California to ban the most bad ass gun ever.
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now...ohio said:
now, if this was Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I'd call you on repetition, but seeing as we're not playing at pure questions, I suppose we can let it go...
Would you two get a room, please? 
Snacks said:
Damn True said:
And you would like anyone to be able to decide who those who need killing are?Casey said:
Absolutely not. You miss my point. I speak of reasonable use of deadly force in defense of human life, namely that of my family and myself. Do I need a 50 cal. to defend myself? Certainly not. I don't own one, and don't want to (well, maybe just a little bit! :love: ). But I believe very strongly in the Constitution, and in the amended freedoms we're granted by it. The 2nd amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms. If we begin by banning 50 calibre rifles, it's a logical next step that someone will say a .45 isn't that far removed (someone completely unknowledgeable about firearms), and from there, there's no end in sight. I do not believe anyone has the right to decide who lives or dies, and that includes me, unless some schmuck has picked my bedroom window to try to crawl through, in which case he has suffered a complete failure of the victim selection process, and will not survive to learn from his mistake.
Your logic reversed would imply that I should be able to buy any kind of weapon I wish. That a 0.50 caliber gun is banned is not necessarily the thin end of the wedge.Casey said:
Contrary to many people's expectations here I am not anti-gun, I do think greater control would be beneficial and see no reason why 0.50 caliber guns should be available publicly.
Comparing guns to kitchen appliances is facile however, that was my point.
I see your point, and I do agree that there is very little if any use for a 50 cal. rifle in civilian hands. I just see gun control as an abysmal failure. Look at D.C. The murder rate keeps climbing despite the toughest gun laws in the country, and in response, they're talking about more gun laws. Would guns in civilian hands make a difference? I really think they would, in the long run. I'm not short-sighted enough to believe guns don't cause problems, often tragic ones, in the hands and homes of those uninterested in learning about their safe use and storage. But I fail to see how greater control would be beneficial.
One of the gun nuts in this thread posted a metastudy which shows no good evidence either way, so neither side can make the claim that they are safer either way the laws swing. Most law enforcement agencies support gun-control, so I would tend to side with the professionals versus the gun nuts who have little to no experience in domestic disputes.Casey said:
That depends on where you are. Most law enforcement agencies down here in God's Country (syadasti said:
) do NOT support gun control. I think it's a regional thing. And yes, I agree there's no hard proof either way. To my way of thinking, though, if there's no proof either way, then the government should stay the hell out of it and not pass new laws based on that lack of proof.
syadasti said:
Frankly you don't know enough about me to make this statement.
Oh yeah, rural counties with low crime rates have more experience and the stats to compare with big cities when it comes to crimes committed with guns, rightCasey said:That depends on where you are. Most law enforcement agencies down here in God's Country (
syadasti said:Well your friends in this thread don't seem to mind calling people they've never met liberals, commies, and hippies, so what is your point
You are the one doing the name calling in this instance.
I see, you don't like guns then - gun nut being someone who likes guns? So you are actually in support of gun control then - good. What changed your mind?PonySoldier said:
Its not really much of an insult compared to being called a commie or hippy. If someone called me a bike nut, I wouldn't care and it would be true.
I like guns as I have used them most of my life and I support some level of gun control. I would also point out that as Casey says different Law Enforcement Agencies have very different views of their duties and gun control.
Why do you think we have lower crime rates????????? So what are you saying then? Is it the guns or the population?? Maybe we should ban people!!!!!syadasti said:Oh yeah, rural counties with low crime rates have more experience and the stats to compare with big cities when it comes to crimes committed with guns, right
A small sample size makes for conclusions that don't reflect reality - stats 101 man (especially a non-random one - ie rural only sample)...Casey said:Why do you think we have lower crime rates????????? So what are you saying then? Is it the guns or the population?? Maybe we should ban people!!!!!
Okay, how about this one: Washington DC has, or at least had in the recent past, the highest percapita murder rate of any city in America. DC also "boasts" the most stringent gun control laws of any city in America. You can make statistics show anything you want to make them show, if you look hard enough. Small sample size...large sample size...biggie fries and a coke...it's all the same thing. The gun control issue is and has been among the most heated "social" issues in this country since the 1960s, and range from "throw them all in the ocean" to "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" with the vast majority of Americans somewhere in the middle. But "most law enforcement agencies" doesn't mean squat. The agencies don't speak for the individual officers. Just because the police chief in Chicago goes on record for strong gun control/bans doesn't mean that every officer in the CPD agrees with him. You can't make that inference.
And as for reality, your reality in N.J. is not at all the same as my reality in MS. We're a world apart, figuratively. Maybe where you live gun control has advantages. It doesn't here. Remember, my friend. Crack rock is illegal too, but I didn't see a lot of response the last time they ran a crack rock turn in session, and I don't think there are a lot of registered crack pipes out there.
And as for reality, your reality in N.J. is not at all the same as my reality in MS. We're a world apart, figuratively. Maybe where you live gun control has advantages. It doesn't here. Remember, my friend. Crack rock is illegal too, but I didn't see a lot of response the last time they ran a crack rock turn in session, and I don't think there are a lot of registered crack pipes out there.
You don't get it, I'm not talking about invalid statistics - its not all the same thing at all.
Taking a valid statistic survey means a large simple random survey not the poster child areas for or against gun-control - that is tainted data that has very little meaning. Thats what pony soldier posted - there has not been any good studies so far that show a good picture of what is going on.
You or me blabbing about what we thinking going on isn't hard data on anything, just hearsay...
Taking a valid statistic survey means a large simple random survey not the poster child areas for or against gun-control - that is tainted data that has very little meaning. Thats what pony soldier posted - there has not been any good studies so far that show a good picture of what is going on.
You or me blabbing about what we thinking going on isn't hard data on anything, just hearsay...
One thing that definitely plays into this is gun EDUCATION. I learned about firearms at a very early age, know that they are a tool to get a job done. Like any other tool, mishandled, they can be, and usually are dangerous. I now like in NYC, where it is against the law to own a firearm. Yet there are many people here that do carry guns. People that have lived here all thier lives, have a blanket "guns are bad" mentality, because the only exposure they have ever had has been through violence or t.v. Education plays a great role in gun violence.Casey said:Why do you think we have lower crime rates????????? So what are you saying then? Is it the guns or the population?? Maybe we should ban people!!!!!
Ah well my family has always had a 22 and a BB gun, I've shot rifles at the range in summer camp (SC), and when I visited my naval reserves friend at the end of last year we went to the range and shot various 9mm pistols and a 357. He doesn't own any guns BTW...
I still think most people aren't responsible enough to have high-powered weapons. Small arms for target practice is ok with me.
I still think most people aren't responsible enough to have high-powered weapons. Small arms for target practice is ok with me.
DC's gun ban doesn't work and is stupid because you just get a gun outside the city, and then drive in.
That doesn't mean that firearms restrictions don't work, that means they don't work on a local level. If guns didn't help people kill people, then how do you explain the murder rate in the US being higher than Japan, Canada, and the UK?
And I should be able to own my own nuclear weapon, if you want to read the constitution in the spirit that the founders intended it. After all, it was to make sure that a corrupt government could not disarm the population to further their own tyranny, right? Well, weapons technology has come a ways in the last 200 years, and I want a weapon that puts me on fair footing with the US government. You can trust me to not blow up my city unless I deem it totally necessary.
That doesn't mean that firearms restrictions don't work, that means they don't work on a local level. If guns didn't help people kill people, then how do you explain the murder rate in the US being higher than Japan, Canada, and the UK?
And I should be able to own my own nuclear weapon, if you want to read the constitution in the spirit that the founders intended it. After all, it was to make sure that a corrupt government could not disarm the population to further their own tyranny, right? Well, weapons technology has come a ways in the last 200 years, and I want a weapon that puts me on fair footing with the US government. You can trust me to not blow up my city unless I deem it totally necessary.
There's really not much point in continuing this one. We're not going to change long-standing opinions. A national gun ban will not work because a significant percentage of the population of this country will not register their firearms, and will not give them up. And the U.S. government doesn't want any part of that.
A similar argument, also involving potentially lethal machines (but thats not their sole purpose which is the case in high-power weaponry):
So, why can't we drive without a speed limit - emergency vehicles can? They had it in Montana for awhile and more people died so they are back to speed limits. Dangerous machinery needs limits and controls on them - its as simple as that...
So, why can't we drive without a speed limit - emergency vehicles can? They had it in Montana for awhile and more people died so they are back to speed limits. Dangerous machinery needs limits and controls on them - its as simple as that...
Population density is highly correlated with crime rates. So it's not the people persay, it's just that they live so close together. You stick a bunch of neighboring farmers in an apartment complex and I guarantee they won't get along as well as they did back home.Casey said:Why do you think we have lower crime rates????????? So what are you saying then? Is it the guns or the population?? Maybe we should ban people!!!!!