Gun Control

Black Rose said:
Good point. I don't know how people are with guns in your state, but I'm certain not many people here would take gun safety classes even if they were offered and free of charge. And if there was a law that you couldn't own a gun without taking the classes... oh, boy...

I just see it as being smart and responsible. And for everyone that owns a gun, especially with kids, for goodness sake, keep them locked up or hidden away.

@DarkCorp Sorry for my ignorance. I'm trying to educate myself, ha ha. So for example, an AR15 is SEMI-automatic. One shot with each pull of the trigger. I don't have a problem with those types of guns, because as you said, they're basically no different than a standard hunting rifle. It's the ones that continuously fire when the trigger is squeezed that I'm skeptical about. Those are the ones that are illegal? I read somewhere that you could own this type of gun as long as it was made before 19-- I forget the exact year, but maybe my source wasn't reliable.
Click to expand...

Ok so, I have read through the last few pages, and although you took it as me saying that you should have no say that was not my intent. What I was saying is look into what your current laws are, learn what it takes to get firearms in your country (which is not much). Reading through the last couple of pages you did learn somethings, you said people should be banned from owning assault weapons, then said you want an AR as its only semi. I have kids too and I don't want them to be massacred at school either, but even that, with the amount of mass shootings (which are mostly all gang shootings when you bust a number like 300 in a year) kids are far more likely to die on the way to school then at school.

I am for some forms of gun control that can actually help things (hell Im Canadian, we have lots) but I see idiocy in most that call for more gun control as they are either trying to pass laws that already exist or laws that will do nothing.
 
Nothing to do with the gun control topic but rather the idea that you need to have experience with something before you have a say in it, isn't that a logical fallacy?
Don't people do this all the time and feel okay about it? Like abortions? Or cleaning up the environment or punishment systems?

Take what someone has said on a forum about logical fallacies and arguments. If you apply this in a certain way, it's non-sequitur. You have to prove why their lack of experience is relevant essentially. Just because you don't know how to reload a gun, clean it, flip the safety on/off doesn't mean you can't make a conclusion from data on gun violence. Personally cleaning a gun yourself has nothing to do with people using it in self-defense or in harmful/aggressive ways.

QUESTION
This is a common argument I hear, where someone will state their opinion on a given situation, and the other person will say something along the lines of, "Well, you've never [done/experienced] X, so you have no right to [judge/have an opinion/talk about] it. Is this fallacious? The best example I could think of would be:

P1: I think spanking children is wrong.
P2: You've never had children, so you have no right to judge other people's parenting.

(not a jab at parents, this is just the best example of this form I can think of at the moment)

ANSWER
The overall form of the argument is not fallacious in itself, but only applications are. If we take your example and modify it a bit:

Person1: I think spanking children should be avoided because decades of research has demonstrated that children who are spanked have many more psychological issues as adults.

Person 2: You've never had children, so you have no right to judge other people's parenting.

This is a non-sequitur because person 1 isn't making a judgement about parenting; but stating a fact. Person 1 does not have to have experience with parenting to know that spanking a child should be avoided.

Now let's modify this again:

Person1: I think a parent should never spank a child because decades of research has demonstrated that children who are spanked have many more psychological issues as adults.

Person 2: You've never had children, so you don't realize that in some cases, spanking the child could be the lesser of the two evils and therefore is the best course of action.

Perfectly valid point. In this example, the lack of experience of having a child does matter since Person 1 used an absolute statement about spanking.
Click to expand...
 
Squadcar

There is no excuse for thinking the AR in AR-15 means ASSAULT RIFLE. It is actually for ARMALITE.

So there you have two things. First, they have no clue what the AR means but more importantly, a person who doesn't know the difference, wants to BAN, a weapon that isn't even really an assault weapon. This clueless person wants to take away MY RIGHT, to a weapon that isn't even as dangerous as people say it is.

Also, there is really no excuse to purposefully ignore the bit about how most mass shootings are committed by someone using handguns most of the time. You again, have clueless people, who want to ban a certain weapon that really is no where as dangerous as a handgun.
 
Last edited:
The argument should be:
They claim the AR-15 is dangerous due to this data.
You claim the data is incorrect, here's correct data, and this is why this weapon is not as dangerous as it seems. Of course following logic and proof throughout to ensure you're not making false statements.

The argument should not be:
They claim AR-15s are too dangerous and here's data proving it.
You claim they don't know exactly what an AR-15 is and therefore need to shut the fuck up.

That isn't following logic at all. You might think it does but it's definitely non-sequitur. Your conclusion is irrelevant to the argument made. They say it's dangerous and you say you don't know the acronym so therefore they can't be sure it's dangerous. Anyway, logical arguments rarely change anyone's mind in the end because we make decision with our feelings about things more than anything.
 
Squadcar

The thing is, most of my arguments come from point 2.

I only brought up point one because it shows a general lack of interest in some parties to do research.
How can I take one seriously if they are so lazy that they do not even bother to look up data before posting?
 
A semi auto AR 15 is only not an assault rifle because it's not selective fire. The cartridge and general design is still that of a military assault rifle, it is not a self defence tool or a hunting rifle (works for smaller game, though) It is specifically designed to kill humans in a specific range of distances. I get that ARs are good rifles and fun to shoot, but don't pretend that they're tools for home defense. Doesn't mean that I want to outright ban them, just want to make this clear.
 
The point is, if they are even claiming false or misinformed data the rebuttal is not to be "ah fuck you for not knowing what this gun's/model's name really is, you're wrong about how dangerous it is and your lack of understanding the name proves you're wrong about the dangerous potential of this firearm."

Imagine if I told you that you couldn't have an opinion on whether or not vaping (as in the smoking alternative) was dangerous for your health if you didn't even know what a mod or a RDA was. Sure it helps to be more informed, it does not help to nitpick things that are not relevant to the argument. The point is if the vapor is dangerous to your health or not and the data and knowledge around that, not knowing specifics of the device delivering the vapor (outside of potential ways that overheating or such could contribute to it). Knowing what a RDA is exactly and how to clean and maintain one is not directly related to the topic at hand.
 
Haas & Squad

It doesn't mean they cannot be used for home defense. And again, the round itself is not all that different from the .223, which is a widely used round for hunting. The confusion is due mostly due to the different systems between Millimeter and Caliber. Like the 7.62 is not all that different from the .308.

Again, if muzzle velocity is the problem, rifles in general have high muzzle velocities.

The only real issue is exactly what makes an assault rifle assault, which is the selective fire. The assault rifle concept was pioneered when the Germans realized they could use a weapon that bridged the distance between a long range rifle like the KAR, and the MP (edit) 40 sub machine gun.

You have a weapon that fires a powerful rifle round, with the RoF of a sub machine gun.
 
Last edited:
I'm aware that the .223 Remington is the civilian equivalent of 5.56 NATO, which was developed from the .222 Remington hunting cartridge. Still, the principle of a gas-powered intermediate rifle is inherently military.
Tiny correction: It's K98k and MP40. The MP44 was a designation for the Stgw 44 ;)
 
We've tricked it by removing arm brace from 9mm carbine Stribog, which is imported to U.S. as a 9mm pistol now. I think the full auto mode was not modified on this one, so it can be turned into full auto carbine simply by attaching any arm brace to it. Also suppressor can be attached very easily. Here's a guy from some U.S. import company doing the testing at Slovak site:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoN4viUWiXI
 
As I said before, I'm trying to learn and get a better understanding of weapons and the gun control laws already in place. I'd rather admit to not knowing something than pretend I do. That would backfire on me. Yes, I have been looking up things, but am a bit wary as a lot of the things I have found seem to contradict each other, like the data I and DarkCorp posted about school shootings this year. I'm not lazy about learning this stuff nor am I trying to be sanctimonious. I'm just keeping an open mind, as I do in any other debate.

And oh yeah, I never thought that AR in AR-15 meant assault rifle. I didn't know what it meant, but I kinda got the feeling it wasn't that.
 
I am a terrible person :(

Black

I am not accusing you of this. I am merely trying to tell Squad that SOMETIMES, technical knowledge is important.

Yes, the AR is not that important UNLESS, a person is making a point to ban the AR-15 because they think it means the AR designation, means the weapon is full auto.
 
And I'm telling you that technical knowledge is important but the rebuttal needs to address the technical knowledge that is relevant to the argument. If I told you, "Nukeleer missules are really dangerous and here's why, I don't think we should allow just anyone to have them." My point is still valid because nuclear missiles are still dangerous despite the fact I don't know how to even spell nuclear missiles. You argue about whether or not they are as dangerous as I claim and who should be trusted with them. You can point out those facts I don't know, like how to spell it and how they work exactly but those parts don't diminish the argument of how dangerous they are. I don't have to know how they work exactly to understand the effect they have. I'm asking that we address the argument and not things outside of it.

I brought this up because someone said that if you can't reload a firearm you shouldn't be able to have an opinion on banning it. That's not really fair. That's not what the argument is about. Now if you said, you don't know how to reload one, this firearm takes so long to reload it diminishes how dangerous it is because you can only fire so many rounds before spending X amount of time to reload. That's relevant.
 
Well, I happen to fully agree with you. Knowledge is important.

My 9 year old son has a big interest in guns. His great-grandfather passed down a .38 Special (not sure of the model, but it's an older one, and his grandpa keeps it locked up so I can't take a pic) that he'll get someday. So I'm not as anti-gun as people may think I am. As long as he's willing to learn they are not toys, I'm okay with his interest. And that's what most people want I think, for people to be responsible. Unfortunately, I don't think much will change in the way of violence no matter what happens.
 
Hassknecht said:
The cartridge and general design is still that of a military assault rifle, it is not a self defence tool or a hunting rifle
Click to expand...
Other way around. Sure the AR-15 borrows a lot from the AR-10 but it isn't just a smaller version and they were selling AR-15s on the civilian market long before the Air Force decided it needed a light rifle for patrol duty.
 
Hassknecht said:
I'm aware that the .223 Remington is the civilian equivalent of 5.56 NATO, which was developed from the .222 Remington hunting cartridge. Still, the principle of a gas-powered intermediate rifle is inherently military.
Tiny correction: It's K98k and MP40. The MP44 was a designation for the Stgw 44 ;)
Click to expand...

To say a gas-powered intermediate rifle is inherently military is only has true as saying a bolt-action rifle is the same, or lever-action, or a muzzle-loader, crossbow, longbow...

Just because it is a replacement for a previous version does not make it inherently military as everything that has ever been made that could possible hurt another person would be. Currently militaries are using select-fire full automatic systems so anything semi-auto has been replaced, just as semi replaced bolt, which replaced lever, which replaced muzzle, and so on and so on.
 
TheGM said:
Other way around. Sure the AR-15 borrows a lot from the AR-10 but it isn't just a smaller version and they were selling AR-15s on the civilian market long before the Air Force decided it needed a light rifle for patrol duty.
Click to expand...
The AR-15 was specifically designed after a request from the military. It wasn't adopted immediately, but it was designed for the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top