ErickTheRed
Member
Youtube Portland Oregon mall shooting recently, 21 yr old c.c.w draws his firearm on shooter, shooter sees him then turns gun on himself end of threat, probably more dead if c..c.w holder does not take action.
Jim Boeheim Speaks Out On Gun Control
- Thread starter NYCRedmen
- Start date
I understand hunters and people who want to protect their home with a handgun. What I don't get is the need to collect and own some of these assault weapons and semi - automatic repeat fire hand guns and rifles. How many times do you need to shoot a deer before it dies? 10 rounds per second, 50 round clip? What for? We have taken the 2nd amendment too far.
Well, in the first place the 2nd amendment allowed citizens the right to bear arms to form a militia to protect the country, it starts with "A well regulated militia being necessary . . .". Not really the same as most people's intents today. It has evolved into folks thinking it says "an unregulated cluster frak of guns being necessary . . ." We don't need a militia anymore so the original intent is moot, unless you think Red Dawn was a documentary.
That said if you need a shotgun under the counter of your business, that makes some sense. You want a handgun under your mattress to help you sleep well at night, I can understand that. You need a rifle because killing animals makes you feel good? Well whatever makes you happy I guess. You need a gun capable of mowing down a crowd of dozens of innocents in less than 30 seconds? I have a problem with that. I felt the same last Thursday.
ErickTheRed
Member
Lets outlaw any vehicle that can go over 80mph since thats the max speed limit on any highway in the US. Speed kills and in the wrong hands i.e. the kid in the subaru that killed 4 passengers. lets outlaw cigarettes since they cause cancer, birth defects to smokers and non-smokers. Ban alcohol since people still can't grasp the concept of not drinking and driving.
Sorry, but you need need to rethink your apples & oranges analogy. The primary purpose of vehicles that go over 80 mph is not to kill people, but to transport people -- and those vehicles that do have the primary intent of killing, such as tanks and armored rocket-launcher vehicles are,in fact, banned -- just as the primary intent of smoking tobacco is not get cancer but to give smokers some pleasure. The primary purpose of combat-style weapons, however, is to kill the most people in the least amount of time. (Hell, they're designated as "assault" weapons.) There is absolutely no reason for them to be available in a civilized society. Period.
ErickTheRed
Member
Your "combat style" weapon response proves you know very little about firearms, and what semi-automatic as opposed to automatic means.
Funny, but unless my memory has failed me, I remember being issued an M16 while I was in Vietnam. I even remember firing it in the semi-automatic mode (with a mere flick of a switch with a finger). The NVA, meanwhile, were armed with AK47s, which also had semi-automatic capabilities. Be assured, both weapons can shoot up a storm. Then again, I know very little about firearms, so I defer to your expertise. (For the record, I do have limited knowledge of, and zero interest in, the latest semi-automatic weapons, simply because I'm sickened over much carnage they're capable of producing.) Back to the point I raised and to which you never responded: your analogy between automobiles/tobacco and combat-type weapons was illogical and inane. That said, I'm putting down my pen on this topic. My final comment is: God bless all the children and adults (their lives are precious too) whose blood will continue to be shed in sickening numbers so that the gun lobby can generate bigger profits for the arms industry and so that a handful of nuts can have "fun" shooting off clips of 30 or more rounds of ammunition, be it at a target, a deer, or a human being.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that because we can't ban everything that is dangerous, we shouldn't bother to minimize the risks of anything?
Cars are capaple of killing several people...so are nuclear weapons. Should citizens be allowed to possess both? Should I be allowed to walk around with a belt full of grenades? If you don't think so, you are drawing the line at some point.
People should be allowed to have pets, right? Should they be allowed to have lions as pets or do we cut it off somewhere in the neighborhood of house cats and dogs? Screw it, a car going 80 mph can kill just as many people as a runaway lion. Plus, with all the citizens walking around with assault rifles, the lion doesn't stand much of a chance.
That's honestly BS statistics. There are exponentially more of them (handguns, rifles, fists) out there and exponentially more of them being used so of course they're going to kill more people. That said, I'd be all for a complete ban on weapons as you propose but that's obviously not going to happen.
They (handguns/hunting rifles) also serve somewhat useful purposes for some, assault weapons do not. The intent of the assault weapons ban is to make it more difficult for single shooters to discharge 300 or more bullets per minute and thereby lessen the damage that someone so inclined can cause.