Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter? .

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

Note the logical flaw in his reasoning -- only people who make no exceptions whatsoever can be "true" believers. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or a variant, I think. But then he adds to the proposition that anyone who is not a "true" believer is a hypocrite. Geez.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note the logical flaw in his reasoning -- only people who make no exceptions whatsoever can be "true" believers. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or a variant, I think. But then he adds to the proposition that anyone who is not a "true" believer is a hypocrite. Geez.

This kind of thinking is where true extremism comes from. We were doing so well at having a reasonable debate.

I can’t think of the fallacy name, but a false pretense of ignorance is here too - everyone here is well aware what pro-life and pro-choice are actually in reference too - the issue of abortion, not all-encompassing totalist philosophies of the universe.

[irv]

Politicization and the media.
https://youtu.be/q3Qd7lRToLw

[irv]

Media Didn't Expect Buffalo Shooter Witness To be So Honest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOOsNYryHAg

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

What pro-choice does mean is that a human being should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body. I'm sure we all noticed over the past several years that the staunchest opponents of vaccine mandates skewed toward those with a "pro-life" position. Such individuals, in this case, valued their ability to make for themselves a decision regarding their own body. They valued this ability so highly that it was more important to them than potentially saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact.

Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

What pro-choice does mean is that a human being should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body. I'm sure we all noticed over the past several years that the staunchest opponents of vaccine mandates skewed toward those with a "pro-life" position. Such individuals, in this case, valued their ability to make for themselves a decision regarding their own body. They valued this ability so highly that it was more important to them than potentially saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact.

Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position.

And at the same time, many of the same people who are pro-abortion and justify it with supposed "rights" jargon are staunch advocates of vaccine mandates.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And at the same time, many of the same people who are pro-abortion and justify it with supposed "rights" jargon are staunch advocates of vaccine mandates.

Exactly, Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As my torts professor used to say, most arguments are "flappable."

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some serious black or white, or maybe it's all or nothing, thinking there. Most issues in life are not all or nothing, they are nuanced and complicated. And btw what gives you the moral authority to decide who is "truly" pro-life and who is just lying to himself and others?

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.
.

Originally Posted by BobC

It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter?

Agree, one cannot live black and white. I'm not Buddhist, but I've appreciated their teachings about understanding gray choices. The Buddha taught not to drink alcohol; it is bad juju to drink and get drunk. But if he was told to get drunk or someone would be killed, it was a worse sin on him to refuse to drink. There are many other teachings like this. Such as suicide is bad. But suicide/sacrifice to save the life of another is okay.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[BobC]

Originally Posted by todeen

Agree, one cannot live black and white. I'm not Buddhist, but I've appreciated their teachings about understanding gray choices. The Buddha taught not to drink alcohol; it is bad juju to drink and get drunk. But if he was told to get drunk or someone would be killed, it was a worse sin on him to refuse to drink. There are many other teachings like this. Such as suicide is bad. But suicide/sacrifice to save the life of another is okay.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

You too?

I am not living in a black and white world, There are so many different opinions and ideas as to what may or may not be acceptable in regards to accepting that people may be killed or die in certain circumstances, and yet that person can still be viewed by themselves, or others, as being Pro-Life. And since there is no one definitive, agreed upon by all people's meaning for that term, and list of allowable exceptions to still be considered a Pro-Life person, I have chosen to think in terms of the actual meaning of that phrase. Absent the inclusion of any context or background for a specific situation or set of circumstances, taking the literal meaning of the term "Pro-Life" seemed to me to be the most educated and logical place to start then. The term, "proponent of life", doesn't state there are exceptions for murderers, or for fetus' of raped women, or whatever other exceptions someone may have. And since I have absolutely no way of knowing each and every other person's exact definition of what Pro-Life means to them, I figure it best to start with exactly what someone with a reasonable intelligence would look to, the definition of the specific term - proponent of life. The one concrete meaning behind that term is that the person it applies to would be for life, in all possible situations where there is a choice to be made. If you want to have an exception for yourself, or in a specific situation like this thread, then state, I'm Pro-Life, but believe in the death penalty for convicted murderers, or something along those lines for whatever exception(s) you may have. You can't just assume everyone else is going to agree with your exact definition and understanding of what that term means.

And again, that is also why I specifically gave the vegetarian/vegan example in my earlier post, to show the context of my meaning and where I was coming from. So Tim, if someone tells you they are a vegan or vegetarian, do you automatically assume that means they eat absolutely no meat whatsoever, or that they cheat a couple times a year, or maybe they only mean red meat and poultry is okay, or possibly they don't have an issue if their food is cooked in animal fat as long as it contains no actual meat, and so on? See my point? You don't know exactly what they mean, or the complete background and context behind the statement of their being a vegan/vegetarian. Yet, I get called out by a couple people accusing me of not paying attention to the situation and not supposedly understanding the context behind the term "Pro-Life", despite the fact I am given no specific background or context for how someone was using or referring to that term in this thread. And don't go trying to tell me it was implied, unless you can point me to the specific statement in this thread, before I posted, where it says the term Pro-Life is only to be used in reference to abortions and the abortion issue. If it was and I missed it, I'll gladly apologize for my mistake in having missed that post then. But still, I found it almost laughable that I get accused of being ignorant due to my statements and not magically guessing and understanding the context of the term "Pro-Life" as used in this thread, that others have now declared what it is after the fact, even though there was no previous context offered or given to my knowledge. Meanwhile, I went out of my way to provide a specific example to show the context of my understanding and treatment of the term "Pro-Life", using a vegetarian/vegan example, yet the accusing parties seem to have totally ignored that very relevant fact, or didn't comprehend it, and yet I'm supposed to be the ignorant one. Yeah, right!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobC

You too?

Forgive me Bob, I wasn't trying to pile on. I understand your position. I don't have a problem with your hope that someone who describes themselves as XYZ toes the line. I find that admirable. I try to profess that myself as a sign of respect for my faith. But what I've found with nearly everyone I've met is that we fail often at being constant. I know many vegans and vegetarians who cheat. I know many not-so-Christian Christians. I know.... Sometimes hypocrisy doesn't bother us. Sometimes it does.

Every thread needs a card. Anyone own this one? I'd like to find it.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

Well, even though I've already stated my specific situation, I'll drop back in to mention a few steps that may help:


First, stop calling all these mass shootings tragedies. We know that, but we send flowers and wreaths for tragedies. These are CRIMES and should be treated and approached that way. I think there's more of an appetite to stop CRIMES than to console more and more and more victims.

Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK.


I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country. It described, in part, a marketing scheme by weapons manufacturers to target specific audiences and 'expand' those audiences via, among other things, video games such as 'Call of Duty'; producing tan-colored rifles to resemble those used by the military in recent wars and assisting film companies to recreate, as accurately as possible, what occurs overseas.

'Putting military-grade weapons in the hands of the general public.' has been their goal.

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.

Again DEAD is FINAL.



.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country. It described, in part, a marketing scheme by weapons manufacturers to target specific audiences and 'expand' those audiences via, among other things, video games such as 'Call of Duty'; producing tan-colored rifles to resemble those used by the military in recent wars and assisting film companies to recreate, as accurately as possible, what occurs overseas.

I would like to note that the AR-15 became the standard rifle for the general population many years before military shooter video games became prevalent or even existed. The AR-15 is the best rifle technology of the 1960's.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.

I would like to again note that this is already the law, federally, for any purchase from a dealer (and if you act as a dealer without being a formal FFL, you go to federal prison). When you buy a gun from Academy, you are already going through a background check. When you buy a gun from an FFL at a show, you are going through a background check. When you buy a gun from a pawn shop, they must have an FFL and you are going through a background check. Many states require them even on PPT's between non-dealer individuals selling or gifting their used property on occasion.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would like to note that the AR-15 became the standard rifle for the general population many years before military shooter video games became prevalent or even existed. The AR-15 is the best rifle technology of the 1960's.



I would like to again note that this is already the law, federally, for any purchase from a dealer (and if you act as a dealer without being a formal FFL, you go to federal prison). When you buy a gun from Academy, you are already going through a background check. When you buy a gun from an FFL at a show, you are going through a background check. When you buy a gun from a pawn shop, they must have an FFL and you are going through a background check. Many states require them even on PPT's between non-dealer individuals selling or gifting their used property on occasion.

Thanks for the knowledge.

I definitely defer to others who know more about the subject. I was out of my lane, but am just hoping for things getting better.


.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

……I read an article today on how the AR-15 became so widespread in this country…..

Who wrote the article?

Did they explain the real reason…..

All military styled rifles have been popular for decades. MOST except for the AR15 were imported from the original manufacturers in their respective countries. In 1989 George Bush stopped importation via executive order. The market had demand so it filled it with the 1 of the few US made rifles left.

The Bush ban blocked Chinese AK-47 and SKS variants, Israeli Galil variants, Finnish Valmet variants as well as the FN FAL from Belgium, Israel, Australia, Brazil and Argentina.

George Bush forced companies to either manufacture guns wholly in the US or import demilled parts kits to be rebuilt with a minimum number of US parts in their remanufacture.

The marketing angle was simply a demand being fought over by the myriad of US manufacturers wanting more market share. Had the Bush ban never happened the AR15 would be a much smaller segment of the US military styled rifle market. Truth be told all the Bush bad did was funnel all the $ into one particular US design and make everything more expensive because it eliminated foreign labor.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Second, I would move the legal age to purchase a firearm up to 21. There are no guarantees that any steps will work, but NOT DOING ANYTHING DOES NOT WORK.


--------------

'Putting military-grade weapons in the hands of the general public.' has been their goal.

As astonished as I am by all the blood-thirstiness of the country in which I live, I just cannot understand why there is ANY opposition to universal background checks, for gun shows; pawn shops; or retailers like Academy Sports where the AR-15 type assault-rifles are called sports rifles.



.

Edited out some stuff, just commenting on the bits I left.

I just don't see how raising the age to 21 would change much. being responsible or irresponsible doesn't magically change at someones birthday.

I don't know about elsewhere, but here in Mass, most of the big sporting goods stores that sold guns changed their policy to only sell to 21+. One of the most responsible people I know worked at one at 18 in the gun dept. (very apt, as he was a licensed instructor) He quit over that policy change, seeing the inherent dishonesty of an 18 year old being able to sell a gun, teach courses on safety etc, but not buy one.


Military grade weapons have nearly always been in the hands of the public.
At times, what was available to the public has been superior to what our military commonly used. (and aside from full auto being highly restricted, potentially may still be possible)
The US government ran a citizen marksmanship program starting I believe in 1903 that gave participants the ability to buy a surplus rifle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...anship_Program

I'm not at all against universal background checks. The way they are implemented is not particularly good.
The Texas guy passed his background checks, despite several things in his past that should have been on some record. But none of what he did was something that could be acted on in a meaningful way.

Mass put in a requirement that private sales must include background checks. But they didn't open up the background check system, preferring instead to have all those checks be done by licensed dealers. And since in populated areas there are few licensed dealers, that isn't much more than a financial gift the places like Dicks Sporting Goods.