Gun Control

[Immanuel Can]

I focus on the AR-15 because of its use in mass shootings and because an assault rifle is overkill when it comes to hunting unarmed animals.

Well, school shootings sure are high-profile and bad things, no doubt. But far more people die from other firearms, especially handguns.

Clamping down on that one particular model turns out to be like so many politically-correct symbolic gestures...useless in reality. I think if you ban AR-15s, you won't have banned the most effective or deadly firearms at all, as there are much more powerful sniper rifles and fully-automatic weapons, and school shooters and such can easily switch to an even more deadly weapon. And you won't have touched the heart of the real problem, that is located in things like the youth subcultures of drugs and gangs, that depend on handguns.

The AR-!5 thing is only impressive to people who don't understand guns or the data on the problem. And I know that the press has picked up the AR-15 in such a way as to suggest it's the problem; but it's certainly not. The AR-15, in its stock format, isn't even an automatic weapon, and isn't a top-precision rifle either. It just has a kind of "Darth Vader" aesthetic about it that makes it look much more deadly than it acutally is. I could name you a hundred guns that are more worth worrying about, once you understand guns. And statistically, it's nowhere near so serious a problem as the handguns.

I'll know that the anti-gun lobby is serious when they eventually decide they need to actually know what they're talking about. But they don't understand the AR-15, if they think it's the problem. So you can be quite sure they're not actually serious about solving gun violence: once again, they're just virtue signalling.

[henry quirk]

While I agree with the fella in the video, I make no appeals to the 2nd. The right to one's life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. The right to defend one's life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent. Natural rights are not granted, only recognized. So: I won't be drawn into fruitless back & forth over the meaning of the 2nd or the intent of the Founders.

In the same way: I won't be drawn into battles of numbers & stats (especially since anyone can find an authoritative source to favor a position). It does not seem sensible to me, becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or others, that everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines.

No, the reasons offered by controllers -- death & injury, the Founders' intent -- fall short of justifying intrusions into the lives of those who don't deprive others of life, liberty, and property. And, I reckon controllers know this.

So: why call for control? Becuz the control they seek really isn't of a property or machine, but is, instead, control of the owners of properties and machines.

It's not what you own or how you use it that's on the table.

You are on the table.

[Age]

While I agree with the fella in the video, I make no appeals to the 2nd. The right to one's life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent.

So, WHY did 'you' TAKE AWAY from "others", and still continue to TAKE AWAY from "others", their lives, their liberties, and their properties "henry quirk"?

Your REFUSAL to answer this question OPENLY and Honestly SHOWS and REVEALS just how much of a COWARD, CLOSED, or BLIND 'you' REALLY ARE here "henry quirk".

The right to defend one's life, liberty, and property is absolute, inalienable, natural, and inherent.

That you do NOT follow this CLAIM of yours here PROVES just how much of a HYPOCRITE 'you' REALLY ARE "henry quirk"

Natural rights are not granted, only recognized. So: I won't be drawn into fruitless back & forth over the meaning of the 2nd or the intent of the Founders.

If you, supposedly, RECOGNIZE that 'right', then WHY do you continually go AGAINST it?

In the same way: I won't be drawn into battles of numbers & stats (especially since anyone can find an authoritative source to favor a position).

How does one find a so-called "authoritative" source, which could or would favor human beings 'arming' "themselves" AGAINST "themselves" with completely UNNECESSARY 'things' like guns?

There is absolutely NOTHING, which means NO 'source' AT ALL, in the WHOLE of the Universe that would favor such STUPIDITY, ABSURDITY, and RIDICULOUSNESS as 'arming "yourself" with a weapon AGAINST "yourself".

Human beings arming "themselves" with weapons AGAINST "themselves" is NO different.

'you' are ALL human beings. So, 'arming' or 'defending' "yourselves" AGAINST "yourselves" IS as STUPID as it REALLY sounds.

I suggest that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, just STOP and take a REALLY GOOD LOOK at "yourselves", and what 'you' are ACTUALLY DOING here.

It does not seem sensible to me, becuz some misuse their property, or misuse a machine, to hurt or kill themselves or others, that everyone ought be penalized in their ownership and use of similar properties or machines.

What kind of MENTALITY drives one to even want to OWN a 'weapon' in the first place?

What is 'it' EXACTLY that these ones are so SCARED and AFRAID of, EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY, ONLY the Truly WEAK of a species NEEDS some 'thing', other than "them" 'self', to 'protect' "them" 'self'.

So, WHY are these WEAK ones who OWN guns, SO WEAK and UNABLE to 'protect' "themselves" NATURALLY?

What do these ones LACK, EXACTLY?

No, the reasons offered by controllers -- death & injury, the Founders' intent -- fall short of justifying intrusions into the lives of those who don't deprive others of life, liberty, and property. And, I reckon controllers know this.

So: why call for control?

What is a gun/weapon for, if NOT for 'control' itself?

Becuz the control they seek really isn't of a property or machine, but is, instead, control of the owners of properties and machines.

Talk about an example of the SCARED and WEAK, even MORE AFRAID, and FEARING even MORE, the LOSS of their ONLY source of CONTROL.

It's not what you own or how you use it that's on the table.

You are on the table.

OF COURSE 'this' is about the guns that 'you' OWN. If it was NOT, then what, EXACTLY, are 'you' 'trying to' FIGHT or argue FOR so much here "henry quirk"?

'you' have ALREADY PROVEN that 'you' do NOT care about ANY one else other than "'you" OWN 'self' "henry quirk". So, the ONLY 'thing' here on the so-called table is, literally, 'you', and your self-deluded BELIEF that you have a 'right' to OWN a gun to 'protect' "yourself".

[Age]

I focus on the AR-15 because of its use in mass shootings and because an assault rifle is overkill when it comes to hunting unarmed animals.

Well, school shootings sure are high-profile and bad things, no doubt. But far more people die from other firearms, especially handguns.

Clamping down on that one particular model turns out to be like so many politically-correct symbolic gestures...useless in reality. I think if you ban AR-15s, you won't have banned the most effective or deadly firearms at all, as there are much more powerful sniper rifles and fully-automatic weapons, and school shooters and such can easily switch to an even more deadly weapon. And you won't have touched the heart of the real problem, that is located in things like the youth subcultures of drugs and gangs, that depend on handguns.

And just LOOKING AT 'them' and 'this' you will NOT touch the heart of the REAL issue here EITHER.

The AR-!5 thing is only impressive to people who don't understand guns or the data on the problem.

LOL What a TOTALLY CLOSED and BLIND perspective of things.

And I know that the press has picked up the AR-15 in such a way as to suggest it's the problem; but it's certainly not. The AR-15, in its stock format, isn't even an automatic weapon, and isn't a top-precision rifle either. It just has a kind of "Darth Vader" aesthetic about it that makes it look much more deadly than it acutally is.

It appears that 'you' have MISSED the VERY POINT here "immanuel can". ANY semi-automatic or automatic weapon shot in a room or school room with human beings inside need NOT be that accurate nor a precision weapon AT ALL. It is NOT AT ALL hard for a human being to SHOOT DEAD other human beings with those types of weapons, especially when they can NOT escape.

I could name you a hundred guns that are more worth worrying about, once you understand guns. And statistically, it's nowhere near so serious a problem as the handguns.

How about you start with just ten, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS them.

I'll know that the anti-gun lobby is serious when they eventually decide they need to actually know what they're talking about. But they don't understand the AR-15, if they think it's the problem. So you can be quite sure they're not actually serious about solving gun violence: once again, they're just virtue signalling.

EXACTLY like what 'you' are doing here "immanuel can".

[Sculptor]

Australia has a mass shooting at the end of the last century.
They introduced laws which restricted people who "had a good reason" to own guns, they made sure that each gun was registered to an owner, and offered a free amnesty to turn in any illegal guns.

They have not had any more mass shootings, since then, yet people still are allowed to own guns but criminal find it hard to get them and if caught with them cannot plea any out-of-date amendment.

Only NRA morons resists gun registration and licencing. Which would link a crime to an owner who would have to account for the use of the weapon.
It seems to me that only a criminal or a person wishing to get away with a gun crime would resist gun registration and licencing.

[commonsense]

I focus on the AR-15 because of its use in mass shootings and because an assault rifle is overkill when it comes to hunting unarmed animals.

Well, school shootings sure are high-profile and bad things, no doubt. But far more people die from other firearms, especially handguns.

Clamping down on that one particular model turns out to be like so many politically-correct symbolic gestures...useless in reality. I think if you ban AR-15s, you won't have banned the most effective or deadly firearms at all, as there are much more powerful sniper rifles and fully-automatic weapons, and school shooters and such can easily switch to an even more deadly weapon. And you won't have touched the heart of the real problem, that is located in things like the youth subcultures of drugs and gangs, that depend on handguns.

The AR-!5 thing is only impressive to people who don't understand guns or the data on the problem. And I know that the press has picked up the AR-15 in such a way as to suggest it's the problem; but it's certainly not. The AR-15, in its stock format, isn't even an automatic weapon, and isn't a top-precision rifle either. It just has a kind of "Darth Vader" aesthetic about it that makes it look much more deadly than it acutally is. I could name you a hundred guns that are more worth worrying about, once you understand guns. And statistically, it's nowhere near so serious a problem as the handguns.

I'll know that the anti-gun lobby is serious when they eventually decide they need to actually know what they're talking about. But they don't understand the AR-15, if they think it's the problem. So you can be quite sure they're not actually serious about solving gun violence: once again, they're just virtue signalling.

It’s the horror of the AR-15 that motivates me to start with that. For me, the horror transcends the numbers. I imagine it’s the same for many of the people who feel animus toward the AR-15.

You have given your opinion about they and them based on what?

[henry quirk]

Australia

It seems to me that only a criminal or a person wishing to get away with a gun crime would resist gun registration and licencing.

And it seems to me, as I say, the reasons offered by controllers -- in this case, death & injury -- fall short of justifying intrusions into the lives of those who don't deprive others of life, liberty, and property. And, I reckon controllers know this.

[mickthinks]

If guns weren't so emotional and unpredictable they would be much easier to control.

No wait ... that's women.

Walker single-handedly hauling the Overton Window in the direction of turpitude and barbarity.

If you've ever wondered whether to ignore him, what are you waiting for?

[Walker]

If guns weren't so emotional and unpredictable they would be much easier to control.

No wait ... that's women.

Walker single-handedly hauling the Overton Window in the direction of turpitude and barbarity.

If you've ever wondered whether to ignore him, what are you waiting for?

I’ve heard the word but never looked into it, don't care to now. Did they pull me into their scheme and I didn’t even know? What is Overton?

[henry quirk]

If guns weren't so emotional and unpredictable they would be much easier to control.

No wait ... that's women.

Walker single-handedly hauling the Overton Window in the direction of turpitude and barbarity.

If you've ever wondered whether to ignore him, what are you waiting for?

You're just jealous cuz he can make with the funny and you can't.

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

The AR-!5 thing is only impressive to people who don't understand guns or the data on the problem.

Which probably includes the teenaged misfits who buy one to blow the faces off 6 year olds.

[Age]

If guns weren't so emotional and unpredictable they would be much easier to control.

No wait ... that's women.

Walker single-handedly hauling the Overton Window in the direction of turpitude and barbarity.

If you've ever wondered whether to ignore him, what are you waiting for?

You're just jealous cuz he can make with the funny and you can't.

But if "walker" had stated, "No wait ... that is middle aged white men with guns", instead of "that's women", then it would NOT be classed as 'a funny' correct, "henry quirk"?

From what I have observed, it is a fact that it is men with guns who are the emotional and unpredictable ones.

As SHOWN to be True by ALL those Truly innocent dead bodies that have ended up strewn over the lands of the "united states of america".

[commonsense]

Clamping down on that one particular model turns out to be like so many politically-correct symbolic gestures...useless in reality.

By your logic, anything would be more effective than a useless ban on the AR-15. It seems you would advocate careful consideration of effective measures while not wasting any effort on the AR-15 in the meantime. Are we to do nothing until the most effective measure is determined?

[commonsense]

Well, school shootings sure are high-profile and bad things, no doubt. But far more people die from other firearms, especially handguns.

This is a reason not to ban AR-15s?

[commonsense]

The AR-!5 thing is only impressive to people who don't understand guns or the data on the problem. And I know that the press has picked up the AR-15 in such a way as to suggest it's the problem; but it's certainly not. The AR-15, in its stock format, isn't even an automatic weapon, and isn't a top-precision rifle either. It just has a kind of "Darth Vader" aesthetic about it that makes it look much more deadly than it acutally is. I could name you a hundred guns that are more worth worrying about, once you understand guns. And statistically, it's nowhere near so serious a problem as the handguns.

The current data can identify the problem, but not the solution. For that you would need data collected after the application of a solution. For example a ban on handguns could lead to a spike in purchases and use of assault weapons. It may be prudent to apply an immediate ban on a lesser evil, like the AR-15, than a ban, with perhaps a lesser impact, on a greater problem.

I don’t know about other gun safety advocates, but I for one understand the multiple (7) firearms that I have used. What the AR-15 lacks in accuracy is counterbalanced by the ability to spray rounds at a target or close by.