The ridiculousness of "gun control"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
Here is a Kel-Tec SUB-2000 rifle. A low power (9mm) folding rifle. In California and a few other states it’s recognized as a “assault weapon” and it’s thus banned because it has: a pistol grip, a telescoping buttstock and it’s an inch too short when it’s folded-up for California legal sensibilities.


However, with the addition of a silly piece of plastic around the grip, a non-permanently pinned non-adjustable buttstock and a muzzle brake to extend the length of the rifle, this “assault weapon” magically becomes California-legal (presuming one limits themselves to low-capacity magazines of 10 rounds or less.)


Absolutely nuts.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what you just said so I can’t really contribute to this thread 🤣
 
Last edited:
General guidelines are that way for a reason. They don’t deal with outliers or fringe cases, they are supposed to set a base standard/average for a huge range of institutions and groups to work with.

On the small scale day to day case. It may well seem ridiculous. But on the wider scale, standards exist for a reason. Many of them seem pedantic or antiquated in specific cases.

But regardless that’s how the law works. And it does work on the whole. Even if it’s not perfect. It’s better than the alternative. Which is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Daily reminder: back in the country’s infancy, people had big, scary assault canons to protect their watercraft.
 
Gun control is truly ridiculous…ly common sense.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
A difference of less than 1 per 100,000 between averages hardly seems worth mentioning
 
3.31/100,000 vs 4.28/100,000 is 0.00331% vs 0.00428%
Also, how would one know that gun control differences themselves are to blame for that difference?
Edit: 4.28/100,000
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
How could that possibly be in this context?
Click to expand...
I believe by “nothing” @ErraticFaith meant no gun control.

Somalia has no gun control. I would rather live in Massachusetts, and so would you.
 
Last edited:
RandomAlias said:
I believe by “nothing” @ErraticFaith meant no gun control.
Click to expand...
How could gun control (which has been shown to be worthless) be “better” than no gun control at all?
RandomAlias said:
Somalia has no gun control. I would rather live in Massachusetts
Click to expand...
C’mon… Are you really trying to sell the notion that the difference between Somalia and MA is that MA has gun control? Really?

Are you even trying to sell the notion that the biggest difference or even a top ten difference between the two is gun control?

LOL! No sale.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
gun control (which has been shown to be worthless)
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite has been shown.
Duesenberg said:
Are you even trying to sell the notion that the biggest difference or even a top ten difference between the two is gun control?
Click to expand...
Good point. Massachusetts has better roads, schools, and sports teams…

… which are conducive to peace and prosperity.
 
Last edited:
It doesn’t imply that the different gun control laws are to blame for the higher “gun-related homicide” rate
 
Wait, why is this nuts? I’m not seeing the full argument. Because you can mod an illegal weapon into a legal weapon? Isn’t that, like, obvious? You can mod a legal weapon into an illegal one, too. And then mod it back.
 
Duesenberg said:
That’s patently untrue. No where in the US can it be shown that gun control has been effective in reducing violent crime.
Click to expand...
The chart in post #6 shows that Massachusetts has very low gun-related homicides. Could it be that gun control is working there, or would you rather we chalk that up to other factors, like better roads, schools, and sports teams?
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand. Utah has a comparable rate according to the graphic yet has differing laws
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top