You must remember: What is most important about gun control

[Whovian]

is calling each part and function of each gun not only correctly but in terms that pro gun people understand.

[Robb]

1. And yet the distinction between powder tattoos and abrasion rings is lost on them.

[Whovian]

3. Lost on me as well.

Does that make me some sort of gun cretin?

[Recursion]

16. It is?

Not for me, FWIW, though I was a mortician's assistant for most of the Iraq war so I'm probably not representative. (Though the worst stuff I saw was doing training in the Baltimore morgue.)

[Berserker]

2. As Bob Dylan said

Know your song well before you start singing.

[SayWut]

4. What I think you need to understand, my friend, is that correct terminology and definitions are key in

passing effective legislation and public awareness.

Granted, I may have more knowledge in this area than others here.
Others here may have more knowledge than me.

If one is to make a valid and sensible proposition, it would go a long way if they were at least educated and knowledgeable on the matter.
Credibility and knowledge carries more weight than ignorance (willful, or otherwise), and stubbornness.
Otherwise, you look foolish.

[Squinch]

6. Aren't we lucky you're here to splain this all to us.

[SayWut]

9. Well, insult aside, from what I've been reading here lately, I might as well go to my

mechanic for dental care.

Joking aside, it does help if one is at least somewhat informed of the subject of which they speak.
And no, I cant help you with your engine or gum problems.

[Paladin]

20. This Is An On-Line Talk Site. It Is Not A Senate Mark-Up Session.

We aren't engaged in drafting and passing legislation, here. So if somebody says "clip" where the correct term might be "magazine," there's no reason to go berserk---unless you're using terminology for its potential intimidation value, which Gun Enthusiasts have in fact been doing for a long time, here at DU. The "clip" vs. "magazine" thing is a sore subject with me, because I know---just like you probably know, if you've got the knowledge you claim to possess---that the two terms have been used interchangeably by generations of gun owners. It's the same with most gun esoterica. Give it a rest.

[Honeycombe8]

5. You mean instead of "thingie that holds lots o'bullets," call it "that mag thingie"? nt

[WillyT]

7. Yes... And They Apparently Don't Understand That There Has Been Gun Control For Many Decades Now...

The Second Amendment talks about "Arms"... as in armaments...

You do NOT get to own a fully automatic gun.

You do NOT get to own hand grenades.

You do NOT get to own a flame-thrower, a Bazooka, an RPG. a tank or an aircraft carrier.

There has been armament control for many many years now.

It is just a matter of where we draw the line.

[oneshooter]

11. Yes you can own a tank. All it takes is the want, and money.

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Tanks_Trucks_Jeeps_for_sale_page.html

[WillyT]

12. Does It Come With All The Machine-Gun Ammunition, And The Cannon Artillery ???

If not... what's the point?

[Robb]

13. Escalating ongoing disputes with the city parking authority?

"Boot THIS!!"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. If you have the proper paperwork in order...

yes. The tank itself is nothing more than an expensive vehicle. The cannon would be a NFA regulated "Destructive Device" (a non-shotgun firearm over .510 in caliber with a rifled bore), the M-2 .50cal topside gun would have to be a transferable NFA regulated "machinegun", the M-2 .50cal ammo is not restricted, and each of the main-gun artillery shells would qualify as NFA "Destructive Device" (and meet explosive ordinance safe storage requirements).

Each regulated NFA item requires an ATF Form 4 to be filled out, a $200 excise tax to be paid, and then you just have to wait for the approvals. I once saw a 90mm Recoilless Rifle artillery cannon for sale for $90,000 along with a Dillon 7.62 "Minigun" for sale for $200,000. Yes civilians can own these things LEGALLY and use them as well given a safe (large) private environment - all it takes is money patience and the right paperwork.

And did you know there are NO restrictions on smoothbore cannons? You can build your own cannon, load bowling balls into it, and launch them over a 1/2 mile all day long!

[oneshooter]

30. If you want something that will go bang, try this.

All it takes is time, paperwork and money.

THE AMMO BEING FIRED IS HAND LOADED SOLID SHOT.

[beevul]

17. Yes, in fact, people CAN own most of those things.

Flame throwers are classified as agricultural implements.

The rest is NFA but ownable. Legally.

People privately and legally own fighter jets, tanks, submarines etc.

Why wouldn't someone be able to own an aircraft carrier if they could afford it?

More specifically, what law says people can't?

[petronius]

8. You can talk about gun control in whatever terms you want, but if you want to write

effective and useful policy it seems pretty obvious to me that it's essential to use words that actually mean what you think they mean, and exactly what you want them to mean, and nothing else. I'm honestly not sure why that becomes such a point of contention in this discussion...

[CTyankee]

22. and that is why our elected legislators have knowledgeable staffs and the committees to which

legislation have their own areas of expertise on staff. It is why such committees hold something called "hearings" and call experts to examine and comment critically on proposed legislation.

Legislators are called upon to make laws in many areas and depend to one degree or another on their staffs and those of the committees for expert information. As citizens, yes, we need to know about our laws and that is fine. I don't think anyone is arguing that point with your side. And isn't it too bad that crucially needed research into gun violence has been effectively denied funding? Why would THAT happen??? Gee, you'd think "one side" of the argument doesn't want the public to know something...

[petronius]

34. We are not legislators (mostly), but we are discussing what we think policy ought to look like

As I said, we're free to use whatever terms we want, but don't you think it's a pretty shallow conversation when it devolves to:

"Down with those sorts of things!"
"What things?"
"Things like that!"
"Do those include these?"
"Maybe!"

I don't suggest that every person in every conversation needs to know every variant of every firearm ever made, and be able to name every single part of every one - but if one wants to advocate or understand a law pertaining to 'assault weapons' for example, or 'high-capacity magazines', it's reasonable to expect that the questions of what they are, what they aren't, and why, might arise. I am personally surprised when I see resistance to or a lack of desire in exploring those questions...

[CTyankee]

35. Well, I probably should know more about many of the finer points on this administration's

positions on the economy. Now, I hold an advanced degree, but not in econ, altho I did take a graduate level course on the meaning of "value." This helps me get only so far as it was a broad and historical scan. So I must rely on experts and I tend to choose those with whom I have general agreement, e.g. Krugman and Stiglitz. Am I not being serious about economics because I do not wish to spend an enormous amount of time on econ minutia, as important as a Ph.D. in Econ might feel I "should"?

[Squinch]

10. Well of course the reason for this is that if the folks discussing gun control on DU don't

use the correct terms for the gun parts, the laws will come out ALL WRONG! They will simply be RUINED like a flat souffle!

Cause that's logical.

[annabanana]

26. heh

good one

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Its a pretty simple chain...

- Guns are technical
- With technical stuff, details matter
- If you don't understand the details on technical stuff, you are going to screw it up.
Same with computers, airplanes, etc

Most pols are lawyers who don't get technical stuff nor that kind of detail. A group of them once declared Pi=3 to make math easier. It really is hard for the techies to take them seriously.

If people want to discuss practical ways to limit something, they need to understand it. Pointing out that they are wrong on critical details is not NRA talking points, its basic facts and physics. If people claiming to design the solutions or pushing for changes do not understand the those basics, why should they have any credibility, either on DU or in Congress? The level of knowledge needed is fairly low, some basics will do, and its not just terminology.

[Paladin]

21. Get Your Story Straight, Professor.

On one hand, you claim that "the level of knowledge needed is fairly low"---but that's after the initial "Guns are technical" statement, with references to "techies", comparisons to computers and airplanes, an ain't-this-scary physics reference, and, Lord help us, Pi=3. You're just rattling off the same old intimidation jive with the hope of stifling discussion. It isn't working---solely from observing the posts of DU Gun Enthusiasts, people can easily discern that guns don't involve rocket science-level thinking.....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. It is quite straight

Your confusion is based on the level of knowledge. Its not nuclear physics but there is some knowledge involved to speak about it intelligently

The required level of technical detail is not hard to learn, but if you don't have it, you will make a fool of yourself. That you do not recognize that is telling.

[Paladin]

36. Lose The Condescension.

I've got fifty years of firearms handling under my belt. I've shot everything from .22 short rimfires to .375 H&H safari rifles, and all manner of pistols (including the powerful but hilarious-looking Remington XP-100). In my hunting days, I shot in excess of 100 deer. I have fired every sort of firearm, machine guns included. In my earlier, uninformed days, I was a letters-to-the-editor-writing Gun Enthusiast, a phase of my life I'm thankful I grew out of. I know the difference between a magazine and a clip, among many other things about firearms, and despite my background, I am an ardent supporter of gun control. And I know that a perfect understanding of technical terminology is not required to formulate an effective gun control argument, particularly on a talk site such as DU. Understood?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. PKB

Your history does not change the facts that the details matter.

[Agschmid]

31. Yavin's Hide.

At Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Guns Make You Feel Powerful and Smart
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2218436

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Violation of the Community Standards.
Deliberately insulting.

It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints




JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:33 AM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The person who this post was responding to has been pushing the NRA talking points and insulting those who oppose guns, if he can dish it out he should be able to take it as well.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: An overly personal, ugly and insulting reply to a post that was well within the realm of DU discussion.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: PP has a point. I do not know anything about guns. I have had to ask questions to better understand how to restrict. I do not think PP deserves Yavins tear down and personal attacks.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack, voting to hide. I do not agree with the ProgProf most of the time but that reply is not he correct way to show disagreement.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Recursion]

15. It's important not to have "shoulder thing that goes up" moments

And, really, that's the level we're working at on DU, for the most part.

[Whovian]

18. From the responses: Point made.

[etherealtruth]

24. Yes indeed

[aikoaiko]

23. But then again not understanding firearms is what made the AWB nearly useless

It's does matter.

[Yavin4]

25. The General Public Is Never Going to Have An Encyclopedic Understanding of Firearm Tech

The best way to regulate guns is to define a minimum standard and not allow the sale of anything over the minimum standard.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. The knowledge is needed by those trying to legislate more than the public in general

[geckosfeet]

27. No. But nice try.

Not really.

I guess what is really important, is to understand that people who have little if any practical understanding of firearms will propose legislation that has little if any practical effect in reducing crime.

[Duckhunter935]

29. I find it interesting

That the Bushmaster used in Newtown was not an assault weapon as defined due to the ignorance of those drafting the legislation. Darn bayonet lugs. Now the New York cops will be breaking the law if they have over 7 cartridges in their weapons.