Gun control: more divisive than reason

Post Reply New Topic

You're right - I said that. And I would submit that an RPG launcher (ie the part that you carry) should be legal - however, the ordinance that it fires (namely the rocket, the propellant, and the grenade) should not be. If someone wants to pay 50k for a glorified potato gun, I don't really have a problem with that. It is the opinion of the executive branch of the government that RPG launchers do not quality as a weapon in "common use", as defined in United States v. Miller, and I'm ok with that too.



a) there is no such thing as legislative interpretation of laws - their interpretation of laws are the laws themselves. But that's nit-picking a little too much.

b) rights are never unlimited - and the Supreme Court has very plainly defined what those limits are (see United States v. Miller).

c) who, exactly, is "everyone". Because no court has ever set a precedent that backs up that assertion, and I don't really care what "everyone" thinks if it has no basis in law.




Yes, thanks for explaining that to me. You would think that, as someone who regularly carries a gun (and a knife, for that matter), that I would know that. But, clearly that's not true and I am greatly appreciative for your correcting me. /sarcasm

Here's what you missed - knives penetrate much, much further than bullets with less force. And lateral movements can (and frequently do) exacerbate knife wounds. Bottom line - I would much rather be facing an attacker with a gun than a knife.



Make the existing background check work the way it's supposed to, and we can talk.



And how, pray tell, will you do that?



There's really nothing to say here - Dox has said it all.



I don't even know what that means. I don't know of *any* gun owner who treats their guns "casually".

Holiday seasons at Dunham's, only $89.99. Create a small army for less than a tank! AP rounds available by the crate! (ammo also compatible with modern Russian, and Romanian semi auto sniper rifles.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfiXFyIbOZw[/youtube]

I'm waiting for the author of this thread to say Q.E.D.

Well, I don't really have a problem with that ;p


The SCOTUS, to be specific. Modern liberality wrt. gun laws is relatively recent.

You may carry a knife and a gun, but I have seen the injuries. Your statements about which cause the most damage are incorrect.

Then you're an idiot.

That would certainly be a necessary, if not sufficient, starting point.

Limitations on magazine size and caliber.

Dox hasn't said much of anything about waiting periods, except that 'women need guns fast!' to protect themselves against domestic violence... which I put up a few links to contradict. Guns, statistically, are not helpful to women. The few women who are helped by them probably had enough time and training to be comfortable with gun use -ie, to not be inconvenienced by a waiting period.

Then you don't read the news enough, and/or don't get out enough. People get shot by their own guns fairly often (most of the wounds I've seen have been accidental and self-administered, or 'accidental' shootings of family members/girlfriends), kids shoot their brothers and sisters; hell, there are even a few stories of dogs shooting their owners by accident. And that's just *after* someone has a gun. I've left a quarry where I was shooting for target practice because another group of people showed up and were being drunken idiots, shooting their weapons when other people were down-quarry putting up or taking down targets.
It shouldn't be easier to buy a gun than to buy a car. That is casual.

I am more concerned about the ursine lobby pushing for the right to arm bears

Thankfully, most bears aren't terribly up on current firearms.

^
See? Smokey there doesn't even know how to the use the pistol grip on that AK!

He doesn't consider it worthy of his claw grasping. Normally he hunts rabbits with an 8.8 cm Flak 18-36

Ever heard of this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tQjaK0HfU

What problem because of prohibition you are talking about?


Where did I attempt to compare the 'spread' of a slot gun with a bomb?


That is getting silly. What is the point of having a shot gun just for firing slugs? Moreover, there exists explosive shells designed for the standard 12 gauge shotguns.
http://www.defensereview.com/exclusive- ... est-fired/

Really, what do you mean by 'discrete' just refers to guns designed for firing 'shots', or 'solid rounds'.


Of course HEAT contains explosive. Really all it shows is your emotion against explosives.


Then it is clear your so called professional credential does not help you to make any better argument. As anyone with basic knowledge in logical reasoning can point out your fallacy. And all you can respond is 'I am expert, I don't hear you, LA LA LA'.


An did we say anything about accidents? Do you agree we are arguing here because people _deliberately_ use guns to kill other people?


It is you who have comprehension problem. The table only compare accidental gun and car deaths. Ignoring gun murder.


More emotional rant. What concrete benefit carrying a gun for an hour gives, compared with driving for an hour?

While everyone obviously shouldn't be allowed to own guns, gun laws should nevertheless be liberalistic. A whopping four percent of all murders in Norway are carried out by guns, despite the fact that more than 40% of all households has at least one gun and that there four times as many illegally owned guns here as there are on average in other European countries. Far, far more murders here are carried out by stangulation, stabbing or blunt violence. This doesn't mean that wires, kitchen utensils and crowbars should be heavily regulated. If you want to kill someone and do not have access to a gun, you'll always find something else that will do the job just as well.

And what exactly is the difference between 1 30 round mag and 2 15 round mags? or 10 3 round mags?



It isn't. Taking out the hours of price negotiation and loan BS, buying a car is a simple transaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitio ... rohibition

Or, you know, go read a book.



Well, hunting big game, for one.



And - *surprise* - it's classified as military ordinance and can't be purchased by civilians! Stop just googling random stuff.



If you want to look at it that way - but what he meant by 'discrete' is 'discrete'. An explosive is, by definition, not controlled.



Well, I don't know why *you're* arguing - but I would submit that the gun control advocates are pushing for gun control because guns are dangerous objects, not just because people use them to murder people. The danger something poses isn't just limited to what people use it for intentionally, but also what people use it for unintentionally.




No it doesn't.



Why does there have to be a concrete benefit for either task? Why does carrying a gun have to provide concrete benefit while being carried to be allowed? Why does driving a car around for an hour have to have a benefit? People are allowed, in this country, to drive wherever they want for whatever reason - and people are allowed to carry a gun for whatever reason they want. The benefit to doing that is for them to decide.

Frequency of reloading, shots fired before reload needed..

So what?