Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[wiegeabo]

Well you never know when Canada is going to try to invade Vermont again.

trying to corner the market on maple syrup

 

[SV Fan]

I'm pretty sure you're joking on this, but sadly there are some who are attempting this.

It's as if they think people are really that stupid.

Well it is a technical way around the issue(much like all those anti abortion laws passed in Republican states that don't say abortion is illegal but start attacking where you can place abortion clinics or rules to run an abortion clinic that make it practically impossible to have an abortion clinic)

 

[mrvlknight21]

More funding towards Law Enforcement, stronger focus on enforcing the gun laws we currently have on the books, overhaul of the current mental health infrastructure currently in place, stricter sentencing for violent criminals, loosening locations where CCW holders can carry (some may disagree on this, but gun free zones have been fantastical failures), tax incentives / breaks on gun safes / training / etc., improvement in the education system, etc.

There are all kinds of ways to address the violent crime issue without jumping onto the ban-wagon.

Good suggestions.

Trying to prevent suicide through gun bans is like taking a gun out of a suicidal person's room but leaving them a knife, a rope, and a bottle of sleeping pills. It's improving the way we deal with mental illness that's the answer to that, not banning guns.

Agreed.

 

[dnno1]

So your assumption is that if someone is suicidal and don't own a gun, they will decide not to commit suicide after all? It's amazing the amount of mental gymnastics that is required to support the anti-gun position.

No, I am saying why make it easier with guns when they seem be disproportionately the weapon of choice for these victims.

A vast majority (i.e. over 95% of all violent crime) is committed with illegally obtained firearms. Trying to ban away all your problems is a comically simplistic and naive way of trying to deal with the crime problem. And, as is the case in many cities with strict gun control policies in place, akin to murdering the thousands of innocent people each year who were deprived the right to defend themselves.

Actually virtually all firearms that are used in crimes are purchased legally. Most criminals get their guns through private sales (with no background checks) or through straw sales. Not only should assault weapons be banned, but owners should be required to register their weapons, go through a background check (even with private sales), and be held accountable if their firearm is lost or stolen.

You can defend the AWB until your eyes bleed, but the fact you can't point to a single respected study supporting it is very telling. You have a right to support a statist point of view of banning anything that you dislike or don't feel a "need" for. That right ends when you try to unreasonably restrict my right to defend myself.

There are a number of studies of the efficacy of the AWB posted on Diane Feinstien's website. There are also reports from police chiefs attesting to the fact that they should be banned. Once again, the AWB was not constructed to necessarily reduce overall crime, but rather to reduce the number of gun crimes with said weapons, which it did do.

Anti-gunners can try to marginalize gun owners as much as they want, but that doesn't change the fact that gun rights supporters are the majority in this country. The NRA isn't powerful because of some illuminati like influence, it's because there is a significant majority who believe in the 2nd amendment and understand that trying to legislate criminals out of existence is a foolish and dangerous endeavor.

I am pretty sure I posted this chart a while ago (I put a bigger chart up for safe measure). Gun ownership is at the lowest it has been in close to 30 years. I would not call 33-40% a majority.

 

[dnno1]

But those numbers aren't going to go away with a gun ban. If people want to kill themselves, then they will find a way, including using those firearms not covered in the ban. Or, even, a hammer.

It is working in the UK, Japan, and even countries like Israel and Switzerland have stricter gun laws now. It's working elsewhere so there is no reason why it can't work here.

The poster was a snide way of displaying the silly logic of banning certain tools in an effort to stop a particular behavior. The last AWB did absolutely nothing to curb gun crime, even with those particular weapons since what the Government dubs assault weapons aren't used in violent crime frequently enough to even warrant thinking that such a ban would be effective.

Like I said before. Hammers were not designed to kill, and we have laws in place to control the use of hammers as weapons (it's called assault with a deadly weapon).

If you want to use numbers and statistics to prove a point, then make sure they do so. If you could provide statistics that say the majority of gun related crime is done by honest citizens with legally owned weapons, then banning weapons from those citizens might be effective. But that is not the case at all. Criminals will obtain weapons, true assault weapons, not the pretend ones banned by the government, and commit crime. And these idiotic bans make it easier for the them to do so, not harder.

Honest citizens can commit crimes (just ask George Zimmerman, Jared Loughner, James Homes, and Adam Lanza... oh, yeah, and Eric Harris, Dillon Kleibold, John Allen Muhamad, Lee Boyd Mavo... ).

 

[Thundercrack85]

So, Dnno1, just out of curiosity, what exactly do you want to do about guns?

Assault weapons ban, check. But let's be honest, you don't need an assault weapon to murder a bunch of people. You can do that with a simple semiautomatic handgun (most aren't covered under that ban).

So, are young to ban everything that doesn't have a flintlock mechanism?

As for enacting Japanese-style gun laws in the United States... there are a few reasons that wouldn't work. Gun ownership has never been a part of Japanese culture. In fact, guns have been illegal in Japan since before the US was founded. Japan never had more guns than people.

America has a fairly unique history when it comes to firearms. The country was founded by a well armed posse rebelling against an Empire that wanted to take their guns away (among other things). There's a reason the right to bear arms is the second amendment, and not, let's say, the tenth. It was rather important to Americans. Then came two centuries westward expansion, in which every American was armed to the teeth.

The day Americans give up their guns is the day they adopt the metric system and stop holding their fork in their right hand.

 

[Phallic]

No, I am saying why make it easier with guns when they seem be disproportionately the weapon of choice for these victims.



Actually virtually all firearms that are used in crimes are purchased legally. Most criminals get their guns through private sales (with no background checks) or through straw sales. Not only should assault weapons be banned, but owners should be required to register their weapons, go through a background check (even with private sales), and be held accountable if their firearm is lost or stolen.



There are a number of studies of the efficacy of the AWB posted on Diane Feinstien's website. There are also reports from police chiefs attesting to the fact that they should be banned. Once again, the AWB was not constructed to necessarily reduce overall crime, but rather to reduce the number of gun crimes with said weapons, which it did do.

I am pretty sure I posted this chart a while ago (I put a bigger chart up for safe measure). Gun ownership is at the lowest it has been in close to 30 years. I would not call 33-40% a majority.

This is the problem with your mentality and the mentality of anti-gun people - you assume that you can just ban your problems away. Ban guns, and we fix the suicide problem! Ban guns and there will be peace on earth! Seriously, it's like debating a brick wall. You claim to be 51, but you still cling to the belief that prohibition works. That criminals will follow whatever arbitrary gun laws and bans you put in place. It would be wonderful if life could be so simple that we could just ban the tool, sadly it isn't.

Your only source supporting the efficacy comes from Diane Feinstein's website - that would be like me quoting studies from the NRA or GoA. I'm sure her data is *very* unbiased. Non-biased studies, such as those done by the FBI, have said otherwise. And, quite frankly, I care little about what some police chiefs have to say about gun control. If you want to go the law enforcement route, a majority of police officers support gun rights. And if some believe in gun control, then great. The data is out there, I don't need people to read it for me. I don't need people to think for me. The proof is in the pudding.

And the data I've read contradicts your statement about most illegal guns being purchased via private sales. Please cite this.

Considering the vast majority of states do not require registration, the government has virtually no way of tracking who owns what for most people. These polls that are conducted undersample the total gun owning population due to many, myself included, who prefer not to state whether or not we own guns to some anonymous pollster. And I have no idea what relevance those graphs hold - the polling data clearly indicates an downward trend in support of strict gun control. You don't have to own guns to support the 2nd amendment. I have plenty of friends who don't own a gun and oppose gun control.

And you keep on claiming that the AWB reduced firearms related crime. I'm still waiting on an un-biased study that says that. I won't hold my breath. And, once again, you cherry pick your data by singling out crime committed by a single tool and ignoring the total picture. More people are beaten to death via hands and feet than are shot by a long gun. Your AWB would do literally nothing to appreciably reduce violent crime. Nothing.

Final word on the issue of registration. Canada imposed mandatory registration. After 10 years, they did away with it due to the heavy expenses and the little to no impact on violent crime. One billion dollars down the drain. The USA has many more firearms than Canada and such registration would cost significantly more than that - considering our current economic situation, good luck with that. That of course ignores the fact that in a majority of cases historically, registration has led to confiscation. It's good you have such faith in our government, at least someone does.

 

[Phallic]

It is working in the UK, Japan, and even countries like Israel and Switzerland have stricter gun laws now. It's working elsewhere so there is no reason why it can't work here.



Like I said before. Hammers were not designed to kill, and we have laws in place to control the use of hammers as weapons (it's called assault with a deadly weapon).



Honest citizens can commit crimes (just ask George Zimmerman, Jared Loughner, James Homes, and Adam Lanza... oh, yeah, and Eric Harris, Dillon Kleibold, John Allen Muhamad, Lee Boyd Mavo... ).

I love it when people try to cross compare countries, as if there aren't other issues in play such as demographics, economy, justice system, education, culture, societal conditions etc.
It's clear that every country is the same in every regard except for firearms ownership, so it's obvious that we can just compare that one issue and assume causation, correct?

And even if you could cross compare countries while ignoring the hundreds / thousands of other factors, the UK has a overall violent crime rate that is 3.5 times greater than the USA and a gun crime rate (since you like to cherry pick data so much) that nearly doubled after the handgun ban. Switzerland, upon imposing more gun-free zones, has had an increase in mass shootings. Isreal hasn't had a major mass school shooting since allowing teachers and volunteers to carry on school property. We can go this route if you'd like, but you probably won't like what you see. Mexico has effectively banned civilian gun ownership and has a tremendous violent crime rate. The areas in the USA with the highest gun crime are areas with the strictest gun control laws. Europe has a higher incidence of home invasions (50% of all robberies) vs the 10% of all robberies that are home invasions in the USA.

And your argument on "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is cute. The same could be said for guns - there already is a law to control the use of a gun as weapon as well. You say a gun was designed just to kill. That's not implicitly bad - is it wrong to kill a man in self defense if your life is in immediate danger? Should someone be forced to cower at the mercy of an attacker? Is this the world you envision as your gun-free utopia?

And finally, George Zimmerman has yet to be convicted, and as far as the evidence is concerned, it is by no means clear that he murdered Treyvon Martin. And if he's found guilty, then great - he deserves the punishment. And I'm sure you'll try to use him to tarnish the image of millions of CCW holders, 99.99% of whom haven't and will never commit a violent crime.

You think you can ban evil by banning guns. You think that criminals are just going to roll over and stop committing crimes. It's not as if there have been murders and crime before guns were invented, right?

 

[dnno1]

This is the problem with your mentality and the mentality of anti-gun people - you assume that you can just ban your problems away. Ban guns, and we fix the suicide problem! Ban guns and there will be peace on earth! Seriously, it's like debating a brick wall. You claim to be 51, but you still cling to the belief that prohibition works. That criminals will follow whatever arbitrary gun laws and bans you put in place. It would be wonderful if life could be so simple that we could just ban the tool, sadly it isn't.

It's not like it's going to be a ban on all guns, just certain ones. Furthermore we are looking for a more extensive and uniform system of background checks in every state. I don't see what is wrong with that since most Americans want stricter gun laws.

Your only source supporting the efficacy comes from Diane Feinstein's website - that would be like me quoting studies from the NRA or GoA. I'm sure her data is *very* unbiased. Non-biased studies, such as those done by the FBI, have said otherwise. And, quite frankly, I care little about what some police chiefs have to say about gun control. If you want to go the law enforcement route, a majority of police officers support gun rights. And if some believe in gun control, then great. The data is out there, I don't need people to read it for me. I don't need people to think for me. The proof is in the pudding.

There are several independent sources there. Feinstien's website serves a a portal to the reports. I find it hard to belive that the DoJ, the Washington Post, the American Journal of Public Health, and the Police Executive Research Forum are not more credible than the NRA, the GoA and the CATO Institute since the latter mentioned are all tools for the gun industry.

And the data I've read contradicts your statement about most illegal guns being purchased via private sales. Please cite this.

That came from Raymond Kelley, Undersecretary of Enforcement for BATF. You also have that coming from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Common sense should tell you that Criminals who shouldn't have guns get their weapons from people who legally buy them. Since private sales are excluded from background checks, the criminals obtain them legally.

Considering the vast majority of states do not require registration, the government has virtually no way of tracking who owns what for most people. These polls that are conducted undersample the total gun owning population due to many, myself included, who prefer not to state whether or not we own guns to some anonymous pollster. And I have no idea what relevance those graphs hold - the polling data clearly indicates an downward trend in support of strict gun control. You don't have to own guns to support the 2nd amendment. I have plenty of friends who don't own a gun and oppose gun control.

That's why there should be a federal law setting requirements for registration as a minimum standard. That way everybody is playing by the same rules. If they want to refine the law with something more stringent, then that would be fine as well, but as a minimum everybody should be registering their firearms as well as mandatory training, and background checks. You never, know if your gun gets stolen, you might be able to get it back if it is recovered from a crimina since it would be traceable.

And you keep on claiming that the AWB reduced firearms related crime. I'm still waiting on an un-biased study that says that. I won't hold my breath. And, once again, you cherry pick your data by singling out crime committed by a single tool and ignoring the total picture. More people are beaten to death via hands and feet than are shot by a long gun. Your AWB would do literally nothing to appreciably reduce violent crime. Nothing.

Stop assuming that there is bias and actually read the reports on Diane Feinstein's website. They are definitely not biased.

Final word on the issue of registration. Canada imposed mandatory registration. After 10 years, they did away with it due to the heavy expenses and the little to no impact on violent crime. One billion dollars down the drain. The USA has many more firearms than Canada and such registration would cost significantly more than that - considering our current economic situation, good luck with that. That of course ignores the fact that in a majority of cases historically, registration has led to confiscation. It's good you have such faith in our government, at least someone does.

That's BS. In Canada, you are still required to have a license to possess as well as register your (restricted) firearm. It never expired.

 

[dnno1]

I love it when people try to cross compare countries, as if there aren't other issues in play such as demographics, economy, justice system, education, culture, societal conditions etc.
It's clear that every country is the same in every regard except for firearms ownership, so it's obvious that we can just compare that one issue and assume causation, correct?

These are developed nations and I assure you they have the same social problems as we do. Last time I checked there were rich people and poor people in those countries as well as drug use, rape, organized crime, street gangs, muggings home invasions, and even bank robberies. Europe is so Americanized, they have a McDonalds and KFC in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain. Like I said before, they have gun control we don't. We have way more gun crimes, and they don't. Maybe we should take a lesson from them.

And even if you could cross compare countries while ignoring the hundreds / thousands of other factors, the UK has a overall violent crime rate that is 3.5 times greater than the USA and a gun crime rate (since you like to cherry pick data so much) that nearly doubled after the handgun ban. Switzerland, upon imposing more gun-free zones, has had an increase in mass shootings. Isreal hasn't had a major mass school shooting since allowing teachers and volunteers to carry on school property. We can go this route if you'd like, but you probably won't like what you see. Mexico has effectively banned civilian gun ownership and has a tremendous violent crime rate. The areas in the USA with the highest gun crime are areas with the strictest gun control laws. Europe has a higher incidence of home invasions (50% of all robberies) vs the 10% of all robberies that are home invasions in the USA.

You are mixing apples with oranges here. The UK lists all violent crimes in their statistics while the U.S. categorizes violent crime as forcible rape, robbery, murder and aggravated assault. If you just look at those categories the numbers show that there are a lot more violent crimes in the UK, than in the US, but there are 27 times more murders in the latter country (the US -- 14,609 to 551) than in the former.

And your argument on "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is cute. The same could be said for guns - there already is a law to control the use of a gun as weapon as well. You say a gun was designed just to kill. That's not implicitly bad - is it wrong to kill a man in self defense if your life is in immediate danger? Should someone be forced to cower at the mercy of an attacker? Is this the world you envision as your gun-free utopia?

Guns are deadly weapons. They were designed to be. Rocks are only deadly when used that way (i.e. they were not intended to be deadly weapons). Rocks when used as weapons are restricted under the normal assault laws. I have even heard of some cases where people were arrested for having one in their pocket. Should rocks ever become that serious a threat that it needed to be banned (which I doubt would ever happen) then the will ban them... then again, you are already barred from using a rock as a weapon.

And finally, George Zimmerman has yet to be convicted, and as far as the evidence is concerned, it is by no means clear that he murdered Treyvon Martin. And if he's found guilty, then great - he deserves the punishment. And I'm sure you'll try to use him to tarnish the image of millions of CCW holders, 99.99% of whom haven't and will never commit a violent crime.

Don't worry, he will be.

You think you can ban evil by banning guns. You think that criminals are just going to roll over and stop committing crimes. It's not as if there have been murders and crime before guns were invented, right?

I think you fight evil (in a metaphorical sense). If you banned all guns, then criminals would not commit crimes with guns. If you want to stop all forms of crimes, you do other things like stiffer penalties for the acts. I am not saying that banning guns (in this case assault weapons) is the over arching solution to crime, but it is a good way to eliminate the types of tragedies we have seen over the last 6 years from those firearms.

 

[Spider - Man]

Like I said before. Hammers were not designed to kill, and we have laws in place to control the use of hammers as weapons (it's called assault with a deadly weapon).

This is just too intriguing. How do you theorize that the 'assault with a deadly weapon' law controls use of hammers as a weapon? This should be good.

 

[Destructus86]

These are developed nations and I assure you they have the same social problems as we do. Last time I checked there were rich people and poor people in those countries as well as drug use, rape, organized crime, street gangs, muggings home invasions, and even bank robberies. Europe is so Americanized, they have a McDonalds and KFC in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain. Like I said before, they have gun control we don't. We have way more gun crimes, and they don't. Maybe we should take a lesson from them.



You are mixing apples with oranges here. The UK list all violent crimes in their statistics while the U.S. categorizes violent crime as forcible rape, robbery, murder and aggravated assault. If you just look at those categories the numbers show that there are a lot more violent crimes in the UK, than in the US, but there are 27 times more murders in the latter country (the US -- 14,609 to 551) than in the former.



Guns are deadly weapons. They were designed to be. Rocks are only deadly when used that way (i.e. they were not intended to be deadly weapons). Rocks when used as weapons are restricted under the normal assault laws. I have even heard of some cases where people were arrested for having one in their pocket. Should rocks ever become that serious a threat that it needed to be banned (which I doubt would ever happen) then the will ban them... then again, you are already barred from using a rock as a weapon.



Don't worry, he will be.



I think you fight evil (in a metaphorical sense). If you banned all guns, then criminals would not commit crimes with guns. If you want to stop all forms of crimes, you do other things like stiffer penalties for the acts. I am not saying that banning guns (in this case assault weapons) is the over arching solution to crime, but it is a good way to eliminate the types of tragedies we have seen over the last 6 years from those firearms.

No offense...but that's a rather naive view of the world...

I mean, look at drugs. Drugs are illegal...yet they are still easy to get anywhere. Many guns that are used for say store robberies are not even bought by legal means.

 

[Spider - Man]

Don't worry, he will be.

Yup, and evidence be damned. You've already convicted him.

I think you fight evil (in a metaphorical sense). If you banned all guns, then criminals would not commit crimes with guns. If you want to stop all forms of crimes, you do other things like stiffer penalties for the acts. I am not saying that banning guns (in this case assault weapons) is the over arching solution to crime, but it is a good way to eliminate the types of tragedies we have seen over the last 6 years from those firearms.

Here's the question: did the people who commited those crimes want to kill people with guns for whatever reason (notoriety, hate, etc.) OR did they want to kill people in the manner most available to them for whatever reason?

My point is, if they just wanted to kill people and they used the vehicle that ws most convenient/available then take away the guns and there will be something else (a vehicle driven into a crowd, a homemade bomb - internet is flush with icauntless ways of doing this - set off in some enclosed public place) so what difference does it make? It wouldn't 'eliminate' anything except guns.

 

[dnno1]

Yup, and evidence be damned. You've already convicted him.

The only thing is that I will never have the chance to sit on that jury since I don't live in that state. He will get his just deserts, though.

Here's the question: did the people who commited those crimes want to kill people with guns for whatever reason (notoriety, hate, etc.) OR did they want to kill people in the manner most available to them for whatever reason?

You buy a weapon and train to use it, you obviously plan to kill pure an simple. The fact that people choose guns is that it is much easier to do that since it is a stand off weapon rather than that it is most available (I mean, knives, rocks, and hammers are more available than guns).

My point is, if they just wanted to kill people and they used the vehicle that ws most convenient/available then take away the guns and there will be something else (a vehicle driven into a crowd, a homemade bomb - internet is flush with icauntless ways of doing this - set off in some enclosed public place) so what difference does it make? It wouldn't 'eliminate' anything except guns.

Certainly, there will be something else, but (as I was saying) is it easier to perform the task. If there were no guns at all, Adam Lanza would probably not have been able to enter the school since he wold not have been able to break the locks with a rock or a knife... and even if he had used a sledge hammer, he probable would have been arrested by the police after a 911 call from the school. Yes, eliminating assault weapons would more than likely eliminate a number and a certain class of crimes. Why should be making it easier for offenders to commit such crimes by allowing them to gain access and have these weapons?

 

[Kelly]

My only purpose in purchasing a gun was to protect myself....not once have I said. "Oh, thank god I have this gun so I can go kill someone..."

Come dnno1 you tried that argument before....it is ridiculous.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Did anyone see the... "interview" with Piers Morgan and Alex Jones?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

 

[Kable24]

"You buy a weapon and train to use it, you obviously plan to kill pure an simple."

I do?

 

[dnno1]

No offense...but that's a rather naive view of the world...

But it is a trivial supposition. If no guns existed there would be no crimes with guns (just like there are absolutely no crimes with phasers and light sabers). Of course that is not possible (to ban all guns) but that should not preclude any government or municipality from regulating firearms.

I mean, look at drugs. Drugs are illegal...yet they are still easy to get anywhere. Many guns that are used for say store robberies are not even bought by legal means.

Not everyone is using drugs. Right now about 12.7 million people use or abuse drugs (about 10 million use it casually while another 2.7 abuse it). As a comparison alcohol consumption is legal among the adult population and about 150 million people drink (of which 14 million are abusers). If we were to legalize hallucinogenic drugs, I would not be surprised if you wouldn't have somewhere along those numbers using/abusing them.

 

[dnno1]

"You buy a weapon and train to use it, you obviously plan to kill pure an simple."

I do?

You've gone hunting haven't you?

 

[Kable24]

You've gone hunting haven't you?

I did when I was 12 and never shot anything. I don't hunt now. So, no I have never killed an animal or human with my guns. Like I have tried to explain to you in the past. I enjoy the sport of shooting target. Nothing more. I don't hunt, I don't like to hunt and it's not my thing. I just enjoy going to my local range and shooting targets with some friends.

So by your thinking anyone who buys a crossbow or has bow and arrows only want to kill as well. It has nothing to do with enjoying the sport of shooting bow. We are all just wanting to kill!

 

[Thundercrack85]

More than a 100 million Americans own firearms. Most of them have never killed anyone.

 

[Spider - Man]

The only thing is that I will never have the chance to sit on that jury since I don't live in that state. He will get his just deserts, though.

Like I said, he can never get a fair trial because people like you have already decided he is guilty without possibly being privvy to all the evidence. That's real fair-minded.

You buy a weapon and train to use it, you obviously plan to kill pure an simple.

I own handguns to protect me and my family. I shoot them at the range and if you want to say I'm training to kill,fine. But I don't 'plan' to kill. If you can't understand that, you should be a bit more open-minded. There are more than one reason to own a gun.

The fact that people choose guns is that it is much easier to do that since it is a stand off weapon rather than that it is most available (I mean, knives, rocks, and hammers are more available than guns).

Even better, they could make C4 from common household items and rig a simple remote detonator that they could trigger with their phone from miles away. They could run a bead around any building at night and then trigger it to implode the building when it is full the next day. Standoff wouldn't even play into it. But that wouldn't be as easy as getting a gun and ammo. But not so much harder that if the gun and ammo weren't available, that wouldn't be a next best option. Then what? Are you gonna advocate for banning all household cleaning items?

Certainly, there will be something else, but (as I was saying) is it easier to perform the task. If there were no guns at all, Adam Lanza would probably not have been able to enter the school since he wold not have been able to break the locks with a rock or a knife... and even if he had used a sledge hammer, he probable would have been arrested by the police after a 911 call from the school. Yes, eliminating assault weapons would more than likely eliminate a number and a certain class of crimes. Why should be making it easier for offenders to commit such crimes by allowing them to gain access and have these weapons?

No, he could've just waited until they were all outside and then run them all down with a truck or car. Hey, let's ban automobiles.

 

[Spider - Man]

You've gone hunting haven't you?

You're really trying to tie using a gun for hunting to using one for mass murder?

If you've ever eaten a steak, you must admit a bullet between the eyes would be the humane way to kill the steer as opposed to the way it is actually done.

 

[dnno1]

Like I said, he can never get a fair trial because people like you have already decided he is guilty without possibly being privvy to all the evidence. That's real fair-minded.

Se la vie.

I own handguns to protect me and my family. I shoot them at the range and if you want to say I'm training to kill,fine. But I don't 'plan' to kill. If you can't understand that, you should be a bit more open-minded. There are more than one reason to own a gun.

The mere fact that you bought a gun with the intent was to protect yourself and your family means you plan to kill someone.

Even better, they could make C4 from common household items and rig a simple remote detonator that they could trigger with their phone from miles away. They could run a bead around any building at night and then trigger it to implode the building when it is full the next day. Standoff wouldn't even play into it. But that wouldn't be as easy as getting a gun and ammo. But not so much harder that if the gun and ammo weren't available, that wouldn't be a next best option. Then what? Are you gonna advocate for banning all household cleaning items?

Not likely since it doesn't happen every day. Got anything else?

No, he could've just waited until they were all outside and then run them all down with a truck or car. Hey, let's ban automobiles.

But he didn't do that. He used firearms.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You buy a weapon and train to use it, you obviously plan to kill pure an simple. The fact that people choose guns is that it is much easier to do that since it is a stand off weapon rather than that it is most available (I mean, knives, rocks, and hammers are more available than guns).

That is quite possibly the worst argument you have ever made on these forums dude.