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

@Blickers,

Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
So a gun that can be converted to full auto might be OK if it has the correct cosmetic features?
I never mentioned cosmetic features, will you please stick to the subject for once.

Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
Can you provide a good reason to justify banning harmless cosmetic features?
To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again".quote]]

You know what, maybe it wouldn't be so painful if you knew your children were slaughtered by pretty guns in the hands of a crazed gunman....it must be awful to realize they were mowed down by ugly homely guns.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Who said anything about cosmetic features? Only you.

That is incorrect. You proposed banning guns based on their cosmetic features.

Perhaps now you realize that it was a very bad idea and have changed your mind?

Blickers wrote:

If the gun is modeled after a military style assault weapon that can be fired either automatically or semiautomatically, and the gun as sold is set only for semiautomatic use but can be converted by kit, (whether illegal legal), it should be banned.

How do you prevent someone from making a conversion kit for all guns and banning every gun?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

vikorr wrote:

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.

oralloy wrote:

This is wrong.

Uh, no, there are entire fields of science dedicated to those things I mentioned.I take it you don't spend any time reading about psychology. Quite frankly, every part of it is accurate - it is observable, reproducible and measurable.

Have a look at your own behaviour 'It doesn't match my beliefs, I don't want to think about it, so I'll filter it out, by just saying 'it's wrong' - that way I don't have to think about it anymore'...it matches the first behaviour that contributes to subjectivity (if you don't agree, you'd need to do some more reason for yourself - mine is very much a summary)

As a note, as I said, I don't have any issue with you holding your own version of such beliefs...it's the attempt to deride others with your subjective truth...that undermines your credibility. You can't provide:
- logic to back up your argument (about it's subjectivity)
- can't articulate how the psychology is wrong
- and can't provide any science to show the psychology is wrong
So you just disregard it.

It is apparent that you just want to chant this slogan...but no amount of chanting can make it anything other than a subjective belief.

1 Reply

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1011006_504286249681591_987890477_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&_nc_eui2=AeHDmGGPDM-1h4GlUK-DzJZQUQYq1Krvk6jqv8XVjp4PtDlag4rmSuuP10pCt-QHFpziTtw80udaGcTdGfYm1Kn6r3Z3t-wf5eI_4LafcSVVoA&oh=54a6e3643fb27c2785b752c95a9e3b7f&oe=5B7DD1CF

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

the gun problem persists.

And what are YOU going to do about it Edgar? Help republican candidates continue winning? Vote the Green Party?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

So you’re arguing that in most cases a semi-automatic weapon is more deadly (meaning the ability to kill more people in a given period of time) than a fully automatic one?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote Blickers To oralloy:

Quote:

Who said anything about cosmetic features? Only you.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

That is incorrect. You proposed banning guns based on their cosmetic features.

Perhaps now you realize that it was a very bad idea and have changed your mind?

No, I proposed banning guns whose design is clearly modeled after military style assault weapons, even if the guns are set to be usable only in semiautomatic mode, since a kit, legal or illegal, can be obtained to convert it to automatic mode. And the more times I turn on the TV and see a bunch of cops around yet another school, the more I think it's not only a good idea, it's necessary.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

How do you prevent someone from making a conversion kit for all guns and banning every gun?

That could be handled on a model by model basis. You've already admitted that owing to it's design, a revolver could not be converted to automatic use and remain anything like a revolver. Among the criteria for being legal would be just how difficult it would be to manufacture the conversion kit to fully automatic operation and how difficult it would be to install it. For instance, if installing the conversion would require re-casting the entire gun barrel and all it's mechanisms, the gun would remain legal. On the other hand, if the conversion could be accomplished without re-casting the gun or a substantial part thereof, the gun would no longer be legal to be sold. And of course, if the gun is clearly modeled on a military assault weapon, the gun would not be legal even if you did have to recast the gun to convert it to fully automatic operation.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

You guys have reached the stage where you both can now just copy/paste the same things back and forth until the end of time.

I appreciate how you're using Oralloy's own method of posting against him.

1 Reply

Quote:

Guns Aren’t the Problem. The Collapse of the Morality You Mock is the Problem.

I agree.
http://www.erickontheradio.com/2018/05/guns-arent-the-problem-the-collapse-of-the-morality-you-mock-is-the-problem/

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I'm claiming that a rifle with a full auto mode cannot be fired accurately in full auto mode. Cop videos show the difference between pray-spray and taking well aimed shots, the guy taking aimed shots is always more effective.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

How often did you shoot yourself in burst mode, gunga? (I had to do it several times to get and keep the badge of marksmanship)

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I appreciate how you're using Oralloy's own method of posting against him.

You mean where people quote something that they disagree with and then explain why they disagree?

That's just a conversation.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Uh, no, there are entire fields of science dedicated to those things I mentioned.I take it you don't spend any time reading about psychology.

If any of those fields say that reality is whatever you want it to be, they are wrong.

vikorr wrote:

I take it you don't spend any time reading about psychology.

That is correct.

vikorr wrote:

Quite frankly, every part of it is accurate - it is observable, reproducible and measurable.

Reality is not whatever someone wants it to be.

vikorr wrote:

Have a look at your own behaviour 'It doesn't match my beliefs, I don't want to think about it, so I'll filter it out, by just saying 'it's wrong' - that way I don't have to think about it anymore'...it matches the first behaviour that contributes to subjectivity (if you don't agree, you'd need to do some more reason for yourself - mine is very much a summary)

It is reasonable for me to dismiss clearly untrue claims.

vikorr wrote:

As a note, as I said, I don't have any issue with you holding your own version of such beliefs...it's the attempt to deride others with your subjective truth...that undermines your credibility.

When nations abolish freedom within their borders, it is reasonable for truthful people to say that they have abolished freedom within their borders.

The truth isn't subjective. The truth is reality.

vikorr wrote:

You can't provide:
- logic to back up your argument (about it's subjectivity)

That's because I am making a fact-based argument here and not a logic based argument.

When I base my arguments on logic, I will be sure to offer plenty of logic to back them up. In the case of factual arguments, all I need is reality.

vikorr wrote:

- can't articulate how the psychology is wrong

If your characterization of psychology is accurate, sure I can: Reality is not whatever you want it to be. Reality is what the truth is.

vikorr wrote:

So you just disregard it.

Well, I definitely disregard the notion that reality is whatever you want it to be, regardless of what psychology says about the matter.

vikorr wrote:

It is apparent that you just want to chant this slogan...but no amount of chanting can make it anything other than a subjective belief.

That's one of things that I really like about reality. Reality is already real. I don't have to make it become real.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

And the more times I turn on the TV and see a bunch of cops around yet another school, the more I think it's not only a good idea, it's necessary.

Seeing incidents where a full auto weapon is not even used convinces you that we need stronger protections against conversions to full auto weapons?

Blickers wrote:

Among the criteria for being legal would be just how difficult it would be to manufacture the conversion kit to fully automatic operation and how difficult it would be to install it. For instance, if installing the conversion would require re-casting the entire gun barrel and all it's mechanisms, the gun would remain legal. On the other hand, if the conversion could be accomplished without re-casting the gun or a substantial part thereof, the gun would no longer be legal to be sold.

That would needlessly ban a large number of perfectly reasonable weapons. The NRA will prevent anything like that from passing. And if the NRA somehow fails to stop it, the courts will strike it down.

However, if we had a law that restricted machine gun parts so that they can be possessed only by people who are licensed to repair them, that would remove the possibility of the conversions that you want to prevent, and the courts would not strike it down. You could even get the NRA to agree with it if you tied it to something that they wanted to pass.

Blickers wrote:

And of course, if the gun is clearly modeled on a military assault weapon, the gun would not be legal even if you did have to recast the gun to convert it to fully automatic operation.

That is talking about the cosmetics of the gun. You are saying that its appearance matters even if its functions are OK with you.

Can you provide a good reason to justify banning a gun that resembles a military assault weapon even when all of its functions meet with your approval? Or is this just an effort to violate people's rights for fun?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Or is this just an effort to violate people's rights for fun?

They are not people to progressives. Individual rights always take a back seat to what the MSM narrative says. Individual rights are their biggest enemy. Guns and their virtue signaling, using children, and reporting 0 stories about people saved by guns is just a start.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

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.

So we continue to leave the students and teachers defenseless. Good plan.

Quote:

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

No it isn't. It does nothing to address the actual issue, people with mental issues going on violent killing sprees.

What's the 2nd step, ban more guns until there are no legal guns? That's the plan isn't it? Start with baby steps and then build up steam for the big push?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

No, I proposed banning guns whose design is clearly modeled after military style assault weapons, even if the guns are set to be usable only in semiautomatic mode, since a kit, legal or illegal, can be obtained to convert it to automatic mode. And the more times I turn on the TV and see a bunch of cops around yet another school, the more I think it's not only a good idea, it's necessary.

Since all semi-auto rifles work the same, the only difference between what you want banned and any other gun, is due to it's looks. All semi-auto rifles work exactly the same, which is the same exact way a semi-auto hand gun works. By your own definition, you want to ban all semi-auto guns.

The action for my Ruger Ranch Rifle is modeled and works just like an M1-Garand, does that mean it should also make the ban list?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

I'm claiming that a rifle with a full auto mode cannot be fired accurately in full auto mode. Cop videos show the difference between pray-spray and taking well aimed shots, the guy taking aimed shots is always more effective.

Yep. That's what I asked you to confirm. We're in agreement.

A person taking aimed shots with an AR15 will likely be able to cause more death than a person with an M16 in fully automatic mode.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

A person taking aimed shots with an AR15 will likely be able to cause more death than a person with an M16 in fully automatic mode.

Someone taking aimed shots with any gun will cause more death then someone not taking aimed shots. It doesn't matter if it's an AR-15 or some other type of semi-auto hand gun or rifle.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I think the point being made is that it's impossible (near-impossible?) to take aimed shots with a rifle using the fully automatic mode...therefore making an AR15 more deadly than an M16 firing in full auto mode.

No one is arguing the strawman you built up.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know