Skip to main content

View Diary: Pulling a Mitt Romney on guns (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Still no sensible way to ban "sniping" (4+ / 0-)
    Gun nuts dismiss everyone else by trying to get technical on every bit of firearm trivia and make people feel stupid for not knowing everything about a firearm--something that's kind of ridiculous to insist on given guns aren't an everyday tool for anyone, but the military and police.  
    No, all we insist is that you don't get to make laws about something you don't understand, because your efforts are going to fail to address real issues, will have lots of unintentional consequences, and will create a lot of harmful political fallout in the process (like the first Assault Weapons Ban that helped the Republicans retake control of the House in 1994).  It's just common sense that if you don't understand something, you have no business trying to regulate it.
    Why not long range sniper rifles above 3000 ft/second?
    You don't seem to understand what makes a sniper rifle a sniper rifle.  It's the accuracy.  Sniper rifles do not inherently have higher velocities than "other" kinds of rifles.  Hell, the .50 BMG, which is a very popular bogeyman of the anti-gun crowd, only has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps, which makes it very pedestrian, and comparable with most hunting rounds except the magnum rounds, which completely outclass it in terms of velocity.

    What are you going to do, ban well-made rifles that are accurate?  You realize that's what every hunting rifle aspires to be as well?  Are you also going to ban people who "shoot too well"?  Acquiring a good rifle is the easy part.  The hard part is knowing how to shoot it, especially at long range.  A good shooter with a mediocre gun is much more effective than a mediocre shooter with the best gun imaginable.  It's the training and experience, more than anything else, that count.  And your common thugs that are the cause of most gun violence do not have said training.

    •  Nerdgasms are Unattractive (0+ / 0-)

      ===No, all we insist is that you don't get to make laws about something you don't understand, because your efforts are going to fail to address real issues, will have lots of unintentional consequences, and will create a lot of harmful political fallout in the process (like the first Assault Weapons Ban that helped the Republicans retake control of the House in 1994).  It's just common sense that if you don't understand something, you have no business trying to regulate it.

      And once again, the gun nerds only get to make the rules.  You are making my point perfectly.  Instead of coming up with what might be reasonable restrictions on especially deadly firearms you start throwing around whine tirades about how no one knows anything like the gun nerds and I'm going to try and ban all well made rifles.  

      You are arguing against strawmen arguments and then expect your critiques to be taken seriously.  The thing is, you aren't serious about making good regulations, you just want to whine about how cool guns are and anyone who disagrees is an idiot not worthy of the discussion.  

      •  haha. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CydeWeys, andalusi
        Instead of coming up with what might be reasonable restrictions on especially deadly firearms you start throwing around whine tirades about how no one knows anything like the gun nerds and I'm going to try and ban all well made rifles.  
        Especially deadly firearms that aren't used to kill people at any appreciable rate. Yes, let's limit them now! You do realize you look kinda silly on this point right? It's like someone saying "Let's ban especially fast cars that never get driven!"

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:28:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          That's the principal thing I've been arguing with him about, and he Just Doesn't Get It.  He's focusing on all the wrong things.  Maybe if he focused on things that are actually being used to commit crimes in any appreciable numbers then I'd be able to take him more seriously, but he's not.

      •  I Have To Go (0+ / 0-)

        But let's leave the three of you with something--notice that everyone just left and ignored you?  Why do you think that is?

        Your super intellects won the argument and everyone shut-up?  

        Or you started hounding people and so they had better things to do than listen to fanboys talk about their guns?

        This is a pretty classic interaction with the average gun nerd.  Gun nerds come in and talk down to everyone--no one listens to them, and they go on about their business while the gun nerds puff out their chest about how stupid everyone is, but them.

        Is that effective?  

    •  You don't need to understand the difference (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meagert

      if you intend to come back and ban the rest of them later.

      the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:45:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site