Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Page 12 of 14 [ 222 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Next

Do you think a US gun ban would work?

Yes	9%	[ 5 ]
No	56%	[ 31 ]
Somewhat	16%	[ 9 ]
Unsure	7%	[ 4 ]
I hate guns and have an unreasonable aversion to them!	4%	[ 2 ]
I love guns and have an unreasonable attachment to them!	4%	[ 2 ]
(Those last two were tongue in cheek)	4%	[ 2 ]

Total votes : 55

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

27 Dec 2012, 2:35 am

This is the "Bill" that's being put to the floor (current version):

Quote:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
•120 specifically-named firearms
•Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
•Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
•Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
•Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
•Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
•Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
•Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
•Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
•Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
•Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
•Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
•Background check of owner and any transferee;
•Type and serial number of the firearm;
•Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
•Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
•Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

I'm guessing it'll be a close vote, no matter which way it goes.

PM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

27 Dec 2012, 2:57 am

Dillogic wrote:

This is the "Bill" that's being put to the floor (current version):

Quote:

I'm guessing it'll be a close vote, no matter which way it goes.

So, I guess a standard capacity pistol will become a Class 3 "evil" weapon that has to be registered (read: put on a confiscation list).

I wonder if Feinstein would have the same opinion if she spent a week in Watts or Compton.

_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

27 Dec 2012, 3:08 am

Good luck with it all.

I think there's going to be lots of violence if it passes in its current form (enough to make rampage killings look like things that don't actually happen).

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Dec 2012, 8:48 am

PM wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

Are you denying that gun bans deprive the citizen of free will?

That's a ridiculous argument. No person has free will.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

27 Dec 2012, 11:19 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

This thread was started as a poll about gun bans. It's reasonable to discuss gun bans in a thread about gun bans, even if you think it's inconsistent with arguments for gun control.

Most gun control advocates are interested in the complete eradication of guns. This is abundantly clear from the arguments presented by gun control lobbyists. So, it's really not a straw man to attack gun control advocates on the basis that they want to ban guns.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

27 Dec 2012, 11:20 am

The_Walrus wrote:

PM wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

Are you denying that gun bans deprive the citizen of free will?

That's a ridiculous argument. No person has free will.

Why do you ignore context? When you respond to someone, evaluate his or her statement rather than latching onto a single word or short phrase that has nothing to do with the point. This is why I stopped taking you seriously in the other threads. It's not an intelligent debate.

Last edited by adb on 27 Dec 2012, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

27 Dec 2012, 12:36 pm

adb wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

It is completely straw man.

_________________
.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

27 Dec 2012, 2:20 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

adb wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

It is completely straw man.

It's not at all straw man.

(since we're stating conclusions without premises)

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

27 Dec 2012, 2:33 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

adb wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

It is completely straw man.

Now for a real reply:

Gun control advocates push for banning things like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines". These are bans. To argue about an entire ban on guns as a potential objective of gun control advocates (which many have openly stated as the goal) is not even remotely a straw man argument.

You're ignoring the evidence that is readily available on many gun control advocacy sites. Or you don't understand what "straw man" means.

PM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

27 Dec 2012, 4:50 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

PM wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

So, 12 pages. Are we still operating under the strawman that control = ban? Oh. We are? How's that for progress?

Are you denying that gun bans deprive the citizen of free will?

That's a ridiculous argument. No person has free will.

-_-

Seriously?

I have a feeling you only made that statement because I disagree with your position.

_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Dec 2012, 5:15 pm

I've made plenty of posts in which I've stated I don't think we have free will, recently in a thread where TallyMan had posted immediately before me (I don't remember what the title was).

The way I see it, either our choices are determined (in which case they are not free), or they are random (in which case they are not free). If time were suddenly to reverse without us knowing, we would have no reason to make different decisions, which leads me to think our decisions are determined.

adb: PM said "banning guns takes away free will". If I say "no it doesn't, we don't have free will to take away", how is that anything other than an evaluation of his statement? And all this coming from the man who said I advocated slavery and murder because I do not like dangerous things.

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

27 Dec 2012, 6:15 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

adb: PM said "banning guns takes away free will". If I say "no it doesn't, we don't have free will to take away", how is that anything other than an evaluation of his statement?

The discussion is about gun bans, not about free will. Also, it's clear that he's talking more about freedom of action or ownership rather than your interpretation of "free will".

Quote:

And all this coming from the man who said I advocated slavery and murder because I do not like dangerous things.

Interesting twist on my previous posts. If that's what you took from what I was saying, you didn't understand anything I said.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Dec 2012, 7:06 pm

adb wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

adb: PM said "banning guns takes away free will". If I say "no it doesn't, we don't have free will to take away", how is that anything other than an evaluation of his statement?

The discussion is about gun bans, not about free will. Also, it's clear that he's talking more about freedom of action or ownership rather than your interpretation of "free will".

Your first sentence: equally, if somebody says "guns cause crime" and a study is produced showing than gun bans increase crime, would it not be just as valid to say "this is not a discussion about crime"? The discussion has been turned into one about free will because that has been used as a defence of guns.
I would give him "freedom of ownership" (though I really don't think that's obvious from someone saying "free will"). Does America allow the public to own 2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine or other dangerous but occasionally useful chemicals? What about RPGs? In short, I don't think "freedom to own what I want" trumps safety concerns.

Quote:

And all this coming from the man who said I advocated slavery and murder because I do not like dangerous things.

Interesting twist on my previous posts. If that's what you took from what I was saying, you didn't understand anything I said.

So tell me, what did you mean when you said I was fine with guns being used by the police against citizens who sold beer to minors, or visibly carrying weapons? What did you mean when you said that supporting further restrictions on firearm ownership would make you a slave?

adb wrote:

You're obviously fine with guns being used to furthur your own cause.

adb wrote:

If I was subject to your definitions of right and wrong, I'd be a slave.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

27 Dec 2012, 7:48 pm

I voted no.

NAKnight
Deinonychus

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

27 Dec 2012, 8:16 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

The way I see it, either our choices are determined (in which case they are not free), or they are random (in which case they are not free). If time were suddenly to reverse without us knowing, we would have no reason to make different decisions, which leads me to think our decisions are determined.

Free will makes rationality possible. If determinism is true, no one would be able to adjucate between a good idea and a bad one. He'd only believed what he does because he is predetermined to do so, arguments wouldn't matter.

Best Regards,

Jake

_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

27 Dec 2012, 8:20 pm

NAKnight wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Not true. Just because I'm always going to agree with a hypothetical idea once I hear good arguments present in its favour, doesn't mean that I've made a free choice.

Page 12 of 14 [ 222 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Next

Jump to:

Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work? Post Reply New Topic

Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?