"Punishment" is a useless farce that just makes folks like you feel better about getting some good old fashioned vengeance.
I suppose it is a natural, biological trait.
I just read online that the prosecution is going to wait to see if they're going to pursue the death penalty until after speaking with the families of the victims. I think that's a good way to go about it; If the families of the victims think they'll feel better if this guy gets the death penalty, then that's reason enough for me.
So lock him away and pump him full of drugs so you won't live in a world where the death penalty exists?
I, personally, would rather be put to death than sit in a small room for 50+ years... well, I guess that depends on the drugs
Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon".
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.
The civilian AR-15 is apparently only capable of firing one round for each pull of the trigger.
I had misunderstood "semi-automatic" - I had thought it meant firing three rounds per burst, as distinct from a continuous burst until the magazine ran out of ammunition.
Er... you can still bump fire with semi. They even make a sliding stock for it now!
Yeah, one bullet per trigger pull is semi-automatic. Automatic is multiple bullets per trigger pull. When you're bump firing, you're pulling the trigger each time a bullet comes out.
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.
So how much did you contributed to the verbiage in the Assault Weapons Ban? If you have the experience, why was it written so poorly?
I don't doubt there are people with experience who "want tougher gun laws", I was talking about the Assault Weapons Ban and how stupidly shitty it was written.
So how, exactly, do you want the gun laws to be tougher? Laws are specific and explicit so you can't just say you want them "tougher". That's completely vacuous.
The AR-15 is the predecessor to the military's now adopted M-16. It is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is used in all branches of service.
Yeah, they're really good guns, its no doubt that people want them. Being a good gun isn't a reason to outlaw it.
Again. There is no reason this weapon should be able to be purchaced legally in the same way you should not be able to legally purchace an RPG launcher or live hand grenades.
In the US, things aren't outlawed until proven legal. I don't have to justify why it should be legal, you have to justify why it should be illegal.
Explosive devices are not firearms and are way more dangerous and are oulawed for legitimate reasons. The AR-15 does not share the same qualities so it shouldn't be illegal in the same way.
These are not covered under "the right to bare arms" of the 2nd Ammendment.
Honestly, from reading your posts you do seem very ill informed. I'll point out some of the instances:
I still wonder why anyone would need such a thing, if not to kill human beings.
Besideds hunting and sport, there's protection, recreation, entertainment, and aesthetics.
So... tell me again why you need an AR-15 any more than you need a cruise missile battery?
It has nothing to do with "need". Things are legal until they're criminalized, and we don't maintain legality based on necessity.
Is hunting so important to you that you are OKAY with all of your fellow citizens being able to arm themselves to the teeth, and then consume massive amounts of alcohol at 3am? These are both legal there yes? Good combination? Bad combination? Is HUNTING that important to you?
In my state, its illegal to bring a firearm to a facility where you know alcohol is going to be consumed.
It might be fun, it might even be necessary in some regions for culling populations, or from defence from wildlife... but does that mean the entire nation, every city street and alleyway should be armed to the teeth? Is HUNTING that important to you?
You can legally carry guns aroung on your hip in Missouri, but you know what? Its illegal to carry a gun within the city limits of Saint Louis. So just because you can do somethign somewhere doesn't mean you can do it everywhere.
HUNTING seems to be the only sliver of a thread of justification any of you can come up with for ownership of an arsenal that is well beyond any reasonable hunting endeavour.
Besideds hunting and sport, there's protection, recreation, entertainment, and aesthetics.
What I said was that I see no logical justification for the proliferation of such weapons in a civilised society.
Disgusting. Free societies don't have to justify their freedoms, others have to justify removing them.
I HAVE suggested that the 2nd amendment is being interpreted in a broader way than I personally think it was meant.
Really? Are you an originalist? Do you apply that to the whole thing, no freedom of speech on the internet?, or is this just a case of you not liking guns and being biased?
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban. Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
What does me 'contributing' to the Assault Weapons Ban have to do with the price of tea in China?
What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was?
All legislation is incomplete and have room for improvement. Again, please be specific in how you think it was shitty so we can discuss what needs to be fixed.
I already did in the message you replied to:
quote:Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded. You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon".
So how, exactly, do you want the gun laws to be tougher?
Not allowing people to buy arsenols of guns and ammo with little to no regulation or tracking.
Okay, so how do you stop that and what is the justification?
It is easier for me to go down and buy a highly lethal assault rifle and 6000 rds of ammo than to buy over-the counter drugs.
The deal we have with the state is that we hand over the punishment of crimes against us to the state on the understanding that they will independently and objectively deal with the offence.
One reason we do this is to prevent knee jerk and violent retribution by those who are understandably distraught by their loss. It seems to me to be an abrogation of the state's role in playing out their disinterested role of justice to ask the victims families how they should proceed.
I don't see it as them asking the vicitims' families how they should proceed, I see it as them considering the wishes of the families as part of their objective assessment of the situation.
How many finger nails should we pull out before we flay him, 1, 3, 7 or 10?
None. And he should be put to death as quickly and painlessly as possible.
So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.
More dangerous how? And to what?
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted. He's calling handguns more dangerous than rifles because more people are killed each year by handguns than rifles. If you want to enact a law that protects people from being killed by guns, then handguns would be better to focus on than rifles.
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.
No, you were asking me which is more dangerous and I'm asking you more dangerous how?
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted.
Think about this though: by blanketly saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles", don't you think that leaves it open to interpretation?
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.
In a discussion about gun laws, you are saying handguns are the most dangerous. Given how laws get written up, 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".
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"...
Me thinks you ought be more descriptive, no?
The context was sufficient for me to understand what he was saying.
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?
Right, that actually furthers the point that banning AR-15's "because they are so dangerous" is even more stupid.
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.
I found Message 64 to be sufficient to understand the point he was making, especially given the context of the thread so far.
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.
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:
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban.
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?
Did they write the law?
How about you stop making stupid, idiotic remarks that you can't back up. There are many, many concerned gun owners who support the federal assault weapons ban.
Well they may or may not be stupid. But the people who wrote that law are definately stupid.
What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was?
My point exactly. You are the one taking me down that rabbit hole.
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?
Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
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.
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!
To get back to my point before you started this stupid banter, is that there are many people in and out of congress that sanction more regulation of firearms, many who have military, police and other related firearm backgrounds.
And that has nothing to do with my point that the verbiage in the AWB is incredibly stupid.
Why would thousands of police chiefs around the country support a law that you think is 'stupid'.
Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law.
Does it restrict magazine capacity? Actually it does.
It does not restrict the capacity of the magazine that a rifle or pistol can take. The magazine restiction on pistols is about where the pistol can take the magazine, i.e. it has to go in the grip. And that's what I'm calling stupid. Making a pistol that takes a mag somewhere outside of the grip doesn't really make that gun more dangerous so its stupid to legislate against that.
Well, y'know, Brenda Spencer, for example, did manage to carry out a shooting massacre using a .22 semi-automatic rifle. I don't know whether it had the accoutrements you mention, but if not then it was clearly quite dangerous even without them.
All guns are dangerous. Singling out specific aesthetic properties of guns, like grip size, stock shape and mag placement, to indicate which ones are "assault weapons" or not shows that the people who drafted the law don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Its like when you look at SOPA and go: "Do these people have any idea how the internet works?"
™ Version 4.2
(1)
