Archived

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

ladypanther

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW

614 posts in this topic

A person does not start drinking alcohol with committing a tragedy in mind. A person who kills people with fire arms has a clear intention to upon receiving the firearms. The same type of crash with a school bus could happen even if the person was not drunk, any sort of accident can happen with vehicles, though banning vehicles is unrealistic as it is a necessary thing and has multiple purposes. This comparison is just silly really.

I want to be clear what it is I'm debating with you. So are you saying any and all firearms should be banned from public use? If so, is this retroactive where all guns need to be confiscated or something that is a law moving forward, say on 1/1/13 for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like you are cherry-picking portions of rational arguments people have made against more anti-gun legislature, and taking those cherry-picked portions and trying to make ridiculous claims with them.

You took everything I wrote and turned it into alcohol impairs people so we should have guns. I feel like you are intentionally trivializing every rational point I try to make, which makes trying to have a meaningful, intelligent debate with you over something we have different point of views on, futile.

I responded to your other post in a more in depth manner earlier. That post was directed at everybody making every excuse they can think of to say that staus quo isn't really that bad and is just the price we pay for freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HUGE difference in a small town wanting people to drive 5 miles over the ridiculously low speed limits for fines (which does not really endanger lives).....and saying the government wants drunk people driving around on our roads (which is a HUGE risk and danger to others) for fines.

Yeah. Seeing as speeding is the leading cause of death far and away.

How you incentivize people is how they'll behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person does not start drinking alcohol with committing a tragedy in mind. A person who kills people with fire arms has a clear intention to upon receiving the firearms. The same type of crash with a school bus could happen even if the person was not drunk, any sort of accident can happen with vehicles, though banning vehicles is unrealistic as it is a necessary thing and has multiple purposes. This comparison is just silly really.

I'm a gun collector, and I didn't start out that way with tragedy in mind, either, nor do I don't have a clear intention to commit any atrocity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can try to pass all the regulations and laws they like because in reality I don't need the Second Amendment to tell me as a free Man I don't have the right to defend myself from harm or fear of death. I also don't need another man to try to explain to me I don't have the right to defend my gift of life with any means necessary.

There are a lot of people that try to dictate where, how and if I can defend myself with a firearm of my choosing. I find that unacceptable. I won't accept it. I am a free man with the right to self defense in this great country. Anyone that wants to make me unarmed and helpless can kiss my ass, or worse. Hey, I am a We the People guy what can I say?

This whole converation has gotten so convoluted and If there is content and positive upgrade in their message then I am willing to listen before...before I act. Unfortunately, I have yet to hear anything that will provide a long term sound and positive outcome that favors individual liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a gun collector, and I didn't start out that way with tragedy in mind, either, nor do I don't have a clear intention to commit any atrocity...

All the mass shooters did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the mass shooters did.

Again, people that want to commit acts of violence will find a way to do so. You say 'all the mass shooters did". False. A suburban housewife that passed all requirements to own legal firearms had those firearms stolen, was murdered with them herself, and then the culprit murdered a bunch of children with them as well.

So are you for banning all guns as I asked above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, people that want to commit acts of violence will find a way to do so. You say 'all the mass shooters did". False. A suburban housewife that passed all requirements to own legal firearms had those firearms stolen, was murdered with them herself, and then the culprit murdered a bunch of children with them as well.

So are you for banning all guns as I asked above?

The mass shooter I had the intention upon receiving the gun, regardless of how they got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the mass shooters did.

There were ~150 million gun owners last week that didn't commit mass homicide...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mass shooter I had the intention upon receiving the gun, regardless of how they got it.

So what if the shooter was an 18 year old private in the military? Say he stole a weapons cache from his base and went shooting kindergarten kids. Ban weapons from military use? You can't disregard the method in which the weapons were obtained because its convenient for your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were ~150 million gun owners last week that didn't commit mass homicide...

Oh, good, I'll be sure to tell the 26 people who died in the gun massacre that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if the shooter was an 18 year old private in the military? Say he stole a weapons cache from his base and went shooting kindergarten kids. Ban weapons from military use? You can't disregard the method in which the weapons were obtained because its convenient for your argument.

The military needs weapons and it is unrealistic to ban them from the military as it serves multiple purposes within the military confines. Once the person leaves the base, he becomes a person with a gun committing a massacre, whether that is with military weapons, or ones he easily retrieved legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites