No, I’m OK. Doing quite well thanks. You make a distinction of irrelevance. I just implied that generally speaking prostitution would be illegal, even if you wanted to do it in the privacy of your own home. And you can’t refute it. You’re on a losing streak and can’t bear it - I feel your pain, but yelling at me over the internet won’t help.
OK. new scenario how about you wanted to engage in consensual SM sex, where (consensually) one party is going to get physically abused. Is that OK?
So, basically, all I’m saying is that the government does regulate, or at least try to regulate, what people do behind closed doors. A simple statement, but you refuse it. Why?
Wong used a standard 9mm and a .45. He was technically proficient, he was good at killing, even if he was relegated to 10 round mags, it’s not that hard to go through 5 of them per gun in a minutes time if you’re just dropping a mag, slapping another one in and moving along.
You’re using hyperbole to make a point you didn’t know you shouldn’t try to make.
Okay, well, if that’s the case, I can understand your frustration.
Well, one thing’s for sure - with a capacity for logic like that shown in this question, you’re always guaranteed to be a “winner,” no matter the debate topic.
You’ve been called out repeatedly on this unsupported assertion. You’ve obstinately refused to provide a cite. Do you believe that if you just repeat it often enough that it will, somehow, become a fact?
Why on Urth would you repeat it again here immediately on the heels of having been called out on it yet again?
Just how stupid are you?
Just how disingenuous are you?
Why do you not just admit that you did not originally have the facts correct?
I should point out for the onlookers, in the originating thread, I pointed out that the French supplied us with a massive amount of pistols for naval use, as well as covered the cavalry use of pistols during that era.
How would you propose to regulate it, then? A complete ban on semi automatic weapons?
Those are the most efficient for protecting ones home. And a gunman determined to kill people can dress properly, and practice frequently (as Wong did) and shoot a revolver at 100+ rounds per minute. It takes more practice, but someone like Wong, who was determined to kill people, willl take those steps.
The only reason to ban these weapons is to force people who are determine to fire many rounds quickly to practice more (which they will) and prevent people who are otherwise unable to practice as often from being as proficient with their firearms as the people who are determined to kill them.
Of course, if you bothered learning anything about firearms, you’d know what I meant, rather than attempting to pick it apart, as you no doubt will, by saying ‘if they do the same thing, then why not ban them?’
Because it’s a fucking pointless ban that only harms those who it’s supposed to “protect” and does nothing to deter actual criminals from murdering people you stupid, self absorbed, couldn’t-care-less about the facts sonuvabitch.
There is actually no enunciated right to own or have guns in the Constitution. The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not guns specifically–presumably, it should cover the right to keep and bear swords, knives, or ray guns (when and if the latter are invented).
(That many jurisdictions have anti-knife laws does not refute this; at least some jurisdictions have also sought to ban or heavily restrict gun ownership as well, on the grounds that the Second Amendment simply does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms of any sort. However, if the Second Amendment is held to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, it’s hard to see how all those laws against carrying knives wouldn’t also be constitutionally suspect.)
Hey, you may be on to something there. I see no reason that I should be prohibited from carrying a fixed blade knife or limited to a folder with a blade less than four inches in length.
There’s been some debate in this thread over whether guns can be compared to automobiles as a cause of death. I just thought of what might be a better analogy: compare gun deaths with drunk driving deaths. Deaths caused by drunk drivers are common, a moral outrage, and the source of militant calls for steps to reduce the “holocaust” of yearly deaths. So put it this way- what steps would be justified in eliminating or sharply reducing drunk driving deaths? Reducing the allowable blood alcohol limit to zero? Mandatory breathalyzer locks on the ignition? Speed governers that don’t allow your car to exceed 65 for more than half a minute? Laws forbidding anyone with a driver’s license from keeping liquor in their home? Random police stops without cause to check for intoxication? Holding bars and liquor store owners liable for drunk driving deaths? Prohibition?
I think this is a valid analogy because it has many of the same features as the debate over guns: the question of personal moral responsibility, the massive potential for harm when misused, the outrage at the deaths of innocents.
I think that analogy is functional under certain conditions. First, it does not work as an analogy for the purposes that cars were initially raised here. That purpose was just to point to something that is associated with more deaths (NOT proportionally more deaths, but just overall more deaths) and stupidly suggest that that thing (cars) should be banned.
It works as an analogy in that cars will be fatally misused by a proportion of the public, just as guns will be misused by a proportion of the public. It also works for me in the sense that I think there is a dynamic underlying propensity to misuse these objects. A person isn’t always going to be drunk, so may at times use cars completely appropriately, but there is the possibility that anyone could be drunk at any time. Similarly, people will fluctuate in the factors that are associated with problematic gun use (mood state, concentration levels, etc) so that they may be fine most of the time, but not always, and importantly, that ANYONE can be in a state unfit for using a gun at some point, no matter what training, education and experience they’ve had.
I think it’s too misleading however to be of real use, and it’s misleading in the same black and white manner that gun advocates always seem to think in. That is, it is very easy to identify a person who is drunk – observation and breathalyzers do a pretty good job of correctly identifying those people. It often seems to me that gun advocates think that those who will misuse weapons are a different type of person altogether, rather than being typical of gun users in general, albeit distinguished by a mishap. So, there’s no breathalyzer that could detect poor gun ownership.
Also, I don’t think it works that well as a general comparison to gun ownership, because one might just as simply say that one should use neither cars nor guns while drunk.
I think Lumpy put a bit more thought into it than that. If not, I’d simply point out that the list of things one should not do when drunk is exceptionally long, so introducing being drunk into the equation doesn’t help a bit in considering what is dangerous or not and what should be restricted or not.
It’s not just about driving or firing a gun while intoxicated. The analogy is apt because both are tools that the majority of people use without incident every single day. Just because some people screw around and misuse them is not an excuse to ban either of them.
What the hell? Not only is this a stupid idea just for the “mandatory sentencing” part (look at the “good” mandatory sentencing for drug crimes has done for society :rolleyes: ), it’s fucking insane that you think illegal possession of a firearm merits mandatory life without parole, when not even child rapists or murderers get mandatory life in prison in most jurisdictions. :dubious:
I support mandatory incarceration for life in Chimera’s Home for the Terminally Stupid for anyone who supports mandatory life sentences for pretty much anything short of genocide or being caught red handed killing multiple people.