Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSparkle928
I am glad there is a voice of common sense here (you Konraden) on C-D, as at times with others it can be rare. JMHO.
|
I don't intend to insult anyone necessarily by pointing out that firearms are penis-extensions--but they are. The guy driving around the flawless F350? That's like a guy buying an M82 (what's the civvie version of that) because it shoots a .50 BMG. I'm not saying
everyone that buys one has small-dick-syndrome, just as everyone who buys the F350s don't have small-dick-syndrome either, but there are some that do, and you know who they are. Usually the guy that doesn't know what BMG stands for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
A tool by definition is a physical item used to achieve a goal, so in the loosest sense, you are correct. However, guns are weapons plain and simple. They are designed to cause harm, otherwise they wouldn't be very effective. Automobiles are designed for transportation and fatalities are an unfortunate byproduct of human error (generally). It seems you are fixated on automobiles because of the high number of fatalities associated with them. Aside from fatalities, they serve completely different purposes and the comparisons end. You are grasping at straws in this comparison.
|
Like I stated, if you want to focus on the lethality of firearms, I can focus on the lethality of another tool--the automobile. Believe me when I say I am
much more afraid of a guy in his car texting than I am of a guy with a locked and loaded AR15 around his shoulder.
You'll notice it's for safety reasons. Vehicles need to meet emissions regulations and safety inspection. Firearms imported to the United States have to meet similar restrictions, such as serialized numbers and safety controls.
In fact, the ATF has a few rules...
Safety is a reasonable regulation. Hi-cap magazines have nothing to do with safety. Foregrips have nothing to do with safety. Folding stocks have nothing to do with safety. Pistol grips have nothing to do with safety. Rail-mounts have nothing to do with safety. You know what does have to do with safety? Barrel thickness. Let's regulate that so we don't have catastrophic failure that could explode in someones hands.
[quote]I agree, I would be in favor of making a law that restricts ARs
But you have to come up with a reason.
Quote:
|
The amount and speed at which it can put bullets down range.
|
Only nice to have if you're somewhere with range in which to put bullets. And speed? A bullet going 900fps hurts as much as one going 2000fps.
But an AR isn't very useful in close quarters, or in your car, or defending your family. Some will naturally disagree, but for the most part, ARs in this country are used primarily for sporting, as they aren't very effective in any other use.
But what "advantage" does the speed and range of a bullet provide and to whom? What is your scenario in which these are an advantage?
Have you seen the effects of a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle at close range? Do you know the distance of the average shooting?
Quote:
|
Again. Completely different functions and purposes.
|
And yet cars kill more people! You don't understand how crazy that is, that something which, as you say, is designed to kill, isn't nearly as dangerous as something that
wasn't designed to kill?
Glad to hear.
Quote:
|
OK? It's not. They should have never been made available to the public in the 20th century.
|
Why not, they're all made by private companies. The government just happens to buy them.
Quote:
|
I'm all for compromises and my beliefs are not set in stone (are yours?). And you're absolutely right, gun manufacturers have and will find away However, why does the public need access to semi automatic weapon? Why?
|
No, my beliefs and convictions are not set in stone. If they were, I'd be a Christian today, and I most definitely am not. I carefully analyze all available evidence and make weighted decisions based on my history or beliefs. I'm less likely to believe something outlandish off face value than I am something reasonable, but if the evidence supports the outlandish, I'll probably likewise accept it.
It doesn't matter
why they want them. Like I stated earlier, were in a free country and you have to come up with defendable reasons why something needs to be banned or regulated. The public doesn't
need Ferarris, but we don't ban them here either, and they are equally ridiculous.
And semi-automatic weapons pretty much preclude everything but single-action revolvers, pump-shotguns, and bolt-action (and lever-action) rifles. I like the old-west as much as anyone, but it's a little silly to bring us back to the technology of the 19th century because--well, you actually haven't given me any reason. You don't like their "tactical advantage," but failed to really support what that means. I'll reiterate the question, but you only have to answer it once. How is a large-cap medium range rifle a tactical advantage?
Quote:
I would argue otherwise. An acquaintance is somewhere you at least have had contact with. We can split hairs all we want though but it's still a majority, if even a slight one. Yay technicality!
Seems like both cases you would generally have at least met and/or known the attacker as your stats show.
|
I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I wanted to show that gun homicides are pretty much just gang-violence and domestic assaults. I don't have an answer for wife-beaters, but gangs we can destroy.
Quote:
|
Look, I've argued my case. However, let's be honest you have a lot more skin in this fight than me as you seem to be at least borderline passionate about firearms. I don't think you can objectively discuss what is a legitimate argument. And personally, I don't really care enough about the issue to take this any further than this forum. I believe we have more concerning issues right now in this country.
|
I understand your case, and I don't mean to insult you with this, but it's born primarily out of fear. You may not be personally afraid, but that's the Gun Control lobby. Their afraid of people with guns, and there isn't anything to be afraid of. We hinder destroy gun violence by destroying gangs, honestly, and that's a much more interesting discussion to have (and something we should honestly focus on doing). There are all sorts of analogies we can use to discuss why its silly to ban guns because they
are not and
have not been the cause of gun-violence. The operative word in gun-violence is
violence.We need to fix that cultural problem. The gun is just the tool in which that violence is aggregated. They're easy to attack and shootings make the news.
The Gun-Control lobby has an laudable goal but is misguided by its leaders. I'd love to reduce gun violence, just as I'd love to reduce automobile fatalities, but the answer isn't banning guns any more than it is banning cars. It's what people are doing with those that matters.
The technological innovations of firearms over the past hundred years are remarkable. So are the technological innovations of automobiles. If you want to regress the technology we have, I'll regress automobile technology. a I normally go out of my way to say "Model T's with airbags," which I'm surprised I didn't. Air Bags are a great idea that we enforce as a country that all vehicles must have.
We have similar laws in the country for firearms, such as serialization and registration. These are as controversial as air-bags and seatbelts though.
Hardly. Again, the reason people want to ban hi-cap magazines is that you can kill more people with more rounds in the magazine. Well, a car with twenty passengers can kill more people than a car with four.
You need to come up with a better reason for a firearms ban than because of their fatality. I've already demonstrated its pretty low in context,
and that most shootings (as you point out) are committed by people they already know--which ends up being gang violence and domestic assaults. The statistical odds of being caught in something like Aurora, or Columbine, or the Bath School bombing, are pretty small. Extraordinarily small.
We can argue the merits of carrying for self-defense at a later time, but driving your car is a more dangerous task than going to a movie theatre.
Quote:
|
Not really. My focus is the bigger picture, fatalities are just one aspect. Just think the world be a better place with more limits on what the average guy can own to grossly oversimplify it.
|
You
really want to reword your argument here. I think you're trying to say that limiting the amount of damage a citizen can do would make the world a better place.
But we wouldn't be free--and we have to sacrifice some safety for our freedom. When people break the law, there is a punishment for it. Our laws are designed to allow people to maximize their freedom, like buying a Ferrari, without being able to hurt others in its use, like doing 150mph down a residential street. However, we have special places where that person can go with his Ferarri and do 150mph, just as we have special places people can go with their AR-15 and shoot at targets.
Quote:
So what?
My argument doesn't rely on that, seems yours does, in fact it needs it. Don't confuse me responding to various people as making a solidified argument that relies on fatalities.
|
Than what is your argument if not gun-violence?
Quote:
|
Your ilk kept bringing that up. My first post in this thread asked why are ARs allowed to be purchase, from there I've had to respond to posts left and right. Haven't had the time to write a post the spells out all my thoughts and feelings.
|
The simple answer is because we can. There is no law restricting its use because there are no reasons to restrict its purchase. Like I stated earlier, we live in a free country in which "all things are permissible," except which those we explicitly say are not. We have no explicit reason to ban ARs. You need to develop that argument--and you haven't.
Quote:
Sigh... Well considering modern public society is reliant on automobiles to function... Why again is modern public society reliant on ARs? 
|
Technology is only allowed if its a modern convenience? I call your eyebrow and raise you two more!
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.
Took a while to convince someone in the medical field to shoot a machine gun (let's ignore the surgeons, that are cowboys), once she got the hang of it, she now understands "spray and pray". 
