|
You did it, you mixed up assault rifle and assault weapon. One is easily defined, the other is fluid and depends on what a given politician wants to make sensational.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:drat near every law defines what it's talking about, either directly or by referring to earlier laws. Every law that pertains to a real world object therefore renders all reference to that real-world object a made up term by politicians. I agree that all legal-definitions are going to be somewhat arbitrary and artificial. Even so, I think we can critique definitions based on how near/far they are from some real-world cluster of stuff or the natural definition. After all, the reason we group things is because we want to do something with the category. Like, there's a legal definition of "Truck". This makes sense, since there is a class of vehicles (heavy cargo hualers) that we'd want to treat differently than other vehicles. We could add extra noise and safety requirements. Or relax emissions standards. Everyone has some intuition about what is and isn't a Truck. When politicians try to formalize that, a good definition would hone in on common truck-properties that make us want to create special truck-regulations in the first place. Like, weight, or hauling capacity. A definition would be bad/arbitrary if it failed to capture those things. Like, "trucks are any vehicle with a trailer hitch" would probably be a bad definition. You could get a VW Bug with a hitch. Or a dump-truck without one. It'd be weird to say that a VW bug with a cosmetic feature needs to be treated differently than a VW bug without it. So all Duke Igthorn needs to do is show that the 'Assault Weapon' definition is a coherent category. I'd suggest showing how the stuff covered by the definition ties into the core-functionality of the weapon. And I'd explain why those properties mean that a weapon that matches the definition should be treated differently than one that doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:And on and on. He is not trolling, I just broke his god damned brain. Congratulations, you made a blood relative so angry about stupid nonsense that he fantasized about you eating poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Yes congratulations, you argued at one another without facts or knowledge of any kind.Duke Igthorn posted:And on and on. He is not trolling, I just broke his god damned brain. Both of your brains were broken to begin with, you're well-suited to one another. Facts don't seem to matter to him or to you. falcon2424 posted:So all Duke Igthorn needs to do is show that the 'Assault Weapon' definition is a coherent category. I'd suggest showing how the stuff covered by the definition ties into the core-functionality of the weapon. And I'd explain why those properties mean that a weapon that matches the definition should be treated differently than one that doesn't. None of those things can be proven because they are lies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Well now you got Sedanchair and lejackal started on their incoherent rants so I hope you are happy, duke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Well now you got Sedanchair and lejackal started on their incoherent rants so I hope you are happy, duke. Ummmmm...MAN, ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE ALWAYS HUH???
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:Ummmmm...MAN, ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE ALWAYS HUH??? Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:To be completely pedantic, he is correct that the term "assault weapon" is pretty free-wheeling and varies from state to state or even city to city while the term 'assault rifle' is actually a technical term rigidly defined and accepted by militaries around the world. Would you like to differentiate assault rifles and battle rifles for us in a way that isn't messy? What about modified assault rifle platforms such as the SVD?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
YOU KNOW FOR MY MONEY MIKE WAS WAY BETTER THAN JOEL
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
No look at it. You created this.Job Truniht posted:Would you like to differentiate assault rifles and battle rifles for us in a way that isn't messy? What about modified assault rifle platforms such as the SVD? A battle rifle fires a full power cartridge like .308 or 7.62x54R. So it's not an assault rifle. If the cartridge ain't intermediate, it ain't an assault rifle. That's all "assault rifle" ever meant: trading power for less recoil and muzzle rise on full auto. Since semi-auto platforms by definition aren't full-auto, they don't have the feature that makes them "assault" anything. The SVD is based on the action of the Kalashnikov but that doesn't make it a "modified assault rifle." It's a full power, semi-auto rifle with an optic mount. In terms of its capability it has more in common with a Winchester 100, a deer rifle that wouldn't ruffle your feathers, than a select-fire AK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:YOU KNOW FOR MY MONEY MIKE WAS WAY BETTER THAN JOEL NO gently caress YOU DAD
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:YOU KNOW FOR MY MONEY MIKE WAS WAY BETTER THAN JOEL I don't know if I'd say better. But I did like Mike more than Joel
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Oh hey gunchat. Take a look at this. I don't know hat it means, but just, look at it.  Then there's this:  And finally, "OMG while focusing on another thing that really shouldn't be an issue at all we have totally forgotten about these other non-scandals!!!"  It seems to me that this is saying that conservatives are incapable of dealing with more than one thing at a time. Also, Joel owned you tools. Mike also owned. I guess what I'm saying is mst3k owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Ugh I hate this so much. "Hey here's a few members of a minority that aren't offended by a thing, so all the rest of you can shut up!" Wait, if I just find a single white Christian male who doesn't think that white Christian males are the real victims on discrimination in Obama's America, does that mean all white people have to shut the gently caress up about persecution? Because that might be worth it...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
UGH, you guys don't know every spergly distinction between guns! The slaughter will continue until you learn! What, you don't know the difference between an SUV and a crossover? Between a light truck and a medium truck? Between a coupe and a 2 door sedan? Between an A- and B-segment car? Then what are you doing supporting license classes and speed and weight limits?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:UGH, you guys don't know every spergly distinction between guns! The slaughter will continue until you learn! Well uh, he asked? And actually the difference in safety regulations between light trucks and cars was a big deal and tons of kids died in minivans because of it. The more you know! About things!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
It's funny because gun owners are just as insecure on the internet as they are in real life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
The best response I've seen to gun people criticizing gun regulations' lack of knowledge on guns is essentially "Well, why don't the people who do know about guns, like the NRA, help them write better regulations then?" When structured properly, it can help the other person realize that the NRA are uninterested in 'common-sense' solutions and more interested in making sure that their right to personal nukes goes completely untouched.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
confiscate all guns and kill all gun owners who resist
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And actually the difference in safety regulations between light trucks and cars was a big deal and tons of kids died in minivans because of it. The more you know! About things! This sounds like an argument in favor of more restrictive gun regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I don't know if I'd say better. But I did like Mike more than Joel I liked Joel better because he seemed to be laughing more with the films than at them, and he seemed to be acting more as a father to the bots than a fellow mischief-maker like Mike, which I found more enjoyable as a dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The best response I've seen to gun people criticizing gun regulations' lack of knowledge on guns is essentially "Well, why don't the people who do know about guns, like the NRA, help them write better regulations then?" When structured properly, it can help the other person realize that the NRA are uninterested in 'common-sense' solutions and more interested in making sure that their right to personal nukes goes completely untouched. Once you learn enough, you understand that there's no need for any regulation. Humans use weapons, big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Once you learn enough, you understand that there's no need for any regulation. Humans use weapons, big deal. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Once you learn enough, you understand that there's no need for any regulation. Humans use weapons, big deal. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Once you learn enough, you understand that there's no need for any regulation. Humans use weapons, big deal. I was thinking of a witty retort to this post since Human's do a lot of hosed up things (murder? happens all the time no big deal!) but the shear idiocy of your statement is dumbfounding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
I don't think I've got any claim to having the shittier or more idiotic arguments in this discussion; I'm getting irrelevant cartoons as rebuttals at this point. If you understood weapons better you'd stop being afraid of some more than others. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:51
|
|
SedanChair posted:If you understood weapons better you'd stop being afraid of some more than others. That's all. All weapons are equally dangerous?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
As a person who grew up around guns and gun owners, and had owned and operated firearms throughout my life, I can confirm SedanChair is that guy at the range or in the hunting party we kept an eye on all the time because he treats owning a tool designed specifically to kill as a natural right rather than a privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The best response I've seen to gun people criticizing gun regulations' lack of knowledge on guns is essentially "Well, why don't the people who do know about guns, like the NRA, help them write better regulations then?" When structured properly, it can help the other person realize that the NRA are uninterested in 'common-sense' solutions and more interested in making sure that their right to personal nukes goes completely untouched. Is this a good response? The argument's structure is, "Why don't the people who know about X do the thing that seems obvious to me? The most common answer is that experts don't particularly care about lay-people's 'common sense solutions'. This isn't really a bad thing. How many idiotic economic suggestions have you heard that were prefaced with, "What I don't understand is why the Government doesn't just ____"? In general, if some improvement were good, obvious and implementable, I'd expect it to be done a while ago. What's left are ideas that are controversial, intractable or simply bad. In the specific case, I think you're heading towards the conservative trap of treating "regulations" like some homogeneous mass. Really, they're a bunch of individual rules set up to solve very tiny chunks of larger problems. So, I'm not sure it's especially helpful to talk about "more" or "less" in a general sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Willatron posted:As a person who grew up around guns and gun owners, and had owned and operated firearms throughout my life, I can confirm SedanChair is that guy at the range or in the hunting party we kept an eye on all the time because he treats owning a tool designed specifically to kill as a natural right rather than a privilege. I don't go in redneck hunting parties, and I'm the soul of etiquette at the range. You'd love to think that you know me. And if you think it's a privilege that's just pathetic. Discendo Vox posted:All weapons are equally dangerous? No, is that what I said?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
"You think having the ability to take a life at the pull of a trigger is a privilege that should only be afforded to people who have proven themselves competent and responsible enough to make a decision that severe? How pathetic." -A self-professed responsible gun owner. Is driving a right or a privilege that gets taken away if you prove too stupid to do it right? How about handling hazardous chemicals? And yeah, they were rednecks, part of why I moved away, but they were also smart enough to know some people just couldn't be trusted with the kind of power a firearm imbues on the individual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Willatron posted:"You think having the ability to take a life at the pull of a trigger is a privilege that should only be afforded to people who have proven themselves competent and responsible enough to make a decision that severe? How pathetic." -A self-professed responsible gun owner. Is driving a right or a privilege that gets taken away if you prove too stupid to do it right? How about handling hazardous chemicals? And I'll bet your sage redneck friends had all manner of ideas about who was and was not entitled to the privilege, as well!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
No, but the Canadian Government put together a pretty reasonable licensing and registration process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think I've got any claim to having the shittier or more idiotic arguments in this discussion; I'm getting irrelevant cartoons as rebuttals at this point. If you understood weapons better you'd stop being afraid of some more than others. That's all. the comic is totally correct actually, you are so defensive about your "rights" that you jump over any all suggestions we might need to take a look at the ever expanding amount of guns people own and say "OWNING DEADLY WEAPONRY IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT  " despite that doing so reveals that you lack any ability for intelligent discussion and subconsciously understand your obsession with owning deadly weapons it's the healthiest
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:40
|
|
You said that if people understood weapons "better", they would not be more afraid of some weapons than others:SedanChair posted:If you understood weapons better you'd stop being afraid of some more than others. That's all. Presumably a cause of different degrees of fear would be different degrees of dangerousness. If people who understand weapons better would no longer be afraid of some weapons more than others, it would follow that to an individual who truly understood weapons, all weapons are equally dangerous.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter, because the intention to kill is what makes all the difference. It's what causes murder. Draconian laws restricting this weapon or that one might affect a few cases on the edges, but to make big changes in the murder rate you have to either make society more equitable or institute mass incarceration. For the moment, we've chosen the latter.Alexzandvar posted:it's the healthiest It sure is. But what I don't understand is why saying "owning deadly weapons is a basic human right" is absurd to you. You seem stuck on it. I mean it's downright unhealthy, to spend your life cowering in fear of weapons. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Because as we all know, there are only two options when it comes to weapons: embrace them as a natural human right and absolutely everybody should own one, or cower in fear. Or, you can respect the fact it's a powerful tool made for the specific purpose of taking lives, and like any such weapon, should not be entrusted to anybody who cannot prove their competency in it's use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Willatron posted:Or, you can respect the fact it's a powerful tool made for the specific purpose of taking lives, and like any such weapon, should not be entrusted to anybody who cannot prove their competency in it's use. Like the police?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:It sure is. But what I don't understand is why saying "owning deadly weapons is a basic human right" is absurd to you. You seem stuck on it. I mean it's downright unhealthy, to spend your life cowering in fear of weapons. SedanChair posted:You'd love to think that you know me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:59
|
|