Do you support the second amendment?

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No, it affects anyone that wants to buy one regardless of age. If it passes next week, it will apply to the 80-year-old would-be purchaser as well.

It is obvious that a new restriction will impact most broadly those who haven’t yet been allowed to buy a gun - those turning 18 or 21, depending on locale.
You’re targeting one group at a time

I’m not targeting anyone besides the rifle.

You’re just frantically trying to “widen the goalposts” and use some sort of special pleading as it pertains to how the law applies.

It applies to anyone, young and old, black or white, man or woman. Your objections lack any actual merit, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not targeting anyone besides the rifle.

You’re just frantically trying to “widen the goalposts” and use some sort of special pleading as it pertains to how the law applies.

No, you’re not. You are adding specific groups, erecting barriers to their accessing of a constitutionally protected right. I’m not the one widening anything. You are, with the continual targeting of specific groups

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’m not targeting anyone besides the rifle.

You’re just frantically trying to “widen the goalposts” and use some sort of special pleading as it pertains to how the law applies.

No, you’re not. You are adding specific groups…

No sir. You’re adding specific groups because you clearly need some sort of “hail mary” to help out your faltering side of the argument.

erecting barriers to their accessing of a constitutionally protected right.

Again, the 2nd makes no mention of the freedom to access assault-style weapons, even if you really, really, REALLY want it to.

It says “arms”. And we’ve already agreed that “arms”, in this context, is limited. This is a discussion about “how limited”?

I’m not the one widening anything. You are, with the continual targeting of specific groups

See above.
I’m targeting the ownership of the rifle.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Driving lessons are not mandatory.

You have to take a test to prove you know what was in the class. Same could be done with guns. Give a comprehensive test of gun safety and only those who pass can have a gun.

 

[upant]

If the so called “gun-grabbers” were to agree to having gun safety training classes in high school, would you agree to making such training a requirement for owning a gun?

you would not need the requirement if you make your safety classes required to pass the 9th grade (or some grade level)

 

[upant]

. I’m challenging the over-availability of assault-style weapons in particular and semi-automatics in general. Thus I think they should probably require a permit to own.

this is a large thread so i am sure i missed or forgot your prior answer to this but if you don’t mind repeating.

you want to be economically discriminating because…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

. I’m challenging the over-availability of assault-style weapons in particular and semi-automatics in general. Thus I think they should probably require a permit to own.

this is a large thread so i am sure i missed or forgot your prior answer to this but if you don’t mind repeating.

you want to be economically discriminating because…

According to general economics, making the price of something higher subsequently decreases demand.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If the so called “gun-grabbers” were to agree to having gun safety training classes in high school, would you agree to making such training a requirement for owning a gun?

you would not need the requirement if you make your safety classes required to pass the 9th grade (or some grade level)

In other fields with educational requirements, there are requirements for recurrent training, or at least recurrent testing. For example: drivers licenses, pilot licenses, medical licenses. There is no guarantee that someone who passed a course in the 9th grade learning how to handle 22mm. pistols and rifles is necessarily qualified to safely handle the plasma weapons (phasors?) of the 22nd century. Recurrent training is a must!

 

[starshiptrooper]

Gun crime is obviously unique due to the higher, more mortal stakes involved. At least a man wielding a knife has to be able to over-power you with it, physically. A gun has no such requirement. A Polish granny holding a blunderbuss could drop the khanate’s mightiest warrior, which the mongols learned when they expanded to Europe.

False, I am bigger and stronger than the vast majority of Filipino men and have a decent background in hand-to-hand combat but I guarantee that a man or woman trained in their knife-fighting style would be able to mess me up. Even someone untrained with a knife is extremely dangerous. There was a reason the Marines are called leathernecks and switched to a bigger caliber sidearm when dealing with the insurrections by the natives after the Americans conquered the Philippines.

I worked as an armed security guard for awhile. Our firearms instructor told us that in gunfights, 57% of all shots fired from 0-6 feet miss. Someone charging you with a knife from that distance is far less likely to miss and can just keep stabbing if he does.

I would imagine that a pricing scheme would likely be included in the law that enacted it, as that’s really the fundamental mechanism.

So it is not about the training. I suspected as much.

Objectively wrong. In your modern drywall-constructed house, firing a weapon that uses a high-velocity rifle round is a dumb choice, particularly if others live with you. A missed shot over-penetrates the wall and flies into the next room - which could be your child’s bedroom.
Weapons that fire scatter-shot or low velocity rounds are a superior choice for defending your home against a sudden invader.

Your AR is a poor choice in this application.

Your key words are bolded right there. Now see if you can figure out how you went wrong exactly.

 

[Vonsalza]

False, I am bigger and stronger than the vast majority of Filipino men and have a decent background in hand-to-hand combat but I guarantee that a man or woman trained in their knife-fighting style…

At this point, your rebuttal is unreasonable as most folks, and I’d bet even most home invaders, are not “trained in their knife-fighting style”.

I’ll readily agree, if your average pot-bellied, middle-aged family man is accosted in the middle of the night by a trained assassin, he’s probably going to die, even if he owns an AR.

Now back to reality…

Our firearms instructor told us that in gunfights, 57% of all shots fired from 0-6 feet miss. Someone charging you with a knife from that distance is far less likely to miss and can just keep stabbing if he does.

So shoot twice.
.

So it is not about the training. I suspected as much.

I’m all for training. Really. But I’m talking specifically about permits in this case.
But I’m a fan of requisite firearms training for gun-ownership for sure!

Your key words are bolded right there. Now see if you can figure out how you went wrong exactly.

Sir, I can’t argue both sides at the same time. Reply meaningfully or refrain, please.

 

[upant]

Recurrent training is a must!

so every time a person buys a gun they need retraining?

we go from making sure everyone knows how to handle a gun safely to training for a weapon of the future? basic training rules apply to all guns. it doesn’t change with the caliber of the gun.

this is the issue in a nut shell, i say ok mandatory training in school for all gun owners and non-gun owners and the left comes back with well i want more.

this is why you can’t give an inch

 

[upant]

According to general economics, making the price of something higher subsequently decreases demand.

to achieve a desired result it is ok to be economically discriminating? like new york and the soda tax.

is it fair?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

According to general economics, making the price of something higher subsequently decreases demand.

to achieve a desired result it is ok to be economically discriminating? like new york and the soda tax.

is it fair?

I obviously think so. As we see permit systems in place for a lot of things, the courts obviously seem to generally agree as well, individual exceptions freely granted.

Keep in mind, the only reason you can’t buy a machine gun is because you don’t have the cash.

Any man with a good criminal record and the cash can get his FFL, set up a front-shop and buy a fully automatic weapon. Of course, the whole thing, gun included, will set you back $10k. But my wife’s orthopedic-surgeon uncle did exactly that. He has a full-auto M16 because he has the money to do it.

 

[upant]

Keep in mind, the only reason you can’t buy a machine gun is because you don’t have the cash.

absolutely!

i always say gun control is just control of the poor.

 

[starshiptrooper]

At this point, your rebuttal is unreasonable as most folks, and I’d bet even most home invaders, are not “trained in their knife-fighting style”.

I’ll readily agree, if your average pot-bellied, middle-aged family man is accosted in the middle of the night by a trained assassin, he’s probably going to die, even if he owns an AR.

Now back to reality…

Never underestimate your opponent, that will get you killed. Always assume that they are bigger, stronger, better trained, and have a weapon that they have not pulled yet. Even an untrained person with a knife is considered a deadly threat, of course you would cut that part out though.

So shoot twice.

Until you run out of ammo which for the law-abiding citizen will happen in about 6 shots if your worldview ever becomes law.

I’m all for training. Really. But I’m talking specifically about permits in this case.
But I’m a fan of requisite firearms training for gun-ownership for sure!

There were permits issued during Prohibition for alcohol consumption, it still did not stop widespread civil disobedience and contributed to the rise of organized crime. What makes you think guns would be different?

Sir, I can’t argue both sides at the same time. Reply meaningfully or refrain, please.

Actually, if you really know the issue you should be able to discuss both sides of it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Recurrent training is a must!

so every time a person buys a gun they need retraining?

No, pass a test once every 5 years. With a pilot’s license you have to pass a test every 2 years. If it is a commercial pilot’s license, it is every 6 months.

we go from making sure everyone knows how to handle a gun safely to training for a weapon of the future? basic training rules apply to all guns. it doesn’t change with the caliber of the gun.

People can forget what they know, especially if they don’t use that knowledge regularly.

 

[Vonsalza]

Never underestimate your opponent, that will get you killed.

Until you run out of ammo which for the law-abiding citizen will happen in about 6 shots if your worldview ever becomes law.

Average and median amount of shots fired in self-defense situations is 2. 4 shots to spare!

There were permits issued during Prohibition for alcohol consumption, it still did not stop widespread civil disobedience and contributed to the rise of organized crime. What makes you think guns would be different?

Oh I don’t think anything will ever 100% completely solve the problem. So that’s not my standard because its unreasonable. I just want to improve the situation.

But Prohibition is a great case-study. While it failed to eliminate drinking, it did dramatically reduce drinking. A few of the benefits of Prohibition:
Wife beating and lack of family support decreased 82%
Drunkenness decreased 55.3%
Assault decreased 53.1%
Vagrancy decreased 52.8%
Disorderly conduct decreased 51.5%
Delinquency decreased 50.0%
Deaths due to cirrhosis decreased 50.0%

It definitely had its up-sides, didn’t it?
Reducing the availability of these weapons will have up-sides as well.

 

[MonteRCMS]

You don’t need a pilot’s license to buy an airplane.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Expansion of Mafia influence increased 345.9%

 

[Vonsalza]

Expansion of Mafia influence increased 345.9%

Sure.

So what we have to do at this point is good-ole-fashioned and adult cost-benefit analysis.

Are the gains worth more than the costs?

Many seem to think so.