Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

con·tro·ver·sy / noun / disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. "the announcement ended a protracted controversy" synonyms: disagreement, dispute, argument, debate, dissension, contention, disputation, altercation, wrangle, quarrel, squabble, war of words, storm; This "club" has almost nothing to do with recovering from Christianity. You will find here partisan politics, controversy, conflict and baiting. Please confine all such non-encouraging discussions to this area. And, please play nice.

  1. What's new in this club
  2. Canada. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of guns here, and there are plenty of people who like guns here. What we don't have, or at least what I've never witnessed here, is the pseudo-religious attachment that some Americans have for theirs.
  3. The "statistic" "92% of mass shootings take place in Gun Free Zones" may well be misleading. Where do most mass shootings take place? We know quite a number take place at schools. At least one took place at a concert. One would expect these zones to be "gun free" wouldn't they? And because these are areas where people congregate making a more likely target for a shooter wouldn't it be the case that that's where shootings are going to take palce? It's like saying 92% of drownings happen in pools. Well no shit. That's not an argument against gun control. It's just presenting misleading stats. The first point on that list misses the point. Intentionally driving into someone is illegal as well - that doesn't stop us from registration and enforcing road laws. AR in the AR-15 doesn't stand for Assault rifle, but assault rifles are a proper designation for the rifles that meet that particular designation. You can still buy Assault rifles in the US, but they are very expensive, they have a lot of paperwork and checks required, and they will be older than 1986. Saying AR doesn't stand for assault rifle also misses the point in the entire discussion. The Christchurch shooter in New Zealand used an AR-15. It's capable of 90 rounds a minute in the hands of a practiced user. That is the point - those type of weapon, classify them as you will, are capable of spitting out huge amounts of damage far beyond any defense or hunting need. In a defense situation if you haven't gunned down the attacker within 2-3 shots then either they've run away (yay) or you are dead most of the time. Now the M-16 is an Assault rifle based on the AR-15. The primary difference? The AR-15 civilian version is not capable of full auto fire. Anyhoo.. I thought I said I wasn't getting into this. Damn it.
  4. As I said its certainly not zero, but the fact is we have no data on how often it helps verse making a situation worse. As far as an argument in favour of guns, its not a good one. We can say "In some circumstances a gun could stop a situation from escalating" but vague as that is its pretty weak sauce. Very true, but I don't think that was claimed here? I had thought the confusion was people thinking an AR15 literally stood for assault rifle? Certainly wrong. As for video games not being real life, that is obvious but it doesn't make the language used invalid. AR is a very obvious abbreviation to use, reducing it to the acronym for easy use is just a faster way to communicate. The hundreds of millions of players of Fortnite, PUBG or Call of Duty use the term, and as such the term is being well used to communicate. It may not be a term that the gun industry uses, but simply stating AR never means assault rifle is untrue. Of course whether it does or not doesn't actually change gun control in any way. Sorry, let me clarify. There are no zones free of guns when a country is full of guns. A sign and some hope does not equal an area that is magically free from guns entering it. When we talk about legal gun free zones, it is usually in regards to single buildings, schools or individual properties, but those locations are based within towns, cities and states that allow weapons and are full of them. What I'm saying is there's no where in the US that is a zone free of guns. Should people be allowed nukes? An extreme example, but if you are asking for complete equality of weaponry with the government that is the ultimate weapon... I've heard this before and it never made any sense. You would be well aware of how powerful the US military is? We are talking the most technologically advanced, well trained, well armed, well supported, veteran soldiers with world class command and control. In a world war with everyone verse America you'd still have a real debatable outcome. Now take that image of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen and imagine Joe Blow with his AR15 at home standing up to them... Who in the general population has agreed to join a militia and overthrow the government if required? How are those people contacted if required? Who makes the call that a government is bad enough to be overthrown and therefore can assemble the militia? Once you have a militia who trains, supplies and leads them? There is no structure, there is no plan and there is no squad training. Throw those people against your Seals, Marines, Delta, Rangers, Green Berets or any of the other special forces group and it will be a massacre. Musket verse musket, sure they can do some damage and numbers matter, but modern warfare is a completely different beast.
  5. I think, in general, the founders thought differently. I'm not going to get into this topic again though. Just take a look here. mwc
  6. Can I ask what country you live in? America is certainly unique in the size of its gun culture.
  7. FWIW (which is pretty much nothing...) I am for relatively strict gun laws. I will never understand the love that Americans have for their personal weapons of mass destruction. But we've been all over this issue before, and I don't particularly wish to get back into it.
  8. Ironically, the presence of a firearm can force diplomacy. One could easily argue that in a situation where a firearm was "present" and a diplomatic resolution occurred, that if it hadn't been there, the resolution would not have been diplomatic in the first place. I agree that it wouldn't happen every time, but you also seem to be downplaying how often it likely is a relevant factor just as much as people who quote that statistic are overstating it. It is true that there are no "numbers" that can prove that a specific number of incidents, but it's also misleading to say that guns aren't responsible for forcing a peaceful resolution either because of the same issue. "Assault Rifles" are no more dangerous than any other long gun with a similar fire rate that uses the same rounds. Nothing that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle makes it any more dangerous than any other rifle. Also, video games are not real life. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, and as far as I'm aware, no real life firearms use AR to designate Assault Rifle. This is a case of confusing colloquial speech with technical speech. It's really no different than someone saying "It's just a theory" when talking about a scientific theory. It's just that person being wrong and not understanding what they are talking about, not a problem on the scientific theory's end. There are literal signs in a lot of places in the US that say "Gun Free Zone" indicating that firearms are not permitted. These signs are often backed by laws and getting caught with a firearm within that "zone" can lead to arrests and prosecution. This includes if it is secured and concealed. So yes, there actually are "gun free zones", it's just a designation for a zone where a ban on firearms is enforced. Actually, yes they did. The fact that they were unaware of technological advancements is irrelevant. Their intention was that citizens should have access to military quality weaponry. They actually intended the population to be able to oppose and overthrow the government by force of arms if necessary. Some of them actually expected it to eventually happen. If the founding fathers were brought back to live today somehow, they'd probably express surprise that we didn't overthrow the established government and form a new one by now.
  9. But then you can't have a gun in your other hand, and we all know style points for slow motion dives is the most important thing.
  10. That's the thing. Everyone will act like they are losing their minds and that it is the end of America, grandstanding will fill the media outlets and soapboxes will be stood upon, but absolutely nothing will come of it. By the time the outrage over it would have accomplished anything, everyone will have forgotten about it in favor of the next thing to be outraged about. It would be a shitshow, but amount to nothing more than being a show.
  11. I wish you were right. You should be right. But we live in a country that has largely lost its sanity. I wish we had news media that didn’t constantly whip up partisan divisions, but we can count on them to do so, at every turn.
  12. Oh well done. Nice play here. However, I don't think the intention behind the words "gun control" in the title referred to controlling your firearm under use.
  13. Using two hands is best for stability and accuracy. Unless using a scope, keep both eyes open when aiming down sights. Squeeze the trigger to fire. Keep your arms bent and don't lock them. Flex and bend your arms with recoil. Keep your weapon cleaned and maintained.
  14. No, it won't. We could have it take a few weeks and be perfectly fine. We've just gotten used to instant gratification thanks to things like telegraphs, phones, radio, and television. Delayed election results would be an inconvenience and little more. Sure, it would be presented as some unacceptable issue with lots of people complaining, but it won't actually be a real problem if it does. It would amount to little more than grumbling. The government will continue to function, and transitions might be a little rushed, but would still happen within a reasonable time frame. There wouldn't be riots in the streets or an economic meltdown over delayed election results.
  15. The problem with this is that the term is not clearly defined. I gave up arguing about anything that isn't clearly defined a while ago. I don't argue about the existence of God, I don't argue about who is or isn't a "real Christian", I don't argue about the existence of spirits. You'll get a different answer about what each of those things are from every person you ask, even if every one of them is from the exact same church. If they are all from different denominations, you can forget about the answers being even remotely similar. Even more so if they are different religions entirely. Why should I care about other people's opinions and beliefs about something we can't even define consistently?
  16. I doubt you'd find too many of those true xians in 400 CE either. mwc
  17. In CA, mail-in ballots (or drop-off ballots since we have mailbox like ballot drop-offs or you can simply turn in your mail-in ballot on the day of the election in person instead of filling it out at the polling place) are not physically opened until the day of the election. So once voting day comes they are opened and counted along with all the other ballots. Getting the ballot in early only helps with some logistical issues (ie. the envelope is at the registrar ready to be counted) but does nothing for actual count process itself (other than once the voting day starts they have them ready to open and start the count as opposed to getting them from the precincts later in the day). Late ballots are not counted (think taxes...they must be postmarked by election day). If they were to start counting prior to the election date then there is the possibility that the count info could leak and that would be very bad (it could affect same day voters or even late-mail voters). However, with Covid there are far fewer poll workers, this includes those working the count, and along with all the rules surrounding the pandemic we should actually expect a slower than usual count. The next morning is probably unrealistic in this environment. mwc
  18. Exactly. I’m not opposed to mail-in voting in principle, but it needs to be done right. For example, I think there should be a deadline for mailed ballots so they are received far enough ahead of Election Day that they all get counted no later than E-Day. If we don’t have a result on Wednesday morning, with states counting votes for days or even weeks afterward, the country is going to be in big trouble, I fear. And with 50 state governments organizing it in 50 different ways, what could possibly go wrong?
  19. I'd think that if they do the mail-in voting and Trump doesn't win, we may be looking at another Gore - Bush recount situation.....
  20. This is what I always thought when I was young. If there's an eternal life waiting for those who are saved, why lead a life here that resembles a secular one in any way? There ought to be no tolerance for such depravity. Every moment should be dedicated to god. The only explanation is, deep down they don't really believe it. You'd probably have to look in a monastery to find real believers.
  21. I'm not going to get bogged down on details as such, but I suspect a 400 AD Christian would not recognise a modern Christian as a "Christian". To me Christian is one who would obey and follow the will of the Father....and I submit that nearly all of them do no. Wealth is a Biblical no no, yet has no bearing on a rich Christian.Numerous public Christians get divorced and marry someone else, also a huge Biblical no no. These people surely do not really believe in the Bible or at the very least do not take it seriously. I don't follow the Bible myself as I think most of it is awful stuff. What excuse does a "true believer" have.
  22. My big fear for 2020 is that no matter who wins the election, there will be a loud and probably violent element that will refuse to accept the result, fanned on by sections of the media and social media. The losers will try to burn the place down. I think we are almost at that point now. And the Summer Rioters, who would be the most incensed if Trump were to win, are actually making a Trump victory more likely.
  23. My thoughts have changed over the years. Growing up in a safe country like NZ I didn't see a need for guns so just saw it as a negative. I now see that as a very narrow view, and my thoughts on guns has changed to "it depends on where you live and the threat that you are under". Due to this I don't see any blanket rules working for everyone in such different circumstances. I don't think American's often get this right, in that many of the people who live in safe areas seem afraid of "what ifs" rather than actually needing such weapons for self defence. If you live in a drug ridden, gang filled, violence filled area then absolutely keep yourself safe. If you live in most middle class communities then violence is not something that occurs often. In Americas case the guns are already so numerous that it is impossible to ever get them back. A ban will not work. There are more guns than people, and more sold daily. As for the list of reasons above, many of those are not good reasons and heavily debated. Some just seem worded in dodgy ways which makes me wary about how it is presented. For example in the second box it compares rifle deaths with knife, blunt and bare hands, yet later we see that handguns are over double all of those put together. If you are looking at gun control then that is a scary large number, which wasn't immediately mentioned. "Guns used in self defence 2.5 million times" is a false statistic. The way it was arrived at was looking at all "incidents" where a gun was present but not fired and no violence occurred. This doesn't actually means the gun did anything, more likely diplomacy de-escalated the incident. The original study said it was nigh on impossible to ever know how many times a gun was drawn in self defence and made the difference in the situation. Most of the time such things are never reported to the police, so numbers simply don't exist. It is obviously not zero, but the way the statistic is used is to say it saved 2.5 million lives which is false. "92% of shootings happened in a gun free zone" - there is no such thing as a gun free zone. Areas that have tighter gun sales laws, still have guns come into the area on a constant basis. You only get gun free if all areas are, and that is not the case in the US. "AR does not stand for assault rifle" - it does in video games and anyone who learns the acronym from there will use it elsewhere. The context matters. Really needed to be worded "The AR in AR15 doesn't stand for assault rifle". "The founding fathers wanted us to have the same weaponry as the government" - Really stretching there. To think the founding fathers would have thought everyone should have an Abrams tank in their backyard, a SAM launcher in their garage and a nuke in the back of their truck is way OTT. The technology the founding fathers were looking at was multiple centuries ago, and cannot be compared to modern warfare. The general population cannot fight a highly trained, well equipped and well supplied professional army. Giving Bob an assault rifle is not going to slow down the US military if they decide to roll over the top of him. Isn't the balance better held with the separation of the branches of the military? Wasn't the point of including 'a well regulated militia' to point out that people need training, coordination and command structure to be a useful fighting force in such a conflict?

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.