Firearms

[Symmetry]

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that there is currently a bill in Congress or a proposed bill banning the use of an assault rifle on an airplane? Is that what Senator Feinstein was talking about?

Ah, you're back to your beef with Feinstein. I thought we fairly covered that. If your objection is to what you consider her hidden motives, perhaps start a thread. I would be interested in finding out what got you so pissed off about her.

If we're still talking about gun control, then that's an example of gun control that I support, and that makes me think that people who say they hate gun control are pretty idiotic.

I was under the impression that the debat about gun control was about proposed laws that did not yet exist that may propose to deal with, for example, the murders that happened in D.C. last week. That seems to be what this thread (and I think every other thread in this forum about gun control) is about. To rehash (for the third time here) I'm concerned that Senator Feinstein and her ilk are not concerned with gun violence given their lack of proposing effective laws. If there are effective laws that they are proposing, please let's hear about them. And I'm concerned about gun advocates and their lik who are conerned with gun control proposals that aren't actually banning guns. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I guess you're talking about gun control laws that already exist; maybe you should start a thread on that to see how many folks agree that the current ban on automatic rifles on airplanes is appropriate or not. Maybe see if you can start a thread on the constitutionality of a ban on tanks too.

Do you support gun control or don't you?

I support effective gun control. It has not yet been proposed by gun control advocates who prefer to preen and get re-elected than support effective gun control.

There, two sentences. Hope it helps.

It does, you are a gun control advocate. Remember it next time some idiot says they're against gun control. The debate is about the nature of gun control, not whether it should exist.

[thegreekdog]

It does, you are a gun control advocate. Remember it next time some idiot says they're against gun control. The debate is about the nature of gun control, not whether it should exist.

You could have said that five posts ago: Everyone is a gun control advocate.

I was using the term "gun control advocate" as most people in the United States (if not all of them) use the term. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Symmetry]

It does, you are a gun control advocate. Remember it next time some idiot says they're against gun control. The debate is about the nature of gun control, not whether it should exist.

You could have said that five posts ago: Everyone is a gun control advocate.

I was using the term "gun control advocate" as most people in the United States (if not all of them) use the term. I don't think that's unreasonable.

So you were using the term illogically, against your personal views?

Dude, it's tough to argue against lawyers sometimes, you agree with me and still have the balls to say that I'm wrong even after I persuade you.

Will you still carry on with the sad little argument that when you say "gun control" you're talkin' American?

[thegreekdog]

It does, you are a gun control advocate. Remember it next time some idiot says they're against gun control. The debate is about the nature of gun control, not whether it should exist.

You could have said that five posts ago: Everyone is a gun control advocate.

I was using the term "gun control advocate" as most people in the United States (if not all of them) use the term. I don't think that's unreasonable.

So you were using the term illogically, against your personal views?

Dude, it's tough to argue against lawyers sometimes, you agree with me and still have the balls to say that I'm wrong even after I persuade you.

Will you still carry on with the sad little argument that when you say "gun control" you're talkin' American?

I've never heard this line of argument used in a gun control debate before. I wonder how that would work.

Moderator: Good evening. Senator Smith, you can begin.
Senator Smith: I am a gun control advocate. We need to have stricter gun control.
Senator Jones: I am a gun rights advocate. We need to have less gun control.
Senator Smith: Senator Jones, do you believe that you should be able to carry an AR-15 on an airplane?
Senator Jones: Of course not, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Then you're a gun control advocate. End the debate now!
Moderator: That was the fourth installment in our gun control debate. Stay tuned for our next debate.

If you don't want to have a discussion about the politics behind gun control Symm, and would prefer to engage in a reparte about the use of the term "gun control advocate," do it in another thread please. But yeah, I'm talking about American gun control and "gun control advocate" meaning a person who would like additional/more gun control. Perhaps you could frame your next post within that context (a context, I should mention, that no other poster in this thread or any other, has had trouble understanding without an explanation).

[Symmetry]

It does, you are a gun control advocate. Remember it next time some idiot says they're against gun control. The debate is about the nature of gun control, not whether it should exist.

You could have said that five posts ago: Everyone is a gun control advocate.

I was using the term "gun control advocate" as most people in the United States (if not all of them) use the term. I don't think that's unreasonable.

So you were using the term illogically, against your personal views?

Dude, it's tough to argue against lawyers sometimes, you agree with me and still have the balls to say that I'm wrong even after I persuade you.

Will you still carry on with the sad little argument that when you say "gun control" you're talkin' American?

I've never heard this line of argument used in a gun control debate before. I wonder how that would work.

Moderator: Good evening. Senator Smith, you can begin.
Senator Smith: I am a gun control advocate. We need to have stricter gun control.
Senator Jones: I am a gun rights advocate. We need to have less gun control.
Senator Smith: Senator Jones, do you believe that you should be able to carry an AR-15 on an airplane?
Senator Jones: Of course not, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Then you're a gun control advocate. End the debate now!
Moderator: That was the fourth installment in our gun control debate. Stay tuned for our next debate.

If you don't want to have a discussion about the politics behind gun control Symm, and would prefer to engage in a reparte about the use of the term "gun control advocate," do it in another thread please. But yeah, I'm talking about American gun control and "gun control advocate" meaning a person who would like additional/more gun control. Perhaps you could frame your next post within that context (a context, I should mention, that no other poster in this thread or any other, has had trouble understanding without an explanation).

Of course you've never heard that kind of debate. You've bought into the use of the term "gun control", and never felt it should be questioned. Your annoyance that I, coming from a culture where that use is not the norm, is understandable.

Of course, your theoretical breaks down at the "end the debate now" point, where I see it as precisely the point where it should begin. The removal of the idiotic "I don't agree with gun control" argument, to the point where a sensible discussion over what gun control should be in place can occur.

[thegreekdog]

I refer you to the first page, indeed the first post, of this very thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss gun control in the United States.

I'm proud of you that you've come up with an alternative argument to the American gun control debate in what is likely your hundreth post in such a thread in this forum. It only took you a few years to do it! I think you should let CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress know about this intriguing new argument so that we can finally have a real discussion.

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you want to mince words some more?

[Symmetry]

I refer you to the first page, indeed the first post, of this very thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss gun control in the United States.

I'm proud of you that you've come up with an alternative argument to the American gun control debate in what is likely your hundreth post in such a thread in this forum. It only took you a few years to do it! I think you should let CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress know about this intriguing new argument so that we can finally have a real discussion.

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you want to mince words some more?

I will always appreciate a little Greek love when it comes to mincing. Are you ok to call yourself a proponent of gun control when it comes to talking to people who don't fully buy into rightist rhetoric?

[thegreekdog]

I refer you to the first page, indeed the first post, of this very thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss gun control in the United States.

I'm proud of you that you've come up with an alternative argument to the American gun control debate in what is likely your hundreth post in such a thread in this forum. It only took you a few years to do it! I think you should let CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress know about this intriguing new argument so that we can finally have a real discussion.

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you want to mince words some more?

I will always appreciate a little Greek love when it comes to mincing. Are you ok to call yourself a proponent of gun control when it comes to talking to people who don't fully buy into rightist rhetoric?

I don't know what any terms mean anymore when I'm discussing with you.

In addition to CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress, you may want to contact Wikipedia on their use of "gun control advocate." If you want, I can proofread your letters to those fine organizations.

[Symmetry]

I refer you to the first page, indeed the first post, of this very thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss gun control in the United States.

I'm proud of you that you've come up with an alternative argument to the American gun control debate in what is likely your hundreth post in such a thread in this forum. It only took you a few years to do it! I think you should let CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress know about this intriguing new argument so that we can finally have a real discussion.

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you want to mince words some more?

I will always appreciate a little Greek love when it comes to mincing. Are you ok to call yourself a proponent of gun control when it comes to talking to people who don't fully buy into rightist rhetoric?

I don't know what any terms mean anymore when I'm discussing with you.

In addition to CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress, you may want to contact Wikipedia on their use of "gun control advocate." If you want, I can proofread your letters to those fine organizations.

I'm not sure what you think would be the point of me contacting those organizations. Would it help you to talk to me on a reasonable basis other than "OMG- he's totes from another culture and is asking me to think about the way the debate has been phrased within my own."

[thegreekdog]

I refer you to the first page, indeed the first post, of this very thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss gun control in the United States.

I'm proud of you that you've come up with an alternative argument to the American gun control debate in what is likely your hundreth post in such a thread in this forum. It only took you a few years to do it! I think you should let CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress know about this intriguing new argument so that we can finally have a real discussion.

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you want to mince words some more?

I will always appreciate a little Greek love when it comes to mincing. Are you ok to call yourself a proponent of gun control when it comes to talking to people who don't fully buy into rightist rhetoric?

I don't know what any terms mean anymore when I'm discussing with you.

In addition to CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress, you may want to contact Wikipedia on their use of "gun control advocate." If you want, I can proofread your letters to those fine organizations.

I'm not sure what you think would be the point of me contacting those organizations. Would it help you to talk to me on a reasonable basis other than "OMG- he's totes from another culture and is asking me to think about the way the debate has been phrased within my own."

I think my reaction was more - "OMG - he's totes purposefully taking the argument in a different direction because he likes to f*ck with me."

[Symmetry]

I refer you to the first page, indeed the first post, of this very thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss gun control in the United States.

I'm proud of you that you've come up with an alternative argument to the American gun control debate in what is likely your hundreth post in such a thread in this forum. It only took you a few years to do it! I think you should let CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress know about this intriguing new argument so that we can finally have a real discussion.

Do you have anything constructive to add, or do you want to mince words some more?

I will always appreciate a little Greek love when it comes to mincing. Are you ok to call yourself a proponent of gun control when it comes to talking to people who don't fully buy into rightist rhetoric?

I don't know what any terms mean anymore when I'm discussing with you.

In addition to CNN, CSNBC, Fox, and Congress, you may want to contact Wikipedia on their use of "gun control advocate." If you want, I can proofread your letters to those fine organizations.

I'm not sure what you think would be the point of me contacting those organizations. Would it help you to talk to me on a reasonable basis other than "OMG- he's totes from another culture and is asking me to think about the way the debate has been phrased within my own."

I think my reaction was more - "OMG - he's totes purposefully taking the argument in a different direction because he likes to f*ck with me."

Which direction would I be taking it in other than the, hey you should probably think about the way you employ the term "gun control" direction?

[thegreekdog]

Which direction would I be taking it in other than the, hey you should probably think about the way you employ the term "gun control" direction?

Why would I think you would take it in that direction (or, more importantly, why would you take it in that direction) when:

(1) You've never taken it in that direction in any other thread on gun control in this forum; and
(2) No one else uses the term they way you've defined it.

[patrickaa317]

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Fallen behind on this thread so I apologize if I'm missing a bunch of context but it sounds like it's not the guns alone that scare you, it's more the culture and crime of the city of Philadelphia. Wouldn't it be better to try to decrease the crime and culture rather than the tool used? Where is BBS to discuss markets and substitutes.

Why would you want to ruin my right/privilege of owning or buying a handgun because you live in a city where you are afraid of them?

Yes to your first one. Because I don't care about you (no offense intended) to the second one.

It's amazing to see how quick you are to throw out other people's rights, especially seeing as you admit yourself you are more concerned about culture than guns. I guess that's how the entire populace is today, "What benefits me the best regardless what it does to the rest of society?" That's how we end up with every subsidy under the sun, a majority of population getting a piece of the government pie, etc.

For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore the theory that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a collective right (I believe it is a collective right). So let's assume it's an individual right. There are two separate and distinct lines of thought. The first is a "theoretical" line of thought. The second is a "realistic" line of thought. Let's discuss the realistic line of thought first.

Real World

In the real world (one inhabited by politicians), current gun control proposals do little in the way of actually banning guns or taking away any individual rights to own firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban (under the Clinton administration) did little actual gun-banning; rather, it limited how certain firearms looked. I could not find any studies indicating the effectiveness of the Assault Weapons Ban on curbing gun deaths; similarly, the Assault Weapons Ban did not affect handguns, which are by far the highest-used weapon in homicides in the United States. So, from a "gun control advocate" perspective, the current, past, and proposed gun control laws have little to no effect on gun violence.

From a gun advocate perspective, the current, past and proposed gun control laws (federal) also have little effect on gun ownership. As a gun advocate (or gun rights advocate), your argument is that a law infringes upon your 2nd amendment rights because you can no longer have a scope and a longer grip; that seems silly to me.

Basically, I don't get the hysterical nature of the argument from a practical perspective. Gun control advocates in Congress are not offering any real solutions to gun violence since they don't affect guns used in gun violence (handguns). Gun advocates in Congress are fighting these "non-solutions" tooth and nail even though they don't actually prohibit any kind of gun ownership. My conclusion is, therefore, that gun control advocates (like Senator Feinstein) and gun advocates are using the gun control debate as political clout. These politicians would like this issue to never go away, otherwise they lose their hot button topic and therefore lose relevance.

Theoretical World

In theory, I'm in favor of complete and total removal of all guns in the United States, including government ownership of guns with the exception of the military (for defense purposes only). Obviously, I would prefer that the criminal culture in the United States change before removing guns, but guns are effective in what they do (one can kill more people with a gun than with a knife) and removing them would affect violent crime in a positive way.

Ultimately, the theoretical world is theoretical and I expect that guns will never be banned on a national level in the United States, so it's a moot point.

My World

The third item, which I did not list above, is what happens in thegreekdog's world. In my world, gun violence is a concern mostly for selfish reasons. I don't want to be killed by a gun in Philadelphia walking to work. It is not so concerning that I've quit my job or requested a transfer or carry a gun myself, and I'm not stupid enough to think banning guns in Philadelphia would mean criminals wouldn't get guns easily from another jurisdiction and bring them to Philadelphia.

I would argue that it is an individual right so glad you are switching your viewpoint for discussion.

It seems silly that you cannot own a longer scope, larger magazine, or longer grip. Not sure how any of that benefits any type of control (where is BBS on market substitutes?). I would agree with you on your political clout thought but with the given overwhelming support in favor of less gun control, most politicians do not dare touch gun control. Feinstein would be setting up her fellow democrats in other western states for huge defeats if she pulled the political card on them.

Agreed on theoretical conclusion. It's all hypothetical and theoretical, thus no need to debate it.

Not sure what your point is on your world, other than you are slightly concerned but more complacent with how things stand today; yet you seem quite passionate in some of your posts which show that you aren't as complacent as you seem to want to be.

[thegreekdog]

It seems silly that you cannot own a longer scope, larger magazine, or longer grip. Not sure how any of that benefits any type of control (where is BBS on market substitutes?).

Yes, that is exactly my point. There is (likely) no tangible benefit to banning longer scopes, larger magazines, or longer grips. Similarly, there is no violation of rights for banning longre scopes, larger magazines, or longer grips; you can still own and use those same weapons. The argument is worthless; it's politicians trying to get re-elected and get money (no matter what side they are on).

Not sure what your point is on your world, other than you are slightly concerned but more complacent with how things stand today; yet you seem quite passionate in some of your posts which show that you aren't as complacent as you seem to want to be.

I will argue/discuss any issue passionately. That's just a thing (maybe a lawyer thing, I don't know). Ultimately, I don't make voting choices based on who wants to ban guns and who wants to keep guns, which essentially means I'm complacent.

[patrickaa317]

It seems silly that you cannot own a longer scope, larger magazine, or longer grip. Not sure how any of that benefits any type of control (where is BBS on market substitutes?).

Yes, that is exactly my point. There is (likely) no tangible benefit to banning longer scopes, larger magazines, or longer grips. Similarly, there is no violation of rights for banning longre scopes, larger magazines, or longer grips; you can still own and use those same weapons. The argument is worthless; it's politicians trying to get re-elected and get money (no matter what side they are on).

Not sure what your point is on your world, other than you are slightly concerned but more complacent with how things stand today; yet you seem quite passionate in some of your posts which show that you aren't as complacent as you seem to want to be.

I will argue/discuss any issue passionately. That's just a thing (maybe a lawyer thing, I don't know). Ultimately, I don't make voting choices based on who wants to ban guns and who wants to keep guns, which essentially means I'm complacent.

There may be direct violation of rights by banning those things but if they have no benefit and with enough similar bannings (i.e possible eventual ban on all scopes, any magazines over 3 rounds, etc.) could render some of our guns almost useless.