If someone is willing to kill dozens of people, why would a gun ban or laws against guns keep them from illegally accessing a gun and killing people anyways?
What DO you want to call them? Yeah they currently don't have enough power over us. They also don't have swords now. I wonder how el judoka feels about that? Not in my backyard? The above comments are (not very) witty joke responses. This one I'd like to expand on. I see the right to self defense falling under the right to life and pursuit of happiness. It isn't gun rights vs life rights.
http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showpost.php?p=7068379&postcount=311 Also re-read arno_ed's post about this. He lives in the Netherlands. I have an uncle that has lived in the UK for the last 30 years and he just laughs at how inept our gun laws are over here.
Until I see you engage someone in a MEANINGFUL discussion without getting wrapped up in semantics or your other technical terms (yet you are oblivious to what standard deviation is, LOL), there is no point of debating you. You are just trolling and trolling hard. But we will start with the question that about 20 posters have asked you and you have YET to answer: Why would any private citizen need to own an assault rifle?
ug, whatever that was a typo. I will address need here instead of want. I'm also not getting wrapped up in terms, people said they want to ban something, I asked what that something was, I got completely different answers and completely different (opposing) reasons. I really thought they would self reflect on either their opinion or the reasoning behind their opinion. Short answer: self defense Long answer: Education so you don't claim I am bogging down in semantics and we can discuss: Spoiler An assault rifle is fully automatic (often called a machine gun) rifle in a small caliber. They are regulated by the NFA act of 1934. There do exist semi-automatic versions of these. They are treated as a Title 1 firearm by the BATFE. They "look" like assault rifles, but are not. These civilian semi-automatic rifles are made from day one for reliability, weight, accuracy, modularity, ease of using optics, etc. In other words, tons of benefits over older guns designed pre-WWII. Military type Mauser action rifles evolved in to highly regarded Weatherby rifles, their R&D was paid for by the government to create a superior machine. So lets take it as a given that they are better in terms of optics, weight, reliability, recoil, accuracy. With this in mind any person who wants the best for their protection would only naturally want the best. Why not give them the best? Arguments thus far has been: Spoiler ---the advantage to the lawful person is outweighed by the advantage for the criminal This latest event used a rifle in combination with a pistol. VTech didn't (9mm,22LR) columbine didn't (12gauge, 9mm) Luby's massacre didn't (9mm). So that just isn't logical reasoning. Also statistically, these expensive semi-auto rifles, are VERY RARELY EVER used in any crime or homicide. So I think the argument against them being legal is weak at best. Meaning, their danger to society is massively overstated in both theoretical and practical (actual) reasons. The argument for them is not. It is obviously not a weapon one would carry, but at home, there are many advantages. Like I said before most CQB guys use rifle cartridges. Now, I view what you are calling "right to own a gun" as the "right to life and pursuit of happiness" Guns are the best self defense tool currently available in a live or incapacitate the person trying to kill you situation. Prefer to have a right vs right discussion. TIA.
I'd love to see a venn diagram of the people who argued against the term death panel in health care debates and then used the term assault weapon or assault rifle in gun control debates. "Well technically, there is no such thing as a death panel, it is a made up buzz word" "Semantics!" LMAO
^ Well, that's an improvement over some of your discussions in this thread. However, I am still not convinced that owning an assault rifle is going to significantly help you if an intruder comes into your house. A simple handgun or pistol aimed at the intruder would probably suffice. And as SamFisher said in an earlier post, this scenario where a crazy is pumping round after round and some bystander, who is armed, takes him down just will not happen. Maybe in "Die Hard" or other action movies like that, but not in real life. I just think it is overkill. It is like requiring a Ferrari to get you where you want to go instead of just settling for something else like a Ford or Chevy. Maybe that is the problem - you obviously have an affection for guns and knowledge of them and I guess I can see why you would want the "top of the line" model. Hell, if I had the cash and could afford the insurance, I would want the Ford Shelby GT500 coupe instead of the Mustang V6 Premium coupe that I drive. But the problem, Casey, is that I have no guarantee that you are a responsible gun owner. I know you lost your guns and I would not think of you as someone who would want to shoot people. But what if you had the life I had in the last 5 years: Marriage of 5 plus years ends in divorce 3 year old son is only seen by me 80 days a year Lost a job and went unemployed for 6 months Had to start a new career (education) and after my first year of teaching, was told that my position had been eliminated due to budget reasons Currently unemployed as of now and living with my parents Nearly died over 2 months ago in a bad car accident and having to go to outpatient physical therapy 3 times a week Just recently refilled my antidepressant medication of Lexapro as I discovered that my serotonin levels will never be normal If anybody has a right to be mad at the world, it is me, buddy. Yet I am glad to be alive and I praise God every day that he decided that May 15 wasn't my time to go. But I also have never owned a gun and never will. This Holmes guy snapped over something a lot less than what I went through. Now I don't tell you this to get sympathy points but to explain to you that people in today's world have problems. I have thought about what I might do if I owned a gun. Let's just say I am glad I don't own one. But as humans, we all have our breaking points. I use my faith, the best I can, to help me through. But not everybody is like me. So my point of this rambling is that a gun is far too easy to obtain and by the wrong people. Maybe it was you that mentioned mental health, but whoever said it is onto something. But I believe that if you take away the destructive things or devices, it would be more effective than anything else you do. Yea, I know I am an extremist and this would never happen. But there has to be something that can meet in the middle here - even if that just means banning only assault rifles or something else.
Oh and in my rambling, I didn't address your request on "rights". As I said before, I can see the need to own a gun if you live in a high crime/dangerous area (but only a handgun, pistol, or rifle). But as the father of a 3 year old, it is very disconcerting that I would have to worry about some crazy opening fire on him in a public place (and for the record, I would not have him go to a late movie but I can't speak for his mother, LOL). Sorry but my right to expect to be safe trumps the right of some nut who wants to be "God". There's a saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch well it is the Chos and Holmes in the world that spoils it for the responsible gun owners.
Let's agree you are not an expert and that the experts all prefer rifle cartriges (although in NFA configurations) over handguns. I don't think his psychosis is based on personal tragedies but general mental health.
There's no doubt that you are an expert on this, lol and please don't think I ever claimed to be one. As I said before, I have never owned a gun and don't plan on it. But once again, why would you need something so powerful to accomplish a simple task as getting rid of an intruder? It just makes no sense to me. You do know that depression is a mental illness, right? Surely, you didn't gloss over in my one post about my below average serotonin levels. But yet, I didn't go out and buy a gun when I found out I lost my teaching job. I was pretty damn depressed about it, no doubt but not to the point of blowing anybody away. Any way, interesting article on Holmes as it says he bought his assault rifle the day he failed a key oral exam in his neuroscience doctoral program. Sorta sounds like a personal tragedy to me, doncha think? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...sault-rifle-day-failed-exam-article-1.1121463
I think when you argue life vs life, you weigh the benefits and costs. You feeling more at ease with less guns is weighed against a small girl who feels more scared WITHOUT her gun. Statistically, your fear for your child over guns is REALLY far down the list of dangers.
You basically said it before, it is the Ferrari instead of a Focus. If your life depended on winning a single race you would take the Ferrari every time. One man's overkill is another's "more effective". If it improves your chances of living even a small amount, there better be a REALLY substantiated reason to prohibit it. I think you misunderstood. I didn't comment on your health at all. I said his actions (delusional, psychotic) are based less on his personal tragedies and more on his mental health.
Casey - I admire your passion on this and that you actually "engaged" in discussions with me. However, I cannot continue with you on this. Maybe at another time but there is not really anything else I can say that I haven't already said.
Dude, I said this from the beginning. What you saw as trolling was really just showing people how little they knew about a topic they were so opinionated about.
The problem here is that you're trying to place a value on human life, which is a slippery slope in any discussion. Most arguments on either side of the fence use these types of subjective arguments to their benefit, but neither side can agree due to personal preference. Objectivity v Subjectivity. On one side; Gun control needs to be increased in order to take powerful weapons out of the hands of some potential abusers. The argument is that these inconveniences for the majority are a worthwhile sacrifice to turn a 10-12 kill total with an assault weapon to a 5-10 kill total with minor explosives, swords, or whatever the hell they can still get their hands on. On the other side; the majority should not have to sacrifice what freedoms we do have because of potential abuse by a small minority. Is POTENTIALLY lowering death totals in public attack worth giving up freedom? After talking to the parent of a victim, you might be inclined to say it's worth the sacrifice. However, I know a lot of people in the military, on the street, or in my office that would sacrifice their lives in a heart beat to protect the freedoms they value. Peoples values and are what make life worth living, so they are every bit as valuable as life itself. So it's a stale mate. There is no CORRECT answer on either side. End of story. If you think your OPINION on the subject is the correct choice, then you don't understand the term. Which is why people need AGREE TO DISAGREE, and find another solution. Mental health research could uncover preventative measures for these behaviors. They could uncover new methods to diagnose potential abusers, and as Bandwagoner said, it would improve the lives of millions one way or the other. Let's stop arguing the validity of our opinions and work towards solutions that can be agreed on, and benefit both sides mutually.
Brandyon: Good post and agree for the most part (especially this argument is essentially a stalemate), yet I read stuff like this and it makes me think "There is a better way, goddangit!" "In recent weeks, there have been mass shooting attempts in Toronto, Canada. But the country with the most reported instances of mass shooting attempts has been the United States. The US is about the only nation in the world where citizens have a constitutionally protected right to keep arms. The original intent of the US Constitution's article on the right to keep and bear arms was to ensure that ordinary Americans had the means to defeat any British invasion back in the days when it was a fledgling independent state some 235-odd years ago. But now, successive court decisions and legislation has effectively extended that interpretation to mean that any citizen can keep guns and use them in self-defence." Whole article can be found here: http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/chris-ford-denver-massacre-how-good-are-our-gun-laws/1273/129575
I understand these arguments as well, and I do personally agree. I don't have a problem with gun control, because even if my quality of life was initially affected by these restrictions, I know that as a human, I would get over it and be just as happy in the end. Assault weapons don't have enough value in my life. To play devils advocate, even with similar gun control laws, our country is unlike any other. The statistics are based on significantly smaller population totals, with governments that are considerably less invasive in the lives of their citizens. While I might support some gun control, the idea of military, police, etc having exclusive access to these weapons scares the hell out of me. They actively support doing whatever is necessary to keep prisons full, by primarily imprisoning non violent "criminals" for christ sake. Throw in the fact that another economic crash is on the horizon, and you're asking people to disarm themselves before the anarchy of such situations. People want the ability to protect themselves should they need to. Giving up an individuals right of choice, and allowing a populations governing body to decide who deserves what is a foundational tenant of fascism. Again, valid arguments on either side. Lets move past the stalemate. Attack at the root of the problems, rather than trying to reduce the impact that said problems can create. With enough research, we may be able to prevent these individuals from even looking for something to kill with, and save more lives in the long run.
A lost sense of community with more involvement and societal interaction is often cited as an issue in countries with extremely strict gun control. Not only does it help prevent people from feeling ostracized, it also provides communal support, and applies societal pressure/responsibility.
People have been making explosives at home for a long time that do not require ammonium nitrate. As for chemicals, I said ammonia, not ammonium nitrate. You can make a lot of nasty things with ammonia.
