What's new
By:

Steve Kerr's Passionate Personal Stand on Gun Control

fishonjazz said:
I think that if you don't know the ins and outs of all things gun, you can still have an opinion about them and how you think they should be regulated.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. But when that opinion on what and how it should be regulated is based on factually incorrect information it loses weight. As it should.
 
dalamon said:
I doubt there are many, namely because semi-automatic weapons are much easier to use for amateur gun owners. I bet you, with limited ammunition, a person could kill more people with a semi-auto AK than a fully automatic one
Click to expand...

[MENTION=26]Gameface[/MENTION] is our resident gun expert and maybe he could clarify, but I'm guessing this is highly probable (unless we are talking humvee or aircraft mounted 50 cal's). There is a reason military personnel use either single fire or triple fire for the most part instead of fully auto.

The thing I find interesting about Dalamon's points is that he is essentially claiming that un-banning fully auto weapons would save lives in mass shootings.
 
I believe within 10-20 years AR-15 type weapons will be put on the Class III list. That's why I plan on investing about $10k in them at some point.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think that if you don't know the ins and outs of all things gun, you can still have an opinion about them and how you think they should be regulated.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think it's fine if people advocate for tighter access to guns, restrictions on other things gun related, but many of the proposals are technical in nature and show a significant amount of ignorance in regard to how guns work, gun culture in the U.S., and what effect those regulations will actually have. Typically the proposed regulations are removed from the problem they are supposed to solve by several orders of magnitude.

That's why I've always said that gun regulations in places like California and New York City, and many of the proposed regulations are like Utah's liquor laws.

They are being made by people who are not familiar with the item being regulated. And these people consider the item to be evil and unnecessary.
 
Gameface said:
Agreed. I think it's fine if people advocate for tighter access to guns, restrictions on other things gun related, but many of the proposals are technical in nature and show a significant amount of ignorance in regard to how guns work, gun culture in the U.S., and what effect those regulations will actually have. Typically the proposed regulations are removed from the problem they are supposed to solve by several orders of magnitude.

That's why I've always said that gun regulations in places like California and New York City, and many of the proposed regulations are like Utah's liquor laws.

They are being made by people who are not familiar with the item being regulated. And these people consider the item to be evil and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Ya, Steve kerr isn't making any laws so I think it's fine if he has an opinion.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya, Steve kerr isn't making any laws so I think it's fine if he has an opinion.
Click to expand...

And GF and I agree with you. The problem is that this opinion is factually incorrect and is shared by some that do make the laws.

One of the ways to help people form fact based opinions, even if their opinion is in opposition to our own, is by correctly stating the facts.

But yes. Kerr is as entitled to his opinion as I am mine.
 
Stoked said:
From the article I get the strong impression that this man was careless with his firearms. That is never a good idea. Sad to see.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top