• 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

scooter84 said:
Why does anyone "need" anything that is not necessary for life? The list of things that people are allowed to buy is not limited to the things they need. What you really mean is why should anyone be able to buy a semi-automatic weapon. For that, I think you have to start with the premise that they should be able to buy one because they want one - our country is based on liberty as a starting point. That clearly isn't the end point as we prohibit people from buying lots of things that they would like to buy, for various reasons.

From there you have to balance the individuals' desire to buy such a weapon and the reasons that particular weapon is attractive to the buyer, against the public good and public policy reasons why allowing that person to buy such a weapon is bad.

For a gun owner, a semi-automatic weapon is attractive for many reasons. Target shooters may shoot many, many rounds and may tire of operating a bolt or a lever action or it may be difficult for them for some reason. For hunters, when a second shot is needed the time necessary to operate a bolt or a lever action or whatever may allow an animal to escape - and could even cause a wounded animal to escape and die a long and painful death. Non hunters and non target shooters easily poo-poo these arguments as unimportant.

With respect to public policy, a semi-automatic weapon makes it easier to shoot multiple people quickly and may make the death toll from mass shootings larger. Gun advocates easily poo poo this argument because the percentage of guns and gun owners involved in such events is so small and the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a lever action or other type of non-semi-automatic weapon in those scenarios is not that great.

I am no expert on either side of the argument but I am just trying to frame the discussion. I am sure others can make much better points on both sides. But, this is the type of analysis that has to be done whenever you try to restrict the rights of individuals in favor of the public good.
Click to expand...

So the arguments in favor of semi-automatic weapons are that reloading is tiresome and it may cause a wounded animal a longer death. The arguments against is that it is designed to kill people at a more efficient rate.

And miss me with the "why do we need anything" bullshit. It's appropriate with regard to an instrument responsible for killing.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
So the arguments in favor of semi-automatic weapons are that reloading is tiresome and it may cause a wounded animal a longer death. The arguments against is that it is designed to kill people at a more efficient rate.

And miss me with the "why do we need anything" bullshit. It's appropriate with regard to an instrument responsible for killing.
Click to expand...

First of all, those were just the first arguments I could come up with off the top of my head, as examples, you know, not an exhaustive list. As I said, I am no expert and am sure others can do better on both sides.
Second of all, the instrument is not responsible for killing - like a scalpel or a trumpet or an axe, the gun is simply an instrument in someone's hands, doing their bidding.
 
scooter84 said:
First of all, those were just the first arguments I could come up with off the top of my head, as examples, you know, not an exhaustive list. As I said, I am no expert and am sure others can do better on both sides.
Second of all, the instrument is not responsible for killing - like a scalpel or a trumpet or an axe, the gun is simply an instrument in someone's hands, doing their bidding.
Click to expand...

The scalpel should be in the hands of a surgeon.

The trumpet should be in the hands of a skilled musician.

The axe should be in the hands of a lumberjack.

The AR-15 should be in the hands of...anybody who wants one?
 
I disagree. The purpose of a handgun or assault rifle is as clear as the purpose of a sword, whether or not it's used for that purpose. A gun is not a brick, or a steak knife, or a bicycle. The only debatability comes from whether a gun was designed to kill an animal or a human.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
scooter84 said:
First of all, those were just the first arguments I could come up with off the top of my head, as examples, you know, not an exhaustive list. As I said, I am no expert and am sure others can do better on both sides.
Second of all, the instrument is not responsible for killing - like a scalpel or a trumpet or an axe, the gun is simply an instrument in someone's hands, doing their bidding.
Click to expand...

Well take your time to come up with something more convincing than it might get tiresome to reload a single-shot firearm. Thread won't be going anywhere.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
Well take your time to come up with something more convincing than it might get tiresome to reload a single-shot firearm. Thread won't be going anywhere.
Click to expand...

This is why we can't have nice things. Coming up with all the arguments is not my job, I was just trying to frame the discussion and make sure people understand how it really works when you try to enact limitations on individual rights. Of course people ignore that part of my contribution and focus on all same old point, counterpoint stuff
 
scooter84 said:
This is why we can't have nice things. Coming up with all the arguments is not my job, I was just trying to frame the discussion and make sure people understand how it really works when you try to enact limitations on individual rights. Of course people ignore that part of my contribution and focus on all same old point, counterpoint stuff
Click to expand...

Why is it OK to have limits on the right of free speech but not OK have limits on the 2nd Amendment that in no way deny you the right to keep and bear arms.
 
PhDeac said:
The scalpel should be in the hands of a surgeon.

The trumpet should be in the hands of a skilled musician.

The axe should be in the hands of a lumberjack.

The AR-15 should be in the hands of...anybody who wants one?
Click to expand...

Lazy, lazy. What does this even mean? There should be laws limiting axe purchases to lumberjacks? You have to pass a musical test to buy a trumpet? Throwing smartass comments like this into the mix does not further the discussion.

Constitutionally, yes, the AR-15 should be in the hands of anyone who wants one; unless a compelling case can be made that the benefit to the public good of limiting the purchase of such devices outweighs any taking of individual freedoms that results from such a limit - and that the limit is the least restrictive act that can be taken to achieve such a result. Of course then you get into the sticky wicket of how is an AR-15 different from any other semi-automatic weapon, for these purposes.
That argument has already been made and won with respect to fully automatic weapons. Now we are just talking about moving the line.
 
RJKarl said:
Why is it OK to have limits on the right of free speech but not OK have limits on the 2nd Amendment that in no way deny you the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

It is obviously OK to have limits on the 2nd amendment, there are already many limits upon it. The question now is whether there should be additional limits (I think there should be) and what would those limits would look like.
 
There is no justification for having devices that hold 20,30, 50 or 100 rounds.

There is no reason that every transfer of ownership shouldn't have a background check. This includes gifts.

There is no reason why sales data and background check data can't be kept.

Why should a private owner be allowed to buy 5,10 or 50 mass produced weapons at once if they don't have a security company?
 
scooter84 said:
It is obviously OK to have limits on the 2nd amendment, there are already many limits upon it. The question now is whether there should be additional limits (I think there should be) and what would those limits would look like.
Click to expand...

Many limits? What do you include in "many"?
 
Last edited:
scooter84 said:
This is why we can't have nice things. Coming up with all the arguments is not my job, I was just trying to frame the discussion and make sure people understand how it really works when you try to enact limitations on individual rights. Of course people ignore that part of my contribution and focus on all same old point, counterpoint stuff
Click to expand...

The framing argument is the stuff NRA deflections are made of. I put the burden of proof on the side defending the machine designed to kill efficiently.
 
It's amazing the amount of deflection from the actual issue guns we get everytime there's a mass shooting
 
The NRA is a commercial trade group/political advocacy group. Like Trump, they can't publicly celebrate terrorism and gun violence, but they and their members benefit from those actions. Everytime there's gun violence, they rev up the Obama's going to take your guns conspiracy and gun and ammo sales sky rocket. Not unlike right wing media, who commercially benefit more from Dem POTUS/Congress more than GOP administrations.

Trump doesn't give a shit about campaign violence as long as it isn't filmed inside his rallies. He's perfectly fine if it happens outside his rallies and is captured on TV. If a protestor gets injured, no big deal. Injured cops or supporters, just collateral damage.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Many limits? What do include in "many"?
Click to expand...

Well, I believe there are lots of types of weapons that you can't buy - fully automatic weapons, bazookas - I don't even know what all. There are crazy hoops to jump through to buy other things - like noise suppressors - or a concealed carry permit. There are required waiting periods for handguns. There are required background checks. Etc. I'm not saying these are the appropriate limitations - just pointing out that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is already limited and restricted in all kinds of ways. The question now is what further limitations will help address the issues our society is facing while preserving protected rights.
 
I think your position is strange. For example, a concealed permit is typically a $30 fee and a simple application to the local sheriff office. Do you think that is an onerous burden to secretly carry a deadly weapon?
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
The framing argument is the stuff NRA deflections are made of. I put the burden of proof on the side defending the machine designed to kill efficiently.
Click to expand...

I'm not deflecting anything - just trying to educate people. If you want to enact restrictions on gun rights then you need to understand the hoops you have to jump through to get it done.

And whatever your personal opinion may be, from a practical and legal standpoint you have the burden backwards. You have to start from the current situation where people have a right to buy and own firearms, with the limitations already in place. Then any further limitations or restrictions you want to enact have to pass the constitutional balancing test.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
I think your position is strange. For example, a concealed permit is typically a $30 fee and a simple application to the local sheriff office. Do you think that is an onerous burden to secretly carry a deadly weapon?
Click to expand...

I never said it was an onerous burden at all. I was just identifying limitations already in place. I don't think it is onerous at all. I do think some kind of certification class and background check is required as well - I don't really know as I don't have one. In any event, I have no problem with that at all - there should be pretty stringent requirements in place to get a concealed carry permit.
[for clarity, my 'crazy hoops' comment was more directed toward getting a noise suppressor]
 
scooter84 said:
I'm not deflecting anything - just trying to educate people. If you want to enact restrictions on gun rights then you need to understand the hoops you have to jump through to get it done.

And whatever your personal opinion may be, from a practical and legal standpoint you have the burden backwards. You have to start from the current situation where people have a right to buy and own firearms, with the limitations already in place. Then any further limitations or restrictions you want to enact have to pass the constitutional balancing test.
Click to expand...

If having to defend the slow death of a deer and some dude's arm getting tired are the hoops one needs to jump through then line em up.

Not in the court of public opinion does the burden of proof lie on the status quo. Burden lies with the inexplicable means of mass murder.
 
RJKarl said:
There is no justification for having devices that hold 20,30, 50 or 100 rounds.

There is no reason that every transfer of ownership shouldn't have a background check. This includes gifts.

There is no reason why sales data and background check data can't be kept.

Why should a private owner be allowed to buy 5,10 or 50 mass produced weapons at once if they don't have a security company?
Click to expand...

I largely agree with rj's post, assuming that "devices" means the magazines that are inserted in the weapon. As far as I'm concerned, ban all magazines that hold more than X rounds (7-10, IMO). Encourage manufacturers to supply magazine blocks/limiters for weapons that have been previously purchased. Have a buyback program with decent prices for consumers who don't care to keep their reduced capacity weapon. Hell, have a buyback for the high capacity magazines...then promulgate significant penalties for anyone caught with a high capacity magazine.

While we're at it, let's get rid of the more potent rounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top