After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-end-goal-for-gun-control

Ok! Now you can dispute that.  Round and round we go,where we stop nobody knows.

 

There is nothing much to dispute because they are doing the same thing on that page that we're doing here: argument by assertion.  The question posed on that page is What is the end goal for gun control?  Right off the bat a logical fallacy is committed called begging the question.  In other words, the question assumes that there is an end goal for gun control, and then goes on to ask what that end goal is.  We commit the same fallacy when we ask "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or "Who paid you to post that nonsense?"

 

First we need to establish that there is in fact an end goal for gun control, most likely by doing a survey of gun control advocates and analyzing their responses.  If no such data exists, then you have no evidence to support the claim "The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves", and if this were a formal debate you'd be obligated to retract your statement because you couldn't defend it.

 

Let's turn the statement around.  What would you think if I made the statement: The main goal of gun fanatics is to repeal all firearm restrictions so that anyone can own any type of weapon they want, up to and including military-style automatic assault weapons, grenade launchers and even flame throwers.

 

You'd be totally justified in asking me how I know what gun advocates' main goal is, and that's why you'll never hear me making such unfounded claims.

 

 

[riclag]

24 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

There is nothing much to dispute because they are doing the same thing on that page that we're doing here: argument by assertion.  The question posed on that page is What is the end goal for gun control?  Right off the bat a logical fallacy is committed called begging the question.  In other words, the question assumes that there is an end goal for gun control, and then goes on to ask what that end goal is.  We commit the same fallacy when we ask "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or "Who paid you to post that nonsense?"

 

First we need to establish that there is in fact an end goal for gun control, most likely by doing a survey of gun control advocates and analyzing their responses.  If no such data exists, then you have no evidence to support the claim "The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves", and if this were a formal debate you'd be obligated to retract your statement because you couldn't defend it.

 

Let's turn the statement around.  What would you think if I made the statement: The main goal of gun fanatics is to repeal all firearm restrictions so that anyone can own any type of weapon they want, up to and including military-style automatic assault weapons, grenade launchers and even flame throwers.

 

You'd be totally justified in asking me how I know what gun advocates' main goal is, and that's why you'll never hear me making such unfounded claims.

 

 

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind,the answer is blowing in the wind!

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

There is nothing much to dispute because they are doing the same thing on that page that we're doing here: argument by assertion.  The question posed on that page is What is the end goal for gun control?  Right off the bat a logical fallacy is committed called begging the question.  In other words, the question assumes that there is an end goal for gun control, and then goes on to ask what that end goal is.  We commit the same fallacy when we ask "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" or "Who paid you to post that nonsense?"

 

First we need to establish that there is in fact an end goal for gun control, most likely by doing a survey of gun control advocates and analyzing their responses.  If no such data exists, then you have no evidence to support the claim "The main goal of Anti's is to take away gun's from people who have gun's to protect themselves", and if this were a formal debate you'd be obligated to retract your statement because you couldn't defend it.

 

Let's turn the statement around.  What would you think if I made the statement: The main goal of gun fanatics is to repeal all firearm restrictions so that anyone can own any type of weapon they want, up to and including military-style automatic assault weapons, grenade launchers and even flame throwers.

 

You'd be totally justified in asking me how I know what gun advocates' main goal is, and that's why you'll never hear me making such unfounded claims.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind,the answer is blowing in the wind!

Actually it's you who's blowing hot air.

[boomerangutang]

The anti-NRA folks, like myself, don't all agree on what extent there should be gun control.

 

I'm left-of-center.  I'd like to see only single shot guns as being legal.  

 

Some people want all guns banned.  They're in a tiny minority of perhaps 2%.

 

Most Americans want guns being legally owned, with exception of semi-automatic and automatic.

 

There's a hard core of American gun-lovers, perhaps 18%, who want zero restrictions on type of guns which can be legal, and what sort of person can possess a gun.  Most are Trump fans, right-wing Christian, are quick to anger, ingest pharma drugs like candy, and are likely obese.

 

As for any changes soon:  Some Congressional Reps are joining sensible people in daring to think that banning bump-action conversion kits should be banned.  To a reasonable person, that's like hearing a carnivore say, "maybe barbecuing babies at a picnic is not such a good idea."  

 

 

[Grouse]

BBC reports the murderer purchased 30 weapons in October last year!!

 

What kind of county permits that?

 

Embarrassing for Americans to say the least....

[thaihome]

I have a very good friend that has been an avid gun collector most of his adult life. He has bought over 600 guns over some 30 years. All of them manufactured before 1900, so those of you that watch Pawn Stars will know they are not subject to any regulation.  He recently moved his collection to a bonded storage and had to have an inventory and valuation done.  It was appraised at some 5 million USD.  That is a gun collector.

 

A guy that buys over 40 assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo for them (most in the past year) is not a gun collector. He is a time bomb waiting to go off. There should be a way that he was identified as such.

TH 

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by thaihome

[Ruffian Dick]

Appears that "momentum is building for a bump stock ban", probably due to the fact that it won't do any good.  Ever play this game called "Whack a Mole"? Same deal. Bump stocks are gone, people will just file off the sears.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/354038-momentum-builds-for-bump-stock-ban

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

BBC reports the murderer purchased 30 weapons in October last year!!

 

What kind of county permits that?

 

Embarrassing for Americans to say the least....

It's legal,it's not embarrassing . The guy did it all legal,up until the killing spree.Have you seen the interview with his brother? His brother thought he was a genius because he made millions. What a shame

 

[Credo]

The major deflection with the pro-gun people is to confuse the situation of gun control with banning guns.   Guns will never be banned and there would never be much support for a ban.   Gun control is desperately needed.   There is no reason on God's green Earth for anyone to be allowed to have the shooting capability that guy had.   Unless you want your meat ground into hamburger on the hoof, it has only one purpose and we saw what that was.

 

 

[riclag]

16 minutes ago, Credo said:

The major deflection with the pro-gun people is to confuse the situation of gun control with banning guns.   Guns will never be banned and there would never be much support for a ban.   Gun control is desperately needed.   There is no reason on God's green Earth for anyone to be allowed to have the shooting capability that guy had.   Unless you want your meat ground into hamburger on the hoof, it has only one purpose and we saw what that was.

 

 

I think you might have a good point. Unfortunately it would be having to go forward. Millions of gun's out there now.Without going to google I would think your allowed to buy a small quantity per year.

[Credo]

21 minutes ago, riclag said:

I think you might have a good point. Unfortunately it would be having to go forward. Millions of gun's out there now.Without going to google I would think your allowed to buy a small quantity per year.

There are a lot of ways of dealing with it, from a buy-back program, to registering all guns with a certain specification and then having them disabled and not permitting the resale.   

 

It needs to start sometime, and I think a lot of people have had enough of this completely senseless and untargetted killings of completely innocent victims.   

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

There are a lot of ways of dealing with it, from a buy-back program, to registering all guns with a certain specification and then having them disabled and not permitting the resale.   

 

It needs to start sometime, and I think a lot of people have had enough of this completely senseless and untargetted killings of completely innocent victims.   

Any ideas on how to get the gun's away from the criminal's

[Credo]

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

Any ideas on how to get the gun's away from the criminal's

Well, I am not sure, but let's start by stopping the mass production of these weapons, the reasonably easy acquisition and re-distribution of them.   

 

It's not a completely unsolvable problem.   

 

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

It's legal,it's not embarrassing . The guy did it all legal,up until the killing spree.Have you seen the interview with his brother? His brother thought he was a genius because he made millions. What a shame

 

It's embarrassing for Americans that it is legal!

[rice555]

On 10/3/2017 at 7:31 PM, Throatwobbler said:

 

When some one kills 59 people and wounds over 500 with  screwdrivers I will consider that you have a point. Until that point you are an inane troll.

 

My info was from a magazine in the mid 80's, you could have googled

and got your own answer, don't bring your nib to a gunfight. 

 

Federal Firearms Regulations
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

 

rice555

 

Federal Firearms Regulations.textClipping

Edited October 5, 2017 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use Policy

[OMGImInPattaya]

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

What's strange to me, is that the same statistical approach applies to Muslim terrorist attacks, too. And yet, would you believe it, there are people who just propose all kinds of draconian measures to deal with that. Strange, no?

This thread is about Muslim terrorist attacks...oh silly me for my posts on gun deaths in America.

[OMGImInPattaya]

15 hours ago, Grouse said:

So what are the correct numbers? Zero?

It depends on the year and the exact definition used. However, the Dept. of Justice puts it at less than 100 per year on average. Liberals and gun confiscation advocates, who count every multiple gun killing that takes place in the 'hood, have much higher numbers.

Edited October 6, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

It depends on the year and the exact definition used. However, the Dept. of Justice puts it at less than 100 per year on average. Liberals and gun confiscation advocates, who count every multiple gun killing that takes place in the 'hood, have much higher numbers.

 

Much, much too high which ever way you look at it

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Much, much too high which ever way you look at it

That's your opinion. What would be an acceptable number?

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

That's your opinion. What would be an acceptable number?

Zero

[riclag]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's embarrassing for Americans that it is legal!

How can you speak for all American's?You could say for some but not all.

[thaihome]

9 hours ago, riclag said:

It's legal,it's not embarrassing . The guy did it all legal,up until the killing spree.Have you seen the interview with his brother? His brother thought he was a genius because he made millions. What a shame

 

 

So you don't think someone that buys over 40 assault rifles, most in a very short time span, might have some issues that could have been identified by the knowledge of his purchases? 

 

To me, it's very embarrassing that someone can legally accumulate such an arsenal that has no "sporting" purpose other then killing people without attracting any attention. 

TH 

 

 

[thaihome]

10 hours ago, Ruffian Dick said:

Appears that "momentum is building for a bump stock ban", probably due to the fact that it won't do any good.  Ever play this game called "Whack a Mole"? Same deal. Bump stocks are gone, people will just file off the sears.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/354038-momentum-builds-for-bump-stock-ban

 

Difference is bump stocks are legal, filling off the sear is not. Filing down the sear is a permanent change to the weapon. Bump stocks are a removable accessory. 

 

TH

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Zero

Not very realistic.  As I have said, the anti-gun crowd are zealots and there can be no compromise with them.

[thaihome]

I post this mainly for the edification of our non-American members who may not understand the current "gun culture" of the US. They were written in 2012 after the Newton massacre,  but are still relevant today.

 

For 200 years nobody thought there was a"right" to individual gun ownership in the second ammendment.  The Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's there was not such a right. After the decisive  defeat of Goldwater 1964, to hard right conservatives the issue of "gun rights" fit in perfectly with the larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda and was adopted by them as a means to garner support. Nothing gets votes more then telling people their "rights" are being taken away.

 

Note that the author of the first article,  Jeffery Tobin also wrote a book in 2012 titled "The Oath: The Obama Whitehouse vs. The Supreme Court " that is a must read to understand the conservative agenda and how the Supreme Court has aided it's implementation since the election of Reagan in 1980.

TH 

 

 

Quote

 

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
 

 

 

Another (much longer) article from 2012 with a much more detail on the history of the gun culture, the role of the NRA,  and gun legislation in the US.

 

Quote

 

In the nineteen-sixties, gun ownership as a constitutional right was less the agenda of the N.R.A. than of black nationalists. In a 1964 speech, Malcolm X said, “Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.” Establishing a constitutional right to carry a gun for the purpose of self-defense was part of the mission of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, which was founded in 1966.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america
 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by thaihome

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

How can you speak for all American's?You could say for some but not all.

It's a rhetorical flourish 

 

I would certainly hope that ALL Americans are embarrassed about this stupidity!

[thaihome]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

It's a rhetorical flourish 

 

I would certainly hope that ALL Americans are embarrassed about this stupidity!

There is no chance that people who agree with the logic that an "originalist" interpretation of the Second ammendment means that every house is entitled by right to have a 9mm glock is not going to be the least bit embarrassed that a person can buy over 40 assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition without attracting any attention. 

TH 

[kevvy]

https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE

GUN CONTROL

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by kevvy

[kevvy]

https://youtu.be/mVuspKSjfgA

 

MUST WATCH

Edited October 6, 2017 by kevvy

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Not very realistic.  As I have said, the anti-gun crowd are zealots and there can be no compromise with them.

"The anti-gun crowd are zealots"

 

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to grown ups?

 

Don't you think the NRA nutters are zealots?

 

What sane person would want know what a sear or a bump stop is? Just think about that.

 

You asked me what was an acceptable number of gun deaths per annum. I replied zero. You say that's unrealistic; so tell us how many you would like to see?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Grouse