting, and if assault weapon is a good enough term for Dick's to use then I feel it's ok for me to use it too.

A high capacity magazine. Any magazine that holds a high number of ammo. Personally why should anyone need a magazine with more than 6 bullets in it? Even a hunter would have trouble arguing why a magazine would need more than that.

Gun show/private sales, where you go in, lay your money down and walk out with whatever gun your heart desires, minus the checks you would have elsewhere. They are documented as being so.

phrasing is everything for you i guess. how about assault car?

high capacity because its my right. would you be in favor of stripping ppl of rights?

all gun show sales must pass NICS. no gun dealer in the US would risk their FFL to sell you a gun otherwise. ppl have tried and failed over and over again to get a FFL dealer to make a sale and it never works. gun show loop hole does not exist. its a unicorn.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

The "guns don't kill people...." argument is a black and white fallacy in any case.

Just thought I would put this graph in here too

Yikes look at Brazil. I have friends in Brazil and they have had huge gun confiscations. The crime there is tremendous. They have to live in high rises to stay safe. One friend drives a vehicle with bullet proof glass because the danger is so great.

 

[Blef]

I'm confused. Can you please compare and contrast the US and Brazil from your graphs in a sentence to reiterate what your point is? TIA. [emoji18]

There will always be anomalies. However Brazil has a problem with crooked police and a flawed justice system, so gun violence is not punished the same as in the US. Ignoring the very fact that the US still tops that graph doesn't change that it is a fact. It should be very worrying to responsible gun owners. If you are a responsible gun owner, then tighter laws shouldn't change the fact that you would be able to carry and shoot a gun.

 

[flourish]

phrasing is everything for you i guess. how about assault car?

high capacity because its my right. would you be in favor of stripping ppl of rights?

all gun show sales must pass NICS. no gun dealer in the US would risk their FFL to sell you a gun otherwise. ppl have tried and failed over and over again to get a FFL dealer to make a sale and it never works. gun show loop hole does not exist. its a unicorn.

Can you please provide a source for your assertion that gun show loophole(s) don't exist? Thanks.

 

[Blef]

phrasing is everything for you i guess. how about assault car?

high capacity because its my right. would you be in favor of stripping ppl of rights?

all gun show sales must pass NICS. no gun dealer in the US would risk their FFL to sell you a gun otherwise. ppl have tried and failed over and over again to get a FFL dealer to make a sale and it never works. gun show loop hole does not exist. its a unicorn.

To answer you. A car isn't designed to kill and maim. Cars are more tightly restricted access to than guns. Licensing, registration, taxes, insurance. None of which apply to a machine designed solely to kill and maim. That, as I have pointed out before, is the very purpose of guns.

Second point. No where in the 2nd amendment does it say you have the right to have a high capacity magazine. You have the right to bear arms.

You obviously haven't been keeping up to date with gun show sales. The loophole does exist. Go look for it on google.

I'm not answering anymore of your black and white fallacies or strawman arguments.

 

[KaaBoom]

Somebody needs to pull the trigger. It doesn't happen spontaneously.

They can't pull the trigger, if we don't let them have the gun. If we let people have nuclear weapons, no doubt somebody would pull the trigger and detonate one on a city. That's why we don't let people have nuclear weapons.

 

[flourish]

But private sellers*without a federal license*don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some*states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/


Words and phrasing is important, yes.

There's a loophole, maybe it just needs to be referred to as something different, although most people know what is being referred to, I'd guess, unless they are maybe choosing not to.

 

[Blef]

They can't pull the trigger, if we don't let them have the gun. If we let people have nuclear weapons, no doubt somebody would pull the trigger and detonate one on a city. That's why we don't let people have nuclear weapons.

Exactly. We could say "bazookas don't kill people...." but you can't just walk around with a bazooka.

 

[watergirl62]

There will always be anomalies. However Brazil has a problem with crooked police and a flawed justice system, so gun violence is not punished the same as in the US. Ignoring the very fact that the US still tops that graph doesn't change that it is a fact. It should be very worrying to responsible gun owners. If you are a responsible gun owner, then tighter laws shouldn't change the fact that you would be able to carry and shoot a gun.

Brazil totally blows your argument.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

i absolutely agree. my vote would be no as well

As would most people but the gun grabbers would have you think otherwise. If you're pro second amendment you must not have any empathy for the victims.

 

[Blef]

Brazil totally blows your argument.

What was my argument? I showed a graph that shows that the US has more gun deaths than anywhere else in that graph. That in itself should be chilling to any US citizen. You can ignore that fact all you want. But there are nearly as many mass shootings as days in the year, for the past five years in the US. That cannot be ignored.

 

[flourish]

Exactly. We could say "bazookas don't kill people...." but you can't just walk around with a bazooka.

Heroin doesn't kill people, overdosing on heroin does, so why is heroin illegal? Heck why are any inanimate objects illegal to own?

 

[Blef]

As would most people but the gun grabbers would have you think otherwise. If you're pro second amendment you must not have any empathy for the victims.

Gun control does not equal gun prohibition.