|
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. |
On July 05 2018 14:20 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think you read the parts that you quoted. They don't follow what you said at all. You were trying to say that the AR-15 was an assault rifle but both things you quote clearly describe how the AR isn't an assault rifle and that the gun was changed for military use and given a different name to distinguish between the two.
Nothing I quoted "clearly describe how the AR isn't an assault rifle"... Nothing... Brilliant that you made that up from nothing though.
The article I sited... said that 0 times. It did talk about a Clinton ban on assault rifles, which did include the AR15.
What I did say, and you failed to read/understand, was that the M16 was the exact same rifle as the AR15, but fully automatic and was the standard issue rifle in the Vietnam war.
Standard issue rifle of the Vietnam war... That alone makes it an assault rifle. It was literally the USA answer to the AK47.
Its only purpose is to kill people.
|
If you talk about certain guns as if they're in the same category as other guns that only look very similar and serve the exact same purpose but have different technical specifications, then you're clearly not qualified to talk about guns and can be safely dismissed.
|
On July 05 2018 15:12 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 14:20 Sermokala wrote:
I don't think you read the parts that you quoted. They don't follow what you said at all. You were trying to say that the AR-15 was an assault rifle but both things you quote clearly describe how the AR isn't an assault rifle and that the gun was changed for military use and given a different name to distinguish between the two. Nothing I quoted "clearly describe how the AR isn't an assault rifle"... Nothing... Brilliant that you made that up from nothing though. The article I sited... said that 0 times. It did talk about a Clinton ban on assault rifles, which did include the AR15. What I did say, and you failed to read/understand, was that the M16 was the exact same rifle as the AR15, but fully automatic and was the standard issue rifle in the Vietnam war. Standard issue rifle of the Vietnam war... That alone makes it an assault rifle. It was literally the USA answer to the AK47. Its only purpose is to kill people.
You are very aggressively posting little excerpts from Wikipedia, and then following those excerpts with statements that are just wrong.
Being standard issue for a period of time does not make something an assault rifle. An assault rifle is characterized by an intermediate round with selective fire and a detachable magazine.
The M-16 was not an answer to the AK-47. The M-16 was an evolution of the M-14, which was itself an evolution of the M-1.
|
And the AR 15 is a style of rifle that has changed a lot since it was first introduced. There are a lot of versions of that rifle out there, modeled after different eras of combat rifles.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On July 05 2018 10:23 ShambhalaWar wrote:
The us army definition is: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."
I'm going by that definition.
On July 05 2018 15:12 ShambhalaWar wrote:
Nothing I quoted "clearly describe how the AR isn't an assault rifle"... Nothing... Brilliant that you made that up from nothing though.
What I did say, and you failed to read/understand, was that the M16 was the exact same rifle as the AR15, but fully automatic and was the standard issue rifle in the Vietnam war.
except being fully automatic is a big distinction. and because you accept the US army's definition of an assault rifle, if the AR-15 isn't capable of selective fire, then it can't be an assault rifle.
|
ShambhalaWar: You ignored the most important part of the definition: Select fire. Which means you can select it to fire fully automatic (Firing more than one shot per trigger counts as automatic, so even burst goes under that definition). The reason this is important when arguing is because of this:
On July 04 2018 10:47 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I would also say ban on assault rifles, the only logic for owning them is "they're cool."
The problem here is that assault rifles are already banned, completely, which is also probably the reason you haven't seen them in any mass shootings. No mass shooter can get their hands on one. When you're trying to discuss with people who oppose any kind of weapons restriction, it will immediately fall on deaf ears if you're using the wrong syntax.
Vice versa the reason AR-15s are used in so many mass shootings is because they're dirt cheap and can be found absolutely everywhere. A good hunting rifle will easily cost you 2-3 times more than an ar15. I don't think anyone needs quick release magazines, vertical front grip, laser targeting, red dots or 30 armor penetrating rounds in each of their 6 magazines in a belt of 6 for hunting. There's a reason the army wants their guns this way, and it's because it makes it very easy to send a lot of bullets towards your targets in a semi accurate fashion, which is just not needed when you're out hunting deer. It is needed for competition shooting, which I think should still be possible if you go through a few hoops showing you are committed to it. Joining a gun club for one. Absolutely no mass murderer is going to join a rifle club for a few months before purchasing his ar15 to shoot up his school, and even if he does there's a good chance everyone else in the club will catch on to him early.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
Not true, assault rifles (ie. machineguns) are not completely banned. ones that existed before the ban in 1986 can still be bought and sold, albeit at a very high cost
|
On July 06 2018 08:26 ahswtini wrote:
Not true, assault rifles (ie. machineguns) are not completely banned. ones that existed before the ban in 1986 can still be bought and sold, albeit at a very high cost
In the tens of thousands of dollars, if anyone was wondering.
The buying and selling is also much harder than ordinary semi auto guns. You can expect long federal background checks with the ATF. You must turn in fingerprints and a photo. Also, 200$ excise fee ... but if you have ten thousand dollars to dump on a full auto made 32+ years ago, maybe that part ain’t so bad.
Assault rifle ignorance is bad, perhaps worse than the nebulous “assault weapon” term bandied about. Anybody seeking to ban either would do well to learn exactly what they find objectionable and point that out at the outset.
|
|
|
I need an explanation about what carding is. The article (and google) isn't very helpful here.
|
a police officer walks up to you and says " can i see some ID please "
|
On July 07 2018 08:09 Excludos wrote:I need an explanation about what carding is. The article (and google) isn't very helpful here.
My interpretation based on the article was that it was basically a traffic stop, designed to establish police presence in crime heavy areas
My guess would be that accusations of racial profiling (probably often times very much the case) helped drive the forces that ended the program referenced in the article
|
its not a traffic stop. the toronto police walk right up to you on the street and ask to see your ID.
allegations of racial profiling seemed to be the major reason for ending carding. i've been carded 3 times. The combined time of all 3 incidents was ~90 seconds.
|
do you have/know of a counterpoint article?
that one, while making interesting points, is clearly from a quite right-leaning source, and it may be omitting good reasons for the program to have been discontinued.
|
The police officer's letter is there. The Toronto Sun didn't alter it. It is plainly and clearly stated what he thinks needs to be done.
i can pretty much guarantee that the counterpoint will be published by the Toronto Star in the next few days... they'll need some time to come up with something good.
the Toronto Sun is the "right wing sort of low brow news source for the working man"
|
On July 07 2018 08:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
The police officer's letter is there. The Toronto Sun didn't alter it. It is plainly and clearly stated what he thinks needs to be done.
i can pretty much guarantee that the counterpoint will be published by the Toronto Star in the next few days... they'll need some time to come up with something good.
a police officer's letter doesn't mean the officer is remotely correct; officers routinely request far beyond what would actually be good policy.
i'll be interested to read the counterpoint once it's published.
|
On July 07 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 08:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
The police officer's letter is there. The Toronto Sun didn't alter it. It is plainly and clearly stated what he thinks needs to be done.
i can pretty much guarantee that the counterpoint will be published by the Toronto Star in the next few days... they'll need some time to come up with something good.
a police officer's letter doesn't mean the officer is remotely correct; officers routinely request far beyond what would actually be good policy. i'll be interested to read the counterpoint once it's published.
if he were constantly publishing letters i would not listen to him. that is not the case though. i think the officer makes some points worth considering and the lowered budget combined with taking away methods of policing have contributed to the increased gun violence.
how much time have you spent on Fountainhead Road lately? i'm guessing 0 seconds.
look for Toronto's police budget to get a nice little bump.
one thing about the Toronto Star counter-article.. keep in mind.. the Toronto Star is Kathleen Wynne's personal cheerleading squad.
|
On July 07 2018 08:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 08:43 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2018 08:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
The police officer's letter is there. The Toronto Sun didn't alter it. It is plainly and clearly stated what he thinks needs to be done.
i can pretty much guarantee that the counterpoint will be published by the Toronto Star in the next few days... they'll need some time to come up with something good.
a police officer's letter doesn't mean the officer is remotely correct; officers routinely request far beyond what would actually be good policy. i'll be interested to read the counterpoint once it's published. if he were constantly publishing letters i would not listen to him. that is not the case though. how much time have you spent on Fountainhead Road lately? i'm guessing 0 seconds.
publishing a letter occasional is still not grounds to assume he's correct; other than on independently verifiable facts. causation is often a complicated issue.
and police officers tend to have certain biases in their beliefs.
humans routinely think things are the case when they aren't. and biases are not formed independently; so finding a collective bias affecting the police is to be expected.
maybe the guy is right; maybe not. but it's good to reserve judgment and await the counterpoint; especially for those of us who aren't local and have less of the context.
|
ya this "correlation is not causation" catchphrase can be used to wiggle out of anything.
Toronto's Police budget is going nowhere but up. I'm calling it now.
|
On July 07 2018 08:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
ya this "correlation is not causation" catchphrase can be used to wiggle out of anything.
Toronto's Police budget is going nowhere but up. I'm calling it now.
it's not a catchphrase (at least not the way you're implying, as if it had little validity and is just being used as an excuse); it's a fact, and an important part of evaluating evidence and determining truth.
moreover, it's not something I brougth up, so not really pertinent as a counterpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
