Gun control debate (merged)

[kiddiedoc]

well maybe if I was a kid... but I'll take a vet over an MD any day. They gotta be able to cure a lizard, a chicken, a pig, a frog all on the same day.

My experience has been pretty negative taking care of bearded dragons, parakeets, and hamsters.

Kids are surprisingly resilient.

 

[volfanhill]

By this definition the shotgun I use during goose conservation season would be an assault weapon.

You are dealing with someone, who has zero clue what they are talking about, but thinks he has a valid opinion. He's an uneducated educator on this subject. And thinks he can dance around that fact. It's quite remarkable. Then I remember he has said it's not the teachers fault, that the people they elected to run their union, are scum bags. It's very silly.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I disagree.
That is clearly a defensive weapon

They are all defensive weapons.

 

[Orangeslice13]

They are all defensive weapons.

You’re wrong.
Some are for sports like target shooting

 

[0nelilreb]

Assault weapon:

View attachment 626810

Ok but you put that bad boy behind a wall or say in a pill box .. it becomes one hell of a defensive weapon .

 

[Orangeslice13]

So …..this morning there were back to back stories on the news. One was a lawmaker saying that guns for self defense against your government is an outdated concept. We’re a democracy. We don’t need to shoot. We vote. (1st we’re a representative republic but that’s a different topic) the next was a fear mongering political figure reminding us how close we came to losing the democracy on 1/6.

I sometimes wonder if they hear themselves when they speak.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Ok but you put that bad boy behind a wall or say in a pill box .. it becomes one hell of a defensive weapon .

Dual purpose.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I would guess a combination of many, with common sense being the leader.

The most common sense solution is to ban liberals, democrats from owning firearms. That would have the most immediate result.

 

[luthervol]

By this definition the shotgun I use during goose conservation season would be an assault weapon.

Then there may be another definition that would be better. That was intended to be the point of the discussion.
Some nut asked "what's the definition of an assault rifle" - I think he was attempting to be funny.

Simply to advance the conversation, I googled, copied, and pasted the first definition of "assault weapon" listed.
A few gun nuts went ballistic.
I responded, "feel free to post your own definition."

I believe only one poster was willing to do that. The one poster who asked the initial question was absolutely terrified to go on record with his own definition.
Why? I haven't a clue, nor do I care very much.

I just find it pretty funny, and telling, that this group of gun experts (nuts) can't even come up with an agreed upon definition of assault weapon.

 

[LouderVol]

At no point did I say anything about guns and child porn being comparable. You guys are nuts and can't read for sh!t.
I was responding to whoever had the "brilliant" observation that there was an inverse correlation between a person's gun knowledge and them being anti-gun. It's a stupid point, It's a childishly obvious point, and it means absolutely nothing. I highlighted that by comparing it to knowledge of child porn and being anti-child porn.

I hope to hell you guys can comprehend the difference; if not, it explains why these debates go nowhere -
and it ain't on me.

the point still doesn't make sense. to be anti-child porn you still have to understand what it is. granted the subject is implicit in the name. you don't have to have actually see/own child porn to know what it is.

what you are doing is seeing mom and dads taking family pictures at the mall with them all in matching, non birthday suit, outfits, and calling that child porn, and wondering why mom and dads everywhere are upset and fighting you.

 

[jp1]

Then there may be another definition that would be better. That was intended to be the point of the discussion.
Some nut asked "what's the definition of an assault rifle" - I think he was attempting to be funny.

Simply to advance the conversation, I googled, copied, and pasted the first definition of "assault weapon" listed.
A few gun nuts went ballistic.
I responded, "feel free to post your own definition."

I believe only one poster was willing to do that. The one poster who asked the initial question was absolutely terrified to go on record with his own definition.
Why? I haven't a clue, nor do I care very much.

I just find it pretty funny, and telling, that this group of gun experts (nuts) can't even come up with an agreed upon definition of assault weapon.

Do you also find it funny, and telling, when the term is used as a scare tactic by the people that are firearm illiterate, yet can't be defined by the ones using it?

 

[LouderVol]

Different policies would have different immediate desired results. All of them would ultimately be geared toward having a more sensible and safe gun culture in our country.

objects don't make the culture though. people do. and that is the one aspect you refuse to deal with.

 

[luthervol]

the point still doesn't make sense. to be anti-child porn you still have to understand what it is. granted the subject is implicit in the name. you don't have to have actually see/own child porn to know what it is.

what you are doing is seeing mom and dads taking family pictures at the mall with them all in matching, non birthday suit, outfits, and calling that child porn, and wondering why mom and dads everywhere are upset and fighting you.

Maybe the worst analogy ever.

 

[luthervol]

Do you also find it funny, and telling, when the term is used as a scare tactic by the people that are firearm illiterate, yet can't be defined by the ones using it?

Not really. I'm thinking the nutty experts should define it and then be able to defend their definition.

 

[luthervol]

objects don't make the culture though. people do. and that is the one aspect you refuse to deal with.

Completely untrue.
I have numerous proposals for dealing with the "people" side of the equation.
But in this thread, my focus is on the "gun" side of the equation.

 

[LouderVol]

OK, so FYI: that stupid definition basically deems most modern guns as "assault weapons."

If SHTF or someone is breaking into my house, I'd rather not rely on a WW1 relic for protection. Did you ask your friendly neighbor if he likes your criteria? I think you should.

oh the 1911 fan bois are going to mad at that statement.

I would take a Maxim every day of the week. a winchester 1897, with or without bayonet, too.

 

[McDad]

They are all defensive weapons.

You're on to something, here.
In the phrase assault weapon, assault is an adjective describing or modifying weapon. Since the weapon isnt in the act of assaulting, isnt capable of assaulting on it's own, and wasn't created for the purpose of assaulting, then the adjective is subjective.
Therefore the adjective can be anything you want it to be. It's like saying something is beautiful. It may be to some. But it may be ugly to others. So all your weapons could be defensive weapons. You could also have collector weapons, investment weapons, rare weapons, hunting weapons, practice weapons and such.
Your weapons which are not being actively used should be idle weapons or dormant weapons.

 

[LouderVol]

Maybe the worst analogy ever.

its really not. the definition you provided labeled at least 90% of weapons made today for civilian purchase as assault weapons. the pistols cops carry are assault weapons. guns made as far back as the 1870s would be assault weapons. you think you are wanting to ban the exceptional guns, but you are wanting to ban most things out there.

you say its simple, but then still somehow get it incredibly incredibly wrong. its why we can't take you seriously.

 

[Grand Vol]

OK, so FYI: that stupid definition basically deems most modern guns as "assault weapons."

If SHTF or someone is breaking into my house, I'd rather not rely on a WW1 relic for protection. Did you ask your friendly neighbor if he likes your criteria? I think you should.

I'm not sure all WWI weapons should be discounted...

I mean, Louder nailed it with the 1911 comment. And let's face it, an M12 would work just fine in an HD role. Add the bayonet for psychological effect.

 

[luthervol]

its really not. the definition you provided labeled at least 90% of weapons made today for civilian purchase as assault weapons. the pistols cops carry are assault weapons. guns made as far back as the 1870s would be assault weapons. you think you are wanting to ban the exceptional guns, but you are wanting to ban most things out there.

you say its simple, but then still somehow get it incredibly incredibly wrong. its why we can't take you seriously.

Then it was a bad definition.
Are you still not getting the whole point of this part of the conversation.
Someone asked........probably rhetorically
I answered by google, copy, paste....I didn't care what that particular definition was. I didn't read it and try to determine if it was a good definition or a horrible one.......that wasn't the point.

If it's horrible - fine, then the collective gun geniuses (nuts) in this thread should certainly be able to come up with an agreed upon definition. And then we can go from there.

The fact that the posters here seem terrified by that is interesting....to say the least.

 

[hog88]

Not really. I'm thinking the nutty experts should define it and then be able to defend their definition.

An assault weapon is any inanimate object used to assault someone. So using the term in a discussion on gun control is asinine.

 

[luthervol]

An assault weapon is any inanimate object used to assault someone. So using the term in a discussion on gun control is asinine.

Now there's a good starting point. Thanks.

See guys, it isn't that difficult.....step up like Hogg

So the law should be to ban any assault weapon designed with a primary purpose to assault.

Which eliminates things like rocks, hammers, cars, and most knives......and many guns.

Now we're cookin'

 

[hog88]

Now there's a good starting point. Thanks.

See guys, it isn't that difficult.....step up like Hogg

So the law should be to ban any assault weapon designed with a primary purpose to assault.

Which eliminates things like rocks, hammers, cars, and most knives......and many guns.

Now we're cookin'

Ok, what weapons would fit in that category?

 

[hndog609]

You're on to something, here.
In the phrase assault weapon, assault is an adjective describing or modifying weapon. Since the weapon isnt in the act of assaulting, isnt capable of assaulting on it's own, and wasn't created for the purpose of assaulting, then the adjective is subjective.
Therefore the adjective can be anything you want it to be. It's like saying something is beautiful. It may be to some. But it may be ugly to others. So all your weapons could be defensive weapons. You could also have collector weapons, investment weapons, rare weapons, hunting weapons, practice weapons and such.
Your weapons which are not being actively used should be idle weapons or dormant weapons.

Anything inanimate is nothing more than how it is used. An f'ing pencil could be used to sneak up and stab someone in the neck or shoved in the eye of an attacker. It's all context.

 

[hndog609]

Ok, what weapons would fit in that category?

Well played. He actually thinks that's something that helped him. Have fun with his attempting to answer that question.