Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Emily Lake]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

 

[Emily Lake]

And once again, this is an issue of capacity, it is not an issue of semi-auto action. Were capacity limited to 6 then presumably you wouldn't have a problem with the action being semi-automatic?

Then why are asking the question? Or are you suggesting that semi-automatic weapons can exist, as long as cartridges are restricted to 4 or 6 bullets?

I'm trying to figure out why on earth any of you have latched on to banning semi-auto in the first place. There's no logic to it that I can see. Almost all of the arguments aren't about the type of action in place, they're about the capacity. And a whole lot of semi-auto pistols don't have massive magazines anyway. 12 rounds is pretty common, but it depends a whole lot on the size of the cartridge and the profile of the pistol anyway. The 9mm my spouse carries only has an 8 round capacity. He also has an 8 round revolver. Capacity can be managed independent of action.

Why make a semi-automatic weapon in that case? Your solution, if Loren was reading this, would be to make a semi-automatic weapon pointless... therefore you are quasi-banning the gun.

Semi-autos don't exist solely due to capacity. They're more compact than revolvers as a result of the design, even when using the same caliber and the same number of rounds. Magazines keep the cartridges more safely contained, less exposed to the elements.

My point here is Identify what exactly you're trying to manage, and design policy to manage that thing. If your concern is how many rounds can be sent downrange before reloading is required, then address the capacity. Because I guarantee that if somehow someone in charge managed to actually ban semi-auto pistols... you'd find yourself awash in 12 round revolvers in relatively short order. Because you solved for the wrong problem.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

 

[Toni]

Sure sure, having a brain injury is totally going to make your bones shrink in size and change your hair color, right?

My mother survived a traumatic brain injury. Long term, the injury did cause her bone mass to decrease as she was no longer able to do as much weight bearing exercise. Her hair did turn gray prematurely.

In total seriousness, have you lost the ability to have a reasoned conversation and to consider the content of an argument on its actual merits? I am aghast that you think this is somehow a reasonable rejoinder.

I’m aghast at most of your posts these days. You make a blanket statement that you claim is universal—and have a shit fit when you are called out on it.

Your problem, not mine.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Sure sure, having a brain injury is totally going to make your bones shrink in size and change your hair color, right?

My mother survived a traumatic brain injury. Long term, the injury did cause her bone mass to decrease as she was no longer able to do as much weight bearing exercise. Her hair did turn gray prematurely.

In total seriousness, have you lost the ability to have a reasoned conversation and to consider the content of an argument on its actual merits? I am aghast that you think this is somehow a reasonable rejoinder.

I’m aghast at most of your posts these days. You make a blanket statement that you claim is universal—and have a shit fit when you are called out on it.

Your problem, not mine.

Usually they go mask off at some point.

 

[laughing dog]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

No, because capacity limits are much harder to enforce - you cannot tell by looking at the weapon whether there is a capacity limit on the magazine.

The US is not ready for real gun regulation. Too many gun fetishists and their dupes to get anything realistic done, so this is all academic. If I was in charge, I start with a ban on the sale of new semi-automatic weapons along with speed loaders for revolvers in the USA for non-military purposes, along with a buy back program for existing semi-automatic weapons. See how that works for 20 to 30 years, then assess and go from there.

 

[Toni]

Nobody is underestimating puberty. But by your puberty argument, suddenly 9 year old girls undergoing puberty are more similar to a 16 year old than a 6 year old cognitively and developmentally. I guess that means 11 year olds are ready to become mothers? Mary Kay Letourneau ( and Donald J Trump) did nothing wrong by having sex with very young kids? I’m certain that is not what you mean.

Is it possible to talk about any social topic without it having to be about trump? Are you capable of that? I'm really tired of this bullshit. Seriously, why is there this compulsion to make every single thing about trump, to a point where basic common sense gets tossed out a window?

You fucking know that's not what I'm saying. So why the holy fuck do you even insinuate it, other than to try to imply that I think it? Or to try to divert attention away from the core topic? It's a smokescreen and a derail, and it's a very *intentionally* insulting one at that. So please Toni, please knock it off. You're smarter than this, and you know that I am too. What do you get out of school-yard taunts and sophomoric arguments from so?

The absolute fact is that a 16 year old can be physically and sexually as mature as a 20 year old ( or conversely, only about as sexually and physically mature as a 12 year old) but that does not mean that cognitively or emotionally they are functioning at the level of a 20 year old. Or even close.

Nobody said they were functioning at a 20 year old level. YOU however, made the assertion that a 16 year old functions more like a 12 year, and that's absolute and utter bullshit - and you know it.

Yes, I am still shocked and incredulous that you seem to believe that a 16 year old reasons more like a 22 year old than like a 12 year old.

No, I don’t believe that I wrote that a 16 year old functions more like a 12 year old.

You didn’t even correctly read the part of my post you quoted.

Toni, that's literally your quote - I changed nothing at all about it.

Are you seriously quibbling that I used the term "functions" with the clear context of cognitive function, where you used the term "reason"?

At the end of the day, it makes not one whit of difference. A 16 year old's cognitive abilities, and their ability to employ extrapolative reasoning, and their executive function is far more like that of a 22 year old than it is like that of a 12 year old.

Function and reason are not the same words and have different meanings. It's not a quibble.

Well gee, forgive me for not completely typing out "functions cognitively" when I assumed it would be understood from context.

It’s still not equivalent.

Words have meaning. You want to argue that 16 year olds are cognitively near peers of 18 year olds? Sure, if you are talking about the ability to understand math and scientific reasoning. Some 12 year olds are ready for calculus, too. That dues not make them ready to date. 16 and 18 year olds are less comparable when it comes to the ability to understand and plan for long term consequences, nuance, delayed gratification, ranking needs or choices and understanding the difference between the two, for starters. A 13 year old might think they will die of embarrassment if ( fill in the blank). A percentage of 16 year olds will believe the same. Eighteen year olds will be much better able to share off momentary embarrassment and get on with life.

A 16 year old might think having a baby would be fun and would make her guy stay with her. An 18 year old might but is more likely to be thinking about how to take the next steps in gaining autonomy: finished education, choosing a career path, etc.

Just a couple of examples.

 

[Derec]

It’s still not equivalent.

Neither are teenagers and children.

Words have meaning.

Exactly!

You want to argue that 16 year olds are cognitively near peers of 18 year olds? Sure, if you are talking about the ability to understand math and scientific reasoning. Some 12 year olds are ready for calculus, too.

Are you still trying to argue that 16 year olds are developmentally closer to 12 year olds than to 18 or 20 year olds?

That dues not make them ready to date.

You don't think 16 year olds are ready to date?

16 and 18 year olds are less comparable when it comes to the ability to understand and plan for long term consequences, nuance, delayed gratification, ranking needs or choices and understanding the difference between the two, for starters.

16 year olds are certainly more comparable in all those variables than 16 year olds are to 12 year olds.

A 13 year old might think they will die of embarrassment if ( fill in the blank). A percentage of 16 year olds will believe the same. Eighteen year olds will be much better able to share off momentary embarrassment and get on with life.

"A percentage of" 30 year olds will too. So what?

A 16 year old might think having a baby would be fun and would make her guy stay with her. An 18 year old might but is more likely to be thinking about how to take the next steps in gaining autonomy: finished education, choosing a career path, etc.

A significant "percentage of" 18 year olds will a baby would be fun, while a significant "percentage of" 16 year olds will agree with your prototypical 18 year old. That's because a 17 year old does not form a chrysalis as a larva and emerge on her 18th birthday an adult. We are mammals, not insects!

Just a couple of examples.

For what exactly? An unfounded view that 16 year olds are more like prepubescent children than to young adults? That's preposterous not backed up any actual evidence.

 

[Toni]

It’s still not equivalent.

Neither are teenagers and children.

Words have meaning.

Exactly!

You want to argue that 16 year olds are cognitively near peers of 18 year olds? Sure, if you are talking about the ability to understand math and scientific reasoning. Some 12 year olds are ready for calculus, too.

Are you still trying to argue that 16 year olds are developmentally closer to 12 year olds than to 18 or 20 year olds?

That dues not make them ready to date.

You don't think 16 year olds are ready to date?

16 and 18 year olds are less comparable when it comes to the ability to understand and plan for long term consequences, nuance, delayed gratification, ranking needs or choices and understanding the difference between the two, for starters.

16 year olds are certainly more comparable in all those variables than 16 year olds are to 12 year olds.

A 13 year old might think they will die of embarrassment if ( fill in the blank). A percentage of 16 year olds will believe the same. Eighteen year olds will be much better able to share off momentary embarrassment and get on with life.

"A percentage of" 30 year olds will too. So what?

A 16 year old might think having a baby would be fun and would make her guy stay with her. An 18 year old might but is more likely to be thinking about how to take the next steps in gaining autonomy: finished education, choosing a career path, etc.

A significant "percentage of" 18 year olds will a baby would be fun, while a significant "percentage of" 16 year olds will agree with your prototypical 18 year old. That's because a 17 year old does not form a chrysalis as a larva and emerge on her 18th birthday an adult. We are mammals, not insects!

Just a couple of examples.

For what exactly? An unfounded view that 16 year olds are more like prepubescent children than to young adults? That's preposterous not backed up any actual evidence.

In the post you were quoting I was comparing 18 year olds and 16 year olds.

And get it straight: I wrote that some 12 year olds are ready for calculus—and that does not mean they are ready to date. Misquoting me hurts any validity to your position.

 

[Derec]

In the post you were quoting I was comparing 18 year olds and 16 year olds.

Right.

And get it straight: I wrote that some 12 year olds are ready for calculus—and that does not mean they are ready to date.

In fact, understanding calculus makes them less likely to date.

Misquoting me hurts any validity to your position.

If anything, I misunderstood you, rather than misquoted you, which requires intent to mislead.
So are you saying that 16 year olds are, unlike 12 year olds and like 18 year olds, ready to date?
Does that not go against your thesis that 16 year olds are more like 12 year old children than 18 year old young adults?

Genuinely trying to understand what you mean here, because I am confused as to what your actual point is.

 

[Emily Lake]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

Did I ask them?

Seriously, have you forgotten how to have a conversation completely? I ask you if you would like X, and your response is "Those other people don't". In what world does that make sense?

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure sure, having a brain injury is totally going to make your bones shrink in size and change your hair color, right?

My mother survived a traumatic brain injury. Long term, the injury did cause her bone mass to decrease as she was no longer able to do as much weight bearing exercise. Her hair did turn gray prematurely.

In total seriousness, have you lost the ability to have a reasoned conversation and to consider the content of an argument on its actual merits? I am aghast that you think this is somehow a reasonable rejoinder.

I’m aghast at most of your posts these days. You make a blanket statement that you claim is universal—and have a shit fit when you are called out on it.

What have I posted that you're aghast at, Toni? Please be both specific and accurate. What views do I hold that you find so appalling?

Your problem, not mine.

Your mother's brain injury didn't shrink her bones. Don't play stupid linguistic games, especially when those games don't even have a point.

 

[Emily Lake]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

No, because capacity limits are much harder to enforce - you cannot tell by looking at the weapon whether there is a capacity limit on the magazine.

The US is not ready for real gun regulation. Too many gun fetishists and their dupes to get anything realistic done, so this is all academic. If I was in charge, I start with a ban on the sale of new semi-automatic weapons along with speed loaders for revolvers in the USA for non-military purposes, along with a buy back program for existing semi-automatic weapons. See how that works for 20 to 30 years, then assess and go from there.

I might start with a buy-back or trade of firearms designed for a higher-than-threshold magazine, as well as for magazine extenders etc. Start with that. Start by directly addressing the thing you claim to be concerned by.

I'm not even sure it would need 20 years. Especially if the government works with manufacturers to develop lower-capacity pistols that can be leveraged in trade. Hell, make them available in customizable colors and finishes

 

[Emily Lake]

In the post you were quoting I was comparing 18 year olds and 16 year olds.

And get it straight: I wrote that some 12 year olds are ready for calculus—and that does not mean they are ready to date. Misquoting me hurts any validity to your position.

Let's not lose sight of what set this derail off. YOU claimed that a 16 year old is more like a 12 year old than a 22 year old in terms of cognitive capabilities and maturation. That was YOUR assertion. It completely ignores both the somatic and the psychological impacts of puberty.

 

[Toni]

In the post you were quoting I was comparing 18 year olds and 16 year olds.

Right.

And get it straight: I wrote that some 12 year olds are ready for calculus—and that does not mean they are ready to date.

In fact, understanding calculus makes them less likely to date.

Misquoting me hurts any validity to your position.

If anything, I misunderstood you, rather than misquoted you, which requires intent to mislead.
So are you saying that 16 year olds are, unlike 12 year olds and like 18 year olds, ready to date?
Does that not go against your thesis that 16 year olds are more like 12 year old children than 18 year old young adults?

Genuinely trying to understand what you mean here, because I am confused as to what your actual point is.

It honestly depends on the metric and the individual. Some 16 year olds are ready to date. Some are not.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the post you were quoting I was comparing 18 year olds and 16 year olds.

Right.

And get it straight: I wrote that some 12 year olds are ready for calculus—and that does not mean they are ready to date.

In fact, understanding calculus makes them less likely to date.

Misquoting me hurts any validity to your position.

If anything, I misunderstood you, rather than misquoted you, which requires intent to mislead.
So are you saying that 16 year olds are, unlike 12 year olds and like 18 year olds, ready to date?
Does that not go against your thesis that 16 year olds are more like 12 year old children than 18 year old young adults?

Genuinely trying to understand what you mean here, because I am confused as to what your actual point is.

It honestly depends on the metric and the individual. Some 16 year olds are ready to date. Some are not.

16 year olds will not be ready to date 18, 19, 20 years olds, and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50 year olds (yuck!), and 18, 19, 20 years olds will not be ready to date someone in their 30's, and so on.

 

[thebeave]

Sounds like someone needs to have a talk with Jordon Hudson. She's not living her life right.

 

[Millrat]

According to your response, there is no need for semi- automatic weaponry. So banning them is not a real issue.

There is also no good reason to ban them. Focusing on people rather than on technical particulars of firearm action is a far more fruitful approach to gun control.

IOW: people control.

Posted on another atheist/nationalist forum:

Objects are easier to control than people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

The NRA and the right-wing won't.

Did I ask them?

Seriously, have you forgotten how to have a conversation completely? I ask you if you would like X, and your response is "Those other people don't". In what world does that make sense?

The "real world".

Trump signed off on banning just bump stocks after the Vegas massacre. It was appealed and SCOTUS nixed the ban on bump stocks.

I'm not apologizing for being pragmatic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did. Spraying more bullets allows less skilled people a greater chance of hitting someone than if they had fewer bullets to spray.

Would you be satisfied with a capacity limit regardless of action type?

No, because capacity limits are much harder to enforce - you cannot tell by looking at the weapon whether there is a capacity limit on the magazine.

The US is not ready for real gun regulation. Too many gun fetishists and their dupes to get anything realistic done, so this is all academic. If I was in charge, I start with a ban on the sale of new semi-automatic weapons along with speed loaders for revolvers in the USA for non-military purposes, along with a buy back program for existing semi-automatic weapons. See how that works for 20 to 30 years, then assess and go from there.

I might start with a buy-back or trade of firearms designed for a higher-than-threshold magazine, as well as for magazine extenders etc. Start with that. Start by directly addressing the thing you claim to be concerned by.

I'm not even sure it would need 20 years. Especially if the government works with manufacturers to develop lower-capacity pistols that can be leveraged in trade. Hell, make them available in customizable colors and finishes

You don't seem to appreciate why the NRA exists. The NRA aren't there to protect gun rights, but rather to increase gun sales. You are suggesting reducing sales. The NRA will be against it. And that is all you really need to end any type of reform. You are talking like this hasn't be done or suggested before.

You aren't saying anything new here.