Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can "gun people" and "anti-gun people" ever come to the table together and talk Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:19:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:

I'm not a gun person, but I have been around a few shops in my life. First off, I find it intriguing that you went from saying it would take a "halfway decent metal worker a few hours," to saying that you could do it right here, right now with tin snips, and a vice. If a half-way decent metal worker is going to take a couple hours to do it, I'm assuming the bends and cuts have to be done right, or else the ammunition will get stuck. Secondly, even if "tin snips and a vice" is all the equipment you need to do it, how many people actually have those? So, as Yoda mentions, they would have to go out and buy that, and then develop the skills to complete a "couple hours" task.

After talking about that, I have one big question: What does anyone's knowledge and skill in bending metal have to do with whether they are a gun person? Are you saying that all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications? That seems like a pretty big leap of logic.

And given the ferocity with which you jumped all over that compromise, I have to ask: How exactly are you trying to bridge the gap between gun advocates and those who want tighter controls? Is there one suggestion you have seen from the other side that you would be willing to consider?




I never said "halfway decent". You did. I said "halfway competent". A vital difference which you're not understanding, either by accident, or deliberately. Which is it? And the point, which you're pretending to be too obtuse to understand, is that if it only takes a little learning to circumvent a magazine capacity ban, then what good does that ban do? None at all.

No, I never said "all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications", either. You're pretty good at trying to put words in other people's mouths. The point is, when a man introduces himself as a person technically competent in firearms, and I can prove he's not, he should either disqualify himself from the argument, or admit that he's lacking as any kind of expert.

The bridge I'm trying to build is to get people to think for a moment, about just what the laws they're proposing will actually do to fight crime. So far, the answer is nothing. If anyone can come up with a new law that actually will help, I'm all ears.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:23:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Master_Yoda wrote:


So just because I think that something could be done about 5, 6, 7, years getting shot for no reason, you think that I am not a gun person, and that I haven't spent time in the deserts of Iraq? Damn when are you going to tell God that he can come back from vacation cause your doing a pretty shitty job at judging people! Its cool though, you go on playing something that your not, while I go out and try to make a difference!


Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. If you've served, then it was in some outfit that had zero interaction with small arms or ordnance, and I know of no military branch that fits that description. Either way, since you've posted things here as fact when they're just flat-out wrong, and claimed to be experienced in such matters, it certainly brings the truth of your posts into question.

Monocle
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:42:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
MrNudiePants wrote:


The bridge I'm trying to build is to get people to think for a moment, about just what the laws they're proposing will actually do to fight crime. So far, the answer is nothing. If anyone can come up with a new law that actually will help, I'm all ears.


You're not trying to build bridges, NP. You're building platforms to stand on to harangue those who disagree with you, or to cry personal persecution from. Your "The answer is nothing" is proof by assertion, and nothing else.
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:39:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
MrNudiePants wrote:



I never said "halfway decent". You did. I said "halfway competent". A vital difference which you're not understanding, either by accident, or deliberately. Which is it? And the point, which you're pretending to be too obtuse to understand, is that if it only takes a little learning to circumvent a magazine capacity ban, then what good does that ban do? None at all.

No, I never said "all people who fire guns automatically know how to bend metal to exact specifications", either. You're pretty good at trying to put words in other people's mouths. The point is, when a man introduces himself as a person technically competent in firearms, and I can prove he's not, he should either disqualify himself from the argument, or admit that he's lacking as any kind of expert.

The bridge I'm trying to build is to get people to think for a moment, about just what the laws they're proposing will actually do to fight crime. So far, the answer is nothing. If anyone can come up with a new law that actually will help, I'm all ears.


It's called paraphrasing Nudes. I had your exact quote right above it, so nobody was going to not know what you actually said. To me, "decent," and "competent," are synonyms. If they are not to you, then simply replace the word "competent" in my statement, and you will see what I was trying to say. But then, you'd have to actually argue my point, and not my words, and you don't want that.

On the second point, this is what you said:

MrNudiePants wrote:

Now I know that you're not being truthful about being a "gun person." Because a "gun person" knows that a magazine is just bent sheet metal, and it doesn't take any kind of special machine to do it. Fuck, I could do it right here with a pair of tin snips and a vice. Only someone equally as unlearned about guns as you are would take your word for anything.


I've never seen a magazine, so I can't say whether you can actually see how it is made, or whether you just see the outside of it. In that, I'm at a disadvantage. But, whether or not you can see that it is "just bent sheet metal," that still does not mean that someone knows how to bend sheet metal to specific specifications. (A magazine, which will fit his or her particular gun) If I take my computer apart, I can see that the circuit board is "just metal laid out on plastic," but it doesn't mean that I would know how to actually make it. So does that mean that I don't know how to use a computer? You may think that you have proven that he knows nothing about gun use. To me, at best, you have proven he doesn't know anything about gun manufacturing. And he never said he knew how to make a gun, or a magazine, or even ammunition.

And the last point, I don't even know what to say. You want to make people think, to consider the opposite side, but refuse to do the same yourself. You shoot down every attempt at a compromise, admit that limiting magazine sizes would delay someone, either by forcing them to create a larger magazine themselves, or by forcing them to change magazines more often; and yet, still don't believe that there is a benefit to that. I asked you what you thought was a step in the right direction, as a way to help us understand how we could bridge the gap between us. That's always a good way to get a compromise started, if the other side is willing to move. Which you are not. I shouldn't have even responded to this, knowing that you are only looking to tell people they are stupid, naive, or flat out lying, when they have a viewpoint that's different than your own. But hey, I'm stubborn and reckless sometimes, and figure I just might be able to bite the troll before he bites me.
Guest
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:31:42 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,826
"The bridge I'm trying to build is to get people to think for a moment, about just what the laws they're proposing will actually do to fight crime."

It's hard to build bridges when one is prone to burning them along the way.

As for fighting crime, there's much more that society needs than just an armed citizenry.
Jack_42
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 8:04:49 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic


Eli Wallach (in the role of chief bad guy) ''You big gringo gunmen we do a deal.''

Steve McQueen (the king of cool) ''We deal in lead friend.''
Guest
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:53:23 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,826
Oberon wrote:


The responsible thing to do is give up owning weapons.

The person with no respect for human life is Wayne LaPierre.
His job is selling guns.
He earns over a million bucks a year doing it, (which doesn't mean he doesn't have a mental illness.)

Yes, people do weird things because of fear - like buy weapons, thinking their own government's
against them. There are many kinds of mental illness.


that is responsible I agree, BUT.......... Do you think the people who do these ridiculous heinous things are responsible. I truly agree with All You Need Is Love but in some cases it doesn't work that way. we are living the wild west most of that was created this is reality. I have a gun and pray to god I never have to use it. I know people who have black belts and they pray they never have to use their skills. But if you have to you do what you have to do Im not a loose cannon but I will protect myself and angie and anyone I care for if I have to. The government fails when they don't serve the people part of that is keeping them safe do the crime do the time provide mental health care they do neither. It isn't a conspiracy its just not working right now
Guest
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:36:51 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,826
kaytydid wrote:

that is responsible I agree, BUT.......... Do you think the people who do these ridiculous heinous things are responsible. I truly agree with All You Need Is Love but in some cases it doesn't work that way. we are living the wild west most of that was created this is reality. I have a gun and pray to god I never have to use it. I know people who have black belts and they pray they never have to use their skills. But if you have to you do what you have to do Im not a loose cannon but I will protect myself and angie and anyone I care for if I have to. The government fails when they don't serve the people part of that is keeping them safe do the crime do the time provide mental health care they do neither. It isn't a conspiracy its just not working right now



What an old Beatles song has to do with anything, I don't know.

Of course there are deranged people in the world. There always has been and possibly always will be. Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts just defeated a bill that would have helped keep guns out of those deranged people's hands. That is equally deranged. Perhaps more so, as Wayne Lapierre is supposedly sane and legally responsible for his own actions.

The fact is, guns can be withdrawn, and murder rates - especially mass murder rates, can fall dramatically as a result. Australia has done it.

Will there always be something that can be used as a weapon, by someone intent on harming others, or by some deranged person? Of course. The point is to lessen the destructive power of weapons madmen can use, not to increase it. Mutually Assured Destruction only ensures one thing.

Right now, Iran is using a version of Stuxnet - a computer worm we unleashed on their nuclear facilities - to probe the internet security of our power grid. Pretty stupid of us, huh?





MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:28:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:



What an old Beatles song has to do with anything, I don't know.

Of course there are deranged people in the world. There always has been and possibly always will be. Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts just defeated a bill that would have helped keep guns out of those deranged people's hands. That is equally deranged. Perhaps more so, as Wayne Lapierre is supposedly sane and legally responsible for his own actions.

The fact is, guns can be withdrawn, and murder rates - especially mass murder rates, can fall dramatically as a result. Australia has done it.

Will there always be something that can be used as a weapon, by someone intent on harming others, or by some deranged person? Of course. The point is to lessen the destructive power of weapons madmen can use, not to increase it. Mutually Assured Destruction only ensures one thing.

Right now, Iran is using a version of Stuxnet - a computer worm we unleashed on their nuclear facilities - to probe the internet security of our power grid. Pretty stupid of us, huh?



What a discussion on computer worms has to do with anything, I don't know.

Fact is, the bill that was up for a vote wasn't defeated by "Wayne LaPierre and his co-horts", it went through the legislative process and failed to garner enough support to be made into law. it was a stupid bill anyway. It deserved to die an ignominious death. Most of the provisions it contained were unenforceable, and those that were enforceable were already covered by preexisting law.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 9:38:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:


I've never seen a magazine, so I can't say whether you can actually see how it is made, or whether you just see the outside of it. In that, I'm at a disadvantage. But, whether or not you can see that it is "just bent sheet metal," that still does not mean that someone knows how to bend sheet metal to specific specifications. (A magazine, which will fit his or her particular gun) If I take my computer apart, I can see that the circuit board is "just metal laid out on plastic," but it doesn't mean that I would know how to actually make it. So does that mean that I don't know how to use a computer? You may think that you have proven that he knows nothing about gun use. To me, at best, you have proven he doesn't know anything about gun manufacturing. And he never said he knew how to make a gun, or a magazine, or even ammunition.

And the last point, I don't even know what to say. You want to make people think, to consider the opposite side, but refuse to do the same yourself. You shoot down every attempt at a compromise, admit that limiting magazine sizes would delay someone, either by forcing them to create a larger magazine themselves, or by forcing them to change magazines more often; and yet, still don't believe that there is a benefit to that. I asked you what you thought was a step in the right direction, as a way to help us understand how we could bridge the gap between us. That's always a good way to get a compromise started, if the other side is willing to move. Which you are not. I shouldn't have even responded to this, knowing that you are only looking to tell people they are stupid, naive, or flat out lying, when they have a viewpoint that's different than your own. But hey, I'm stubborn and reckless sometimes, and figure I just might be able to bite the troll before he bites me.


That's fair. Given the opportunity, I'd show you an assortment of magazines for different firearms, some metal, some plastic, and you could see for yourself how easy it would be to turn a ten-round magazine into a twenty, thirty, or forty-round magazine. It's not like a computer where all the work is done by invisible electrons, and hidden away from sight. And that's my point. ANYONE who has fired as many rounds through a magazine-fed firearm as is required to graduate basic training would know the exact same thing. What simple machines the magazine part of a firearm really is.

Limiting magazine size isn't a "compromise". It's an exercise in futility. It will only result in three things: creating criminals of people who are unwilling to turn in the ones they own, creating a black market in standard capacity magazines, and artificially raising the prices on the new, low-capacity magazines, as the demand skyrockets past the infrastructure's ability to supply. If doing these things are the actual goal of this new theory, then it'll work. If the goal is to reduce crime then it'll be a dismal failure, because not only will it NOT reduce crime, it'll actually spur an outbreak of a whole new class of criminal: the illegal magazine possessor.



Guest
Posted: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:02:46 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,826
Lady X if I were the marrying kind I might say something like would you marry me Sugar??
I loved your huge post for the Second Amendment. HUA



Jack_42 wrote:


Without any permit????? No wonder this is such a hot issue that is insane!!!!!


The Second Amendment is My Permit.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.