Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

@InfraBlue,

I think I know what the disconnect is in a lot of this.

It all comes down to how a weapon is used. I have a weapon with many of the features that have commonly been described as an assault weapon. The only thing it has shot and will probably only ever shoot is targets. No matter how deadly it is or have evil it looks it will never be used to hunt or shoot people (Zombie apocalypse exception). There is no way I would consider it an assault rifle.

Now, you take a M1 Garand, which has none of the features of an assault rifle, can kill a bunch of people pretty quick. I would certainly consider an M1 Garand, while being used during a war to kill people an assault weapon.

So, MY gun, an evil black death machine will never kill a single person yet a lot of people think I shouldn't be allowed to own it. At the same time, a rifle that has been proven very effective at killing people gets a pass because it doesn't have certain features (bear in mind I do not own an M1, but would like to. I had a British Enfield for awhile).

I'd like to see society look more at fixing the causes of what drives people to do crazy **** than worrying about what they do the crazy **** with.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

It's the aggregate of those features that make up a rife such as an AR-15 or an AK-47.

Yes, you've already said that, lots of times. What you're being asked now is to explain your reasoning behind each one, or each one in combination with another. If you fail to offer some kind of reasoning behind your claims, then we're going to have to assume that it's all in your mind. And it appears that, once again, it is all in your mind.

Quote:

The validation is the reasoning, which takes place in the mind

Yes, you've said that, too, lots of times. But that validation takes place in your mind, and unfortunately for you, that claim is not valid outside of your mind.

The military uses rifles with a select-fire capability. They don't use semiautomatic AR-15s. This brings us back to your failure to explain your reasoning behind your claim that each feature, or each feature in combination with another feature, makes a rifle especially dangerous. Since we've already established that you can provide no proof of your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, let's move on to the barrel-shroud. Do you have anything to support your claim that a barrel-shroud makes a rifle especially dangerous?

Quote:

I'm sure it's inside of a lot of other people's minds.

Whether or not it's inside a lot of other people's minds is neither here not there concerning your failure to explain your reasoning behind your claim that a flash suppressor or a barrel-shroud or a combination of both makes a rifle especially dangerous. In this case you are appealing to the insides of unknown other people's minds.

You were better off appealing to an authority that exists because even though they provided no reason or explanation for their belief that a pistol-grip or flash suppressor or barrel-shroud or bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous, at least they exist outside of your mind.

Quote:

The back up is simple reasoning.

Which so far, is all in your mind. And we have your inability to produce any validation of your simple reasoning.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Admitting that I know very little about guns, although my son just got out of the army (11B) and is quite knowledgeable, so I have someone I can go to...

Let me ask three questions. My fear is that one or two people with a gun can kill dozens of people in a crowd before they are stopped.

1) I assume that there are some set of features that make some guns far more deadly than others. Here, deadly refers to the ability of someone to kill a large number of people in a short time. Do you agree that this is true?

2) If this is true, then we should be able to come up with a reasonable set of laws that would make more deadly guns illegal.

3) If this is true, then we should have the discussion about whether these laws are worth it given that some people want to have guns with more deadly features.

It seems that you are conflating questions #2 and #3.

The question of what features are more deadly is completely separate to whether said features should be regulated.

that are more deadly (i.e. able to kill a large amount of people in a short time) than others

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

All guns are dangerous. That is why rule #1 is "treat every gun as though it's loaded." A .22 can kill someone the same way a .50 does. The .50 just leaves a bigger hole. Let's not pretend that one gun is more or less dangerous than another, especially based on it's appearance.

It is not the feature that kills things, it's the ability to fire a piece of hot metal really fast. So...

1) You have set this up so there can only be one answer. 2 people each with 2 6 shot revolvers can kill a large number of people in a crowd. Especially if they provide cover for each other while using speed loaders to reload.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw (Granted, he is the fastest at what he does, but it seems that we want to use the exception rather than the rule.)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/11/was-it-difficult-for-the-fort-hood-shooter-to-fire-100-shots-in-seven-minutes.html Semi-Automatic pistol reload and fire rates...

2) Criminals commit crimes. They do illegal things like use illegal guns. 99.9% of gun owners do not do illegal things with their guns. I've said it before, I'll say it again. No law will stop a criminal committing an illegal act with an illegal weapon.

3) Laws that want to infringe on the rights of the people should have to face strict scrutiny before being enacted and not just willy nilly be thrown about just because your party controls govt (NY and Va).

Regulating features is stupid and pointless. Features don't kill people, people do. How about we ban people instead?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

It seems like you are saying that 6 shot revolvers are no more or less deadly than any other type of firearm... and that 2 people with 2 revolvers each can kill as many people as two people with any other type of weapon.

I am skeptical that this is the case, but if this is your belief I accept it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Who is using the guns? Schwarzenegger and Rambo can kill hundreds with an M-60. Clint Eastwood can kill 20 with 3 revolvers. A Stormtrooper can't kill anyone with a blaster.

The competency of the shooter is going to have more bearing on the lethality of a gun more than the gun itself.

If you have a robot in a closed environment shooting at people charging it in single file, yes, some guns will hold more bullets and require less reloading time and kill more people. But, a flash suppressor or bayonet lug or a pistol grip won't really effect that outcome.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

The competency of the shooter is going to have more bearing on the lethality of a gun more than the gun itself.

I am highly skeptical that this is true.

Are you really arguing that given two people with 20 hours or more of experience will be equally deadly if one as a 6 shot revolver and the other has an M4 carbine (the weapon my son trained on in the army)? I suspect there is a steep learning curve, I improve far more in my deadliness in the first 20 hours of training then I would in my second.

This claim that the weapon doesn't matter doesn't make logical sense.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
You're confused as to what my ideas are concerning flash suppressors.

Well then this would be a great time for you to clear that up for us. So do tell, what are your ideas concerning flash suppressors?

I most certainly will tell, thank you. They help reduce the flash created by carbine length rifle barrels, thereby reducing the occurance of flash blindness as well as helping conceal the direction of the fired rounds. Carbines are weapons developed and used for military purposes, especially for special-operations and paratroopers. AR-15's are generally carbine rifles, equivallent to their military issue counterparts save for selective fire.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Still with the games.

If this is about what is the cause of drunk drivers killing innocent people, all I did was ask you what the exact cause was. No game. Just asked a question.

Jeez, you are playing games, or you're having difficulty keeping up with your own arguments. You had said, "so you're all for drunk driving laws, but you don't agree that we should ban the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers," I asked "what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?" since "seeing as how this may be a case of a non sequitur fallacy on your part in regard to inconsistent reasoning."

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
. . . the mere fact that they're military weapons sans the selective fire does increase their danger factor.

Unbelievable! It is because they are incapable of select-fire that they are NOT military rifles; unless you are going to provide some proof that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. So why don't you tell us what your claim this time so we can promptly dismiss it.

The military does use semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic mode is one of the selective fire options. The military uses semiautomatic mode for most purposes.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

@oralloy,
Uh-huh.

@oralloy,
@oralloy,
Nuh-uh.

Let's keep this out of a third grade school room.

That's what oralloy's repetitive replies amount to.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Seriously?

Ask your son who he thinks is more lethal, A random US soldier or a random Al-Qaeda fighter...

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

He has expressed disdain for handguns in general. His attitude is that you only take a handgun if you don't expect to need it.

Funny thing that... he has recently left the army is about to enter police academy. We will see how that goes.

I will ask him next time I see him... but from previous conversations I don't if expert soldiers are facing Taliban fighters with AK-47s... an M4 is a lot better than a handgun (and a 6 shot revolver would be ridiculous).

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It's the aggregate of those features that make up a rife such as an AR-15 or an AK-47.

Yes, you've already said that, lots of times. What you're being asked now is to explain your reasoning behind each one, or each one in combination with another. If you fail to offer some kind of reasoning behind your claims, then we're going to have to assume that it's all in your mind. And it appears that, once again, it is all in your mind.

Quote:
The validation is the reasoning, which takes place in the mind

Yes, you've said that, too, lots of times. But that validation takes place in your mind, and unfortunately for you, that claim is not valid outside of your mind.

That's only your opinion, as I'm sure you believe your appeal to reason and logic is valid outside of your mind.

Glennn wrote:

The military uses rifles with a select-fire capability. They don't use semiautomatic AR-15s. This brings us back to your failure to explain your reasoning behind your claim that each feature, or each feature in combination with another feature, makes a rifle especially dangerous. Since we've already established that you can provide no proof of your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, let's move on to the barrel-shroud. Do you have anything to support your claim that a barrel-shroud makes a rifle especially dangerous?

That's not my claim.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I'm sure it's inside of a lot of other people's minds.

Whether or not it's inside a lot of other people's minds is neither here not there concerning your failure to explain your reasoning behind your claim that a flash suppressor or a barrel-shroud or a combination of both makes a rifle especially dangerous. In this case you are appealing to the insides of unknown other people's minds.

You were better off appealing to an authority that exists because even though they provided no reason or explanation for their belief that a pistol-grip or flash suppressor or barrel-shroud or bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous, at least they exist outside of your mind.

More percisely, it's an agreement with the reason and logic of that authority which is more credible than the authority you appeal to which is your own mental/emotional deficiency of your psychological fixation with assault weapons that leads you to obfuscate the issue with your ridiculous focus on gun features instead of the assault weapons themselves which you attempt to pass off as "reason and logic." No one but your fellow gun psychos buys it.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
The back up is simple reasoning.

Which so far, is all in your mind. And we have your inability to produce any validation of your simple reasoning.

It is what it is.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Talk about disconnect.

Vociferously condemning violent video games, Satan worship, broken families and the decline of Christian values isn't going to address the issue.

We need to ban these kinds of weapons as well as reduce the total number of available guns precisely because of the crazy **** people do with them. That's the reason why you shouldn't have neato evil black death machines to plink around with.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I hope he has a long, safe career.

I would take a US soldier with a M45A1 or an M9 over a Taliban with an AK. Everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

I chose the revolver on purpose. Did you watch the video I linked? Dude shot 16 rounds in 9.22 secs and hit his target every time...

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Talk about disconnect.

Vociferously condemning violent video games, Satan worship, broken families and the decline of Christian values isn't going to address the issue.

We need to ban these kinds of weapons as well as reduce the total number of available guns precisely because of the crazy **** people do with them. That's the reason why you shouldn't have neato evil black death machines to plink around with.

I appreciate your honesty. I was thinking more along the line of helping depressed people, ending the war on drugs, get poverty under control, treat mental illness as a disease instead of a choice. You know, stop the things that leads one to use a weapon in the commission of a crime.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Welcome back from the dark side.

Glennn has always been one of the good guys.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I'm contradicting you.

You also said that my statement was correct, so in contradicting me you are also contradicting yourself.

The only part of your post that was factually correct is the part that said "that's right" in reference to my post.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Everything that I've said is entirely true.

The fact that guns will always be available does seem relevant to the subject of curtailing their availability.

There is no confusion on my end. You were indeed referring to gun laws in the comment that I replied to. And you are indeed calling to outlaw guns that have various harmless features like flash suppressors.

I do doubt your claim that my conclusion was a non sequitur. What other reason would you have for wanting to prevent criminals from having guns other than wanting to reduce the frequency or severity of crime?

Your post was in fact incorrect. Gun availability does in fact have little impact on homicide rates.

Your claims do have no credibility when you fail to support them.

And human-hunting rifles always have a selective fire switch. Rifles without a selective fire switch are just ordinary hunting rifles.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The validation is the reasoning, which takes place in the mind, that figures that the military uses factorially dangerous weapons, of which the AR-15's only difference is the lack of selective fire.

The absence of selective fire means that these guns are no more dangerous than an ordinary hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

The back up is simple reasoning.

Your fact-free reasoning is leading you to fact-free conclusions.

1 Reply

Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know