Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#541 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:56 PM

There are no real preventative measures to stop somebody from drinking and driving. There are laws that say bars can't serve someone who appears intoxicated, but do bartenders listen? Rarely. Saying that it is illegal to drink and drive is a preventative measure against drinking and driving simply isn't true. Yes it's illegal, but you have to commit the crime before they arrest you for it, aside from the one in a million chance that a cop watches you stumble to your car while you are drunk and flashes the lights before you drive off. It is a reactive law, not a proactive, preventative law. Gun laws are the same. You may own a gun, and those that gave you that right expect you to use it responsibly. As with DUI cases, some people don't use those rights responsibly, and you can only arrest them after they've done so. So unfortunately with guns, you cannot arrest a person until they have done something with it.

So again the point I'm trying to make is this. If my daughter is twenty years old and has some friends over to my house, steals the liquor from my liquor cabinet, gets drunk, gets into her car and crashes into a school bus full of six and seven year olds, the country isn't going to pass some new prohibition act.

The shooter stole weapons that his mother went through all the necessary channels to obtain, and committed a terrible act with them. The fact that one was a semi-automatic rifle makes little difference in my mind. Would he have done as much damage with just two pistols? Maybe. Maybe not. But even if he killed 5 six year old children who were eagerly anticipating Christmas, is that any less a tragedy than 20?

These anti gun laws IMO are a slippery slope of things to be taken away because a small percentage of people are going crazy. If people made bombs out of fireworks every year and killed people, how long until they ban everything but snakes and sparklers because they deem the rest to be too dangerous for us civilians to weild it ourselves?

It just makes me nervous is all.



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.

#542 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,102 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:58 PM

Next thing you know, I'll be spouting off that there are small towns that want people to speed.


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.

#543 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:04 PM

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?

#544 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,494 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

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.

#545 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 11,892 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

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.

#546 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:29 PM

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...

#547 Datawire

Datawire

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:30 PM

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.

#548 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:38 PM

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.

#549 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:47 PM

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?

#550 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:50 PM

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.

#551 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

All the mass shooters did.


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

#552 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:54 PM

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.

#553 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

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.

#554 Verge

Verge

    Huddle Troll Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:58 PM

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.

#555 Montsta

Montsta

    Rest In Peace

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

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.


So are you saying all guns should be banned? I don't think you've directly answered that question yet, which makes it difficult for me to form any sort of rebuttal to your argument. I feel like you keep inferring without directly laying out your stance. Should all guns be banned? If yes, is this retroactive to all guns, or just new purchases? What would be the protocol to implement this plan?

Please answer so that we can be clear what we are debating.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.