Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about right .

When that right involves keeping semi automatic weapons in order to feel all snuggly safe from the Man/burglars/zombies then I wouldn't classify that that sensible, or even sane.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about right .

When that right involves keeping semi automatic weapons in order to feel all snuggly safe from the Man/burglars/zombies then I wouldn't classify that that sensible, or even sane.

Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside, Dread's statement, again was extremely general about rights period.. That you might not like some of our rights really doesn't matter to the conversation.

For Frazzled to converse with his equal he talks to dogs with six inch legs and bad breath! Er...uh that doesn't sound good at all.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,

I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,

I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.

Man... this is starting to sound like another chicken or the egg causality dilemma...

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,

I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.

So why would you worry about people with guns then? You have nothing to fear and bad things never happen! Don't worry subject! The state will see to all your needs! Now back to work!

 whembly wrote:

Man... this is starting to sound like another chicken or the egg causality dilemma...

That one is easy, the egg came first.

The point being, we have a right that some of our representitives are attempting to restrain. And people have a problem with that.

So called Assault Weapons arn't even what is being used in these mass shootings. Its pistols mostly.

Having a multi-round mag and black paint does not make an Assault Weapon.


Yet, some lawmakers feel like targeting weapons that didn't participate in the crimes because they look big and scary.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

So why would you worry about people with guns then? You have nothing to fear and bad things never happen!

Aside from all those shootings you mean?

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

So why would you worry about people with guns then? You have nothing to fear and bad things never happen!

Aside from all those shootings you mean?

Guns don't cause shootings, sick sick people cause shootings.

The only remotly useful part of gun regulation is background checks. Banning certain weapons does nothing, and banning a weapon that wasn't even used in the shooting you are reacting to is just silly.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

So why would you worry about people with guns then? You have nothing to fear and bad things never happen!

Aside from all those shootings you mean?

Well maybe if you could protect yourself instead of cowering behind apron strings you'd be less worried about extremely rare occurrences like that. No helping some people I suppose. Now tell me more about these stab proof sweaters for grade schoolers that seem to be thing in the UK these days http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475244/Stab-proof-school-uniforms-sale-protect-pupils-knife-attacks.html

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,

I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.

to oppress the powerless?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Guns don't cause shootings, sick sick people cause shootings.

its really, really hard to shoot someone without a gun.

Stab proof sweaters? Firstly thats the Daily Mail, the fox news of print journalism, and secondly there are idiots everywhere. We don't have a culture of fear in this country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

to oppress the powerless?

Except of course that doesn't work in a democracy as the many always beat the individual, in theory at least.

You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Now tell me more about these stab proof sweaters for grade schoolers that seem to be thing in the UK these days

"sweaters are soo thick, even the boniest fingered nun could poke you in the chest and it wouldn't bother you none. "

Honestly , if the garments looked nice enough why not make em mostly stab proof.

 Palindrome wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

to oppress the powerless?

Except of course that doesn't work in a democracy as the many always beat the individual, in theory at least.

Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.

Banning easily concealed and semi automatic guns as well as harsh sentencing for unlawful possession of a firearm combined with amnesties would certainly help.

For all I care though you can happily shoot each other while 'protecting' yourselves, just don't attempt to claim that your position is 'common sense'.

 Desubot wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Now tell me more about these stab proof sweaters for grade schoolers that seem to be thing in the UK these days

"sweaters are soo thick, even the boniest fingered nun could poke you in the chest and it wouldn't bother you none. "

*shudder* I went to a Catholic school for most of elementary, I still have the urge to hide my knuckles in the presence of rulers.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States

Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States

Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.

You did come accross that way.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.

Banning easily concealed and semi automatic guns as well as harsh sentencing for unlawful possession of a firearm combined with amnesties would certainly help.

For all I care though you can happily shoot each other while 'protecting' yourselves, just don't attempt to claim that your position is 'common sense'.

Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States

Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.

This whole conversation started because you took issue that the will of the masses is that we remain armed and able to defend ourselves instead of islands of safety like Chicago, Detroit and Southern California

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?

or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".

Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.

The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.

 Frazzled wrote:
The mag cap ban was with the assault rifle ban.

It was, but there's nothing saying it has to remain so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:
When that right involves keeping semi automatic weapons in order to feel all snuggly safe from the Man/burglars/zombies then I wouldn't classify that that sensible, or even sane.

Tell me, why do you find revolvers acceptable but not semiautomatics?

Why is an eight-round 1911 inherently more dangerous than an eight-round .357 Magnum revolver?

Fun fact, they have 1911s in .357 Magnum now, if I had money to spare I'd buy one~

 Palindrome wrote:


or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".

Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't in my opinion. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.

Fixed that there for you.

Common Sense varies from place to place, its whatever is common in that place and for that individual.

Over here in America, having a gun is a wise decision. The police arn't always there to protect you, most of the time they arn't. They really just show up, clean up the mess, and go after the perp after the fact.

With a gun, you can stop the crime being commited against you and you lose nothing by having it.


Yes, having more guns does lead to more gun violence. But only because there is a lot of violence in the first place. If guns magically disappeared we would still have a ton more violence that you guys, it would just be done with other weapons.'

The Gun Culture isn't causing violence, its a violent sub-culture taking advantage of a freedom. Fortunatly that same freedom thats being abused also allows the victims to fight back.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Fun fact, they have 1911s in .357 Magnum now, if I had money to spare I'd buy one~

Yup.

I'm mostly just trying to see if he's one of the legion of people who conflate "semiautomatic" with "automatic."

 Grey Templar wrote:

Fixed that there for you.
.

Thank you for that completely unnecessary and disrespectful edit which leads me to believe that your reading comprehension needs some work.

 Palindrome wrote:
Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.

The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.

The assault rifle ban was far from sensible and had a number of issues with defining what precisely an assault rifle was, especially as they were basing it on cosmetic features that are easily modified by the manufacturer. In one instance the same model of rifle could be illegal if it had a bayonet lug, but legal without it. The caliber would not be affected, the firing mechanism etc. was not in issue.

Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter the United States is a country that allows for the legal ownership of firearms. But, taking the issue of firearms aside, do you believe that legally granted rights should be sacrificed for short term political gain through badly written law?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Guns don't cause shootings, sick sick people cause shootings.

The only remotly useful part of gun regulation is background checks. Banning certain weapons does nothing, and banning a weapon that wasn't even used in the shooting you are reacting to is just silly.

Guns cause shootings in the exact same way as pencils cause spelling mistakes

 Grey Templar wrote:
You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.

Like Chicago - Very strict gun laws, and one of the highest rates of murder with firearms (usually illegally held) in the United States.

 Palindrome wrote:
Thank you for that completely unnecessary and disrespectful edit

As opposed to the person who comes on here to berate a country's lack of common sense because they agree to something you disagree with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I'm mostly just trying to see if he's one of the legion of people who conflate "semiautomatic" with "automatic."

My current favourite is "military style weapon", that covers everything from 9mm pistols all the way up.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?

or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".

Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.

The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.

Quoting this post solely because it's the last one you have typed. We are not trying to be rude, we're not trying to belittle you, we're not saying you're stupid, we're merely stating a fact.

You're not an American, and have not had the same rights we do. When we say you literally cannot understand our arguments, there is a reason. It'd be like you trying to explain to us why Britain still has a Queen. We're entirely different cultures. Of COURSE we don't see eye to eye. Why would you not want gun control when your entire life (maybe not you but most brits) have always had it? I understand why your view is the way it is, now please, think about how we see it.

In the United States, many people live out in the sticks. You could have to wait over an hour in some places for police to show up, and that's if they can show up at all. Even in the city, it's not unheard of for cops to take a while to get there if traffic is real bad or you live in a weird area. Also throw in that our criminals are very likely to have guns, and you can see why we would want equal terms to defend ourselves. And that's not counting places like Alaska or Washington where you may need a weapon of some kind to defend yourself against bears and other dangerous wildlife. We don't live in England, where your average mugger probably only has a switchblade and the scariest animal you'll see is maybe a rabid dog (do you guys even have rabies over there?) Again, we are entirely different cultures.

If you really want to stick around in this topic with us, I'd like to ask you to at least watch this video I've linked. It's very educational and will explain a lot of what we're talking about, at least as far as mag bans go. In particular, watch the part about revolvers and "new york reloads" around 10:40. At the very least, it'll show you why we're so confused over you thinking revolvers are fine, but semi autos aren't. I don't know if this video will really reach you, as your mind appears to be already made up, but hey, at least I tried. One bit of warning about the video is to not focus on the "expert" shooter when they show the differences in mags, since he actually speeds up as the mags get smaller. Pay attention to the less experienced woman shooter, as she's a lot more realistic of what you would see with different sized mags.

I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?

or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".

Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.

The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.

Quoting this post solely because it's the last one you have typed. We are not trying to be rude, we're not trying to belittle you, we're not saying you're stupid, we're merely stating a fact.

You're not an American, and have not had the same rights we do. When we say you literally cannot understand our arguments, there is a reason. It'd be like you trying to explain to us why Britain still has a Queen. We're entirely different cultures. Of COURSE we don't see eye to eye. Why would you not want gun control when your entire life (maybe not you but most brits) have always had it? I understand why your view is the way it is, now please, think about how we see it.

In the United States, many people live out in the sticks. You could have to wait over an hour in some places for police to show up, and that's if they can show up at all. Even in the city, it's not unheard of for cops to take a while to get there if traffic is real bad or you live in a weird area. Also throw in that our criminals are very likely to have guns, and you can see why we would want equal terms to defend ourselves. And that's not counting places like Alaska or Washington where you may need a weapon of some kind to defend yourself against bears and other dangerous wildlife. We don't live in England, where your average mugger probably only has a switchblade and the scariest animal you'll see is maybe a rabid dog (do you guys even have rabies over there?) Again, we are entirely different cultures.

If you really want to stick around in this topic with us, I'd like to ask you to at least watch this video I've linked. It's very educational and will explain a lot of what we're talking about, at least as far as mag bans go. In particular, watch the part about revolvers and "new york reloads" around 10:40. At the very least, it'll show you why we're so confused over you thinking revolvers are fine, but semi autos aren't. I don't know if this video will really reach you, as your mind appears to be already made up, but hey, at least I tried. One bit of warning about the video is to not focus on the "expert" shooter when they show the differences in mags, since he actually speeds up as the mags get smaller. Pay attention to the less experienced woman shooter, as she's a lot more realistic of what you would see with different sized mags.

I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.

Exalted! This should be stickied whenever the gun debates rages on...