My guns have killed fewer than Ted Kennedy's car

[JenT]

Do you know how freaking rare it is for a crime to be committed with a fully automatic weapon? More knife crimes are committed than with fully automatic weapons.

So?

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?

Control the masses

 

[Diuretic]

Do you know how freaking rare it is for a crime to be committed with a fully automatic weapon? More knife crimes are committed than with fully automatic weapons.

So?

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?

It's long been my contention that gun control and crime control aren't related. Gun control is about minimising harm. The criminal law is about crime control.

Given that banning automatic weapons from non-military or non-police (special units) use seeks to minimise the harm that they can cause, so it's on foot with the purpose of gun control, well as I see it any way.

 

[Diuretic]

So?

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?

Control the masses

Too late, your government has you outgunned

 

[Father Time]

So?

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?

It's long been my contention that gun control and crime control aren't related. Gun control is about minimising harm. The criminal law is about crime control.

Given that banning automatic weapons from non-military or non-police (special units) use seeks to minimise the harm that they can cause, so it's on foot with the purpose of gun control, well as I see it any way.

Oh so it's about government playing parent trying to prevent us from doing things that may cause us harm.Tis the same logic that got alcohol banned (you can tell how well that went) and all sorts of other misguided laws. It basically says that citizens cannot be trusted to act responsibly with something dangerous.

 

[Anguille]

...It basically says that citizens cannot be trusted to act responsibly ....

Hello? What other reason would there be for government and laws at all?

 

[Father Time]

...It basically says that citizens cannot be trusted to act responsibly ....

Hello? What other reason would there be for government and laws at all?

Citizens can act responsibly with weapons or things that can be used to commit crimes (like say a car) depriving them of that because they MAY hurt themselves or others is an insult. Sure some will but to punish everyone for that is unfair and immoral.

Also I'm reminded of a speech an anti-prohibition person made during the era.

He said that (paraphrasing) "the law basically says that Americans cannot be trusted. That we are so irresponsible with our booze that it must be taken away by force."

I'm sure more people die of alcohol poisoning than an assault rifle (hell I'm pretty sure more people drown than get killed with an assault rifle). So what's the point?

 

[Diuretic]

Oh so it's about government playing parent trying to prevent us from doing things that may cause us harm.Tis the same logic that got alcohol banned (you can tell how well that went) and all sorts of other misguided laws. It basically says that citizens cannot be trusted to act responsibly with something dangerous.

Is your government appointed or elected?

 

[necritan]

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?

Control the masses

Too late, your government has you outgunned

Not true....

 

[JenT]

So banning those weapons won't do much good at all, and it just deprives citizens of automatic weapons who may not have had any intention of committing crime with them.

Although if the whole point of gun control is to reduce crime then what's the point of banning guns that criminals don't use in the first place?

Control the masses

Too late, your government has you outgunned

Oh that is SO sad but true!

 

[JenT]

...It basically says that citizens cannot be trusted to act responsibly ....

Hello? What other reason would there be for government and laws at all?

Citizens can act responsibly with weapons or things that can be used to commit crimes (like say a car) depriving them of that because they MAY hurt themselves or others is an insult. Sure some will but to punish everyone for that is unfair and immoral.

Also I'm reminded of a speech an anti-prohibition person made during the era.

He said that (paraphrasing) "the law basically says that Americans cannot be trusted. That we are so irresponsible with our booze that it must be taken away by force."

I'm sure more people die of alcohol poisoning than an assault rifle (hell I'm pretty sure more people drown than get killed with an assault rifle). So what's the point?

well if they take away guns because we might commit a crime with them, then you know what I think they should remove from child molesters

 

[JenT]

Control the masses

Too late, your government has you outgunned

Not true....

necritan, what city are you in again? I might need to know that some day

 

[Father Time]

Hello? What other reason would there be for government and laws at all?

Citizens can act responsibly with weapons or things that can be used to commit crimes (like say a car) depriving them of that because they MAY hurt themselves or others is an insult. Sure some will but to punish everyone for that is unfair and immoral.

Also I'm reminded of a speech an anti-prohibition person made during the era.

He said that (paraphrasing) "the law basically says that Americans cannot be trusted. That we are so irresponsible with our booze that it must be taken away by force."

I'm sure more people die of alcohol poisoning than an assault rifle (hell I'm pretty sure more people drown than get killed with an assault rifle). So what's the point?

well if they take away guns because we might commit a crime with them, then you know what I think they should remove from child molesters

Only problem is anyone could be a potential child molester.

 

[Nik]

...It basically says that citizens cannot be trusted to act responsibly ....

Hello? What other reason would there be for government and laws at all?

Citizens can act responsibly with weapons or things that can be used to commit crimes (like say a car) depriving them of that because they MAY hurt themselves or others is an insult. Sure some will but to punish everyone for that is unfair and immoral.

Also I'm reminded of a speech an anti-prohibition person made during the era.

He said that (paraphrasing) "the law basically says that Americans cannot be trusted. That we are so irresponsible with our booze that it must be taken away by force."

I'm sure more people die of alcohol poisoning than an assault rifle (hell I'm pretty sure more people drown than get killed with an assault rifle). So what's the point?

Alcohol poisoning is self inflicted. Assault rifle deaths are often inflicted by others.

There is little reason to have a gun that is capable of killing a mass number of people, unless one wants to kill a mass number of people. Where does your logic about responsibility stop? Shall we all have the nuclear codes so that the government can show it really trusts us?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4]YouTube - From my cold dead hands[/ame]

 

[Father Time]

Hello? What other reason would there be for government and laws at all?

Citizens can act responsibly with weapons or things that can be used to commit crimes (like say a car) depriving them of that because they MAY hurt themselves or others is an insult. Sure some will but to punish everyone for that is unfair and immoral.

Also I'm reminded of a speech an anti-prohibition person made during the era.

He said that (paraphrasing) "the law basically says that Americans cannot be trusted. That we are so irresponsible with our booze that it must be taken away by force."

I'm sure more people die of alcohol poisoning than an assault rifle (hell I'm pretty sure more people drown than get killed with an assault rifle). So what's the point?

Alcohol poisoning is self inflicted. Assault rifle deaths are often inflicted by others.

And they're so rare and so isolated that a ban is hardly needed.

There is little reason to have a gun that is capable of killing a mass number of people, unless one wants to kill a mass number of people.

Ah the old fashioned bullshit line of "you don't need it therefore it's OK for us to take it away from you". This could also be applied to cigarettes, alcohol, most forms of entertainment and a whole boatload of other things.

You can mass numbers of people with a lot of things, like homemade explosives.

Where does your logic about responsibility stop? Shall we all have the nuclear codes so that the government can show it really trusts us?

We already discussed this but since you missed it nuclear missiles in the hands of citizens is a national security risk, assault rifles aren't.

 

[Nik]

Citizens can act responsibly with weapons or things that can be used to commit crimes (like say a car) depriving them of that because they MAY hurt themselves or others is an insult. Sure some will but to punish everyone for that is unfair and immoral.

Also I'm reminded of a speech an anti-prohibition person made during the era.

He said that (paraphrasing) "the law basically says that Americans cannot be trusted. That we are so irresponsible with our booze that it must be taken away by force."

I'm sure more people die of alcohol poisoning than an assault rifle (hell I'm pretty sure more people drown than get killed with an assault rifle). So what's the point?

Alcohol poisoning is self inflicted. Assault rifle deaths are often inflicted by others.

And they're so rare and so isolated that a ban is hardly needed.

Ah, yes, its all good if they only kill some people. So whats the critical mass number of people who have to die before you are willing to ban something?

There is little reason to have a gun that is capable of killing a mass number of people, unless one wants to kill a mass number of people.

Ah the old fashioned bullshit line of "you don't need it therefore it's OK for us to take it away from you". This could also be applied to cigarettes, alcohol, most forms of entertainment and a whole boatload of other things.

You can mass numbers of people with a lot of things, like homemade explosives.

And how many of those can you murder a lot of people with AND have no other use? Its the combination that makes it so dangerous.

Where does your logic about responsibility stop? Shall we all have the nuclear codes so that the government can show it really trusts us?

We already discussed this but since you missed it nuclear missiles in the hands of citizens is a national security risk, assault rifles aren't.

[/quote]

Ah I see. If it changes the country, well thats terrible. If it kills some people, well thats A OK.

 

[Father Time]

Alcohol poisoning is self inflicted. Assault rifle deaths are often inflicted by others.

And they're so rare and so isolated that a ban is hardly needed.

Ah, yes, its all good if they only kill some people. So whats the critical mass number of people who have to die before you are willing to ban something?

I don't know what's your damn number because I guarantee you more people drown or die in car accidents than assault rifle death so why not ban cars and pools.

Gun laws are inherently unfair because they take away guns from people who won't commit any sort of crime.

And how many of those can you murder a lot of people with AND have no other use? Its the combination that makes it so dangerous.

I don't know, that's your job to figure out because you're proposing a ban on them. I'd say the numbers pretty low as the number of assault rifles FAR outweighs the number of deaths. But that doesn't matter let's take them away from everyone, regardless of what they intend to use them for.

Where does your logic about responsibility stop? Shall we all have the nuclear codes so that the government can show it really trusts us?

We already discussed this but since you missed it nuclear missiles in the hands of citizens is a national security risk, assault rifles aren't.

Ah I see. If it changes the country, well thats terrible. If it kills some people, well thats A OK.[/QUOTE]

If you kill people you get arrested, simply owning an assault rifle harms no one and it's not even near as dangerous as a nuclear weapon. And I said it's bad because it's a national security risk not because it changes the country so stop with the straw men. LOTS of things can kill people but it's immoral to take them away from people who aren't going to hurt others with them.

 

[Nik]

And they're so rare and so isolated that a ban is hardly needed.

Ah, yes, its all good if they only kill some people. So whats the critical mass number of people who have to die before you are willing to ban something?

I don't know what's your damn number because I guarantee you more people drown or die in car accidents than assault rifle death so why not ban cars and pools.

Cars actually have a purpose. As for pools, you are taking your OWN life into your hands, not other peoples lives. Nobody else is going to die if I go into a pool and can't swim.

Gun laws are inherently unfair because they take away guns from people who won't commit any sort of crime.

Well then laws that don't give me nukes are also inherently unfair. Exactly the same reasoning.

I don't know, that's your job to figure out because you're proposing a ban on them. I'd say the numbers pretty low as the number of assault rifles FAR outweighs the number of deaths. But that doesn't matter let's take them away from everyone, regardless of what they intend to use them for.

My question was how many other items can you murder lots of people with AND have no other use.

If you kill people you get arrested,

And the dead people are still dead, aren't they.

simply owning an assault rifle harms no one and it's not even near as dangerous as a nuclear weapon.

Simply owning a nuclear weapon doesn't harm anyone either.

And I said it's bad because it's a national security risk not because it changes the country so stop with the straw men. LOTS of things can kill people but it's immoral to take them away from people who aren't going to hurt others with them.

Define national security risk, then.

And there are NOT lots of things that can kill people AND have no other purpose.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think we need to round up all the troublemakers and let teddy take them for a ride in his car

Then all will be well in the world.

 

[Father Time]

Can you prove that assault rifles have no other use? I ask because there's been PLENTY of people that use assault rifles and didn't hurt anyone else with them (shocking I know, but some people can own guns responsibly). There's people who think shooting at inanimate objects with heavy weaponry is fun so there's you other use right there.

A nuke however is almost guaranteed to kill other people or destroy property that isn't yours if you use it, either by the blast or the fallout. I'd say that's good enough to make it an exception to the rule. This also makes it a national security risk although we still don't go to war with a country just because they have nukes.