Also Obama definitely wanted European/Australian style gun control. He was disappointed he couldn't get it. 

posted by FatHobbit

 

One side wants to blame the tool, take it from innocent people and tell them what kind of guns are ok for them to have. (Based on a fucking color and a perception that ar-15s are military rifles)  And when the next school shooter uses a shotgun, they will try to take shotguns. If he uses a semi auto pistol they will tell us we don't need them. If he uses revolvers they will tell us we don't need them. It IS a slippery slope and that is why we push back against everything

You should acknowledge the other side that believes guns are needed everywhere.  Whether or not they like it, they are not in the majority.  My original point is that the extremes are driving the debate.  That will never get us anywhere. 

posted by superman

There are lots of people who want to ban guns. Also, not nearly as many people agree with you on gun laws as you think.

There are plenty of people who want stricter gun laws.  Here's an example: http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/

posted by FatHobbit

Also Obama definitely wanted European/Australian style gun control. He was disappointed he couldn't get it. 

He isn't the president anymore. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

No one is going to “ban guns”. Most people in the country support stronger laws on minimum purchase age, banning bump stocks, getting rid of high magazine assault style weapons and gun show loop holes.  That’s a far cry from banning guns.

Sounds like a gun ban. Also, "high magazine assault style weapons" is gibberish.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

gun show loop holes

Do you just read liberal gibberish? There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. No private sale needs a background check. It doesn't matter if it is Joe on the corner or Joe at the gun show. 

posted by iclfan2

Do you just read liberal gibberish? There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. No private sale needs a background check. It doesn't matter if it is Joe on the corner or Joe at the gun show. 

And people ignorant on guns wonder why a lot of us who are knowledgeable refuse to give an inch. The amount of sophistry from the media when it comes to guns is absolutely sickening.

And Boogie keeps repeating it, over and over. What's that quote about telling a lie often enough? I think that was from the great philosopher Goebbels, right?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

No one is going to “ban guns”. Most people in the country support stronger laws on minimum purchase age, banning bump stocks, getting rid of high magazine assault style weapons and gun show loop holes.  That’s a far cry from banning guns.

 

If people on the one side would accept that guns are highly valued by a segment of society and viewed as a basic right by them, and people on the other would stop acting like the government is trying to get you, maybe we could get somewhere.  

It's kind of like how Global Warming changed to Climate Change when the planet stopped warming for over a decade.

Once someone is made to understand that AR-15s are NOT assault rifles by definition, they move the goal posts to "assault style weapons". Still carry the scary name but change the verbiage so they don't look like morons anymore.

posted by FatHobbit

 

One side wants to blame the tool, take it from innocent people and tell them what kind of guns are ok for them to have. (Based on a fucking color and a perception that ar-15s are military rifles)  And when the next school shooter uses a shotgun, they will try to take shotguns. If he uses a semi auto pistol they will tell us we don't need them. If he uses revolvers they will tell us we don't need them. It IS a slippery slope and that is why we push back against everything

Exactly, no difference other than looks and aesthetics between an AR-15 and most semi-automatic hunting rifles.

posted by jmog

It's kind of like how Global Warming changed to Climate Change when the planet stopped warming for over a decade.

 

Once someone is made to understand that AR-15s are NOT assault rifles by definition, they move the goal posts to "assault style weapons". Still carry the scary name but change the verbiage so they don't look like morons anymore.

 

 

I'm just trying to point out how inflexible either side of this debate is.  That's why nothing ever changes and the same things are brought up over and over again.  

posted by iclfan2

Do you just read liberal gibberish? There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. No private sale needs a background check. It doesn't matter if it is Joe on the corner or Joe at the gun show. 

That is missing the forest for the trees.  The problem is that anyone who wants to purchase a gun can get one via private sale.  Call it whatever you want.  

The fact that feinstein introduced a bill to ban guns tells me libs are full of shit when they say "nobody is trying to ban or take away your guns."  It's incrementally chipping away at 2nd amendment rights. 

I ask gun grabbers this all of the time.  If we banned AR15s (or whatever the fuck you arbitrarily identify as scary), what will you propose when it does nothing to decrease gun crime?  Data supports that the mass majority of gun crime is committed by hand guns just as an fyi.  And another FYI AR15s were banned for 10 years, and gun crime was higher during that period.  Boogie feel free to take a crack at this question...

Not one single "nobody is trying to ban or take away guns" liberal has ever legitimately answered that question, because they know it traps them into a corner with their logic.  They know the path leads to "we should ban all guns," but they don't want to admit it, because it contradicts their logic.  The typical response is normally to the tune of "well we should just ban the AR15 and see what happens. We need to do something."  I would respect them more if they just admitted they wanted all guns banned.  

You also have to laugh at the logic of people who say  "nobody is trying to ban or take away guns," while also advocating for "we need to look at australia, japan, UK, (insert other country that  banned guns while avoiding countries where it completely back fired)."  So you don't want to ban all guns, but you believe we need to look at countries that banned and confiscated guns? lol, ok. 

posted by justincredible

And Boogie keeps repeating it, over and over. What's that quote about telling a lie often enough? I think that was from the great philosopher Goebbels, right?

I'm not intending to tell lies.  I'm discussing why this topic never gets anywhere.  I get that this site is about 95% conservative and big believers in guns.  Fine.  I'm trying to point out that their lack of even trying to see another point of view is half of the problem here. 

posted by justincredible

And Boogie keeps repeating it, over and over. What's that quote about telling a lie often enough? I think that was from the great philosopher Goebbels, right?

lol yes, my favorite in this thread is he pretended he didn't know assault weapons were banned even though he has been a heavy participant in every single gun thread the OC has had (not to mention it was also mentioned in this thread immediately).  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I'm not intending to tell lies.  I'm discussing why this topic never gets anywhere.  I get that this site is about 95% conservative and big believers in guns.  Fine.  I'm trying to point out that their lack of even trying to see another point of view is half of the problem here. 

We've seen and heard all the arguments before. Ad nauseam. You're not bringing anything new to the table.

And, again, it doesn't help that most of the arguments are coming from either a place of ignorance, which is bad, or a place of intentional deception, which is despicable.

posted by justincredible

And, again, it doesn't help that most of the arguments are coming from either a place of ignorance, which is bad, or a place of intentional deception, which is despicable.

The deception is worse imo.  You can correct ignorance, but not deception. As I said earlier, I would at least respect the argument more if they just point blank admitted they want all guns banned. 

posted by like_that

The deception is worse imo.  You can correct ignorance, but not deception. As I said earlier, I would at least respect the argument more if they just point blank admitted they want all guns banned. 

I think this is deflection.  Maybe there are people who want all guns banned.  There are also people who want fully automatic weapons readily available.  Neither of those are but the extremes.  If one side automatically shuts down the discussion by saying, "I don't care what you say, you just want to take all out guns away." and the other says, "I don't care what you say, you just want to arm every citizen with WMD's", you can never get anywhere.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I think this is deflection.  Maybe there are people who want all guns banned.  There are also people who want fully automatic weapons readily available.  Neither of those are but the extremes.  If one side automatically shuts down the discussion by saying, "I don't care what you say, you just want to take all out guns away." and the other says, "I don't care what you say, you just want to arm every citizen with WMD's", you can never get anywhere.  

Well, when "anywhere" is ultimately further restrictions I'm not going to get too upset about it.

posted by like_that

lol yes, my favorite in this thread is he pretended he didn't know assault weapons were banned even though he has been a heavy participant in every single gun thread the OC has had (not to mention it was also mentioned in this thread immediately).  

This is semantics.  Whatever you want to call high capacity semi automatic guns.  I understand that automatic weapons are banned.  I wasn't pretending anything.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I think this is deflection.  Maybe there are people who want all guns banned.  There are also people who want fully automatic weapons readily available.  Neither of those are but the extremes.  If one side automatically shuts down the discussion by saying, "I don't care what you say, you just want to take all out guns away." and the other says, "I don't care what you say, you just want to arm every citizen with WMD's", you can never get anywhere.  

Deflection is a tactic of deception.  I will debate you all day if you truly say all guns should be banned, but don't give me this bullshit that you aren't saying you don't want all guns banned.  Again, this is why nobody has ever given me an honest answer on what they would propose after a "semiautomatic" ban was in placed and didn't work.  

This is a high capacity semi-automatic gun.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This is semantics.  Whatever you want to call high capacity semi automatic guns.  I understand that automatic weapons are banned.  I wasn't pretending anything.  

lol ok, quite the revisionist on what went down, but whatever makes you feel better. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

That is missing the forest for the trees.  The problem is that anyone who wants to purchase a gun can get one via private sale.  Call it whatever you want.  

It really isn't. When people are debating limiting a god given (not constitutionally given, but constitutionally protected) right away, precision is needed. Therein lies the problem, because media is gun retarded, so the arguments turn into nonsense when one side doesn't know what they are talking about using correct terminology. 

I am ok with listening to ideas about how to make all gun sales have a background check, but I don't see it being feasible.