New Gun thread, for Dox

Post Reply New Topic

Only because they're outdated; in their time and place they were responsible for a whole lot more murder than guns are today, statistically speaking. Swords are also much more combat specific than guns; with the exception of a handful of boar hunting swords they were almost entirely designed for battlefield use, where as guns are more like bows in that they've always had parallel sporting and hunting designs and markets in addition to purely martial use.

Need I remind you that one of us has actually designed and built guns? All the rolling eye emoticons in the world aren't going to make a lie true, no matter how good of a talking point you think it is.

Why should I, or anyone else, care about LA or SF? The conversation was about California being forced to take other state's CC permits, regardless of the fact that other states' requirements are not as stringent as California's (as demonstrated in the first link above). A lot of states allow anyone who hasn't been convicted of a felony, to get a CCW permit - regardless of what else they've been convicted of, or how many times. A lot of states don't require any kind of aptitude or ability to be demonstrated (ie, the need to be able to hit what you shoot at), or require only an online weapons course.

I want to know that the people packing CCWs around my home haven't been convicted of violent crimes at any level, and have a modicum of actual skill at handling guns. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Bows and Arrows, then. They're still tools for killing things (Nerf excepted), regardless of how many of the targets are made out of straw. As for having designed and built guns, if your weapon is so specialized for target shooting (or whatever), I don't think that it would fall under the limitations that I have previously described.

Did I say you were trying to restrict my highly specialized target rifle? What I was doing was refuting your "guns only have one purpose: killing people" talking point, for the umpteenth time no less.

Take some friendly advice; drop the point. Logical contortions to try and support a weak point when faced with a compelling rebuttal only make you look disingenuous, especially when we're not even talking about something that really matters one way or the other, just a talking point. Lots of people get stabbed to death with kitchen knives, bludgeoned with sporting implements, strangled with articles of clothing, etc, do you think it matters to any of them that "well, at least I wasn't killed with something explicitly designed for the purpose"? I could drop it any time I felt like it and not miss a beat "yes, guns are designed for killing, but sometimes killing is exactly what is called for", but part of my long term strategy is calling out the anti gun people on misleading and emotionally manipulative tactics, so I don't.

So, balls is in your court; do you really want to continue to argue the purpose of gun design with a gun designer?

Because the state of discretionary issue in California has rendered those locations de facto no issue, except for those wealthy or powerful enough to be connected; a state of affairs that, as I earlier pointed out, I thought you would take issue with. It would be one thing if the entire state were no issue, or if there were any evidence at all of those locales evaluating the people who are applying in a fair and unbiased manner, but that's clearly not the case, the only people who can get a permit there are the elite. You're really okay with that?



By "less stringent", you mean that the rest of the country gives permits to regular Joes, and not just celebrities and politicians?



You mean the same standard required by federal law to buy a gun? No felonies, no DD, no DV, no involuntary commitment, it's all pretty standard across the board. The only real differences have to do with training, and years ago I'd be there with you in the required training camp, but the research that's been done shows no difference in accidents rates involving CCW holders in states that require training vs those who do not. Look it up, your fears are entirely unjustified, the majority of the rest of the country has shall issue CCW, and we're not all dodging bullets from accidental discharges or permit holders spraying lead willy nilly.



Here's California's policy:


Here's Washington's, where I live:




Where exactly is the part you have a problem with?

You were arguing against my point for the umpteenth time; I would disagree that you were successfully refuting it. But I take your point as to why you were arguing.

Translation: 'Take some friendly advice. Admit I'm right.'

I agree.

No, but if they had half a second where the killer lost the element of surprise, and used that second to fight, run or otherwise foil their attacker, they might be grateful that the attacker was using a tool less suited to killing things efficiently than a gun.

Dox, you say you're a gun designer as if the depth of knowledge required to be one is relevant to this discussion; you don't need to be a boat or ship designer to discuss the relative uses of a catamaran sailboat vs. a raft or, for that matter, vs. a car.
I don't doubt that you have designed things that are not all that efficient at killing things, but at that point I would begin to wonder whether the word 'gun' even applied, unless it was in the same sense that I had my ears pierced with a 'gun.'

Take this .22 target pistol; it's very expensive, complex, difficult to conceal, and chambered in a very low powered round. Could you kill someone with it? Sure, if you hit them a bunch of times in the right spot, but that's not what it was designed to do. That's the end of that right there.

Actually, I'd put it more like 'admit you are wrong'; people make mistakes all the time, especially when they don't have all the information. There's no shame in that. There is shame, however, in stubbornly clinging to an easily disproved, purely rhetorical falsehood.



I think they'd be even more grateful if they had a gun in their pocket to defend themself with.




What is your knowledge depth on the subject? You keep making these incorrect claims and displaying ignorance on everything to the physics of bullets to the mechanics of firearms to the disposition of the laws governing them, and yet you won't listen to someone who not only displays superior knowledge of the subject, but has the professional credentials to back that knowledge up.

You're in medicine, right? Arguing with you from my perspective is like a doctor arguing with an anti-vaxxer; you don't care about how much more I know than you do, let alone that I'm professionally certified, you read some stuff on the internet and are so entrenched in your beliefs that nothing I say ever gets through to you. What am I supposed to do with that? Before you shoot back something about my entrenched beliefs, think real hard about the depth of the knowledge gap here, and the difference between belief backed by study vs belief backed by opinion alone.



Check out that .22 I posted above; not my design, but it gets the point across.

I don't live in San Francisco or LA. What I'm concerned with wrt. forced reciprocity laws is whether or not any Jack Schmoe with a CC permit from Alaska or Nevada (or Alabama, or some other 'Shall Issue' state with minimal standards, can legally show up in my central Plaza with a gun under his coat.

Again, there are hundreds of CCW permit holders in my county, and afaik none of them are celebrities or politicians.



The statistics on gun deaths (previously posted) would suggest otherwise.

[/quote]
Firstly, I don't think that CA's rules are perfect. Secondly, Washington is not one of the states that I worry about (although I wonder why it's not ok to stalk, coerce, assault, endanger etc a family member, but it apparently is ok if the person you stalked, coerced, assaulted, etc. wasn't a family member and wasn't quite a felony); it's the lowest-common-denominator places.
http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_conceal ... ation.html
http://www.usacarry.com/montana_conceal ... ation.html
http://www.usacarry.com/alaska_conceale ... ation.html
http://dps.alaska.gov/statewide/permits ... dguns.aspx
http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed ... ts/Obtain/
http://www.usacarry.com/arizona_conceal ... ation.html
http://arizonasonoranewsservice.com/sto ... k-and-100-

Dox, would you honestly be comfortable with a pack of 16-year-old Vermonters with CCWs running around in the mall nearest you? Or, apparently, even younger than that if they have a parent's written permission?

Catamarans are boats designed to go fast and maintain stability. Could someone design a catamaran that wasn't fast, or wasn't stable? Yes. Would that negate the statement that 'catamarans are boats designed to go fast and maintain stability'? No.
Have you heard the phrase, 'The exception that proves the rule'?

Not if they didn't like guns in specific, or violence at all. A lot of women dislike violence so much that they won't fight back even when attacked; that's not me, but I don't think that there's something wrong with them.

Oh, I quite readily admit that you know way more about guns and gun laws than I do, but I don't think that we're arguing at fine enough pixelation for that to mater.

*snort*
Dox, the comparisons you chose are consistently the most extreme that you can think of.
This isn't a doctor arguing with an anti-vaxer over whether or not vaccines are useful; it's a doctor arguing with a member of the public over the utility of BMI charts, or something like that. You don't have to go to 8 years of postsecondary education to know that reducing body type to height and weight might be problematic for all kinds of reasons (though there are lots of people, including doctors, who still do it).

Hey, I'm arguing on the internet here, subtlety is usually wasted on this audience. Add to that that this is an Aspie board full of people who often don't process nuance, analogy, or metaphor all that well, and my reasoning in using the sledgehammer rather than the scalpel when constructing these examples becomes a bit more clear. I'm not aiming any of that at you specifically, btw, that's just my personal experience talking.

I concede the point.

When did people start using guns for sporting and hunting?


I have no problem with that. Why should I trust any particular person with a gun? There is not even a way to tell if his gun is legal or not.


So that they can die in a gun duel? "At least I shot back". What a consolation.

1) Vermont doesn't issue carry permits. 2) Yes, yes I would.