Guns: how much longer will it take ....

the gun problem persists.

If a country decides to abolish freedom, it is reasonable to say that they have abolished freedom.

The vast majority of the world does not believe that 'guns = freedom'. In fact, I only ever here this chant from a % of citizens in the US (perhaps some in Canada believe the same, being so close). Across the western world, as far as I'm aware, you are in the minority with this belief.

In any event, the issue isn't that you believe it to to be true, it's that you tell other people that it is the truth as applies to them (ie. telling people from other countries 'you aren't free'). It is only your truth, as applies to you. Other people may hold it as truth, and it applies only to those individuals (however many there are).

The attempt to force your beliefs on what constitutes freedom onto other people is why people don't take you seriously. They have a different truth. They know what freedom is to them, but you insult every one of them when you say they don't. And you insult them because you cannot comprehend that your 'truth' is subjective, as is theirs, but you insist on it being objective...which apparent lack of comprehension leads people to conclude you are either silly, blind, or fixated. How then can they take you seriously?

The insulting nature of this sloganism ('you aren't free') and the suspicion aroused (regarding mental capacity/issues) from presenting subjective truth (guns=freedom) as an absolute truth is one of the reasons people coined the term 'gun nuts'.

It's not a pretty way of putting things. I don't know if there is a better way. The thing is, it's not going to change while this sort of behaviour keeps being displayed.

'guns = freedom'

Those other people are wrong

This is wrong. There are not multiple truths. The truth is the truth.

In America at least, there is nothing that the freedom haters can do about it. Americans choose to remain free no matter what the rest of the world does.

People believed that in 1945. But in 1945 we knew what an enemy was, today we deny their existence.

oralloy wrote:

In America at least, there is nothing that the freedom haters can do about it. Americans choose to remain free no matter what the rest of the world does.

Are you sure this is correct. All constitutions / bill of rights have mechanisms for change, surely even in the US . The part that supports your rights to guns is after all, called the 2nd ammendment. Or did they remove the ability to create ammendments?

Isn't it only required that sufficient momentum for change exists (to create an ammendment), and a referendum take place?

If you only applied such to you, this would be fine.

This then is one the problems, you don't understand the nature of truth. All truth is subjective. It's subject:
- to a persons perception (what their brain takes in / filters out, which is a natural process of the brain)
- a persons experiences (which give them context in which to interpret an event)
- values ('that person is bad for doing #### / 'he's trying to take away my freedom')
etc

Hence why two people look at the same event, and arrive at difference conclusions. And that's only scratching the very surface. Really, if you don't understand the subjectiveness of truth, visit a philosophy forum and have a debate there.

Fact on the other hand, is fact...but often used to support subjective truth.

Seriously though, the problem is, the lack of comprehension of such, is one of the issues people have with those who chant such slogans.

On Sunday, he said that one policy to consider would be stronger laws mandating proper security of guns in private homes.

So if a kit does not exist to make it full auto, then you have no objection to the gun?

How do you prevent someone from designing conversion kits for all guns and effectively banning all guns?

Why does the appearance of a gun matter?

If a gun could be converted to full auto but didn't mimic the look of a military weapon, would that gun be OK with you?

There doesn't seem to be much problem with guns being illegally converted to full auto. Has there ever been even a single person killed with an illegally-converted gun?

How does banning cosmetic features prevent people from going on killing sprees?

your perfidy?

The latest shooting did not involve assault style weapons, but shooting up a school has become the aim of a certain percentage of our disturbed people largely due to the shootings with an assault style weapon.

While no specific law may be able to stop every school shooting, we have an escalating cycle of shootings, mostly involving the fashionable assault-style weapon.

That is why banning the assault style weapon is a good first step.

No, if it resembles an assault style weapon like the ones which have shot up all those schools, then it should be banned.

Do they have conversion kits for revolvers?

The question of whether a gun resembles an assault style weapon can be made on a model-by-model basis.

Ask the parents of the dead schoolchildren killed by R-15 style weapons while they went to class.

oralloy wrote:

If a gun could be converted to full auto but didn't mimic the look of a military weapon, would that gun be OK with you?

That could be decided on a model by model basis.

Right now the issue is guns which resemble fully automatic military style weapons which are sold by the manufacturers in semi automatic mode.

The Las Vegas shooting had a legal bump stock, which mimics automatic operation.

And in a Los Angeles robbery, no fatalities, two thieves with converted assault weapons held off hundreds of cops without automatic weapons. Since these school and random building shootings are accelerating, we should take steps to eliminate the use of semiautomatic weapons which can be upgraded to fully automatic use.

Again, ask the parents of the dead schoolchildren killed by AR-15 style weapons while they went to class.

Can you provide a good reason to justify banning harmless cosmetic features? Or is this just an effort to violate people's rights for fun?

The question is, what is the justification for banning harmless cosmetic features, other than a desire to violate people's rights for fun?

So a gun that can be converted to full auto might be OK if it has the correct cosmetic features?

Can you provide a good reason to justify banning harmless cosmetic features?