Maybe, just maybe, people are uninterested in new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to do nothing but disarm the good guy/gals and empower the bad guys/gals. Maybe any further dialog should be about finding a solution that actually addresses the problem. "Gun free" areas were supposed to be the answer but have only served to attract crazies and terrorists.
...new and improved gun control laws because they have been well and truly proven to....
And yet you'd have us -- solely on the basis of your say-so, no less -- take the remainder of your assertions and speculations as both plausible and probable.
It clearly escapes you that, by definition, that which is new has not at all been proven. That is part and parcel to the very substance of the meaning of the word "new."
Apparently sarcasm-as well as current events for the last 4--5 decades-escapes you. And my assertions and speculations are most certainly more plausible and probable than your OP. Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the
"I don't understand..." thread and disproved some of your assertions in the doing. If you actually wanted a discussion as you have claimed, why don't you discuss instead of running away?
Why do you think I would bother with supporting evidence when you ignored it when I did present it to you in your OP in the "I don't understand..."
??? It was clear to me then and it remains clear that you didn't understand (1) the rhetorical point of the OP in that thread and (2) what the hell I requested; consequently, you provided content that answers a question that wasn't being asked. You could have provided literally all the supporting evidence in the world and it still would not have addressed the actual question I posed. I ignored most of what you had to say because you're 70 years-old and didn't address the central question of that thread.
As I made clear to another member, the point of the OP in that thread is this:
I'm in [the "I do not understand"] thread seeking credible input on what motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when
demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles.
To avoid the formal and precise language of economics, I, in that thread's OP, I expressed the central question in layman's terms and as a statement, thinking that readers could from that statement derive what must necessarily be the question the thread entreats them to answer.
I'm baffled at the existential fascination gun enthusiasts have with semi-automatic rifles.
The entirety of the remainder of that OP is nothing other than my sharing broadly the nature of what I'd observed in seeking the answer to my question.
What you did was share different observations and challenge the ones I shared. That's all well and good, but that those observations can and do exist -- yours or mine -- does not answer the central question:
- In layman's terms: "Why are folks so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles?"
- In economic terms: "What motivates the elasticity and substitution conclusions consumers obtain when demanding (effective and latent) semi-automatic rifles?"
If one doesn't have an answer to the question, well, one just doesn't. I don't have an answer to it, so I'm not going to ridicule someone else for not having an answer to it. If one wants to post and say "I don't know the answer to your question," that's fine too. But don't sit there feeling dejected because I didn't respond to your remarks that don't answer the thread question. Yes, the question was tacitly posed, but still, you're 70 year-old; it shouldn't have overtaxed your abilities to get from a statement to a question.
Hell, in your first post in that thread, you deigned to tell me with what consumer sub-groups certain firearms are popular. Why you did so is beyond me, for my OP made it clear that I already knew that semi-automatic rifles are popular. With whom they are popular is irrelevant to that thread's central question unless one/you show (credibly, not just your say-so) that the specific people or consumer sub-groups with whom they are popular are the people driving demand for item under consideration (in that thread's case, semi-automatic rifles).
"Semiautomatic" is a term used to describe a firing mechanism in which a single round is fired for each pull of the trigger and may describe rifles pistols or shotguns. They are popular with the military police hunters and competition shooters and have been for quite a long time. They are especially popular in handguns used by military police and defensive civilian carry weapons. They are popular shotguns for hunting rabbits waterfowl and upland birds and in rifles for hunting varmints squirrels hogs and deer.
Absent providing input that explains why folks are so fascinated with semi-automatic rifles, one might also have shown that the premise of the question -- that folks are fascinated with semi-automatic rifles -- is not true. Such a tack would be very difficult to credibly take, but it's an option and effectively showing the inaccuracy of the question's implicit premise does directly address the question.
Lastly, your notion of providing credible support for things and mine are clearly very different. I can sit here and attest to being an expert in the fields in which I am; however, insofar as I don't care to yield the freedom from professional controversy I here enjoy on account of my anonymity, I am not going to identify myself and point folks to my publications and achievements. Because I'm not going to offer anyone here a means for verifying my status as an expert in a few disciplines, when I'm assert something about a matter for which I am an expert, I nonetheless provide links to credible references rather than bidding readers to rely on my say-so. I do that because as an expert, it's no trouble at all for me to do so -- 30 seconds to a minute is all it takes because I know exactly what I'm looking for, the names of authors (researchers) who've written about the matter, etc. Truly, the majority of those few seconds is spent finding a document that's available in the public domain and that doesn't require one to purchase it.
Contrast that with what you did. You undertook to tell me about all your experience with guns and bid me to take your word for it.
I am about to be 70 y/o. I have hunted since the age of 12 And taken game with pretty much all types of weapons including bow and arrow,spear, flintlock and percussion muzzleloaders, single-shot, bolt action, pump, multi-barrel, and semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns. In the Army I qualified as expert with the M-16 rifle and also with the 1911A1 .45ACP pistol and as sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle. In Vietnam I carried the M-16A1 and .45 pistol into combat and survived. Later on I acted as training Sgt., range safety NCO, company armorer, and capt. of the rifle/pistol team Later as a civilian at various times I engaged in (low level) competition with archery equipment, muzzle loaders, smallbore and military rifle, and handguns..I have to think that I have a fairly well informed opinion concerning most subjects related to firearms and their use.
Quite simply, I cannot verify any of that. But I'm not insisting that you provide the means for me to do so. Documentary support published by other experts and that I can read will do just fine. Indeed, that approach, when well executed, can obviate the need for you (or anyone) to be a widely acknowledged expert. But here's the key: experts on "whatever" don't generally misconstrue what be the central question being asked and, in turn, answer a question that's not been asked. There is, however, one genre of sometimes-experts who do that: politicians.
