• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ban the fucking guns

myDeaconmyhand said:
You seem to believe that his hatred for gay people and his admiration for ISIS coincide? The articles written about him show him as a hateful man with well documented anger issues and known feelings about Islamic extremism. I don't see how crediting his motivations to ISIS specifically serves a purpose, when he wasn't a member of ISIS, they didn't plan the attack, and when they don't exactly hold the patent for Islamic terrorism. But hell, if it entertains you to just keep typing "ISIS", then have at it, otherwise I don't get what you're doing here.
Click to expand...

He, himself, pledged allegiance to them. He was obviously influenced by their brand of extremism. You don't have to be physically present with someone/something to gain significant influence from it. What he did was exactly what they wanted. I assume he active on their forums, watched their videos, studied their ideology, etc. That said, you are correct that it doesn't matter what brand of extremism it is (ISIS, AQ, whatever.) What matters is a guy was influenced by religious extremism to the point where he perpetrated an act of terror that is the worst mass shooting in the history of the US.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i guess; it's really just a red herring that gun nuts use to redirect a conversation. if it wasn't a complaint about semantics it would be something else.

"it wasn't an AR-15, it was a reconfigured Colt M4 or an S&W MP15. god, can't even get the gun right how can we have a conversation"
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is legitimate and I know some folks take it to that level... obviously that is ridiculous. That said, people looking for stricter regulations (or just common-sense gun laws) need to at least be able to speak intelligently about automatic/semi-automatic weapons, magazines vs. clips, etc.
 
lbE08 said:
again, it does kind of matter. people get hung up on the AR15s because they look scary... but there are hand guns with just as much capability of firing quickly.
If you're going to have a legitimate conversation about regulation, it is important to understand the differences of the actual machines.
Click to expand...

Right. And I do understand. And I think it doesn't sound very intelligent or practical to ban or limit weapons because they look scary (not saying that was what you were proposing, but some seem to be motivated that way). What matters is their capability, their purpose and the balance of a citizen's rights to do as they please against the public good.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i guess; it's really just a red herring that gun nuts use to redirect a conversation. if it wasn't a complaint about semantics it would be something else.

"it wasn't an AR-15, it was a reconfigured Colt M4 or an S&W MP15. god, can't even get the gun right how can we have a conversation"
Click to expand...

It isn't the brand that is a concern, it is the firing capacity. Every time some idiot erroneously says "ANYBODY CAN BUY AN AK-47!!!!!" it conjures up this Hollywood vision of some dude walking around holding down the trigger and spraying side to side like an uzi. That isn't what it is at all, so the discussion then morphs into what is actually currently legal and what isn't. You can't have a worthwhile discussion on something without everyone being on the same page as to the actual facts as they currently exist..
 
scooter84 said:
Right. And I do understand. And I think it doesn't sound very intelligent or practical to ban or limit weapons because they look scary (not saying that was what you were proposing, but some seem to be motivated that way). What matters is their capability, their purpose and the balance of a citizen's rights to do as they please against the public good.
Click to expand...

I know, I was in agreement with your post, but that probably didn't come across clearly - I quoted your post more to give context to RJ/ITC's posts.
 
lbE08 said:
Your last sentence is legitimate and I know some folks take it to that level... obviously that is ridiculous. That said, people looking for stricter regulations (or just common-sense gun laws) need to at least be able to speak intelligently about automatic/semi-automatic weapons, magazines vs. clips, etc.
Click to expand...

if you're arguing with someone who complains about the difference between Mag and Clip, you're already arguing with a brick wall
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It isn't the brand that is a concern, it is the firing capacity. Every time some idiot erroneously says "ANYBODY CAN BUY AN AK-47!!!!!" it conjures up this Hollywood vision of some dude walking around holding down the trigger and spraying side to side like an uzi. That isn't what it is at all, so the discussion then morphs into what is actually currently legal and what isn't. You can't have a worthwhile discussion on something without everyone being on the same page as to the actual facts as they currently exist..
Click to expand...

it might be more helpful if next time just gently correct the person and address the concern behind the comment rather than histrionically cut him/her off at the knees and declare a conversation pointless. just a thought.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
it might be more helpful if next time just gently correct the person and address the concern behind the comment rather than histrionically cut him/her off at the knees and declare a conversation pointless. just a thought.
Click to expand...

If it was a one-time thing, sure. But it is the same mistake by the same people over and over and over.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
If it was a one-time thing, sure. But it is the same mistake by the same people over and over and over.
Click to expand...

so if a person repeatedly uses AK47 to mean semi-auto firearms, then you know that person is talking about semiautomatic weapons when he says AK47 in the future

I'm the foremost person to say "diction matters" but let's be honest and realistic with eachother. we're talking about a population of 10s of people discussing topics. i think we know what we mean.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
so if a person repeatedly uses AK47 to mean semi-auto firearms, then you know that person is talking about semiautomatic weapons when he says AK47 in the future
Click to expand...

No, given the person in question I'm relatively confident that he has forgotten about the prior corrections and is still convinced that AK47s are legal.
 
lbE08 said:
I know, I was in agreement with your post, but that probably didn't come across clearly - I quoted your post more to give context to RJ/ITC's posts.
Click to expand...

As ITC says, if you are trying to avoid discussing the subject over nomenclature of clips vs. magazines vs. drums being correct, you aren't interested in discussing the subject in the first place. You are simply for an excuse to allow people to own devices whose purpose is to make killing easier and more efficient.
 
Clips vs magazines is in a completely different universe of misunderstanding than an AK47 vs an AR15.
 
ok fine, sorry, remove magazines vs. clips from the examples.
I stand by the fact people should recognize the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.


and RJ, before you jump down my throat about anything else, I'm not "looking for an excuse to allow people to own devices whose purpose is to make killing easier and more efficient." I'm 100% for stricter regulation on all of it... but I prefer having factually accurate conversations.
 
on the other hand, AK47s are not banned, simply difficult to get. So there's a point to be made in saying we should ban those as well.
 
lbE08 said:
ok fine, sorry, remove magazines vs. clips from the examples.
I stand by the fact people should recognize the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.


and RJ, before you jump down my throat about anything else, I'm not "looking for an excuse to allow people to own devices whose purpose is to make killing easier and more efficient." I'm 100% for stricter regulation on all of it... but I prefer having factually accurate conversations.
Click to expand...

This is just a way to make sure the only people involved in writing gun laws are the gun rights advocates. It intentionally leaves out the potential victims of gun violence who have no particular expertise in guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top