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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Tags gun control issues , gun laws , guns

Reply
Old 23rd February 2018, 09:02 AM   #121
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Or get one like you can with WWI-WWII heavy machine guns and have it converted to semi auto. Try naming what those are.

Seriously what the hell do you call a semi auto conversion of a vickers?
In the U.S., the semi auto versions of the various WWI and WWII belt-feds fall into a grey area due to the fact that outside of the German MG08/15, Browning 1919 A6 and the MG 34's/42 the pieces in question do not have buttstocks, and can't be legally classified as rifles.

The barrel length and overall length are well within the legal requirements for rifles and so they are classified as standard Title 1 firearms.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
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 23rd February 2018, 09:14 AM   #122
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,234
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
It would be much easier, surely, to discuss manual, semi-automatic and automatic weapons? and maybe on top of that, calibre and FPS?

Nice, easy, well identified boundaries. The whole 'assault rifle' thing just seems to be an utterly massive red herring and just an excuse for a massive, US wide media and political derail on "which of these two is an assault rifle and which is a hunting firle?".
Quite. After Hungerford, the UK simply banned semi-autos in anything other than .22 LR. Today you can buy a .22LR semi-auto AR-15 clone, or a straight-pull version of just about any battle or assault rifle in any other calibre. You can even have a repro of a (bolt action, pistol calibre) silenced de Lisle Carbine, if you want.
Information Analyst 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 23rd February 2018, 09:20 AM   #123
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Show leadership.

Australia had a ******** of semi-automatics. None now, in civilian hands at least.

That you can't comprehend something like this says a lot about you and the US in general. It takes political and moral courage, both absent in the US today.

Oh, can posters stop talking about the use of semi automatics for hunting. Proper hunters do not need to tear their prey in two with weapons like this.
The number that's associated with Australia's surrender law is 650,000 firearms, but what was the estimated number of firearms in private hands before the law was enacted?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
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 23rd February 2018, 09:24 AM   #124
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,234
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
He, he... Then what?
Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.
Information Analyst 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 23rd February 2018, 09:27 AM   #125
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.
Sure you can make laws to your hearts content, then how to you actually enforce that except by taking via force for those unwilling to surrender them voluntarily. Might I remind you that the US is not Great Britain nor is it Australia.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat 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 23rd February 2018, 09:32 AM   #126
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 7,234
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Sure you can make laws to your hearts content, then how to you actually enforce that except by taking via force for those unwilling to surrender them voluntarily. Might I remind you that the US is not Great Britain nor is it Australia.
So basically you're saying that Americans are less likelly to respect the law?

And to think, it was Australia that was once a penal colony....
Information Analyst 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 23rd February 2018, 09:32 AM   #127
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
If you were the only one and no other individual or politician had ever used the term "A good first step" wrt firearms restrictions you'd have a point.

As it is, you're one of many supporters of gun control that have made it clear that any compromise on the issue boils down to what you'll settle for taking away today and what you're willing to wait to take away later.
Come at it from the other direction. What legitimate rights of gun owners cannot be fulfilled by bolt-action rifles, double-barrel shotguns and revolvers? Where does the Constitution guarantee everybody a right to possess and carry AR15s and other semi-auto rifles and handguns with high-capacity magazines? When the Constitution was written, "firearms" were black powder muzzleloaders, and for most of U.S. history until the '70s, there was never any doubt that authorities are entitled to regulate the sale, possession and use of firearms. That's when the slippery slope started -- in the wrong direction.
Bob001 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 23rd February 2018, 09:33 AM   #128
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.
Enforce how? We don't have a national registration list. So the only option to make sure no one has a banned firearm in their home is to have law enforcement go door-to-door. Most states in the South and western USA (except the Pac coast & Colorado) would most likely forbid their police from doing this. So now we have federal agents, going door to door searching people's homes.

You probably underestimate just how big a faction would violently resist such things. At best probably a few 1000 dead, at worst a 2nd US Civil War.

The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 09:38 AM   #129
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Sure you can make laws to your hearts content, then how to you actually enforce that except by taking via force for those unwilling to surrender them voluntarily. Might I remind you that the US is not Great Britain nor is it Australia.
As noted previously, there would be no taking by force. People keep and do all kinds of illegal stuff and get away with it for awhile. But when they get caught, as they often are, they pay a steep price. If AR15-style rifles were restricted, an illegal owner could never use it for hunting or target shooting without risking jail. If he used it against an intruder he'd go to jail. If a visitor saw it in his house and reported it, he'd go to jail. Just as most of us refrain from tax evasion and shoplifting because we don't wanna get caught, most responsible citizens would not risk keeping something that could land them in jail. For the others, it would just be a matter of time.
Bob001 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 23rd February 2018, 09:39 AM   #130
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
So basically you're saying that Americans are less likelly to respect the law?

And to think, it was Australia that was once a penal colony....
Not exactly, but I expected a distortion. The law in this regard is the Constitution and currently as interpreted by the Courts the 2nd Amendment is the law. Neither Congress nor the President can change that. So, in essence if Congress banned any firearm or by decree the President declared anything banned, THEY would be breaking the law. I wouldn't expect most outsiders to understand and this thread established that clearly.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat 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 23rd February 2018, 09:40 AM   #131
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 12,163
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Wrong!
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Uh, you can't, for example, go to say Nevada and buy something that is illegal in California and then bring it back to California. In fact dealers are required to check ID and not sell to someone that can't legally purchase in their state. Of course you could go to a gun show, and bring it home, and risk getting in serious trouble.
Yeah, I was wrong on that part (you can tell I've never gone out of state to buy a gun)

My main point, though, was that the info I was responding to didn't have anything to do with purchasing or obtaining a gun, just with getting a concealed carry permit.
Hellbound 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 23rd February 2018, 09:42 AM   #132
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Not exactly, but I expected a distortion. The law in this regard is the Constitution and currently as interpreted by the Courts the 2nd Amendment is the law. Neither Congress nor the President can change that. So, in essence if Congress banned any firearm or by decree the President declared anything banned, THEY would be breaking the law. I wouldn't expect most outsiders to understand and this thread established that clearly.
But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 09:44 AM   #133
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,548
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
....
The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.
That is exactly what would happen, as is the case now with other prohibited objects and substances. I doubt that it would take 100 years.

An alternative would be to license semi-autos the same way full machine guns are licensed now. You can buy one and keep it and take it to the range, but it's registered and you pay a tax and pass a background check. People who really feel strongly about it would be able to follow a legal path.
Bob001 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 23rd February 2018, 09:45 AM   #134
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Enforce how? We don't have a national registration list. So the only option to make sure no one has a banned firearm in their home is to have law enforcement go door-to-door. Most states in the South and western USA (except the Pac coast & Colorado) would most likely forbid their police from doing this. So now we have federal agents, going door to door searching people's homes.

You probably underestimate just how big a faction would violently resist such things. At best probably a few 1000 dead, at worst a 2nd US Civil War.

The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.
You didn't mention the 4th Amendment which would make what you've outlined clearly unconstitutional.

It would take more than a Century, I'd guess.

What outsiders also don't recognize is that the military in the US swear loyalty to the Constitution, not a King or Queen, nor a President. Which side the military would support is anyone's guess. Perhaps, like the Civil War loyalties would be split, so indeed Civil War is quite possible...
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat 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 23rd February 2018, 09:46 AM   #135
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,992
“detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon...”

This is how arbitrary it al becomes...

Illegal:



Legal:

__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B 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 23rd February 2018, 09:48 AM   #136
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.
True, but I think the line has been drawn in the sand or dirt. I don't think any further bans would go across very well at all.

Edit to add: There really are not many firearms of any type banned, they're just difficult to acquire and license. At least I can think of none that are actually outright banned....
__________________
[Noc]

Last edited by Reheat; 23rd February 2018 at 09:50 AM.
Reheat 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 23rd February 2018, 09:48 AM   #137
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 12,163
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
But plenty of firearms are already banned at the federal level. By law, not decree.
Actually, I think just automatic weapons and non-metallic guns are banned at the federal level (FOPA in 1986 and Undetectable Firearms Act in 1988). They banned a few with the AWB, but it's been repealed.

But either way, you are correct that there is precedent for banning some types of firearms.
Hellbound 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 23rd February 2018, 09:48 AM   #138
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
You didn't mention the 4th Amendment which would make what you've outlined clearly unconstitutional.

It would take more than a Century, I'd guess.

What outsiders also don't recognize is that the military in the US swear loyalty to the Constitution, not a King or Queen, nor a President. Which side the military would support is anyone's guess. Perhaps, like the Civil War loyalties would be split, so indeed Civil War is quite possible...
Pfft the 4th Amendment is dead and buried. It'd be a thread derail but I'll give you plenty of examples if you like.
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 09:50 AM   #139
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Actually, I think just automatic weapons and non-metallic guns are banned at the federal level (FOPA in 1986 and Undetectable Firearms Act in 1988). They banned a few with the AWB, but it's been repealed.

But either way, you are correct that there is precedent for banning some types of firearms.
Yes Full auto made after '86. Also anything greater than 50 cal with a rifled barrel (which makes 12 ga shotguns with rifled barrels a weird exception). Rifles with barrel lengths under a certain length, and certain other exceptions.
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 09:52 AM   #140
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,992
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Actually, I think just automatic weapons...are banned at the federal level...
Not banned.

Just requires it be bought from a Class 3 dealer. And, in practice the ones on the market are outrageously expensive.

As an aside, right up the road from me is McCaysville Gun & Drug, a Class 3 dealer.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B 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 23rd February 2018, 09:53 AM   #141
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,653
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Pfft the 4th Amendment is dead and buried. It'd be a thread derail but I'll give you plenty of examples if you like.
Start another thread if you like. It's not appropriate here...
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat 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 23rd February 2018, 09:53 AM   #142
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 717
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Of course it's a waste of time. Your goal is to find out what people think about guns, right? You could accomplish that by talking to them about guns.
technically, the title of the threads says 'assault weapons'. A car used to cause damage to another person would be an 'assault weapon'. Same as if I beat someone senseless with a tennis racket.....that would be an 'assault weapon'.
Whip 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 23rd February 2018, 09:54 AM   #143
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,397
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.
Which at least would be a move in the right direction. I think we all realise that this can't be solved in a day, a week or a month; the problem seems to be that any attempt to solve it in any timescale whatsoever is simply shouted down by a declaration of the inerrancy and ubiquity of the Second Amendment.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 23rd February 2018, 09:59 AM   #144
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Not banned.

Just requires it be bought from a Class 3 dealer. And, in practice the ones on the market are outrageously expensive.

As an aside, right up the road from me is McCaysville Gun & Drug, a Class 3 dealer.
If it was made on or before a certain date in 1986. So, any full auto firearm model that didn't exist until after, is in effect, banned.
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 10:03 AM   #145
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,992
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
...the problem seems to be that any attempt to solve it in any timescale whatsoever is simply shouted down by a declaration of the inerrancy and ubiquity of the Second Amendment.
The Founding Fathers almost certainly could not envision what “arms” might become in a couple hundred years.

But they did envision that times change, and that the Constitution might need amending, and then further amending to keep up with changing times. And they provided a simple way to do so.

But simple does not imply easy - it was made intentionally hard. But if it becomes the will of the people to repeal the Second Amendment, there’s a clear path to doing so. For those who want to ban or seriously restrict whole classes of firearms, that’s where their attention and efforts should focus.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B 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 23rd February 2018, 10:04 AM   #146
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,992
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
If it was made on or before a certain date in 1986. So, any full auto firearm model that didn't exist until after, is in effect, banned.
Got it - thanks for the clarification.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B 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 23rd February 2018, 10:08 AM   #147
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,992
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.
Not sure that makes the case you wish to make.

One could easily point out how readily available those “certain drugs” remain in spite of their illegality. And that there’s no reason to assume the same would not apply to “certain firearms”.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B 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 23rd February 2018, 10:09 AM   #148
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 717
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.
I don't think there is an amendment for 'the right to bare drugs'.
Whip 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 23rd February 2018, 10:11 AM   #149
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 12,163
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
I don't think there is an amendment for 'the right to bare drugs'.
And think what it would do to manufacturers of capsules if there were...

Hellbound 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 23rd February 2018, 10:12 AM   #150
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
The Founding Fathers almost certainly could not envision what “arms” might become in a couple hundred years.

But they did envision that times change, and that the Constitution might need amending, and then further amending to keep up with changing times. And they provided a simple way to do so.

But simple does not imply easy - it was made intentionally hard. But if it becomes the will of the people to repeal the Second Amendment, there’s a clear path to doing so. For those who want to ban or seriously restrict whole classes of firearms, that’s where their attention and efforts should focus.
Thing is it says "arms", not "guns" or "firearms". Nor does it say: "right to keep and bear all types of arms". That's intentionally (I assume) very open. We ban civilian ownership of all kinds of arms in the US. Want to import some ex-soviet figher jets complete with missiles and bombs? Good luck with that, even for a billionaire. Want to keep a warehouse full of mustard gas? Good luck with that too.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 23rd February 2018 at 10:15 AM.
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 10:14 AM   #151
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,456
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Of course it's a waste of time. Your goal is to find out what people think about guns, right? You could accomplish that by talking to them about guns.
Not really, no. In this instance my goal is to confirm or deny my suspicions that gun advocates retreat into technical talk of the merits and demerits of different types of firearm primarily so they are able to disregard the arguments of non gun experts. One of the ways of checking that people are honest in these endeavors is to check that, in parallel situations, they have a similar outlook.

I would normally take a mad dash away from the analogy to be at least an indicator that the thinking is not consistent and that the technical talk is just a smokescreen.


Quote:
Instead you've decided to embark on a much longer, irrelevant journey: Establish that cars are similar to guns in certain specific ways. Establish that the person you're talking to sees the similarity you do. Establish that the person reaches same conclusions as you, about cars. Establish that the person agrees that the conclusion about cars properly carries over to the similar thing about guns.

I don't want to help you unpack and map out all the points of your analogy, just to have a conversation about guns.

If you want to talk about gun policy, talk about gum policy. If you want to know what someone thinks about gun policy, don't ask them what they think about speed limits.
Again, I want to establish that those that dazzle with talk of fps and rates of fire and bullpups and fire control switches are honest in their debate. I do not think that they are. I think that's one of the reasons you're running so hard from this analogy. Wouldn't it be simpler, if the analogy is not consistent, to tell me why, rather than insist I can't use it? but not address why I can't use it?


Quote:
With your analogy, the best case scenario is that you are ready to show the analogy between speed limits and whatever aspect of gun policy you *really* want to talk about. In which case, you could cut out the analogy entirely, and just talk about gun policy itself.

See above.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 23rd February 2018, 10:18 AM   #152
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,456
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Enforce how?
As far as I can work out, the enforcement of firearm legislation immediately falls foul of the second amendment.


What would you say to anyone who, while you were exercising your right to free speech, asked you to prove you were entitled to that right?

Isn't it the same with carrying a firearm?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 23rd February 2018, 10:24 AM   #153
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
As far as I can work out, the enforcement of firearm legislation immediately falls foul of the second amendment.


What would you say to anyone who, while you were exercising your right to free speech, asked you to prove you were entitled to that right?

Isn't it the same with carrying a firearm?
Well, I'd probably tell them to "**** off". But in reality we have plenty of restrictions to freedom of speech in the US.

This guy was arrested for asking a question. Anyone get into any trouble for violating his 1st amendment rights? Nope.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/01/medi...pie/index.html
lobosrul5 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 23rd February 2018, 10:35 AM   #154
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,232
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
True, but I think the line has been drawn in the sand or dirt. I don't think any further bans would go across very well at all.
That line was destroyed last week by the shooting in Florida.

Public opinion has shifted pretty dramatically, I don't think it will stop. (ETA: The "enthusiasm gap" has always been in favor of firearms-rights advocates. That's probably the biggest change resulting from Florida. Firearms right advocates can no longer assume they have an edge in enthusiasm. Time will tell)

As for removing certain guns from circulation, slow is not at all bad. Ban legal manufacture and importation. Such weapons seized by police due to use in criminal acts get destroyed, not auctioned off. The supply starts to dry up. Guns can last just about forever, but not all of them do.

If you want to ban a given type of gun in it's entirety (I generally think that's a bad idea, but...) there are ways to make it happen.
  • Order them to be turned in, you might be surprised by the number who do it voluntarily.
  • Allow a long grace period where police would seize one if they encounter it but would not seek them out, and the owner would not face prosecution for having it (ETA: unless the owner was already otherwise prohibited from owning firearms).
  • After that, there would still be no prosecution for turning them in, ever, but it a person could be prosecuted if they somehow get caught in possession of one - but still no active seeking out.

Use the background check system for that to start building a registry.
  • Modify the system so that ALL gun transfers (sale, trade, inheritance, gift) require a full background check, with the type of gun included as a component of the information entered.
  • That information is retained and becomes the basis of a registry
  • Grandpa does not need to register his duck gun in the closet, but once you inherit it, it you get a background check and it gets registered that way.
  • The system builds gradually.
  • That's illegal under current law, but opinion is shifting fast and laws can be changed
.

You can dry up and severely reduce the supply without targeting them for seizure.

That said, I have doubts about any sort of plan that involves a full ban on anything currently in circulation. I can support banning manufacture and import of new weapons or accessories of this or that type and letting the supply slowly dwindle.

Last edited by crescent; 23rd February 2018 at 10:44 AM.
crescent 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 23rd February 2018, 10:41 AM   #155
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,173
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Thing is it says "arms", not "guns" or "firearms". Nor does it say: "right to keep and bear all types of arms". That's intentionally (I assume) very open. We ban civilian ownership of all kinds of arms in the US. Want to import some ex-soviet figher jets complete with missiles and bombs? Good luck with that, even for a billionaire. Want to keep a warehouse full of mustard gas? Good luck with that too.
I find it hilarious that these discussions *always* degenerate into naive discovery of first principles.

The Supreme Court has considered the conundrum extensively. Their reasoning about where to draw the line, and why, is public record.

Likewise the reasoning, by the courts and others, about balancing human rights and human regulation, is also well developed and widely accessible.

But gun control proponents here always seem to start from a position of total ignorance of these things *and never advance*. They never study the court decisions that have already discussed the problem. They never show any sign of having reasoned out their own conclusions.

Every new thread, it's the same "I've never really thought about it, what does it mean?"
theprestige 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 23rd February 2018, 10:42 AM   #156
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,384
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Debating any topic is not helped by excessive hyperbole. Hunters don't use semi-auto firearms to "tear prey in two".
To make up for being bad marksmen?
Captain_Swoop 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 23rd February 2018, 10:43 AM   #157
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I find it hilarious that these discussions *always* degenerate into naive discovery of first principles.

The Supreme Court has considered the conundrum extensively. Their reasoning about where to draw the line, and why, is public record.

Likewise the reasoning, by the courts and others, about balancing human rights and human regulation, is also well developed and widely accessible.

But gun control proponents here always seem to start from a position of total ignorance of these things *and never advance*. They never study the court decisions that have already discussed the problem. They never show any sign of having reasoned out their own conclusions.

Every new thread, it's the same "I've never really thought about it, what does it mean?"
To be entirely fair, there are a lot of posters, and the wording of the 2nd doesn't really help.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 23rd February 2018, 10:46 AM   #158
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,232
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
To be entirely fair, there are a lot of posters, and the wording of the 2nd doesn't really help.
And SC opinions have changed. Heller was the first time the court recognized an individual right to own guns.
crescent 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 23rd February 2018, 10:50 AM   #159
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,384
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Yes Full auto made after '86. Also anything greater than 50 cal with a rifled barrel (which makes 12 ga shotguns with rifled barrels a weird exception). Rifles with barrel lengths under a certain length, and certain other exceptions.
And shotguns with a larger bore.
You can buy a 4 and 2 bore double rifles.
They are monsters.
Captain_Swoop 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 23rd February 2018, 10:52 AM   #160
lobosrul5
Muse
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I find it hilarious that these discussions *always* degenerate into naive discovery of first principles.

The Supreme Court has considered the conundrum extensively. Their reasoning about where to draw the line, and why, is public record.

Likewise the reasoning, by the courts and others, about balancing human rights and human regulation, is also well developed and widely accessible.

But gun control proponents here always seem to start from a position of total ignorance of these things *and never advance*. They never study the court decisions that have already discussed the problem. They never show any sign of having reasoned out their own conclusions.

Every new thread, it's the same "I've never really thought about it, what does it mean?"
Err, actually I know of the major supreme court decisions. DC v. Heller is newer and supersedes US v. Miller. But that doesn't mean it won't itself be superseded once more. Furthermore, the DC v. Heller decision doesn't contradict anything I said. I mean in part, the majority decision states: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".
And lastly, nowhere have I said I support a ban on "assault rifles". I own an AR-15 FYI. OTOH I am now convinced its a good idea to limit who can have them. Training, checks on their mental stability etc. As long as its all done on a shall issue rather than may issue basis.

Last edited by lobosrul5; 23rd February 2018 at 10:54 AM.
lobosrul5 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 » Social Issues & Current Events

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 10:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.