Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Obama and his speech in the Oval Office

One Post

By One Post
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Browns149 Mentor

Browns149

Posted
Posted

He said nothing new.

 

Just a bunch of political mumbo-jumbo

 

Plus a shot at assault weapons, for good measure.

 

And then a tolerance for Muslim's.

 

Damn I sound like cal.........................I'm scared, really scared

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

Damn I sound like cal.........................I'm scared, really scared 149

***********************************************

The truth shall set you free....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Legacy Fan Newbie

Legacy Fan

Posted
Posted

"Talking Productively about Guns"
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/

The author brings up many good points. Several of which I've made here, but he makes more thoroughly and eloquently. For example:

Gun Terminology Matters

If we had the "reasonable gun control" I keep hearing about, what guns would be limited? I'm arguably not a complete idiot, but I can't figure it out. I hear "nobody wants to take away all your guns" a lot which seems demonstrably false but what guns do gun-control advocates want to take away, or restrict? Most of the time I don't know and I suspect that the advocates don't know either.

That's because there's a terminology gap. Many people advocating for gun control mangle and misuse descriptive words about guns. No doubt some of them are being deliberately ambiguous, but I think most people just haven't educated themselves on the meaning of a relatively small array of terms. That's how you get a debate framed around gibberish like "multi-automatic round weapons" and the like. You get people using "semi-automatic" and "automatic" without knowing what they mean, and you get the term "assault weapon" thrown about as if it means more than whatever we choose to make it mean, which it does not.

If you don't understand these terms already, why should you care? You should care because when you misuse them, you signal substantially broader gun restrictions than you may actually be advocating. So, for instance, if you have no idea what semi-automatic means, but you've heard it and it sounds scary, and you assume that it means some kind of machine gun, so you argue semi-automatics should be restricted, you've just conveyed that most modern handguns (save for revolvers) should be restricted, even if that's not what you meant.

It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?

Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.

 

- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.

 

- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.

 

- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.

 

- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).

 

- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.

 

- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.

 

 

That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.

 

To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:

 

12239216_945562982182354_390065485516819

 

I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LogicIsForSquares Apprentice

LogicIsForSquares

Posted
Posted

Chris, the problem is that there have been situations (ex: LA riots, Ferguson, Post-Katrina, etc.) where having a long gun with high capacity magazines is the most logical means of defending yourself and your property.

 

As for the 6-7 rounds thing, handgun rounds are a compromise. You are giving up capability for concealabiity. If multiple people are confronting you, 6-7 rounds will not be enough.

 

In the end though, the only people who would abide by these feel good gun laws are the types of people who don't commit murders, rob people, etc. Criminals could give less of a shot about the capacity in a magazine if they are killing strangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.

 

If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.

 

And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Cysko Kid Rising Star

The Cysko Kid

Posted
Posted

Good point, legacy, and probably something I'm guilty of myself. I'll have a go at describing, without trying to use technical terms, what people are thinking.

 

- What people who advocate 'common sense' gun restrictions want to avoid is anything that can fire a high frequency of bullets/rounds/whatever in a shot period of time. Like a 'machine gun' - I don't know the technical term.

 

Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy

 

- Also, the ability to fire off a lot of bullets over a longer period of time, so something that you can fire quite quickly, has a lot of bullets.

 

semi automatic weapons would be included in this. Handguns and rifles especially.

 

- Probably also something that would be worth restricting is spare magazines, clips or whatever you're calling it that you can drop out of the weapon and replace pretty quickly.

 

what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?

 

- The main point is, if you're worried about self defence, fine, get a gun that allows you to defend yourself in a hurry. I'm not an expert but I believe a pistol can hold something in the order of 6 or 7 bullets? Maybe 8 or 9. That's plenty to deter someone from whatever's going on, and also plenty to put down some crazy with a gun, and also plenty to fight off a gang (if they themselves don't have guns for some reason).

 

you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10

 

- There's no need, in self defence terms, to have what I know as a 'long arm' - a rifle, shotgun etc, something that's not exactly draw and fire quickly like a pistol. There's no need to put about 30 rounds in 5 seconds.

 

Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get

 

- There's no need to open carry your hunting rifle when dropping the kids off at school, or picking up some groceries.

 

Yeah I pretty much agree with this. I'm not a huge fan of open carry in general

 

 

That's all based on the assumption that having guns readily available for self defence makes sense, of course.

 

To be frank, the bigger problem is with stupid people, which won't be fixed by legislating on guns, that will just make it harder for them to exercise their stupidity on others. You have people who are so quick to anger because it's the only way they know how to deal with issues. Things escalate over trivial things and people get shot. For example:

 

12239216_945562982182354_390065485516819

 

I haven't been through all of them, but the few I have check out as reflective of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

 

 

Horseshit. If I'm defending my house I would go to my carbine rifle over a handgun immediately. There's an intimidation factor there same with a shotgun. If you're burgling a house and you hear that sound of a shotgun being racked you're going to need new underpants. And if you're not fleeing immediately at that point you deserve what you're about to get

 

I was talking more about when on the street. You break in to someone's house, you get shot, you can't complain much. A man's home is his castle and all that. Walking down the street in a dodgy neighbourhood, less call for that.

 

 

 

what's to stop you from purchasing multiple identical firearms in order to have multiple magazines?

 

You would have a licence for a single firearm - if you have a concealed carry licence, are you allowed to carry as many as you want around? :S

 

 

 

you're clearly not an expert because double stack magazines hold around 15. But most single stack magazines hold around 8-10

So when I said around 8 or 9 I was in the right ball park. That point was reflective of those 'high capacity magazines' people are so fond of. If "double stack" takes you out of the zone of 'someone's coming at me I need to put them down' then that's potentially something that needs addressing.

 

 

 

 

Automatic weapons are already prohibitively expensive to obtain. Semi automatic weapons are legal. Semi automatic weapons cycle automatically and fire a projectile whenever the trigger is pressed. Wheel guns, such as revolvers, do the same limited only by the minute amount of time it takes for the wheel to revolve. So basically no gun is safe. Interestingly while we cannot obtain automatic weapons we ship them to the middle east like crazy

But if you're stuck with a single weapon, only holding 8-10 rounds, you're done shooting pretty quickly, no? As opposed to being able to keep shooting because you have 15 rounds per magazine and multiple magazines.

 

I agree on shipping them to the middle east though. Interestingly...link...US arms companies are struggling to keep up with the demand that they've created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Those are some excellent examples of guns killing people. Some of which also even reflect a bad guy being shot. There's also only 10 of them. Do you want a list of 10 times a 'good guy with a gun' didn't jump in and save the day? Check out a thing called 'the news' and there'll probably be about one per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

Those are some excellent examples of guns killing people. Some of which also even reflect a bad guy being shot. There's also only 10 of them. Do you want a list of 10 times a 'good guy with a gun' didn't jump in and save the day? Check out a thing called 'the news' and there'll probably be about one per day.

 

Oh there are a whole lot more than 10 stories Chris but then you would just complain if I posted them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and the intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

I don't have to read about stories with a person armed with a gun saving lives I have an elderly neighbor who was able to save himself because of owning a gun. He had an intruder break out his bedroom window in the early morning hours and an intruder was attempting to enter when he yelled at the intruder he had a gun and the intruder yelled back that he had a gun as well. My elderly neighbor fired a couple shots toward the window and the intruder fled. When police arrived they found a can of mace and a roll of duct tape on the ground next to the window the intruder broke out. Keep your gun control laws pal, I will keep my second amendment rights which you don't have in England.

 

Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.

 

But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

Those situations - Post-Katrina, riots etc. - is where the police (or even military) needs to step in and control things. In the richest country in the world, it shouldn't be up to individuals to protect themselves from looters after a natural disaster. Your country needs to sort its shit out in that regard.

 

If multiple people are coming at you, any gun is unlikely to be enough.

 

And yes, criminals are criminals and will not care about the law. But if you've got a lot fewer guns capable of doing lots of damage that are easily obtainable through legal means, what chance do you have of stopping them getting those guns?

 

You act like the police should be able to come right in and stop a riot in this country. How long did it take for the police to take control with the London riots in 2011? The fact of the matter is when you have a full scale riot going on the police are not able to help you.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024012/LONDON-RIOTS-2011-They-stole-EVERYTHING-Enfield-Clapham-shops-stripped-bare.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Eater Newbie

Pumpkin Eater

Posted
Posted

 

Do you know what we also don't have? Daily mass shootings and a homicide rate consistent with a third world shit hole.

 

But sure, cling on to that right to own a gun, it clearly means more to you than the lives of the literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year in your country.

Who has daily mass shootings? We also also don't yet have sharia law courts or complete neighborhoods so overran that emergency services won't enter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Who has daily mass shootings?

The US does.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

 

We also also don't yet have sharia law courts or complete neighborhoods so overran that emergency services won't enter.

Neither do we?

 

 

Tens of thousands?

Of people killed by guns every year? Yes. It holds steady between 10-12,000 people every year killed by guns in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...