Taetsch Z-24 wrote:BAN ALL THINGS IN PLASTIC BOTTLES!
Not as bad of an idea as you think lol. Ban all things plastic and we'll no longer have to spend billions funding cancer research, and we can reduce unemployment by re-opening all the steel and paper mills in this country since they will once again be necessary
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:
I think we should have gun control like Switzerland dose.
Smartest thing you've said in a lon... nevermind.
But unfortunatly lack of education combined with lousy culture prevents it from being succesful here.
Think about it, we have people thinking we should bomb places who don't think like us. Not much different from a terr... nevermind, you get the picture.
I will say this... Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist, as he's dead after a conflict with a robber and a AK-47.
Attention ho wrote:Context, my man, context. That was a very different era, with a war that had just been fought by a general population organized into an impromptu army.
It's as valid as telling folks they need to have a good supply of salt to keep their meat fresh through the summer, or that screwing one's own slaves can lead to tan-skinned children that the neighbors giggle at. Using it as a way to ensure private gun ownership is "legal" today is lame. Such a right does not, and never did, need a Constitutional Amendment. It is inherent, just as is the right to own a home or car.
This.
so your a crimina,l a robber per your responce. a robber would mean by my definition, someone stealing and BREAKING THE LAW. so how would banning a weapon stop someone who is allready BREAKING THE LAW see that is the biggest flaw in people thoughts on banning guns, they think that if you ban guns, no one would have them. but sorry to burst anyones bubble. but if your a criminal who is robbing people your not going to give a damn that your breaking the law by having a gun. the only thing banning guns would do is take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the criminals won't give there guns up thats why they are criminals.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:the criminals won't give there guns up thats why they are criminals.
I really think this is all that needs to be said to cover 99% of gun debate.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
It's not even a "debate". A debate would requre each side to have a supportable position over an actual issue. Guns ain't it. This is a paper tiger, a non-issue, designed to split us into camps. And how well it works, how obedient we all are to our masters!
sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:
I think we should have gun control like Switzerland dose.
Smartest thing you've said in a lon... nevermind.
But unfortunately lack of education combined with lousy culture prevents it from being successful here.
Think about it, we have people thinking we should bomb places who don't think like us. Not much different from a terr... nevermind, you get the picture.
I will say this... Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist, as he's dead after a conflict with a robber and a AK-47.
Attention ho wrote:Context, my man, context. That was a very different era, with a war that had just been fought by a general population organized into an impromptu army.
It's as valid as telling folks they need to have a good supply of salt to keep their meat fresh through the summer, or that screwing one's own slaves can lead to tan-skinned children that the neighbors giggle at. Using it as a way to ensure private gun ownership is "legal" today is lame. Such a right does not, and never did, need a Constitutional Amendment. It is inherent, just as is the right to own a home or car.
This.
so your a crimina,l a robber per your responce. a robber would mean by my definition, someone stealing and BREAKING THE LAW. so how would banning a weapon stop someone who is allready BREAKING THE LAW see that is the biggest flaw in people thoughts on banning guns, they think that if you ban guns, no one would have them. but sorry to burst anyones bubble. but if your a criminal who is robbing people your not going to give a damn that your breaking the law by having a gun. the only thing banning guns would do is take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the criminals won't give there guns up thats why they are criminals.
No, I'm pretty clear that a robber is a person stealing other people's property. I think you got a bit enthusiastic and read one thing and thought something else. I didn't say ban weapons all together, I said
"Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist." Meaning if "assault weapon" or "heavy artillery" were banned the chances of the officer surviving the conflict with his bullet proof vest would have been greater, and possibly would still be protecting the streets.
At the rate we are going, law enforcement will be needing Robocop type armor to withstand unabiding civilians. When do we say it X weapon is sufficient enough for protection or do we really need to unload 100 rounds in 10 seconds?
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:
I think we should have gun control like Switzerland dose.
Smartest thing you've said in a lon... nevermind.
But unfortunately lack of education combined with lousy culture prevents it from being successful here.
Think about it, we have people thinking we should bomb places who don't think like us. Not much different from a terr... nevermind, you get the picture.
I will say this... Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist, as he's dead after a conflict with a robber and a AK-47.
Attention ho wrote:Context, my man, context. That was a very different era, with a war that had just been fought by a general population organized into an impromptu army.
It's as valid as telling folks they need to have a good supply of salt to keep their meat fresh through the summer, or that screwing one's own slaves can lead to tan-skinned children that the neighbors giggle at. Using it as a way to ensure private gun ownership is "legal" today is lame. Such a right does not, and never did, need a Constitutional Amendment. It is inherent, just as is the right to own a home or car.
This.
so your a crimina,l a robber per your responce. a robber would mean by my definition, someone stealing and BREAKING THE LAW. so how would banning a weapon stop someone who is allready BREAKING THE LAW see that is the biggest flaw in people thoughts on banning guns, they think that if you ban guns, no one would have them. but sorry to burst anyones bubble. but if your a criminal who is robbing people your not going to give a damn that your breaking the law by having a gun. the only thing banning guns would do is take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the criminals won't give there guns up thats why they are criminals.
No, I'm pretty clear that a robber is a person stealing other people's property. I think you got a bit enthusiastic and read one thing and thought something else. I didn't say ban weapons all together, I said "Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist." Meaning if "assault weapon" or "heavy artillery" were banned the chances of the officer surviving the conflict with his bullet proof vest would have been greater, and possibly would still be protecting the streets.
At the rate we are going, law enforcement will be needing Robocop type armor to withstand unabiding civilians. When do we say it X weapon is sufficient enough for protection or do we really need to unload 100 rounds in 10 seconds?
and again you seem to think that if something was against the law then a CRIMINAL WOULDNT HAVE THE GUN? and your wrong on that. this is why they are criminals. putting a ban on assault rifles won't mean a damn thing to a guy who is willing to shoot a cop. he doesnt care. thats why he is the worthless piece of crap that he is. a ban on that is worthless because CRIMINALS DONT OBEY THE LAW.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
I am not a proponent either way, but I believe what he is saying is that the odds of particularly dangerous guns even being in the supply chain are greatly lessened if they are made illegal. This works two ways:
1. Less are manufactured, so less can fall into the hands of criminals.
2. Weapons charges, where such illegal weapons are found in residences and in vehicles, reduce both the number of such guns in circulation, as well as act as a significant deterrent to those who might consider acquiring one. Weapons charges carry very heavy sentences, and are much more common than armed shooting crimes.
^Valid pont.
sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:
I think we should have gun control like Switzerland dose.
Smartest thing you've said in a lon... nevermind.
But unfortunately lack of education combined with lousy culture prevents it from being successful here.
Think about it, we have people thinking we should bomb places who don't think like us. Not much different from a terr... nevermind, you get the picture.
I will say this... Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist, as he's dead after a conflict with a robber and a AK-47.
Attention ho wrote:Context, my man, context. That was a very different era, with a war that had just been fought by a general population organized into an impromptu army.
It's as valid as telling folks they need to have a good supply of salt to keep their meat fresh through the summer, or that screwing one's own slaves can lead to tan-skinned children that the neighbors giggle at. Using it as a way to ensure private gun ownership is "legal" today is lame. Such a right does not, and never did, need a Constitutional Amendment. It is inherent, just as is the right to own a home or car.
This.
so your a crimina,l a robber per your responce. a robber would mean by my definition, someone stealing and BREAKING THE LAW. so how would banning a weapon stop someone who is allready BREAKING THE LAW see that is the biggest flaw in people thoughts on banning guns, they think that if you ban guns, no one would have them. but sorry to burst anyones bubble. but if your a criminal who is robbing people your not going to give a damn that your breaking the law by having a gun. the only thing banning guns would do is take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the criminals won't give there guns up thats why they are criminals.
No, I'm pretty clear that a robber is a person stealing other people's property. I think you got a bit enthusiastic and read one thing and thought something else. I didn't say ban weapons all together, I said "Ask my neighbor's police partner what type of gun control should exist." Meaning if "assault weapon" or "heavy artillery" were banned the chances of the officer surviving the conflict with his bullet proof vest would have been greater, and possibly would still be protecting the streets.
At the rate we are going, law enforcement will be needing Robocop type armor to withstand unabiding civilians. When do we say it X weapon is sufficient enough for protection or do we really need to unload 100 rounds in 10 seconds?
and again you seem to think that if something was against the law then a CRIMINAL WOULDNT HAVE THE GUN? and your wrong on that. this is why they are criminals. putting a ban on assault rifles won't mean a damn thing to a guy who is willing to shoot a cop. he doesnt care. thats why he is the worthless piece of crap that he is. a ban on that is worthless because CRIMINALS DONT OBEY THE LAW.
Just read what I wrote again, infact I will highlight where (I) stand. What some of you want the right to own bazookas, Rambo style machine guns, tanks. That's when you know you are not looking personal security, but looking for the same rights as active a military personnel.
And please no one give me your extremist view that our government will attack us so we need protection.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
You know, banning these assault style weapons will just create a lucrative black-market for it. Just like prohibition, if you ban it, it instantly becomes a cash crop for gangs. More violence, more gang wars, more crime, more officers getting shot with AK-47's. See the domino effect here?
I don't think you really are applying the basic principles of supply and demand, nor considering the severity of weapons charge sentences as a deterrent.
In the former, if there's not a large market, the gun manufacturers will turn their efforts elsewhere, to guns they can produce in larger numbers.
In the latter, illegal weapon possession can get you as much time as manslaughter in some states. That's going to be on the minds of all but the most virulant criminals, who are very few.
it would be a long long time before you tried to get all those weapons off the street. even if production stops people woule find a way around it. people always do. what would you do. go around taking them from people who allready bought them when they were legal? would be like making the cavaliers illegal and assuming they will all go away. heck they have not been sold for a few years now and i still see them all over the place. not to mention the people that can take the legal guns and modify them to meet illegal means.
id guess that only maybe 10% of guns owned are for personal defense, the rest are to just take to the shooting range or out back on your property and enjoy shooting cans or targets etc etc etc. does anyone need an automatic assault rifle? no, just like nobody needs a car with 1000hp. but we do it anyway for our enjoyement.
id bet that more people are killed by cars breaking the speed limit every year then people killed by automatic assault rifles. heck i almost never hear of crimes being commited by assautl weapons. its usually just low grade weapons you hear about 90% of the time.
bill i dont think a crimanal who has killed a cop is going to care how harsh crimes are for illegal gun use.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Well, heh. No solution is
ever truly and completely retroactive.
Were we to make every decision in life based upon this aspect, we'd never make ANY decisions. That's just basic logic...we can't tun back time, or change the past. We can only affect the present and future.
Defeating Nazi Germany did not erase WWII. But it did pave the way for a brighter future. So it goes with getting particularly dangerous weapons out of circulation.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:13 PM
but id bet more people die in speed limit breaking accidents then die by assault rifle. if that was the case should we ban any car that can go over the speed limit? or should we just have harsh penalties for those that break the law.
to me it seems if 1,000,000 people are using an object, and 95% of the people can use them without any issue or without breaking the law doesnt it make more sence to punish those that break the law instead of taking the entire thing away and ruining it for 95 % of the people because 5% are idiots. if you went by that logic wouldnt we have to ban just about everything in the world. cars, plane,s boats, guns, bows, hammers, etc. etc. etc.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:but id bet more people die in speed limit breaking accidents then die by assault rifle. if that was the case should we ban any car that can go over the speed limit? or should we just have harsh penalties for those that break the law.
to me it seems if 1,000,000 people are using an object, and 95% of the people can use them without any issue or without breaking the law doesnt it make more sence to punish those that break the law instead of taking the entire thing away and ruining it for 95 % of the people because 5% are idiots. if you went by that logic wouldnt we have to ban just about everything in the world. cars, plane,s boats, guns, bows, hammers, etc. etc. etc.
I bet someone has been stabbed with a pencil before... Let's ban those too! I'm sure the educational system would improve ten-fold lol.
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
sndsgood wrote:but id bet more people die in speed limit breaking accidents then die by assault rifle. if that was the case should we ban any car that can go over the speed limit? or should we just have harsh penalties for those that break the law.
to me it seems if 1,000,000 people are using an object, and 95% of the people can use them without any issue or without breaking the law doesnt it make more sence to punish those that break the law instead of taking the entire thing away and ruining it for 95 % of the people because 5% are idiots. if you went by that logic wouldnt we have to ban just about everything in the world. cars, plane,s boats, guns, bows, hammers, etc. etc. etc.
Don't bet on it...electronically governed speed limits are not that far away, in my opinion. All the technology exists to implement it right now, and you make a good case for it
While you might like to generalize and lump a weapon (which of course, unlike a car, is designed ONLY to inflict injury and/or kill) in a group of other consumer goods whose purposes are much less sinister, it doesn't hold water. I doubt many people could deny this basic logic.
As Goodwrench mentioned, there does need to be a threshold that stops civilians from having access to military-type weaponry, and it has to start somewhere, at some level. Extremely powerful semi-auto rifles that serve no useful civilian purpose is a good place to start. And please...don't tell me they are justifiable for hunting. Please. It's a DEER. You want a fair fight? Use a goddam BOW and ARROW!
Handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns are one thing. Sniper weaponry is off the page for civilian use. So yes, while I stated earlier that I do not really have a position on gun control (by the way, I own a couple of handguns and a .22 rifle), I do acknowledge that a Mini 14 with a 30-shot clip is just wrong for the average Joe. No matter how fast he likes to fill a paper target with lead. No matter how heartfelt his feeling of a "well armed militia" is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:50 PM
sndsgood wrote:bill i dont think a crimanal who has killed a cop is going to care how harsh crimes are for illegal gun use.
I don't think you undertand fully the criminal psyche. Criminals are risk-takers. The essential aspect of risk-taking is assessing the severity of the risk, and then acting on one's analysis of the situation. To simply presume that all criminals are suicidal completely misses this point.
Criminals also wish to succeed. Being sent up the river for just possessing an illegal weapon is, to them, an abject failure. So, most of them who are as smart and able to conduct their lives calculating risks as you and I, will simply find weapons that can suffice without the huge penalty. They'll adapt to the situation at hand. They don't want to go to jail either, and reducing thir exposure is a great place to start.
Sure, there's a very small percentage of them that are flat-out nuts, and care nothing for the above. But, despite the persuasions of Hollywood and TV, they are much smaller in number than many realize. Most of these type actually die by misadventure anyway, thus sel-eliminating the problem.
Oh, and I forgot to add...most criminals aren't about to use a high-powered semi-auto rifle in the comission of a typical crime anyway. Far too cumbersome, and if one did encounter a cop, he'd be full of .38 slugs before he could finish raising the rifle to his shoulder. No, shooting from the hip won't do....again, Hollywood!
So why ban them at all then? Well, as mentioned, there is that threshold we need to establish were civilan-appropriate weapons end, and military-style weapons begin. Not to mention, we do get the occasional whacko who like to play sniper. Drug cartels also like badass weapons to intimidate, and also engage in military-style warfare with one another, Cop-killing is really the least likely use of a high-powered semi-auto rifle.
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Don't bet on it...electronically governed speed limits are not that far away, in my opinion. All the technology exists to implement it right now, and you make a good case for it
While you might like to generalize and lump a weapon (which of course, unlike a car, is designed ONLY to inflict injury and/or kill) in a group of other consumer goods whose purposes are much less sinister, it doesn't hold water. I doubt many people could deny this basic logic.
As Goodwrench mentioned, there does need to be a threshold that stops civilians from having access to military-type weaponry, and it has to start somewhere, at some level. Extremely powerful semi-auto rifles that serve no useful civilian purpose is a good place to start. And please...don't tell me they are justifiable for hunting. Please. It's a DEER. You want a fair fight? Use a goddam BOW and ARROW!
Handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns are one thing. Sniper weaponry is off the page for civilian use. So yes, while I stated earlier that I do not really have a position on gun control (by the way, I own a couple of handguns and a .22 rifle), I do acknowledge that a Mini 14 with a 30-shot clip is just wrong for the average Joe. No matter how fast he likes to fill a paper target with lead. No matter how heartfelt his feeling of a "well armed militia" is.
Something like 90% of traffic accidents occur below the speed limit. And fatalities usually involve pedestrians, where speed probably doesn't matter once you're past 35 or so...
I think the point Jason is trying to make is that criminals are going to commit the crime regardless of whether they have access to the AK or not. Like you said, a handgun is usually more appropriate for the crime anyway. So why outlaw the AK? You say we need to set boundaries somewhere, but then you point out it probably won't make a difference...
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Indeed. Jason, please take heed of NOTEC's observation on auto accidents. They are not truly comparable to the discussion at hand.
NOTEC: Actually, I said that it's a waste of time using the behavior of a criminal in the commission of a typical crime as a justification for, OR against, controlling high-powered semi-auto rifles. Like auto accidents, there's little direct correlation. Outlawing the AK and similar weapons is about that threshold I described earlier. Military-style weapons of high-fatality capability are not appropriate for civilian possession. That's why they've been outlawed.
Jason's point appeared to be that, in his estimation, criminals are not going to care how harsh the penalty is for having such an illegal weapon. I did not agree, and I laid out my rationale for saying so. If I misread his intention, he should set me straight.
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Indeed. Jason, please take heed of NOTEC's observation on auto accidents. They are not truly comparable to the discussion at hand.
Actually, I think they are entirely comparable. If 99% of crime is NOT committed with such and such firearm, why outlaw it?
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Outlawing the AK and similar weapons is about that threshold I described earlier. Military-style weapons of high-fatality capability are not appropriate for civilian possession. That's why they've been outlawed.
But, if they're not appropriate for criminal possession either (as you said, not suited for most crimes), why outlaw them?
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
OHV notec wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:BAN ALL THINGS IN PLASTIC BOTTLES!
Not as bad of an idea as you think lol. Ban all things plastic and we'll no longer have to spend billions funding cancer research, and we can reduce unemployment by re-opening all the steel and paper mills in this country since they will once again be necessary
Yes... that is a good Idea.
-----------------------------BREAK------------------------------------------
How about this....
F UCKING ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE?
Oh, and if the criminals have real, no @!#$ AK-47's, ya know one that does go full auto, why make it harder for me to buy a civie version of an AR15/M4?
OHHHH Because the the power is not in just the govies hands....
maybe that was the point of the 2nd Amendment.....
Shall not be infringed.
To bad it already has to a point.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
OHV notec wrote:Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Indeed. Jason, please take heed of NOTEC's observation on auto accidents. They are not truly comparable to the discussion at hand.
Actually, I think they are entirely comparable. If 99% of crime is NOT committed with such and such firearm, why outlaw it?
Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Outlawing the AK and similar weapons is about that threshold I described earlier. Military-style weapons of high-fatality capability are not appropriate for civilian possession. That's why they've been outlawed.
But, if they're not appropriate for criminal possession either (as you said, not suited for most crimes), why outlaw them?
Hmm. We seem to be retracing steps here. One more time:
Because a threshold point must be determined in terms of what weapons civilians should be allowed to possess, and this makes sense. Thus, everything more lethal than it is military only, and everything less lethal is OK for civilian purpose of self-defense, hunting, or target practice.
Do you think there is a justifiable case for civilians to own military-type lethal firepower, such as a high-powered semi-auto rifle, machine gun, grenade launcher, or a rocket launcher (arranged in order of lethality)? If so, why?
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Oh, and if the criminals have real, no @!#$ AK-47's, ya know one that does go full auto, why make it harder for me to buy a civie version of an AR15/M4?
Time out. Are you actually telling me you anticipate needing to engage in a firefight with an criminal that has an AK? You really see that as a likely scenario? Come on...please tell me you are kidding...
Do you have a FULLY CHARGED FIRE EXTINGUISHER?
Are you PLANING ON HAVING A FIRE IN YOUR HOUSE?
Truth is that the criminals already have them, I on the other hand want a M4 because that is what I was issued. And I enjoy the shooting sports. But I should not have to have a reason to have a M4?
I want it, I can have it. So why hinder me in getting it?
So I ask again, why make it harder for myself to buy a legal gun, when the ones breaking the laws, are already breaking the laws, ergo, they don't care what laws there are, and will do it anyway?
Quote:
Because a threshold point must be determined in terms of what weapons civilians should be allowed to possess, and this makes sense.
This was done with the 32/38 gun control that the US Supreme court passed.... or rather there interpretation of the 2nd amendment.... but if you read them.. they kinda contradict each other....
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
