I have a simple argument against assault weapons.
1. If an object is a killing machine or could easily be used as one, then it should be illegal for the average citizen, unless it has an alternative, non killing purpose, like dynamite does.
2. Assault weapons are killing machines and have no alternative purposes but to kill.
3. Therefore, assault weapons should be illegal.
This isn't all that should be done, and it's clearly not enough. We should also require psychological testing of anyone who wants to buy a gun (just like the police department does). And then, our society as a whole should change its attitude toward mental illness, but that one will be more difficult to achieve.
What say you?
First, define 'assault weapon'.
Secondly, any gun can be used for something other than killing people, so point two falls.
As a main function? The gun's main function is to kill as efficiently as possible.
First, define 'assault weapon'.
Secondly, your OP didn't have 'main function' as a requirement.
Thirdly, the main function of any gun is to fire a projectile.
Fourthly, I want a semi-automatic, short-barrel rifle, with an integral suppressor, because it's the best tool to defend my family at home.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/gloss … weapon.htm
My OP did say main function specifically. "unless it has an alternative, non killing purpose, like dynamite does."
You have given me no non-killing purpose that would possibly justify it. You simply claim, "I want it." Seems to be, "I want it, therefore I should be able to get it."
If you can provide an alternative purpose for assault weapons that the average citizen would need them for, aside from killing, that the person could not get from any other source, then I will concede that my formulation of this argument wasn't as precise as it should have been.
1 - No, it didn't say main function specifically. It specifically excludes anything that has an alternative, non-killing use. Semi-automatic 'assault rifles' have alternative uses, so they are excluded.
2 - Ok, we'll go with that definition, even though it's retarded. A pistol grip doesn't make a gun any more dangerous, nor does a folding or telescopic stock, nor does a suppressor(so much misinformation about those).
2a - An AR-15 style rifle, basic, doesn't meet that definition of 'assault rifle'.
3 - You are changing your argument again. The OP simply requires something to have an alternative purpose. Now it has to 'have an alternative purpose for the average citizen that can't be gotten from another source'.
3a - A car fulfills the above adjusted criteria. A car can be easily used as a killing machine, and it doesn't provide a use that can't be found somewhere else. You can use public transportation, or a taxi, or a bike, or a moped/motorcycle/scooter, etc...
4 - You are using killing in a generic term, as if all killing is bad. I would argue that killing in self-defense is not bad, so the term should be changed to murder.
I can provide uses for 'assault rifles', but I expect you will want to change your definition considering that this wouldn't be considered one:
I wasn't crazy about that definition, because I'd focus more on magazines and the ability to fire off rounds. But it gets the general point across.
Anyway, you still have failed to provide alternative purposes that an assault weapon would have. You've said they do, but have provided no evidence what those purposes are.
For your quibbling about my wording, that's why I used dynamite as an example! I could spell out everything I suppose, and make it a little more clear, but I thought it was already clear what I was assuming that with my example. However, even if I change my wording to make it more precise, that would simply mean we should argue about the improved wording instead of the old.
As for the car example, it fails because a car's main purpose is not to kill. That's why I included the purpose of killing as part of the criteria for banning. I've already avoided this problem. A car's main purpose is clearly not to kill.
I numbered my points so you could keep track of them and respond to them. Cars should be banned, according to your arguments.
Are you saying that the gun I pictured above should be considered an assault weapon?
That exact gun was used in the last two mass killings in the United States. Guess your ok with that because the definition of an assault rifle is not clear enough for you. How about this. Lately, the gun above has been used to mass murder American citizens. I would call that an assault, is that a good enough definition for you?
Sooner, it's not quibbling. I'm having a discussion with you about a logical argument that you presented. Your argument was vague, I still don't know exactly what you mean by assault weapon(dynamite doesn't really help, sorry), and you have ignored most of what I said.
You have to make up your mind. Pick an argument.
1 - If an object is a killing machine or could easily be used as one, then it should be illegal for the average citizen, unless it has an alternative, non killing purpose. (From the OP)
2 - If an object is a killing machine or could easily be used as one, then it should be illegal for the average citizen, unless it has an alternative, non killing purpose, that the person could not get from any other source. (From a later post)
And where does 'a main purpose' come into play when you are allowing exclusions based on an alternative purpose? You can't have it both ways.
I already explained that's why I used dynamite. I'm not trying to have it both ways. Dynamite can be used in war as a killing device, but it also serves another purpose for coal. http://kycoal.homestead.com/MiningtheCoal.html
I think dynamite might have actually been a bad example, because as you rightly point out, dynamite doesn't have an exclusive purpose like guns do. They are more ambiguous, so to speak.
That doesn't harm my argument though. It was just a bad example.
A gun is built for the intention of killing. That is its main purpose. If there is an alternative purpose that an average citizen could not obtain except with an assault weapon, then I think you would be justified in saying they could not be banned. The alternative could only be fulfilled by an assault weapon and no other object.
That's what I was originally trying to say. If I failed, then like I said, accept the second formulation. I have no problem with attaining higher levels of precision. That's why discussion is positive. This is an argument that just came to my mind, and I don't begin to claim it is fully formulated.
Interesting, an assault rifle's main purpose is to kill while a cars purpose is clearly not to kill, yet so many more people are killed with cars then assault weapons.
The car comparison works, cars have been used as weapons and not everyone who is shot was shot on purpose.
Not only that, there are millions of assault weapons owned by Americans, yet only about 2-6% are used in violent crimes.
Here's a point you might consider.An assault weapon can be used for defence as well as offence.The second amendment clearly relates to political causes for gun ownership.Protecting the right to hunt and so on was already self evident.
Also,the argument for gun control of any kind does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs...it just puts good people at their mercy.
What would have been the outcome of these spree killings if everyone had been armed when the first round was fired?One...dead...nut job[.][that's Period]
We don't need gun control.We need more education,training,and proper use of guns by every day citizens.We need for the good people to arm themselves.Then the crime rate will decline by leaps and bounds...or at least the sheeple effect would be eliminated.
Does your definition include typical semi-automatic pistols too?
Reading the thread - it appears ar-15-type "assault" rifles are the type of weapon most discussed.
Was the Newtown event the impetus for your discussion?
A very brief perusal, (as in not well researched), of what are listed as the top 10 school massacres, (world-wide, since circa 1986), with firearms involved were mostly pistols.
It appears that the recent Newtown event was the only one that involved an assault-type rifle.
Regardless of whether it is the pro-gun "slippery-slope" argument, or the anti-gun "no civilian needs to own an assault rifle" argument - this seems to be a case of the "squeaky wheel" reality of human nature.
So, do all pistols also fit your "killing machine" definition?
I am probably going to be one of the few that agree with you. An 'assult' rifle, as is 'assult' weapons, is a weapon that mostly used by military and police. It's main function and design was for killing. I feel that this type of weapon should not be available for public to purchase without other screening methods such as psych evaluations and/or owners should be regulated to take special classes/training with these weapons. I also feel that people who do not have a military or police background, really need to attend a training/class on these weapons before being allowed to purchase them.
For those on this thread speaking that it is a 'sporting' weapon I have to disaggree. What would you hunt with this weapon? Most hunters I know don't use assult rifles to hunt. They use 'hunting' rifles to hunt with. The only species this rifle was designed to hunt and kill was other human beings.
Collecting these guns? Perhaps. However, most of these are not collectors items and are still widely used. why not collect dated assult rifles used years ago and are no longer being manufactored?
So I agree, these weapons should be taken off the market for public to buy. If you want to protect your home purchase a shotgun, rifle (other than assult) or hand gun. I can almost bet my weeks paycheck that the average burglar isn't going to rob your home with an assult rifle, it will be with a hand gun.
What folks call an assault rifle is just a semi-automatic rifle. Other than the way it looks (scary and tough) there is no difference in performance between it and any other semi-automatic gun. Fully automatic guns are already banned.
The assault rifles used by the military are not for sale to civilians and even ex-military must give them up in some states when they come home.
The assault "type" rifle works like other semi-automatics, The person has to pull the trigger for every shot. What gun makers did was to put fancy handles and scopes on a standard looking semi-auto rifle to make it "resemble" a military issue.
Just like the black trench coats made infamous by the Columbine killers - so the assault-type rifle is now infamous for wanna-be shooters.
I think they will ban the sale of these weapons, but it won't be because they're any more dangerous than other semi-automatic rifles.
The forums on this issue are clogged with irrelevant technicalities and semantics, often offered as an attempt to blind with 'science' in the absence of any real argument.
How about instead we talk about functionality? Can a particular gun be used to kill many people in a very short time? If the answer is yes, proscribe it. It has no place in general society.
Will outlawing the weapon prevent people from getting one? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet gun crime happens every day. Connecticut has the 5th most strictest gun laws and yet this crime still occurred. Someone said in a closed thread that this tragedy occurred because the mother of the shooter was exercising her second amendment right this tragedy occurred because the shooter violated her rights and the rights of every victim. It sickens me when the victim is blamed.
That doesn't answer my point, which is that the public should be able to decide on the maximum permissible functionality of the guns in their midsts, without having to be expert in the specialist terminology of firearms. Would you care to speak to that idea?
An educated public sure. Do I want people who are afraid of guns deciding for me? No.
Your elected representatives can decide on the functionality. Their technical advisors can translate thei required functionality into a tech spec.
You want politicians to decide, no thanks I'll pass.
That's OK - if you don't like your politicians, replace them. That's what America tells other countries to do!
I've been trying. Why would you put your faith in politicians? I know mine have shown very little common sense over the years.
What is the alternative - let individuals decide for themselves what sort of gun they are 'entitled' to own and where they are allowed to carry it? I don't think that works, do you?
Why not? Let the citizens vote on it after all it effects them.
By referendum open to all eligible voters - I'm fine with that. But in that case, I certainly think the question being asked should be framed in terms of functionality, not in technical terms. Would you be OK with that?
Absolutely, I would not be afraid of what a majority of my fellow citizens came up with.
It's hard for a city or state, by itself, to effectively regulate guns. Perhaps a uniform national law would work better. Bloomberg complains about a pipeline of illegal weapons coming into New York from other states with lax regulations and lack of enforcement.
I don't know every states laws concerning firearms but we do live in a country that is free for the most part. If someone legally buys a gun in North Carolina and goes to New York have they committed a crime?
"If someone legally buys a gun in North Carolina and goes to New York have they committed a crime?"
I'm not familiar with the laws of NC and NY, but I think that they may well have committed a crime if they go from NC to NY where I believe the laws are more restrictive. In my state a court ruled recently that a young man was entitled to take a loaded rifle into a public library even though the library told him it was not permitted, but he would not be able legally to take the rifle into a bar or a court house or a school. The librarians and the local police force that arrested him weren't happy with the court's decision. I'm not sure whether it was appealed. The laws are confusing.
Here's a link to an article on the library case.
http://birmingham.patch.com/articles/sh … -libraries
In my youth I was once arrested for carrying a firearm illegally, I asked for and received a trial by Judge. I was found not guilty. The Judges reasoning was that I was in compliance with the law because I was traveling. I know that it doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about except to agree that laws are confusing, the officers were confused, the prosecutor was confused, the judge however was not.
Ok, you're still ignoring most of what I say.
An 'assault rifle', and I'll go ahead and say the one I pictured counts, and rifles like it, serve 'alternative'(I would argue that their main purposes are sporting and hobby, as that is what they are used most for, by factors of thousands) purposes.
1 - Sport. You can't expect to perform in certain gun sports without specialized, customized rifles.
2 - Hobby-Fun.
3 - Hobby-Collecting.
4 - Self-defense. Yeah, it's killing, but you didn't object to my remarks about killing/murder.
5 - Hunting.
Nope. None of those work. The purpose has to be something that you can't live without. It can't be something you just find fun. I think it would be fun to blow up old cars with dynamite, as long as no one was hurt and it was in the middle of nowhere, but that's not justification for allowing me to have dynamite.
Self-defense is the only possible one that is even in question based on what I have claimed, and you don't need the ability to wipe out 10 people in 20 seconds to defend yourself. A simple handgun or rifle will do the trick.
Ok, I"m done here. You have ignored about 70% of what I have said, and you just keep changing the rules.
Just so you understand, you have gone from
1 - If an object is a killing machine or could easily be used as one, then it should be illegal for the average citizen, unless it has an alternative, non killing purpose, like dynamite does.
1 - If an object is a killing machine or could easily be used as one, then it should be illegal for the average citizen, unless it has an alternative, non killing purpose, that you can't live without, and can't get from any other source, and the main purpose isn't to kill(which ironically negates the first half of the bolded clause above).
You're not discussing, you're saying 'No, you're wrong, because I added a new rule'.
Intellectual honesty requires our beliefs and formulations of those beliefs not be written in stone, forever unchanged. I'm sorry intellectual honesty isn't high on your list.
There is also the issue that in order to elucidate the meaning of a claim, sometimes a lot of extra discussion is required. If some claims were simply straight forward, mountains of books would not be written on the possible interpretations. I can't lay out EVERY SINGLE TINY DETAIL in the original, ONE SENTENCE, claim. What you are asking for is ridiculous.
Your complaint seems to be along these lines. Person A claims abortion is murder; person B asks why; person A says because a fetus is a human being; Person B asks why a fetus is a human being; Person A gives criteria, and person B is annoyed because all of the criteria were not included in the initial claim.
Wow... Sorry but I'm going to come back to say this.
How dare you? Get off your high-horse. You presented a syllogism, and asked for responses. I pointed out a flaw with your second premise, to which you added an extra requirement to your first premise. When I responded to that, you added, yet again, another requirement to your first premise, and accused me of quibbling(when I was doing what you asked.
You asked for discussion, ignored most of what I said, and dare to say I don't care about intellectual honesty?
Seriously, get off your high horse, get over yourself. You have a lot to learn about integrity if you think you can ask for discussion, ignore most of what people say, and then insult them.
Any reader can see what I "did" and "did not" respond to, since this is a public discussion board. Whether you liked my responses is an entirely different question.
You also, ironically, didn't respond to what my actual point was while claiming I didn't answer you! That's quite amusing.
You have definitely moved the goalposts I'm afraid: from a clear set of definable parameters to personal prejudices. It "has to be something that you can't live without"? That clearly depends on your point of view, and would be impossible to legislate, let alone the blatant moral problems with the proposition.
You know, like providing ENERGY to our homes, and not playing some kind of game you happen to find fun. I'm not responding to straw man arguments.
I don't know what straw man you're talking about. 'Need' is almost completely subjective. Many people believe assault weapons to be absolutely necessary. You might disagree, and the majority might disagree, but this doesn't negate the right of the first person to own that weapon.
Consider the implications of government deciding 'need' - they're quite Orwellian.
Also, with your last change of requirements, cars are back on the list. You can live without a car, you can get the benefits of a car from other sources, and it can be used as a killing machine.
Ban cars, your logic requires it.
(I know, you'll just change the requirements again).
Why not label the guy nuts. He killed all those people with pistols.To walk into a school and kill kids is just plain nuts.
People kill other people. The same weekend Javon Bartch. linebacker for some NFL football team. shot and killed his girlfriend, then himself, in front of his mother, my newspaper reported: a guy in Montana who stabbed his father's girlfriend to death, killed his father with a bow and arrow, then stabbed himself to death. There was a mail carrier in Florida who poison her husband. Thankfully he got sick, went to the hospital and didn't die.
Why do we have to educate children about sex, but not guns. Given the right set of circumstances they can both lead to death.
He was nuts. I think that's fairly obvious based on the information that has come out. I just can't see why people think killing machines should be legal. We aren't allowed to have rocket launchers or grenades, and yet a weapon that can gun down hundreds of people in seconds is "my constitutional right."
I've read all the posts on this forum and it's consistent with the way our country is divided by politics. Our country is currently divided by those that are gun enthusiast and those that are not and they will argue passionately about both sides, just like politics.
When gun enthusiast hear the phrase gun control, it raises the hackles on the their necks. I don't think we can have absolute gun control, but what we do need is to ban high capacity assault weapons from public access. Those weapons were designed for military use to do maximum damage to the enemy in the shortest amount of time. High capacity magazines make them weapons of mass destruction. I can understand how firing these machines can give one a thrill. I grew up with guns in my life and used to get the same kind of thrill when going hunting with my father. But these machines are not designed for hunting. How dead do you have to kill an animal? Yes gun enthusiast fire at targets and get a thrill from doing it. But there is a price we pay for those people getting that thrill.
There are those that feel they cannot trust law enforcement and the military to protect them. And if the probability of some invasion of their well being is to take place they will protect themselves, even if it against our own government. Then there are those that trust the establishment to protect them.
The price we pay for having these guns available to the public is that some unstable people also have that same access. If that access is removed, it will lessen the probability of those that are unstable to getting that access.
We are currently in a vicious cycle. When there is a a mass killing, more people buy these weapons which also makes them available to the unstable people. The gun enthusiast like to use the slippery slope argument. If you ban these weapons, then you have to ban knifes,forks cars, trains planes and anything else that can be used as a weapon, but that is a very weak argument. It is part of the "what if game that takes the control out of the person playing the game. The way they get control back is by having these weapons. The whole idea about protecting ourselves from tyranny is a what if game on a slippery slope. It is completely based on fear. Another argument is that there are already so many guns owned by the public, it's too late to do anything about it. That also is a weak argument propagated by the NRA. It's never too late to do something that will curtail the use of these weapons. Of course, these are my observations.
That's a good summary of where we are. Surveys indicate there is wide public support for banning semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines, but that our politicians in both parties are intimidated by NRA threats to withdraw campaign contributions and support. Tonight Ed Rendell commented on CNN that he was elected governor of Pennsylvania three times by wide margins despite opposition by the NRA. He said Pennsylvania has one of the highest NRA memberships of any state. My impression is that the tide of voter opinion is turning against the NRA.
I think your argument is clearer than mine. If something is a weapon of mass destruction, then it should be illegal for the average citizen. Assault weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, assault weapons should be illegal for the average citizen.
Of course, the gun enthusiasts, as you call them, are going to claim a car could be a weapon of mass destruction too, as to try and weaken your claim. That's why I included the alternative, non-killing purposes in the OP.
I suppose I could've made my argument even clearer by simply stating if the sole intention of an object is to kill, and this killing can be done on a massive scale, then the object should be illegal for the average citizen. I just tried to use nuance.
Has anyone looked into Switzerland lately? They believe in a citizen militia, almost every single household has an automatic weapon and they train their people from childhood how to use it and have some of the lowest crime rates out there. It's also the reason that they haven't been invaded very often. When I was in New Zealand, I met a lady from Switzerland and she couldn't understand that given the fact that criminals can get guns no matter if the law abiding citizens are armed or not that anyone would try to make it harder on the citizens to defend themselves. They roundly rejected a major gun control referendum in February of 2011 citing that it's inconceivable to make it harder on the citizenry as crime rates would skyrocket when criminals realize that the citizens aren't armed. I know many people who didn't believe in even owning a gun until they've been robbed at gunpoint and victimized and then decided they didn't want to be a victim again. A close friend of mine told me I was nuts for buying a firearm and being legally licensed until he and his family were threatened on the front porch of his house. All he asked these people to do was to turn the music down (in a decently nice neighborhood by the way) Not too long after that, someone began shooting in one of his windows of the room where his baby normally slept. Suffice it to say, he's been asking my advice alot lately on how to shoot and has even gone to the range with me. He now owns a 40 caliber pistol and feels a lot safer because of it.
So someone who lives in a "decently nice neighborhood" owns a gun and shoots through their window because they are asked to turn the music down... so your friend buys a gun.. next week the guy will use an automatic weapon because your friend's dog takes a crap on his lawn.. the week after maybe we will hear about chemical warfare in the neighborhood as things continue to escalate out of control in this "decently nice neighborhood"...
If that had happened in England all of the houses would have been searched until the gun was found, those involved arrested etc.. No more problems with guns...
If people want to fight each other and they can pick up sticks to do so they will, give them knives and they will use them, give them all guns and they will still use them!!!
You should check out Australia's ban of assault weapons, They haven't had any mass shooting since 1996. I wish we could say the same. Our alleged "ban" had a lot of loopholes in it, so it ended up not actually being a ban at all.
Furthermore, the answer to violence is not more violence. A very superficial look at history shows this point. Violence goes down when people's attitudes change, and they see each other as actual human beings. Arming the citizenry with weapons that could gun down 20 people in 30 seconds is not helpful in fostering a change of attitude toward our fellow human beings.
"The answer to violence is not more violence."
Exactly! Then, why are you arguing for prohibition?
Because some things should not be in the hands of average citizens. Do you think the average person should be able to have land mines and rocket launchers to "protect themselves"?
Yes, yes I do. It's only fair if we want to live in a true egalitarian society. I don't understand how people think that the military's violent monopoly on defense is somehow a safer scenario. There is no accountability and we have no means of withdrawing funds if the service is not satisfactory. Oh, and the service has been very unsatisfactory. We got all in a tizz over this school shooting, and we should, but where is the outrage for the deaths of tens to hundreds of children each day from drones and bombs?
I don't think owning mines and rocket launchers is a good idea, but I can understand how someone would think they would at least be able to stand a chance against those who do have access to them. It is very 'just in case', but it is not an entirely irrational position considering the increasingly authoritarian nature of the west's governments.
Last I heard Switzerland has compulsory military service for everyone. Switzerland is a tiny homogeneous country in no way comparable to the United States.
Are you talking about general crime, or gun homicide? Looking specifically at gun homicides shows a very different picture.
As you can see, Switzerland has the highest gun homicide rate per 100,000 population relative to other developed countries, second only to America (Chile and Turkey are in fact developing countries)*. Incidentally, the U.S. and Switzerland are the only developed countries in the top 45 of all countries in the world by gun homicide rate per 100,000 population.
By an amazing coincidence the U.S. and Switzerland also happen to have the 1st and 3rd highest levels of gun ownership in the world (Yemen is 2nd) **.
See any connections there?
*Source - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
I am surprised New Zealand is higher on the list than Australia. In terms of population New Zealand has 4 million, Australia has 22 million, bringing us closer to Canada with about 31 million in terms of comparisons.
The data has been normalised to avoid population size skewing the results in the way you mention. Otherwise the result would just be a list of countries in order of population size, which tells us nothing about gun homicide.
Instead this data is saying for every 100,000 people in a population, X amount of gun homicides occur. That gives us an equal measure to compare countries like Australia and New Zealand, and determine that although the population in New Zealand is much lower than Australia, the rate of gun homicides in New Zealand is much higher.
Don's point is correct. You have to look at the actual statistical measure.
However, if you try to use Canada as "the closest comparison," we are still above them by mountains. So either way, it's not good.
Just a small list of other easily used assault weapons and would you make these illegal too !
-automobiles in crowds
You just don't get the reality of the mental helth problems in America ........will you ever ?
ahorseback: That is a very weak argument that the NRA uses. None of the items you mentioned were designed for mass killing, assault rifles are. Let's go the other way in your argument. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms. Today those arms include high capacity assault weapons. What's next, laser guided rifles, 50 caliber sniper rifles, rocket propelled grenades, stinger missiles...do you get my point? The 2nd amendment was written in 1791 for people who had muskets. Even if an unstable person had one and fired it. There wouldn't be a mass killing, because it was a flintlock musket that fired one ball and then had to reloaded.
The reality is of all the 10 amendments that make up our Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment is not appropriate for our society today and needs to be rewritten for today's circumstances, until that is done, people like you will always say it is unconstitutional to ban my AR-15 and high capacity magazines...and that is true by the interpretation of a law that was written for another time and circumstances By the way AR stands for Assault Rifle.
As far as today's reality of mental health problems goes, arming every civilian is not going to solve the mental health problems. Violence begets violence. It's like the parent that hits the kid who has hit his sibling and then tells the kid, I told you a hundred times not to hit your brother or sister as the parent continues to hit the kid.
Odd how the old set the girlfriend on fire trick was a news item in San Jose, Ca just yesterday. Then there was the poison your husband with antidepressant pills, bare hands and rocks that could be added to the list. Some people might add my cooking to the list as well.
The thing with "assault weapons" is that most people think the civilian models are just as deadly as the military versions of the weapons. They really are not capable of the same things, since the military grade firearms have different levels of firing capabilities and are in the hands of highly trained professionals. I think an important point left out in these conversations is that the shooters in mass killings tend to focus on areas where people are not carrying, gun free zones.
In gun free zones where a shooter can discharge a firearm indiscriminately without fear of encountering resistance it does not make a huge difference what kind of firearm is used. A concealable handgun will be just as deadly as an AR-15 when the people under fire are unarmed.
Sure that's what the shooter used with Gabby Gifford. It was a Glock 9mm with high capacity magazines. It's the high capacity part that makes it a mass killing weapon, whether it is used in a rifle or a hand gun, it has the potential for mass destruction.
High capacity does not make a weapon any more dangerous, as you can easily carry more rounds and magazines to cover the difference in ammunition. The Columbine shooting was carried out without high capacity magazines, the shooters just carried plenty of extra ammo. A weapon has the potential for mass destruction when a mentally ill person targets unarmed and helpless victims, it is not the weapon or its attachments that make it dangerous, it is the person behind the gun.
Anti gunners are still not getting the point , Your's is a emotional reaction , If one can kill in masses with a shovel and a rake does it make sense then to outlaw shovels and rakes or do we look at why someone goes off the deep end to start with ? This shooter was not firing on all eight cylinders , and you are using the reasoning of sanity to deal with insanity ! And another thing if we didn't have the second amendment you would not BE free or have any other the constitutional rights . If I'm a wacko and off my meds , I am going to find a way to kill enmass if thats what I chose to do . Hell , I'll poison your medical marijuana with dish soap ,if I have to ! Try to catch up with reason people !
How much killing are you going to do with a shovel and a rake in the same amount of time it takes to fire off hundreds of rounds with an assault weapon? Again another case of false equivalence. How do you look at someone that goes off the deep end until they actually go off the deep end?
Seriously. How can you possibly kill a massive amount of people in a short time, acting alone, with one shovel? If you can, that's a hell of a trick.
I think this is the highlight of the forum so far.
1. Guns and shovels cannot be equated. Guns are typically designed for the purpose of causing destruction to living things. Shooting someone to death, is a use for which guns were designed. Beating someone to death, is not a use for which shovels are designed. Can you see the difference?
2. A gun in the hands of a maniac can cause more harm, more quickly than a shovel in the hands of a maniac, all other things being equal. Why? Because causing maximum harm, quickly is what guns are designed to do. Shovels by contrast are not designed to cause harm at all. That's just an unfortunate by-product of their utility.
3. Have you considered the possibility that one of the factors in the decision to commit a mass shooting might be that it's so easy, due to the readily available tools designed specifically for the task (guns)? Have you considered that the elaborateness of poisoning "medical marijuana with dish soap" may actually be a deterrent? Even if it's not, doing that is not something that can be done on impulse. Grabbing a gun and entering a school is.
4. Suicides are higher in households with firearms, for that exact reason. Their efficiency at killing increases the likelihood that impulsive behaviour will be fatal. Most suicide attempts are impulsive acts brought on in moments of panic or despair. Once those feelings subside, 90% don't go on to die by suicide. Unfortunately the effectiveness of guns at killing means that people who grab a gun in their moment of weakness wont ever get the chance to recover.
Source - Harvard School of Public Health
5. I suggest you try to catch up, and understand the real issues of guns in society, and stop making ridiculous anecdotal assertions with no shred of evidence to support them. As for being "free", someone being able to walk into a school and use a machine designed to kill on a bunch of kids is too high a price to pay for your "freedom". No thank you. The safety of society outweighs your childish urge to play cowboy. The West has already been won. Time to grow up.
#1 I bet the guy getting beat to death would rather have been shot.
#2 Would hardly make a difference to the guy being beaten with a shovel.
#3 Then you should take better care that the lunatics get/stay locked up.
#4 See number 3.
#5 I suggest you move somewhere that you can have that lack of freedom.
Suffering from a mental illness doesn't make someone a "lunatic". And if you consider not being able to walk into a school and easily kill children to be a "lack of freedom", then I think you belong to the 50% of the population who will suffer some form of mental illness in their lives (good luck locking them all up)*. I certainly don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a firearm. In fact, your response is the best advert for gun control anyone could hope for. Well done.
*US National Library of Medicine
Oh my, I didn't say what you said I said. I said better make sure the lunatics are locked up its right there in black and white.
Yes you did in #3, but also in reference to people who attempt suicide. See your #4 (right there in black and white!) People who attempt suicide do so for a number of reasons, not necessarily because they are a "lunatic". How can you imply people who attempt suicide should "get/stay locked up". Then in the next sentence criticise gun controls because they are a "lack of freedom". It's mind boggling.
He might not have been as insane as we all initially thought:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun … 20270.html
Mental health doesn't mean you don't know what you are doing. It means your thinking processes are so fundamentally flawed, you are at a risk of acting inhumanely.
Very true. It just seems like some groups of people will automatically say he was crazy as a way to justify his behavior.
Surely, in an ideal realm all this would be possible, but a huge percentage of America's budget comes from selling weapons, so we either bite the bullet or starve, as our children go to a prison shaped elementary school to "learn" in fear with every teacher wielding an AK-47 under the desk. The American Dream and the 2nd Amendment on the same plane, finally.
Ralph, there is a school district in Texas allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons. Your thoughts?
I wouldn't want my kids in that school. Chances are one or two teachers with guns wouldn't have been able to stop the shooter in New Town who reportedly was wearing body armor and armed to the teeth. Think about it where would a teacher be able to keep a weapon where he or she would be able to get to it in time to use it unless he kept it in a quick draw type holster on his hip, (where a delinquent kid could grab). Nobody has been able to rationalize to my satisfaction the issues of quick and easy easy accessibility and safe storage in the home, let alone in the classroom. Last I heard GM where I once worked didn't arm its security guards because they didn't want to spend the money to train them in the safe use of firearms nor to expose the company to lawsuits if the guards intentionally or accidentally shot somebody for no justifiable reason. Likewise, weapons were not allow in the plants or even in cars parked in company parking lots.
[I'm not suggesting that there should be NO concealed carry permits. I acknowledge that there are circumstances where they are justified by virtue of someone's occupation or because of credible threats to their life.]
On the hip, small of the back concealed is where it should be kept. If a student doesn't know its there how would they grab it? I think the chances of that are pretty slim. Body armor does not conceal ever part of the body. You can still slow that subject down long enough to prevent massive loss of life.
I'm not convinced. Here's a YouTube video of a DEA agent shooting himself in the foot while demonstrating gun safety.
http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/DEA_ … h_Glock_40
Ok, but this district has had armed teachers since 2007, not a single thing has happened.
How many teachers have been armed? Who paid for the weapons? Nothing has happened either in most of the schools where teachers aren't armed.
I saw a picture where Republicans call all union members thugs. Teachers are union members, so they would be thugs, according to the GOP. Then, the Republicans say to arm the teachers, so they are saying arm union thugs. They make so much sense .
I don't know how many are armed, the teachers pay for their weapons, its not mandatory they carry them. That's exactly right not many things have happened in schools where teachers are unarmed. So why are we having a discussion about banning weapons?
I guess it's because of the horrific cases that have occurred. Similar to 911 but less extreme. .
Then you obviously support the patriot act it was born out of 9/11.
Well, we've spent a lot of extra time and money waiting in lines at airports.
The school district would not be responsible for training or paying for the concealed carry permit the individual teacher would be. They accept all liability for their actions.
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit18 months ago
http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/nouman-ra … oting-cop/Another citizen has recently been murdered in Florida by a rogue cop. The Palm Beach Gardens Police Department said officer Nouman Raja was on duty...
by movingout4 years ago
In my opinion, yes! Should gun ownership be banned? NO Do people have the right to defend themselves and have hunting guns? Yes Should the average American be able to purchase assault weapons? No in my opinion! I see no...
by jmicchael1a4 years ago
Louie Gohmart claimed that the horror of Aurora, Colorado was a product of people turning away from Judeo-Christian beliefs. Attacking these beliefs were his words. Then he rambles on wondering why there was no one in a...
by Judy Specht4 years ago
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938Read more:...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
He warns that Deomcrats will lose if they stand with Obama on gun control measures. Do Bill's remarks surprise you? "Clinton closed his remarks with a warning to big Democratic donors that ultimately many...
by emrldphx5 years ago
As I'm not being allowed to discuss this interesting claim where it was originally posted by Mikel G Roberts, I will post my analysis here.Mikel uses the following definitions for his claim of scientific...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.