ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th January 2013, 04:19 PM   #81
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
So, Define "civilised". I mean, I could talk about how the US, Australia, and Canada for that matter might not be "civilised" because of their treatment of indigenous populations, which is a far bigger issue than issues around violent crime (violent crime is largely decreasing around the world, thanks to the fact that lead is being removed from the environment).
To many folks, "civilised" means that the quaint customs of the lesser classes are forbidden by law.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 04:33 PM   #82
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I think Tricky explained it rather well above.
Yes. He claimed that "shooting sports" meant "hunting," and excluded actual sports that involve shooting.

I don't think that requires any response, except possibly nomination for Stundie.

It's also irrelevant to our argument. If Mr. King wants to amend his essay to say he respects "hunters" rather than "sportsmen," then he can do so. But it still fails to address his claim that semiautomatics have only two uses, neither of which is shooting sports or hunting.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I guess you imagine you're scoring points; for your students' sake, I hope you're better at pretending paper targets are bad guys. And I would just as well assume Olympic swimming competitions predate the engineered, hi-tech suits that were banned at the London games.
Irrelevant and contains personal attacks. Shame on you.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
And I don't care if people want to wear tactical boots, kick down doors, shoot "terrorists," and then talk guns with their buddies over pizza and beer at the tree house command center.
Irrelevant. This doesn't describe me, friend.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I think this is the crux of the matter. Firearms, explosives, and other dangerous weapons tools are justifiably regulated by the public. The public. Not me. Not Stephen King. But he's making a reasonable sounding argument, and you're proving stubbornly deaf. Maybe you've fired too many guns.
His "reasonable sounding argument" is based on false claims. You're unwilling to address this, and your conduct is deteriorating rapidly. I think we're done here.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 04:41 PM   #83
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
My point included:

1. Disputing that the AR 15 might be a reasonable weapon of choice for self-protection.
2. It's safely locked away, so what use is it for self-protection?
3. Of zero use facing an unexpected armed intruder (a corollary of 2.)
4. The option of use for hunting. (You state you don't use an AR 15 in this respect, as it turns out)

and you agree with all of my points? Eh? What? You seem to agree that such a gun is useless for self-protection yet it's your 'go-to weapon of choice' in such a situation? Or did you mean something different?
No. I agreed with BStrong's position, in detail.

The AR-15 is an excellent weapon for self defense. Mine is set up to be short and reasonably lightweight, capable of hitting out to 600 m in any weather or light condition. It fires an inexpensive caliber with an excellent stopping record and effective against most body armor and light cover, yet due to its light weight and high speed eats through fewer walls than almost any other sufficiently effective round. It is extremely reliable and durable. Its mechanism is simple and repair parts are plentiful. The only arguments against an AR-15 for defense are concealability -- not a factor for me -- and its slightly complex manual of arms, which would only apply for someone without prior training or who doesn't wish to practice regularly, also not factors for me.

Mine is safely locked away. However, I dispute your implicit assumption that a locked weapon is useless for self defense. I have other factors in place that should buy me enough time to get it into action under a wide range of scenarios. Further discussion is surely off topic.

The AR-15 is an excellent weapon for hunting, provided one selects a barrel chambered in a cartridge appropriate for the desired game and conditions.

Clear enough? I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I'm trying to answer your questions.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES

Last edited by R.Mackey; 27th January 2013 at 04:48 PM. Reason: clarified AR-15 characteristics
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 05:40 PM   #84
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Here's a sport involving semi and full auto weapons, costumes and dames- what more could one ask for?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:17 PM   #85
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Yes. He claimed that "shooting sports" meant "hunting," and excluded actual sports that involve shooting.

I don't think that requires any response, except possibly nomination for Stundie.
Actually, I said I think that was what Mr. King was referring to because that makes more sense with regard to his essay. I personally recognize that many things are called "sports". Your decision to insult me over your own misconception indicates to me that you're not really interested in a polite discussion.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
bIt's also irrelevant to our argument. If Mr. King wants to amend his essay to say he respects "hunters" rather than "sportsmen," then he can do so. But it still fails to address his claim that semiautomatics have only two uses, neither of which is shooting sports or hunting.
While he does charicature the sport of target shooting with assault weapons, I think a case can be made that however enjoyable, competitive or safe (within its confines) the sport of target shooting with assault weapons may be, it is not an activity that we could live without. It does not seem to me that everything that is "fun" or "competitive" should be allowed if the side effects are deleterious.

And I think most people agree with this. The example I gave about "competitive SAM-shooting" is one where I think reasonable people would agree that the desire to go to a specific place where you can shoot SAMS does not justify making SAMS available to the general public. The question seems to be where one draws the line. It shouldn't be insulting because someone draws the line at a different place than you.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:39 PM   #86
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I think anyone who seriously argues that the lack of expertise in gun minutiae should negate a person's argument and end all debate, probably is. I don't know him in real life, so I don't think I'm qualified to say anything about him in particular.
So let me get back to this, now. It's an interesting point, but it depends on context.

Surely there are cases where minutiae truly is just that, and arugments to this effect are not productive -- it would be a Red Herring logical fallacy to dismiss someone's opinion for some irrelevant bit of trivia, whether or not it was about firearms. I pledge not to do this, and I'll even stick up for you if someone actually pulls this move. (For the record, if the object contains a spring or other contrivance so that it physically moves the cartridges, it is a magazine, not a clip.)

But not all trivia is equal. Suppose you got dinged for the above, but you were arguing over legislation to outlaw clips or magazines? In that case, confusion of the two terms would be of paramount importance, and your ignorance would be inexcusable. Simply calling it "trivia" would be a case of Special Pleading and the fallacy would be yours.

You even provide a useful, if ironic, example in this thread:

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I stand by my analogy. I can be for a speed limit and banning of formula one racing cars on city streets, even if you can point out to me why I don't know **** about formula one racing cars. All I need to know is that on city streets, really, really fast cars are bad. It doesn't matter whether or not I know how to build one.
Actually it does matter.

For starters, Formula 1 cars are not banned. I can buy one, if I scrape up the money. I can buy one for my infant daughter if I want. I can even give one to a convicted felon. No big deal.

Of course, you're not really concerned about banning them, instead you only want it illegal to operate them on the streets (whereas we are talking about banning firearms). So, not the best analogy, but I'll skip over that. Let's just look at banning use of F1 on a city street.

There is no ban on F1 cars on a city street. None.

What there is, instead, is a highly complicated and quantitative series of regulations that amount to such a ban. There are regulations on required equipment, lamps and signals, ride height, crash testing and many types of certification. There are obscure measurements of tire tread depth, loudness, emissions, and vehicular weight. There are even implicit restrictions, such as insurability.

Every one of these regulations contains parameters and specifics that are utterly inscrutable to a layman -- so yes, indeed, you do need to know how an F1 car works. Every one of these laws was enacted after consultation with subject matter experts, legal counsel, national standards and industry guidelines, and in many cases focused studies and partnership with commercial entities.

As a layman, you can express an opinion that "I don't want F1 cars on my street," but until you filter that opinion through an expert, you have only an oblique impact on the conversation. You are well advised to refine your opinion as much as possible, no matter what the subject.

Even with all this care, often it doesn't work. I'm reminded of the MTBE gasoline fiasco in California a decade plus back.

Now, turning back to firearms. Some opinions are pretty easy to distill. For instance, suppose you want a blanket ban on guns, no exceptions. I actually respect this position -- I don't agree with it one bit, but it is at least self consistent and not too difficult to define rigorously. Suppose you want a ban on semiautomatics, that's also reasonably straightforward. I may ask you about edge cases caught in that definition you haven't thought of, so don't be offended if that happens.

Instead, nearly all of the discussion is in the complicated middle. Complicated because it becomes quantitative. Suppose you've decided 10 rounds is the max for magazine capacity. That invites questions: Why? Why not 11? Why not six or two or 40? Have you considered that such a ban becomes a de facto ban on many types of firearms? Not minutiae, actual important details.

It's all too common for such details to be overlooked. For example, the geniuses in the legislature of New York (plus its Governor), who were so uninterested in details that they passed a law that will disarm their entire police force of everything but riot shotguns. It could potentially even set up a challenge to Federal power as it also affects the National Guard, the Army, and literally hundreds of Federal agencies operating within the state as well. This actually happened.

It's not over, either. Right now, my senator Diane Feinstein is proposing a new "assault weapons" ban in the US Senate. This is a bill she's been researching and tinkering with for over three decades, yet it's still so convoluted that some believe it would accidentally outlaw the majority of revolvers.

Just to pick another anomaly for example, in theory her bill is a ban on assault weapons, and yet it specifically protects -- by name -- the Ruger Mini-14. Same cartridge as the AR-15, semiautomatic, accepts magazines of arbitrary size. It's the chosen weapon of the abominable Anders Breivik, the all-time world champion of single-shooter killing sprees.

Tell me that makes sense.

So the details do matter. Don't excuse them away. If you want to be part of the solution, you have two basic choices: Either team with an expert, to make sure your opinions are communicated correctly; or become an expert. It's not that hard to do. Even toothless, barely literate rednecks in Kentucky can figure this stuff out, so I expect you shouldn't have any trouble.

If not, just ask. We can have an adult conversation about this stuff, if that's what you really want.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:50 PM   #87
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,189
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Actually, I said I think that was what Mr. King was referring to because that makes more sense with regard to his essay. I personally recognize that many things are called "sports". Your decision to insult me over your own misconception indicates to me that you're not really interested in a polite discussion.


While he does charicature the sport of target shooting with assault weapons, I think a case can be made that however enjoyable, competitive or safe (within its confines) the sport of target shooting with assault weapons may be, it is not an activity that we could live without. It does not seem to me that everything that is "fun" or "competitive" should be allowed if the side effects are deleterious.

And I think most people agree with this. The example I gave about "competitive SAM-shooting" is one where I think reasonable people would agree that the desire to go to a specific place where you can shoot SAMS does not justify making SAMS available to the general public. The question seems to be where one draws the line. It shouldn't be insulting because someone draws the line at a different place than you.
If we put aside the strawman of SAM's you're still not addressing the facts wrt the Heller decision.

Sporting use is not the legal litmus test - "in common use" and self defense are.

The AR platform rifle has been the most popular rifle in the US for years, every major manufacturer is turning out their own version now (HK, SIG, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Remington) and hundreds of thousands have been sold and the rifle is practical as a self defense weapon in the home when using appropriate ammunition.

King et al can talk till they're blue in the face, but unless they can overcome the hurdle that Heller has erected in front of them, they're going nowhere.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:51 PM   #88
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Actually, I said I think that was what Mr. King was referring to because that makes more sense with regard to his essay.
A distinction without a difference in this context. You added your opinion that "shooting sports" are essentially undefinable:

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
When Mr. King refers to "sporting usage" it seems to me he is referring to hunting, not to shooting competition. After all, you can make a competition for anything. If you designed a large range where very rich people could shoot down drone planes, would that mean there is a "sporting use" for surface-to-air-missiles?

Should anything that people do competitively "for fun" be considered a sport?
This is speculative, a leading argument. It's not helpful.

There is a very, very well established body of shooting sports. There are regulatory committes. There are centuries -- yes, centuries -- of precedent. Look up Wimbledon if you haven't. It does not involve SAMs and there is no mechanism to include such, and your suggestion that it's all one and the same is a significant and irritating derail.

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I personally recognize that many things are called "sports". Your decision to insult me over your own misconception indicates to me that you're not really interested in a polite discussion.
Actually I am. But when people come in here equating actual sports to mythical events like SAM-shooting, and actual scourges like dwarf-tossing... and you say it's me who doesn't want a polite discussion?

Let's return to something more productive, please.

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
And I think most people agree with this. The example I gave about "competitive SAM-shooting" is one where I think reasonable people would agree that the desire to go to a specific place where you can shoot SAMS does not justify making SAMS available to the general public. The question seems to be where one draws the line. It shouldn't be insulting because someone draws the line at a different place than you.
So you're now suggesting that established shooting sports might not qualify on the basis of "reasonable people" disagreeing whether they're sports or not. Interesting theory. You might want to run that by a historian to see if it flies.

In any case, here the only "reasonable person" in consideration disagreeing is Mr. King. But it's not clear that he did draw the line in a different place. Rather, it seems he's totally unaware of such sports. His problem is not disagreement, but rather his ignorance. That's why his essay is incoherent. And that's not insulting, either. It's a flaw in his argument.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:54 PM   #89
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,095
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Actually, I said I think that was what Mr. King was referring to because that makes more sense with regard to his essay. I personally recognize that many things are called "sports". Your decision to insult me over your own misconception indicates to me that you're not really interested in a polite discussion.


While he does charicature the sport of target shooting with assault weapons, I think a case can be made that however enjoyable, competitive or safe (within its confines) the sport of target shooting with assault weapons may be, it is not an activity that we could live without. It does not seem to me that everything that is "fun" or "competitive" should be allowed if the side effects are deleterious.

And I think most people agree with this. The example I gave about "competitive SAM-shooting" is one where I think reasonable people would agree that the desire to go to a specific place where you can shoot SAMS does not justify making SAMS available to the general public. The question seems to be where one draws the line. It shouldn't be insulting because someone draws the line at a different place than you.
What are the deleterious effects of sport shooting?
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:57 PM   #90
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 23,631
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
What are the deleterious effects of sport shooting?
That it gives people an excuse to want an AR 51.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 06:58 PM   #91
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,773
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Yes. He claimed that "shooting sports" meant "hunting," and excluded actual sports that involve shooting.

I don't think that requires any response, except possibly nomination for Stundie.

It's also irrelevant to our argument. If Mr. King wants to amend his essay to say he respects "hunters" rather than "sportsmen," then he can do so. But it still fails to address his claim that semiautomatics have only two uses, neither of which is shooting sports or hunting.
I don't think this is a serious flaw in King's argument. It's all rather... beside the point.

Quote:
Irrelevant and contains personal attacks. Shame on you.
It's actually a pretty good analogy, so +1 for me, 0 for you. Maybe next time...

Quote:
Irrelevant. This doesn't describe me, friend.
Unfortunately, not everything is about you, amigo. I was clarifying my argument because I do not entirely agree with King.

Quote:
His "reasonable sounding argument" is based on false claims. You're unwilling to address this, and your conduct is deteriorating rapidly. I think we're done here.
Yes, "false" claims as per your uncharitable reading. He didn't take into certain shooting competitions where semi-automatics are the bees knees. Who cares? And besides, as I've said, I don't mind if people want to engage in that activity as I think there are reasonable enough ways of accommodating them while regulating guns. If anything, I'm more inclined to disagree with King's stance on hunting, and "eating what you kill." But that's a different argument.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:01 PM   #92
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 23,631
"I want my gun for sports shooting" = "please don't take away my toys."
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:06 PM   #93
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
What are the deleterious effects of sport shooting?
The arguably deleterious effects of "sport shooting" with military-style weaponry is that it makes military weaponry generally available with insufficient controls to assure that it won't be used for the purpose that military weaponry was designed for.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:10 PM   #94
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
So you're now suggesting that established shooting sports might not qualify on the basis of "reasonable people" disagreeing whether they're sports or not. Interesting theory. You might want to run that by a historian to see if it flies.
Yes, I'm arguing that some activities, however enjoyble and even profitable to the individuals, might have too many deleterious side effect to be allowed. And I think history will back me up on this.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:11 PM   #95
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,337
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
The arguably deleterious effects of "sport shooting" with military-style weaponry is that it makes military weaponry generally available with insufficient controls to assure that it won't be used for the purpose that military weaponry was designed for.
It's actually the 2nd amendment and the Heller decision, along with other case law, that does that.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:13 PM   #96
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,337
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Yes, I'm arguing that some activities, however enjoyble and even profitable to the individuals, might have too many deleterious side effect to be allowed. And I think history will back me up on this.
This is why I believe that subversives should be registered and alcohol banned.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:16 PM   #97
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Yes, I'm arguing that some activities, however enjoyble and even profitable to the individuals, might have too many deleterious side effect to be allowed. And I think history will back me up on this.
That's a different argument. We may certainly choose to ban certain sports -- I don't recall seeing any gladiator pits recently -- but to retroactively and arbitrarily decide they aren't sports to rescue King's argument... is special pleading.

Let me try something else, since everyone is having trouble parsing the discussion. Given the following ground rules:
1. Semiautomatic firearms are dominant in many, many classes of sports, all well-established, practiced safely, and well regulated.

2. One desires to enact new gun controls, but one also wishes to target criminals, while leaving responsible owners and their activities intact.
Obviously something has to give. Mr. King failed to thread this needle. So I'm asking you: What do you propose? What sports do you respect, and which do you sacrifice, and why? This is a call for your opinion, so there is no wrong answer to this question.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:27 PM   #98
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Actually, many are acting a lot more like sexual fetishists if you observe the behavior.
I cuddle my gun every night. A Bushmaster AR-15 with a 100 round drum. Even named her.....
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:28 PM   #99
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
When Mr. King refers to "sporting usage" it seems to me he is referring to hunting, not to shooting competition. After all, you can make a competition for anything. If you designed a large range where very rich people could shoot down drone planes, would that mean there is a "sporting use" for surface-to-air-missiles?

Should anything that people do competitively "for fun" be considered a sport?
I think we're already there. I mean, poker on ESPN??? Seriously???
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:45 PM   #100
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
That's a different argument. We may certainly choose to ban certain sports -- I don't recall seeing any gladiator pits recently -- but to retroactively and arbitrarily decide they aren't sports to rescue King's argument... is special pleading.

Let me try something else, since everyone is having trouble parsing the discussion. Given the following ground rules:
1. Semiautomatic firearms are dominant in many, many classes of sports, all well-established, practiced safely, and well regulated.

2. One desires to enact new gun controls, but one also wishes to target criminals, while leaving responsible owners and their activities intact.
Obviously something has to give. Mr. King failed to thread this needle. So I'm asking you: What do you propose? What sports do you respect, and which do you sacrifice, and why? This is a call for your opinion, so there is no wrong answer to this question.
I can see a case for such firearms being used in well-established, safe situations. How about we confine them to licensed sporting ranges. People can only purchase and store them there, not in their homes. Sound like a reasonable compromise?
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:50 PM   #101
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I can see a case for such firearms being used in well-established, safe situations. How about we confine them to licensed sporting ranges. People can only purchase and store them there, not in their homes. Sound like a reasonable compromise?
This was brought up above, and no, I don't think it works -- this creates more problems than it solves in my estimation. I can elaborate if there's interest.

However, had Mr. King made the above argument instead of what he did, it would have been a better essay.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 07:59 PM   #102
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
This was brought up above, and no, I don't think it works -- this creates more problems than it solves in my estimation. I can elaborate if there's interest.
Yes, I'd be interested in your elaboration. It seems to me the greatest problems would be inconvenience and expense to the hobbyist. Admittedly this is a bit of a derail.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:07 PM   #103
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,337
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Yes, I'd be interested in your elaboration. It seems to me the greatest problems would be inconvenience and expense to the hobbyist. Admittedly this is a bit of a derail.
Personally I feel the greatest danger there, and the focus on 'assault weapons' in general, is the false sense of security people might get from the measures taken against them and sap support and momentum from actually addressing the much more salient issues.

'Doing something' that doesn't actual do much and leaving the principle untouched.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:12 PM   #104
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Yes, I'd be interested in your elaboration. It seems to me the greatest problems would be inconvenience and expense to the hobbyist. Admittedly this is a bit of a derail.
OK, I'll try to be brief:
  • If this is a legal requirement, who's going to build these?
  • How do we prevent these ranges from being juicy, concentrated targets of theft? We had a major theft from LAPD SWAT not long ago! It's not far-fetched!
  • What prevents a user from taking his firearm away from the range to cause trouble? Going to post armed guards? Who pays for them?
  • No competitor I know only shoots at one range. How do we handle transfer from one range to another? Why can't a miscreant use this as cover to get by the armed guards we can't afford?
  • How do we reconcile this with state laws on the books that forbid "loaning" of certain firearms? It would be illegal for me to do this with my AR-15 in California as of right now.
  • What's the benefit?

And, of course, there is the considerable inconvenience. That's obvious and of secondary importance in this discussion, so I won't go into it.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:25 PM   #105
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
OK, I'll try to be brief:
  • If this is a legal requirement, who's going to build these?.
People who make laws.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
How do we prevent these ranges from being juicy, concentrated targets of theft? We had a major theft from LAPD SWAT not long ago! It's not far-fetched!

You can't prevent it entirely. (No law can ever prevent all violations.) However, it makes it much less likely than keeping them in multiple locations with varying levels of security.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
What prevents a user from taking his firearm away from the range to cause trouble? Going to post armed guards? Who pays for them?
Yes. The ranges will require guards, as you would expect at a place that stores arms. The ranges would pay for the guards out of their profits.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
No competitor I know only shoots at one range. How do we handle transfer from one range to another? Why can't a miscreant use this as cover to get by the armed guards we can't afford?
If a hobbyist wishes to use his own weapon at multiple ranges, he must arrange and pay for safe transport of the weapon. It might make more sense though for ranges to rent weapons of various types in order to save this expense.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
How do we reconcile this with state laws on the books that forbid "loaning" of certain firearms? It would be illegal for me to do this with my AR-15 in California as of right now.
We change the laws, making a "licensed range" exception. Yes, it would be some work.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
What's the benefit?



It keeps the arms stored in fewer locations, more closely guarded and makes it much more difficult for non-hobbyists to acquire them. I thought that part was obvious.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
And, of course, there is the considerable inconvenience. That's obvious and of secondary importance in this discussion, so I won't go into it.
I don't deny that this solution would be a lot of work, and would add to the expense of the hobby, but I don't see this as a good reason. Many sports are out of the price range of some people (think yachting) and that is just the way things are.

So again, apart from expense and inconvenience, I don't see any serious objections.

Last edited by Tricky; 27th January 2013 at 08:32 PM.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:29 PM   #106
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Personally I feel the greatest danger there, and the focus on 'assault weapons' in general, is the false sense of security people might get from the measures taken against them and sap support and momentum from actually addressing the much more salient issues.

'Doing something' that doesn't actual do much and leaving the principle untouched.
I agree that "assault weapons" are not the greatest scourge on American society, and certainly not remotely as common in crimes as handguns. But it provides a simple place to start having these discussions, one that the majority of Americans agree on. I don't think many people are lulled into a sense of false security, thinking that this will solve all gun problems. I certainly wouldn't be.

Last edited by Tricky; 27th January 2013 at 08:30 PM.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:46 PM   #107
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
You can't prevent it entirely. (No law can ever prevent all violations.) However, it makes it much less likely than keeping them in multiple locations with varying levels of security.
With this one I disagree. A random burglary might net you one or two, provided you pick the right person, and provided you catch him with his guard down.

If we concentrate these things, a burglary will net hundreds. Lots of unknowns go away. Lots of inside job potential. And I doubt we're paying for round-the-clock Federal Prison style security. High-power shooting lines tend to be in isolated areas.

Again, it has happened. Recently.

About the rest, I agree it's possible, but boy, is it going to be tough. There are more of these arms used by competitors today than there are soldiers in the United States Military, all forces combined... The lockdown we're talking about would be comparable to the Federal prison system.

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I don't deny that this solution would be a lot of work, and would add to the expense of the hobby, but I don't see this as a good reason. Many sports are out of the price range of some people (think yachting) and that is just the way things are.
Naturally, if we pass the cost on to the competitors, only a few will be able to afford it, fewer still will put up with it. That's not inherently fatal but it goes against the spirit of question -- we are effectively restricting this sport to a very privileged few, and if that's the goal, there are easier ways to accomplish it.

For instance, just deputize all the sport shooters we want to preserve. You can get away with murder if you've got a badge, a wise man once said...

The other problem is, if we make things too expensive, then there's no incentive to comply. I know in a Utopia we'd just miracle away currently held undesirables, and this is a bit outside the scope of my question, but in reality this is an issue. In California, all we did was require registration of "Assault Weapons." Only c. 37,000 did, out of a total number of firearms estimated around 300-400,000, and even that might be a lowball. It'd be nice if the proposal was practical, rather than simply saying "it's legal, but only Fortune 500 need apply." May as well make it fully illegal at that point, few would disagree.

Anyway, I appreciate the suggestion. I just don't think it's going to work, and that's before we run up against the 2A and Heller. It might work on a state-by-state or city-by-city basis in rare exceptions, but then, criminals will just go next door.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:55 PM   #108
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 8,773
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
With this one I disagree. A random burglary might net you one or two, provided you pick the right person, and provided you catch him with his guard down.

If we concentrate these things, a burglary will net hundreds. Lots of unknowns go away. Lots of inside job potential. And I doubt we're paying for round-the-clock Federal Prison style security. High-power shooting lines tend to be in isolated areas.
Good point. Only 400,000 guns are stolen annually. Also, banks get robbed every day.

If someone steals the odd hand gun, police will not find it difficult to track down the dumb thief. But if someone steals hundreds of weapons, then that takes a master thief. And those guns could be stored anywhere. Who knows what truck or trucks were used to transport them? Like Keyser Soze, they're gone.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 08:59 PM   #109
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
With this one I disagree. A random burglary might net you one or two, provided you pick the right person, and provided you catch him with his guard down.
I disagree with your disagreement. There are more robberies of 7-11's than there are bank heists. There's a reason for that. The example you cite is news because it is so unusual.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Naturally, if we pass the cost on to the competitors, only a few will be able to afford it, fewer still will put up with it.
I agreed that it would be more expensive, though I mentioned that gun rentals might ameliorate the expense. Maybe even put it within the range of the average Joe.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
That's not inherently fatal but it goes against the spirit of question -- we are effectively restricting this sport to a very privileged few, and if that's the goal, there are easier ways to accomplish it.
No, that is not the goal, obviously. It is to find a compromise where hobbyists can keep their hobby but at added expense, and those who don't want these firearms in the country can have an added measure of security, but not be given everything they want.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Anyway, I appreciate the suggestion. I just don't think it's going to work
I understand that, and I agree it would be difficult. But good compromises always are.

What sort of compromise would you suggest?
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 09:04 PM   #110
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,337
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I agree that "assault weapons" are not the greatest scourge on American society, and certainly not remotely as common in crimes as handguns. But it provides a simple place to start having these discussions, one that the majority of Americans agree on. I don't think many people are lulled into a sense of false security, thinking that this will solve all gun problems. I certainly wouldn't be.
How great a discussion was started in the nineties with that assault weapon ban?

It also appears that many Americans agree on it without even the faintest understanding of it. They agree because they don't know what it actually means. Kind of like how most Americans were against the ACA, but were for most every provision. There are many bad arguments for the banning of things like all AR platform guns. Myself, I get annoyed when someone agrees with me for wrong reasons.

There are other things, like background checks on all sales, targeting straw buyers, and enforcing existing violations of criminals trying to get guns, that most Americans agree on too, and they would, in my estimation, have a great impact without alienating a large segment of gun owners.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 09:55 PM   #111
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 36,326
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
It might make more sense though for ranges to rent weapons of various types in order to save this expense.


.
Surprised you didn't get response on this part. Short version: people who just want to play shooting or are in the market for a specific weapon (I say pro-abortion also) would and do happily rent weapons at gun ranges. People who compete in the many forms of gun competition tend to prefer their own weapons which they have properly sighted in for various ranges (just in case: distances not places to fire them) and have modified them for those things that improve the weapons's accuracy and general handling and related. and may appear at a variety of places for said competitions. This does not compute with either renting or leaving weapons at one location only.

For those who do not believe this, I suggest you gooble or www.dogpile.com, enter shooting competitions US or similar and see what pops up. I do not think the idjit laws are going to change too far, but if they do, I will have two Barnett crossbows and a couple hundred bolts heading my way from Amazon by the next day. The last time I played with a cross bow was a pistol size one back in the mid 90s - cut a wasp in half at about 12 feet with that - and it wasn't a hunting bolt. The new models take a little longer per shot* than a semi-auto - and most uses for a pistol in defense occur under 6 feet (last statistics I heard) (and an awful lot of people manage to miss multiple shots even that close - including police).

*the reason for two.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

Last edited by fuelair; 27th January 2013 at 09:58 PM.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 10:01 PM   #112
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I disagree with your disagreement. There are more robberies of 7-11's than there are bank heists. There's a reason for that. The example you cite is news because it is so unusual.
But part of that unusualness is that few people know where depots of prohibited weapons are stored. We'd be making nearly all of them publicly known, even advertised, and publicly accessible.

In any case, this is all hypothetical. I might be wrong. But it's a worry and it will drive the cost of security.

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I agreed that it would be more expensive, though I mentioned that gun rentals might ameliorate the expense. Maybe even put it within the range of the average Joe.
Right now range fees are c. $10-20 a day. That buys you a seat on the line, and if you're lucky, two part-time Range Safety Officers for 40+ shooters working for minimum wage plus free brass and shooting privileges.

These super-ranges will need a minimum of three shifts, should have a sergeant and QRF on site, will have full perimeter security and full monitoring, will have positive gate checks in and out with x-rays and vehicle searches at minimum. Guards will be in armor and heavily armed round the clock. Dogs are recommended. Wages will be standard for medium-security plus hazard bonuses. Ranges will be recertified yearly. It'll look more like the TSA than anything currently fielded, and the cost will be horrendous.

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
No, that is not the goal, obviously. It is to find a compromise where hobbyists can keep their hobby but at added expense, and those who don't want these firearms in the country can have an added measure of security, but not be given everything they want.
I asked your opinion, I got it -- you'd rather err on the side of control than side with the sport shooters. That's OK. But it's not an easy thing to balance.

Here's what will happen in practice. I won't go to JCG matches anymore. I'll enter in the adjacent All-Other-Service Rifle contest with my bolt-action M1917 instead of my M1 Garand. I won't pay those enormous fees. But I'll be shooting a rifle the same size, same sights, same course of fire, same cartridge... can even still fit a bayonet if I feel like it. The only difference is it's a bolt action instead of semiautomatic. I get to take my battle rifle home, practice with it, dress it up and hold tea parties, pretend I'm General Pershing, whatever I want, while the poor M1 Garand guys strip down for rent-a-cops and go home empty handed, and pay through the nose for it too.

That's why I think it won't work.

Do you trust me with my M1917, if you don't trust me with an M1 Garand? Really?

Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
What sort of compromise would you suggest?
I've suggested a few, but understand I'm coming from a different perspective. I don't see semiautomatics as the correct pressure point. What I'd propose instead -- also expensive, but equalitarian -- is to weed out the nonserious shooters and instill proper responsibility through mandatory safety and marksmanship training in the schools. Failing grade goes on your NCIS check. But since there's no blanket ban, nobody panics and nobody buys up firearms just because it might be their "last chance" to do so.

Also difficult. Gun control is a very hard problem, I agree.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES

Last edited by R.Mackey; 27th January 2013 at 10:05 PM. Reason: tweaked a link
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 06:24 AM   #113
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Well, R.M., we do have something in common. We both are proposing plans that the NRA would hate.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 09:44 AM   #114
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,637
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
If we concentrate these things, a burglary will net hundreds. Lots of unknowns go away. Lots of inside job potential. And I doubt we're paying for round-the-clock Federal Prison style security. High-power shooting lines tend to be in isolated areas.

Again, it has happened. Recently.
And not just police stations...military bases constantly lose, misplace, or have weaponry stolen.

A quick internet search...

---------------------
BLACK MARKET SALES RISE IN ARMS STOLEN FROM U.S. MILITARY BASES
September 29, 1985
The New York Times

Tens of millions of dollars worth of advanced, American-made weapons intended for military use are showing up on the black market, according to officials from the Defense Department, other Federal agencies and members of Congress. The weapons often become available for sale to hostile governments or terrorists, the officials say, potentially contributing to the very problem of terrorism that the Government is trying to fight. Main Source for Weapons Numerous officials said the principal source for the black market weapons was theft from United States military bases, ships and warehouses. Among the stolen weapons officials say have been found on the black market are land mines, plastic explosives, missiles, bazookas, grenade launchers and artillery. The military sorts and stores so much weaponry that the Pentagon says it loses or misplaces more than $1 billion of it each year.

---------------------
Military weapons stolen; 6 Marines arrested
October 16, 1997
The arrested Marines include a captain and five enlisted personnel. The case involves the theft of explosives and weapons from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, officials said. The stockpile of stolen weapons includes mortars, grenades, .50 caliber machine guns, land mines and C4 plastic explosives, federal officials told CNN.

---------------------
27 Rifles Stolen from California Military Base
Published July 30, 2011
Associated Press

FORT IRWIN, Calif. – More than two dozen assault rifles have been stolen from a Southern California military base, and investigators sought the public's help as they looked to arrest suspects and recover the weapons, federal officials said Friday. Twenty-six AK-74 assault rifles and one Dragunov sniper rifle were stolen from a supply warehouse at Fort Irwin in San Bernardino County on July 15, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says in a statement. Some arrests have been made and one rifle has been recovered, but the agency is offering a reward of up to $10,000 for information leading to further arrests, the statement said.

---------------------
FBI Says Gang Infiltrators Stealing Military Weapons For Sale On U.S. Streets
Posted on December 16, 2011

The FBI is concerned not only that gangs are infiltrating the military, but gang members are funneling military ordnance to criminal associates on the streets– including high explosive artillery rounds. The problem, according to Military.com, is that recently the FBI has come across a number of instances in which: “Gangs are acquiring highpowered, military-grade weapons more frequently, according to the latest National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) Report. And FBI and law enforcement officials suggest gang members — both enlisted and those working at military bases as contract civilians — may be funneling the firearms to their street-level counterparts.
So it appears criminal syndicates — that include prison gangs, bikers, and notorious Latin gang MS-13 — are getting their hands on a variety of military-grade weapons including rifles, grenades, body armor, and even artillery rounds, according to the latest NGIC report released.

---------------------
Marines sold stolen combat weapons to gangs, China
15 May 2012
Jeff Black, NBC News

American troops sold $2 million worth of weapons and combat gear, including assault rifles and night vision goggles to street gangs and to foreign countries, including China, in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy uncovered by a Navy probe. A two-year undercover investigation has implicated more than 60 individuals, an official with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) told The Daily News in Jacksonville, N.C. Many of those involved were stationed at Camp Lejeune, a sprawling coastal Marine Corps installation that is home to special operations and expeditionary forces. Some of the equipment was sold over eBay and Craigslist, though weapons and ammunition were also sold at yard sales and in secretive face-to-face meetings, according to the paper.

---------------------
Tip about tractor theft leads to stolen Army grenades, assault weapon
Published December 17, 2012
FoxNews.com

Alabama police say a tip about a stolen tractor led them to a cache of stolen military hardware, Fox 6 News reported. The investigation reportedly began last week when police found a stolen tractor at a residence in Glencoe, Ala. A search of the home found 30 guns, including an assault rifle, as well as grenades and blasting caps stolen from the Anniston Army Depot, according to the station. Spare parts for Stryker military vehicles also were recovered.
According to Fox 6, police suspect the homeowner, Anniston Army Depot employee Ryan Mayo, stole the military items from his workplace.
---------------------
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 01:07 PM   #115
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Gosh. Those guys are terrible at protecting weapons. The obvious solution is to take all the assault weapons out of armories and give them for private citizens to store, where they will be much safer.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 01:21 PM   #116
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,637
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Gosh. Those guys are terrible at protecting weapons. The obvious solution is to take all the assault weapons out of armories and give them for private citizens to store, where they will be much safer.
What in the blue hell....?

The point is that consolidating weapons to a central location gives a easy point of access.

And it doesn't resolve the problem of illegal guns on the street.
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 02:17 PM   #117
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,929
Is it possible that all these arguments against stricter controls are just shortsighted?

Seems to me that the same sorts of arguments could have been made against the automatic weapon ban back in the first half of the century. Fast forward 70 years, look what happened.

We don't see a significant problem with criminals using automatic weapons, despite the fact that every military has a ton of them and they are theoretically easy to steal since they are in "one location" and crooks "know what it is."

The only valid argument I have ever heard for why tightly regulating assault weapons and high capacity magazines wouldn't have the same effect 70 years from now as the automatic ban has now, 70 years after it went into place, is that in 70 years it won't even matter because people will be printing their own weapons in their home on a 3d printer.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 03:32 PM   #118
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,677
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
The point is that consolidating weapons to a central location gives a easy point of access.
Yes, but one that should be much more guarded than other, non-central points.
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
And it doesn't resolve the problem of illegal guns on the street.
Nothing will "resolve" that problem, but something like this could go a long way toward mitigating it. When gun dealers cannot sell military-style weapons directly to people, but must go through a licensed range, it will make it harder for people to obtain them, even illegally.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 03:48 PM   #119
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 29,521
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
military-style weapons
What is a military-style weapon? What makes a weapon either military-style or not military-style?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 03:55 PM   #120
monty1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 836
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What is a military-style weapon? What makes a weapon either military-style or not military-style?
You know the answer to that question. But what difference does it make now with millions of them out there in the hands of stupid people who fantasize about war and killing people. The biggest problem in the US is the mindset of those kind of people and there are too many ofthe kind of weapons they drool over to stop the slaughter now.

Armed guards around your schools seems to be the only answer and that's exactly what the gooned out NRA is suggesting.

So what do you call a people who 'need' to protect their children in their schools?

And some of you Americans think North Korea is insane!!!!!
monty1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.