14 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeGood thoughts....
They wear out, run out of ammo, get found.
Banning them (or at the very least making them much harder to acquire and much better regulated)
is step one on a long road to fixing the problem.
It wont get rid of the problem overnight, or even over a decade or three. And it wont solve the problem
on it's own either.
But that is not an argument f ...[text shortened]... mething doesn't have to be a magic panacea that solves everything in one go to be worth doing.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisAnything can be used to kill another human being CP. I could bludgeon someone to death with my coffee mug, but that it is not what it was designed for. A gun though has one single purpose, and that is to kill or maim.
Where was the public outcry to ban passenger flights after 911 happened?
This is how ridiculous gun control arguments are IMO.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisNo, but there sure as hell was a ban on things they could bring onto planes that would enable them to kill everyone on the flight.
Where was the public outcry to ban passenger flights after 911 happened?
This is how ridiculous gun control arguments are IMO.
In other words, there was an outcry to more properly regulate passenger flights in order to make them more safe.
The vast majority of people are not crying to ban all guns, just to more properly regulate the access to them.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobA gun can also defend, protect and secure. If it wasn't for guns, tyrants would have ruled the world for the last 200 years.
Anything can be used to kill another human being CP. I could bludgeon someone to death with my coffee mug, but that it is not what it was designed for. A gun though has one single purpose, and that is to kill or maim.
The real problem is people. Obviously shooters of this kind are mentally ill.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisFalse equivalence. (among other glaring errors)
Where was the public outcry to ban passenger flights after 911 happened?
This is how ridiculous gun control arguments are IMO.
Jet airliners primary purpose is to move people/goods around the world rapidly.
They form an essential part of our modern world/economy.
And we have taken great steps since then to make hijacking one and using it as a weapon MUCH harder.
Hand guns/automatic rifles on the other hand are designed for killing people, and doing so with great ease.
And as killing people should generally be made as hard as possible in any civilised society, access to these
weapons should be very heavily controlled/restricted.
More people died in the aftermath of 911 in car accidents (over the expected number for that period) than died
in the incident itself because people drove rather than fly.
Moving people around in aircraft is safer than moving people by car (or walking/cycling/going on the bus).
So no, no rational people called for banning flights after 911.
This doesn't mean that arguing for restrictions on access to assault rifles is ridiculous.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisAnd mentally ill people shouldn't therefore have access to guns.
A gun can also defend, protect and secure. If it wasn't for guns, tyrants would have ruled the world for the last 200 years.
The real problem is people. Obviously shooters of this kind are mentally ill.
Guns should thus be restricted to people who pass a sanity test and have a legitimate need to have them.
And they should be registered and required to meet minimum standards of training and have adequate security...
ect ect ect.
Also what planet do you live on where you think that if we didn't have guns tyrants would have ruled the world for
the last 200 years?
Originally posted by ChessPraxisA gun can also defend, protect and secure. If it wasn't for guns, tyrants would have ruled the world for the last 200 years.
A gun can also defend, protect and secure. If it wasn't for guns, tyrants would have ruled the world for the last 200 years.
The real problem is people. Obviously shooters of this kind are mentally ill.
The real problem is people. Obviously shooters of this kind are mentally ill.
But then if the real problem, as opposed to guns and their availability, is people then conversely your claim "A gun can also defend, protect and secure" is in error! Indeed it should read "A person can defend, protect, and secure". Guns, when activated, do only one thing and that's put nasty holes in things (usually people).
Nobody is pointing the blame away from the psychopaths going round shooting people; we're just saying it should be made a hell of a lot more difficult for them to go round shooting people - making guns difficult to acquire is a good way of doing that.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisA gun does defend, protect, and secure but it is able to do that because it carries the threat of death or maiming. Which is it's sole purpose.
A gun can also defend, protect and secure. If it wasn't for guns, tyrants would have ruled the world for the last 200 years.
The real problem is people. Obviously shooters of this kind are mentally ill.
Guns have defeated tyrants, but when they have they've been in the hands of trained professionals. Not you're average Joe Shmo on the street.
I agree with you on the mentally ill part, i think it's quite apparent this individual has had some sort of breakdown. The question then is, how easy should it be for people who are mentally ill to have access to firearms?
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgePlanet Earth, something called history.
And mentally ill people shouldn't therefore have access to guns.
Guns should thus be restricted to people who pass a sanity test and have a legitimate need to have them.
And they should be registered and required to meet minimum standards of training and have adequate security...
ect ect ect.
Also what planet do you live on where you think that if we didn't have guns tyrants would have ruled the world for
the last 200 years?
I learned about it in a big building, called a school.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobAgreed
A gun does defend, protect, and secure but it is able to do that because it carries the threat of death or maiming. Which is it's sole purpose.
Guns have defeated tyrants, but when they have they've been in the hands of trained professionals. Not you're average Joe Shmo on the street.
I agree with you on the mentally ill part, i think it's quite ap ...[text shortened]... n then is, how easy should it be for people who are mentally ill to have access to firearms?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeFactor in another few decades for the young generations being exposed to massacres every few years to grow up, and for the cold, dead hands to die off, and we will have gun control in the US. There may also be changes in technology that make massacres less feasible.
They wear out, run out of ammo, get found.
Banning them (or at the very least making them much harder to acquire and much better regulated)
is step one on a long road to fixing the problem.
It wont get rid of the problem overnight, or even over a decade or three. And it wont solve the problem
on it's own either.
But that is not an argument f ...[text shortened]... mething doesn't have to be a magic panacea that solves everything in one go to be worth doing.
14 Dec 12
Many here probably did not hear this on their news but just a few days before the young man went into the Mall here in Portland and did his deed in his killing spree, two youg men approached a lady getting into her truck and attempted to rob her.
They backed off and ran but the one did have a gun. The other kept yelling at the other one with the gun to "shoot her" over and over. Fortunently he didn't.
These young men were 9 & 11 years old.
14 Dec 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisThat's news to me CP. I thought if you were of sound mind and good
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ct-school-shooter-made-combat-weapon-article-1.1220431
I agree sir, but since the debate is out there, here are some early reports of at least one of the weapons involved. They simply say a .223 cal weapon, which can be an M16, AR15, CAR15, Ruger Mini14, or other weapons.The reports of 100 rnds being discharged ...[text shortened]... to tell me at least, that simply outlawing guns won't stop people from owning, or buying them.
character you could own any type of gun in the USA.
The commercials in the magazines show all kinds of weapons for sale,
not just pistols shotguns and hunting rifles.
According to the magazines you can buy machine guns as well.
Is this not so?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyDepends where in the USA.
That's news to me CP. I thought if you were of sound mind and good
character you could own any type of gun in the USA.
The commercials in the magazines show all kinds of weapons for sale,
not just pistols shotguns and hunting rifles.
According to the magazines you can buy machine guns as well.
Is this not so?
The USA has a lot more state laws rather than federal laws than most countries.
Which is less surprising given that most states are the size of countries...
if sparsely populated ones for the main.