Quake3World

Transient wrote:That idea is a start, but it leaves a lot to be desired IMO. The idea of requiring a license like you have to get in order to drive a car is a good one.

As far as using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine', I'm pretty sure everyone knows what I mean and I don't think it hurts my credibility or understanding of the topic, considering how often the terms are interchanged. Besides, I'm not suggesting I be the one to draft new regulations; you and I are not the ones who need to be credible.

I don't mean to insinuate that my idea is 100% full proof without room for improvement. It's only an idea. But it clearly indicates a more stringent path to the possession of hi capacity, semi-automatic firearms while preserving a more realistic/modern day interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

I'm sure lots of people know what you mean when you say clip. But you couldn't identify the terminology conflict when asked. This could also indicate your extended knowledge of firearms. If you make basic mistakes like this when speaking about magazine fed, semi-automatic firearms, what else do you not really understand? Case in point, Dumbrain asking about owning a 50cal. He's completely oblivious to how much they actually cost and the availability. Never mind how expensive the ammo is or where you can get it. Then factor in how big they are and difficult to carry around. When you take all that into consideration, it would be better if the only guns sold were 50 cals. Because almost no one could afford to buy or shoot one, and they're difficult to conceal.

All I'm saying is, it's never any good to have people who really don't understand the problem trying to fix it.

lol

YourGrandpa wrote:I'm sure lots of people know what you mean when you say clip. But you couldn't identify the terminology conflict when asked. This could also indicate your extended knowledge of firearms. If you make basic mistakes like this when speaking about magazine fed, semi-automatic firearms, what else do you not really understand?

...

All I'm saying is, it's never any good to have people who really don't understand the problem trying to fix it.

Because I don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, I don't understand the problem? That's a really weak argument, dude.

Transient wrote:I'm not suggesting I be the one to draft new regulations; you and I are not the ones who need to be credible.

Transient wrote:Because I don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, I don't understand the problem? That's a really weak argument, dude.

So you can't see how not knowing the basics might prevent you from understanding the complexities? Interesting.

Well at least we agree that something needs to be done.

You don't need to be a mechanic to know why drivers should have licences.

YourGrandpa wrote:

Transient wrote:Because I don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, I don't understand the problem? That's a really weak argument, dude.

So you can't see how not knowing the basics might prevent you from understanding the complexities? Interesting.

Well at least we agree that something needs to be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I agree with your core argument. But I don't think you have enough experience/knowledge to qualify statements like, "People shouldn't have access to assault rifles, extended clips and armor piercing bullets."

Should put "I think," at the beginning of all my posts, then?

Chunk had a good analogy. I don't need to be a NASCAR driver to know that the average Joe shouldn't be driving around in Formula 1 cars on the highway.

I also don't need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine to know that a gun which can fire hundreds of rounds in a minute doesn't need to be in the hands of average citizens!

You don't need experience to qualify that shit. Assault rifles are weapons designed for war. It's part of the name. ASSAULT. Where else do assaults happen, in the context of guns, other than a fucking war? It's blatantly obvious. Fucking each other over the minutiae is a distraction from the core issue which is that citizens cannot reasonably justify having war-grade weapons in their possession. Yeah, hur-dur, it's fun, whatever. Go fuck yourself. Fun does not trump moral and ethical imperatives.

Fuck Americans are fucked in the head.

Someones upset...

What do you classify as an "assault weapon"? Because I'm sure it's different for everyone. The term assault is really just a prefix added to scare uneducated people similar to you two. Neither of you have the tools to discuss this point logically. All you can do is name call. Carry on.

Transient wrote:Should put "I think," at the beginning of all my posts, then?

Chunk had a good analogy. I don't need to be a NASCAR driver to know that the average Joe shouldn't be driving around in Formula 1 cars on the highway.

I also don't need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine to know that a gun which can fire hundreds of rounds in a minute doesn't need to be in the hands of average citizens!

You're trying to talk logically to the stereotypical fat American gun-nut.

Holy shit. How many times will y'all have this same argument?

YourGrandpa wrote:Someones upset...

What do you classify as an "assault weapon"? Because I'm sure it's different for everyone. The term assault is really just a prefix added to scare uneducated people similar to you two. Neither of you have the tools to discuss this point logically. All you can do is name call. Carry on.

Lucidity of written word and swearing =/= upset. I swear like a sailor both in written word and in spoken word. IE: GFY.

YourGrandpa wrote:Someones upset...

What do you classify as an "assault weapon"? Because I'm sure it's different for everyone. The term assault is really just a prefix added to scare uneducated people similar to you two. Neither of you have the tools to discuss this point logically. All you can do is name call. Carry on.

I would use the definition given by the US Justice Department to classify a gun as an assault weapon: "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use,"

You seem to have latched onto this idea that because I am not an expert on guns, my argument is invalid. You've ignored my (and others) efforts to explain why that is not the case, repeating the same thing 6 times now. In fact, it seems to be pretty much the only response you've had. That and accusing me of name-calling, which I haven't done once. Not that it should matter. If you had any real rebuttal, it should be able to stand on its own.

Did you even have a response until you looked it up?

In general? What's your definition of "in general"? How many round magazine is "large"? What ROF is "rapid"? What is a "combat" configuration?

At least I'm causing you to do some research on your ramblings.

Keep learning.

xer0s wrote:Holy shit. How many times will y'all have this same argument?

Each time I debate a topic, I learn a little more about the other side of the argument. It helps me get an idea of the type of people I'm dealing with and the tactics they use. I don't think I'll really change anyone's mind on these forums, but it may help prepare me for a discussion with a relative or colleague in the future. Being able to identify an intellectually-dishonest debate tactic or logical fallacy and address it head-on helps a ton when you're trying to sway the opinion of someone you legitimately care about.

YourGrandpa wrote:Did you even have a response until you looked it up?

In general? What's your definition of "in general"? How many round magazine is "large"? What ROF is "rapid"? What is a "combat" configuration?

At least I'm causing you to do some research on your ramblings.

Keep learning.

I love how you focus on the first part of my post and completely ignore the second part. Again. And don't try to come off as helpful by making it sound like you're getting me to learn something new about guns.

Jesus fuck, this wasn't even the only mass shooting today. There was another in Georgia: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/ ... ing/npbN6/

It's the gun's fault for sure.

What, the attackers were muslims?

It's not the religion's fault, ok.

der erp?

Transient wrote:

xer0s wrote:Holy shit. How many times will y'all have this same argument?

Each time I debate a topic, I learn a little more about the other side of the argument. It helps me get an idea of the type of people I'm dealing with and the tactics they use. I don't think I'll really change anyone's mind on these forums, but it may help prepare me for a discussion with a relative or colleague in the future. Being able to identify an intellectually-dishonest debate tactic or logical fallacy and address it head-on helps a ton when you're trying to sway the opinion of someone you legitimately care about.

You might aswell argue with a brick wall

It's not hard to understand what the average Joe means by automatic weapons / assault rifles / extended clips but because you didn't use the correct terminology your opinion is automatically negated

"hur hur hur, you don't know anything about guns how can you possibly know what you're talking about ?"

feck off.

sorry America but...

America

[Meanwhile, a man identified as Farook’s father said his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels.“He worked in a county office,” Farook’s dad told the New York Daily News. “He’s married and has a kid.”

Farook’s father said he hadn’t seen his son in some time as they are estranged.

“He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim,” the father said.]

Guns are to blame! They used guns! (This is 90% true)

Religion isn't to blame! Just because they were Muslim doesn't mean religion had anything to do with it! (This is 99% bullshit)

YourGrandpa wrote:Someones upset...

What do you classify as an "assault weapon"? Because I'm sure it's different for everyone. The term assault is really just a prefix added to scare uneducated people similar to you two. Neither of you have the tools to discuss this point logically. All you can do is name call. Carry on.

Again with the 'if you're not an expert your opinion is worthless' argument? Weak dude

Honest question; as a gunowner, are you increasibly worried Obama is going to take your 30 guns away from you with all these mass shootings?