quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not the one "catering" situations.
Your situation shows Larry when Bob has the element of surprise or for some other reason Larry doesn't have his gun out and has to draw. His gun doesn't give much advantage in this situation
In Stone_Wolf's situation Bob doesn't have the element of surprise and there is an advantage in having a gun.
Both are catered to prove your points. How is yours not catered?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not the one "catering" situations.
Your situation shows Larry when Bob has the element of surprise or for some other reason Larry doesn't have his gun out and has to draw. His gun doesn't give much advantage in this situation
In Stone_Wolf's situation Bob doesn't have the element of surprise and there is an advantage in having a gun.
Both are catered to prove your points. How is yours not catered?
My examples were the ones where Bob has the element of surprise and Larry must draw. I explicitly said they were catered to be ones where having a gun is not an advantage. Calling me out on something I say openly seems strange.
My point with my situations is not that having a gun in these situations would make things worse for Larry, but that it plausibly could be worse than if he didn't have a gun.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf is the one that insisted that Bob has attacked (shot at) Larry not just threatened.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since i hardly have any time to do more than a driveby on that, the explanation on that is that there's a series of well studied effects about thin slicing, conflict management, and the effect of being armed on stressful and nonstressful situations in which conflict is possible or assured.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry misses. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry starts to draw provoking Bob into firing when he mightn't have otherwise.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry shoots bystander. Larry dies. SO does bystander.
Bob shoots Larry non-lethally. Police arrive on scene and shoot both of them.
...
Show me some data.
OK, I see in your first and third points Larry has an opportunity to draw. I'm not sure how the 4 situation could work out in any way. It doesn't make sense.
For completeness I'll complete your scenarios.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry doesn't draw. Larry lives
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry doesn't draw but gets shot anyway. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry shoots Bob. Larry lives.
Bob shoots Larry non-lethally, Larry shoots Bob before he can try again. Larry lives.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun. There is a standoff until the police arrive. Larry lives.
With out a gun Larry does nothing and either lives or dies depending on what the attacker does. Two situations. I suppose he could try to attack by hand.
With a gun I count 5 lives scenarios and 5 dies scenarios (I counted 2 for the one where he killed a bystander but didn't count the police scenario). 1 of the scenarios where Larry dies could have been avoided by not drawing.
So it looks like depending on your assumptions there may or may not be a slight increase in safety. Having a gun definitely increases your options though and gives you some more control.
quote: It [sic] what can only be seen as a malicious plot by Newsweek’s editors to ensure Megan McArdle’s reputation does not outlive its print magazine, the magazine has published a 4,000 word essay by its new hire on how to stop massacres like last Friday’s.
...
This is what McArdle comes up with:
quote:I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone call Capax on his claim that his stance for voter ID is 'completely different' from proposed mandatory psych screenings for guns is not at all hypocritical Because. Or did we just decide to ignore the objective lack of credible objectivity?
The proposals are different in scope, degree, cost, objective, implementation, effectiveness, practicality, and likelihood of being upheld by the Supreme Court. But to score points you try to draw some absurd amount of equivalence and magnify the so-called "double standard" by exaggerating the burden of one and minimizing the burden of the other when the only precondition to a voter ID is being a citizen and the only significant burden would be getting to the nearest government building and (possibly) paying a service fee. As far as I can infer, you justify supporting one but not the other because you don't recognizing gun ownership as a right, therefor it's open to regulations that are considerably more burdensome and restrictive. It would be hypocritical if you took an ideological stand against one proposal but not the other.
If you're going to solicit the help of someone else to make an argument against me, don't. If you think this is a good time and place to talk about voter ID, it's not. If you would prefer that I dismiss your arguments and not engage you in discussion, keep making baseless accusations using flimsy logic and poor grammar.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
(I'm just trolling right now, and I don't feel like I know the context enough to make a serious post, and trolling Blayne makes me happy)
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's a bizarre double post! An hour apart? Weird.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean, so if you want to elaborate, that'd be great. Or not. Up to you.
It clears up the fact that the person saying it is uninterested in additional regulation of any firearms, and the particulars of the violent event do not matter to that.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Can you explain why the particular gun used in a single violent event would be a good reason to regulate that firearm?
Seems really silly. A classic pointless, reactionary gesture.
Do you think the TSA policies, and its approach to policies, is worth emulating? (As far as I can tell, whenever someone gets past the TSA, they add another random, arbitrary rule that with the vague intent of preventing that exact method of getting past them.)
If not, can you explain what the difference is between what you're advocating here and what they do?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain why the particular gun used in a single violent event would be a good reason to regulate that
Does it matter? Do you support literally any additional regulation? Would this event have changed that stance AT ALL?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think we could use a new law, All guns not currently in the possession of the person they are registered for should be locked in a safe.
This would solve only a handful of small children accidentally shooting another child, but it's not too invasive and makes sense.
Also put an RFID chip in the safe, in case a criminal were to steal it you could track it... or we can do that with the guns :3, but then the government knows where your gun is.. and we can't have that..nono. also looking at the other side of that seems helpful in certain situations but can be turned against the population and used to disarm them of all their weapons. _____________________________
In recent news, they're giving heavy thoughts to letting teachers keep firearms on their persons... pretty sweet ._. , but just like all the people in the world.. some people shouldn't have a gun, and I am sure there's teachers out there that shouldn't.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Can you explain why the particular gun used in a single violent event would be a good reason to regulate that
Does it matter? Do you support literally any additional regulation? Would this event have changed that stance AT ALL?
Why would one non-unique edge case change my stance on something? What's the wisdom in that? What did we actually learn from this edge case, that would necessitate a changed stance?
To answer your other question: I haven't seen much in the way of regulations that make sense to me. But I'm not inherently opposed to any change in regulation.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Think we could use a new law, All guns not currently in the possession of the person they are registered for should be locked in a safe.
What on earth does this even mean? How would it be implemented?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I like the idea of regulating bullets.
Could you expound a little more on that? _______________________________________________
It seems like every radio program in the nation is now all about programs on gun restrictions. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler was on the Diane Rehm Show today. He said something pertinent to the discussion of laws restricting guns:
quote:[T]he assault weapons law that was passed in 1994 was an example of one of those laws that was predictably ineffective... [I]t barred certain kinds of rifles that were not even as lethal as other kinds of rifles that were allowed and focused on - too much on superficial characteristics - the way a weapon looked and what kinds of features it had, like a bayonet lug, which last I checked, there weren't a lot of bayoneting incidents. So we do need to have laws that are more effective and well drafted than the '94 assault weapons law was.
With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion. Most pernicious is the fallacious "guilt by association" charges against gun owners and the NRA. Also the blatant stereotyping and demonizing coming from as low down as blog-post comments all the way up to elected officials. Even when you filter out the most shrill comments the amount of animosity is startling. If this settles into us-vs-them posturing, it's going to be a '94 weapons ban situation all over again.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Right, demonizing gun orders is the problem. Clearly not the people defending them under paper thin rationalization.
quote: (I'm just trolling right now, and I don't feel like I know the context enough to make a serious post, and trolling Blayne makes me happy)
Good to know dozens of dead massacred children makes you happy.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone call Capax on his claim that his stance for voter ID is 'completely different' from proposed mandatory psych screenings for guns is not at all hypocritical Because. Or did we just decide to ignore the objective lack of credible objectivity?
The proposals are different in scope, degree, cost, objective, implementation, effectiveness, practicality, and likelihood of being upheld by the Supreme Court. But to score points you try to draw some absurd amount of equivalence and magnify the so-called "double standard" by exaggerating the burden of one and minimizing the burden of the other when the only precondition to a voter ID is being a citizen and the only significant burden would be getting to the nearest government building and (possibly) paying a service fee. As far as I can infer, you justify supporting one but not the other because you don't recognizing gun ownership as a right, therefor it's open to regulations that are considerably more burdensome and restrictive. It would be hypocritical if you took an ideological stand against one proposal but not the other.
If you're going to solicit the help of someone else to make an argument against me, don't. If you think this is a good time and place to talk about voter ID, it's not. If you would prefer that I dismiss your arguments and not engage you in discussion, keep making baseless accusations using flimsy logic and poor grammar.
Q.E.D
The arguments are virtually identical, you supported regulation of the right to vote based on flimsy evidence but not the regulation of gun control based on substantial evidence despite the key variable being identical "that people of limited means would find their right infringed."
Which is the key point, not the how, the way of it or anything else but the end result that the 'right is infringed.' It isn't hypocritical to point out to you that under your previous reasoning you are the hypocritical one.
Since after all it is your reasoning.
But of course you are willing to bend over backwards and leap through every single hoop in existence, along with willing into existence other hoops to jump through so long as it lets you keep your precious gerns you poor oppressed outnumbered yockel.
Also, words-in-mouth, when did I ever make an opinion as to whether I consider the 'right to bear arms' a right or not as having any bearing? Objection! Ad hominem!
IP: Logged |
quote:With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion. Most pernicious is the fallacious "guilt by association" charges against gun owners and the NRA. Also the blatant stereotyping and demonizing coming from as low down as blog-post comments all the way up to elected officials. Even when you filter out the most shrill comments the amount of animosity is startling. If this settles into us-vs-them posturing, it's going to be a '94 weapons ban situation all over again.
First of all, as the largest and most powerful organization in the country supporting gun rights, it is considerably more than 'guilt by association'-they claim to speak for you (that is, gun owners), and derive substantial political capital from doing so. But even if that weren't true, it would still be true that its political power will only likely be diminished from within or at least from its own side of the aisle-not without.
Second, you make a good case with your talk of details. But where your bias is revealed, where your partisanship plainly shows itself, is that you label the *most* pernicious influence as that of those attempting to increase gun control. I don't know how anyone after only a brief survey of American politics would conclude that the most powerful organization in the discussion wasn't the NRA-which *routinely* decries all sorts of gun control legislative efforts, both vague and clear and effective (a flat 'no' is the starting point), and regularly stokes stupid, reactionary fears about tyranny and guns for defense of liberty.
Stick with advocating for clear laws and better laws, capaxinfinti, but please don't treat us like we're idiots and try to sell that the biggest problem isn't the NRA, but its critics.
It's a tough sell. Cold, dead hands and all that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion. Most pernicious is the fallacious "guilt by association" charges against gun owners and the NRA. Also the blatant stereotyping and demonizing coming from as low down as blog-post comments all the way up to elected officials. Even when you filter out the most shrill comments the amount of animosity is startling. If this settles into us-vs-them posturing, it's going to be a '94 weapons ban situation all over again.
First of all, as the largest and most powerful organization in the country supporting gun rights, it is considerably more than 'guilt by association'-they claim to speak for you (that is, gun owners), and derive substantial political capital from doing so.
The NRA is not an advocate for gun owners, it is an advocate for gun manufacturers. If it were a body interested in the rights of gun owners under the 2nd amendment, it would be advocating for regulations along with freedom to own weapons. It's a step beyond "guilty by association."
ETA: Sorry, I should add, I do actually agree with all this:
quote: With a population - this includes politicians - under-educated about guns, "more effective and well drafted" is beginning to look like a tall order. So far a large portion of those proposing stricter gun laws are heavy on restrictions and thin on specifics. We need gun law proponents to propose a law, their reasoning for it, what they hope it will accomplish, and address the implementation and consequences of the law. What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion.
posted
That last sentence though sounds like the Fox News apologia however of "We shouldn't be discussing this during a tragedy" and thus not ever discuss it ever.
And secondly, that something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good to know dozens of dead massacred children makes you happy.
He clearly stated that trolling -you- made him happy...and with responses like the above, I can see why.
quote:...you poor oppressed outnumbered yockel.
First off, it's spelled yokel. Not really a word you want to misspell. Second, this is name calling and against the TOS, and more importantly, just not cool man.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What should be discouraging to anyone seeking an effective gun law is the emotion-driven rhetoric inhibiting real discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That last sentence though sounds like the Fox News apologia however of "We shouldn't be discussing this during a tragedy" and thus not ever discuss it ever.
I disagree vehemently Blayne. I'd say he is clearly saying that making this about the emotional reaction to the tragedy is -detracting- from any serious discussions which might actually lead to positive change and not at all suggesting that we shouldn't be having the discourse in the in the first place on some flimsy excuse.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The NRA is not an advocate for gun owners, it is an advocate for gun manufacturers. If it were a body interested in the rights of gun owners under the 2nd amendment, it would be advocating for regulations along with freedom to own weapons. It's a step beyond "guilty by association."
Except they don't claim to speak for manufacturers, their rolls aren't filled with manufacturers, and politicians don't concern themselves with their NRA grade because of the (not inconsiderable) power manufacturer lobbies provide. I agree they don't actually have the best interest of the people in mind, which was one of the points.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: you label the *most* pernicious influence as that of those attempting to increase gun control.
I said most pernicious is the tactic of attempting to make gun owners feel guilty after mass-shootings if they opposed gun legislation they believed infringes on their right. Someone can advocate more strict gun legislation and not use this highly provocative, unjustified accusation.
My position on this issue isn't vague; I believe it's a right to own firearms. I'm not an NRA member, I don't own or plan to own a military style rifle, I don't carry a gun on me - openly or concealed, and to me personally, hunting is the second best way to ruin a good nature walk. But that is my relationship with guns and I feel that we - as a nation - haven't thoroughly and critically analyzed this issue enough to define the relationship other citizens will have with their right to own guns. I wouldn't consider that a biased view.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: you label the *most* pernicious influence as that of those attempting to increase gun control.
I said most pernicious is the tactic of attempting to make gun owners feel guilty after mass-shootings if they opposed gun legislation they believed infringes on their right. Someone can advocate more strict gun legislation and not use this highly provocative, unjustified accusation.
My position on this issue isn't vague; I believe it's a right to own firearms. I'm not an NRA member, I don't own or plan to own a military style rifle, I don't carry a gun on me - openly or concealed, and to me personally, hunting is the second best way to ruin a good nature walk. But that is my relationship with guns and I feel that we - as a nation - haven't thoroughly and critically analyzed this issue enough to define the relationship other citizens will have with their right to own guns. I wouldn't consider that a biased view.
Again-it is absurd to suggest that the most pernicious *anything* is something other than what is put out by the far and away most powerful political organization in this issue-not on one side or another, but in the discussion, period. That is what is biased about your view-that you look at the situation, and the most pernicious 'tactic' is what people say about gun owners...
Except that whenever, anywhere, someone proposes or is even *likely* to propose...or considered likely to propose (gun sales before and shortly after Obama's election)...gun control legislation, it is as guaranteed as the sunrise that the most powerful political group in the field will step forward with outraged, breathless talk of conspiracy and tyranny.
Or maybe you can name me a group that wields as much influence as the NRA on gun control questions in this country? I'll wait.
As for your personal gun ownership practices, good for you. Seriously. But you know who's stopping policies such as yours from being enacted? It ain't from this side of the aisle. It's from the group that claims-whether it does or not-to speak in your interest, and reaps huge political capital from doing so.
When it prevents legislation you deem ill considered and vague, it's a good thing but when it kicks up a fuss about cold dead hands well then suddenly they're not any responsibility of yours. If moderates in a group don't wish to be embarrassed by their extreme elements, then they should be at the front rather than the rear of those criticizing them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good to know dozens of dead massacred children makes you happy.
He clearly stated that trolling -you- made him happy...and with responses like the above, I can see why.
If its enjoyable to "troll" me, and thus acceptable than he nor you should complain when the shoe is placed on the other foot. As you didn't speak a sound when he decided to go that direction. I wouldn't have said anything if even one person had said "You know that's not very nice."
IP: Logged |
posted
I had to register my car, demonstrate my ability to drive, yearly show the car is in good repair and I have to follow all sorts of rules while driving. I see no reason why a car, designed for transportation, has more regulation than a product designed to kill (killing animals counts as killing). In ten states there are more gun deaths than driving deaths. Regulation things that kill that many people is a good idea. There are also a bunch of safety items that could be implemented in guns but since you cant sue gun companies, the companies don't bother. For example, the gun James bond uses that will only fire for him is actually available, but gun companies won't implement it. Gun companies have no accountability right now and that is a problem.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Had a delightful conversation with someone last night prompted by the Connecticut killings, who expounded proudly (condemning the hubris of modern society) that 'the Constitution wasn't meant to be changed'.
Having even a slight familiarity with the Constitution, I pointed out the many Amendments, which for some reason didn't count. They didn't change 'the' Constitution, but were somehow in a class by themselves. Alright, I mentioned, if the Constitution wasn't meant to be changed, why did its authors include instructions on how to change any part of it the people might like?
That didn't count either, for some unknowable reason. He then proudly proclaimed that the Founding Fathers had the best intentions for everyone, and reacted with irritation when I inquired about blacks, women, Native Americans, and white men without property. For some reason none of THAT counted, either.
What did count was that the 2nd Amendment was included by these saintly Founders and shouldn't be changed, because that's what's wrong with society-people thinking they know better and trying to change things.
Another favorite was how if some way could be found to reduce the number of guns in this country by, say, half, it would have no impact on violence in this country. I pointed out that, alright, people could well be just as violent but they wouldn't be as good at it without firearms. Somehow that didn't matter either, and wasn't true anyway-the violence was what mattered.
If someone says that it doesn't matter if the guns are the problem, people have a right to them...I'll think that's dangerous nonsense, perhaps, but it will at least be consistent with itself. But it is amusing and disheartening the extent to which so many conservatives seem willing to go to in order to not say that the number of guns in our country may have something to do with the amount of gun violence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Capax: when the only precondition to a voter ID is being a citizen and the only significant burden would be getting to the nearest government building and (possibly) paying a service fee.
Otherwise known as a poll tax? You love the constitution so much. Tell us all about how that's okay.
Or you just like the parts you like, and not the other parts, that you don't like. What a shock.
Argue the merits of constitutional interpretations, please. Tell us why the 2nd amendment should be read the way you want it to be, tell us why Harper V. Board of Elections somehow doesn't matter. Go ahead. I'd love to hear that. Because you're just talking about what you think is reasonable and, essentially, what you *want*. Well that isn't relevant to the law, is it?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If its enjoyable to "troll" me, and thus acceptable than he nor you should complain when the shoe is placed on the other foot.
I didn't complain, nor was the shoe anywhere near my foot. I'm just saying, when someone is trolling (even going so far as to openly admit it) -don't respond-.
Trolling is trying to get people to over react in response. Which you did, in spades.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I had to register my car, demonstrate my ability to drive, yearly show the car is in good repair and I have to follow all sorts of rules while driving. I see no reason why a car, designed for transportation, has more regulation than a product designed to kill (killing animals counts as killing). In ten states there are more gun deaths than driving deaths. Regulation things that kill that many people is a good idea. There are also a bunch of safety items that could be implemented in guns but since you cant sue gun companies, the companies don't bother. For example, the gun James bond uses that will only fire for him is actually available, but gun companies won't implement it. Gun companies have no accountability right now and that is a problem.
biometric inhibitors are pretty complicated and fickle, usually.
but everything else is the truth of the matter. The "right to bear arms" is subject to much restriction. Out of common necessity, some arms are now restricted. Some more will doubtlessly be. It's insane to have guns less regulated than cars. It's telling that you have more of a right to your gun than your car, despite a car being an infinitely more important a privilege in this world.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Assault weapon" is a stupid misleading weasel word phrase that I have generally avoided making a big deal over so far.
But now you're compounding that by outright lying.
"Assault weapon" =/= "assault rifle"
An "assault weapon" is a stupid poorly defined legislative term meant to fearmonger, and it includes things like semi-automatic rifles. Realistically, every weapon but pump action or single shot shotguns, bolt action rifles, and single action revolvers could be defined as "assault weapons," based on their firing rate. Except that there are even stupider criteria than firing rate, such as bayonet mounts or ergonomic grips, that also make something an "assault weapon."
An "assault rifle" is none of that, though. To be an assault rifle a weapon must be capable of automatic or burst fire. Such weapons are illegal to the public and have been for many decades. Since the thirties, if I remember right.
It really speaks poorly of your position when you have to resort to such dishonest fearmongering. Ugh.
Edit: I don't think your lying image was the first instance of that lie in this thread, really. Just the straw, camel's back, all that.
posted
wow dan i don't think you get that image at all. ignoring that burst fire rifles can be legally owned in america, replace "assault rifle" with "a gun" if it's really what you need to feel better about the actual point of the picture. Or, at least, presumably not miss it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're compounding the misleading "assault weapons" definition... Which is itself pretty close to a lie... With an outright lie about "assault rifles."
Sorry, was that not clear?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imagine for a second that the image really has pretty much nothing to do with the debate over the legality of assault rifles/weapons (it doesn't). Now, see if that makes the issue clearly brought up in the image evident for you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know what the point of the image is.
It's predicated on the idea that we should keep guns out of the hands of people we think might be violent.
Righties think: some union members are violent and they are defended by other union members, so they're all thugs.
Lefties think: guns are dangerous and we need to protect everyone from everything as much as possible. So anyone who might have a propensity for violence should be banned from having a gun.
And then lefties wonder why the right doesn't want to ban union workers from having guns, I guess?
Except that sort of guilt-by-association, preemptive punishment attitude about guns isn't real popular on the right, so the whole thing falls apart.
I think they'd rather the union thugs have guns if they want, and yet know that their potential victims might have guns too, and so restrain themselves.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
