Senate Gun Control

So what about that filibuster? Did that do anything? I saw that Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren said some heavy stuff. Did it amount to anything?

 

Well certainly if you take a "ban all guns" approach then it doesn't matter, but I don't think a semi-automatic weapons ban, or an across the board ban on guns in general is feasible in the United States.

Otherwise I think if you're going to have a position with any nuance at all, some subject matter knowledge is necessary. I'm not calling out anyone on the boards - I'm referring to people who think that the average civilian can walk into a gun shop and walk out within 15 minutes carrying a weapon that fires 15.3 rounds per second, or people who throw around the terms "assault weapon" and "military grade" without having a full understanding of what those terms mean in the context they're using them.

If it's insensitive or insulting to say that even people who have lost loved ones to gun violence should understand what's already illegal, and what the terms they're using mean, then I'm sorry but I guess I'm a big meanie.

Admittedly most of my quarrel is with the media - an example being one occasion in which Don Lemon was corrected on-air regarding the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and replied with "Well you're just arguing semantics."

 

I simply don't understand the pro-gun control advocates on this thread.

You have two relatively pro-gun people (myself and Darth_wanderguard) who both wish to see common sense gun control enacted. Instead of fostering a debate and how we can get more people to help pass these common sense gun control laws banded together you instead attack the person's reasons for being pro-gun.

This is not the way to get meaningful change.

The GOP in the Senate agreed to bring certain measures up to a vote such as the No-Fly list being banned from guns. No guarantee it will pass but they were refusing to bring it up to a vote before.

 

This is a star wars message board. It's not like we're going to change the world here.

Anyway... maybe if we got some fresh arguments, instead of the car thing, or robbery, more meaningful dialogue could probably occur. But as it is, the same anti-gun-control/pro-gun, whatever you want to call it, arguments keep getting parroted over and over, and that gets to be pretty lame, so yeah.... you get met with sarcasm, because you're boring us to tears.

 

No but if we, say the dozen or so people who are communicating on this thread the last few days (subtract out the non-americans because regardless of their viewpoints they can't fix our country) can agree to things and common sense things we can then become advocates for that reasoned change. Hell we could band together and start our own PAC essentially and get people behind our cause.

That is the big picture. If we can't even find compromise amongst ourselves, fellow Star Wars aficionados, then how can we expect the greater portion of society to find a way to compromise?

 

See my edit.

 

Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean that it is invalid.

For as many studies from the CDC saying how guns are bad (use in suicide, more violence in home invasions or any other such study) I can pull studies from the CDC that show that even though the proliferation of guns, violent crimes committed by guns have gone down.

Instead of either side arguing why their side is right, we need to come together to effect real change.

 

lol.... okay, today you're JFK, when yesterday you were thumping your chest, saying you'd kill somebody for taking your stuff.

 

I think you're digging way too much into the "car argument," as you call it. I wasn't making a point against gun control. I was making the point that gun control is fine but it would also be productive to look at root causes of *why* people want to kill each other, not just how they're doing it. Would you be more comfortable with a knife analogy? Fine. Stabbings don't occur solely because there are knives, but because people want to stab each other. Let's keep knives away from crazy people and try to figure out why they want to use them in the first place. What I'm getting at is that addressing poverty, and racism, and lack of education, i.e. the causes of crime in general, is probably a good thing. Why does that make you so ***damn mad?

Can we move on? Or is a snarky comment about a throwaway analogy your only contribution?

 

They are semantics in the big picture. Both are used specifically to kill people. The details are somewhat irrelevant in the end.

 

I never said I changed my stance or beliefs on rights to self defense and property defense.

I did say that I want to see common sense gun control enacted to prevent criminals and mentally ill from getting firearms. I have said that from the beginning.

Regardless of my position on firearms, the fact that I wish to see limits on those firearms is the key piece not my other beliefs.

When you are attempting to paint a narrative that not all guns should be banned but fully automatic assault weapons should be banned (They already are) and then get called out for not knowing the difference between fully automatic or semi-automatic it isn't semantics. It is fact.

If the argument was being made "Ban all guns" then it is just semantics. The fact is that the media and politicians use the word assault weapons to make people think that fully automatic weapons of war are being used to mow down scores of people when that is factually incorrect.

 

Again, that would depend on your position. If you want guns banned across the board then absolutely, no subject matter knowledge is needed beyond "People die because of guns, therefore people shouldn't have guns." I'm on board with that. But for a lot of reasons I don't think a full ban, or a semiautomatic ban, is feasible. But that's a whole other discussion.

 

Apparently the filibuster hasn't worked as your resident cockwomble Paul Ryan is refusing to allow it to progress or whatever you have over there.


News from Twitter by the way so may not be 100% accurate but I don't necessarily disbelieve it.

 

I've figured it out guys. Because it's summer in the northern hemisphere, and cherries are a summer fruit, Scarpo is unencumbered in his cherry picking of points, facts, and posts to respond to!

 

The Senate still hasn't even voted on it. My guess is if the Senate votes on it then the House will be forced to act or look worse.

 

You're entering shaky ground here. I agree that in some cases, mental health is a factor, but where do you suppose the line will be drawn/ What is your definition of "mentally ill"? Who would be "ill" enough to not be allowed a gun--the clinically depressed, people who are afraid of bridges, necrophiliacs, people with general anxiety, claustrophobics? People talk a good line about pro-gun-control people not understanding guns and gun laws, but then those same people throw the term "mental illness" around like they understand what it means.

 

I assume then our suggestion of limiting firearms to 5 round bolt action rifles, revolvers, and over/under or side-by-side ("double-barrelled") shotguns isn't going to be touched by you Scarpo?

 

Scapro Tyler Surely you can agree that gun related deaths in the US has to be treated and resourced as a national emergency in the same way that your government literally spent billions/trillions on post 9/11 actions. This has to be about how you allocate your financial resources. Your country spends trillions of dollars fighting 'terrorism' abroad and invading other countries yet you let more people die (including children) by gun shootings than all the people killed by terrorism x 1000. It's an out of control epidemic which needs to be tackled comprehensively and on a number of fronts. Just enacting limited but stricter 'gun control' is the tip of the iceberg.

 

Lost I believe you misspelled "liberating", as in "liberating other countries".

 

Scapro Tyler, Darth_wanderguard;

Please note the number of pages in this thread. The people in this thread have lived through it all. At first, maybe they were taken aback by the machine guns argument or the car analogy. But we're 346 pages in, guys. 346 pages. No more. You get no quarter. Those that used to defend your positions don't show their faces around here anymore after Sandy Hook. They have learned to recognize a losing proposition.

You, coming in here, pulling out those tired old chestnusts that have been discounted as many times as they've been brought up - it just makes you seem unenlightened. I suggest you get off it.

 

Ender Sai you at least have to admire the mouth breathing gun advocates that they at least grasp the metric system when it comes to calibre. That's worth....something.

 

I'm interested in Darth_wanderguard thoughts on this as well. Why is a semi-automatic ban not feasible?

 

I am not a proponent of that and will fight that tooth in nail via donations to the proper groups and contacting my legislators as is my right under the United States form of government and the constitution. If it were to be enacted and found to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court I would abide by said rules however until such time as that is the case I can not, and will not take the stance that this is reasonable gun control.

I would agree that a large number of dollars should be spent on this issue and leave that to be decided by the experts in the field.

It is a multi pronged issue that requires gun control, mental health issues, violence in society, socio-economic issues to help combat crime so that self-defense shootings wouldn't be necessary. If we were able to get to an almost perfect world where violence was a thing of the past I would be okay with that however until we get closer I am not in favor of giving up my right to defend myself.

Here is the kicker.

Much like in the court of law you are innocent until proven guilty, it is the case here. The law of the land is that the private citizen has the right to own firearms as written in the constitution and upheld in the Supreme Court in 2008. I do not have to defend that right. It has been defended. The burden is on you to prove that my right no longer matters. If you can, great. I go away peacefully and quietly however the burden is not on me to defend my right it is on you to attempt to abolish said right or amend it if you so choose to do so.

 

No, we aren't arguing that you have the 'right to bear arms'. We are arguing about whether that is a good idea or not. Nobody has actually discussed a mechanism for change in a while.

'It's written in the constitution so it's great' is not an argument, and in philosophical arguments like this 'proof' is a term with little meaning (to my 'non-trained-in-philosophy' view).

 

I'm not sure they had a choice.

The 9mm para bellum round was designed by Georg Luger in Germany. The 5.56mm was derived from the .223 Remington round and was developed for NATO. 5.7mm was developed by Fabrique Nationale of Belgium for their Five-seveN pistol and P90 PDW.

Otherwise common calibres include:

.40S&W
.45ACP
.38
.22
.357M
.44M
.50
.50AE
.222
.223
.303

- all refer to the diameter as a fraction of an inch. The bold ones are examples of new creations made in Murica since the world modernised away from the imperial measurement system.

//cries at the sight of a bald eagle soaring with Freedom, which only exists in one country - the country where Jesus lives