Aurora Colorado Violence

LOL... One of my fist thoughts was that the price he paid for one gun could of been spent on making a bomb that could have been a whole lot more destructive than what he achieved. (glad he didn't go down that path) I could go to 3 places in town and make a terrible IED in a day.We are fortunate in many ways, getting on a bus in the US isn't much of a gamble, in some countries it is. Funny how some people in countries that don't have many guns per person have to worry about getting blown up at the market or on a bus.If a man is determined to do bad, he will find a way.

Ask Crash, not me. Think about this though: by blanketly saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles", don't you think that leaves it open to interpretation? In a discussion about gun laws, you are saying handguns are the most dangerous. Given how laws get written up (and who writes and enacts them), it seems to me that such a statement advocates a handgun ban in comparison to rifles. "Rifles are ok, but handguns are bad", "RPG's are ok, but handguns are bad", C4 is ok, but handguns are bad".Me thinks you ought be more descriptive, no? This, IMO, is how shitty laws get passed, when even an advocate makes a sweeping statement such as this.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Ok...Once all the handguns are gone the people will be getting killed with rifles and shotguns, then we get rid of them and use knives??? Where does it end?

I didn't say that. Yes, I did. Message 125 in response to you asking that exact question.

No, you were asking me which is more dangerous and I'm asking you more dangerous how? I editted this in to my previous post while you were posting a reply (sorry):

quote:

---

Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.

​

Handguns are more dangerous to society in the US than landmines are, even tho an individual landmine can be more dangerous than an individual gun, because more people are killed by handguns. If you want to enact a law that prevents death, then tightening the regs on landmines would be a lot worse at that than tightening them on handguns.

​

Somebody was saying that the AR-15 should be outlawed because its so dangerous, and CF was countering that by pointing out that handguns are more dangerous to society because more people are killed by them. So if you want to outlaw something for being dangerous, you don't need to be looking at the AR-15. Regardless of the fact that an individual AR-15 can be more dangerous than an individual handgun.

---

There's no reason to bring up explosive devices in a discussion about firearms.But think about this; which would save more lives: A law tightening the use of C4, or a law tightening the use of handguns?How many US civilians even died from C4 in the last decade? How would tightening C4 save any lives at all? In the context of laws pertaining to the citizens of the US, C4 is less dangerous than handguns. But that doesn't make C4 "okay"... The context was sufficient for me to understand what he was saying.

Right, that actually furthers the point that banning AR-15's "because they are so dangerous" is even more stupid.

I thought it was message 64? Are you now admitting that you didn't define your usage until I called you on it?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

That isn't the point I am making. I am being hyperbolic on purpose. Crash didn't define his usage until I called him on it, and even then he said he had already done so. Then any and all debate on this site about how people misuse words should be stricken from the record if we all get to use our own definition of words, right? How many threads have been curtailed because a creationist is using a non-standard definition of a word?Think: stellar evolution vs. biological evolution.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I found Message 64 to be sufficient to understand the point he was making, especially given the context of the thread so far. Way too many. Y'all spend way to much time trying to make each other out to be wrong rather than trying to understand what the other person is actually saying. But that's not this topic, take it here: Honest Debate: how do you read?

quote:

---

So do you read for understanding (as best you can)?
Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?

---

All too often people are more interested in the latter.

Well, actually, Switzerland is ranked quite high when it comes to private gun ownership, having about 420.000 assault rifles (converted to semi-automatic), 320.000 other semi-automatics and several hunderd thousand semi-automatic "carbines" in circulation. The estimates of total guns owned by private people is estimated between 1.2 and 3 million. Considering there are about 8 million people there, that is a lot of guns.Yet strangely, they don't kill each other in mass shootings over there. Why Americans do kill each other in such a fashion, I have no idea.

I'd like to beg to differ. My country won its independence after an 80 year war of independence against Spain. Kinda puts those measly 8 years you lot spent fighting to shame.

So I guess you are saying that over 1900 Police Chiefs, Sherrifs and County Prosecuters are stupid for advocating to renew and strengthen the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Also the 318,000-member Fraternal Order of Police supported the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act or the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I guess they are stupid too?I know many of my fellow military member who are on both sides of this debate. Many are gun owners themselves who support more regulation of firearms.How about you stop making stupid, idiotic remarks that you can't back up. There are many, many concerned gun owners who support tighter gun regulation. The federal Assault Weapons Ban is just one piece of legislation covering tighter gun regulation. I think more needs to be done, including closing gun show loop holes, in which people can purchace any gun including assault rifles with no background checks at all. My point exactly. You are the one taking me down that rabbit hole. So restricting magazine capacity and ammo/gun stockpiling is stupid. So stupid that several national and international organizations support reenacting it and beefing it up. I don't expect the renewing of the Federal Assault Weapons ban to solve all the problems. I am not even saying that we should just outright ban all semi-automatic weapons, just provide better regulation (i.e. background checks, limiting magazine sizes, etc). I am just advocating more regulation to close the holes on our current gun laws and try to reduce the amount of highly lethal weapons from falling into the wrong hands.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Well of course you can see it any way you like, but the fact is that the state is consulting with the victims about whether to execute him or not. That is not likely to result in an objective assessment and is never done for any other situation. You don't think perhaps this might just possibly be political PR? Well now you don't seem to want to take the wishes of the victims family into consideration at all, you want to do what you want to do. But what if the victim's family wanted to cut small pieces off him for a month or so? Why make the options only death or life imprisonment? And suppose the victims family were all nice liberals and didn't want the death penalty but the rest of society insisted on it? What then?

And that is a very valid question.When I was growing up family I knew had guns, there was a gun rack in the den or the shot gun by the back door, most any pick up had a gun rack with a loaded carbine and usually the doors unlocked and the windows rolled down as it sat parked on the street. Guns were ubiquitous. But there were very few shooting and almost no accidental shootings and no guns stolen and kids were taught firearms safety and yes, this was in suburbia and the city, not out on the farm.When I was little, likely third grade or so, I took my Dad's Colt 45 Slabside to school for show-n-tell and gave a talk about handgun safety. The teacher passed the gun around so all the kids could see how heavy it was and nobody pointed it at another kid and the teacher quizzed everyone on the basics of gun safety. In fact, the teacher was so impressed that I got to give the show-n-tell to other classes that day.But the gun was really heavy and so I asked the teacher if she could keep it until after school.All that was a half century or so ago now but still within my lifetime.As a culture the US has changed. The weapons themselves haven't changed all that much (you could still mail-order a Thompson fully automatic submachine gun then) but education and responsibility have. August 1, 1966 was a watershed day in the issue and it was not a matter of automatic weapons or AR-15s.

Did they write the law? Well they may or may not be stupid. But the people who wrote that law are definately stupid. No, you took yourself down it in Message 57:

quote:

---

What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet.

There are many people who have experience with weapons who want tougher gun laws, myself included. Stop speaking from ignorance.

---

If those people aren't the ones who wrote the law, then how does it pertain to the point? You haven't read about the Assault Weapon Ban, have you? It doesn't restrict magazine capacity, its restricts pistols from having magizines that attach outside of the grip. Who the hell cares where the magazine goes in and how does that address how dangerous a gun is and whether or not its an "assault weapon"? Its stupid!