So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
A couple of minutes?

It took police TWENTY MINUTES TO RESPOND.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/?hpt=hp_c2




Twenty fucking minutes, no wonder so many died.
Click to expand...

Isn't there an officer in every school in America now?

He could of used a single shot rifle or a bat for 20 minutes and killed that many.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
works at doing what? Decreasing violence and deaths? It doesn't, as has been demonstrated time and time again. All it does is reduce deaths by gun, because those people who obey the laws cannot use guns anymore to defend themselves. The criminals could give a shit less what laws you make, they aren't going to obey them.

IF I could magically make all the guns in the world disappear overnight, you would see a MASSIVE reduction in deaths caused by guns afterwards. Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
Click to expand...
Supreme Court ruling finds that the government has the power to give NoDrama magical powers under the commerce clause.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
there were very few machinegun crimes and almost no grenade crimes when those things were LEGAL.

banning lazer weapons and light sabers in california (since repealed) didnt stop jedi crime nor did it slow the advance of the Hut organization into california's lucrative stolen starship chopshops.

banning machineguns and grenades was a "reasonable" response to a few well organized gangs of motorized bandits, who were the only ones who could pay the exorbitant price for machineguns, since they were knocking over banks.

the subsequent 1968 "and now it's DOUBLE BANNED" crime bill didnt do shit to stop crime with the things it purported to ban (sawed off shotguns were extremely uncommon and mainly used by bandits already, and grenades and machineguns were already banned in 1934) in fact the 1968 law did NOTHING to prevent crime, it simply codified the federalist position that all things are commerce, and sawing a couple inches off your shotgun can make you a felon. huzzah!

before 1934 if you had a machine gun, or grenades you were almost certainly a bank robber or oddly enough, a postal worker or federal agent.
even before the 1968 omnibus bullshit crime bill, if somebody had a sawed off shotgun it was a pretty sure bet they were criminals already.
they might as well have banned pantyhose masks and big sacks with dollar signs on them as well.
you might have noticed the feds didnt ban THEIR goons from using automatic weapons or grenades, just the opposition.
in THEIR hands these evil MURDERGUNS become tools to defend our freedom, from nefarious and sinister threats like Elian Gonzalez or a guy who is growing chile peppers if the DEA helicopter "Dope Expert" identifies those chilis as evil marijuana.

i propose that the citizens have a much better track record of not burning out a farm full of 7th day adventists (including children! Think Of The Children!) or shooting up rural cabins and popping off sniper rounds on women holding babies. (Lon Horiuchi got a commendation for shooting Vicky Weaver) or dropping helicopter fuel tanks onto cabins in puget sound or dropping bombs on pittsburg apartment buildings.

in the end i would rather trust my neighbors and THEIR accountability for their actions than the government. i propose we ban guns for government, and eliminate all gun control for the people. i reckon that might work better than the current scheme.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect about machine guns. They were pretty cheap before 1986. It wasn't until government limited supply that the cost went up.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Would you be ok regulating and raising the cost of Abortion so that it was so expensive and hard to get that you no one could really get one?
Click to expand...
Now that is an idea. People want an abortion to save money, they aren't ready yet or any number of reasons. People will still have abortions. But that suggestion will limit them severely. The extreme increased abortion cost could then go to those whose reason to abort is money.

I see no reason why not. Such a scheme was proposed by anti-smoking laws. They knew banning outright would be hard, so they put extreme penalties for smokers who now pay ludicrous prices for each pack of smokes.

The same could be done for abortions. It would be fair for all. Why is it fair there are poor women whose only choice is abortion? Women who want chrildren but can't afford it, can do so. This would also reduce the stigma associated with welfare. No one considers sending your kid to public school welfare.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
You are incorrect about machine guns. They were pretty cheap before 1986. It wasn't until government limited supply that the cost went up.
Click to expand...
machine guns were cheap before 1986? thats the biggest most insane lie i ever heard.

machinegun sales to unregistered buyers have been banned since 1934, in 1968 the registration and taxes went even higher, by 1986 the ONLY machineguns most people ever saw were either in the hands of the government or the shitty mac10's sold on the street for a coupe grand each.

you sir are a fool.

you couldnt even get your hands on a machinegun except through illegal means or being a gun dealer in the age of disco, much less the glam-rock era.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
machine guns were cheap before 1986? thats the biggest most insane lie i ever heard.

machinegun sales to unregistered buyers have been banned since 1934, in 1968 the registration and taxes went even higher, by 1986 the ONLY machineguns most people ever saw were either in the hands of the government or the shitty mac10's sold on the street for a coupe grand each.

you sir are a fool.

you couldnt even get your hands on a machinegun except through illegal means or being a gun dealer in the age of disco, much less the glam-rock era.
Click to expand...
200 dollar tax stamp and you could buy a new automatic weapon before 1986 at retail prices. They are only the prices they are now because the supply shrinks and the demand grows. You realize that Mac10's are still only a few thousand to buy a legal one. You can any number of machine guns for under 10,000. Let us just accept that you don't know what you are talking about, and I do.

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

There are machine guns for sale and the prices. Just because YOU didn't know where to buy a machine gun didn't mean they weren't for sale. Most people couldn't find depression glass in those days either, but there was a shit ton of it.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Not for the stated goals of gun control people: Safety. It controls guns without accomplishing its stated task of making people safer.
Click to expand...
No? you don't think that more kindergardeners might have been killed if the shooter had had a fully automatic weapon? I do.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Banning semi-automatic weapons is silly. It's one bullet per trigger pull regardless.

If the guns that the shooter used had trigger locks on them, and the ammo was stored in a safe location this could have been avoided. If you want to own a gun for protection, fine, but at least have some common god damn sense about the safe storage and operation of it.

And there's absolutely no question that having a fully automatic weapon would have facilitated death much more easily than having to specifically aim at each target and pull the trigger. At 25 yards I could put about 20 of 30 rounds on target at full auto, from the hip, when I was in the forces.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I assume you have some facts and figures to back this statement up?
Click to expand...
I tried to find an old flyer or something, but the neighbor came by with cookies and I smoked some aurora indica with her and now I don't care because I have cookies.. and dinner... and ah.. so much for groceries.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
You have never shot an automatic weapon, have you?
Click to expand...

The closest I ever came to fireing a fully automatic weapon was about 100 rounds through an authentic gattling gun. So what? what are you claiming here? That fully automatic weapons are not as efficient as semi-automatic weapons? Oh sure, I'm sure there are problems with muzzle elevation or what ever the term is but I am fairly certain that indiscriminant hoseing down of children would have taken even more lives.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
You have never shot an automatic weapon, have you?
Click to expand...


Oh, and this is one more half clever teqnique the gun toters use - "oh, you don't know what you are talking about and I do, therefore you can't possibly be right about anything you say" - right? I know enough about firearms to be able to argue. I have owned them, I have loaded ammunition, I have made my own bullets.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
Intentional homicides:


Per 100,000


United States 4.2
UK 1.2
Australia 1.0
Click to expand...
Different stats. Why hold up an answer to a different question? Usually it's because the answer to the actual question is displeasing to the interlocutor.

Note that even Canada, our amiable beer-drinking neighbor to the north, has twice the violent crime (per capita per annum) as the USA.
And the UK is more than four times as violent per capita.

These are the countries being held up as where we want to go by the enough-with-the guns! proponents. cn

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
 
cues

cues

Well-Known Member
Guns don't kill people. People do.
At what point do we start prohibition? Kitchen knives?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
I am using purpseful murder because I am talking about purpseful murder, not something as amorphous as "violent crime". purposeful murder precludes accidental death and suicide.

The fact is that you seem to be cherry picking your data to attempt to dispute data that was specificly asked of me. Deaths are the most concrete and indisputable measure that I can think of that - again, excludes the ability of a particular medical system to correct.

What you seem to be implying is either the U.K. is more violent than the U.S. but not so violent as to actually take lives, or that their medical system is better. Simple thing actuallyl, in the two countries that have strict gun laws, there are fewer murders than in this one. That actually proves nothing about gun law.View attachment 2450173



But you seem to think there is a direct correlation.
Click to expand...
Dissenting opinion. Violent crime is the more useful metric imo. When folks carry their handguns in a concealed manner, they aren't specifically arming to avoid getting killed. Avoiding getting hurt is a big factor, and the term "violent crime" neatly captures this. Are you suggesting that avoiding getting hurt (with the understanding that the same scenario risks one getting killed, and the two can only be sorted in retrospect) is not a valid reason to arm oneself? cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top