What's new

Gun Control

Okay, I've held back long enough. I promise I'm only going to do this once and then drop it.

clip_magazine.jpg
poster33090609rc9.jpg


A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used.

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable). The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm. The detachable magazine is often controversially referred to as a clip or mag.
 
What would some hypothetical strong arguments for gun control look like? If you are reflexively opposed to any arguments for gun control, then of course you won't find this convincing.

However, my main point was not that drunken college kids was the main argument for keeping guns out of schools, but that lines of thought which delineated the campus residents into "criminals who will have guns no matter what" and "rational people who won't misuse guns" were ill-founded and inaccurate.

and just which universe is it that you live in?

We've had every kind of tyranny we can think of in this one. When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee? The whole thesis of your world view consists of the dogma that those who know best should have power to tell the rest.

Hasn't anybody ever been able to tell you anything? You're sitting on a pile of your own ****, and you think you've got it all figured out, principally because someone has been able to convince you they know it all.

Until you can make yourself comfortable with questioning authority, you won't be open to questioning yourself, or smelling your own stuff. . . . and you won't really be OK with letting human beings be free, either. Yah, I know you're hung up on a version of history and a world view that claims "progress" consists of certain ideals, all dressed up in the claim that these are the good ones.

But they are the same ideals that have been claimed by virtually every tyrant there ever was. This isn't progress. Human liberty would be progress, but authoritarian top down rule is not.

The reason why there is a Bill of Rights is because everyone who has ever had unlimited power has abused whatever human beings they had power over. And no, there is no "strong argument" for giving more tyrants more power, or to disarm the people.

While some people will use weapons to kill others piecemeal, one by one or maybe even whole schoolrooms of kids, as abhorrent as that is, it is nothing on the scale governments have done to their own citizens when the citizens were powerless to deter a tyrant. "Right Wing" dictatorships have killed thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, but idiological marxists and socialists have killed millions just in the past century.

It's a simple case of minimizing the whole range of risks, and those who ignore the risks governments pose against their own people are just not honest in their arguments.
 
Last edited:
I don't. That's why you limit availability.

But the law I cited has nothing to do with availability. It extends a new control over 1 group only - Concealed Carry Permit holders. These are people who have complied with existing laws and passed a background check in order to legally carry a concealed firearm. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that these are, by their very nature, law abiding citizens. So, in effect, all that law does is make good citizens more vulnerable. It doesn't make anyone safer.

If you are reflexively opposed to any arguments for gun control, then of course you won't find this convincing.

If you are reflexively opposed to any arguments against gun control, then of course you won't find this convincing. It's a two-way street, eh?
 
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that these are, by their very nature, law abiding citizens.

There is a difference between "rational people who won't misuse guns" and those who are generally "law abiding citizens".

If you are reflexively opposed to any arguments against gun control, then of course you won't find this convincing. It's a two-way street, eh?

Absolutely. I bet that sort of rubber-glue rebuttal works great on posters who reflexively oppose any arguments against gun control, like Straw One Brow.
 
There is a difference between "rational people who won't misuse guns" and those who are generally "law abiding citizens".


Absolutely. I bet that sort of rubber-glue rebuttal works great on posters who reflexively oppose any arguments against gun control, like Straw One Brow.

Perhaps but this only aimed at those law abiding citizens who happen to be rational people who won't misuse guns. If there are people carring concealed weapons without permits do you think barring the legality of the permits on campus will stop them from carring?

This is another senseless attempt to restrict the rights of responsible gun owners.
 
There is a difference between "rational people who won't misuse guns" and those who are generally "law abiding citizens".

This comes across in a manner that suggests you don't see any overlap in the two groups. I'm suggesting that most people who fall in one of these categories fit in both, so arguing the difference is unnecessary.

Do you actually LOL as you're trolling, or do you sit back and smugly revel in your clever gamesmanship?
 
This comes across in a manner that suggests you don't see any overlap in the two groups. I'm suggesting that most people who fall in one of these categories fit in both, so arguing the difference is unnecessary.

Do you actually LOL as you're trolling, or do you sit back and smugly revel in your clever gamesmanship?

The scarier thought is that he actually thinks he making a valid case for his POV...
 
Perhaps but this only aimed at those law abiding citizens who happen to be rational people who won't misuse guns.

Perhaps there are aspects to getting a carry permit of which I am not aware. Which of those guarantees you will behave rationally at all times and and not misuse guns?

If there are people carring concealed weapons without permits do you think barring the legality of the permits on campus will stop them from carring?

No, I don't think that will happen, nor do I see why it's relevant to this conversation.
 
This comes across in a manner that suggests you don't see any overlap in the two groups. I'm suggesting that most people who fall in one of these categories fit in both, so arguing the difference is unnecessary.

There is certainly an overlap. There's also an overlap between each of those groups, and those who possess firearms illegally.

I see no reason to think your suggestion has merit, given that "the difference" results in more deaths from accidents, domestic violence, suicide, etc. People who act irrationally without a gun won't act rationally because they possess a gun.

Do you actually LOL as you're trolling, or do you sit back and smugly revel in your clever gamesmanship?

No trolling on my part. I'm amused that every qualification and correction I offer gets treated as if it's a call to ban all guns at all times, but I'd be much more interested and satisfied in a conversation where that reaction did not happen.
 
Perhaps there are aspects to getting a carry permit of which I am not aware. Which of those guarantees you will behave rationally at all times and and not misuse guns?



No, I don't think that will happen, nor do I see why it's relevant to this conversation.

The rate of gun misuse is essentially the same between police officers and CCW holders. I suppose we should ban police officers from bringing their guns onto campus when responding to calls...besides all the drunk college kids who might get a hold of the police officers guns.
 
Perhaps there are aspects to getting a carry permit of which I am not aware. Which of those guarantees you will behave rationally at all times and and not misuse guns?



No, I don't think that will happen, nor do I see why it's relevant to this conversation.

Then by this arguement we should ban SUVs since people could be dangerous with them regardless of them having a license.
 
When you direct that question to me, I'll answer. As long as you insist on engaging Straw One Brow, I see no need to respond.

So you're saying you won't respond if I call you SOB? I wonder if the filter here would even let me "engage Straw One Brow".

hmmm. .. . looks like the filter doesn't see that as a problem... . . . get Colton on it ASAP.

Look real One Brow, you're the man with the blog about the Universe, and I've watched you debate popular fiction about the meaning of everything pretty endlessly, and pointlessly. I do wonder who pays you to be on the internet for the amount of time you invest. . . . or how you actually earn your living. . . . but whatever.

I've seen in the immense volumes of your product where you actually look forward, like most "progressives" do, to the time when the UN's stated objective of absolutely no private people having any weapons is achieved, and "world peace" will be the result. . . . negotiated at the tables of unelected UN officialdumb to the complete satisfaction of statists worldwide. . . . . lol.

Until you recognize yourself for what you actually are, nobody can tell you any different from what you think. Besides believing in the promoted agenda of some the world's cleverest propagandists, which I suppose is a human right as well as self-defense. . . . . a lot of folks are as set in their ways as I imagine you are, in complete satisfaction with it all. But let me try one more time to unsettle you with some barbarous little pokes. . . .

do you or do you not realize that's it's just a waste of time to quibble about erudite distinctions in statistical categories of theoretical classifications of human beings? "reasonable citizens" don't exist in the minds of political strategists or government managers...... all citizens must be guided by the "reason" of the objectives of the statists. Anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda must be separated out, labeled as some kind of threat, and marginalized by the media somehow. . . . ignored. . . . called hateful slurs of some kind. . . . Even letting the government have the power to employ professionals to make those distinctions is going to result in horrific oppression.

No matter how airtight the psychiatric classifications can be made, the human who is completely predictable one day just might flip out tomorrow. And that goes for Presidents as much as for druggies behind the liquor store. No professional and responsible approach to management, imposed by the world's leading intellects, is going to be able to stop people from doing "wrong" when they decide to do it, nor stop them from inventing their own views and reasons different from what they're "told". History is replete with examples of tyrants and statists of every stripe who have gone over the deep end somehow, and become homicidal monsters on grand scales, or in unforseeable ways implemented forms of genocide within their own lands, and started senseless wars with neighboring realms. . . . . And that is why it's just a human right, to absolutely possess significant deterernce against the immediate threats to life, limb, or property.

An armed citizenry should be viewed as a civic duty, as the most convincing deterent we can ever hope for, against criminals, gangs of criminals, or governments gone wrong.

we will always have policemen who go bad, presidents or statesmen of any rank, kings and tyrants who go bad. We have scientists who go bad too. There is no place you can safely place your trust, and you have no legitimate business trying to tell other people where they should place theirs. . . .. speaking as an authority of any kind, that is. . . . it is nothing more than perhaps your opinion. God I hope it's your opinion, and not just something on your "talking points" sheet for the day.

And, finally, anyone who imagines a universe that is merely mechanical, or rational, or capable of being reduced to a mathematical equation, is just missing out on all the fun in life.
 
Last edited:
There is certainly an overlap. There's also an overlap between each of those groups, and those who possess firearms illegally.

I see no reason to think your suggestion has merit, given that "the difference" results in more deaths from accidents, domestic violence, suicide, etc. People who act irrationally without a gun won't act rationally because they possess a gun.



No trolling on my part. I'm amused that every qualification and correction I offer gets treated as if it's a call to ban all guns at all times, but I'd be much more interested and satisfied in a conversation where that reaction did not happen.

My intial post - which, for the record, was not a response to anything you had posted - stated (in a nutshell) that I felt Colorado's HB1226 would result in a net decrease in safety on college campuses. You chose to engage this discussion with a commentary, not on legal CCW holding citizens (the subjects of the law, and my post), but on "immature drunks". It's difficult to come to any conclusion other than you believe CCW holders are more dangerous than other (read: illegal) gun owners. If not, how does eliminating the possibility of there being someone who is equipped and prepared to do the right thing in an ugly situation make it safer? They are going to be most likely to obey the rules. How do I know this? Because taking the time and expense (and passing the background check) to acquire a CCW demonstrates it. That's how I know. That may not satisfy you, but it's a whole hell of a lot more than the conjecture that is the foundation of your argument (I think... honestly, you make it difficult to know exactly where you stand. Your very evasive.)

Just so we're clear - Someone may act irrationally, so they better not have a gun - is the conjecture I speak of.

I haven't accused you of wanting to ban all guns at all times, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
Back
Top