Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4277 Oct 12 2017 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
When one side supports one thing, and the other supports something else, and they can't agree, it's a fight.
When you're supporting fiction and I have to correct you with facts and reality it isn't a fight.
gbaji wrote:
You do get that they direction they want to go in is to lead to a place where the 2nd amendment is either repealed, or made meaningless
It's been meaningless for about ten years now, since it became okay to just ignore the first half of it.
gbaji wrote:
If they ban the bump stocks, they will decrease the likelihood of more shootings like this
So it isn't so much about saving lives as it is about an "unacceptably" high body count. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What is the acceptable number of victims then? Has to be over a fifty, since "you" didn't care enough after Miami to propose banning bump stocks. Or, any proposal really.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4278 Oct 12 2017 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If it doesn't happen, it will be because the anti-gun folks refuse to propose a clean bill on the matter.

More likely, it won't be done as legislation but as regulation. The ATF will be pushed to issue a directive prohibiting bump stocks which will let people say "We did this" without anyone having to go on record as "anti-Second Amendment". Ryan already said that was the preferred way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4279 Oct 13 2017 at 2:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
I'm taking the day off, pulling my daughter out of school for the day, and spending it watching Friday the 13th movies. I think it's more important she know what to do when an undead super zombie attacks than how to write cursive.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4280 Oct 13 2017 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm taking the day off, pulling my daughter out of school for the day, and spending it watching Friday the 13th movies. I think it's more important she know what to do when an undead super zombie attacks than how to write cursive.


Sure, sure. When you're writing a warning in blood, block printing is the way to go, anyway.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4281 Oct 13 2017 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You do get that they direction they want to go in is to lead to a place where the 2nd amendment is either repealed, or made meaningless
It's been meaningless for about ten years now, since it became okay to just ignore the first half of it.


The first half has never meant what gun control advocates have claimed it meant. It didn't change. The ruling by the Court merely informed those people that, no, that's not what the 2nd amendment means. "Well regulated militia" never meant "government run military". A militia, somewhat by definition, is formed from a pool of private citizens and *not* on-duty soldiers. You can't have a militia if you don't first have armed civilians. Otherwise we call them "conscripts" (or, I suppose, "volunteers"). The key difference is that a military is made up of people who join the military and come directly under military chain of command. A militia is made up of people who form up on their own, usually with their own weapons, who may then choose to fight along side the regular military in time of need, or even, in the case of our War for Independence, fight against the standing military if they disagree with the government's rule.

That was the entire point of writing the 2nd amendment that way. You know this. You're just pretending not to.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If they ban the bump stocks, they will decrease the likelihood of more shootings like this
So it isn't so much about saving lives as it is about an "unacceptably" high body count.


Decreasing the body count is about saving lives. Those two are not in opposition at all. Our gun laws have long outlawed weapons capable of extremely high rate of fire for civilian use (ie: fully automatic weapons, enabling multiple shots to be fired with a single pull of the trigger). The bump stock allows for that rate of fire, and is only legal because of a loophole, since it's not technically a modification of the firearm itself. The firearm isn't allowing more than one shot per pull of the trigger. The bump stock allows the user to use the weapons recoil to cause the trigger to repeatedly "bump" against the trigger finger to enable a fully automatic rate of fire.

Which is a distinction without any real difference.

Quote:
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What is the acceptable number of victims then?


There is no "acceptable number of victims". That's an absurd argument. The issue is over the methodology, and whether that methodology is or should be legal. 50 victims killed by running them over with a truck isn't an "acceptable number" either, yet I don't think anyone's talking about making trucks illegal, right?

Quote:
Has to be over a fifty, since "you" didn't care enough after Miami to propose banning bump stocks. Or, any proposal really.


I didn't propose banning bump stocks after Miami because a bump stock was not used in that shooting. I also didn't propose banning a whole list of other things that also were not used in that shooting. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

"or any proposal really" is because the weapon used in that shooting was a normal semi-automatic rifle. You can't ban that without getting us into the same silliness that the assault weapons ban had. There's no way to define a set of banned weapons that would be sufficient to prevent a shooter from doing what he did in that case, without defining it so broadly as to run afoul of the 2nd amendment.

The death toll was so high in that case due to the environment of the shooting, not the weapon used. He could probably have killed just as many people using a pair of pistols rather than a rifle and a pistol (actually, might have been more effective in a close environment like that). He killed so many people, not because he had a weapon that had a super high rate of fire, or because it was super powerful, or anything, but because his victims could not escape. Those who could were out of the club in the first minute or two after he started shooting.

And that's ultimately the issue with shootings like this. The gun control folks want to ban the gun, but it's not that specific gun, with that specific set of capabilities that caused the death toll to be what it was. The Sandyhook shooting would have been just as deadly regardless of the specific firearms used. Same in this case. To prevent shootings like that with gun regulation would require regulations so broad that they could not pass constitutional muster. I get that many people want that not to be the case, but wanting it doesn't make it true.

This most recent shooting is the rare example where what he used did make a difference. But it wasn't about the rifles, it was about the bump stocks that allowed him to rain down a massive amount of fire into a large crowd in a relatively short amount of time. So yeah, in this case, the correct response is to ban the thing that made that possible. And that was the bump stock.


It's not like this is difficult logic or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4282 Oct 13 2017 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If it doesn't happen, it will be because the anti-gun folks refuse to propose a clean bill on the matter.


More likely, it won't be done as legislation but as regulation. The ATF will be pushed to issue a directive prohibiting bump stocks which will let people say "We did this" without anyone having to go on record as "anti-Second Amendment". Ryan already said that was the preferred way.


if you pay attention to the reasons given by those on the Right arguing for regulation rather than legislation, it's pretty consistently a concern that once a bill is put out there, the gun control folks will try to push a ton of other stuff into it, forcing the GOP to either accept them, or "fail to ban bump stocks". Which is precisely the point I've been making.

I haven't scoured the internet for this, but I've yet to hear a single quote from a GOP rep saying that they would prefer to use regulations rather than legislation because they don't want to be seen as "anti-Second Amendment". Every single one I've read or heard mention the point I made above. Now, I suppose we could speculate that they are just saying that's their reason, but the really are scared of upsetting 2nd amendment supporters, but that seems pretty unlikely. While I'm sure there's a few fringe folks out there defending bump stocks, the overwhelming response from gun owners across the country has been that they should be banned.

So there's no evidence that they're in any danger from 2nd amendment supporters on this. Well, unless other stuff gets put into the bill that those people don't want. Again though, it all hinges on whether we have a clean bill about just bump stocks, or whether it's used as a lever to push for other gun control measures. It's concern over the latter that is driving the Right's response to this.

Edited, Oct 13th 2017 7:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4283 Oct 13 2017 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,253 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When one side supports one thing, and the other supports something else, and they can't agree, it's a fight.
When you're supporting fiction and I have to correct you with facts and reality it isn't a fight.
gbaji wrote:
You do get that they direction they want to go in is to lead to a place where the 2nd amendment is either repealed, or made meaningless
It's been meaningless for about ten years now, since it became okay to just ignore the first half of it.
gbaji wrote:
If they ban the bump stocks, they will decrease the likelihood of more shootings like this
So it isn't so much about saving lives as it is about an "unacceptably" high body count. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What is the acceptable number of victims then? Has to be over a fifty, since "you" didn't care enough after Miami to propose banning bump stocks. Or, any proposal really.


Why does it automatically have to be a fight? Why can't it simply be an argument? Or are we automatically jumping to a conclusion that there is no arguing with the heathens and we might as well fortify our positions, send saboteurs and sow propaganda?

I like guns ( maybe not in the hands of my cousin, but still.. ), but I am not sure this is a good long term strategy.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#4284 Oct 14 2017 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Our gun laws have long outlawed weapons capable of extremely high rate of fire for civilian use (ie: fully automatic weapons, enabling multiple shots to be fired with a single pull of the trigger).
Demonstrably untrue as, with the right permits, a clean background check and purchasing weapons made prior to a specific time period (varies somewhat depending on the weapon) one can perfectly legally buy machine guns.

Like... .50 caliber machine guns, for instance.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4286 Oct 16 2017 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
A militia, somewhat by definition, is formed from a pool of private citizens and *not* on-duty soldiers
It doesn't say militia, it says "a well regulated Militia." You can't purchase rifles from Walmart and claim you're well regulated. You know this. You're just pretending not to.
gbaji wrote:
Those two are not in opposition at all.
And yet there is absolute resistance to even talk until there's a certain number of victims.
gbaji wrote:
50 victims killed by running them over with a truck isn't an "acceptable number" either, yet I don't think anyone's talking about making trucks illegal, right?
If there were a serious problem with intentional mass vehicular homicides like there are active shooting incidents they would.
gbaji wrote:
I didn't propose banning bump stocks after Miami because a bump stock was not used in that shooting.
Which is why a ban on bump stocks is nothing but a worthless token gesture.
gbaji wrote:
It's not like this is difficult logic or anything.
I have faith that if you had just taken two seconds to actually think about it instead of just blindly accepting and repeating what you were told to you probably could have followed it as well and come to the correct conclusion that it is a worthless gesture.

Even if you want to pretend that a bump stock ban would have somehow magically affected the other thirty incidents this year, what is the actual solution? You're going to send people to collect all the stocks that are already in circulation? Not much of a ban if you leave them out there.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4287 Oct 17 2017 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Our gun laws have long outlawed weapons capable of extremely high rate of fire for civilian use (ie: fully automatic weapons, enabling multiple shots to be fired with a single pull of the trigger).
Demonstrably untrue as, with the right permits, a clean background check and purchasing weapons made prior to a specific time period (varies somewhat depending on the weapon) one can perfectly legally buy machine guns.


One "can", do so. Actually doing so is a whole bigger issue though. And there are severe liability issues involved. Most people, even those who might wish to own such a weapon and have the financial ability to purchase such a weapon, aren't going to want to deal with the headaches of doing so. Basically, unless your business is gun related, it's almost certainly not worth going down that path.

I suppose you could be pedantic about my statement being literally incorrect, but I'm pretty sure I made the same point a time or two earlier in the thread and put in the caveat about obtaining a permit. I'll also point out that the responsibility placed on owners of such weapons does kinda put them into a different category than "normal citizens". You're in the "law enforcement, gun reseller, licensed gun collector, etc" category. At least that's how it's legally justified.

Quote:
Like... .50 caliber machine guns, for instance.


Yup. Again though, if it was really that easy, and didn't require a level of proof of X, Y, and Z way beyond what's required for normal weapons, the shooter here could have done so. He certainly did have the time and money, and what appears to be a clean record. There's a lot of scrutiny placed on someone seeking these sorts of permits. Maybe if he had applied for one, something would have come out that he didn't want known. Who knows?

Just saying it's not that easy.

Edited, Oct 17th 2017 6:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4288 Oct 17 2017 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A militia, somewhat by definition, is formed from a pool of private citizens and *not* on-duty soldiers

It doesn't say militia, it says "a well regulated Militia." You can't purchase rifles from Walmart and claim you're well regulated. You know this. You're just pretending not to.


The phrase "well regulated" is the adjective to the noun "militia". A militia is made up of private citizens, not active military. Whether they are well regulated or not is an aspect of how well the militia itself operates and has no bearing at all on the basic requirements of being a militia in the first place.

EDIT: I also would like to point out that the phrase "well regulated" does not refer to government regulation. Well regulated, in the context of the time the amendment was written, simply meant "functioned properly".

I'll also remind you of a point I made and which you failed to address. The militia is formed from private citizens, almost always with their own weapons (and if not, they receive them from other members of the militia, again, usually also privately owned). So yes, in order to be able to form a "well regulated militia", the private citizens who form together into that "well regulated" militia must first have the ability to purchase rifles from Walmart (or equivalent). How exactly is a militia to be created (well regulated or not) if private citizens cannot own firearms?

If it can only be created by the government forming it, and providing weapons, then it's not a militia. It's a regular old military. The word choice is not accidental here.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Those two are not in opposition at all.

And yet there is absolute resistance to even talk until there's a certain number of victims.


Talk about what? Banning bump stocks? This is the first mass shooting in which one was used. So... um. What do you expect should have happened?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
50 victims killed by running them over with a truck isn't an "acceptable number" either, yet I don't think anyone's talking about making trucks illegal, right?

If there were a serious problem with intentional mass vehicular homicides like there are active shooting incidents they would.


Like in France, right?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I didn't propose banning bump stocks after Miami because a bump stock was not used in that shooting.

Which is why a ban on bump stocks is nothing but a worthless token gesture.


Except that now that so many more people know about them, it's a good bet that the next guy who decides to go on a mass shooting spree will use one. And we'll see much higher body counts.


Quote:
I have faith that if you had just taken two seconds to actually think about it instead of just blindly accepting and repeating what you were told to you probably could have followed it as well and come to the correct conclusion that it is a worthless gesture.


Far less worthless than the ridiculous legislation the gun control advocates have attempted (and sometime succeeded) in passing in the past though. I just find it amusing that the most common emotional argument used by the anti-gun folks is "people shouldn't have weapons capable of spraying bullets into a crowd", and yet, here we are faced with a very simple thing we could do to prevent that exact thing, and it's being downplayed, called a "worthless gesture", etc.

It's almost like they don't actually care about that, they just claim to in order to work towards their actual goal: banning all guns. As I mentioned earlier, if you make it harder for gun owners to do these sorts of mass shootings, they might happen less often, and then it would be harder for the gun control folks to get the brass ring they really want. So we get "gun free zones" (aka: target rich zones full of helpless people). And we get foot dragging on bump stocks now. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it sure looks like they *want* more mass shootings and more body count when they happen.

Quote:
Even if you want to pretend that a bump stock ban would have somehow magically affected the other thirty incidents this year, what is the actual solution? You're going to send people to collect all the stocks that are already in circulation? Not much of a ban if you leave them out there.


So your argument is that since we can't get every bump stock already out there, we should just leave them be? Most mass shootings are not committed by long term gun collectors and owners. They're committed by some angry/crazy person, who goes out and buys a few guns, usually within a few months of doing the shooting, or steals/borrows them from someone else. Banning bump stocks would seriously reduce the ability of such a person to obtain them. Prior to this shooting, those people didn't know about them. Now? Not the case.

Again, I'm baffled why anyone would argue against this. When did "perfection or bust" come into the discussion? I'm pretty sure that the common argument among gun control advocates all along has been "do something". Well. This is "something". And unlike more gun control proposals, this is something that might actually have a real impact on potential future shootings. Why *not* ban them? The literal worst case is that you can't get rid of all of them, or even more than a fraction of them. That's worse than leaving them legal how, exactly?

Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Oct 17th 2017 7:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4289 Oct 17 2017 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Our gun laws have long outlawed weapons capable of extremely high rate of fire for civilian use (ie: fully automatic weapons, enabling multiple shots to be fired with a single pull of the trigger).
Demonstrably untrue as, with the right permits, a clean background check and purchasing weapons made prior to a specific time period (varies somewhat depending on the weapon) one can perfectly legally buy machine guns.
I suppose you could be pedantic about my statement being literally incorrect...
There's no "pedantic" about it. You were factually incorect. Full stop.


Here, try this: "I was wrong"...and then move on.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#4290 Oct 18 2017 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
Well regulated, in the context of the time the amendment was written, simply meant "functioned properly".
And at no point does "buying a rifle at Walmart" qualify that. But you keep insisting a part of the constitution isn't important.
gbaji wrote:
This is the first mass shooting in which one was used.
Which, again, proves how worthless "your" suggestion is.
gbaji wrote:
Like in France, right?
You can provide a source showing there's thirty intentional mass vehicular homicides a year in France, right? I'll wait.
gbaji wrote:
it's a good bet
No doubt the 410 people since Vegas would have loved to take that bet.
gbaji wrote:
And we'll see much higher body counts.
So it is a body count issue.
gbaji wrote:
So your argument is that since we can't get every bump stock already out there, we should just leave them be?
So your argument is to whine about not having an answer and continue to pretend "your" suggestion has any merit?
gbaji wrote:
When did "perfection or bust" come into the discussion?
Just after I asked you about the mechanics of "your" suggestion and you thought your screaming "PERFECT OR BUST!" would somehow distract from your lack of any thought into it.
gbaji wrote:
This is "something".
When people say "do something" they mean to do something that can actually be enacted and has an affect on reality. Don't get me wrong, at least "you're" talking about it and not pretending that a moment of silence will solve it, but now you think that because you said something (infinitely ineffectual a suggestion as it is) then that's it.
gbaji wrote:
Again, I'm baffled why anyone would argue against this.
Because some people actually think about things instead of just repeating what their political party tells them to. Amazing, I know.

Edited, Oct 18th 2017 10:16am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4291 Oct 18 2017 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm betting it's only a matter of time, especially with research into self-driving vehicles, before all cars come with and are required to have kill switches when within certain areas. Drive your van up onto a pedestrian walkway and it gets a message via a radio 'fence' to kill the engine and engage the brake. "No Drive" zones that are basically a digital form of a physical bollard system. Obviously this only works when cars have the tech so it will be regulated into a mandatory thing.

Unfortunately, this system will be lost on the "But, derp, whaddabout CARS?!?!?!" people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4292 Oct 18 2017 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Research is going to have to really amp up for that, as even my GPS tends to get lost from time to time. I imagine driveways and parking structures would cause a lot of trouble.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4293 Oct 18 2017 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd assume you'd have a transmitter at or near the "No Drive" zone itself rather than some global satellite system. That said, I could see a flexible city-wide system that would allow a municipality to establish a temporary digital no drive zone for special events.

I'm not equipped to answer for every "Yeah, but what if..." scenario but I am fairly confident that this will be in our future. In the meantime, of course, we'll just see more physical barrier systems such as bollards or security planters.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4294 Oct 18 2017 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, I could see a flexible city-wide system that would allow a municipality to establish a temporary digital no drive zone for special events.
That'd certainly be the most practical use for it. Save a city some dosh on man-hours just setting up and tearing down physical barriers. Just not as confident when it comes to residential areas.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4295 Oct 19 2017 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Driving around Germany, Netherlands, and Belgium the past few days... and there is graffiti everywhere. I can't think of any place I've been to in the US that has it this bad.

But, I saw one that really stood out. Driving along a highway in Germany. Two messages, side by side...

First one, on the left:

FIGHT
NAZIS

Second one, to the right:

ANTIFA
AREA

And I thought... that's a definite "DONT DEAD, OPEN INSIDE" situation, which also completely reverses the intended message...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4296 Oct 19 2017 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Our gun laws have long outlawed weapons capable of extremely high rate of fire for civilian use (ie: fully automatic weapons, enabling multiple shots to be fired with a single pull of the trigger).
Demonstrably untrue as, with the right permits, a clean background check and purchasing weapons made prior to a specific time period (varies somewhat depending on the weapon) one can perfectly legally buy machine guns.
I suppose you could be pedantic about my statement being literally incorrect...
There's no "pedantic" about it.


Quote:
Pedantic
of or like a pedant


Quote:
Pedant
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.


You were being pedantic. You are well aware, from a very long posting history on this forum, including multiple gun control discussions, that I know of the existence of exceptions and licenses to own fully automatic weapons, and have, in fact, talked about those exceptions in the past. So to choose to interpret my words as an absolute statement to be taken literally, meaning there's no legal way for any citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, rather than the far more rational interpretation that I'm implying "except for the existing exceptions in the law", is being pedantic.

Guess what? Most things that are banned have exceptions to them. When someone speaks about something being illegal, or banned, or outlawed, it's assumed that those statements include the caveat of "except with license for X, Y, Z", and we're just not going to spend the time mentioning the exceptions every single time we talk about it.

Quote:
You were factually incorect. Full stop.


No. I was factually incomplete. Firearms capable of high fire rates have long been outlawed in this country for civilian use. Except for cases where special licenses have been obtained. The fact that I didn't feel the need to add the extra statement does not mean I was incorrect. I just assumed that everyone would know that "except where there's an exception" is implied within the statement itself, and does not need to be said.

Can we agree that it's much more difficult for a private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon than a semi automatic one? That's the relevant point here.


Quote:
Here, try this: "I was wrong"...and then move on.


No. Sorry. I'm not going to play this game.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4298 Oct 19 2017 at 8:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Well regulated, in the context of the time the amendment was written, simply meant "functioned properly".
And at no point does "buying a rifle at Walmart" qualify that. But you keep insisting a part of the constitution isn't important.


No. I'm saying that a part of the constitution doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. And the Supreme Court agrees with me, and not with you.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
This is the first mass shooting in which one was used.
Which, again, proves how worthless "your" suggestion is.


Why? There's a first time for everything. It's usually not the last time, though. The first time someone hacked into bank to steal money instead of robbing it at gunpoint, the response was probably not "this proves how worthless any sort of measure to prevent people from hacking into our banking computers is". In fact, the response was (quite reasonably) the exact opposite. When some new method is used to do something, that should be a wake up call to look at this new thing, and figure out how to deal with it.

You seem to think it's the opposite. I find that very strange.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
And we'll see much higher body counts.
So it is a body count issue.


And? Is there a point to be made here? The fact that a shooter *can* rack up a high body count using a semi-automatic weapon, doesn't mean that we should make efforts to prevent a potential mass shooter from being able to obtain weapons with much faster rates of fire. Your logic makes zero sense. It's like saying that since it's possible to choke on a sandwich and die, that there's no reason to regulate the food industry to prevent poisonous substances in our food. After all, you can die eating a perfectly legal ham sandwich, right? No sense regulating anything then!

That's... moronic. The "all or nothing" mentality is pretty dumb.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
So your argument is that since we can't get every bump stock already out there, we should just leave them be?
So your argument is to whine about not having an answer and continue to pretend "your" suggestion has any merit?


Are you seriously arguing that we should not try to make bump stocks illegal? How exactly does that argument work in your head?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
This is "something".
When people say "do something" they mean to do something that can actually be enacted and has an affect on reality.


Are you saying that banning bump stocks would have no effect on reality? Or are you saying it can't actually be enacted? I'll repeat what I pointed out earlier: If we don't pass a ban on bump stocks, it'll be because of the gun-control folks blocking it. And you certainly seem to be supporting my argument, what with your whole opposition to banning bump stocks.

Wow. You're being even more bizarre than normal.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Again, I'm baffled why anyone would argue against this.
Because some people actually think about things instead of just repeating what their political party tells them to. Amazing, I know.


Except you've shown no evidence of thinking about this. I see zero negatives to banning bump stocks, and great potential positives. And you're arguing against it because.... why?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4301 Oct 19 2017 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'd assume you'd have a transmitter at or near the "No Drive" zone itself rather than some global satellite system. That said, I could see a flexible city-wide system that would allow a municipality to establish a temporary digital no drive zone for special events.


Not disagreeing with the idea, in principle. But I could see a ton of technical hurdles here. I'm not sure it's a great idea to have cars that can be disabled by an external transmitter. I can see a ton of potential abuse of such a "safety feature". Sure. Only law enforcement and security whatevers will have it, but at the end of the day, it's a signal via a transmitter of some kind. Any signal that can be broadcast, can be captured and re-broadcast. And the features on the cars themselves are not easy to change, making this a serious problem. Either it's easy for car owners to block/change it, to prevent misuse, in which case it's equally easy to get around the security, or it's not, in which case there's a whole host of other problems that crop up.

Quote:
I'm not equipped to answer for every "Yeah, but what if..." scenario but I am fairly confident that this will be in our future.


Oh, I agree. I've long argued that at some point, we'll have self driving cars, using programmed navigation systems, such that the people in the cars will no longer even know how to get anywhere themselves. They just tell the car where they want to go, and they go there. I've also argued that this will be great as a means of managing the population. Unemployment too high? Health care costs too high? Food shortages? Simple solution. Identify the least useful people, and have their cars drive them to the Soylent factory.

I could even see the population becoming so dependent on their cars taking them where they need to go, their search engines telling them what is what, and their helpful AI assistants planning their days, telling them where to go, and when, that when Alexa v5.8 tells them "you have reached your destination, please walk up the stairs and report to processing", they'll just follow the instructions without question.

It'll be the most brave brave new world ever!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (79)