U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-21-2009, 08:52 AM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,366 posts, read 9,992,499 times
Reputation: 9112

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sorry. "Excellent Videos" are not entitled "The Truth About . . . " That is an absolute tipoff that the person who financed the production of the video has an interest in the selection of what is true and what is not true. If the video is "the Truth About" anything, they won't need to use that in the title.

Go to YouTube and search using the term "the truth about". You will get 203,000 hits. Imgaine how much "truth" you will know after watching them all.

After watching the video, I canít think of any inaccuracy in the manís comparison of full auto/semi-auto/hunting rifle technology. He was also accurate with what he said about an Ďassault rifle.í Any semi-automatic rifle becomes an assault rifle with a simple change of stock and higher capacity clip. Iím no gun expert, but Iím not clueless either (grew up around LOTS of guns). Did you see some aspect of the weapons he was demonstrating that was inaccurate? He seemed knowledgeable and has been a cop for 20 whatever years. He should know a little bit about how guns work!

 
Old 05-21-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 33,350,236 times
Reputation: 7038
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sorry. "Excellent Videos" are not entitled "The Truth About . . . " That is an absolute tipoff that the person who financed the production of the video has an interest in the selection of what is true and what is not true. If the video is "the Truth About" anything, they won't need to use that in the title.

Go to YouTube and search using the term "the truth about". You will get 203,000 hits. Imgaine how much "truth" you will know after watching them all.
Did you watch it?

The reason I ask is that it would seem very telling to me if you watched the video and were only able to attack its credibility via the title...

Last edited by jimboburnsy; 05-21-2009 at 09:45 AM..
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,255,557 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sorry. "Excellent Videos" are not entitled "The Truth About . . . " That is an absolute tipoff that the person who financed the production of the video has an interest in the selection of what is true and what is not true. If the video is "the Truth About" anything, they won't need to use that in the title.

Go to YouTube and search using the term "the truth about". You will get 203,000 hits. Imgaine how much "truth" you will know after watching them all.
um.... did you even take the time to watch the video? If the guy in the video was able to spin what he showed, he would be able to sell a sandwich as a cell phone. come on man, at least watch the video before you let your arrogance shine through.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,590,043 times
Reputation: 35874
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
Did you watch it?

..
All 203,000 of them? No. But judging from ChrisC's summary, it wouldn't have told me anything I didn't already know.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 33,350,236 times
Reputation: 7038
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
All 203,000 of them? No. But judging from ChrisC's summary, it wouldn't have told me anything I didn't already know.
Come on now, nice dodge.

Did you watch the video Noahma posted on page 52 of this thread which was titled "The Truth About Assault Weapons"
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,590,043 times
Reputation: 35874
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
Come on now, nice dodge.

Did you watch the video Noahma posted on page 52 of this thread which was titled "The Truth About Assault Weapons"
No I waited for ChrisC's cliff notes which summed it up by saying "Any semi-automatic rifle becomes an assault rifle with a simple change of stock and higher capacity clip". Which I already knew. Why should I spend ten minutes of my time watching a video that tells me a "truth" that I already know? Or 2,030,000 minutes watching all the other "the truth about . . ." videos.

I wrote a 20-word post, and you didn't read enough of it to realize that I had already answered your question. (In case you think my "No" was ambiguous, I also used the expression "wouldn't have" which implies that it didn't happen.) Generally, I do not watch videos linked here until I see a reaction to them, which often indicates whether they are worth the invstment of ten minutes of my time, during which I can speed-read about 100 text posts.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:53 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,323,340 times
Reputation: 2558
Are you for or against tighter restrictions on "assault weapons" & why?
 
Old 05-21-2009, 12:55 PM
 
Location: MS
3,970 posts, read 3,857,112 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
He was also accurate with what he said about an Ďassault rifle.í
Are you talking about the semi-auto vs. full auto?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Any semi-automatic rifle becomes an assault rifle with a simple change of stock and higher capacity clip.
I watched the video again 2 minutes ago and did not take this away from it. I heard him say that changing the stock to a menacing version could confuse people but it does nothing the the function of the weapon. Basically, why legislate based on looks and features (past AWB) instead of functionality (current ban on full auto weapons).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
No I waited for ChrisC's cliff notes which summed it up by saying "Any semi-automatic rifle becomes an assault rifle with a simple change of stock and higher capacity clip". Which I already knew.
As you can see above, everyone interprets differently. I encourage you to do so if you want to be taken seriously. I am more than open to reading/watching any of your links to support your arguments.

-Robert
 
Old 05-21-2009, 01:09 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,323,340 times
Reputation: 2558
I think Chris meant that for the uninformed & for the purpose of assault weapon bans swapping out the stock can make a legal gun an illegal one.
The gist of the video was stateing the fact that this is hogwash. Semi automatic weapons ARE NOT assault weapons, never have been & never will be. He mentions its also a fact that assault weapons are already very regulated.

Certainly he was putting forth a pro gun message, but another fact is he is very familiar with guns & is a LEO.
I'm curious why many fancy pants antigunners dont even bother to familiarize themselves with the things they want to regulate & restrict. I guess it goes back to their motivation. Pro gun people are usually motivated by a desire to preserve a thing they value. Anti's are usually not interested in facts or truth, just emotional drivel or votes.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 01:25 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,366 posts, read 9,992,499 times
Reputation: 9112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
I heard him say that changing the stock to a menacing version could confuse people but it does nothing the the function of the weapon.
That was exactly my point (and his). People get all freaked out when they hear 'assault weapon.' Many assume that there is something significantly different about them that makes them somehow more deadly than any other semi-auto run-of-the-mill rifles. That’s not really the case. There is no difference in what they can do. As he showed, change the stock on a traditional rifle... instant assault rifle. Yet there is no difference! Just the looks. They simply 'look different' or they 'look' like something you would see Rambo packing around.

Of course there are difference in rifles for sure. But the ‘assault’ version of a given piece of hardware is no different than the traditional wood stock version. People just freak out cause it ‘looks scary.’ Truth be known, a traditional 'hunting rifle' is more deadly than what most think of as an 'assault weapon' (like an AK 47 or something). The 'hunting rifle' is generally more accurate at a longer range than a 'carbine' style weapon. If you look at what snipers generally use, it's not your run of the mill 'assault looking semi-auto.' For instance, my father's (not that he's a sniper )old 30 06 with a scope is going to hit far more accurately (in the right hands) at a distance than his M1 Carbine 'assault weapon' would.

And if you are thinking ‘machine gun,’ that has nothing to do with the proposed bans. That was banned a long time ago. I think half of the folks who whine about this all the time probably assume that's what's being discussed. Which is amazing to me. If I want to make something illegal, I owe it to everone to have at least a marginal clue as to what I'm trying to ban.

I think the video did a good job in pointing all this out. So, yes, there is the Cliffnotes version.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top