Error: One deer is about, what, $300 of meat? Maybe more. You like the idea of saving that kind of money off your food bill? People without a pot to piss in like it even more.
Among well off people like ‘you and me’, hunting is a sport. Among poor people in rural areas, it’s not. Look outside your own life, and accept that people are in different situations than you are. Understand where they come from, and that there’s a lot of them. Use your brain.
As far as ‘30 rounds in 30 seconds’, no. The point is that second, and maybe third shot, without having to reload, and more importantly, change your point of aim. Letting a deer run bleeding through the woods is just plain cruel. Kill it quickly. Do you have no empathy? The rest of the shots are just mechanical consequences of the first three.
Edit: Oh my god! Psychos are running around shooting anyone who has a gun! HIDE!
Spoken like someone who didn’t have bomb threats yearly at their high school. Pipe bombs are easy to make. Throw a couple of them down a mall atrium? I could see it.
Face it, this was a one-off crime, based on someone who wanted to commit suicide-by-media. They happen. Be glad it wasn’t worse.
And that Remington looks more accurate and easier to snipe with than the AKs, to be honest.
I see someone has brought out the ‘it’s only a toy for you’ argument. Again, you’re wrong, and the reason you can only see it as such is a limitation of your world view. Expand your mind, and think. Stop being so close-minded about things. View things from other perspectives besides your safe and comfortable home.
I see someone has brought out the ‘it’s only a toy for you’ argument. Again, you’re wrong, and the reason you can only see it as such is a limitation of your world view. Expand your mind, and think. Stop being so close-minded about things. View things from other perspectives besides your safe and comfortable home.
And someone has brought out the ‘but think of the children! and your family! What if it happened to you!’ argument. Frankly, if it happened to me, I wouldn’t blame guns. Any more than a drunk driving death would make me blame cars. And any time someone brings that argument up, they’re just trying to drag the issue to an emotional level. Like a dishonest republican. No better than Karl Rove. Is that where y’all want to be?
Fancy that clever Mr. Jefferson perpetrating a False Dilemma fallacy.
Yup. Like I said, we have disaffected losers doing it all the time in the UK, what with not having guns to mow down people at the mall. Except not. Otherwise you’re spot on.
Did you mean me? I thought I was just paraphrasing the gun advocates’ POV - claiming they want them for shooting holes in paper, not people, and just for the pleasure of ownership. But we can play this “the only reason you can see it as such is…” game until the cows come home, and not have advanced the argument.
I did, but no one ever actually used one. They’re always hoaxes, just threats. With the exception of Columbine, where they had grenades, I can’t recall a high school or shopping mall ever being attacked with an actual bomb made by a teenager simply because of feelings of alienation. Not even in countries like Japan, Korea, or England where firearms are harder to get. Only in Israel, where it’s politically motivated.
During the Rodney King riots, police advised people to defend themselves. Many people went to buy guns to defend themselves. But there’s a 15-day waiting period. Though Airman’s post was indeed hyperbolic, many people couldn’t get ‘aid’ when they ‘needed’ it.
(Not that I think it’s a good idea for people who might not know anything about guns to rush out them buy them in an emergency. The applicable part of ‘preparedness’ is ‘pre’.)
Of course we have had bombings in the UK, but they weren’t perpetrated by high-school losers but by, you know, terrorists - who mostly had access to guns in the first place, but found bombs more suited to their aims.
Fine. Your point is that rural Americans need to hunt to survive and that semi-automatic weapons are for the humane killing of deer. You go with that. Strong points, they are.
You are not the first person to try this, believe it or not. Where are your “strong points”? Where is this new, fresh perspective that hasn’t already been argued that apparently only you are privy to? I can only assume that you are the authority here given your dismissiveness towards everybody else.
The OP asked what could be done to reduce the number of gun rampages. I answered in an honest way. Everything since has been a responce to the attacks of others. I am not, nor do I need to, put out any “fresh perspective”.
All I am doing is fighting ignorance, like when people insist that semi-automatic weapons are needed for the humane killing of deer. Don’t make stupid arguments and I won’t feel the need to point them out.
Here it is, then, totally unambiguous and to the point, and often repeated and dismissed by people like yourself:
We do not have to justify ourselves to you. We have a right that is protected by law and we avail ourselves of it for our own reasons. For you to ask us to demonstrate need is the height of arrogance, as I would never ask you to demonstrate why you need anything guaranteed by the laws of the country you reside in.
No more justifications, no more dick dancing, there it is. A clear, unambiguous statement. Now ban them, if you think you can. God, but you people are annoying. Quit whining and do something about it. Donate money to the Brady Campaign. Lobby your legislators. But until such time as you manage to get the law passed that takes the right away from me I will avail myself of it
Did you get all that? If not, read it again. It won’t be going anywhere.
It would perhaps be a natural response, but that doesn’t mean your principles will necessarily change. I remember a long time ago, I mentioned to a coworker that I was against the death penalty, and she said that I would change my mind after I had children, because just thinking about someone harming them would make me so angry. Now that I have kids, I can say that it is true, the though of anyone harming them makes me angry enough to think that I could kill the guy myself. BUT…I wouldn’t do it, I don’t think, and my stance on the death penalty remains. It’s a principle, and I have reasons for this belief that extend beyond emotional reaction.
I am not in favor of banning guns, as you may have read in my posts. I am in favor of pointing out stupid arguments and rhetorical BS. Gun nuts have a bad habit of using them, so you are an easy target.
One potential reason that ‘semi automatic with large clips’ types of guns should never_be_outlawed is glaringly simple -
If the framers of the constitution fully intended that a) the people should always be ready/able to fight for their country (agianst other armed people, not just deer) and/or b) that the gov’t should always be aware that the people have the ability to ‘overthrow’ said gov’t - then it follows that the people must have sufficient ‘arms’ to deal with said cases.
While others may think that ‘defintions’ are not important - guns are guns and all that, its important to realize that for a proper definition, intent must be used… the intent of the manufacturer and the user - afterall, the difference between a club and a baseball bat is in the holder, not the design.
In that respect, the individual in Omaha was using an ‘assault’ weapon - his intent was to assault as many folks as possible - but that same item can be used as a hunting (for deer, not people) rifle.
Does it need a 30 round capacity? Only matters if you think you might need it. (and if you only have the ability to fire 1 round, but end up in a situation where 2 or 30 is needed, I’d rather have more capacity than less).
So, yes, Guns (generic) are designed to fire ‘projectiles’ at a high rate of speed at a given target - they are not specifically designed to ‘kill things’ - it is the user that makes that determination - not the gun.
Blame the individual - enforce reasonable laws/restrictions, punish offenders in such a way that deterrence is accomplished, and hope for the best - you will never be able to stop those that truly wish to do harm - best you can hope for is to contain them quickly - IF someone else at the mall was carrying, and was in the right place/state of mind - he might have only got one or two victims instead of the 8 he did.
How much of a problem are these random killings anyway? They’re spoectacular and the media makes a fuss, but they’re a tiny percentage of our crime rate, even our murder rate.
Are you denying that the difference between a ‘target’ gun and a ‘killing’ (people or game) gun is the intent of the user?
That the gun itself is somehow different? (and yeah, there are some guns that are designed to fire blanks and nothing else, but thats not the subject of debate here).
or the Projectile? (and yeah, different projectiles/loads have different overall pouposes, but you don’t like nit picking definitions, so just keep it generic here).