Join Date: January 2, 2011
This was his response.
No, not if they individual was determined enough,
So you agree that a determined enough individual can get to them anyways. Seems logical that if the weapons that they eventually get to are less deadly in crowds then it will mean less people get shot.
Yet all the things I've mentioned kill more people on a daily basis than guns in this country do over the course of a year or two or three.
Of course they do. Everyone drives cars, it's inherently dangerous, but it's pretty much necessary to our country functioning to the risk is worth it. Is keeping semi automatic weapons around for the sake of a few gun collectors to play around with worth it? Not in my opinion.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear cut IMO.
The bill or rights is referring to muzzle loading muskets and pistols and ****. Not exactly the same concept. The BoR is old, not everything can be taken literally from it because it's written in words that have different definitions now. This is why the supreme court rules on it rather than just having us keep those rights for all eternity until "arms" means handheld nuke launcher or something in the future.
we should get the same as us servicemen
Back then even a servicemen armed with the pinnacle of weapon technology couldn't kill/wound 50 people in a few minutes. Also if the US government wanted to oppress us you don't honestly think that some semi auto guns could do anything. The middle eastern insurgents and vietcong used/use ak-47's, rocket propelled grenades and they still got killed/get killed in 200 to 1 ratios to our government's technology. Fighting in their own back yard.
You are essentially asking for the government to create a department and go from house to house, asking each individual if they have firearms and if they are registered. Do you realize how much money that would cost, not just in man power but the cost of setting up a working database and have people catalog all that?
I'm not asking for anything. I already said I don't necessarily think any legislation is necessary, all I'm saying is that if you were going to ban any sort of guns in an attempt to make mass shootings less deadly, weapons that allow you to shoot many bullets before reloading would be the ones to go after. If you were to implement any gun regulation some sort of extra money would of course need to be spent in setting it up. TL;DR, I never said this regulation should be passed in the first place so arguing implementation that would be similiar between any gun regulation passed is not within the scope of my point.
Furthermore, your car and other pieces of property are NOT protected by law, they may be taken from you, while your rifle, your pistol are protected by law unless you give the government a reason to believe you are disqualified from owning a firearm.
(NOTE: the above statement was poorly written on my part, so I know it's a weak point in this debate)
What are you talking about? You realize that the constitution and bill of rights are not the only laws in the United States right? The government cannot just seize random things.
The first step in any governments desire to oppress the people is to confiscate their weapons. This starts with finding out who has what, how do they know who has what gun? That's right, registration. The anti gun crew have made it very clear that they eventually wish to have firearms banned in their entirety, a complete abolition of the 2nd Amendment.
That's interesting...? I haven't said anything about removing the second amendment, though I do think the premise of adhering strictly to a document written hundreds of years ago when semi and fully automatic didn't even exist and guns couldn't hit a watermelon from 10 feet away just because it was written by a group of average guys that Americans tend to make into deities is rather silly.
This is exactly what happened during WWII in Nazi Germany, all firearms were registered and they show who owned what and exactly where they lived, from there he confiscated every firearm that they could use to oppose with from the Jewish population.
You do know it's a general rule of debate that comparing your opposition to Hitler is like an automatic loss, right?
He systematically disarmed the targeted demograph that he ultimately wanted to destroy.
Well unless you think that the anti's ultimate goal is a genocide of rednecks or something I don't really see how this is comparable to our situation
Yet before, you had argued before that with said slowed rate of fire as if he was using a pump action shotgun or perhaps a hunting rifle the civilian populace could have overpowered someone like him.
It depends on the situation I suppose. If the guy has less rounds to shoot before he has to reload, invariably, if the option is there for people to run, more will get out without being shot. Maybe some ballsy guy might overpower him while he's reloading but I never said it was definitely something that would happen.
So whats the answer here, if he had never had the AR15 or the Glock with a 10+ round magazine and decided to walk in just with that shotgun, is the answer to ban tube fed, pump action shotguns? If it means we can save lives, we should right?
Uh yeah, that is the answer. If he only had a shotgun less people would have died. Plus shotguns are ridiculously loud and no one would have mistaken that for a movie sound effect, which IIRC is what happened.
So when all of them are gone and we still have these shootings occurring with Bolt action hunting rifles and pump action shotguns our solution is to start having those registered and eventually banned as well?
No. The shootings will occur but less people will die in some scenarios because they shoot slower. Which is a good thing.
Let me explain this another way.
No, you're still arguing against the wr0ng thing. The specific metaphor being used here was only about the futility in banning alcohol and how it still got around during prohibition and how it caused crime ie, al capone etc. it has nothing to do with how dangerous alcohol or guns are. You're making a completely different point, which I will now address.
Although it is still possible to get drunk off of less potent alcohols, it takes longer. In the case of guns, the issue is not just IF it is possible to shoot of a number of rounds, it's IF you can shoot them off before every runs away screaming and the police get there. Time is not an issue when you're drinking, it is when you're shooting people in a mall, so your point is invalid.
Quite the contrary, 50% of this nation supports the RKBA, the gun culture has exploded over the course of two decades, and believe it or not, there are many who opposed the AWB that narrowly passed back in 1994. The result of the passing of said legislation had the Senate and House completely cleaned out by those who supported the RKBA and opposed the AWB which banned "High capacity magazines" among other "evil Assault weapon" features.
So some senators and representatives don't get elected... I don't see how this is akin to alcohol based crime groups ruling the streets and everyone drinking regardless of the law. And I already said the assault weapons ban is stupid and doesn't address the correct factors among other things, so this is still not comparable.
Nor is there evidence that the banning of high capacity magazines and limiting your options of firearms would make the chances of a mass shooting less likely to occur.
There sure isn't but I didn't say that either.
A person like Adam Lanza has the dedication and the will to drive them to kill their mother to obtain a tool, what's to stop him from using something else to carry out his heinous acts. If you want to kill someone and want to expedite the process as much as possible and you have the options of using your bare hands or an axe, you'll use the axe because it's the most efficient means of carrying out your actions.
If the most efficient thing he can find is a bolt action rifle, that's a much better scenario than if he found an AR-15.
It may take one or two extra swings to completely kill someone with a different blade, but you are not doing anything to stop the killers from carrying out their crimes.
So basically you're saying it doesn't make a difference to you whether someone walks into a movie theater with a sharpened toothbrush or an m249.
Did you know, that the last game that Adam Lanza played was Mass Effect? There are those pushing to ban the production of "Violent media". They are blaming video games, movies etc. for influencing the actions of the Sandy Hook shooter. So, we ban these games, movies etc. It's okay because the only consequence is that a small demograph of society can't have much fun on their Xbox or watching a film at a movie theater.
If he used a semi automatic copy of mass effect maybe i'd agree with them.
Are you willing to sacrifice your favorite movies, books or games for the "Betterment" of society even if such things have absolutely no correlation with truly affecting crime rates in America?
Crime rates or mass shootings? What are you referring to? Anyways, maybe I'm not, maybe if you'd actually read my point:
"If there was to be any gun regulation implemented targeted at reducing the lethality of mass shootings, the guns that shoot the most rounds before requiring a reload/have the highest rate of fire, would be the ones to go after."
Instead of just assuming i'm an anti gun communist nazi hitler fan you'd actually be addressing the points I'm making instead of listing off the usual pro-gun spiel and expecting it to apply to my argument.
I didn't say I wanted this kind of law passed, I was only saying how stupid the assault weapons ban was and pointing out actual factor that determines how deadly a weapon actually is in a crowd shooting scenario.
So you'd rather be victimized and be left to the mercy of an unknown assailant in the sanctuary of your own home, disarmed, and unable to fight back in the event that you are assaulted.
Than be shot to death? Yes, yes i would.
As I just said, most of these stories you're giving, statistically, would end up with me dead if I pulled a gun rather than just hand over my wallet.
basic human rights.
Who defines this? You? Me? The founding fathers? How can it be a basic human right when 1000 years ago it didn't even exist?