pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Why do people try to compare guns to other devices not designed to kill? They're kind of a special case I think...
Are they designed to kill or protect?
pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Why do people try to compare guns to other devices not designed to kill? They're kind of a special case I think...
Are they designed to kill or protect?
N Sperlo wrote:pres589 wrote: In reply to rotard: Which is why the last guy to do this in the USA did it will all legal weapons, right?Because someone uses a car to kill 30 people by running them over, none if you can buy cars now.
In reply to pres589:
This will help you out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
This may also be useful to you in future discussions. http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Sarcastic
N Sperlo wrote:pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Why do people try to compare guns to other devices not designed to kill? They're kind of a special case I think...Are they designed to kill or protect?
Both? Can't they do both? It's hard for most of the anti-gun fanatics to truely understand that.
In reply to Conquest351:
I was planning on linking that picture. Thanks. 
pres589 wrote: In reply to Conquest351: Why do people try to compare guns to other devices not designed to kill? They're kind of a special case I think...
Since it seems to be idiots that propose the ludicrous legislations you sometimes have to work hard to make them understand.
Keep in mind this is an election year. Politicians will propose all kinds of things they don't really mean just to buy votes. Just think of this as the silly season for politicians.
Conquest351 wrote:
That's it. Ban all bicycles!!!!
(I know someone locally who used to race spec miata. He hasn't been active since he broke his knee mountain biking.)
In reply to rotard:
So let me get this straight. The argument is "they'll just go for illegal guns", and when someone asks why the person in question didn't go ahead and do that this time (I mean, the guy had four guns on him / in the car, right?), I get told my question is a fallacy? And then told I need to study sarcasm.
It's cute but you're still avoiding the question. If his goal was mass destruction, and you're saying the "next guy" will go for illegal guns, why didn't this guy? I have a one-word theory; "convenience".
rotard wrote: The problem with these kinds of laws is that the type of person that is going into a movie theater to kill people isn't interested in any laws.
Exactly.
The term "knee-jerk reaction" comes to mind....
In reply to 1988RedT2:
When would it be appropriate for this to get proposed then? Do you think this has a better chance of passing during a relative lull in high profile shootings in the USA?
I wonder how much the price of high capacity magazines are going to jump?
In reply to pres589:
I understand your points, man. You pose some relivent concerns. Yes, there is the convenience factor of having an AR15 sitting at the house vs. having to go to the bad part of town and pick up a Mac-10. Either way, here's my point... If he was hell bent on doing it, he would have found a way to do it. Be it by home made explosives, throwing gasoline all over people and lighting them on fire, running around with a machette and hacking away, etc. People who snap and loose it are going to do whatever they want, however they can. Placing restrictions on anything isn't going to change it. It doesn't matter to them if their means are illegal or not.
Let me put it to you this way...
If there was a person there with a CHL and they shot this guy dead, would this even be an issue? Say the guy got up on the stage and there were 3 guys in the front row with handguns and they filled this shiny happy person full of holes, would this have even happened? Would they be praised as heroes or looked upon as criminals?
Chris Rock wrote: Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. berkeley, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your berkeleying head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'
PHeller wrote:Chris Rock wrote: Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. berkeley, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your berkeleying head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'
Yup, had that going through my head too. LOL
The danger to saying "if people in the theater had guns, this wouldn't have happened" is a bit saying "if every nation in the world had nukes, there wouldn't be any war."
No, the kid would have just suited up in full body armor, brought bigger guns, more ammo, and killed more people.
You really want to go to a movie wearing a bullet proof vest? me either.
I don't agree with the argument that these awkward violent kids would find another way of killing people. J. Holmes wouldn't have gone to the bad part of town to buy guns because the dealers he'd buy from would think he's geeky as hell and probably rob him.
Your never going to be able to stop gun violence, your right. Angry husbands will kill their wives and her lover, thug kids will shoot each other of lost love, dealers will shoot eachother up over turf wars.
What SMART regulation will do is keep awkward geeky angsty anti-social kids from shooting up their school or the public, because being anti-social doesn't lend itself to the criminal underworld and the bad part of town.
PHeller wrote: The danger to saying "if people in the theater had guns, this wouldn't have happened" is a bit saying "if every nation in the world had nukes, there wouldn't be any war." No, the kid would have just suited up in full body armor, brought bigger guns, more ammo, and killed more people. You really want to go to a movie wearing a bullet proof vest? me either.
I'm wearing one now in 100 degree heat. You get used to it. I go to the movies packing a 45. Would I have shot that motherberkeleyer? Maybe. Depends on weather my lungs were full of teargas and I could see or not.
PHeller wrote: The danger to saying "if people in the theater had guns, this wouldn't have happened" is a bit saying "if every nation in the world had nukes, there wouldn't be any war." No, the kid would have just suited up in full body armor, brought bigger guns, more ammo, and killed more people. You really want to go to a movie wearing a bullet proof vest? me either.
Would you go around robbing people if you knew everyone had a weapon and was trained in it's use? An armed society is a polite society. Again, there will never be a universally accepted solution to this problem. There will always be someone who doesn't like how things are.
Otto Maddox wrote: Since we will hear all the same tired arguments repeated endlessly - The four most meaningless arguments against gun control
I see your opinion piece from a comedy site, and I'll raise with an opinion piece from a liberal blog site:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliyahu-federman/gun-laws-drug-laws-arent-_b_1692542.html
In reply to Conquest351:
You're acting like theft is the most rational path to keeping the bills paid. And there are some parts of this nation that are highly armed and I wouldn't begin to describe them as "polite".
Conquest351 wrote: Would you go around robbing people if you knew everyone had a weapon and was trained in it's use? An armed society is a polite society. Again, there will never be a universally accepted solution to this problem. There will always be someone who doesn't like how things are.
Simple. I wouldn't bother myself with your small caliber handgun because i'd be wearing plate armor, flack helmet, and carrying a .50 machine gun.
IT ABSOLUTELY ABSURD to think you can outgun someone. YOU CANT. There will always be someone who has a bigger gun.
Take the North Hollywood Shootout, its a perfect example of this. The police force was very ill-equipped to deal with two guys who were well equipped. The guys weren't even all that elaborate in their equipment. They just wore lots of armor, had decent guns, and had drugs to make them last longer.
If someone wanted to recreate that scene, they easily could. I can read WikiPedia and see where Phillips and Mătăsăreanu went wrong.
You can look at so many different examples where law enforcement or even military tried to meet force with force, and in most cases, innocent people die.
You can't keep bad, well connected, ex-military, rich, cultish, terroristic people from getting ahold of weapons, you can keep awkward anti-social kids from getting ahold of them.
pres589 wrote: In reply to Grizz: I thought the ATF existed to enforce these sorts of things.
LOL.....the ATF.
They can't even prevent themselves from being caught selling to drug cartels.....they won't be able to stop shops or gun show sales either(it'll be all "Under the Table" anyways)
This is not new, it is indeed the same arguement gun owners have become used to. Standard and higher capacity magazines have a practical application, mainly for shooting sports. Anyone ever try a 3 gun course with a maximum of 10rds per magazine? Makes it alot slower and more room for error.
People kill people, whether they're using guns, knives, cars, sticks, bats, stones, poison, etc......people are the blame, not the weapons they use.
In reply to pres589:
And the majority of the population in those parts most likely have long CRIMINAL records, most of which include felonies, which prevent you from owning a firearm anyway. Again, your comparing law abiding citizens with CRIMINALS!!!
In reply to PHeller:
So you're going to stick someone up at a convenience store with a Browning M2? Ok. Have fun with that. That argument is absolutely as absurd as thinking me, Brian, can outgun the US army. That's what you're implying. Anyway, I'm trying to be as civil as I can about this, but that point you just made is so far out in left field it's insane.
The North Hollywood Shootout, this is the most famous reason people want to ban firearms, extended mags, blah blah blah. Here we go again comparing law abiding citizens with CRIMINALS who don't give a E36 M3 about what the law says. They had fully automatic weapons. The police had pistols and shotguns, both short range weapons. Once they got their hands on some rifles, they leveled the playing field. Now guess what, all law enforcement officers have an assault rifle and shotgun in their vehicles for just such an occasion.
In reply to yamaha:
You can comment on their effectiveness, I'm commenting on who I thought was responsible, and I got agreement from others in the discussion.
If they're not the responsible government body that would enforce this, who would? Local law enforcement only? Federal agent activity doesn't seem appropriate here...
"knives, cars, sticks, bats"... yeah, a lot of people have murdered others in rapid succession with a stick. That's exactly the kind of response that earns people arguing against limiting the capacity of magazines the label of "gun nut". It's the talk of cult members, not rational individuals hoping for a discussion about a serious issue.
You'll need to log in to post.
