And no-one has ever got hurt by propelled lead, now have they? See, this is where all the talk about responsible gun ownership falls down: When you hear the people owning guns describing that they don't understand the thing they own. Guns are not cookies, and propelling lead via expanding gases is used to kill people. You all know that; but you insist, at the same time, on not knowing it. (Incidentally, the very definition of ideology.) I can't imagine a stronger argument for gun control.
It's not, NOT, NOT a machine gun. It's the most popular, best-selling rifle in the US. The fact that it looks mean and can take a 20-or-30-shot magazine is what gets everyone's pussy in a knot.
And the other side refuses to acknowledge that a firearm has ever, in the course of human history, been used by a civilian to save or protect a life, and continually misrepresents gun owners as psychos and murderers. Welcome to the argument.
See this gun Rick? http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-750/model-750-woodsmaster.aspx It's a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine. It's identical in function to an AR-15. And it's available in calibers that make the AR-15 seem like a sparrow fart. But it's a Ford minivan. Some people like cool-looking sports cars. So what's wrong with getting the cooler-looking gun if you want it?
So demonstrate it. It's as true or false as your statement that I was responding to. A gross generalization that is true on a small scale.
Likewise. Rick said anybody who wants one of those things has something wrong with him. Packard took Oldfella's flippant remark and turned into a rant about his supposition of gun owners' state of mind. Next.
Gul has a point. Look at how I edited it: If you used any of those words or something similar then there is no way that it could be a false statement. Pick any of those underlined words or use something similar and in the end it would be a true statement. It's semantics but clarity of communication and all that so Gul gets the point. At the same time I do get what Forbin is saying. It does appear that based on the conversations that I have had with others that it does seem as if everyone who is anti-gun does indeed wear those blinders and willfully discounts the point that Forbin was making.
I kinda thought a normal person could understand that implication. I sometimes forget that an internet warrior likes to win arguments by pretending they don't understand simple statements, demanding absolutes and shuffling goalposts around.
Sorry but you are completely wrong on this one. oldfella accurately described his firearm. He described how it functions. That is all. Look at this quote from the movie Shane That is the point you missed. He only addressed the firearm itself as the inanimate object it is, incapable of functioning with out the input of a human being. He does understand the thing he owns. Now if he made a statement about people using a gun for criminal purposes you'd have a point. So by what he said there is no argument for gun control. Taking what he said and saying its a case for stronger gun control is demonstrating ignorance of the very thing that people want to be regulated.
Based on sheer numbers, we're better off focusing on improving traffic safety than lowering gun deaths. 1 death per 10,000 is around 33,000 people per year, at least three times as many "murder by gun" deaths. Gun accidents don't seem to even make a dent in these numbers. It's going to have to be the utility argument, I'm afraid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
Then I didn't miss anything. If you believe a gun is no more likely to be used for killing than a cookie, you shouldn't own a gun.
And yet neither one said the two things you claim are the default position of gun control advocates. And then there are others such as John and myself who do not favor banning guns but do favor some restrictions and we also don't claim no civilian gun has ever saved a human life. See, I think the problem is you actually believe these things, despite the lack of evidence, and therefore draw wrong conclusions.
LOL at the hairsplitting. Anyone who wishes to own a semi-automatic rifle has something wrong with them. Describing it as a mass-murder machine is entirely accurate.
Anyone who thinks it's splitting hairs to differentiate a machine gun from a semi-auto rifle is an idiot. A quick glance at military history from WWI on would have prevented you from looking so stupid. Attempts to trivialize your own ignorance are amusing at best. So now that we've identified what's wrong with you, would you care to explain what is wrong with someone who wants to own a semi-auto rifle? Or does this fall under "I don't want one, so anyone who does is a psycho"?
This is an old tactic, but really shouldn't win any debates. Whether or not Rick knows the finer points of differentiation between one gun and another, I'm pretty sure he understands that they are all, without exception, a tool designed to use a controlled explosion to propel a projectile at high speed toward a target with accuracy. He can make his point regarding that, and everybody else can stop with the you're stupid because you aren't versed in all of the arcane knowledge.
It's not a fine point, gul. A battleship also has a tool that uses a controlled explosion to propel a projectile at high speed towards a target with accuracy. You set the bar too low with this kind of generalizing. If we accept that there is no practical difference between a "machine gun" and a semi-auto rifle, then can we also say that there is no practical difference between a "machine gun" and a semi-auto hand gun? If the differences between one gun and another are so trivial, then one has to wonder what you mean when you talk about reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. Should one type of gun be banned over another type? Can Volpone haz railgun? And what point is Rick making? Anyone that wants to own a machine gun, which is apparently any gun that looks all machine-guny, has a certain indefinable "something" wrong with them? Very compelling.
It's funny, you hear from people like Rick that anyone who wants a gun is a nut. Yet when you attempt to discuss it with them, provide factual data and refute hyperbolic emotionalism, they clam up and say they aren't interested discussing it. At the same time 99 out of 100 times these are the same people who will dismiss any other subject such as creationism because its based in myth and unverifiable fact and will provide fact to support their point. Sounds a wee bit hypocritical to me.
The difference between a semiautomatic rifle and a machine gun isn't archaic. It isn't esoteric. It's a meaningful distinction which entirely destroys the fuzzy-headed, moronic notion he's trying to advance. A semiautomatic rifle "is" a machine gun like a golf cart "is" a Formula 1 car.
