D.M H.R. 4269, 114th Congress - Or The End of Firearms in America 2015

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > D.M H.R. 4269, 114th Congress - Or The End of Firearms in America 2015

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Dead Reckoning posted:

Literally every point in that first link cites a Hemenway study.

Studies On Topic Cite Researcher Who Specializes On That Topic, Goon Shocked And Appalled

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 17:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 15:36

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Local Area Man is currently protesting a study on black holes that predominently cites Stephen Hawking. "With how much he's written on the topic, I guarantee you he has an agenda," the enraged citizen was reported to have said, shortly before breaking into a rant on the fact that global warming studies only ever seem to rely on the opinions of climatologists.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 17:13

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Dead Reckoning posted:

I like that you swoop in right after the guy whinging about climate change denial to posit that there is nothing suspicious about repeatedly citing a single researcher who is personally invested in the topic.

Scientist Who Dedicated His Life To Topic Personally Invested In Topic, Goon Shocked And Appalled

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 21:00

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

-Troika- posted:

If he specializes in the topic, mabye he shouldn't do such a lovely job.

he didn't, hope this helps

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 21:04

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NathanScottPhillips posted:

So what. It's a right. Trading rights for security is not a good thing to do.

Says who, exactly? Rights and security are both good things, and part of politics is to find a suitable balance between the two. That involves trading one for the other.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 17:51

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

I'm not arguing against making it harder in any way, I'm arguing against that specific process? They're rarely used, which is why I'm not incredibly concerned about them. There are countries with gun control laws that allow such rifles without them being a problem.

Why is it a good thing that these countries allow them?

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 19:30

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

Why is it a bad thing? If the problem goes away with reasonable restrictions, what does it matter?

You're one advocating for allowing people to own tools to kill, I'm reasonably sure you're the one who needs to provide a reason here.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 19:48

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

I wasn't aware that Canadians owned rifles expressly to kill. Sounds like a pretty bloodthirsty culture.

Do you agree that guns are potentially deadly weapons? If so, why do you think people should be allowed to own them?

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 19:59

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

I agree that they can be. Any gun, regardless of the purpose for which it was manufactured, can be used to kill. You could say the same of any tool throughout the ages. We're an industrious species when it comes to messing each other up. For this, I won't even argue the morality or worth of self-defense.

I would argue that long guns are a net good for the poor of America. I know a lot of people that hunt for food. Hundreds of tons of meat are put on the tables of people that otherwise couldn't afford it without hunting. Hunters provide not only for their families, but their neighbors, and charities.

It's easy to imagine the hunter as a camo-clad man with a bolt action rifle, but semi-automatics are somewhat common. The SKS, for example. It's cheap, it's accurate enough, and the round is acceptable for hunting deer.

Handguns are more questionable due to the nature of the beast. People use them for hunting, and they use them recreationally, but they're also the gun for criminals. Can we have them around without the violence associated with them? Other countries do. It is possible.

I don't see why we can't use reasonable laws like we do with every other potentially hazardous thing in society. If the laws and restrictions accomplish their goals, a ban isn't necessary.

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, have statistics on the prevalence of subsistence hunting in the US?

edit: also this:

quote:

Any gun, regardless of the purpose for which it was manufactured, can be used to kill.

is disingenuous. Every gun is manufactured to project deadly force.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 21:00

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

It's such an ingrained part of rural American culture that I'm surprised you're asking for evidence. It isn't even just stereotypical Fudds. Many poor people from different cultures and communities will go out, shoot a buck, and pack the meat into their deep freeze. It's a lot cheaper than buying it at the supermarket.

That's not the same as statistical evidence. I'm interested in exactly how prevalent subsistence hunting is, and what the income levels of subsistence hunters are. "It's an ingrained part of rural american culture" doesn't answer that.

quote:

Many tools are designed to harness a violent action for productive means.

Very few tools are designed with the explicit intent of making something to kill living things with.

edit: The whole point of the guns-as-tools discussion is that if you're using a hammer to beat somebody to death you're misusing the hammer. If you're using a gun to shoot somebody you're using the gun as it was intended to use.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 21:27

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

NathanScottPhillips posted:

Literally anything can potentially be a deadly weapon. People should be able to own them because the 2nd Amendment grants that right.

Amendments can and have been overturned. Why do you think the 2nd (as you interpret it) is a good amendment?

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:46

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Liquid Communism posted:

How do you manage to cook with nothing but spoons? Kitchen knives especially are literally manufactured for the express purpose of converting an animal into convenient chunks for the purpose of cooking. Hell, filet knives are for slicing the living flesh off of slowly suffocating recently caught fish.

That's not true, kitchen knifes are specifically designed to process any food, it's not like vegans are misusing knifes.

quote:

If intent alone makes a weapon, why is there no epidemic of people being shot down with broadheads? You can buy a bow and arrows in any Walmart, after all, and the broadhead arrow is specifically and intentionally designed to wound as greatly as possible in order to kill a target faster.

Because it's a lot easier to kill somebody with a gun. You can't clawhammer people from the top of a clocktower, you can't kill school children with a longbow you smuggled into algebra class under your jacket, you can't driveby knife somebody from a moving car. Guns are an issue because they make killing easy.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2016 12:13

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Liquid Communism posted:

We weren't discussing utility, but intent. Take your tired shitposting somewhere else.

Well I was discussing both of those things, with you.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 13:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 15:36

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

stealie72 posted:

Fixed that for you.

I like to think they're just the logical outcome of the participation trophy generation. Nobody's ever trusted them to hold anything they could hurt themselves with or do anything where they might learn how to handle themselves, so we get this.

Honestly, if you've never done anything in your life where you could maim or kill yourself or others, I could see where you develop a case of hoplophobia. Of course, we disagree completely on the correct course of action for dealing with that.

Not the participation trophy generation! I am clutching my pearls as we speak!

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 16:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > D.M H.R. 4269, 114th Congress - Or The End of Firearms in America 2015