BAN GARLIC

[Coreece 190]

On 8/7/2019 at 4:21 PM, billvon said:

On 8/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, gowlerk said:

And your argument is just the typical one the NRA makes. Like them you just don't have the guts to come out and just say it. Namely, "it's too bad about all the deaths, especially the kids, but it's worth it so that we can have our killing machines". Everyone's gotta die sometime.

This is what gets me about many of these arguments.  It often devolves to people trying to put a politically correct face on the statement "yes, it's an issue, but I just don't care."

Well that's the inherent problem with these types of fallacious emotional pleas, especially when they're so unnecessary.  It just reduces everything to an ethical/moral quandary and evokes irrational discourse on both sides whereby one has to accept the premise otherwise be accused of not caring about children, which in most cases is just absurd.  And then the other person just looks like a hypocrite due to the glaring inconsistency with "thinking of the children," but only when it suites their agenda.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 4:21 PM, billvon said:

(Note that Coreece has proposed other solutions, so this is more directed at the NRA than at him.)

It should also be noted that gowlerk falsely attributed that argument to me and therefore shouldn't be directed at me, at all.

[Coreece 190]

On 8/7/2019 at 1:49 PM, rifleman said:

In the UK, if you like the looks of the "assault rifle" type weapons (AR variant, AK, Sig Sauer, H&K) you can own a semi-auto version of it with, if you so desire, high capacity magazines and suppressor but the only restrictions are that it must be chambered for .22LR and you must show good reason for owning it. Bolt action rifles can be chambered for .17HMR up to .50 cal and shotguns of all types are limited to a maximum of 3 rounds capacity (2 in mag, 1 in breech).

On 8/7/2019 at 4:16 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi rifleman,

I think that is a great starting position.

On 8/7/2019 at 4:24 PM, billvon said:

It's also a better approach than the old assault weapon ban, which had some pretty silly provisions.  (Bayonet lugs?   Who cares?)  Put simple numbers on rounds/shells, calibers and/or power downrange over some time.

Outrage!  People are dying!  Mother's don't care about what size bullet killed their child, nor do they care about excuses for owning these killing machines!   What are we going to tell them?!  We must ban these abominations of mankind immediately so that I'm not at a loss for words!  Won't somebody please think of the children! 

[gowlerk 1,911]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Outrage!  People are dying!  Mother's don't care about what size bullet killed their child, nor do they care about excuses for owning these killing machines!   What are we going to tell them?!  We must ban these abominations of mankind immediately so that I'm not at a loss for words!  Won't somebody please think of the children! 

So the, your position is that you support some kind of a ban? But reserve the right to mock and ridicule others who support a different ban, or who do so for different reasons? You are confusing me, but thankfully it's almost DZ time and it will soon be out of my mind. Emotional arguments can exist along side rational ones. They are not mutually exclusive.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

"Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see."

Because it's in quotes it's true? Because otherwise it's just self serving malarkey. I'll bite, which truth sayer are you quoting?

26 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Because we both know it wasn't asked in good faith and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.  It was just an extension of your plea for pity through the attempted manipulation of people's emotions and feelings about kids and faith, rather than by reason - and then on top of that you say you're trying to be honest.

Not true. My point is that faith based truth systems are fairly useless when it comes to addressing reality. You continue to dance around the question because there is nothing you could say beyond its gods will, they're in a better place and yada, yada, yada. 

 

 

 

[Coreece 190]

11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Outrage!  People are dying!  Mother's don't care about what size bullet killed their child, nor do they care about excuses for owning these killing machines!   What are we going to tell them?!  We must ban these abominations of mankind immediately so that I'm not at a loss for words!  Won't somebody please think of the children! 

So the, your position is that you support some kind of a ban? But reserve the right to mock and ridicule others who support a different ban, or who do so for different reasons?

The real question is why you or Weber don't say anything when they show support for anything other than an out right ban?

Probably because they're more inline with your political and religious views.

[Coreece 190]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

39 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Because we both know it wasn't asked in good faith and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.  It was just an extension of your plea for pity through the attempted manipulation of people's emotions and feelings about kids and faith, rather than by reason - and then on top of that you say you're trying to be honest.

Not true. My point is that faith based truth systems are fairly useless when it comes to addressing reality. You continue to dance around the question because there is nothing you could say beyond its gods will, they're in a better place and yada, yada, yada. 

See you're trying again to manipulate the situation and change the subject just so you can bash my faith which is irrelevant to the point being made.  It just illustrates that you don't really care and that the question wasn't asked in good faith to begin with.

[Coreece 190]

19 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Emotional arguments can exist along side rational ones. They are not mutually exclusive.

There is a difference between emotional arguments and fallacious arguments.

[gowlerk 1,911]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

The real question is why you or Weber don't say anything when they show support for anything other than an out right ban?

Probably because they're more inline with your political and religious views.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I put my position forward. Which basically is that America would be better off if it could get it's shit together and give up it's lust for killing machines. I know that the obstacles are huge and that some are immovable. I have no real answer for what can be done, but I support ANY measures that reduce the number and /or potency of the killing machines that abound. That said, it is not high on my list of daily concerns. I spend around a third of my time in America and being there does not frighten me. It is more of an interesting and stimulating conversation that I have here in a mostly theoretical context.

When others propose limited solutions that are not really solutions it does not affect me in the same way as when people claim that nothing can be done. Or even worse, the answer is more killing machines in the hands of more people. As far as religion goes, I support everyone's religious views. Unless they use them to try to impose moral views on others "because God wants it that way".

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 hours ago, ryoder said:

Don't be so quick to dismiss it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1040676

Except that the guy wasn't doing anything illegal, was he? I mean open carry is allowed in that state. I think it is beyond stupid, but wasn't he well within his rights to walk around like that? Didn't the off-duty firefighter escalate things by drawing his weapon on him?

[ryoder 1,382]

15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Except that the guy wasn't doing anything illegal, was he? I mean open carry is allowed in that state. I think it is beyond stupid, but wasn't he well within his rights to walk around like that? Didn't the off-duty firefighter escalate things by drawing his weapon on him?

The legalities of the situation does have me curious.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Except that the guy wasn't doing anything illegal, was he? I mean open carry is allowed in that state. I think it is beyond stupid, but wasn't he well within his rights to walk around like that? Didn't the off-duty firefighter escalate things by drawing his weapon on him?

 

3 hours ago, ryoder said:

The legalities of the situation does have me curious.

Well, if I read the story right, he wasn't breaking any laws. Just being a total idiot.

Remember a while back (couple years maybe?) when the "Open Carry" crowd decided that they needed to be well armed to go to Target? Or Starbucks? (I know that the muffins are really good, but c'mon, there's enough for everyone)
So they walked around with ARs over their shoulder. Perfectly legal in most places.

Still legal today, AFAIK. Stupid as all hell, a good way to get shot, but legal.

We had an incident fairly local to me, where a couple guys were doing just that - walking down the street with ARs slung over their shoulders. Someone called the cops, claiming 'two guys with machine guns' were walking towards the farmer's market.
The cops showed up and got rather irate with the guys, threatening and all of that. The guys knew that they were provoking the cops, and were aware of their rights and the laws. They both had audio recorders on them (legal here) to record what the cops said. The cops found and confiscated (stole) them. The guys claimed the cops had threatened to kill them just for the hell of it, to arrest them and say the guys were doing things they weren't really doing (who's a jury going to believe?), that sort of thing. Interestingly, when the audio recorders were finally returned (it took a lawyer to get them back), there was no recording on them.

More interestingly, both guys had a second recorder, better hidden.  The lawsuit is still in process. 

[brenthutch 383]

On 8/7/2019 at 12:16 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi rifleman,

I think that is a great starting position.

Jerry Baumchen

That is the problem, the “starting position”, that is why the NRA opposes ANY gun control legislation.  It is the ol’ Slippery slope argument. That combined with the Dems need to keep this as an issue ensures that nothing will happen.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is the problem, the “starting position”, that is why the NRA opposes ANY gun control legislation.  It is the ol’ Slippery slope argument. That combined with the Dems need to keep this as an issue ensures that nothing will happen.

It's not certain that any limited regulation will turn into full scale confiscation. I want to keep my guns. I simply don't believe it is likely at all that banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines is the first step to my losing my guns. Not in America. To be completely honest, I think a complete ban isn't necessary. Derek V. is a friend. It might not seem it the way we disagree about assault weapons and the second amendment. But I know him to be a stand up guy. He's smart and without question we see eye to eye on some important safety issues. He spent six years in the military, is familiar and comfortable with assault weapons and I think stays current firing them. If someone in the neighborhood must have one he'd be a first choice. I don't know you personally and without question we are in full on disagreement on what the second amendment is about. But, you are clearly smart, you've spent 20 years as a Ranger, have an MBA, lock up your guns, aren't a religious extremist and are probably in the zero percent category for committing a mass shooting. Again, if someone on the block needs to own one you are a good choice. Who knows, maybe you'd be able to save me before you saw who it was. I think most people who think controlling access to assault weapons would see clear to certain people owning them. Honestly Brent, sometimes I think you'd be happy if they were sold in 3 packs at Costco and the ammo came in 10 gallon pails and react poorly, I agree. Surely there is some place short of the extremes where reasonable people can meet.

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is the problem, the “starting position”, that is why the NRA opposes ANY gun control legislation.  It is the ol’ Slippery slope argument. That combined with the Dems need to keep this as an issue ensures that nothing will happen.

Well, what's important isn't solving the problem.  The really important thing is you found a way to blame democrats.

[brenthutch 383]

Thank you Joe, if I could figure out a way to keep any weapon (not just semiautos w detachable mags) from those who would do harm to others, I would be on board.  Regrettably I don’t see a solution that doesn’t involve taking away the rights of honest law abiding citizens.  

 

 

 

 

[rifleman 61]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That is the problem, the “starting position”, that is why the NRA opposes ANY gun control legislation.  It is the ol’ Slippery slope argument. That combined with the Dems need to keep this as an issue ensures that nothing will happen.

In the UK, we were facing a complete ban following the mass shooting at Hungerford in 1987. A compromise deal was reached that has, with one exception, remained unchanged in 32 years. That one exception was the restriction placed on handguns following the school shooting at Dunblane in 1996.

[brenthutch 383]

28 minutes ago, billvon said:

Well, what's important isn't solving the problem.  The really important thing is you found a way to blame democrats.

No, I just pointed out how both sides are retrenched in their positions and that it is unlikely that anything will result.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, I just pointed out how both sides are retrenched in their positions and that it is unlikely that anything will result.

But since the position of one side is to do nothing, how did you manage to swing around to blaming the other side for nothing happening?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Thank you Joe, if I could figure out a way to keep any weapon (not just semiautos w detachable mags) from those who would do harm to others, I would be on board.  Regrettably I don’t see a solution that doesn’t involve taking away the rights of honest law abiding citizens.  

 

 

 

 

I know. So frustrating.

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

But since the position of one side is to do nothing, how did you manage to swing around to blaming the other side for nothing happening?

Just wait, the Republicans will offer up some minimalist offer, the Democrats will say “not enough” no compromise will be acceptable to either side and nothing will happen. 

[Coreece 190]

22 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Ya, me neither sometimes.

I'd clarify but it's not important and I don't really want to fight with you about it anymore.

[billvon 2,396]

8 hours ago, jakee said:

But since the position of one side is to do nothing, how did you manage to swing around to blaming the other side for nothing happening?

Politicians have become experts at this.  There's probably a course on it at Politician University.  

And it can work both ways.  Since Republicans oppose everything Democrats propose, that's why we have an illegal immigrant problem, for example.  See?

[mbohu 77]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Regrettably I don’t see a solution that doesn’t involve taking away the rights of honest law abiding citizens.

But isn't this the case for any issue in a country of laws? Assuming everyone is always a "good," considerate and reasonable person, then there is really never a need for any restrictive law. In such a world, we'd all be extreme libertarians.
In a society, where there are all kinds of people, I always decide to give up SOME freedoms in order to make the entire system work for everyone. This is the contract that we make by agreeing to organize ourselves into a modern society. This has been the project of humanity for thousands of years. Sure: Way in the future, there may be a better way, but it doesn't seem like we are there.

Why do I agree to follow all kinds of restrictions, laws and regulations that really wouldn't be necessary for me, since I would not abuse my freedoms? I do so, because I understand that in this society it is the best way we have found to make it work for everyone. What a whole lot of proponents of gun-restrictions can't fathom is that gun rights proponents aren't willing to make the slightest sacrifice in view of the consequences we are experiencing.

Do I think the FAA needs to legally require me to keep a very specific distance from clouds when jumping? No. I'd make sure we would agree on safe procedures on our load (are the clouds at opening altitude, what kinds of jumps are being done on the load, what are the real dangers in that specific situation, etc.) However, it's likely proven that the existing rules in the US do make it generally safer for everyone. I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, mbohu said:

But isn't this the case for any issue in a country of laws? Assuming everyone is always a "good," considerate and reasonable person, then there is really never a need for any restrictive law. In such a world, we'd all be extreme libertarians.
In a society, where there are all kinds of people, I always decide to give up SOME freedoms in order to make the entire system work for everyone. This is the contract that we make by agreeing to organize ourselves into a modern society. This has been the project of humanity for thousands of years. Sure: Way in the future, there may be a better way, but it doesn't seem like we are there.

Why do I agree to follow all kinds of restrictions, laws and regulations that really wouldn't be necessary for me, since I would not abuse my freedoms? I do so, because I understand that in this society it is the best way we have found to make it work for everyone. What a whole lot of proponents of gun-restrictions can't fathom is that gun rights proponents aren't willing to make the slightest sacrifice in view of the consequences we are experiencing.

Do I think the FAA needs to legally require me to keep a very specific distance from clouds when jumping? No. I'd make sure we would agree on safe procedures on our load (are the clouds at opening altitude, what kinds of jumps are being done on the load, what are the real dangers in that specific situation, etc.) However, it's likely proven that the existing rules in the US do make it generally safer for everyone. I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

"Well regulated"

[Blacksmith311 0]

Bernie sanders stated on an interview with JRE that he understands that 99.9% of gun owners are responsible and would never commit a crime of murder with a firearm but they need to understand its for a greater good to ban assault rifles when data proves in mass shootings handguns are are used in a vastly greater percentage than any rifle.