I think I understand the military distinction between various weapons. That they are weapons, intended as their primary function to efficiently kill people, is not something that can be disputed by highlighting these differences. The attempt to make that argument merely demonstrates a lack of objectivity.
Way to Ricky. Problem is, you're still not making the perfectly valid distinction between the conditions under which they're employed. Or do you think soldiers take hunting rifles into battle?
Dude - who ever said guns cannot kill people? I'm pretty sure everyone on WF who has fired a gun understands the concept of a bullet plowing through your body. Does anyone think a flag saying BANG pops out of the barrel? If you don't like guns, stay away from them. If you enjoy shooting them, you should have the right. Pretty damn simple concept really.
Not necessarily, but hunters can take military weapons into the woods. Fully auto is wasting ammo in almost every circumstance, military or hunting. You can squeeze the trigger plenty fast on semi-auto and still stay on target much better than spraying on full auto.
Exactly. The only "reason" for full-auto capability is movement suppression -- but, to my mind, at least, enemy troops seeing their buddies heads get exploded like rotten melons by the work of a Designated Marksman does the same job with a lot less expenditure.
I read the whole thread. You're reaching Actually, your use of hyperbolic and inaccurate language demonstrates your lack of objectivity. Whether you like it or not, the AR-15 is considered a sporting rifle by a great many people and it is used in that context. There are well over 2 million of them in the U.S., owned by private citizens. You are more likely to be beaten to death with fists than shot with one. By calling it a "weapon of mass murder", I can only assume that you are objecting to the "spirit" of the object, if there is such a thing, and completely disregarding the fact that the people who own them simply do not think of them in such obtuse terms. And if the "spirit" of the weapon is the bottom line, then one wonders if oldfella has something wrong with him because he owns a longbow (the mass casualty inducing killer of it's day). Finally, if I am to accept your above reasoning, I have to ask why you specified "machine gun" instead of just saying "gun" in your original reply.
I don't think anyone would confuse you with a fence sitting observer. If you were, you would not categorize Rick's hyperbolic thread grenade as an argument, much less a logical one. Nor would you be repping Packard's bizarre fixation on a careless, but off hand comment about girl scout cookies. Not to mention the sweeping conclusions based off something so trivial. Frontline has used this class of weapon for decades, both as a soldier and a civilian. Are we seriously entertaining the idea that he does not understand what it is?
Of course he doesn't. Expertise only comes from gut feelings and bias conformation. Much like GPS makes people navigation experts and no one would ever use those filthy 'maps' and 'atlases'.
until the Heimlich Maneuver came along, more people died from choking on cookies than gunshot wounds! Food for thought people.........
Yes, Garamet! This is very typical of average gun-owner behavior. Well at least the little scamp is aiming center-mass, but head shots are always risky. The babies mom is teaching it bad habits.
Think what you want, but I'm somebody who has moved in the direction of less regulation. My main interest in this particular fight in this thread regards weakness of logic. When you argue your position by laser beaming in on a definitional lapse, you come off a bit like the North Koreans spending an entire negotiation arguing over the size of the table. It obscures your actual point, and can easily make it seem that your position lacks adequate foundation to stand on its own merits. I'm repping Packard and Rick because they are drawing you guys in to North Korean type behavior. It amuses me.
I still think the best way to deal with gun control is register the person, not the gun. Tom Smith has a clean criminal background (doesn't have a history of violent crime) so Tom Smith can carry any and all weapons. I don't give a shit if he has an actual machine-gun, because Tom Smith will not kill anyone with it, or a .22 ladies hand-bag pistol. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by very typical guns that can be easily procured, concealed and operated.....so why does everyone get their knickers in a twist over "assault weapons" anyway? We've beaten a dead horse over the fact that using ten three-round magazines versus one thirty -round magazine is trivial at best. I think weapons training should be mandatory in all American schools BTW.
Thanks for the decades crack. I think I'm gonna change my username to Oldfella II Yet you did that very thing to Forbin. Does that not undermine your entire position. So besides Forbin's one faux paux who else is behaving like a North Korean?
Words have meaning, and when you let the enemy dictate the meaning of words, they control the entire conversation. It's the "do you still beat your wife" bs on steroids. I wish all Democrats would just be as open as Keith Ellison is about wanting to ban all guns: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ome-out-against-the-second-amendment-n1813771
Huh? Where did I do that? I told Forbin it wasn't true that gun control advocates don't believe a gun in civilian hands has ever saved a human life. To be the same thing as going after Rick on the difference between a machine gun and semi-automatic I would have needed to tell Forbin he didn't know what civilian means.
Lets review what you just said in post #110 Well you called out Forbin for his definitional lapse in post #34. I addressed this semantic battle in post #41. It was clearly a case of semantics.
