Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ladypanther

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

613 posts in this topic

Of course, the difference here is cars are not designed for one purpose.. to kill.

Assault rifles are designed with one purpose in mind, killing as efficiently as possible.

No, they don't kill people on their own. But they make it much easier for anyone to maximize the amount of people they can kill in a short amount of time.

That is the real issue here.

Would you be ok with live hand grenades being legal to own? What about pipe bombs and mustard gas? Afterall, those things don't kill people, people kill people.

A lot of people do not own guns to kill. They own them for the enjoyment if target shooting.

I don't own an assault rifle...don't want to own one...and understand prople's disgust with them. I just know that starting down the path allowing more gov't regulation on which type of guns are OK is a very slippery slope.

I am fine with tighter and more consistent checks to buy guns. Just not sure I like the gov't banning particular types.

The gov't usually screws up whatever they touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people do not own guns to kill. They own them for the enjoyment if target shooting.

Yep, like Adam's mom who taught Adam how to shoot deadly weapons for fun. Brilliant.

There are plenty of things they can own for target shooting. Rifles, hand guns, hell even archery. Archery requires much more skill anyways.

Do you feel the need of a small minority of people who use assault rifles for some sort of hobby out weighs the greater good of helping to prevent mass murders in our schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own an assault rifle...don't want to own one...and understand prople's disgust with them. I just know that starting down the path allowing more gov't regulation on which type of guns are OK is a very slippery slope.

Were we on that slippery slope prior to 2004 when they were banned? I seem to remember lots of people owning guns and target shooting in the 80s and 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To protect the tips she will earn from the strip club?

Man that was a zinger. You must feel awesome talking about a 5 year old like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, guns will kill people, but the vast majority are bought and owned as a deterrant to someone harming you and your "stuff". Protection and deterrant are a huge reason for having guns, not just killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, guns will kill people, but the vast majority are bought and owned as a deterrant to someone harming you and your "stuff". Protection and deterrant are a huge reason for having guns, not just killing.

A shotgun, pustol, or rifle is more than adequate to deter and protect your stuff.

An assault rifle is for assaults, that's why it's an assault rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, like Adam's mom who taught Adam how to shoot deadly weapons for fun. Brilliant.

There are plenty of things they can own for target shooting. Rifles, hand guns, hell even archery. Archery requires much more skill anyways.

Do you feel the need of a small minority of people who use assault rifles for some sort of hobby out weighs the greater good of helping to prevent mass murders in our schools?

Taking him to a driving range had nothing to do with this. The fact that he snapped is the relevant point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking him to a driving range had nothing to do with this. The fact that he snapped is the relevant point.

Yeah, the fact that he was trained with an assault rifle had nothing to do with the volume of dead kids.

Are you trying to lose an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shotgun, pustol, or rifle is more than adequate to deter and protect your stuff.

An assault rifle is for assaults, that's why it's an assault rifle.

If you read my posts from awhile back and current. I have been for certain thresholds before owning certain firearms, but not their banishment. I am unsure why this woman had an assault weapon. I would think the pistols would have sufficed. I will also mention as I have before that "both" sides will have to solve the problem, not just lob insults at each other.

The NRA will have to be part of the solution. You will get nowhere by wanting to destroy the NRA.

Put the NRA in the meetings on how to make America safer and let them be partially responsible for the results. It will go beyond guns however. The fact that this kid was in a "dungeon" playing COD might get calls for video game regs.

Psychiatric exams, meds, certain behaviors will/should be part of the discussion.

If you take a situation like this, place all blame on weapons, then you are just there to further your agenda and not solve a problem. Course, that is what the Tinderbox is for I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the cars vs guns comparison.

It somehow is easier to own a gun than a car.

I would be fine with treating gun ownership like car ownership.

Pay yearly taxes on them, require periodic training classes, and have them inspected and registered yearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites