General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBeware the gun nerds.
If they can't advance the discussion on its merits, they'll mock you for not knowing the difference between the various boom boom sticks.
mikeysnot
(4,756 posts)to derail any meaningful gun control arguments.
OhNo-Really
(3,985 posts)60-100 Round Magazines for AR-15 Weapons Sold Online
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210274530
Maybe just teying to be helpful.
mitch96
(13,903 posts)they like to split hairs and show who is more macho educated on the finer points of death sticks..
m
OhNo-Really
(3,985 posts)underpants
(182,799 posts)magicarpet
(14,150 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Oh.... sorry I did not mean to distract you...
.... actually I intentionally did.
---------------------------------
(The above is an example of a diversion or distraction that gun humpers might use to take focus off any gun control debate.)
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)Response to mac56 (Original post)
sfwriter This message was self-deleted by its author.
john657
(1,058 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,169 posts)Only reason to have it is to kill people. Can't hunt with it, not if you want to eat the meat you hunted.
But we all know gun junkies want you to get the name of their weapon of choice correct. It makes them feel good.
sarisataka
(18,647 posts)If you hunt with the .223?
EX500rider
(10,845 posts)Farmer-Rick
(10,169 posts)If you reflexively pull down the trigger in rapid succession it would chop up small game. I think a single shot rifle keeps the game in one piece. And to me the only reason to hunt is to eat.
But you're right a lot of very lazy hunters are using automatics and semi automatics to hunt. Seems a waste of time to me. You might as well buy it in the grocery store.
Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #58)
sfwriter This message was self-deleted by its author.
Farmer-Rick
(10,169 posts)Response to john657 (Reply #8)
sfwriter This message was self-deleted by its author.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)irisblue
(32,973 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)ME: [pulls out paper and pencil] Please draw, label, and explain the female reproductive system. -ffish tweet
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... I'm sure not.
But I thought we valued Subject Matter Experts? I guess not, if we don;t like the subject?
mac56
(17,566 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Wanna pass meaningful firearms regulation? Ya better know that a barrel shroud is not the shoulder thing that goes up.
Or rage against the dark. Whichever you prefer.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)DEAL WITH SLAUGHTER!!! WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE SEE THIS???"
Stupidest argument ever.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Makes one morally suspect. As in only a right winger, racist, nut case, or whatever would have a depth of knowledge of firearms.
haele
(12,652 posts)The issue is how a high-velocity/high capacity firearm - handgun or rifle - can be used to intimidate or harm/kill significantly large groups of unwitting people than, say, a shotgun or a machete by someone who has easy access to it and decides - for whatever reason that person chooses.
If an SME make it about "well, this gun isn't what you say it is"... that just changes the subject from the irresponsible use of an easily accessible weapon to an exercise in emotional one-ups-man-ship, while one side is trying to point out "hey, there's a problem with easy and minimally regulated access to these weapons that can't be used for anything but killing large amounts of targets just because someone feels like it" and the other side is returning with "That's not My problem, because I'm responsible and knowledgeable, so stop attacking my hobby because you don't know what you're talking about..."
Mental illness - plenty of people are mentally ill.
But the reality is - the one we as a society don't like to consider - is that not all mass shooters would even fall under the "mentally ill" DX.
Most of them are like the guy Michael Douglas played in "Falling Down". They're just average people who're marginally average on the emotional scale and had one too many bad days, have easy access to a legally purchased high velocity/high capacity firearm, and decide to take out some of their rage and fear stress on something. Most of them could be that reasonable neighbor who's just under a bit of strain, or the co-worker you go out for drinks with after a long shift, or the assistant coach of your kid's Little League team. Maybe they had a bit of a "wild streak" or a bit of a temper and screwed up a bit, but they paid their dues.
They seem to be like you and me - until they aren't.
So, this time, their "shooting range" was the local church, shopping mall, or high school. Easy animate targets that satisfy the lizard brain. They're just a bit out of it that day and want to Burn It All Down and Prove That They're In-Charge, God Damnit!
(They usually only become suicidal once they snap out of their rage and realize they've destroyed their own lives.)
So, it doesn't matter if it's a clip or a magazine. It doesn't matter what caliber the bullets are. All that really matters is that firearms that can spray a lot of bullets out and cause a lot of damage are really easy to get in this country, especially ones marketed to people who need emotional support.
I've had firearms training in the military. It's really easy to shoot once you get the hang of it. And I've realized that when I'm shooting, there's this feeling of ultimate power I get - my Lizard Brain is getting stoked every time I pull the trigger and hear that bat-bat-bat-bat of rounds going off and the target getting shredded.
Haele
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I get frustarted at people who seem to take pride is absolute technical ignorance. I mean, no one has to want to know the technical details if they dont want to, but then why not listen to people who do know?
I mean, philosophicaly it doesnt matter if its a clip of magazine, but legally it does. And using emotionally charged terms like assault weapon which focus on cosmetics instead of the mechanics that actually matter and crafting legislation which gets at the toot of the problem, which like that t or not is going to have a teachnical answer.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)You may not see mocking, but I do.
Your self-important, belittling post is just the sort of thing the OP is talking about.
Anonymous self-proclaimed "Subject Matter Experts" from the gungeon don't have special "value" over and above the rest of us.
samir.g
(835 posts)Yonnie3
(17,437 posts)On Facebook there are (organized?) trolls ("gun advocates" ) who will disrupt a discussion by deflecting it to a sub-issue and then starting an argument (both sides) that consumes the thread and divides those who might agree on solutions. They are not very good and can be steered into irrelevance once you know how they do it. You have to be quick, because they go away after they get the argument going.
The true advocates stick around and accuse you of a hidden agenda. I can make a simple statement, "a bullet can kill you," and get accused of not telling the whole story, that I have all sorts of agendas, banning guns, confiscating guns. I simply respond with don't assume I have an agenda, where did I say that? What is untrue about my post? They have not a clue they are being trolled to make more and more ridiculous statements to the point even they know they don't make sense. I doubt it will change their minds, but my hope is that observers will see their taking points for the distractions they are.
Every gun owner I personally know thinks there needs to be better regulations. Some are worried that if nothing is done now, what will be done later about a worsening situation will be bad for them.
ETA: The owners I know would never be posting publicly on FB about guns.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Ass Wipe Libertarians who want to talk about their religion aka Libertarianism.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)Gun shops and manufacturers have already gotten around New York's supposedly tough assault weapon ban.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Many people are advocating from a position of ignorance on the subject they are pushing laws on, and that often results in many bad laws.
Of course we would criticize any law about reproductive rights coming from a bunch of old men as being made by people who dont have the right knowledge or experience. But when people with actual knowledge on this subject speak up its another story.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)One can be very progun, antigun or somewhere in between and learn much about the subject by participating and just reading.
Leith
(7,809 posts)I'm getting fed up with that kind of argument.
You don't have to be an automotive engineer to want reduced car emissions. You don't have to be an architect to want safe buildings. You don't have to be a doctor or pharmacist to want safe medication.
And, as Squinch and sheshe2 (probably many others) have pointed out, congress critters don't have to know diddly squat about the female reproductive system to take away women's rights to their own.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)How do you know buildings are safe and emissions are reduced? Who are the experts and what makes them experts?
yagotme
(2,919 posts)Auto engineer: You want reduced emissions, and you've heard that lowering the weight of the vehicle will reduce them. So, you tell the engineer to lighten the vehicle. Now, it's shorter, narrower, only holds 2 people, and you get to sit on a 5 gal. bucket. You complain that it's not right, and state you need to carry 4 comfortably. The engineer says "That's not what you asked for." Now, you're both mad, because, technicality.
Architect: You want to build a house, you get plans, have your money saved up, and you want this, this, this, this, etc. He builds it on your property, to your specs. Now, you have a fight with your neighbors, because all your add-ons to the plans increased the size of your house to 2 feet over the property line, and the dryer won't hook up because you wanted the laundry room layout a certain-certain way. (Have knowledge of the property one. Sister/BIL wanted big house, architect had to tell them to stop adding.)
It's no shame to be ignorant of a particular subject. To wallow in that ignorance, and refusing to listen to others that have more practical knowledge than you, well, is rude, to start. Then, to call names/make fun of, is the worst sort.
Leith
(7,809 posts)So I guess I'm just wallowing in ignorance as you so "politely" put it.
The problem here is not that we're not listening. We are listening. All we can hear is that the only solution is more guns. Let's add metal detectors at school doors. Let's add more armed guards. Let's arm teachers. Let's allow open and concealed carry everywhere. Let those who have been diagnosed mentally ill have guns.
Here I go again calling names and making fun: those solutions do nothing but compound the problem. The status quo is not working.
As for the catalytic converter issue, it was somehow solved to everyone's satisfaction without resorting to toy pedal cars. Your family's issues with their house seemed to be more to do with not listening to the architect and ignoring property regs than adhering to earthquake standards.
Gun fans complain a lot about restrictions placed on ownership and use, and especially ideas from those of us who are tired of wondering if bullets are going to start flying, but they don't seem to have any workable or effective ideas of their own. Why is that?
yagotme
(2,919 posts)Perhaps I read too much into your earlier post that I replied to, having had arguments with others here all night, that seem to revolve around 'This does that", and replying "No, it doesn't", and being chided for being too technical. That was the gist of my reply to you, that nothing gets done without the proper technical/use of language that everybody understands. Getting everyone on the same page is 9/10 of the battle, but some have to be drug, kicking and screaming to the book to see the ink.
Now that being said, I never mentioned converters. The only conservative way to get better economy today, without a major breakthrough on IC engines, is to lighten the vehicle, which makes it smaller, use more plastic/aluminum instead of steel, reducing the passenger compartment/storage areas. Using higher gears, which means a higher HP engine is another, but there are tradeoffs there.
The house problem was fashioned to show what would happen if you didn't listen to technical advice from the architect. They did, as the architect most likely wouldn't have approved the blueprints anyway. The idea was, and is, that if you go and do something without a clear plan, or proper knowledge of the job to be done, you will most likely fail. A good technical advisor is valuable in cases like this. Like the carpenter says, "Measure twice, cut once." My worry is that some half cooked gun bill will pass due to the heat of the moment, that won't stop any further shootings, has nothing to do with the current shooting, and have to be revisited over and over to get all the kinks out. Some people don't see a problem with this, but it costs money, political, legal, etc. Because to fix a law, a lot of times someone has to take someone else to court, go through the legal system, then the courts have to send it up the chain to SCOTUS, or lawmakers have to have another go at it. Time and money wasted, if it had been done right in the first place.
As far as gun owners, which I am one, again, passing a law just to pass one, making my hobby harder to follow, because a handful of guys misuse a firearm (which a lot of them SHOULD have been barred from owning anyway, but that is another long post). It's not my fault someone else misused a firearm, any more that me being responsible for a drunk driver killing someone because I own a car and have alcohol in the house. I am responsible with my life. Let's go after and punish those who are not. There were enough instances with the last shooting to probably imprison or admit him, denying him legal purchase of a gun. The system is there, let's fix that first.
hatrack
(59,585 posts).
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Often, IMHO.
Wounded Bear
(58,651 posts)mentalslavery
(463 posts)just like to spread disinfo...
Stinky The Clown
(67,798 posts)Gun Humpers disgust me.
billh58
(6,635 posts)Hassler
(3,377 posts)Is to say in reply, "It's all so confusing, so we better get rid of all of them."
sarisataka
(18,647 posts)Is entitled to an opinion on any subject.
What I don't understand is why, where it comes to guns, ignorance is worn like a badge of honor by some while those who have knowledge of the subject are denigrated.
Is there any other topic where this is the case?
When it comes to law, I most certainly want the input of experts on a subject. I'm not going to ask an accountant the write food safety laws...
Stinky The Clown
(67,798 posts)I am certain guns are intended to kill
I am certain they are evil by definition.
I also have personal opinions. My opinion on guns is real easy. Melt every one of them. They serve NO PURPOSE. None.
snort
(2,334 posts)Hmmm smart guy?
I'm not going to bother to look, but I'm guessing its somewhere between a pizza oven and the core of the Sun.
sarisataka
(18,647 posts)With expertise like that
Maybe third time is the charm, who knows
Stinky The Clown
(67,798 posts)To what does that refer?
sarisataka
(18,647 posts)It has been tried twice, with alcohol and then drugs. Both times it has failed miserably but funded violent criminal organizations.
Stinky The Clown
(67,798 posts)I'm now a septuagenarian. This little idea has served me well from my teenage years through to now. When I want something, I imagine it. I paint a mental snapshot of the goal. For example, when I wanted change careers I imagined what my new office would look like and pictured myself in it. No animation. just the image, the snapshot.
As it relates to guns, I want them banned. I want government confiscation and brutally heavy penalties for simple possession. I want them gone.
So I picture something like this:
I am likely too old to ever see this happen to guns, but that doesn't stop me from imagining it.
It doesn't stop me from using my gun mantra: Melt 'Em.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)And mocked.
That's been my experience here.
sarisataka
(18,647 posts)In the military and picked up quite a lot of firearms knowledge. That has labeled me as a gun humper, ammosexual, barrel stroker, racist, terrorist, I have been informed I am an accomplice to murder, secretly desire to kill people, have an unusually small penis and should be shunned, arrested and killed- perhaps my family with me.
Yet I wager I have taken more action to promote gun control than any ten people who have mocked and ridiculed me.
On the other hand I don't take offense if someone corrects me when I use the wrong term to describe something. If I was discussing cars with someone and I called a hubcap a headlight I would not feel put down if someone with more knowledge corrected my terminology.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Two very different things.
sarisataka
(18,647 posts)The only time I see mocking is when someone is glorifying their lack of knowledge and wearing it as a badge of honor. We Mac such an attitude among Republicans so I don't see why anyone should receive a pass though I find the action counterproductive and simply ignore such posters.
Most who are here merely to mock gun-control don't last very long. When I have been on MIRT I specialize in removing such trolls. By following a few gunboards I know the lingo and can spot most moles rather quickly.
Yet do you deny those labels I listed and more are throwing around On a daily basis?
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)GOP: An AR-15 isn't even an automatic weapon. You can't regulate from a position of ignorance.
ME: [pulls out paper and pencil] Please draw, label, and explain the female reproductive system.
http://all-hat-no-cattle.blogspot.com/
(courtesy of sheshe https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210270168
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Ferrets are Cool
(21,106 posts)Otherwise they "would" be sticks.
callous taoboy
(4,585 posts)When I mentioned that I enjoyed target practicing with a .22 at summer camp as a youth, and that I had fired an AR-15 I was immediately "shot down" because I said the AR was a beast. Poster claimed that he thought I made that up since I called it a beast. What I meant, and thought was implied, was that compared to the .22 the AR is a beast in many respects. But I had to hear the tired "car accidents kill more kids" non-argument, and then another one chimed in with how falls from ladders kill more people per year than guns non-argument.
Response to mac56 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Instrument one for protection limited number of bullets in a minute.
Instrument two dozens to hundreds of rounds a minute
End of the relevant technical metrics.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Putting aside caliber, powder a round holds, type of bullet (like armor piercing) degree of lethality is actually comprised of two things: action and magazine capacity. Lever/pump/bolt action rifles require some work to empty the breech and load another round. Semi automatics require only that you lift your finger off the trigger for a split second. We all know what automatic means. But none of that matters if you are only allowed a certain, small number of rounds. And this is what SHRED was saying in the now infamous thread about limiting capacity. If, by law, you are only allowed a maximum number of rounds to be held in your gun at any one time, then it doesn't matter what action the gun uses. Five rounds is five rounds, no matter if it takes a little while to reload or is instantaneous with an automatic.
We need this knowledge to cover the two most important bases for gun regulations. If private citizens are only allowed pump/lever/bolt action rifles, that is one way to reduce the speed with which they can slaughter. Add to that the limit on the number of rounds the gun can carry, and you are, again, reducing the speed and efficiency with which they can slaughter.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)
can kill/maim plenty fast.
Magazines and Clips both hold ammo to be fired to kill unarmed kids. They do it a little differently, but results pretty much the same. Bullets and Cartridges might have a distinction to gun-humpers, but everyone else knows what they mean.
Suppressor vs. Silencer, who the f&%K cares, gun-humpers.
Screw the Nomenclature Game and those who play it.
Response to Hoyt (Reply #54)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... by those who wish to legislate a particular industry.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)@#$% those guys.
mcar
(42,323 posts)IOW, the usual talking points/deflection after an atrocity. Rubio tried it and failed miserably last night.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)LexVegas
(6,060 posts)johnpowdy
(116 posts)And that is all I need to know.
No one needs a gun in this day and age. Sure, maybe in the 1500's to hunt. But in modern society? No.
OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)If an assault weapons ban piece of legislation is written then my hope is that those with all the knowledge of different pieces and parts and potential copy cats or modifiers are included in the conversation and writing of such legislation. I don't need nor want to know every potential modification, scope, flash, etc. Put experts in a room and figure out how to ban guns that have no other purpose than to kill lots of people in a short period of time from the civilian population.
applegrove
(118,642 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 23, 2018, 07:56 AM - Edit history (2)
on school shooting victims if we don't know the details of various guns.
joem777
(22 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)I am not and have not been a member of the military.
It's not my "job" to know it. I have no reason to own one of those weapons and it is stupid of them to think I need to know that when I'm involved in Big Data and the equipment that supports it.
Seriously - I don't mock people for not knowing the difference between an Export Enforcement Officer visit visit as opposed to an inquiry. There are two different "triggers" involved that create the distinction.
Soxfan58
(3,479 posts)They all lock phallic to me.