todays outrageous fact: gun silencer sales

Post Reply New Topic

How did this thread turn into such a storm of mudslinging? I mean, what's the big deal with gun silencers anyway? They're just devices you put on the end of a gun to make them a little bit quieter. Yeah, they're illegal in a bunch of places for some dumb reason, but so are most firearms and related accessories anyway, at least for civilians in countries outside of the US.

From the aritcle:


The gun buying spree that was kicked off in Dec. '12 was triggered by people's anxiety over potential post-Sandy Hook firearms legislation being pushed through by unscrupulous politicians (mostly Democrats).
If they (the democrats) had gotten away from gun control we wouldn't have had this. They whine about too many guns but create a climate that strongly encourages mass buying. You couldn't find and AR-15 or AK in any gun shop for months after that Sandy Hook thing happened. They were sold before the shops took delivery of new ones.
The ammo hording for some calibers is STILL going on.

So it seems as though you are stuck in a loop? You can not stop trying to argue inconsequential issues despite my plea? Perhaps I could have capitalized more?

Personally I believe arguing over other's derived statistics whether Greenwald, Pinto or Rush Limbaugh is non-productive. Using our own brains makes us less dependant on others. This is a community group that we are all trying to be "friendly"on and although there is some dissension we don't want to create unending wars, especially about "others" viewpoints and observations we really know nothing about.

If you want to discuss drug policy, as an interest, I'd suggest you might start another thread on the subject. I imagine there may be many people interested.

denny

You're so right.

If there was an issue, you'd hear about gangs and others using them, and I don't believe I've ever heard of this in the U.S., except in movies. It's a total, imaginary, made-up, non-issue, like a fairy tale. The only problem that exists is in some people's minds, and this is where the changes need to be made.

denny

You were the one who raised drugs policy (as an attempt to attack a Portuguese user for the failings of his country). I pointed out your string of errors, and rather than admit you were wrong you've just told me to shut up because it's an "inconsequential argument" and I am not being "friendly"? And that one should avoid using good sources of data because "using our own brains makes up less dependent on others"? How is one supposed to have an opinion on anything if you need to gather all your primary data yourself?

We were arguing about levels of ignorance, not who should be judged more harshly, you changed up when I countered your initial thrust.



Again, unsafe firearms handling is not the same thing as believing all sorts of easily disproved misinformation about the basic operations of firearms, especially unforgivable in people who want to regulate the usage of such by others.



In some ways they are, as having the physical object in front of you does make you instantly more knowledgeable about it than the person who's only had one described to them, which seems to be most of the most vehemently anti-gun people out there.



That's bad judgment, not ignorance.



Please don't try and concern-troll me, it's just annoying.



Says the guy who can't point to a legitimate need for the regulations he feels are necessary, who is arguing with people far more knowledgeable than himself. You even admit in your posts that you want to regulate everything "dangerous" and that you're not even concerned with crime, without ever actually citing a stat or providing any other reasoning beyond this personal desire and a belief that your ideas will work where everything else has failed.

Do you have anything besides 'both sides do it' and concern trolling?

Did you miss this little gem, Raptor? He's not even concerned about the criminal misuse of guns, he's afraid because they're "dangerous" and they're out there, that's all the justification he needs for his regulatory pipe dreams. Almost more disheartening than the foaming at the mouth antis IMHO.

I was not arguing levels of ignorance. You originally stated that the anti-gun crowd knew nothing about firearms that didn't come from movies, and I stated that that applies to plenty of gun owners as well. When you replied that gun owners are not as ignorant is when I responded in kind.



^I am not arguing this. At all. In case you haven't noticed, my desire for regulation is also accompanied by a desire for the NRA and other knowledgable gun owners to be a large part in their crafting.



There very few people who have only had a gun described to them (although I would agree that that applies to the people who are the loudest and most obnoxious on that extreme end of the spectrum). But assuming that someone who knows zero about firearms instantly knows more as soon as they touch one is ridiculous.



I disagree. Bad judgment is usually a direct result of a lack of information.



Wasn't attempting to, although after re-reading that part and remembering that any disagreement is considered a sign that I am 100% against you, I understand how it can be construed that way.

[/quote]

Yet another case of broad sweeping generalizations of someone who disagrees with you. I am concerned with crime, just less worried about violent crime than those who don't give a crap if a shipment of fireams ends up in with an organized group of criminals or in the hands of a repeat violent offendor or in the hands of someone who knows nothing about firearms and would be a danger to himself and to others. As long as unregulated capitalism makes someone money, it is a-okay, eh?

And yes, I believe everything dangerous to the people in this country should be regulated, as I feel it is the duty of the federal government to protect its citizens. That is the whole reason we have a military. It is why we have the Bill of Rights and Amendments. It is the reason we have laws and the reason we have a court system.

As for arguments, there is little evidence from either side on any of these threads. Most are opinions based on personal views and often personal experience (of which I have plenty). As far as I have seen, the majority of arguments against any form of regulation whatsoever boils down to:
the ridiculous slippery slope argument that gets trotted out for pretty much every political issue by one side or the other.
the left is crazy.
2nd amendment! 2nd amendment! (and p-lease ignore all of the SCOTUS and District of federal appeals rulings that find regulation is allowed, just not over-reach).
i don't agree with some of your points so you must think guns are bad and want to take them away from me
i don't agree with the reasoning behind your arguments therefore you have not provided any reasoning.
you disagree with me therefore you know nothing about firearms (despite the fact that you grew up with them, have used them for decades, are a gun owner, and have lived in rural areas where drunken hillbillies fire on a daily basis (myself included for around 10 years) as well as many different types of urban environments where firearms are an ever present fact of life.
You are either 100% for me or 100% against me.

But on the flip side, most of those who want to ban guns entirely have arguments that boil down to:
I don't like guns/I am afraid of guns, therefor everyone should be.
People shoot each other.
the right is crazy.
more school shootings! more school shootings! (despite the fact that these are nothing new, nor are violent rampages limited to firearms).
i don't agree with some of your points so you must think people should be allowed to buy rocket launchers.
i don't agree with the reasoning behind your arguments therefore you have not provided any reasoning.
You are either 100% for me or 100% against me.

Do you have anything other than "any laws = bad" and "My opinion is more valid than yours?"

Last edited by sonofghandi on 07 May 2014, 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am concerned, it is just not my primary concern. Keeping firearms out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them would be much more effective than waiting until criminals have them.

And a person who owns a weapon that he does not know how to use is a danger to more people than just himself.

Kids used to get a chunk of radioactive material in their chemistry sets, which would not be dangerous at all if they knew what they were doing, but those distributing never bothered to think about that as long as those mail orders kept coming in. And radium watch dials would not have been a problem if the workers had known not to stick the radium in their mouths over and over again. And xray machines at the shoe shop wouldn't have been misused if those using them knew that repeated exposure to ionizing radiation was a bad idea. Garbage like that is the reason that radioactive material and radioactivity have the most and the strictest regulations enacted (and rightly so). Yet those who demanded regulation were those who knew the least, and those who were against regulation forgot that so many people knew so much less about the subject than they did.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 07 May 2014, 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One problem is the whole circularity of the 'guns dont kill people...' argument. You can take the word 'guns' and replace it with X. If this debate was about the right to own tigers, and people were being mauled by the tigers, the same people would be blaming people for the maulings.

Perhaps if you were to go back and re-read the post you're attacking? If my ending the post by declaring: "We all live in glass houses buddy" doesn't mean that we're all on an equal footing, then I guess you should state what YOU thought I meant. I really didn't think that that statement could be misunderstood. And please show me how my usage of Wikipedia to prove a point suddenly means what YOU say is true.

If you are unable to understand the meaning of my words why don't you ask questions instead of attacking. Is THIS too much to ask???? Being on the aspie side myself I don't expect friendship from you or anyone else, but is it too much to ask if we can just be civilized and try to get along???? Many here seem to love arguing more than learning...ugh! To me that's a very NT trait.

But I protest your saying I told you to "shut up." I'm sure that's just another typical little "truth bending" in the heat of argument, but still not very nice. If you don't understand or agree with what I state please answer without "made up" quotes or ideas and if there's something I haven't explained clearly enough please ask and I'll try to illuminate.

Greenwald or Pinto or the people or peoples that wrote the analysis provided are providing biased information; you happen to prefer the opinion of one vs. another. I'm suggesting we use our own brains to discuss items we understand and not depend on others opinions. If you want to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then go for it. Since this post was about report suppressors I suggest you start a new subject on what appeals to YOU.

denny