Guns and terrorism, a double-barreled standard

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:13 am

Imagine what our laws would be like if the nation were losing 30,000 lives each year to Islamist terrorism. Do you think for one minute that a young man named, say, Abdullah or Hussein — or Tsarnaev — would be able to go to a gun show and buy a semiautomatic AR-15 knockoff with a 30-round clip, no questions asked? Would the NRA still argue, as it essentially does now, that those thousands of lives are the price we must pay for the Second Amendment? When we say “never again” about terrorism, we really mean it. When we say those words about gun violence, obviously we really don’t.

-> Wonder from where did they get the weapon that took MIT police officer's life.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:49 pm

Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:00 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Does this logic apply to bombs, explosives, and WMDs?

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:03 pm

Idéfix wrote:Does this logic apply to bombs, explosives, and WMDs?

WMDs? Is that the new Liberal stretch in their rants against guns?

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:12 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Hmmm, wonder why did we have to put up with nonsense like taking shoes, belts off, full-body scanners and bottled water for so many years.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:16 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Hmmm, wonder why did we have to put up with nonsense like taking shoes, belts off, full-body scanners and bottled water for so many years.

I really hope you get to take an El Al flight one of these days. You seem to have quickly forgotten the Lockerbie incident or the Air India Flight 182 incident.

by gone Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:33 pm

The vast majority of gun-related deaths are because of gang members/drug sellers/criminals killing other gang members/drug sellers/criminals in inner-city and very poor rural areas. If a bunch of idiots want to kill each other, I don't have a problem with that. Better than having them on the streets trying to sell drugs or impregnating their welfare queen baby mommas or sitting in prison for the next 40 to 59 years at the expense of taxpayers.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:34 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Hmmm, wonder why did we have to put up with nonsense like taking shoes, belts off, full-body scanners and bottled water for so many years.

I really hope you get to take an El Al flight one of these days. You seem to have quickly forgotten the Lockerbie incident or the Air India Flight 182 incident.

Exactly! I also remember the latest shooting incident and worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:35 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Hmmm, wonder why did we have to put up with nonsense like taking shoes, belts off, full-body scanners and bottled water for so many years.

I really hope you get to take an El Al flight one of these days. You seem to have quickly forgotten the Lockerbie incident or the Air India Flight 182 incident.

Exactly! I also remember the latest shooting incident and worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

Are you also worried about getting in an auto-accident after everything you read in the local newspapers?

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:38 pm

mainstreet wrote:The vast majority of gun-related deaths are because of gang members/drug sellers/criminals killing other gang members/drug sellers/criminals in inner-city and very poor rural areas. If a bunch of idiots want to kill each other, I don't have a problem with that. Better than having them on the streets trying to sell drugs or impregnating their welfare queen baby mommas or sitting in prison for the next 40 to 59 years at the expense of taxpayers.

You should tell that to the Aurora incident victims minding their business in a move theater or to the parents of the innocent kids in Sandy Hook, or to the Sikh families in Wisconsin.

by gone Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:42 pm

If guns were banned, they could still be victims. Of illegal guns, of bombs, of hunting rifles. Please! Don't tell me banning of anything (alcohol, drugs, porn, prostitution) has decreased the widespread distribution of it.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:44 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Since you asked me elsewhere.

Whenever something is regulated, there will be an illegal market in it. Narcotics being a major example. However, when you can't stop criminals from getting their hands on fire arms illegally, you don't punish law abiding citizens by taking away their rights. And even if you do stop legal sales of guns, you still won't be able to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns.

Hmmm, wonder why did we have to put up with nonsense like taking shoes, belts off, full-body scanners and bottled water for so many years.

I really hope you get to take an El Al flight one of these days. You seem to have quickly forgotten the Lockerbie incident or the Air India Flight 182 incident.

Exactly! I also remember the latest shooting incident and worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

Are you also worried about getting in an auto-accident after everything you read in the local newspapers?

as much as boarding a flight full of terrorists Razz

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:55 pm

mainstreet wrote:If guns were banned, they could still be victims. Of illegal guns, of bombs, of hunting rifles. Please! Don't tell me banning of anything (alcohol, drugs, porn, prostitution) has decreased the widespread distribution of it.

We couldn't prevent Boston bombing but that didn't deter us from spying mosques, in all likelihood that will be intensified further.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:59 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Hmmm, wonder why did we have to put up with nonsense like taking shoes, belts off, full-body scanners and bottled water for so many years.

I really hope you get to take an El Al flight one of these days. You seem to have quickly forgotten the Lockerbie incident or the Air India Flight 182 incident.

Exactly! I also remember the latest shooting incident and worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

Are you also worried about getting in an auto-accident after everything you read in the local newspapers?

as much as boarding a flight full of terrorists

Seriously, I do not text nor read e-mails while driving, and minimize phone conversations, in other words I take all the precautions that are in my control to make it as safe as possible, just like what TSA has been doing since 9/11. Why cant the same logic be applied to gun control.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:59 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:

as much as boarding a flight full of terrorists

Strangely though, you are worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:11 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

as much as boarding a flight full of terrorists

Strangely though, you are worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

What exactly is the rate of plane hijacks vs plane crashes vs gun shooting incidents in the last 10 years, and pray tell me the probability & rank the of the occurrences of each.

by garam_kuta Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:15 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

as much as boarding a flight full of terrorists

Strangely though, you are worried about getting caught in a shooting spree.

What exactly is the rate of plane hijacks vs plane crashes vs gun shooting incidents in the last 10 years, and pray tell me the probability & rank the of the occurrences of each.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:18 pm

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_aviation_accidents_and_incidents

I gave you the links. You are welcome to count.

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:21 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Does this logic apply to bombs, explosives, and WMDs?

WMDs? Is that the new Liberal stretch in their rants against guns?

Labels are cheap.

You gave a "rationale" and ask I asked if it applied to those other cases as well. I note that you have not answered.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:25 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Does this logic apply to bombs, explosives, and WMDs?

WMDs? Is that the new Liberal stretch in their rants against guns?
Labels are cheap.

You gave a "rationale" and ask I asked if it applied to those other cases as well. I note that you have not answered.

Hmm. Liberal is a label?

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:18 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Does this logic apply to bombs, explosives, and WMDs?

WMDs? Is that the new Liberal stretch in their rants against guns?
Labels are cheap.

You gave a "rationale" and ask I asked if it applied to those other cases as well. I note that you have not answered.

Hmm. Liberal is a label?

Yes. Particularly if the only response you have to the points others make is to call them a "Liberal."

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:25 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Does this logic apply to bombs, explosives, and WMDs?

WMDs? Is that the new Liberal stretch in their rants against guns?
Labels are cheap.

You gave a "rationale" and ask I asked if it applied to those other cases as well. I note that you have not answered.

Hmm. Liberal is a label?
Yes. Particularly if the only response you have to the points others make is to call them a "Liberal."

Is a Partisan Liberal better then?

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:36 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

WMDs? Is that the new Liberal stretch in their rants against guns?
Labels are cheap.

You gave a "rationale" and ask I asked if it applied to those other cases as well. I note that you have not answered.

Hmm. Liberal is a label?
Yes. Particularly if the only response you have to the points others make is to call them a "Liberal."

Is a Partisan Liberal better then?

All these labels are equally cheap. You may think of them as good dodges, but the question you were asked remains unanswered.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:39 pm

Idéfix wrote:All these labels are equally cheap. You may think of them as good dodges, but the question you were asked remains unanswered.

We both know where this is going. You want to push your agenda of gun control thru your arguments. People on the other side are not going to buy your arguments. There is an ATF strictly for the reason of preventing unlawful use of explosives. I am sure if you lived in a mining county, explosives would not be that hard to come by - for legal use.

WMDs, you know very well is a stretch.

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:56 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_aviation_accidents_and_incidents

I gave you the links. You are welcome to count.

Thank you for the links.

Per these links, the number of people killed in the last ten years in the US:
By hijackers: 0
By rampage killers: 135

So the government's anti-hijacking measures have worked to prevent deaths in the last ten years.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:03 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_aviation_accidents_and_incidents

I gave you the links. You are welcome to count.
Thank you for the links.

Per these links, the number of people killed in the last ten years in the US:
By hijackers: 0
By rampage killers: 135

So the government's anti-hijacking measures have worked to prevent deaths in the last ten years.

Now would you like me to add drunk-driving fatalities in there?

Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?

PS: Here is the number for just your state in just one year:

In California
(population 36 million, 32 million cars) there were 1,489 deaths from
traffic accidents related to "alcohol or other drugs" in 2007 (22% of
all fatal accidents).^[34]^[35]

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?

We do ban drinking and driving.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:21 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?
We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working? I am sure you are aware that there are some people who hold their drinks better than others even though they are over the legal limit while driving. It is the luck of the draw.

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:22 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?
We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working?

Well enough that every state that tried it kept it. Are you advocating the removal of the ban on drinking and driving?

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:25 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?
We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working?
Well enough that every state that tried it kept it. Are you advocating the removal of the ban on drinking and driving?

Every state also bans texting and driving, making hand held cell phone calls while driving yada, yada. But the point I was trying to make is more people were killed by drinking and driving in spite of a ban, than people who were killed by guns.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:32 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?
We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working? I am sure you are aware that there are some people who hold their drinks better than others even though they are over the legal limit while driving. It is the luck of the draw.

California DUI Statistics

- Each year in California there are approximately 200,000 arrests for DUI.
- DUI arrests have decreased 45% in California since the enactment of the .08 law in 1990. (California DMV, 1997
- There has been a 50% decrease in the number of DUI deaths and injuries in California since the enactment of the .08 law in 1990. (California DMV, 1997)
http://www.pretribulation.com/dui.htm

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:38 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?
We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working? I am sure you are aware that there are some people who hold their drinks better than others even though they are over the legal limit while driving. It is the luck of the draw.

California DUI Statistics

- Each year in California there are approximately 200,000 arrests for DUI.
- DUI arrests have decreased 45% in California since the enactment of the .08 law in 1990. (California DMV, 1997
- There has been a 50% decrease in the number of DUI deaths and injuries in California since the enactment of the .08 law in 1990. (California DMV, 1997)
http://www.pretribulation.com/dui.htm

Would you like to explain how drug-fatalities went up then? More people in California now on Pot?

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/duistats89_99.htm

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:39 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Why don't we ban alcohol or driving?
We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working?
Well enough that every state that tried it kept it. Are you advocating the removal of the ban on drinking and driving?

Every state also bans texting and driving, making hand held cell phone calls while driving yada, yada. But the point I was trying to make is more people were killed by drinking and driving in spite of a ban, than people who were killed by guns.

Not so fast. "People killed by guns" is not just 135. That is number of people who were killed by guns deliberately in a mass shooting. Several thousands were killed by guns in the same period deliberately in homicide situations. And then more were killed by guns in accidents.

BTW, thanks for stating the truth -- that people are "killed by guns" -- rather than the pretense that "guns don't kill."

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:40 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:We do ban drinking and driving.

And how is that working?
Well enough that every state that tried it kept it. Are you advocating the removal of the ban on drinking and driving?

Every state also bans texting and driving, making hand held cell phone calls while driving yada, yada. But the point I was trying to make is more people were killed by drinking and driving in spite of a ban, than people who were killed by guns.
Not so fast. "People killed by guns" is not just 135. That is number of people who were killed by guns deliberately in a mass shooting. Several thousands were killed by guns in the same period deliberately in homicide situations. And then more were killed by guns in accidents.

BTW, thanks for stating the truth -- that people are "killed by guns" -- rather than the pretense that "guns don't kill."

Ah! Nitpicking now on semantics. I am sure the guns pulled their own triggers.

PS: Those number were for CD who was afraid of being caught in a mass-shooting spree. I think he should worry more about being hit by a drunk driver.

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:43 pm

It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:45 pm

Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!

Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:51 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!
Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

What do you think they are designed for? While we are at it, what do you think Narcotics - another banned but leading cause for fatal accidents are designed for?

by gone Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:02 pm

I don't think the Second Amendment was designed with killing anyone in mind. The right to bear arms was designed to insure safety. Everyone should have the right to defend one's self, family, and property. America was a lawless place back then and still can be sometimes today. Also, the right to bear arms has a lot to do with freedom and preventing the government militia from becoming too powerful.

I know a lot of law-abiding, peaceful Indian families living in very safe and upscale suburbs who were targeted by armed robbers because they knew Indian families have a lot if gold at home. They were tied up and gagged in their own houses. Guess what! The next day, they signed up for shooting lessons, bought guns, and bought a large guard dog. They put the NRA member bumper sticker on each of their vehicles parked in the driveway.

by confuzzled dude Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:02 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!
Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

What do you think they are designed for? While we are at it, what do you think Narcotics - another banned but leading cause for fatal accidents are designed for?

That is all fine, what do you think we should do about airport/airlines security?

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:04 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!
Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

What do you think they are designed for? While we are at it, what do you think Narcotics - another banned but leading cause for fatal accidents are designed for?

That is all fine, what do you think we should do about airport/airlines security?

Flying too often this year?

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:37 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!
Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

What do you think they are designed for? While we are at it, what do you think Narcotics - another banned but leading cause for fatal accidents are designed for?

They are designed for personal enjoyment. As long as that happens without damage to anyone else, it should be legal (even narcotics). But the moment something endangers the lives of others (by an intoxicated person getting behind the wheel), it should be open to regulation.

In contrast, guns are designed to kill. There are no two ways about it -- that's what they were invented for.

by gone Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:45 pm

You could also argue guns were designed to protect. Anything that can be used to kill you can also be used as defense to ensure your safety and freedom. Go up and read my post before this on this thread.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 6:56 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:It is a weird situation when items that are not designed to kill people are regulated, but items that are explicitly designed to kill people are not! Cars kill people by accident not design, and the government takes upon itself to control who gets to drive them and under which circumstances. Guns kill people, not just by accident but by design, and the government is not supposed to control who gets to use guns and under which circumstances!

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!
Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

What do you think they are designed for? While we are at it, what do you think Narcotics - another banned but leading cause for fatal accidents are designed for?
They are designed for personal enjoyment. As long as that happens without damage to anyone else, it should be legal (even narcotics). But the moment something endangers the lives of others (by an intoxicated person getting behind the wheel), it should be open to regulation.

In contrast, guns are designed to kill. There are no two ways about it -- that's what they were invented for.

So your position is - Legalize drugs. Ban guns?

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Hellsangel wrote:So your position is - Legalize drugs. Ban guns?

Yes, legalize drugs (while keeping the ban on DUI). No, don't ban guns. Ban weapons like the AR-15 and high-capacity magazines. And institute mandatory background checks and waiting periods for buying guns. If you have to demonstrate your competence to the state before you can drive an automobile legally, you ought to be at least subjected to a background check before you can use a deadly weapon legally.

by Idéfix Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:25 pm

mainstreet wrote:You could also argue guns were designed to protect. Anything that can be used to kill you can also be used as defense to ensure your safety and freedom. Go up and read my post before this on this thread.

This is not designed to protect yourself, unless you expect to commit an armed insurrection against the US government...

Guns and terrorism, a double-barreled standard Gl-shock-ar-15

Guns and terrorism, a double-barreled standard Gl-shock-ar-15

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:32 pm

Hellsangel wrote:

I really hope you get to take an El Al flight one of these days. You seem to have quickly forgotten the Lockerbie incident or the Air India Flight 182 incident.

Could you please tell us when these incidents occurred?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:44 pm

we lock doors, ban child porn, regulate narcotics. yet we have break-ins, people who indulge in child porn and people who do narcotics trafficking. since we can't get perfect results should we stop locking doors, stop banning child porn, have a free for all narcotics, and allow bombs for all? if not, why this special concern about the impossibility of perfection when it comes to guns only?

note: others may have already made this point, but i only read the first few posts on this thread. and i have been making this very same point like a broken record. i sound like a broken record, only because the logic is unassailable and it makes the other side mad as hell.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:47 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

Well! You can always drink yourself to death!
Yes, you can, but that's not the primary purpose that alcoholic drinks are designed for.

What do you think they are designed for? While we are at it, what do you think Narcotics - another banned but leading cause for fatal accidents are designed for?
They are designed for personal enjoyment. As long as that happens without damage to anyone else, it should be legal (even narcotics). But the moment something endangers the lives of others (by an intoxicated person getting behind the wheel), it should be open to regulation.

In contrast, guns are designed to kill. There are no two ways about it -- that's what they were invented for.

So your position is - Legalize drugs. Ban guns?

no have a sensible regulatory policy for both. only you can draw the conclusion you did.

by Hellsangel Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:10 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:we lock doors, ban child porn, regulate narcotics. yet we have break-ins, people who indulge in child porn and people who do narcotics trafficking. since we can't get perfect results should we stop locking doors, stop banning child porn, have a free for all narcotics, and allow bombs for all? if not, why this special concern about the impossibility of perfection when it comes to guns only?

note: others may have already made this point, but i only read the first few posts on this thread. and i have been making this very same point like a broken record. i sound like a broken record, only because the logic is unassailable and it makes the other side mad as hell.

Actually Il Professore, you are one who goes into long rants with your gun control posts each time.

by Sponsored content