So what are you saying they are talking about?
What do they sell here?I don't mind "clip" but when they start talking about "silencers" it is annoying since there is no such thing outside of hollywood.
I'm saying technical terms matter. Take for instance, under Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban the only gun I have that would have been banned is a Ruger .22 which is the least lethal gun I own.
To me it weakens the arguments from people who are advocating for changes in gun laws but haven't spent 5 or 10 minutes watching any one of dozens (maybe 100's) of youtube videos explaining the differences in the types of weapons available.
That was one example. What are you saying everyone else is talking about?
Honestly its weird that this is the alleged holdup.
I have no idea never been to that store. Noise cancelling earplugs for a good night sleep, sound proofing insulation, or maybe an accessory for an AR15 that lowers the sound of the gunshot to that of a rock concert (you know silent like in the movies).So what are you saying they are talking about?
What do they sell here?
Is it really your position that the most effective way to "sell" gun control is to be completely ignorant about guns?
Just to clarify my position, I'm not really against gun control measures. I just think instead of "I'm pro 2nd ammendment but I don't like this gun and I don't like that gun", we should be going to the source and talking about changing or eliminating the 2nd amendment since the founders intent no longer applies. Until then "shall not be infringed". Actually, I think I went through this specifically with spurraider21 once so it's funny he thinks I want to fight our military.
They call them silencers.
I assume they know things about guns. I don't see a huge advantage in calling them suppressors tbh. they work as well as they work.
What should we call assault style weapons outside of specific legislation?Is it really your position that the most effective way to "sell" gun control is to be completely ignorant about guns?
My issue with "assault weapon" is that it requires definition at all. It's a made up term. Better just to attempt a semiauto rifle/carbine ban. That way magazine size, caliber, barrel length/shroud, stock, grips, and all this other arbitrary stuff doesn't matter. If you're going to do something, do it.
Last edited by Xevious; 09-03-2019 at 04:28 AM.
Context matters. A shop calling them silencers is fine, they are trying to sell them. Anti gun people are trying to ban them because they think they work like the one's in the movies. They don't, it makes them sound ignorant.
You should be talking about "style" at all. Why ban the "assault style" but not the "ranch style"
Same gun same capability but I guess one looks scarier to some people.
But everyone knows what they're talking about. Not that big a deal tbh.
What's the difference and what should we call them all?You should be talking about "style" at all. Why ban the "assault style" but not the "ranch style"
Same gun same capability but I guess one looks scarier to some people.
gun nuts love turning these arguments into a gun trivia measuring contest as some weird ad hominem argument.
”You don’t know the difference between a silencer and suppressor, therefore your opinion means NOTHING”
Every gun owner knows they are talking about fiction they got from hollywood. If the goal is to persuade gun owners to their position they should try not to sound ignorant.
There is no difference. Just call them what they are semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines or make up a term that means exactly that, perhaps high capacity firearm. Then reduce the focus to the magazine capacity, which is what matters, and maybe something will get passed. Focusing on semi automatic like spurraider wants is just telling a whole bunch of hunters, ranchers, farmers that we gonna take your guns too.
We also really need to focus on the root cause of these mass shootings and it isn't mental health. There have always been crazy loser white boys and there always will be, not much you can do about it. Problem is they just don't have the work ethic of previous generations so they go for the quick fix of a mass shooting. Back in my day, loser white boys were just as crazy but they put in the time, effort, and planning to become successful serial killers. You just don't see that kind of dedication & effort these days.
Your side taught our side how to (ad hominem)...you just don't like taking it, only dishing it. We learned all our from your side during the decades of Bush/Clinton/Hussein.
”You don’t know the difference between a silencer and suppressor, therefore your opinion means NOTHING”
We were (((supposed))) to be able to dish it, yes, during the Bush 1&2 years, but, it turns out they were both, father&son in bed with Clinton/Hussein/Media the whole in' time & we missed out on that 12 years to ya's good & proper.
Damn ya's!!!
ok.
how about assault weapon
Philo comes in again with a strawman, takes a few statements out of context and then abandons the conversation.
It's a recycled shtick that needs to be retired already. There are only like 6 people here using it.
DMC looking to discuss anything, ANYTHING but the substantive subject matter
It's a recycled shtick that needs to be retired already.
....
and there's no strawman. the guy argues for the exact position in the same posts wherein he denies holding that position. he claims he doesnt think bans would be futile, but fully believes that everybody who wants a gun will illegally get one anyway.
It's like saying locking your doors will not stop someone from getting into your house if they really want to. Common sense people know what he's saying. People looking for a narrative to grow a rebuttal to a strawman will see that as an opportunity to do just that. That's you in a nuts , Philo, you 2 cent lawyerDMC looking to discuss anything, ANYTHING but the substantive subject matter
It's a recycled shtick that needs to be retired already.
....
and there's no strawman. the guy argues for the exact position in the same posts wherein he denies holding that position. he claims he doesnt think bans would be futile, but fully believes that everybody who wants a gun will illegally get one anyway.
so why do people lock their doors? to stop someone from getting into your house who doesn't really want to?It's like saying locking your doors will not stop someone from getting into your house if they really want to. Common sense people know what he's saying. People looking for a narrative to grow a rebuttal to a strawman will see that as an opportunity to do just that. That's you in a nuts , Philo, you 2 cent lawyer
Keeping honest people honest. Otherwise your bank would have a master lock on the vault instead of that behemoth ing thing.
Homes get broken into all the time, windows break easily. You lock your door so people don't just walk in unannounced, especially inlaws.
If liquor is outlawed, honest people won't risk it to partake because they are honest, but the US is run by people who capitalized on the scarcity of alcohol during prohibition. There's a reason it was repealed.
do you lock your doors when you leave your home with the intention of preventing inlaws from walking in unannounced? nobody is claiming that deterrents/laws are 100% effective, and criminals will always exist. but they are still an effective means of curtailing the targeted behavior. prohibition led to a marked decrease in alcohol consumption. prohibition led to all sorts of issues including the rise of organized crime. that's been acknowledged and discussed in this thread. i'm also not concerned that in the modern day, that problem would be duplicated.
the comparison is also not great. alcohol is recreational and a routine/repeat purchase. people may want to drink daily. people aren't going to buy guns at the same right they buy drinks. limiting alcohol consumption figures to be much more difficult than limiting gun sales.
prohibition wasn't unpopular because it was ineffective with respect to decreasing alcohol consumption
DMC painted himself into a corner so it was either walk back across the paint or come up with a ridiculous answer.
Murder is already pretty damn illegal.
what good does it do? murderers are going to murder anyway
Sadly true. There really is nothing we can do to stop it. Humans have been killing each other since they were using rocks and sticks.
yup. repeal all laws. there's no point in wasting money enforcing them.
And they could just use minivans instead of guns
Because honest people be honest
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
