Correlation does not equal causation

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I've been told that I'm incorrect when I point to gun laws in deep blue states and explain that the end game for politicans from those states is confiscation. I've been told I "rant" about things that will never happen. I've heard that "no one is trying to take your guns". Well, that's the latest lie from the gun control side that was recently exposed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/questions-answers-lawmaker-who-wants-your-assault-weapons-n871531

Quote:I thought about the different ways to address it, with a lot of respect for the assault weapons ban that was in place and expired, but once I gave it careful thought and listened to these students I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities. But while recognizing that people bought them when they were legal and there should be compensation during a grace period ideally to buy them back and then a ban on possession.

Hmm, sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me.

Quote:I have great faith that most Americans are law-abiding and care about the rule of law and if they're told a weapon is no longer allowed in their community and they would be compensated they would find a way to do the right thing. If somebody doesn't sell it back and doesn't keep it in a secure place then, yeah, they would be subjected to stiff penalties.

Sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me. Let's ignore the fact that the weapons this congressman wants to confiscate from law abiding citizens are used in a minute fraction of gun crimes. So minute that knives and clubs account for significantly more deaths per year. This guy wants the federal government to take your guns, your legally purchased property because "feelings". The usual suspects here ignored or spun Hillary's comments on looking at the Australia model. Seems this person didn't get the message that she wasn't serious. Please now explain to me that this bill won't pass and how the end game of the gun control side isn't confiscation simply because they don't, yet, have the means to achieve it. Should be interesting.



P.S.

Here's the latest bullshit from the CA legislature. They want background checks for firearms "precursors", meaning barrels, uppers, magazines, speed loaders, etc.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/#axzz5F6oK3qHH

I tried to find the CA government page on the bill, couldn't find it.

[Belsnickel]

I think the discussion we have is that what happens in California is not indicative of the way the rest of the country will go. This doesn't do anything to push against that. California is an outlier. People that think like that in most of the rest of the country are few and far between and on the fringes. Around these parts, the DSA members spend time at the gun ranges.

[GMDino]

I still don't believe anything like this would ever get out of committee let alone voted on, passed, and enacted AND pass the SC challenges that would surely happen.

There just isn't the support for such extreme measures.  And I don't think there will be any time soon.

One congressman, five congressman, petitions, a retired SCJ....I just don't think that equals "they want all our guns" because a) they don't want ALL the guns and b) there isn't the support for it.

So while extremists can use examples like this to say "See!!  They do want our guns!!"  The word "they" still comes down to a very, very small minority and such a thing just won't happen.

Just my humble opinion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2018, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the discussion we have is that what happens in California is not indicative of the way the rest of the country will go. This doesn't do anything to push against that. California is an outlier. People that think like that in most of the rest of the country are few and far between and on the fringes. Around these parts, the DSA members spend time at the gun ranges.

So, as long as the rights of people in blue states are abused, it's ok?  In any event, this is a US congressman, not a state level functionary.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, as long as the rights of people in blue states are abused, it's ok?  In any event, this is a US congressman, not a state level functionary.

Nope, I'm just saying that the argument that this is the end game for "the left" or "liberals" is too broad of a brush based upon the evidence provided that this is the thinking in California.

And members of Congress tend to hold views similar to their state parties. He is one of 435 voting members and he is in the minority party. He won't even get enough support from his own party for this to go anywhere.

[Millhouse]

I think there is a rise of those that want to eliminate assault rifles all together. So don't be surprised in hearing more of a push to do so over time.

Personally imo most are now in the opinion that laws need to be better overall at federal and state levels to make sure those assault weapons are harder to get by the wrong people. And I share that opinion, but that goes for all semi guns whether rifles or handguns.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2018, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've been told that I'm incorrect when I point to gun laws in deep blue states and explain that the end game for politicans from those states is confiscation.  I've been told I "rant" about things that will never happen.  I've heard that "no one is trying to take your guns".  Well, that's the latest lie from the gun control side that was recently exposed.

Actually what you have been told is that "gun confiscation" is a separate issue from "gun registration" and other regulations.  It has been explained to you repeatedly that just because there are certain areas of extremists who will call for confiscation that does not prove that every place that supports other regulations will also call for confiscation.

And what you posted here proves that you still do not understand that "correlation" does not equal "causation".



There will always be a good bit of support for so called "Assault Rifle Bans" because they are used so often in high profile mass shootings, but like SSF said they only account for a small percentage of all illegal use of weapons.  However, I don't consider an "Assault Rifle Ban" the same as "Taking er guns!!".  The weapons covered in these "Assault Rifle Bans" only account for a small percentage of all guns owned.  Gun owners will still have plenty of other options.

Personally an "Assault Rifle Ban" is way down on my wish list for gun regulation.  There are lots of other laws that could make a huge difference without taking any guns away from any legal owners, but "Assault Rifles" will always be demonized because of the high profile mass shootings.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2018, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, I'm just saying that the argument that this is the end game for "the left" or "liberals" is too broad of a brush based upon the evidence provided that this is the thinking in California.

And members of Congress tend to hold views similar to their state parties. He is one of 435 voting members and he is in the minority party. He won't even get enough support from his own party for this to go anywhere.

Here's where I have a problem with your argument.  There is certainly a logic to saying one extreme voice does not entail a majority opinion.  However, what I think you are ignoring is that the number and pitch of these voices is increasing.  I also think you're ignoring how these things build.  Recall the old board and our discussion of same sex marriage.  No one, not even those of us in favor of it, foresaw just how quickly that went from a backburner issue with little support to the law of the land.  I also think you severely underestimate the number of people, and the funding behind them, of people who want exactly what I'm describing. 

(05-10-2018, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually what you have been told is that "gun confiscation" is a separate issue from "gun registration" and other regulations.  It has been explained to you repeatedly that just because there are certain areas of extremists who will call for confiscation that does not prove that every place that supports other regulations will also call for confiscation.

Quote:It's rather simple, a gun registry would make confiscation much easier.  Because of this, and the lack of trust that this will not eventually occur, you have opposition to a gun registry.  One thing you cannot claim anymore, at all, is that "no one wants to take your guns". 

Quote:There will always be a good bit of support for so called "Assault Rifle Bans" because they are used so often in high profile mass shootings, but like SSF said they only account for a small percentage of all illegal use of weapons.  However, I don't consider an "Assault Rifle Ban" the same as "Taking er guns!!".  The weapons covered in these "Assault Rifle Bans" only account for a small percentage of all guns owned.  Gun owners will still have plenty of other options.

Got it.  It's not longer "no one is trying to take you guns" to "no one is trying to take all of your guns".  I can see why gun owners would have zero problem with that.  Interestingly enough, guns covered under such a ban account for a far greater percentage of guns owned than they account for the percentage of guns used during a crime. 

Quote:Personally an "Assault Rifle Ban" is way down on my wish list for gun regulation.  There are lots of other laws that could make a huge difference without taking any guns away from any legal owners, but "Assault Rifles" will always be demonized because of the high profile mass shootings.

Maybe a way for people, like yourself, who have gun control laws they would like to see enacted to actually achieve your goals would be to openly oppose worthless legislation like an "assault weapons" ban that, by your own admission would have a negligible effect on gun related crime?  If you throw garbage on a plate of filet mignon and crab legs you now just have a plate of garbage.

[/quote]

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's where I have a problem with your argument.  There is certainly a logic to saying one extreme voice does not entail a majority opinion.  However, what I think you are ignoring is that the number and pitch of these voices is increasing.  I also think you're ignoring how these things build.  Recall the old board and our discussion of same sex marriage.  No one, not even those of us in favor of it, foresaw just how quickly that went from a backburner issue with little support to the law of the land.  I also think you severely underestimate the number of people, and the funding behind them, of people who want exactly what I'm describing. 

I think what you are ignoring is that these situations are very different. In the case of same-sex marriage, there was a judicial trend that was moving in that direction. There is a judicial trend in gun control, as well, but that trend is moving away from the direction you are saying we are going.

As for my underestimation, that may be so. I'm an Appalachian and you ain't touching our guns 'round these parts. This can skew my view of it. But at the same time you ought to recognize that your location and the information you consume as a firearm enthusiast is going to produce a point of view that may be slanted to the point of overestimating the movement you are talking about.

[Bengalzona]

(05-10-2018, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've been told that I'm incorrect when I point to gun laws in deep blue states and explain that the end game for politicans from those states is confiscation.  I've been told I "rant" about things that will never happen.  I've heard that "no one is trying to take your guns".  Well, that's the latest lie from the gun control side that was recently exposed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/questions-answers-lawmaker-who-wants-your-assault-weapons-n871531


Hmm, sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me.


Sounds an awful lot like confiscation to me.  Let's ignore the fact that the weapons this congressman wants to confiscate from law abiding citizens are used in a minute fraction of gun crimes.  So minute that knives and clubs account for significantly more deaths per year.  This guy wants the federal government to take your guns, your legally purchased property because "feelings".  The usual suspects here ignored or spun Hillary's comments on looking at the Australia model.  Seems this person didn't get the message that she wasn't serious.  Please now explain to me that this bill won't pass and how the end game of the gun control side isn't confiscation simply because they don't, yet, have the means to achieve it.  Should be interesting.



P.S.

Here's the latest bullshit from the CA legislature.  They want background checks for firearms "precursors", meaning barrels, uppers, magazines, speed loaders, etc.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/04/california-bill-would-enact-staggering-new-firearms-parts-regulations/#axzz5F6oK3qHH

I tried to find the CA government page on the bill, couldn't find it.

You really should consider moving to AZ, brother.

Yes, we are ignorant and insensitive. But we do like guns!

[Benton]

(05-10-2018, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the discussion we have is that what happens in California is not indicative of the way the rest of the country will go. This doesn't do anything to push against that. California is an outlier. People that think like that in most of the rest of the country are few and far between and on the fringes. Around these parts, the DSA members spend time at the gun ranges.

Yeah that’s kind of where I’m at. I wasn’t aware of some of California’s gun laws until ssf posted about them. But they’re pretty extreme and sometimes middle up conversations about realistic gun control.

I’m pro gun, but there still needs to be a common sense approach to allowing gun ownership.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 03:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You really should consider moving to AZ, brother.

Yes, we are ignorant and insensitive. But we do like guns!

"But I repeat myself...."  

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2018, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Got it.  It's not longer "no one is trying to take you guns" to "no one is trying to take all of your guns". 

I have never changed my position on this.  I have always treated the "Assault Weapon Bans" separately from total confiscation.  In fact I am pretty sure I posted poll results that showed how many more people were in favor of so-called Assault Rifle bans compared to repealing the Second Amendment or totally outlawing guns.  We even discussed the partial bans like what is allowed in Australia.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2018, 03:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think what you are ignoring is that these situations are very different. In the case of same-sex marriage, there was a judicial trend that was moving in that direction. There is a judicial trend in gun control, as well, but that trend is moving away from the direction you are saying we are going.

As for my underestimation, that may be so. I'm an Appalachian and you ain't touching our guns 'round these parts. This can skew my view of it. But at the same time you ought to recognize that your location and the information you consume as a firearm enthusiast is going to produce a point of view that may be slanted to the point of overestimating the movement you are talking about.

Yeah, I'll fully admit this may be the case.  We're getting crushed out here and the 9th circuit isn't helping matters at all.  I'm hoping CA overreaches even more and gets the SCOTUS involved as I think we'd get a favorable ruling.

(05-10-2018, 03:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: You really should consider moving to AZ, brother.

Yes, we are ignorant and insensitive. But we do like guns!

A few things.  Too hot, way too hot.  Secondly, all my friends and family live here.  Third, I have a job that I get medical for life in just eight more years.  So, not moving.

(05-10-2018, 03:38 PM)Benton Wrote: Yeah that’s kind of where I’m at. I wasn’t aware of some of California’s gun laws until ssf posted about them. But they’re pretty extreme and sometimes middle up conversations about realistic gun control.

I’m pro gun, but there still needs to be a common sense approach to allowing gun ownership.

I'd definitely agree with the last part.  The problem is any concession is going to be met by more demands, therefore no one wants to make any.  I'd be fine with a registry or a shall issue license if I didn't know they'd be horribly abused down the road.

(05-10-2018, 03:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have never changed my position on this.  I have always treated the "Assault Weapon Bans" separately from total confiscation.  In fact I am pretty sure I posted poll results that showed how many more people were in favor of so-called Assault Rifle bans compared to repealing the Second Amendment or totally outlawing guns.  We even discussed the partial bans like what is allowed in Australia.

So you admit the statement "no one is trying to take away your guns" is a complete fabrication.  I'm enjoying the common ground.

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2018, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you admit the statement "no one is trying to take away your guns" is a complete fabrication.  

I have never said "no one".  I have ALWAYS admitted that there were extremists that want to take your guns.  

Surely you remember.  We have only had this same discussion about a dozen times.

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope, I'm just saying that the argument that this is the end game for "the left" or "liberals" is too broad of a brush based upon the evidence provided that this is the thinking in California.

And members of Congress tend to hold views similar to their state parties. He is one of 435 voting members and he is in the minority party. He won't even get enough support from his own party for this to go anywhere.

I think you have been reading the wrong books, Bels--or wait, you want to go into government, don't you!  

[*bfine32*]

Thought this would be as good of a place to post as any (most other gun control threads are locked).

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/college-grad-posing-campus-assault-rifle-fires-twitter-204132585.html

Quote:A senior at Kent State University whose graduation photos show her wearing an AR-10 rifle and a cap that reads “COME AND TAKE IT” is reportedly receiving death threats.

This week, Kaitlin Bennett tweeted the images, writing, “Now that I graduated from @KentState, I can finally arm myself on campus. I should have been able to do so as a student — especially since 4 unarmed students were shot and killed by the government on this campus,” with the hashtag #CampusCarryNow.

To be honest I had no idea that some folks can carry on College Campuses while others cannot.



Oh and Hit.

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2018, 11:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: To be honest I had no idea that some folks can carry on College Campuses while others cannot.

Unlike the laws for K-12, which have a bit more standardization around the country, rules for higher education vary a lot from state to state. Some leave it up to the schools, some say they aren't allowed at all, some say not allowed in public schools but allow privates to make their own decisions, some say schools can't prohibit it. And this also gets more variable when looking at concealed vs. open carry.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-17-2018, 11:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Thought this would be as good of a place to post as any (most other gun control threads are locked).

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/college-grad-posing-campus-assault-rifle-fires-twitter-204132585.html


To be honest I had no idea that some folks can carry on College Campuses while others cannot.



Oh and Hit.

Who in their right mind (that answers the question but I'll ask it anyway) sends death threats to someone who is ARMED? 

[GMDino]

(05-17-2018, 01:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Who in their right mind (that answers the question but I'll ask it anyway) sends death threats to someone who is ARMED? 

Apparently you've never been on the internet....