[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115930]Although it would be nice that assault weapons (whatever they are) were banned they might as well focus on handguns, which pretty much constitute the bulk of firearms used in gun crime[/QUOTE]
Or the actual cause of violent crime, income disparity and poverty, could be addressed.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39115939]Or the actual cause of violent crime, income disparity and poverty, could be addressed.[/QUOTE]
Why not both?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115930]Although it would be nice that assault weapons (whatever they are) were banned they might as well focus on handguns, which pretty much constitute the bulk of firearms used in gun crime[/QUOTE]
So you don't know what they are, but you want to ban them?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115952]Why not both?[/QUOTE]
Because guns don't cause violent crime, income disparity and poverty does.
It is stupid to try to ban something that a lot of people enjoy based on misguided ideas.
[QUOTE=download;39115961]So you don't know what they are, but you want to ban them?[/QUOTE]
I presume they're guns but who knows right?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115930]Although it would be nice that assault weapons (whatever they are) were banned they might as well focus on handguns, which pretty much constitute the bulk of firearms used in gun crime[/QUOTE]
"Assault weapons" don't need to be banned.
This "assault weapon"
[IMG]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as01/akms.jpg[/IMG]
is no different from this hunting rifle.
[img]http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/10/28/632033_01_norinco_ak_hunter_7_62x39mm_640.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115973]I presume they're guns but who knows right?[/QUOTE]
At least come up with non-superficial definition first
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115930]Although it would be nice that assault weapons (whatever they are) were banned they might as well focus on handguns, which pretty much constitute the bulk of firearms used in gun crime[/QUOTE]
That's like saying ban motorcycles so you can focus on car-car accidents.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39115968]Because guns don't cause violent crime, income disparity and poverty does.
It is stupid to try to ban something that a lot of people enjoy based on misguided ideas.[/QUOTE]
I don't feel the enjoyment people get from something is enough to validate it as a right. People have the right to happiness, but that doesn't guarantee that the enjoyment they get out of a product should be a right
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;39115983]At least come up with non-superficial definition first[/QUOTE]
Semi-automatic firearms
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115994]I don't feel the enjoyment people get from something is enough to validate it as a right. People have the right to happiness, but that doesn't guarantee that the enjoyment they get out of a product should be a right
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
[B]Semi-automatic firearms[/B][/QUOTE]
Why?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115994]I don't feel the enjoyment people get from something is enough to validate it as a right. People have the right to happiness, but that doesn't guarantee that the enjoyment they get out of a product should be a right
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
Semi-automatic firearms[/QUOTE]
You didn't read anything that I have posted.
Guns don't cause violent crimes.
Banning guns is an arbitrary restriction on the freedoms of everyone that is based on wrong ideas.
If you want to support something that would actually stop violent crimes than support the implementation of government support projects like a NHS, better welfare, better food stamps.
The U.S. needs those things much more than a ban on guns.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39115994]I don't feel the enjoyment people get from something is enough to validate it as a right. People have the right to happiness, but that doesn't guarantee that the enjoyment they get out of a product should be a right
[editline]6th January 2013[/editline]
Semi-automatic firearms[/QUOTE]
So using that argument you therefore support government censorship of television, radio, and the Internet, because you need none of these things and your personal enjoyment of their unrestricted access is not good enough justification to stop censorship if censorship will stop just one online predator, terrorist organization, or pirate.
You heard it here folks, a Glock is an assault weapon.
[IMG]http://gunnuts.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Glock17.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39116086]So using that argument you therefore support government censorship of television, radio, and the Internet, because you need none of these things and your personal enjoyment of their unrestricted access is not good enough justification to stop censorship if censorship will stop just one online predator, terrorist organization, or pirate.[/QUOTE]
Nobody has killed 22 children with the sheer power of television, radio and internet.
I mean seriously. That's your argument?
You may think you got an epic bazooper of an argument for guns with your TV reference, but uh, yeah, unless I throw a TV at you or you slip on a radio and fall out a window, it REALLY has no baring on this argument.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39116103]You heard it here folks, a Glock is an assault weapon.[/QUOTE]
Well it is a weapon, and you could commit assault with it!
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39116113]Nobody has killed 22 children with the sheer power of television, radio and internet.
I mean seriously. That's your argument?
You may think you got an epic bazooper of an argument for guns with your TV reference, but uh, yeah, unless I throw a TV at you or you slip on a radio and fall out a window, it REALLY has no baring on this argument.[/QUOTE]
It is really flawed to use mass shootings in an argument about gun control because mass shootings are extremely rare fringe cases when it comes to gun violence.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39116044]Why?[/QUOTE]
Semi-automatic firearms are unnecessary for what I perceive as the acceptable uses of firearms. You can still successfully hunt, target shoot or masturbate with a bolt action rifle or break-open shotgun.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39116069]You didn't read anything that I have posted.
Guns don't cause violent crimes.
Banning guns is an arbitrary restriction on the freedoms of everyone that is based on wrong ideas.
If you want to support something that would actually stop violent crimes than support the implementation of government support projects like a NHS, better welfare, better food stamps.
The U.S. needs those things much more than a ban on guns.[/QUOTE]
Why can't the US commit to both, and thus further reduce gun-crime
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39116086]So using that argument you therefore support government censorship of television, radio, and the Internet, because you need none of these things and your personal enjoyment of their unrestricted access is not good enough justification to stop censorship if censorship will stop just one online predator, terrorist organization, or pirate.[/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech or information is entirely disconnected from the consumption of entertainment products, while TV, radio and the internet may be used for entertainment they also are vehicles for the transmission of information and therefore should be protected. Firearms do not fall under the same duality.
Furthermore, as I am genuinely interested. DaCommie1, Lazerguided and Download, do you happen to be Libertarians?
[QUOTE=Valnar;39116159]Well it is a weapon, and you could commit assault with it!
It is really flawed to use mass shootings in an argument about gun control because mass shootings are extremely rare fringe cases when it comes to gun violence.[/QUOTE]
So is using televisions as an argument about gun control.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;39116113]Nobody has killed 22 children with the sheer power of television, radio and internet.
I mean seriously. That's your argument?
You may think you got an epic bazooper of an argument for guns with your TV reference, but uh, yeah, unless I throw a TV at you or you slip on a radio and fall out a window, it REALLY has no baring on this argument.[/QUOTE]
The internet started the Arab Spring. That has killed a ton of people. However, that is beside the point. Yes, firearms were designed for one purpose, to do damage to whatever they were put into battery against. However, this assault weapons ban will do nothing to reduce the number of these incidents. All it does is create massive headache for legal owners of firearms, while not getting anything meaningful accomplished. Illegal firearms are very easy to obtain and conceal, and this ban existing will not change that fact.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116162]Semi-automatic firearms are unnecessary for what I perceive as the acceptable uses of firearms. You can still successfully hunt, target shoot or masturbate with a bolt action rifle or break-open shotgun.
Why can't the US commit to both, and thus further reduce gun-crime
Freedom of speech or information is entirely disconnected from the consumption of entertainment products, while TV, radio and the internet may be used for entertainment they also are vehicles for the transmission of information and therefore should be protected. Firearms do not fall under the same duality.
Furthermore, as I am genuinely interested. [B]DaCommie1, Lazerguided and Download, do you happen to be Libertarians?[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm far left and I'm a gun owner who understands why somebody could want to keep a firearm. I understand that shootings are very much a lot of the time done with illegal and thus uncontrolled firearms.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116162]Semi-automatic firearms are unnecessary for what I perceive as the acceptable uses of firearms. You can still successfully hunt, target shoot or masturbate with a bolt action rifle or break-open shotgun.
Why can't the US commit to both, and thus further reduce gun-crime
Freedom of speech or information is entirely disconnected from the consumption of entertainment products, while TV, radio and the internet may be used for entertainment they also are vehicles for the transmission of information and therefore should be protected. Firearms do not fall under the same duality.
Furthermore, as I am genuinely interested. DaCommie1, Lazerguided and Download, do you happen to be Libertarians?[/QUOTE]
I understand that you don't see an acceptable use for semi-automatic firearms. Tell me, do you see an acceptable use for alcohol? It kills far more people than guns in the U.S. yet is still completely legal. Why ban one dangerous thing and not another?
[QUOTE=laserguided;39116183]I'm far left and I'm a gun owner who understands why somebody could want to keep a firearm. I understand that shootings are very much a lot of the time done with illegal and thus uncontrolled firearms.[/QUOTE]
the fact of the matter is firearms represent an unneeded danger to the public and monetarily benefit the few while grounded in the suffering of many. I'm not sure what kind of leftist you are but I belong to the anti-militaristic, pacifistic area of leftism
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;39116191]I understand that you don't see an acceptable use for semi-automatic firearms. Tell me, do you see an acceptable use for alcohol? It kills far more people than guns in the U.S. yet is still completely legal. Why ban one dangerous thing and not another?[/QUOTE]
Tell me, how are alcohol and firearms comparable beyond being used as entertainment products? I've already outlined how just because people derive entertainment from a product doesn't mean they should be guaranteed as a right. While one is an addictive substance and ruins lives, the other was designed as a method of killing people incredibly quickly
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116281]the fact of the matter is firearms represent an unneeded danger to the public and monetarily benefit the few while grounded in the suffering of many. I'm not sure what kind of leftist you are but I belong to the anti-militaristic, pacifistic area of leftism
Tell me, how are alcohol and firearms comparable beyond being used as entertainment products? I've already outlined how just because people derive entertainment from a product doesn't mean they should be guaranteed as a right. While one is an addictive substance and ruins lives, the other was designed as a method of killing people incredibly quickly[/QUOTE]
"unneeded danger", I use my Russian made SKS for hunting and I go out with my buddies to the range to have fun.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116281]Tell me, how are alcohol and firearms comparable beyond being used as entertainment products? I've already outlined how just because people derive entertainment from a product doesn't mean they should be guaranteed as a right. While one is an addictive substance and ruins lives, the other was designed as a method of killing people incredibly quickly[/QUOTE]
They're comparable in that they both kill thousands of people every year and are both completely unnecessary for society to function properly. How can people advocate the banning of firearms(which cause 37 thousand total deaths per year and 12 thousand homicides) while not advocating the banning of alcohol, which kills twice as many people? They are both unneeded dangers.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116281]the fact of the matter is firearms represent an unneeded danger to the public and monetarily benefit the few while grounded in the suffering of many. I'm not sure what kind of leftist you are but I belong to the anti-militaristic, pacifistic area of leftism
[/QUOTE]
How are they an unneeded danger? Guns don't go around shooting people on their own, there's always a person behind the trigger (unless its a Vektor CP1, huehuehue). A law abiding civilian who understands firearms safety is even less of a danger to the community than a Police officer with his carry pistol.
Anti-militarism and pacifism are great, but we don't live in a peaceful world, in our current situation, if you think disarming the public is going to benefit anyone other than criminals you're sadly mistaken.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39116293]"unneeded danger", I use my Russian made SKS for hunting and I go out with my buddies to the range to have fun.[/QUOTE]
It still represents a danger to everybody no matter how mentally stable you are or how well you lock it up, the fact of the matter is the less guns there are, the lower ability there is for criminals or militaries to kill
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116350]It still represents a danger to everybody no matter how mentally stable you are or how well you lock it up, the fact of the matter is the less guns there are, the lower ability there is for criminals or militaries to kill[/QUOTE]
so what you're suggesting is that someone make all the guns just vanish from the face of the earth
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116350]It still represents a danger to everybody no matter how mentally stable you are or how well you lock it up, the fact of the matter is the less guns there are, the lower ability there is for criminals or militaries to kill[/QUOTE]
How is a civilian "assault weapons" ban going to keep firearms out of the hands of militaries?
Cars, knives, swords, cruise liners, airplanes, glass bottles, q-tips, alcohol, and various sharp and pointy objects all represent a danger to everybody no matter how mentally stable you are or how well you lock them up.
I'd say it makes everybody around me safer. I can stand up to armed criminals.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;39116346]They're comparable in that they both kill thousands of people every year and are both completely unnecessary for society to function properly. How can people advocate the banning of firearms(which cause 37 thousand total deaths per year and 12 thousand homicides) while not advocating the banning of alcohol, which kills twice as many people? They are both unneeded dangers.[/QUOTE]
Alcohol has a wide range of medical and social benefits which far outweigh its negatives, nor was it originally designed to kill people.
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;39116348]How are they an unneeded danger? Guns don't go around shooting people on their own, there's always a person behind the trigger (unless its a Vektor CP1, huehuehue). A law abiding civilian who understands firearms safety is even less of a danger to the community than a Police officer with his carry pistol.
Anti-militarism and pacifism are great, but we don't live in a peaceful world, in our current situation, if you think disarming the public is going to benefit anyone other than criminals you're sadly mistaken.[/QUOTE]
We don't live in a peaceful world because we allow the militarists, the people who benefit from war to hold positions of power, we allow them to dictate which group of people presents a threat when in reality they are no different from ourselves. It is defeatist to think that disarming people wont disarm them.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39116359]so what you're suggesting is that someone make all the guns just vanish from the face of the earth[/QUOTE]
What, is it too difficult? I don't see how trying to create a better society isn't worth it
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116391]
We don't live in a peaceful world because we allow the militarists, the people who benefit from war to hold positions of power, we allow them to dictate which group of people presents a threat when in reality they are no different from ourselves. It is defeatist to think that disarming people wont disarm them.
[/QUOTE]
It's stupid to think that disarming civilians is going to stop people in positions of power from obtaining firearms.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39116391]What, is it too difficult? I don't see how trying to create a better society isn't worth it[/QUOTE]
I'll gladly throw down my arms when we live in a peaceful world with a perfect government, and violence in all forms ceases to occur.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
