Idiot.
toldailytopic: After the Colorado Movie theater shooting liberals are calling for mor
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I bask in the warmth of your frustration.
You do realize that guns were banned at that theater, right? Didn't stop him, did it?
Yes, I've heard that.
No. But then, he didn't buy the guns at the theater.
PureX
Well-known member
Rape is likely also banned in theaters. Do you think we should do away with that ban if someone commits a rape in a theater?
I hear this same stupid gun argument over and over: that because people ignore what gun laws we have, the laws are meaningless and should be eliminated. But people ignored every law we have ever written at one time or another, and continue to do so. Does that mean we should do away with all the laws? Of course not.
So lets please let go of this whole stupid line of thinking. Just because criminals break the laws regulating guns, doesn't make the laws regulating guns bad, or useless, or meaningless. We make these laws BECAUSE people will do these things. If people didn't do these things, we wouldn't need any laws against it.
Last edited:
So your theory is that people become mass murderers because they discover ways of killing quicker. Can you present some evidence for that?
If it's fine to have a 200 round clip or 2x60 round clips, then what are you going on about?
I realize what you were saying, in actuality, was that you didn't really want to answer.
So self defense is the only reason to be allowed to own a firearm? I imagine you could design the official government issued "self defense firearm" and you'd be good with that. Until some smart person figured out a way to kill a bunch of people with it.
Right. I guess that will stop mass murderers. Oh... you mean to simply reduce their damage.
Look, if you really want *reduce* the damage mass murderers can do, then simply let people be free to carry a firearm. Then you don't have to allow a slippery law that gets redefined by well meaning politicians every time we find a mass murder was able to inflict a great deal of damage using Rex's "MIGHTY 10 ROUND LIMIT DICTATE"
You do realize that to inconvenience people on this level will take a great deal of government control of people's lives. And where does the "if it saves lives" logic end? There is no logical end until you've imprisoned every citizen.
WOW! HONESTY! I'M SHOCKED!
Establishing the principle is the goal of totalitarianism, not any specific dictate. And being vague allows for any dictate. At least we know where you stand.
But you only get to establish the principle. Other, more ruthless men will decide what is impractical, useless, and counterproductive after you've gotten them into power.
Such honesty. You're definitely tagged as one of the useful idiots and not leadership with that kind of frank admission.
PureX
Well-known member
But of course this condition has never actually occurred in the history of mankind, so it's pretty much a moot point.
Murderers become mass murderers because they find ways of killing quicker. I think that's pretty obvious. What I'm advocating is removing some of the tools of murder from wide circulation.
You should really read the rest of the paragraph you're responding to. What I meant by "That's fine." is that it's fine for regulation to prohibit those clips as well. Obviously if we ban 100-round clips, we should ban 200-round clips. And I think it's reasonable to ban 60-round clips too.
Mindreading fail.
No, but it's the one of the only major non-recreational uses that the general public has. Can you suggest a more important use for them?
I know you can't understand this, but setting some limits on a product doesn't have to mandate one specific design.
I'd be happier reducing their damage than leaving the status quo in place. I don't know of anything that would completely stop them. Do you really take issue with that?
Right. Because what would have been helpful is if there were a crossfire in a crowd.
I don't really believe that the kind of small handguns people are likely to carry on them would be a great asset against a much better prepared, much better armored attacker. And it's entirely beside the point. You can still ban assault weapons without preventing other measures that can be shown to work.
The bar for that to happen is exactly the same as the bar for passing legislation in the first place, which is what I'm proposing, so it's not as if the risk of that is any greater. I'm honestly more worried about the limit getting upped too much by well-meaning NRA Congressmen.
No, I don't believe that. Actually, it sounds incredibly paranoid.
The logic doesn't end. We strike a balance, as we always have. I don't think people should be allowed to have private nuclear arsenals either for basically the same reasons.
:sigh: Gee, you must really hate our Constitution, because it spends a lot of ink setting principles.
We set the attributes via the same mechanisms that set the principle.
The decision certainly isn't mine alone to make. And I can't suggest reasonable values without hearing from a lot of interested parties. Ten rounds in a clip may be too low, but I'd like to set it as low as possible without creating serious problems for people who have legitimate needs for a few rounds before reloading. And I really have no idea how many rounds per second it's reasonable to allow a civilian gun to fire either. I just suspect that we could come up with a number that would make sense.
:doh:
Rape and murder are illegal, as well they should be. The instruments with which they are committed are not [generally] and neither should they be.
Nice straw man you've torn down there.
Now, how about we talk about my argument?
Laws against murder are good; laws against guns are stupid.
PureX
Well-known member
You have no argument. All you've posed is a stupid opinion.
We regulate the driving of automobiles because driving automobiles in public is dangerous to both the driver and the public. We regulate gun use for exactly the same reasons. The problem is that our gun use regulations are inconsistent and ineffective, and so they aren't working very well.
The solution isn't more or fewer gun laws. It's establishing consistent and effective gun regulation and oversight.
Driving, in and of itself is not dangerous, you complete moron.
The only laws there need to be regarding guns and cars is; Don't kill anyone with them, don't use them while intoxicated and don't use them recklessly; i.e. be safe.
PureX
Well-known member
Yeah, actually it is, you moron. That's why people are killed and maimed while doing it, every single day. Some machines, like automobiles and guns are quite dangerous, both for the user and for those around them. Which is why we need to regulate their use, to try and make sure that when people do use these dangerous machines, they do so as safely and responsibly as possible. It's only common sense.
Right, because traffic laws, signs, signals, and regulations are really just an unnecessary waste of time and money. Same with driver's training, testing, and licensing. We should eliminate all those things and just tell our kids that they can drive whenever, wherever, however they want to just so long as they don't kill anyone, or drink and drive.
Because that's lighthouse's knee-jerk opinion about how things should be.
If I filled a bag with hammers, or a box with rocks, and sat it on my keyboard it would produce something smarter than your post.
I mean, seriously, how completely and utterly stupid are you to extrapolate [I'm probably going to have to explain that word to you] this reactionary drivel from my statement that we should have laws dictating safe driving?
I could have Rampage Jackson slam my head into a wall and not come out of the ordeal as stupid as you.
PureX
Well-known member
So, basically, you have no response but silly insults.
I figured as much. Have a nice day.
If a few law abiding citizens had been CCW in that theater that night and had the opportunity to intervene before the shooter saw them and realized that they were armed, the outcome would have been much, much different. Had a couple of off-duty CCW LEO been in the theater that night the outcome would have been different. Had some combat veterans been armed with CCW and in that theater that night, the outcome would have been different.
Armed criminal predators love a disarmed society that is relying upon fear of firearms to dictate the anti-gun laws of liberals. A disarmed society is very easy prey.
It's a multi-ton piece of metal filled with gas. Driving's dangerous, LH. You do drive, right?
The only laws, you say. The only ones we need.
Okay, so: a twelve-year-old could, you believe, be entrusted with a Corvette and an AK-47?
Did you get ahold of my family photo album again? :noid:
Really? Are you sure? If we were limited to no caliber over 9mm, and no rifles, and no clips over 10 rounds, there would be murders but not mass murderers?
That would include knives? No? Cars? So far it was just 100... er... 60... er... anything over 10 round magazines. But you'll have to remove a lot more tools than that to get rid of mass murderers.
Or don't you consider 38 people killed with rat poison by 1 person a mass murder?
Don't you get the feeling your definition of "the tools of mass murder" is rather arbitrary?
Quite right. I misread that and answered without giving it further thought. I apologize. I'll read more carefully in the future.
No. Recreation and defense should be a good enough reason to allow any weapon that can be directed at a single person. The number of rounds in a magazine doesn't change that and shouldn't be considered.
It does if it doesn't stop mass murder. You'll have to keep tightening the definition until you are down to one design. And then... none.
Of course. You'll have to destroy the liberty of most people to achieve what you are happy doing.
Now, if you study the topic at all, you'll realize that more often than not, a person with a gun is what stops a mass murderer with a gun. That includes both police and civilians.
So there is your answer right there. Just let people be free to carry a gun if they want. Stop accusing people of being potential mass murderers because they think a 100 round magazine is cool and they like not having to re-load.
Study the topic. Most mass murderers with guns are stopped by another person with a gun. If you create a culture where guns are potentially common, then people like Holmes think of other better ways to kill people. Like fire, which is a much larger mass killing tool than bullets. In a way, it's a good thing Holmes thought it would be a good idea to use a rifle instead of putting his admittedly keen mind to bigger killing tools.
It's a good thing that doesn't describe Holmes. And it's a good thing we don't run our society based on what you believe. How do you know a person with a hand gun couldn't have stopped Holmes? If they had one and Holmes never went on his rampage what would have been the harm? In other words, a person with a handgun could only have potentially helped. And liberty never hurts anyone, while bans on liberty do.
So do handguns work or not?
But it isn't beside the point. To ban objects that have little to do with the problem is just an invitation to ban more objects because leaders in power would like to be total in their control over you and me. They are called totalitarians. Stop supporting them.
You are OK with the current encroachment on your liberty, and you're more worried about too much freedom? Just because you don't realize you are already on the slippery slope doesn't mean you should get comfortable with it, just because it hasn't hurt you yet. You do realize that some short years ago, guns were just as powerful as today, more accessible, and there were less mass murders with guns? It has nothing to do with the number of rounds in the magazines.
Not only does it take a great deal of energy to enforce, but there is no limit to the amount of encroachment and greater abuse of power by the standard you've set for this enforcement.
A nuclear arsenal cannot be directed at a single person. That's the standard for weapons allowed to citizens. Other than that, if it can be controlled, people are at liberty to buy and use whatever they want.
"Striking a balance" (compromise) has gotten us a huge debt and such a complicated set of laws that just about anyone could be accused of something at any time the authorities didn't like them.
You call it paranoid only because you don't think the authorities are capable of going after innocent people.
So what. The point is that the principles you are setting are those of totalitarianism. And, of course, I'm all interested in setting the good principles of liberty. That's why I'm not at all interested in a 100 round magazine but would advocate that anyone be allowed to buy and use one at their leisure.
Do you mean you get to decide what is impractical, useless, and counterproductive in the same way you decide the principles of government?
I don't want to misread you, but that's what seems to be most likely what you are saying here. But I hesitate because that would make you so naive as to reduce your credibility to near zero. Perhaps you could revise and expand your remarks.
Here is the number: 1 round per trigger pull. That is controllable by an individual against another. The number of rounds in a magazine, or the speed someone can pull a trigger repeatedly is irrelevant.
You might think you love liberty, but you talk like a totalitarian.
zoo22
Well-known member
I'm not sure if you really meant that? It doesn't really make sense in terms of a pro-gun argument. Essentially, it says: "If there were more guns, people like Holmes would find even worse ways of killing."
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, by the way, it just struck me as off.
lain: