Guys, Seriously. Stop gunsplaining. It is mean and vile.

It is a great excuse for refusing to discuss the real issue. All you have to do is say if someone doesn't use the terms "clips" or "magazine" correctly you don't have to talk to them or take their concerns seriously. So much easier than actually addressing what's going on.

And can the whole "semi-auto", premise please fuck off?
It's like making a boom box, setting the volume at 5, popping off the knob so it can't be turned back up, and calling it a "safety radio".
And then selling the knob.

Either you're a sissy that wants a fake boombox, or you're an asshole that knows exactly what he's doing, and is going to ruin my afternoon with shitty music with thumping bass, and no melodic structure.

"Defensive sporting rifles"

I don't expect our "sportsmen" to bother reading the article, but let's see them 'splain away the x-rays:


Left, an X-ray of a leg showing a bullet wound delivered by a rifle used in combat. Right, an X-ray of a leg that sustained a bullet wound from a low-energy bullet, inflicted by a handgun in Philadelphia. Credit via Dr. Jeremy W. Cannon

So that's what you call an open and honest conversation?

[Fake Outrage]Are you seriously comparing a weapon of war designed to kill to a radio? [/Fake Outrage]

Jesus Garamet this is not that complicated: "A rifle used in combat" fires the SAME FUCKING BULLET as "a rifle used in deer hunting." The situation/use of the rifle is a moot point. X bullet delivers Y energy whether that bullet was fired from Sergeant Smith's rifle or Uncle Jim's rifle. And that X-ray on the right? If that round were fired from a "combat" 9 mil pistol it would be THE EXACT SAME X-RAY as one fired from my son's 9 mil cheap-ass pistol. Damn you fuckers do need a tutorial on the bare-bones basic laws of physics & physiology.

Do those circumstances involve all of the victims standing still in the middle of an open field?

It seems the ones who know the least about guns are always the first to bitch about them.

Unless you're a climate scientist.

That's not how millions of people use them. Otherwise, cars are drunk-driving massacre weapons by the same standard.

I'm all for keeping them out of the hands of unstable school shooters. Let's start by recognizing that (1) when the police respond 39 times to disturbances involving an individual and (2) when concerned people report the same individual to the FBI for making ominous statements about school shootings, that the authorities need to do their jobs and take steps to keep that person from possessing weapons.

What is closed or dishonest about it?

As long as your restrictions don't entail denying them to the law-abiding, I'm open to discussion.

Because one party is using a term incorrectly, and the other party going to pretend it didn't happen because they're afraid to correct the first party?

You seriously don't think that's weird?

No, as the correction is not needed for the conversation to proceed, it is u necessary. This happens all the time, but only if the purpose is to move the conversation forward, not sidetrack it.

Have you considered people have moved beyond caring under what terms you will or not have a discussion? If you want to go stand in the corner, feel free.

Okay, then what if it's the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15? Or a manual vs passive safety? Or hollow points vs FMJ? Am I suppose to ignore it when someone says a shooter used a full semi-automatic rifle with machine gun clips?

America, this is why you can't have nice things.

This thread is a fucking trainwreck.

All of you go sit in the corner until you can act like adults.

I'll be up here in Canuckistan playing with my pee pee.

I would. It makes the uniformed do one of two things (well, three, actually):

(A) If they're hardcore All Gunz Are teh Evul, they'll walk away and not waste your time
(B) If they honestly don't know the difference, they'll either ask you to explain - in which case you've opened a dialogue - or at least Google it and learn something

Every journey...first step...etc.

FWIW (and I hope this doesn't make you a pariah): I think you're one of the most rational gun owners here, with your bud SHRERPL the most volatile. It's interesting that you two are friendly, and I hope you can keep him in from showing up in church with an AR-15 and a tiara.

Having to speak gun nut language in order to even have the conversation is a joke. It’s as absurd as Dayton’s requirement that if you are to debate he bible you must first be a Christian regardless of how well read. It’s gun nut shibboleth.

Excuse me, what do you mean by "full auto military" version are you trying to spread the gun grabber myth of so called "assault" rifles i'll have you know that modern sporting rifles share a common caliber but they are absolutely not meant to lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque sit amet nisl ex. Duis feugiat diam quis gravida aliquam. Etiam rutrum velit ut risus viverra, ullamcorper laoreet libero dictum. Suspendisse vitae odio vel arcu accumsan fermentum. Nam ac risus et elit dictum consectetur eget sed libero. Donec tempor elit eu suscipit vulputate. Proin semper ultrices felis, eget tincidunt elit tristique feugiat. Proin vel purus nec elit hendrerit lobortis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec in odio nisi. Sed rutrum non orci sed blandit.

Who appointed you hall monitor? I'll say what I like and if you don't like it, feel free to go fuck yourself.

Whoa there Paladin - blaming the current system in place for not working properly is way, way too complicated.
How can you show an iconic, gut wrenching picture of government workers not giving a fuck? That doesn't incite tears & outrage! It's all about images that stir emotions so the media (social & mass media) can pull the strings and the uninformed can dance to their tune!

Ah, so now you're blaming the situation on Lack of Gubmint Interference? Do go on.

The government already "interferes" in every area of our lives when you get right down to it - it's a necessary evil we all deal with. But when they don't DO THEIR FUCKING JOB they are paid for we have a problem. So yeah when Cruz had a neon sign saying "I'm dangerous" and it was ignored that pretty much illustrates what both guntardz and gunhaterz seem to agree on - keeping guns away from crazy people should be a huge priority.

I've noticed that the mis-statements are NEVER in my side's favor. So, if I'm gunsplaining to anyone, it's only so we're being fair and accurate in the usage of terms.

I'm firmly in favor of limiting clips to 8 rounds!

Oh there's an idea. Don't try to correct them. Agree with them.

Person 1: Nobody needs an M-16 to hunt.

Person 2: You're absolutely right.

Person 1: We should ban "Room Sweeper" shotguns.

Person 2: We should.

Person 1: We should ban those guns that are so powerful they throw people across the room when they get shot.

Person 2: I agree.

No hurt feelings, everyone's getting along, and the conversation doesn't get side tracked.

There is a branch of the far right who like to say one person on the left used a term which most people understand but which is technically not correct therefor EVERY person who does not have the same view as me is some how ignorant or doesn't know what they are talking about or that their views are not legitimate. That people on their own side, like Ted Cruz, use the exact same term in the exact same manner is supposedly something we shpuld not notice or care about.

Even thpugh it shows the use of the term is not confined to the left at all. All it is is a way to be dismissive, dishonest, and to avoid the real issue.

That must be why we see so many mass shootings being carried out with 19th century weapons.


Oh. Wait. We don't. Because don't live in a fucking John Wayne movie, as much as you and other gun nuts would like to.