Burn-E Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Commander Riker said: What this leads to is those who want to talk about gun control limits going to confiscation ultimately, which I'm completely against. So you can confiscate weapons all you want... but someone will figure out how to do what Timothy McVeigh did, and build a truck bomb. He killed 168 people in seconds. And herein lies the problem in a single sentence. Gun control ≠ confiscation. But the NRA has spent MILLIONS impressing upon every single mind that is willing to listen that once you put in some limits the slippery slope awaits. And as a result we continue to step in the gory mess of bloody shootings that are the natural outcome of the gun craze that has overtaken America. We're not preserving history. The reality in history is that people rarely fired their guns. And especially not at others. Certainly not the rugged cowboy nor the struggling farmer nor the celebrated trapper. We've so romanticized this expectation through Hollywood fiction that no one knows what reality is any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 I'm not an NRA member, nor do I have a bunch of firearms. I just find them all mechanically fascinating, and know many here who fire weapons all the time. Granted, it's different in Texas. You're right, gun control does not equal confiscation at first. Pick whatever regulation you want to use as an example... and impose it. After that happens and another cowardly asshole commits an act of terror like this guy did in Vegas, you cannot tell me that the next argument won't be "well, that regulation just wasn't strong enough... we need to do more." It wouldn't be overnight, but it will begin a march towards confiscation, much like that seen in Australia. I'm certain there are members even here who would be all for confiscation happening tomorrow. Had that piece of garbage actually been shooting semi auto with good aim, I would bet a lot more people would have died. You're right that people romanticize about guns through Hollywood fiction, not knowing that automatic fire is incredibly inaccurate compared to semi auto or burst fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikv11 Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Commander Riker said: ... several things So let's see, you first argue that regulating guns is pointless because people will always be able to get a gun if they really want one (3-D printing, internet, etc), then a few posts down you argue that once we start regulating guns at all, before you know it no one will be able to get/have a gun (confiscation). Since these arguments are contradictory, which one do you really believe? Both of them? Neither one? In reality, neither argument is the truth, both are shortsighted and even lazy. The color of truth is gray. Black and white is easy to talk about but it's not the real world. There really is such a thing as just some gun control, just like there really is such a thing as some restrictions on how you are allowed to legally use a vehicle. Should we abolish all traffic laws, because we can't stop people from breaking them? Are traffic laws a slippery slope that will lead to confiscation of all vehicles? No gun control measures will fix everything for everyone, not for you and not for me, but we can eliminate a lot of violence with just the most obvious steps. If you're so sure that's wrong, I dare you to prove it - enact some reasonable measures and see what happens. Truck bombs are irrelevant. When a hundred people are dying from truck bombs every day too, I'm all for bringing them into the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I stand by my posts, and they do not contradict, IMO. You create gun regulations based on type, ammunition, speed, looks... whatever you want. Then people either make their own or find ones that aren't registered and another dickhead will do what this dickhead did in Vegas... which the following argument will be "well shit, we tried to regulate them based on type, ammunition, speed, looks... whatever... but that didn't work since people can A. make their own or B. we just can't tell how many are out there." They aren't contradicting one another, it's the steps I just see taking place. Your traffic analogy is weak, but I'll play. Should we not be able to sell cars to one another without registering them? What about parts cars? Or maybe we have a car part registry... so we can just know where every part is at all times, right? What in the actual fuck would that do to stop someone from boosting a whole crowd with that turbo? The freedom to own firearms will never be taken way. Enacting laws that do nothing but create paperwork and give everyone the false sense of security is just that... a false sense of security. Tell the families of those who died in the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing that truck bombs are irrelevant. Let me know how that goes. That shit is just as terrible as what happened in Vegas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikv11 Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 OK, so this is what gray looks like, we now have (1) regulating guns is pointless because people will always be able to get a gun if they really want one (3-D printing, internet, etc), but on the other hand (2) once we start regulating guns at all, before you know it no one will be able to get/have a gun (confiscation), and now we flip to (3) the big picture is that guns will never be taken away anyway, so why try? Based on 2 out of 3 (so far), I will infer that even you might agree that all things considered, no one is going to get their guns taken away by gun control. Welcome aboard, let's start with some basic legislation. The point of the car analogy is that we have rules because common sense says we need them and overall they work reasonable well, although recent events give cause for concern. Incidental harm (drunk driving, asleep at the wheel) is an ongoing issue with ongoing attention. I'm sorry but that's not how it is with guns, the rules are not working, they are failing miserably. Or wait, is this also not a fact, but just my opinion: are the rules working, and the level of gun violence is tolerable? The truck bomb is irrelevant to the gun argument, it is a distraction that changes the subject. The fact that other bad shit happens is irrelevant to the gun discussion. If you want to push for truck control or fertilizer control, go for it I will not gripe about guns while you do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caanglin Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Nothing happened under Obama so... I get the feeling nothing will happen under Trump. /thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, erikv11 said: The truck bomb is irrelevant to the gun argument, it is a distraction that changes the subject. The fact that other bad shit happens is irrelevant to the gun discussion. It is somewhat relevant. If there are other ways to cause harm that are of comparable accessibility, and we don't see a way to solve those problems too, then we're chasing our tail. I don't think its a silver bullet to squash an argument, but it's still an important angle to consider. The goal of any gun control in this context is to reduce events like these from happening, or reduce the amount of damage. If humans continue have other ways to cause damage, and it isn't just one other mechanism, nor is it something easily restricted, then does this gain us anything? 1 hour ago, fivex84 said: Nothing happened under Obama so... I get the feeling nothing will happen under Trump. /thread. Maybe, though one thing we saw under Obama was adversarial where they couldn't let Obama appear to gain any ground. And especially not with something like guns. If some R politicians support it, and one of their own is President, they can pretend like it was their idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I had a huge reply. I just deleted it. I'll be exiting this conversation as I do not feel I'm helping anything or anyone. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 2 hours ago, fivex84 said: Nothing happened under Obama so... I get the feeling nothing will happen under Trump. /thread. Actually, one thing will likely happen and that is the restriction of any device that can be used to make a semi-automatic rifle an automatic rifle. Starting with bump stocks. Republicans realize they need a win here that shows they did something. Closing this loophole will give them some red meat and cover. Will it change the reality that people can still craft their own trigger mechanisms or manufacture their own bump stocks? No, but it will push those things into the illegal category. Is it a big change? Not in the grand scheme of things since fully automatic weapons are rarely encountered in these situations but like I said, the Republicans and NRA will take it as an easy win. Alden, right now it's easier to acquire a gun than it is to build a bomb. Guns will continue to be the weapon of choice for these kinds of atrocities and as a result legislation and restrictions that make sense are vastly more important than worrying about bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 23 minutes ago, Burn-E said: Alden, right now it's easier to acquire a gun than it is to build a bomb. Guns will continue to be the weapon of choice for these kinds of atrocities and as a result legislation and restrictions that make sense are vastly more important than worrying about bombs. Boston marathon bombing comes to mind, though I'll concede that a gun is a relatively accessible item. I just see a future of wack-a-mole, and it won't necessarily be exclusively bombs either. I'd love to be wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Alden, one again you're too milquetoast for your own good on questions like this. There's always an alternative for you to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Burn-E said: Alden, one again you're too milquetoast for your own good on questions like this. There's always an alternative for you to consider. And I'm saying that for a complex issue, the discussion needs to be more focused on the bigger picture. Not worrying about which gun people can have. I'm not opposed to some basic limitations, but I don't think that's the core issue and we all are wasting too much time and money on it when it should be spent elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted October 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 I’m still waiting for your solution Mike. Even if you ban all firearms, there are still more guns than people in this country. A buy back would cost more than the border wall that you are always bitching about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 Mandatory relinquish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted October 7, 2017 Report Share Posted October 7, 2017 44 minutes ago, flyfishing3 said: Mandatory relinquish Never going to happen. You’d start Civil War 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts