Gun ownership poll

G1911 · #1 07-20-2022, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Man, all you are doing is obfuscating over and over. Did you have any reaction to the numberous articles that have been shared on this thread? That might give people a break.

Yes, answering your questions that you chose to ask, in all their directly contradictory glory, is obfuscating. I'm sorry you completely contradicted yourself one sentence to the next and made a claim that is simply untrue, while you ignored the "or" to try and twist what I actually said (again, transcript!) to be easier to take down.

As I've said before, I think arguing by authority is irrational and silly and I am more interested in people's actual idea's than in whatever opinion article they've linked, on both sides. From a TikTok from a conservative to an op-ed by a liberal, I don't see as evidence for one side or another; it's someones opinion who is not here to answer questions, go into detail, or engage in dialectic. I wrote extensively about one earlier, but okay, here's your two:

I genuinely do not know what you are looking to hear about the first one. It is a brief transcript of an FBI statement that they did not follow up on a tip about the Parkland shooter. Maybe they should have! There's not much beneath the obvious surface to engage with on this. What is our idea here we want to dive into? 'If the FBI has credible information that someone might be planning a massacre, should they look into it?'. Obviously. Not a single person has implied that they should not.

The second is what you seem to have used for the false claim that 5.56 is specially or abnormally powerful, when it is one of the weakest of all rifle calibers. Read what the author actually claims, besides the appeal to emotion. They are comparing 5.56 to "thousands of handgun injuries"; all very carefully phrased to subsequently use "gunshot wounds" and similar phrasing after specifically stipulating only handguns as the framework of comparison. The trauma she feels over seeing the carnage is, I'm sure, real and would be experienced by any decent person. Her pretense as a 'trauma center radiologist' that she was stunned to see rifle wounds are more severe than handgun wounds is, of course, extremely unlikely to be true. I would think people who work in gunshot injuries are aware of what the vast majority of Americans are aware of. I would hope every single person here already knows that a rifle cartridge is more powerful than a pistol cartridge. That is, literally, what makes it a rifle class cartridge and not a pistol one. If the gun that fires this cartridge should be treated differently, as some have said and you heavily implied in 930, then one must hold that the same is true for every gun that is MORE powerful; which is essentially every single arm chambered for a rifle cartridge, or the position is contradictory and illogical.

You can measure the energy a cartridge produces, you can don't have to take my word for it. Any person who knows anything about the subject will tell you the same, as the people in this thread with some firearms experience have done. 5.56x45mm, the standard chambering of an AR-15, is a low-level rifle cartridge. It is not very effective over much distance, it's low recoil is a result of this relatively weak cartridge. When I am teaching someone new to shoot, a 5.56 is the first gun they get to shoot after a .22lr plinker, because of this. This article does not even claim what you have interpreted it to mean in 923. 5.56 is not the standard of choice for mass murderers because it has some unique ability or power or damage to humans. It's because it has been the standard, most commonly encountered and used rifle cartridge for decades, and it's not really even close. Yes, rifle rounds are more powerful than pistol rounds. Do we not all already know this?

BobbyStrawberry · #2 07-20-2022, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, answering your questions that you chose to ask, in all their directly contradictory glory, is obfuscating. I'm sorry you completely contradicted yourself one sentence to the next and made a claim that is simply untrue, while you ignored the "or" to try and twist what I actually said (again, transcript!) to be easier to take down.

As I've said before, I think arguing by authority is irrational and silly and I am more interested in people's actual idea's than in whatever opinion article they've linked, on both sides. From a TikTok from a conservative to an op-ed by a liberal, I don't see as evidence for one side or another; it's someones opinion who is not here to answer questions, go into detail, or engage in dialectic. I wrote extensively about one earlier, but okay, here's your two:

I genuinely do not know what you are looking to hear about the first one. It is a brief transcript of an FBI statement that they did not follow up on a tip about the Parkland shooter. Maybe they should have! There's not much beneath the obvious surface to engage with on this. What is our idea here we want to dive into? 'If the FBI has credible information that someone might be planning a massacre, should they look into it?'. Obviously. Not a single person has implied that they should not.

The second is what you seem to have used for the false claim that 5.56 is specially or abnormally powerful, when it is one of the weakest of all rifle calibers. Read what the author actually claims, besides the appeal to emotion. They are comparing 5.56 to "thousands of handgun injuries"; all very carefully phrased to subsequently use "gunshot wounds" and similar phrasing after specifically stipulating only handguns as the framework of comparison. The trauma she feels over seeing the carnage is, I'm sure, real and would be experienced by any decent person. Her pretense as a 'trauma center radiologist' that she was stunned to see rifle wounds are more severe than handgun wounds is, of course, extremely unlikely to be true. I would think people who work in gunshot injuries are aware of what the vast majority of Americans are aware of. I would hope every single person here already knows that a rifle cartridge is more powerful than a pistol cartridge. That is, literally, what makes it a rifle class cartridge and not a pistol one. If the gun that fires this cartridge should be treated differently, as some have said and you heavily implied in 930, then one must hold that the same is true for every gun that is MORE powerful; which is essentially every single arm chambered for a rifle cartridge, or the position is contradictory and illogical.

You can measure the energy a cartridge produces, you can don't have to take my word for it. Any person who knows anything about the subject will tell you the same, as the people in this thread with some firearms experience have done. 5.56x45mm, the standard chambering of an AR-15, is a low-level rifle cartridge. It is not very effective over much distance, it's low recoil is a result of this relatively weak cartridge. When I am teaching someone new to shoot, a 5.56 is the first gun they get to shoot after a .22lr plinker, because of this. This article does not even claim what you have interpreted it to mean in 923. 5.56 is not the standard of choice for mass murderers because it has some unique ability or power or damage to humans. It's because it has been the standard, most commonly encountered and used rifle cartridge for decades, and it's not really even close. Yes, rifle rounds are more powerful than pistol rounds. Do we not all already know this?

Right, it's all "fake news" unless it confirms your personal beliefs. Got it. It's particularly bizarre that you say you are interested in people's ideas when your constantly deflecting, posturing and disingenuous posts confirm over and over that the opposite is true. But have fun with your "take downs" as you describe them. Have a great night!

Carter08 · #3 07-20-2022, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Right, it's all "fake news" unless it confirms your personal beliefs. Got it. It's particularly bizarre that you say you are interested in people's ideas when your constantly deflecting, posturing and disingenuous posts confirm over and over that the opposite is true. But have fun with your "take downs" as you describe them. Have a great night!

Don�t forget calling people trolls when they don�t agree. I�m done after someone made fun of the type of bullet used to kill children. Good luck everyone.

bnorth · #4 07-20-2022, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Don�t forget calling people trolls when they don�t agree. I�m done after someone made fun of the type of bullet used to kill children. Good luck everyone.

NOBODY made fun of any bullet but YOU are the only one to make racist remarks so please stay gone.

Carter08 · #5 07-20-2022, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

NOBODY made fun of any bullet but YOU are the only one to make racist remarks so please stay gone.

I hate to re-engage but your yet again ridiculous post called for a response. You demeaned the shooter�s choice of ammo. You know, the shooter that killed a bunch of children, before you readily admitted you don�t pay attention to such things. It�s pretty awful. As for my �racist� posts, if your views are informed by being a minority or even a younger person growing up in an urban environment, send me your address and I will send you a great card free of charge. I think it would be better if we all just recognized we come from different environments a d experiences and we were not so quick to absolutely demonize the other side.

G1911 · #6 07-20-2022, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

I hate to re-engage but your yet again ridiculous post called for a response. You demeaned the shooter�s choice of ammo. You know, the shooter that killed a bunch of children, before you readily admitted you don�t pay attention to such things. It�s pretty awful. As for my �racist� posts, if your views are informed by being a minority or even a younger person growing up in an urban environment, send me your address and I will send you a great card free of charge. I think it would be better if we all just recognized we come from different environments a d experiences and we were not so quick to absolutely demonize the other side.

You are the only one to criticize people based on age, sex, or race. You did all 3 at once.

Carter08 · #7 07-20-2022, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You are the only one to criticize people based on age, sex, or race. You did all 3 at once.

I did not criticize anyone based on those factors. You and your friend are the only ones making personal attacks. But as an aside, if your views are informed by being a minority I will send you a card. Send address.

Mark17 · #8 07-20-2022, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

I hate to re-engage but your yet again ridiculous post called for a response. You demeaned the shooter�s choice of ammo. You know, the shooter that killed a bunch of children, before you readily admitted you don�t pay attention to such things. It�s pretty awful. As for my �racist� posts, if your views are informed by being a minority or even a younger person growing up in an urban environment, send me your address and I will send you a great card free of charge. I think it would be better if we all just recognized we come from different environments a d experiences and we were not so quick to absolutely demonize the other side.

Pointing out the fact that the shooter's ammo wasn't as powerful as other ammo is not "demeaning" it. Or being insensitive. It is an attempt to bring factual information into this conversation.

Laws that govern people and protect their rights in society should be based in truth and logic, not simply emotion. Therefore, worthwhile discussions on the topic should likewise be based in truth, facts, and logic.

Why do you recoil (bad pun) from comments pointing out the shooter used comparatively low-power rounds? It's simply fact. In an honest discussion, facts like that are relevant.

Carter08 · #9 07-20-2022, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Pointing out the fact that the shooter's ammo wasn't as powerful as other ammo is not "demeaning" it. Or being insensitive. It is an attempt to bring factual information into this conversation.

Laws that govern people and protect their rights in society should be based in truth and logic, not simply emotion. Therefore, worthwhile discussions on the topic should likewise be based in truth, facts, and logic.

Why do you recoil (bad pun) from comments pointing out the shooter used comparatively low-power rounds? It's simply fact. In an honest discussion, facts like that are relevant.

Saying �223s are baby ammo for rifles. If they are choosing them for their damage they are complete morons at best when it is one of the weakest rounds� isn�t comforting to parents who have lost kids. Perhaps the hunters here don�t realize it but these rounds have been effective at killing children.
Maybe they unsurprisingly weigh less than most deer you shoot. Either way, show a modicum of respect. No one is talking about banning ammo or even guns for that matter as far as I can tell. It would be nice if if we could make it slightly harder for someone to buy one of these weapons and use it a day or two later to kill children.

BobbyStrawberry · #10 07-20-2022, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Don�t forget calling people trolls when they don�t agree. I�m done after someone made fun of the type of bullet used to kill children. Good luck everyone.

Right. I came on this thread optimistic that members with very different views could have a reasonable discussion, but the results haven't been altogether encouraging. When someone starts throwing out personal insults out of nowhere, it's time to disengage.

What's most concerning to me, and part of a broader discussion, of which the subject of this thread is a part, is the way Americans are so quick these days to demonize their fellow citizens, often for nonsense reasons. Not a great sign for the future.

bnorth · #11 07-20-2022, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Right. I came on this thread optimistic that members with very different views could have a reasonable discussion, but the results haven't been altogether encouraging. When someone starts throwing out personal insults out of nowhere, it's time to disengage.

What's most concerning to me, and part of a broader discussion, of which the subject of this thread is a part, is the way Americans are so quick these days to demonize their fellow citizens, often for nonsense reasons. Not a great sign for the future.

Have you personally changed your opinion on the subject? Seriously you posted a link comparing hand gun wounds to a low powered rifle round to prove how powerfull a rifle round is. How is that not trying to be deceptive? Also how is the post I quoted not calling others names? At least be honest about your opinions.

BobbyStrawberry · #12 07-20-2022, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

Have you personally changed your opinion on the subject? Seriously you posted a link comparing hand gun wounds to a low powered rifle round to prove how powerfull a rifle round is. How is that not trying to be deceptive? Also how is the post I quoted not calling others names? At least be honest about your opinions.

Changed my opinion on what exactly? I don't know what you mean by calling others names. I don't think I've done that on this thread.

Edit: And..."trying to be deceptive"? Seriously? This is exactly what the last paragraph of my previous post was referring to.

bnorth · #13 07-20-2022, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Changed my opinion on what exactly? I don't know what you mean by calling others names. I don't think I've done that on this thread.

Your opinions on current gun laws. Isn't that the main point of this thread? Sadly most posters know so little about the subject they have asked for laws we already have. Then they post about guns with comments that are very far from true. If you like G911s posts or not at least he is posting facts and is consistant on his views.

If this isn't a back handed remark I am sorry. is the way Americans are so quick these days to demonize their fellow citizens, often for nonsense reasons. Not a great sign for the future.

G1911 · #14 07-20-2022, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Right, it's all "fake news" unless it confirms your personal beliefs. Got it. It's particularly bizarre that you say you are interested in people's ideas when your constantly deflecting, posturing and disingenuous posts confirm over and over that the opposite is true. But have fun with your "take downs" as you describe them. Have a great night!

It is a fact. An indisputable fact. I am sorry a 5.56 is not a magical death ray and you are factually wrong. Good luck!

bnorth · #15 07-20-2022, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, answering your questions that you chose to ask, in all their directly contradictory glory, is obfuscating. I'm sorry you completely contradicted yourself one sentence to the next and made a claim that is simply untrue, while you ignored the "or" to try and twist what I actually said (again, transcript!) to be easier to take down.

As I've said before, I think arguing by authority is irrational and silly and I am more interested in people's actual idea's than in whatever opinion article they've linked, on both sides. From a TikTok from a conservative to an op-ed by a liberal, I don't see as evidence for one side or another; it's someones opinion who is not here to answer questions, go into detail, or engage in dialectic. I wrote extensively about one earlier, but okay, here's your two:

I genuinely do not know what you are looking to hear about the first one. It is a brief transcript of an FBI statement that they did not follow up on a tip about the Parkland shooter. Maybe they should have! There's not much beneath the obvious surface to engage with on this. What is our idea here we want to dive into? 'If the FBI has credible information that someone might be planning a massacre, should they look into it?'. Obviously. Not a single person has implied that they should not.

The second is what you seem to have used for the false claim that 5.56 is specially or abnormally powerful, when it is one of the weakest of all rifle calibers. Read what the author actually claims, besides the appeal to emotion. They are comparing 5.56 to "thousands of handgun injuries"; all very carefully phrased to subsequently use "gunshot wounds" and similar phrasing after specifically stipulating only handguns as the framework of comparison. The trauma she feels over seeing the carnage is, I'm sure, real and would be experienced by any decent person. Her pretense as a 'trauma center radiologist' that she was stunned to see rifle wounds are more severe than handgun wounds is, of course, extremely unlikely to be true. I would think people who work in gunshot injuries are aware of what the vast majority of Americans are aware of. I would hope every single person here already knows that a rifle cartridge is more powerful than a pistol cartridge. That is, literally, what makes it a rifle class cartridge and not a pistol one. If the gun that fires this cartridge should be treated differently, as some have said and you heavily implied in 930, then one must hold that the same is true for every gun that is MORE powerful; which is essentially every single arm chambered for a rifle cartridge, or the position is contradictory and illogical.

You can measure the energy a cartridge produces, you can don't have to take my word for it. Any person who knows anything about the subject will tell you the same, as the people in this thread with some firearms experience have done. 5.56x45mm, the standard chambering of an AR-15, is a low-level rifle cartridge. It is not very effective over much distance, it's low recoil is a result of this relatively weak cartridge. When I am teaching someone new to shoot, a 5.56 is the first gun they get to shoot after a .22lr plinker, because of this. This article does not even claim what you have interpreted it to mean in 923. 5.56 is not the standard of choice for mass murderers because it has some unique ability or power or damage to humans. It's because it has been the standard, most commonly encountered and used rifle cartridge for decades, and it's not really even close. Yes, rifle rounds are more powerful than pistol rounds. Do we not all already know this?

This is Bubba. Do you want to try to teach him? I can guarantee that he won't won't say we need gun laws we already have. He hates guns but knows the difference between them.

Like an assualt rifle he looks kinda scary but really isn't. He is now old with bad hips and in his old age has lost 16 pounds.

G1911 · #16 07-20-2022, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

This is Bubba. Do you want to try to teach him? I can guarantee that he won't won't say we need gun laws we already have. He hates guns but knows the difference between them.

Like an assualt rifle he looks kinda scary but really isn't. He is now old with bad hips and in his old age has lost 16 pounds.

He looks like a handsome feller to me. And probably does not consider mechanical truth to be fake news

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set.	Misunderestimated	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	1	01-02-2020 08:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership	Throttlesteer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	49	08-14-2019 02:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items	Sean1125	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-29-2015 10:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs	theantiquetiger	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	08-17-2011 02:43 PM
Scan Ownership	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-14-2005 01:10 PM