Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You sound so confused and distracted by imaginary arguments you attribute to me, I don't know where to begin to set you straight.
You mention stuff that has no relavence or real impact on my point and think it's some kind of unbeatable refutation.
You are lost, dude.
No, your only argument is an appeal to emotion. Nothing else.
You contend tanks. Multiple people refute you (erroneous contention)
You mention fully automatic weapons. Multiple people refute you (erroneous contention)
Pretty much par for the course for all threads you start. Then you rant and rave.
Again, just another troll thread trying to start arguments based on nothing but your emotional point of view.
How about, just a thought, post 1 fact, 1 time, to base your argument off of?
There's a difference between an action humans have performed for thousands of years by many different means and regulating one of the tools by which they perform that action.
Someone can readily commit suicide by buying a handgun because they are legal and obtainable over a counter. They can't readily commit suicide by mustard gas.
No, your only argument is an appeal to emotion. Nothing else.
You contend tanks. Multiple people refute you (erroneous contention)
You mention fully automatic weapons. Multiple people refute you (erroneous contention)
No, they did not refute me on automatic weapons or even the principle of my entire argument.
The rebuttals to my automatic weapons point was, mass killers don't want to use automatic weapons.
But Terrorists DO want automatic weapons when they can get them as seen in Paris and Belgium.
But thankfully to stronger restrictions, automatic weapons are more difficult to get and therefore you don't see as many mass slayings by automatic weapons. Price is not a valid issue because it's not only price that keeps automatics out of civilian hands. Surely, if it was ONLY price, we would see more in public hands and thus more mass shootings with them.
Thus my point being, if regular guns were restricted like automatic weapons, we would see less of those kinds of killings too.
Okay?
So my point remains completely intact and has yet to be properly refuted since I presented it.
There's a difference between an action humans have performed for thousands of years by many different means and regulating one of the tools by which they perform that action.
Someone can readily commit suicide by buying a handgun because they are legal and obtainable over a counter. They can't readily commit suicide by mustard gas.
They can easily buy a tank of nitrogen that will kill them quickly, painlessly, and without the nervous system even being aware of the onset of death...perhaps knowledge that should be more readily available. They can easily hang themselves, electrocute themselves, poison themselves, the only limit is the imagination and knowledge. Personally I'd go with the rational and humane nitrogen if I were looking to off myself...
Murder is something that humans do just like killing themselves....they can kill with bullets, knives, bombs, bats, bricks, or sticks...again only limited by imagination and knowledge...
Banning guns is as useless in preventing murder and suicide as was banning alcohol was to preventing the horrors of drinking it
Humans will do what they want to do regardless of arbitrary "government" "laws" in a futile attempt to make them non-humans...
You would think that would be a more preferable weapon for a domestic terrorist or mass killer because it could do far more damage and kill far more civilians than an AR-15.
I wonder why domestic mass killers just don't use tanks? Or why so few use fully automatic machine guns?
No, they did not refute me on automatic weapons or even the principle of my entire argument.
The rebuttals to my automatic weapons point was, mass killers don't want to use automatic weapons.
But Terrorists DO want automatic weapons when they can get them as seen in Paris and Belgium.
But thankfully to stronger restrictions, automatic weapons are more difficult to get and therefore you don't see as many mass slayings by automatic weapons.
Thus my point being, if regular guns were restricted like automatic weapons, we would see less of those kinds of killings too.
Okay?
So my point remains completely intact and has yet to be properly refuted since I presented it.
No it isn't. Automatic weapons aren't utiliZed by 'terrorists' here because of regulation. They are not used because they are exceedingly expensive and most people won't sell theirs.
If I can buy a weapon for $700 that can do the same, probably more effectively due to accuracy, vs spending a minimum of $5000, which would I select?
Now, terrorists in other countries.... They DO use automatic weapons because they are easier to get, and cheaper, than semi-auto rifles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
