What views are you on?

Post Reply New Topic

Not really. I stated earlier that the term should actually be revised to reflect accuracy and not the feelings of a few politicians on the matter. I base my terminology on my knowledge of military history. Most of what Ace said earlier I agree with, hence why I said 'much of it is bureaucratic fluff'




That's true. As I mentioned, most crimes are done with illegally acquired weapons anyways. My main concern is not petty crime but domestic terrorism





We don't really seem to be in much disagreement then, as I wish for an accurate definition of 'assault weapons' to be made, and I don't consider semi auto rifles (even ones that were designed, as many weapons are, for military purposes) that most people just acquire because they are collectors/aficionados assault weapons. I can imagine going to a shooting range with a full auto weapon would probably be rather expensive as well considering how much ammo one might burn through if they were really trigger happy




That is a fair point (underlined). But tbh, I don't trust most of the survivalist types who are frequently the most vocal about this. A lot of them are openly racist, hateful people, or are people who frequent sites like Stormfront. I want automatic weapons as far away from these people as possible. They probably acquire these kinds of weapons illegally anyways, but I still think automatic weapons are dangerous and maximize the amount of people that could be killed in a short span of time. There are massacres that are done with legally acquired weapons as well. (I'm actually curious now how many school shootings and other massacres are done with illegal vs legally owned guns)



I don't remember talking about hollow point ammo? But what it can do to a person is pretty grotesque. I don't have a problem with police using it. The only thing I recall having spoken out against is the (afaik) discontinued 'Black Talon' ammunition. Perhaps I made a typo and referred to BT as HP, though BT is a type of HP



And you guys don't? Your emotion is anger that someone wants to cut into your 'fun'. That is a lot of tried and true pro-gun rhetoric above, but it always comes back to this. They want to keep having fun with their guns regardless of what risks there are to other Human beings in the future, many of whom don't care about guns at all- that is about as small minded and selfish as one can get. That 'emotion' argument is very weak, as nothing is done without emotions. If anything the pro-gun camp is more emotional about this, as I base my distaste for assault weapons and most of the people who desire them on precedent and concern for potentially disastrous situations while they frequently go into 'God given right/cold dead hands' arguments that are about as emotional as one can possibly get while trying to appear like some kind of bad ass. Not impressed
/end derail (one can hope )

Last edited by Vigilans on 04 May 2011, 5:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I will add one more:

Abortion is homicide, and like killing of older people it is [always, I think, though we can discuss that] a sin and sometimes a crime but perhaps under certain circumstances justifiable. But as I said years ago, in many of the cases in which abortion is urged it would be preferable to wait till the child is born, since most of the factors which MIGHT justify abortion clearly also justify infanticide.

So are we talking past each other in that you think an "assault weapon" means full auto? What do you mean specifically when you use the term, since it is rather nebulous and changes depending upon whom you're talking to.

It sounds like you're basing your beliefs more on a distaste for certain gun owners than on actually looking into the impact of firearms on crime. Look at the actual numbers, not just the loudmouths you've come to associate with the issue.




It was in a Random thread about passing any law you could; one of your choices was to ban hollowpoint ammunition. Can you tell me what's so bad about Black Talon specifically? You do know that they simply pulled it off the market after anti-gun groups made a stink about the macho name and reintroduced the same round sans the black coating under the name “Ranger SXT”, right? No scary name, no black coating, no media stink, imagine that! It was just another hollowpoint design, this time with a pre-scored jacket to allow more efficient expansion of the round so that it took less shots to stop someone and the risk of overpenetration was further reduced. Sinister, right? Perhaps the most aggressive frangible round on the market has never had any media trouble, probably because it's marketed under the name Safety Slug...

Some reading material for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon



You haven't provided any detailing of this risk to others, and you're ignoring multiple strong motivators for arguing for gun rights in order to get to the one you consider spurious (self defense should top any list). Aside from which, none of us is arguing to restrict the rights of other people, only that our own rights not be unduly restricted, which should put the burden of proving their case on the proponents of restrictions. If you ask me why I oppose gun control, I can rattle off numerous reasons encompassing everything from the Constitution to natural rights to purely practical to financial, and I can back them up with numbers and/or legal precedent; when you're asked why you support it you resort to vague statements and demonizing the other side. See the difference? I'll admit this isn't exactly a fair fight since this is sort of my field and I've got a lot of experience arguing this position; but what's the point of having an opinion if you can't defend it?

I'll end this de-railing when I'm good and ready

1. Abortion: Completely legal but must be avoided. Not because of holiness or anything but because of risks in pregnancy, giving birth and abortion itself. That's the reason contraception should be easily available and sex ed ubiquitous.

2. Censorship: Any form of censorship must go to heckl
3. Death Penalty: State shouldn't decide who lives and who dies. The legal system has been wrong many times , so giving it the right to kill is not sane to me. To prevent crime, have better education and health care.
4. Guns: Should require an easily acquirable yet revocable license just like cars do.
5.- Health care: Health an education should be the basic duties of any government. People that wish to pay for better service should be allowed and encouraged to. As opposed to what people that live under rocks may think. This idea has worked in many places that are more worthy of the "1st world" category than US.

6. Official US language: I don't care about this.
7. War on terror: Oxymoron.
8. Taxes: Just make sure the percentage is not too high and applies equally to everyone.
9. LGBT should be able to marry and adopt if the couple is found stable and suitable for child care (like heterosexual couples need to be confirmed suitable as well). IF it was for me, marriage (heterosexual, gay, etc) would not legally exist. Only legal unions.
10. Secular government and secular society is the only way to ensure freedom of religion.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 04 May 2011, 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've read that article about BT. One thing I find hypocritical about the argument against it is that the issues raised by medical professionals are relevant to all HP ammunition but, alas, attention was only raised due to the publicity of BT in particular. I am curious if what they claimed is a potential risk (the sharp edges causing risk to medical professionals removing the bullet) has actually occurred. Regardless, I trust medical professionals more than I do gun advocates on that issue, as anything that increases the risk of blood borne infections between patients and medical practitioners is something I am concerned about, though I don't hear too much about this issue

As I said, you can use all the passive aggressive pro-gun rhetoric about 'self defense', 'inalienable rights', 'you know nothing about guns!! ! ad hom' etc etc, but in my view, most of it just comes down to you guys wanting to keep playing with your toys. So have fun! If you can't see the risks in automatic weapons being freely available, I don't expect I'm going to convince you of anything (nor do I want to, it was you who opened this discourse in a topic not even about it). There is nothing vague about referring to the fact that many massacres are done with legally acquired firearms and that survivalist scum are probably the best demographic to be domestic terrorists. Imagine Columbine, except with automatic weapons. And putting all this thought into trying to convince some guy in a different country with different attitudes about guns seems somewhat a waste of your time. Most of us don't think like you Americans, about this 'Castle' issue. I would be happy with a tasergun. Then the crook can go to prison, a much more fitting punishment. I'm not interested in killing anybody. I sure hope you aren't either. You also seem to be mistaking me for someone who is 100% against guns, which I am most certainly not. Many of my family members are into hunting, and at least half of my friends are gun nuts, and I see nothing wrong with guns as a hobby. I see automatic weapons in the hands of civilians as a negative thing, that is all. I don't see why that is an unreasonable opinion

Last edited by Vigilans on 04 May 2011, 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

A fetus is not a person, so it is no homicide.

ruveyn

Homicide - check your Latin - I am the son of two Classicists and very nearly went that route myself - is the KILLING = causing extinction of life of a HUMAN BEING.

A human fetus is a human being whether or not a particular government finds it politically expedient to count it as a person.

Oh no... the abortion debate... Dox47, I am now open to debating guns lets pretend I am 100% against guns from this point onwards, I'm sure you can fill in the rest

Hey mon - I am debating nothing. The poster asked views. I give a view. ruveyn does a ruveyn, I make it my policy NOT to let ruveyn pull too many ruveyns unchallenged. I do not like assumed blindness.

I have NO intention of debating. AND if you notice my challenge is to his deliberate misuse of language.

Jesus Christ I should've never got started with the assault weapon debate. Vigilans, we can take this to PMs if you want. That or Dox47 can start a thread cuz I'm too lazy to. There's like a million abortion threads and we all know how they end up lol.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 04 May 2011, 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

=============

Abortion:

Abortion is a form of the intentional killing of innocent human life which is otherwise known as murder.

Censorship:

Freedom of speech is good, but freedom of pornographers is not.

Death penalty:

Murderers deserve the death penalty.

Guns:

People should be free to own firearms and perhaps some ordinance so long as they are neither criminals nor clinically insane.

Health care:

Bureaucracies in America as run by the federal government are too lazy and otherwise incompetent for a freebie healthcare system to work here. It sounds like a nice idea, but it's not going to work any better than the social security administration if it ever is implemented.

Official US language:

The US should adopt Russian as its official language.

War on Terror:

I'd prefer we just conquer the middle east, pillage them and get it over with rather than all this politically correct hemming and hawing. Tell the UN to kiss itself goodbye while were at it.

Taxes:

20% taxation for everyone who makes 1.5 or more times the cost of living. 0% taxation for everyone else.

Secular government:

People should stop trying to censor Christians. Move to North Korea if you really want a secular government.

Texas

Texas should become it's own nation and conquer the United States and then the universe.

no its okay I'm really not that interested in debating the topic, I prefer nice convos via PM , as I said I'm not against guns, a lot of the people I know are pro gun, and I am against the long gun registry here in Canada, but I'm just of the opinion that automatic weapons shouldn't be easily available. I should have been more specific I suppose. I don't really see my position as being that unreasonable

Well, we also all know where the gun thread will go too... I actually have a general principle against starting such threads because they're actually somewhat boring to me since I really am starting to think I've seen every possible argument, where as correcting gun related misconceptions is just habit. I also don't like being pigeonholed as a one issue guy, especially with all the stereotype baggage that comes with championing gun rights; I sometimes think having my wife in my avatar is the only thing keeping some people from making the racist accusation.

@Vigilans:

Are you using the term "assault weapon" interchangeably with "automatic weapon"? I think that's were I'm getting confused, in the states AW specifically refers to certain semiautomatic firearms, though the anti-gun lobby has done everything it can to confuse the voters on that. For your own info, virtually no crime is committed here with legally owned automatic (or NFA to use the jargon) firearms, they start north of $3000 and require a 6-9 month wait while the ATF processes your paperwork per item IF they're even legal where you live. Semis go through the regular channels, which still requires a federal background check and some paperwork, but not the massive amount of red tape surrounding NFA items. There are also quite stringent storage requirements for NFA firearms, so even the risk of theft and misuse is quite minimal.

Abortion is a pill and bleeding into a pantyliner for a few days.
To liken it to the murder of sentient person is ludicrous, and quite disturbing, ethically.

None of the factors justifying abortion justify infanticide- the relationship with one's children can be completely severed via adoption.
Adoption does not end a pregnancy, in contrast.

A few ethical proofs:

Because a fetus is biologically alive and genetically human,
and abortion ends the life of the fetus, being innocent,
and actions resulting in loss of innocent human life are wrong,
therefore, abortion is wrong.

Because women and children are sentient,
and as such suffer when giving birth to and being unwanted children affects their health, economic, and family situations,
and actions which prevent suffering are just,
therefore, abortion is just.

Because individuals do and should possess agency over their person,
and an exercisement of this agency is abortion,
and restriction of said agency is wrong,
therefore, restriction of abortion is wrong.

Usage of the word innocent on a fetus is not suitable. I guess you could call rocks innocent as well if giving innocence to things that do not have a conscience or will of their own is what we want.

Sperm is "biologically alive" and "genetically human". It is also as "innocent" as rocks.

Etymological fallacy.


Why?

So censorship = hip for pornographers. Bad when it is against christians. You don't believe in free speech, you only believe in your speech.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 04 May 2011, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hah! North Korea secular? Their government is based upon the quasi-religion of their leader's cult of personality