• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:41
CEST 16:41
KST 23:41
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy4Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27
Community News
Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."1Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.3Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)12BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1
StarCraft 2
General
Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2) Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson." Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey. I have an extra ticket to the GSL Ro4/finals
Tourneys
$3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group A
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Recent recommended BW games BW General Discussion FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 28341 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 589 590 591 592 593 891 Next
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
December 03 2015 16:24 GMT
#11801
you made a statement:

On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.


here was my reply correcting you:

On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:
those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america.

this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features.


how was i in any way trying to "fiddle around" or act like a dick??
"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-12-03 16:28:26
December 03 2015 16:25 GMT
#11802
On December 04 2015 01:21 ahswtini wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 01:15 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:00 ahswtini wrote:
On December 04 2015 00:15 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 00:06 ahswtini wrote:
On December 03 2015 23:50 Djzapz wrote:
On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:45 Djzapz wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.

I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert.

Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.

On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting.

Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated.

You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason.

So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous.

those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america.

this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

If you read on, it does also ban automatic firearms, but semi-auto firearms can be considered assault weapons depending on the other characteristics. But it definitely does not NEED to have other modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Please do realize that the US doesn't give a fuck about other people's definitions. It makes its own. "Assault weapons" in the US does not mean "capable of automatic or burst fire" or whatever else.

the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they had to invent an equally scary sounding name because assault rifles are already by definition banned there, and have been since 1968 or something like that

u also clearly didnt read what i wrote

Help me understand then

You say: those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

Yet the US says semi-auto rifles are assault weapons. So I'm reading what you said, and reading it again, I don't see what I misunderstood. Yes I read what you said. Make yourself clear now.

yes, i'm saying that assault weapons and assault rifles are DIFFERENT. assault rifles have an internationally agreed definition. the clinton administration, when they wanted to ban scary modern-looking semiauto rifles (like the AR15), realised they couldn't use the term assault rifle when referring to them, so they invented the term 'assault weapon'. which is similar to the term 'assault rifle' and just as scary. which is perfect because your average journalist or member of the public wont know the difference and will be assuming that the government wants to ban the evil fully automatic assault rifles used in war.

YOU said:
On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.

i am pointing out that you are wrong. and no, it's not pedantry or a technicality to point out the difference.

Next time you feel the need to be a dick, instead of pointing out why someone is wrong, point how and why. Make yourself useful.

I'm not the only one who was confused by the bullshit. Like I said, the idea that a rifle which is an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle doesn't go without saying. It's political maneuvering and plays on words, which deserves some explaining. So don't just throw shit at me and speak your mind next time.

Fucking weird to me that full grown adults feel the need to fiddle around like you did.

what is your problem? how was i a dick in any way? i pointed out that your definition of assault rifle was wrong. i gave some background on how the term assault weapons came into play. i wasn't trying any political manoeuvring, in fact i was to explain that the whole assault rifle vs assault weapons itself was political manoeuvring.

i was in no way unclear or trying to mislead you, i 100% spoke my mind. you just misunderstood and are now getting overly defensive about it.

Your post when I was clearly confused was "the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban" which was convoluted and then you said "u also clearly didnt read what i wrote". You could clearly tell that I was not seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapons. I guess it was so obvious to you that you didn't feel like you needed to bother writing the difference so it just flew above everybody's heads (those who didn't know) until we googled it.

Sorry if I mistook it for malice, I just think you should make yourself clear.

Edit: Reading your post above without the specific explanation that there's a distinction between assault rifle and assault weapons (which is confusing and weird) just reads like those terms are interchangeable. If you don't straight up explain the difference and act like a person is ignorant for not knowing and you explain what "assault rifles" are to a person who thinks "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" are the same, they just won't see it instantly.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 03 2015 16:26 GMT
#11803
On December 04 2015 01:19 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 01:16 ahswtini wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:09 Plansix wrote:
If people want to get really upset, dig into the restrictions on the FBI, ATF and other agencies on conducting background research into gun purchasers and criminal back ground checks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/

Like the fact that you get purchase a fire arm while on the terrorist watch list.

And, as the GAO found, a number of them do: Between 2004 and 2014, suspected terrorists attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at least 2,233 times. And in 2,043 of those cases — 91 percent of the time — they succeeded.


Remember, the NRA is about gun owners right, not profits for the people who make guns.

is this a failure of the background check system? or are background checks not being carried out?

Because of NRA lobbying efforts, being on a terror watchlist is not grounds for a denial of a license.

And the system is designed to fail in many states, since it is cumbersome and overly restrictive. Parts of the ATF are prohibited from requesting gun sales and background information electronically. Or states have rules in place that make the gun sale go through is the background check takes to long. The systems are not updated, restricted and currently underfunded because that is the way the gun lobby wants them. Because it allows the seller of the fire arms to blame the system if the sale goes to a terrorist or criminal and that gun control doesn't work.

Because the NRA and gun manufacturers want to sell you a gun to defend yourself from the gun they sold the suspected terrorist.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
ahswtini
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
December 03 2015 16:28 GMT
#11804
On December 04 2015 01:25 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 01:21 ahswtini wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:15 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:00 ahswtini wrote:
On December 04 2015 00:15 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 00:06 ahswtini wrote:
On December 03 2015 23:50 Djzapz wrote:
On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:45 Djzapz wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:
[quote]
I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert.

Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.

On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:
[quote]
Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated.

You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason.

So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous.

those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america.

this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

If you read on, it does also ban automatic firearms, but semi-auto firearms can be considered assault weapons depending on the other characteristics. But it definitely does not NEED to have other modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Please do realize that the US doesn't give a fuck about other people's definitions. It makes its own. "Assault weapons" in the US does not mean "capable of automatic or burst fire" or whatever else.

the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they had to invent an equally scary sounding name because assault rifles are already by definition banned there, and have been since 1968 or something like that

u also clearly didnt read what i wrote

Help me understand then

You say: those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

Yet the US says semi-auto rifles are assault weapons. So I'm reading what you said, and reading it again, I don't see what I misunderstood. Yes I read what you said. Make yourself clear now.

yes, i'm saying that assault weapons and assault rifles are DIFFERENT. assault rifles have an internationally agreed definition. the clinton administration, when they wanted to ban scary modern-looking semiauto rifles (like the AR15), realised they couldn't use the term assault rifle when referring to them, so they invented the term 'assault weapon'. which is similar to the term 'assault rifle' and just as scary. which is perfect because your average journalist or member of the public wont know the difference and will be assuming that the government wants to ban the evil fully automatic assault rifles used in war.

YOU said:
On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.

i am pointing out that you are wrong. and no, it's not pedantry or a technicality to point out the difference.

Next time you feel the need to be a dick, instead of pointing out why someone is wrong, point how and why. Make yourself useful.

I'm not the only one who was confused by the bullshit. Like I said, the idea that a rifle which is an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle doesn't go without saying. It's political maneuvering and plays on words, which deserves some explaining. So don't just throw shit at me and speak your mind next time.

Fucking weird to me that full grown adults feel the need to fiddle around like you did.

what is your problem? how was i a dick in any way? i pointed out that your definition of assault rifle was wrong. i gave some background on how the term assault weapons came into play. i wasn't trying any political manoeuvring, in fact i was to explain that the whole assault rifle vs assault weapons itself was political manoeuvring.

i was in no way unclear or trying to mislead you, i 100% spoke my mind. you just misunderstood and are now getting overly defensive about it.

Your post when I was clearly confused was "the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban" which was convoluted and then you said "u also clearly didnt read what i wrote". You could clearly tell that I was not seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapons. I guess it was so obvious to you that you didn't feel like you needed to bother writing the difference so it just flew above everybody's heads (those who didn't know) until we googled it.

Sorry if I mistook it for malice, I just think you should make yourself clear.

that was because you argued that the USA doesnt care about other people's definitions, it makes its own. to which i countered that if the clinton administration at the time really believed this, they would just have straight up called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they knew that the guns they wanted to ban were not by definition assault rifles (and real assault rifles have already been banned for decades), so they went for an equally scary name that they could define the terms of.

i could tell that you weren't seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon, but i thought my post made it clear that the two were different
"As I've said, balance isn't about strategies or counters, it's about probability and statistics." - paralleluniverse
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
December 03 2015 16:45 GMT
#11805
On December 04 2015 01:28 ahswtini wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 01:25 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:21 ahswtini wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:15 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 01:00 ahswtini wrote:
On December 04 2015 00:15 Djzapz wrote:
On December 04 2015 00:06 ahswtini wrote:
On December 03 2015 23:50 Djzapz wrote:
On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:
On December 03 2015 22:45 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.

[quote]
You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason.

So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous.

those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america.

this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.

If you read on, it does also ban automatic firearms, but semi-auto firearms can be considered assault weapons depending on the other characteristics. But it definitely does not NEED to have other modes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Please do realize that the US doesn't give a fuck about other people's definitions. It makes its own. "Assault weapons" in the US does not mean "capable of automatic or burst fire" or whatever else.

the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they had to invent an equally scary sounding name because assault rifles are already by definition banned there, and have been since 1968 or something like that

u also clearly didnt read what i wrote

Help me understand then

You say: those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)

Yet the US says semi-auto rifles are assault weapons. So I'm reading what you said, and reading it again, I don't see what I misunderstood. Yes I read what you said. Make yourself clear now.

yes, i'm saying that assault weapons and assault rifles are DIFFERENT. assault rifles have an internationally agreed definition. the clinton administration, when they wanted to ban scary modern-looking semiauto rifles (like the AR15), realised they couldn't use the term assault rifle when referring to them, so they invented the term 'assault weapon'. which is similar to the term 'assault rifle' and just as scary. which is perfect because your average journalist or member of the public wont know the difference and will be assuming that the government wants to ban the evil fully automatic assault rifles used in war.

YOU said:
On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.

i am pointing out that you are wrong. and no, it's not pedantry or a technicality to point out the difference.

Next time you feel the need to be a dick, instead of pointing out why someone is wrong, point how and why. Make yourself useful.

I'm not the only one who was confused by the bullshit. Like I said, the idea that a rifle which is an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle doesn't go without saying. It's political maneuvering and plays on words, which deserves some explaining. So don't just throw shit at me and speak your mind next time.

Fucking weird to me that full grown adults feel the need to fiddle around like you did.

what is your problem? how was i a dick in any way? i pointed out that your definition of assault rifle was wrong. i gave some background on how the term assault weapons came into play. i wasn't trying any political manoeuvring, in fact i was to explain that the whole assault rifle vs assault weapons itself was political manoeuvring.

i was in no way unclear or trying to mislead you, i 100% spoke my mind. you just misunderstood and are now getting overly defensive about it.

Your post when I was clearly confused was "the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban" which was convoluted and then you said "u also clearly didnt read what i wrote". You could clearly tell that I was not seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapons. I guess it was so obvious to you that you didn't feel like you needed to bother writing the difference so it just flew above everybody's heads (those who didn't know) until we googled it.

Sorry if I mistook it for malice, I just think you should make yourself clear.

that was because you argued that the USA doesnt care about other people's definitions, it makes its own. to which i countered that if the clinton administration at the time really believed this, they would just have straight up called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they knew that the guns they wanted to ban were not by definition assault rifles (and real assault rifles have already been banned for decades), so they went for an equally scary name that they could define the terms of.

i could tell that you weren't seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon, but i thought my post made it clear that the two were different

Alright well I'm sorry, maybe I lashed out. Having a bad time.

Cheers.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
Days
Profile Joined February 2010
United States219 Posts
December 03 2015 17:17 GMT
#11806
Can someone explain to me what the difference is between:

- A killer with a gun
- A good guy with a gun
- A good guy with a gun having a very bad day

because I can't really see much difference
We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like.
DickMcFanny
Profile Blog Joined September 2015
Ireland1076 Posts
December 03 2015 17:31 GMT
#11807
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.
| (• ◡•)|╯ ╰(❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
Days
Profile Joined February 2010
United States219 Posts
December 03 2015 18:02 GMT
#11808
On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.



I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently).
We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like.
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-12-03 18:11:12
December 03 2015 18:06 GMT
#11809
Edit nvm
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 03 2015 18:07 GMT
#11810
On December 04 2015 03:02 Days wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.



I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently).

In this incredibly reductive argument, the good guy is the one who had a bad day and doesn't' shoot anyone. And saying that all the mass shootings are committed by "good people having bad days" is reductive to the point of being disingenuous.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Days
Profile Joined February 2010
United States219 Posts
December 03 2015 18:19 GMT
#11811
On December 04 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 03:02 Days wrote:
On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.



I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently).

In this incredibly reductive argument, the good guy is the one who had a bad day and doesn't' shoot anyone. And saying that all the mass shootings are committed by "good people having bad days" is reductive to the point of being disingenuous.


I'm not saying that all mass shootings are committed by the same type of people, obviously they are going to have different motives. This argument is purely directed to the crisis that the US faces currently, and that is gun control. My question is, if we are going to keep allowing people to freely own guns, how do we differentiate the good guys from the bad guys? Pro-gun activists like to always point out the massive amount of people that owns gun and DONT partake in mass shootings. So how do we separate a "good" gun owner from a "bad" gun owner?

My initial question was posted deliberately in a naive and reductive form, because I believe in simplifying arguments not making them more complex.
We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
December 03 2015 19:02 GMT
#11812
On December 04 2015 03:19 Days wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:
On December 04 2015 03:02 Days wrote:
On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.



I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently).

In this incredibly reductive argument, the good guy is the one who had a bad day and doesn't' shoot anyone. And saying that all the mass shootings are committed by "good people having bad days" is reductive to the point of being disingenuous.


I'm not saying that all mass shootings are committed by the same type of people, obviously they are going to have different motives. This argument is purely directed to the crisis that the US faces currently, and that is gun control. My question is, if we are going to keep allowing people to freely own guns, how do we differentiate the good guys from the bad guys? Pro-gun activists like to always point out the massive amount of people that owns gun and DONT partake in mass shootings. So how do we separate a "good" gun owner from a "bad" gun owner?

My initial question was posted deliberately in a naive and reductive form, because I believe in simplifying arguments not making them more complex.

Well I recommend you use simple arguments to address simple topics then. You do them a disservice by attempting to address difficult topics in such a reductive manner. Gun ownership and control is complex, nuanced and multifaceted issue that is far beyond the simplicity you have attempted to reduce it to. You use vague terms with no conses on their meanings or how they relate to the subject at hand, so it makes nearly impossible for anyone to respond.

The overwhelming majority of guns owned in America will never be used in any violent criminal act. Gun control and preventing guns from getting into the hands of potential criminals is difficult, but not impossible if laws are enforced.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
HeatEXTEND
Profile Joined October 2012
Netherlands836 Posts
December 04 2015 03:22 GMT
#11813
Gun control in the netherlands is quite restricted when compared to the US, doesn't stop the crazies tho

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting

sure mass shootings happen a lot more in the US but, then again, there's a lot more people
knuckle
OuchyDathurts
Profile Joined September 2010
United States4588 Posts
December 04 2015 03:36 GMT
#11814
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.
LiquidDota Staff
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23087 Posts
December 04 2015 04:05 GMT
#11815
On December 04 2015 12:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.


Nope, like seat belts, airbags, choking hazard warnings, and the like, until they would stop all the deaths they are intended to reduce they are pointless and ineffectual.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Bigtony
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States1606 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-12-04 04:12:26
December 04 2015 04:11 GMT
#11816
On December 04 2015 12:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.


Australia has words for you. It is 100% possible to reduce mass shootings to (essentially) 0.

The entire pro-gun position is that the deaths are a necessary sacrifice to preserve the integrity of the constitution and give means for uprising against oppressive governments.
Push 2 Harder
oBlade
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States5492 Posts
December 04 2015 04:19 GMT
#11817
The thing is that violent crime is decreasing, and there might be ways to accelerate that drop, but it's also possible to reverse it if you do the wrong things as a reaction to hysteria. The US is indeed a huge place, and different things work better in different parts of it.

On December 04 2015 13:11 Bigtony wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 04 2015 12:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.


Australia has words for you. It is 100% possible to reduce mass shootings to (essentially) 0.

The entire pro-gun position is that the deaths are a necessary sacrifice to preserve the integrity of the constitution and give means for uprising against oppressive governments.

People who are pro-gun, against increased gun control, however you want to frame it, are not pro-death. Most people, you'll find if you ask them in a way that isn't divisive, aren't in favor of people being murdered.
"I read it. You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" - Andy Dufresne
dontforgetosmile
Profile Joined April 2012
87 Posts
December 04 2015 04:26 GMT
#11818
On December 04 2015 01:25 Djzapz wrote:
Edit: Reading your post above without the specific explanation that there's a distinction between assault rifle and assault weapons (which is confusing and weird) just reads like those terms are interchangeable. If you don't straight up explain the difference and act like a person is ignorant for not knowing and you explain what "assault rifles" are to a person who thinks "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" are the same, they just won't see it instantly.

welcome to gun ownership in the united states. good luck working out the nuances in of each states' individual laws too (california being one of the notoriously difficult).

a big part of the issue is that many people who propose gun legislation have no idea what it means to responsibly own a firearm. the distinction between assault weapon and hunting rifle being one of them.

for example, i own multiple firearms lawfully. i practice safety diligently. however, if i want to purchase a new firearm i must, by law, wait 10 days (after paying in full, in most cases) before i can legally own / handle the firearm. this is supposed to prevent crimes of passion or what not, but that makes no sense when i already own firearms.

on the other hand, literally anyone without a criminal background can walk into a store and in 10 days walk out with a long arm, with zero verification that they can competently handle one, provided you are 18+.

look up loaded chamber indicators or microstamping some time. you'll see how ridiculously ineffectual those ideas are and yet these are the laws we are spending time pursuing.

if you want to prevent all the NDs (negligent discharges) you tragically hear about, you need to invest heavily in firearm education and provide certification programs (that require reasonable renewal) to demonstrate you will be a safe and diligent owner. a certain portion of gun owners will argue this is another way for a tyrannical government to keep firearms out of the hands of citizens. i won't.

no one will argue the concept of right to self preservation, but it seems like many people are totally fine with taking away the most effect tool with which you can accomplish that.

i hate to draw such an analogy but it's probably the easiest way to explain it. knee-jerk gun legislation is akin to DRM vs piracy. all you're doing is punishing the people who legally abide the law, those who don't won't feel any impact.

as for mass shootings, i have no solution to that. an effective weapon makes it far to easy against an unarmed populous, but i won't pretend the solution is to have everyone open carry. i like living in a world where i can walk around without worrying about being shot.
Uldridge
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
Belgium4723 Posts
December 04 2015 05:23 GMT
#11819
What people also seem to grossly overlook is that even though you might be able to stop a killer going on a rampage eventually with everyone packing, he will still take alot of people with him before he goes down. People who are unaware of the situation, people who are too slow to react, people who get caught in the crossfire. I think most mass murderers have a pretty good clue that they're not going to survive what they're doing, so they're just trying to take as many people as possible with them. Armed or unarmed, the casualties will be high.
For instance, the lovely argument some people of the pro gun movement make is that the attack at Bataclan could've been 'prevented' or 'kept at a minium cost' if gun control wasn't so strict in France. However, who the fuck is going to pay attention to a few men coming from the side randomly opening fire? They're in a dark place, rocking out to the band they came to see. Sure, there might've been retaliation after the initial firing, but everything scenario that comes after that other than what happened is pure speculation and not based on truth whatsoever.

Gun control in the netherlands is quite restricted when compared to the US, doesn't stop the crazies tho
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting
sure mass shootings happen a lot more in the US but, then again, there's a lot more people
I don't understand this comment. Statistics have already shown that per 100k people shooting happen alot more in the US than anywhere else.

Taxes are for Terrans
killa_robot
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada1884 Posts
December 04 2015 05:33 GMT
#11820
If America wants to look at stopping crazy bastards from shooting up places, they may want to start with the "crazy" part. A gun is just a tool. Yes, it's a tool that's made to kill things, but the bigger concern is that people actually want to go on these rampages, not that they're able to because of guns.
Prev 1 589 590 591 592 593 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV Invitational
11:00
WardiTV June Playoffs
Gerald vs Spirit
Reynor vs TBD
WardiTV1476
TKL 311
IndyStarCraft 219
Rex183
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
TKL 311
IndyStarCraft 224
Hui .200
Rex 183
BRAT_OK 123
ProTech96
Dewaltoss 80
MindelVK 40
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 47314
Calm 6551
Rain 3803
Horang2 2349
Bisu 1506
BeSt 456
Mini 411
Light 362
Nal_rA 200
Zeus 197
[ Show more ]
Soulkey 183
Mind 75
Last 60
ToSsGirL 36
Terrorterran 22
Rock 20
scan(afreeca) 19
Noble 12
IntoTheRainbow 11
ajuk12(nOOB) 10
JulyZerg 10
HiyA 10
SilentControl 6
Dota 2
Gorgc6974
qojqva2210
XcaliburYe273
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Dendi805
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor502
Other Games
singsing2431
B2W.Neo921
C9.Mang0486
DeMusliM429
Beastyqt424
Lowko404
crisheroes348
Fuzer 189
XaKoH 103
ArmadaUGS57
Trikslyr37
FunKaTv 18
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream11302
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream6124
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• 3DClanTV 32
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Michael_bg 12
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2937
• WagamamaTV322
League of Legends
• Nemesis8597
Upcoming Events
Cheesadelphia
19m
CSO Cup
2h 19m
BSL: ProLeague
3h 19m
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
GSL Code S
17h 19m
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
19h 19m
WardiTV Qualifier
1d 1h
BSL: ProLeague
1d 3h
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
1d 9h
Wardi Open
1d 20h
Replay Cast
2 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
3 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
SC Evo League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-11
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST Open Fall 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.