Guns don’t kill people, people do.
But I think guns help.
Yeah, guns are designed to fire projectiles, and the fact that they are used to kill things are an unintended consequence. You sure you want to pursue this line of argument? A more perfect example of what I have been talking about could never fall into my lap like this.
Never said it was an ‘unintended’ or ‘unforseen’ consequence - didn’t say that it wasn’t the ‘original’ intent (of the original inventor, etc) … but as an ‘item’ a gun is a gun, they have one pourpose - to fire a projectile - it is the user of the gun that determines what the gun will be fired at. (deer, paper, people, etc…). The amount of ammo, the rate of fire, even the caliber does not change any of that. (clearly, a 50mm projectile is pretty useless at putting small holes in paper, but it can still be used for ‘nothing other’ than target practice if the user sees fit).
You said (paraphrased) that you didn’t like to argue gun definitions - so I broke it down to about as basic as it can get - and that wasnt even the main thrust of my post.
User(s) of Guns decide what they will target - the guns themselves have no ability to do it otherwise.
So, what is it that you want to argue?
Carry on, this is hilarious.
I’ll agree that your arguments are indeed hilarious… exactly, what are you arguing with?
I think I’ve heard about that. I’m not sure why. Maybe because it’s in every newspaper and on every TV news broadcast and all over the Internet and everybody talks about it. For weeks. But thanks for reminding me.
The OP is not about terrorists. It’s about really unhappy, mentally unstable teens with an ax to grind and guns to shoot, for whom deer apparently aren’t sufficient prey.
And even if the national media ignores them, they’ll still get the attention of the townspeople, especially of those who have rejected them (girlfriend, parents, employer, etc.), which is probably what they want most.
Have you tried to control a criminally out of control rebellious 16 year old? I have tried and it’s not possible.
Except, my theory is that these two categories aren’t as distinct as you imagine. It’s just that the “terrorist” has a bunch of friends and authority figures urging him on, while the lone nut just has his heavy metal comic books and Dungeons and Dragons urging him on.
It is an interesting question…why the “lone nut” imagines getting a rifle and shooting people until surrounded by the cops, then he either eats his own gun or gets taken out by a sniper, while the “terrorist” imagines strapping himself with explosives and wandering into a crowd.
Now, back to Lamar.
Here’s the trouble. You somehow have the idea that the weapon this particular person used was particularly well suited for massacring large numbers of people, and if only this particular type of weapon were banned, the massacre could not have occured. Correct?
Except, what makes you feel this way? The fact that he got off a lot of shots in a short period of time? A bolt action rifle is a BIT slower than a semi-automatic, but not dramatically slower. Perhaps he would have killed only 5 or 6 people if he’d had a bolt action rifle rather than 9 people. Is that really so important? Do you honestly imagine that banning semiautomatic rifles would be a dramatic lifesaver?
How many people are killed every year by nuts with semiautomatic rifles, and how many lives would be saved every year if those nuts were forced to use bolt action rifles and shotguns for their massacres? Don’t you see how silly that is, to imagine that an America without semiautomatic rifles would be a dramatically safer America? Or that hunting with a semiautomatic rifle is the mark of a neurotic fetishist who just likes to kill things, while hunting with a bolt action rifle is the mark of a sportsman?
If you want to ban firearms except to a small group of certified not-crazy people, that could possibly work, if we discount the practical problem of getting the already existing firearms out of the hands of the aforementioned fetishists without a rash of Randy Weaver style incidents. But banning semiautomatic weapons? That’s really your answer?
It’s stupid, and it just shows that you feel there’s a meaningful difference between a deer rifle and a man killing rifle. And that’s just plain ignorant, in the sense that you don’t understand the subject you’re ostensibly arguing about. Banning almost all firearms at least makes some sort of sense. Banning a few particular types of rifles that make mall massacres 10% easier to carry out compared to other types of rifles is just silly.
Point out to me where you got the idea that You somehow have the idea that the weapon this particular person used was particularly well suited for massacring large numbers of people, and if only this particular type of weapon were banned, the massacre could not have occured.
I neither said this or anything like it, nor do I believe it. I have said that gun nuts make very stupid arguments, and you and others continue to prove me correct.
My wife and I were coordinators for Tough Love, and heard it all. Some people are completely ignorant of the horrible things a kid can do (or grow up and do as an adult) regardless of how he/she was raised or who they were raised by.
You did write the above, correct?
Then you do think there’s a big difference between the type of weapon this guy used, a “military weapon whose purpose was to kill people”, and the type of weapon hunters use to kill deer, correct?
As for the contention that I’m some sort of gun nut, I’ve never owned a gun in my life, and don’t care about guns in the slightest. I’m just don’t like to see people passing along false or misleading information, like the contention that this particular nut had a particularly deadly type of rifle. All rifles are pretty damn deadly, even a single shot 22 build in someone’s garage.
No. It is a statement of fact that the SKS was a rifle designed for military use. That you can also kill a deer with it is not pertinent.
I am not passing on that type of information. You are imagining it. Maybe somebody else said it, but it wasn’t me.
Yeah, I know. I think we’re on the same page here. Surprisingly, over here we have not found that when private individuals with a chip on their shoulder want to run rampage, they’ll resort to making bombs and poison in lieu of the unavailable guns… despite the claims earlier in this thread.
Really? What was 7/7 then? Or the Glasgow Airport attack?
I can fix teenaged gunman shootings - encourage concealed weapons permits and training with guns by sane citizens. This is a much better option than huddling in a corner while the gunman runs around shooting innocent people. Problem solved.
Of course they make bad arguments. Because gun ownership as religion is not something arrived at by a process of argument.
It is all about symbolism. Guns, Hilary Clinton, Evolution: they are all the same thing. You will never understand religious/conservative USA until you appreciate that these things are symbols.
As with Crafter Man, the baseline of evidence surrounding these things is immaterial. It is the symbolic value of each that reveals the only explanation of where the evidence-resistant position comes from.
- Guns are an identity. People are happy to die for that;
- Hillary Clinton as president would be the utter defeat of an identity, it is not her policies that matter.
- Evolution in schools is the defeat of an identity. Creationism is an assertion of the same?
You see? Without those steps you aren’t getting anywhere near an understanding.
The media and gun control advocates LOVE to hate on “assault weapons” and semi-automatics in general.
Prior to normalization of relations with China, and the later collapse of the Soviet Bloc, such rifles such as the SKS, AK-47, and AR-15 were not terribly available. In 1966 Charles Whitman used a bolt action deer rifle to kill 14 people, shooting from the bell tower at Texas A&M university. 14 dead is about par for modern lunatics firing semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines.
A couple of years ago, John Hyde went on a day long rampage in Albuquerque. He killed three men in two incidents using a 6 shot Webley revolver. That evening, he killed two police officers with a five round pump-action shotgun. Five men dead, including two armed and body-armored policemen…no “assault weapon” no semi-automatics, no high capacity “fire power”.
One reason second amendment advocates (at least this one) rail against the banning of so called “assault weapons” is that while this type of weapon is available, it will probably be the choice of most of the nuts bent on sensless killing. At least if we trust the anicdotal evidence supplied by 1-2 such incidents per year. I’d like them kept available as a target of opportunity for the gun banners. If these weapons are somehow made unavailable, then the nuts will carry on, but using sporting, or home defense weapons as in the two cases above. This will then be used justification to ban those arms.
Yes, they have only one, unconnected thing in common: they decide to kill numerous people whom they don’t even know, or don’t know very well.
Are you saying that that without comic books and role-playing games Harris, Klebold, Cho and Hawkins wouldn’t have done what they did? Or are you saying that living displaced, in poverty without much electricity or fresh water, without hope of gainful employment or freedom of mobility, among other things, are motivations similar to wanting to get back at people who make you feel socially awkward? Or are you saying that Palestinians live perfectly happy lives and then some “friend” or “authority figure” says, “Hey, why don’t you blow yourself up in an Israeli market place? Don’t you think that would be a good idea?”
It’s because the motives are totally different. It’s the difference between a “hero” and a “martyr.” Think about it.
So what? That can be said about every single firearm that is out there - they are either currently based on or were originally designed for “military use” - generally speaking, the primary difference between a “military” model and a “civilian” model is one of durability and reliability - since ‘military’ usage requires them to hold up under more extreme conditions than the average “deer hunter”. This, among other things, makes them more desireable to gun enthusiasts.
If they can buy pot 24/7 then a gun isn’t going to be any tougher to buy.
When I was a kid I carried a knife to school ever day. In HS I made a knife in shop class that had a blade over 8" long. I carried it with me from class to class until it was finished. It made a nice bookmark.
This kid was a loser on the fast track to hell and he couldn’t deal with it. This is a social problem and no amount of legislation will fix it. If guns are removed then pipe bombs will follow.