How do you feel about guns?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

You are the one who wants changes made to current legislation, which means the burden of proof falls upon you and other like minded individuals to demonstrate how it will be beneficial to American society. Studies analyzed by experts by no means scientifically prove anything, however, they are much more qualified to make statements about the topic than you are. When dealing with human social behavior, it is impossible to use the scientific method to prove anything with a large subject group. All you can do is map trends and predict what will happen MOST of the time.

And seriously, we're going with fallacies here? You're entire argument is based around your fallacy of composition that because the modern AR-15 is based off of, but different than, a weapon of war, that it is itself a weapon of war. The fact that many studies on the topic have been carried on laws passed at the city, state, and national level and experts are in agreement that there is no correlation between assault weapon bans and violent crime also finds you guilty of the slothful induction fallacy. Slothful induction revolves around somebody denies an argument it's proper conclusion despite strong evidence for inference, which you are more than certainly doing in this case to attempt to keep this discussion goig.

Tried to post this earlier, but the site was acting funky for me:

I would have to disagree on the fallacy of composition, but that's a difference in opinion. The second fallacy you point out, though, is just wrong.

I have not once, in all these threads, said the restrictions I think should be on these weapons would make us safer. Not one time. I have said they are unnecessary in the hands of civilians. I have said they are tools designed to carry out an action that is illegal for a civilian to carry out. I have pointed out how the semi-automatic action and quick reload time of these types of weapons allow for more people to die in these mass shootings. I have said a number of things. I have not said it would make us safer. I have implied that having access to them does not make us safer and I have said that ending our access to them would not hinder out ability to hunt or protect ourselves. But I have not said that the restrictions I am in favor of would make us safer.

This is why every time someone comes back at me with that argument, it is a straw man. Generally, it is the only thing people come back at me with. But it does nothing against my stance.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by x_Bengals_x

With mass shootings getting more and more common have they changed your stance on guns one way or the other? I've always wanted a gun thinking it was important for the home, I carry one just about every day at work but was never able to convince my wife to let us have one. She has changed her stance on guns and I was wondering if anyone else has as well.

I see a lot of people are turning in and getting rid of guns now but this has made us ready to go buy one.

Gun control serves no purpose (unless you are talking about registration laws). Bad people will still have guns. We have access to guns to protect us from the government, in addition to hunting, sporting needs and self defense.

There is almost 1 gun per person in America. We are already armed or know somebody who can give you one if needed. How many people do you know that have killed somebody?

The real problem is that a single crazy person can effect a large population. Take away a gun, and the person is still crazy. They will stab people, poison them, set them on fire; no gun needed. The only thing worse than shooting a bunch of kids would be burning them to death. Are you going to make volatile substances illegal? Heck just mixing household cleaners together makes a deadly substance.

Did you know that an MRI can reveal whether or not somebody is devoid of empathy?

We need to do more about little Jimmy when you catch him torturing some squirrels or kittens. Therein lies your problem. As a society, are you willing to call a kid a wacko and do something about it.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Tried to post this earlier, but the site was acting funky for me:

I would have to disagree on the fallacy of composition, but that's a difference in opinion. The second fallacy you point out, though, is just wrong.

I have not once, in all these threads, said the restrictions I think should be on these weapons would make us safer. Not one time. I have said they are unnecessary in the hands of civilians. I have said they are tools designed to carry out an action that is illegal for a civilian to carry out. I have pointed out how the semi-automatic action and quick reload time of these types of weapons allow for more people to die in these mass shootings. I have said a number of things. I have not said it would make us safer. I have implied that having access to them does not make us safer and I have said that ending our access to them would not hinder out ability to hunt or protect ourselves. But I have not said that the restrictions I am in favor of would make us safer.

This is why every time someone comes back at me with that argument, it is a straw man. Generally, it is the only thing people come back at me with. But it does nothing against my stance.

You are guilty of the slothful induction fallacy on the point that experts agree that restrictions have no impact on violent crime rates. It can be strongly inferred based on statistical data that they have no impact, which you have failed to concede, hence, you are guilty of slothful induction. Also, do not attempt to argue the point, then retreat and call it a straw man when your position becomes quickly untenable. Besides which, your continued use of your point that the AR-15 is designed to kill people has been your fallback straw man argument against points debating various areas of this discussion that have nothing to do with the design/intent of the firearm in question throughout this entire thread, so please do not cast stones from within your glass house. Another major fallacy that you are now treading into with this line is argument from fallacy, where you are attempting to assume that because an argument is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false. Also, you are using circular reasoning to attempt to continue to arrive at your original conclusion, which is another fallacy.

At the end of the day, we can debate fallacies until we're blue in the face, but the big one we've hit is argument from repetition, which means it's been debated until nobody wants to debate it anymore. I know full well you will not change your opinion, and as such, it is futile to continue to debate this topic down to the nuts and bolts of it's logic structure.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

It wouldn't be a beet farm by any chance, would it?


There are some cows around, Dexters, but that wasn't the inference for the gun. My big thing is the chickens and I set live traps to catch pests that mistake them for dinner. LIve traps are best, as you can see what the animal is before deciding to put it down or not. Cats get to see my dog up close, while in the trap, then taken to the edge of the property and released. The dog is an incentive not to come back. Skunks get released, as they eat rodents and snakes, so they're good in my book. Possum, raccoon, mink, and almost all other varmits are a lot less lucky.

How do you transport the skunks?

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by CinciREborn

The government will have as much success In taking our guns as denny does trying to tell us to not make "political" threads

That was actually funny.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Again, case in point.

Zona, I do not care what the topic is. If given the option between choice and no choice; I will choose choice. Anything else is giving up your freedom. You have the right to do, what ever it is you want to do, until it effects someone else's rights. Owning a gun does not negatively impact another person. Shooting them does.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, however it does need to be updated. Weapons, such as AR-15's, Uzi's and other types of these weapons need to be illegal to own. They serve no purpose as far as hunting is concerned.

You are confused as to why the 2nd amendment exists. It has nothing to do with finding a food source.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

You are guilty of the slothful induction fallacy on the point that experts agree that restrictions have no impact on violent crime rates. It can be strongly inferred based on statistical data that they have no impact, which you have failed to concede, hence, you are guilty of slothful induction. Also, do not attempt to argue the point, then retreat and call it a straw man when your position becomes quickly untenable. Besides which, your continued use of your point that the AR-15 is designed to kill people has been your fallback straw man argument against points debating various areas of this discussion that have nothing to do with the design/intent of the firearm in question throughout this entire thread, so please do not cast stones from within your glass house. Another major fallacy that you are now treading into with this line is argument from fallacy, where you are attempting to assume that because an argument is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false. Also, you are using circular reasoning to attempt to continue to arrive at your original conclusion, which is another fallacy.

At the end of the day, we can debate fallacies until we're blue in the face, but the big one we've hit is argument from repetition, which means it's been debated until nobody wants to debate it anymore. I know full well you will not change your opinion, and as such, it is futile to continue to debate this topic down to the nuts and bolts of it's logic structure.

I just find it interesting you accuse me of fallacies I did not make. Just a bit funny to me. The slothful induction one was the one that got me just because of how blatantly wrong it was.

Whatever floats your boat, though.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

So, rather than stopping someone who has broken into your home or incapacitating them, you would rather kill them?

Probably.

If somebody came in to abduct your young daughter for the sex slave industry, would you rather scare them off, or shoot them, and solve the problem?

[eliminate08]

Originally Posted by x_Bengals_x

With mass shootings getting more and more common have they changed your stance on guns one way or the other? I've always wanted a gun thinking it was important for the home, I carry one just about every day at work but was never able to convince my wife to let us have one. She has changed her stance on guns and I was wondering if anyone else has as well.

I see a lot of people are turning in and getting rid of guns now but this has made us ready to go buy one.

Love my guns.

I am going to buy more actually after that freak did what he did.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It is like Michael Moore saying the fork made him fat.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I think that if that situation ever happens and goes down that way, you'll have probably be headed off to jail for having declared your intent was to kill someone and not just to stop them.

Why would that matter? How many prosecutors are going to bring up charges on self defense?

Part of the problem is our legal system does not consider intent enough. If I am mad at you and walk into a room and shoot at you 5 times and miss, that just makes me incompetent. It should not garner a charge less than murder.

Conversely, if my home keeps getting broken into, and I set a trap and it breaks your leg, you should not be able to sue me. That is absurd. It is my property, you should not have broken into it to start with. The fault lies with the intent of the criminal.

Case in point: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...in-face-suing/

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by eliminate08

Love my guns.

I am going to buy more actually after that freak did what he did.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

It is like Michael Moore saying the fork made him fat.

Super sized soda's made Michael Moore Fat and NY has taken care of the problem.......

Not

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Personally, I don't own any firearms. And don't intend to buy any. If I did, I'd probably want something with stopping power than something designed to do the most damage (such as a weapon where the bullets tumble). You can find some 9mms with decent stopping power. But, for what I would theoretically want, a shotgun would be best.

But, back to my comment, my point is about the power of words. Saying you want to kill someone can come back to haunt you, even if it isn't a specific person. Just a word to the wise.

The definitive weapon for stopping power; and a grandmother can shoot it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnKd6iXHTQg

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I said to name a common scenario. I've only seen one riot in Cincinnati (over the Timothy Thomas shooting) and all they did was loot stores downtown. Now if you plan on going to deveroe's during a once-every-hundred-years riot, I suppose you might need a good firearm. I think most rational people would just stay at home that day.

Just a few years ago there was a fuel shortage that resulted in gas stations running out of fuel, and long lines at the pumps that did have fuel. The shortage only lasted a couple of days, but it was enough to show me that civilization is an easily broken veil. People were not civil.

People will trample you to death at Walmart to save 50 cents on a toaster.

The CDC had to put out an announcement that the Zombie Apocalypse is not coming.

A person is smart, but people are stupid.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by Lolli

The definitive weapon for stopping power; and a grandmother can shoot it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnKd6iXHTQg

Now you're just being silly.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

If I collect coins as a hobby does that change the fact that the coins were designed as currency?

Just because we make a hobby out of something does not change the intended purpose of the item. I'm not sure how else to put it. You keep making the same claim, I make the same statement in response. Using something in a manner other than intended does not change the intended purpose. Not sure how much clearer to make that.

I can take that coin, put it in a potato gun, and kill somebody. Should we outlaw PVC, compressed air (or aerosol) and coins?

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

If you mean illegal possession of a fire arm, I get your point.

If you mean ban all guns and impose punishment due to your experience??? Well, you are closer to the outcome but not the actual problem and can't see the difference. If you don't get what I mean, go back and read all the recent threads on this topic.



True, a gun is designed to kill. It's not designed to murder. The difference between the 2 is immense and carrying it out is within the individual holding the weapon. Thus the argument of what can kill an innocent person regardless of intent of design is valid. Again, you see the symptoms but miss the illness.

Great point! A person does not even need a tool to kill someone. Unjustified murder is the problem.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Rattler

When you devise a knife throwing machine which can dispense 30 knives in 5 seconds, that should be banned as well.

This popped into my head when I read this: I travel frequently for work, and frequently need to wear steel toed boots. I find it somewhat funny that they are checking to see how much tooth paste I have on me, but do not care that the 6'2" 260 lb dude is wearing **** kickers.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Except the firearms sold today weren't even conceived of at the time of the Constitution. Those who founded this country had no way of knowing the type of killing power we would have in modern firearms. Back then a military firearm and a hunting firearm were basically the same thing. It is not so today. The Constitution was intended to be kept current, and this is one way it could be.



Except for how I'd like to see it goes does not infringe on the rights of anyone. The restrictions I think should be made would not affect me in any way, or anyone else in a negative manner for that matter.

I think your argument actually works against you. The firearms that the civilians possessed at the time where identical to what the military had access to. Most of the weapons we are discussing in this thread are inferior to what the military has access to.

[BoomerFan]

I'd say, everyone who wants one gets a front loading musket and that's it. You honor the country's heritage, can go hunting, and defend your home.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

There has yet to be anyone to give me a reason.

The closest anyone has ever come is the protect us in case the government goes tyrannical. Of course, this is flawed for several reasons:

1. Soldiers are not robots. Most military personnel would not fire on civilians, especially of their own country.

2. Nothing could level the playing field against artillery, air strikes, and armor

3. Military personnel are trained in urban warfare with the weapons we are discussing. If anyone thinks fighting them on that playing field would result in success, they are fooling themselves.

4. We, the civilian populous, far outnumber the military. Our best tactic would be shooting from a distance with accuracy. A tactic better designed for hunting rifles.

So even that reason is ridiculous. They are not for hunting, they are not good self-defense weapons, and they would give a false sense of security if our government actually did try anything so stupid.

If only there was some historic evidence to support this argument.

Russians

Germans

North Koreans

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

Super sized soda's made Michael Moore Fat and NY has taken care of the problem.......

Not

Conspiracy thought of the day:

Does changing the selling unit size change overall demand, or just increase the frequency of a smaller purchase?

The number one profit center for restaurants is soda. Soda is taxed. Forcing people to buy soda in a more expensive $/oz format will increase taxes given that the overall demand volume is flat.

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Now you're just being silly.

I am being serious. I do not currently own a gun. But the more threatened I feel that someone will restrict my right to purchase a gun, the more I want to own one.

I live in a very safe neighborhood in a very safe town.

So I did some research, and this is the best weapon that I could find. You have to apply for a $200 tax stamp.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

No argument can be made because the weapons are not the same internally, as I've explained. The current AR-15 is different internally than the original design that was purchased by Colt and renamed the M16. If you continue to try and make that argument, it's akin to saying nobody should be allowed to own a Jeep Wrangler because it is a "vehicle designed for combat."

There are indivduals who fire 5.56mm NATO rounds through AR-15's chambered for Remington .223 rounds, however it is not the recommedation of the factory, as it can result in catastrophic failure. Certainly, it is splitting hairs, but RhythmicGeek's entire argument centers around the INTENT of an inanimate object. The typical AR-15 available for sale to civilians is not INTENDED to fire 5.56mm NATO round. They are not INTENDED to fire millitary ammunition.

I had this same conversation with my 7 y/o daughter last night, but instead of assualt rifles we were discussing Ritz Crackers.

She wanted one of the plain Ritz Crackers from an unopened box. I wanted her to eat one of the holiday snowflake Ritz Crackers which was already open. Nothing could convince her they both weren't Ritz Crackers.

Over the past few days you've confirmed your knowledge of the AR15/M16/M4 series of rifles and their sublte differences and similarities is superficial at best. Having a conversation with you about this topic is like trying to convince my 7 y/o daughter a snowflake Ritz is essentially the same cracker as a regular Ritz Cracker with only minute difference which doesn't change the fact is is still a Ritz frakking Cracker.

Before anyone had ever heard of a M16 there was only the AR 15. It was designed for the military to kill enemy soldiers. It was selected by the Army over two other rifles. The military renamed it the M16, not Colt. It is not akin to claiming no one should own a Jeep Wrangler because the Jeep is a "vehicle designed for combat" is a red herring. The Jeep was designed to transport soldiers from point A to point B. It wasn't designed to kill enemy soldiers like an Abrams tank or Bradley fighting vehicle.

In the link I've already provided and already quoted, the manufacturerers have fired millions of 5.56 rounds over a period of 22 years through AR 15s chambered for .223 rounds and not once have they ever expericed a catastrophic failure. Why do I get the idea you have no idea what a catastrophic failure is? So according to the "empirical evidence" the chance of having a catastrophic failure is so minute it can't even be determined. Why do they warn against using 5.56 rounds in a .223? Because the throat in the barrel of a .223 AR 15 is 0.085" and in a 5.56 M16 it is 0.162" which can lead to increased chamber pressures. This can blow the primer out of the cartridge.

AR 15s are available for civilian purchase chambered for 5.56 rounds which are INTENDED to fire 5.56 rounds, including military ammunition. AR 15s can also be purchased in .308 chambers which is essentially a 7.62 round.

Originally Posted by Whatever

AR-15 was the previous designation for the old 5.56mm NATO ArmaLite weapon which was capable of fully automatic fire, which was purchased by Colt in 1959 and redesignated the M16 when the US Millitary picked the weapon up. Colt, having already purchased the AR-15 trademark, chose that name for the .223 Remington semi-automatic sporting rifle version. While they visually look the same, the AR-15 cannot fire the 5.56mm NATO round chambered for the M16[although the M16 can fire .223 Remington]. They are also not the same internally. The hammer, trigger mechanism, bolt carrier,and lower receiver are all different. The actions are not interchangable between the two.

AR 15s can fire .223, 5.56, and .308 rounds because they can be purchased with those chambers. People frequently fire 5.56 rounds with .223 chambered AR 15s.

The actions? WTF are you talking about? An AR 15, M16, and M4 have the exact same eight cycles of function. Feeding, chambering, locking, firing, unlocking, extracting, ejecting, cocking. The cycles happen in the exact same order. Using the same gas operation.

Individual parts might have different dimensions because no commercial AR 15s are 100% milspec. Why not? Because you could purchase an AR 15 upper receiver and the parts for a M16 lower receiver, assemble them, and then you essentially have a M16. The hammer is different? BFD. The hammer comes up and forward to engage the firing pin in both weapons. The trigger mechanism is different? Of course it is because the AR 15 doesn't have a 3 round burst setting, otherwise it is essentially the same. The bolt carrier is different? Again, BFD. It is wasn't different you could take it out of a M16 and put it in an AR 15. The lower receiver is different? Of course it is for the reasons I've already explained. Hypothetically, if a M16 lower receiver did fit with an AR 15 upper receiver the only thing you would gain from that modification is the 3 round burst capability. That is all you would gain.

They are not the same gun.

Technically, neither is a gun. They are both rifles. A "gun" is a machine gun, e.g. M240B.

The AR-15 was not designed as a combat weapon,

Yes, it was. The AR 15 was the rifle submitted to a military selection committee.

and no argument can be made that it is because Colt created their own action for it,

No, they didn't. The cycles of function are exactly the same using the same gas operation design and parts. The dimensions of some of the parts aren't milspec so the parts aren't interchangable.

and as such are free to designate it as intended for whatever purpose they deem fit for it.

Marketing and advertising doesn't change the nature of something.






The top picture is Benadryl. The bottom picture is Sominex.

Everyone knows Benadryl is for allergies or itching and Sominex is a sleeping aid. What most people don't know is they are the exact same drug, diphenhydramine. Only the marketing and advertising has changed so the manufacturer can make more money.

It is a sporting rifle that was made to visually resemble the M16 in order to increase sales to millitary buffs.

No.

It is a military assault rifle which is essentially the same weapon veterans used while they were in the military. That is why they are so popular with veterans. The AR 15 has minute changes in some of the dimensions so parts aren't interchangeable with the M16 and M4. If you knew as much as you are pretending to know right now you would know I'm correct. I doubt if the bolt carrier and lower receiver are interchangeable between two AR 15s from different manufacturerers. That doesn't mean one or the other isn't an AR 15.

It does not achieve the same muzzle velocity as an M16 and it does not have the cyclic rate of an M16.

If you knew as much as you're pretending to know, you would know the muzzle velocity changes with barrel length, chamber dimensions, and how many grains are in each round. You would also know there are civilian AR 15s whose muzzle velocity exceeds that of M16/M4s.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

The worldwide standard for an "assault rifle," is select-fire weapon capable of burst and/or fully automatic fire that use an intermediate cartridge and detachable magazines.

There is no "worldwide standard".

The AR-15 being sold for civilian use is not classifiable as an assault rifle, as it is not capable of burst or fully automatic fire. It's .223 caliber is also too small for it to be classified as a "battle rifle," such as the M14.

So if we remove the 3 round burst from the M16A2 or the M4, you're okay with them being available for civilian purchase since they are no longer classifiable as an assault rifle?

An AR 15 can be converted to automatic fire with a little know how and less than 15 minutes.

What do you call a M16A2 without the 3 round burst? An AR 15.

What do you classify an AR 14 chambered for .308 which is essentially a 7.62 round? Basically, the same as a M14.

The US and other countries went away from the "battle rifle" concept that was utilized in older combat weapons such as the M1 Garand based on the findings of WW1 and WW2 that in combat, whoever had the highest rate of fire was likely to win. Older millitary rifles used heavier, more powerful rounds, with the thinking that range and increased stopping power were the most advantagious traits to have, which proved false over studies. When the US commissioned the M16, they wanted an automatic weapon with a small cartridge to reduce recoil, sacrificing stopping power for the increased rate of fire that studies proved was most important.

Show me the studies. I'm a nerd like that.

The reduced recoil of the AR 15/M16/M4 is due to the buffer assembly and spring. Not the size of the round.

What is the rate of fire and the round of the AK 47?

Now, in the case of the AR-15, it lacks the stopping power of older battle rifles, and it lacks the rate of fire of modern assault rifles. It is not designed for combat. If it were a modern firearm designed for combat, then it would be likely be capable of burst fire and/or automatic fire. If it wasn't, then it would at the very least be chambered to fire a heavier round with superior stopping power.

The trigger mechanism is easily modified for full automatic fire, but in a rifle such as the M16/M4/AR 15 automatic fire and 3 round burst fire are highly inaccurate and the only time I ever saw them used was at the range.

AR 15s are available for purchase in .308, essentially the same as a M14.

There isn't a modern millitary out there that uses a semi-automatic weapon firing such a small cartridge.

Have you ever heard of the US Army? The M16A2 and M4 both fire semi-auto, both fire 5.56 rounds which is essentially the same as .223.



This picture has both 5.56 NATO and .223 civilian.

Can you tell me which is which?

Yeah, I didn't think so. Because they are essentially the same. That's what essentially the same means.