McGentrix wrote:So, depending on the issue... sometimes experience is more important and in others knowledge, right?
Ultimately it all boils down to knowledge.
Experience is worthless if it imparts neither knowledge or perspective.
Of course, I can't imagine knowledgeless experience. My point is that it comes down to the same thing, just different types of knowledge.
Then it is perfectly acceptable to be knowledgeable without experience as well as experienced with out knowledge.
I am just thinking back to Bi-Polar bear's incessant requirement that only those that have served in the military were qualified to speak about the war. I wanted to point out this fallacy and I was not sure if it was an appeal to authority or experience or what. I feel this has cleared it up for me.
I still wouldn't take anyone elses point of view that hasn't been in the sandbox. They are the only ones that truely know what is going on over there. And yes I am including some of the reporters and not just the military and civilians with them.
Guns are not Glorified by television and movies, they are sensationalized. The last time a fully automatic machine gun was used in perpetration of a crime was in 1988 (before the assault weapons ban) when Roger Waller killed a police informant with a Mac10. Roger Waller was a cop.
McGentrix wrote:Then it is perfectly acceptable to be knowledgeable without experience as well as experienced with out knowledge.
That's not really what I said. I don't really think it's possible to derive no knowledge at all from an experience. That being said, the knowledge one derives from experience is not necessarily something that lends to them a status of authority on the subject.
Quote:...only those that have served in the military were qualified to speak about the war.
That is a fallacious appeal to authority in most cases. Being in the military doesn't really provide any special authority on the validity of a war. It can also introduce a bias in terms of tending to favor military solutions.
saintsfanbrian wrote:The last time a fully automatic machine gun was used in perpetration of a crime was in 1988 (before the assault weapons ban) when Roger Waller killed a police informant with a Mac10. Roger Waller was a cop.
This is a false claim. What you propably meant to say was "a
legally owned fully automatic machine gun".
Other
illegally owned ones
have been used in crimes.
Thing is, that stat is very misused. The fact that few illegal ones are used says as much about the scarcity of legal ones as anything else.
You are correct I did mean LEGALLY OWNED.
And the AWB does nothing to stop this. No ban on firearms will stop people from using them in crimes. Because criminals do not obey laws in the first place.
The bans aren't intended to rely on criminals obeying the law but rather to deny them the gun itself.
When law abiding citizens obey the law the criminals can be denied the access.
Weapons manufacturers generally follow the laws and because of the severity of the restriction on automatic weapons the illegal market for them is nearly insignificant.
AWB has done reasonably well in this regard. Criminals are being prevented from obtaining the weapons altogether and we do not have to rely on them obeying the law, because the obedience of others is successfully starving that market.
But the AWB is only a cosmetic law. Nothing in it prevents the gun from being used in its intended purchase. It can carry a magazine greater than 10 rounds, a folding stock, a flash supressor. How do any of those things prevent people from using a gun in the commission of a crime?
The AWB hasn't kept criminals from getting anything.
Craven de Kere wrote:That's not really what I said. I don't really think it's possible to derive no knowledge at all from an experience. That being said, the knowledge one derives from experience is not necessarily something that lends to them a status of authority on the subject.
Ever seen "Finding Nemo"?
The AWB as it exists now is a joke. Hey, I'm not going to choose a semi-auto AK-47 for deer hunting, but if that is what you happen to have, or want to hunt with, and you're a law abiding citizen, why not?
They're trying to ban .50 caliber weapons now simply because they think they're too powerful. Guess what the most popular muzzle loader caliber happens to be? That's right, muzzle loaders would become banned AW's. I'm trying not to laugh because I'm being dead serious here.
Thank you for being reasonable cjhsa. Most people think that just because of the looks of the weapon it is more dangerous.
There is a classic picture of Diane Feinstein holding an AK47 with a drum magazine on it. She is in a crowded room and holding it up for the camera. Guess what. She has her finger on the trigger.
You want to know proper gun control - the finger doesn't touch the trigger until you are ready to fire. Know your background.
Lets see if this thread gets locked.
In the Yellowbellies thread there were comments made about the majority of the people on this board not liking republicans or in general bashing the president and other people that don't agree with them. That thread got locked
I started a thread asking why it got locked, and that one got deleted. I started a new thread stating that I had been censored and you bet it, it got deleted too. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for the free expression of ideas. I guess I was wrong.
Craven de Kere wrote:The bans aren't intended to rely on criminals obeying the law but rather to deny them the gun itself.
When law abiding citizens obey the law the criminals can be denied the access.
Four words:
CRIMINALS DON'T BUY RETAIL
Just because a reputable gun store won't sell guns to a criminal doesn't mean the criminal cannot buy a gun somewhere. The AWB has no effect on this.
saintsfanbrian wrote:Lets see if this thread gets locked.
In the Yellowbellies thread there were comments made about the majority of the people on this board not liking republicans or in general bashing the president and other people that don't agree with them. That thread got locked
I started a thread asking why it got locked, and that one got deleted. I started a new thread stating that I had been censored and you bet it, it got deleted too. I thought this was supposed to be a forum for the free expression of ideas. I guess I was wrong.
This is a moderatoed forum. Just today dozens of messages (mostly pyramid schemes) were removed. It's a CENSORED board.
Your messages about moderation will always be removed. You should direct your questions about moderation to the moderator account as any questions posted on the board will simply be removed.
Tarantulas,
I know that criminals do not buy retail. The thing is, if nobody else does either they have no source anyway.
Banning the fully automatic weapons from the law abiding citizens has helped keep them out of the hands of criminals.
Yes, the AWB does have an effect on this. It has starved the illicit market.
saintsfanbrian wrote:Lets see if this thread gets locked.
[...]
I thought this was supposed to be a forum for the free expression of ideas. I guess I was wrong.
Well, when you subscribed here, you signed for the 'rules' aka
Terms of use. Some knowledge of written English is expected here.
Would it not be nice of a moderator to send a message to the offending person and let them know?
It would be nice. It is not viable.
Nothing is as easy as for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.
Everyone seems to want a personalized notice for everything, what they neglect to realize is that they don't pay a cent to use the service and that those whose time they are requesting volunteer their time. As it stands we provide faster, better and more personalized support than many commercial services do. Wanting more is, IMO, unreasonable.
There's simply not enough time in the day for a personalized notice for each moderator action.
I hope you don't get my thread locked too.
Actually fully automatic weapons were already illegal prior to the AWB.
I know that fully automatic weapons were illegal prior to the AWB. I beleive it was in the 30's or 40's wasn't it that the ban was passed?
