VisorCentral.com - Inane ramblings

Pages (73): « First ... « 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

Posted by GSR13 on 01-18-2002 05:18 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob

Nuclear bombs haven't killed anyone in the last ten years. Let's give everyone a nuke! (plus, as Yorick pointed out, to kill lots of people plenty fast, a semi-automatic would do the trick just fine)

So would two or three semi-auto handguns.

Regardless of the firearm I own, I am no more likely to kill someone because I own a gun.

However, if I was going to kill someone, I would be more likely to do so with a gun.

But, if guns did not exist, I would use the next most efficient choice.

It is not the guns, it is the mentality of the people.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
Nuclear bombs haven't killed anyone in the last ten years. Let's give everyone a nuke!

What cute logic.
edit:Note that a critical difference is that no citizen owns nuclear weapons while there are actually people who legally own fully automatic weapons.

quote:
(plus, as Yorick pointed out, to kill lots of people plenty fast, a semi-automatic would do the trick just fine)

Yorick doesn't seem to have much more experience with them than you do, though, otherwise he'd know better than to think that any semi-automatic weapon could kill dozens in a few seconds.

Posted by GSR13 on 01-18-2002 05:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Actually, I'm curious as to how many people arguing against 'assault weapons' or 'automatic' weapons really can define them by other than 'something that looks scary to me'.

As funny as that is, it is so true.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
Let's turn that around. Can you give an explanation why limiting people to owning handguns and non-automatic (and non-semi-automatic) rifles is bad, other than 'any restriction at all sounds scary to me (slippery slope, you know)'

Easy. The second amendment and its original intent (documented in many statements of the founders and the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers). The ironic thing is that Hamilton argued against the second amendment being put in there because he thought it patently ridiculous that the government could ever get powerful enough to outlaw weapons from the citizens.
edit:Furthermore, I never said any restriction sounded bad. We've already established that I think a licensing scheme like vehicles could work. I also think that proven violent criminals should not have any 'driving privileges'.

Posted by Rob on 01-18-2002 05:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Oh yeah...now I remembered why I quit this thread the last time. It was a waste of time. Tell you what. You come up with a solution to end criminal intent by other citizens and politicians, and then I'll consider your position. You obviously aren't listening to mine, since you're still hoplophobically fixated on 'automatic assault rifles'.

It's also an 'old argument' (and a poor one) to argue that if we can't solve all the problems and root causes, then we shouldn't try to reduce some of the problems and address the symptoms. Of course we should devote effort to education and improving opportunities and living standards and whatever else is effective at reducing crime. But just because we haven't yet found a cure for the common cold, does that mean we shouldn't allow cough syrup? Why is it so unreasonable to say that while we continue to try and reduce the root causes of crime and violence, let's also try to limit the damage that can be caused in the meantime.

You say I have a phobic fixation on assault rifles, but it seems to me that you have a phobia of anything that might restrict in any way your god-given-right-to-do-whatever-I-damn-well-please-and-I-don't-need-to-justify-anything-I-wany-to-buy-or-own-or-carry-to-you-or-anyone-else.

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
It's also an 'old argument' (and a poor one) to argue that if we can't solve all the problems and root causes, then we should try to reduce some of the problems and address the symptoms.

I'm not making that argument.

quote:
Of course we should devote effort to education and improving opportunities and living standards and whatever else is effective at reducing crime. But just because we haven't yet found a cure for the common cold, does that mean we shouldn't allow cough syrup?

Depends on whether cough syrup has been shown to actually work. Gun control seems to often have the opposite effect intended.

quote:
Why is it so unreasonable to say that while we continue to try and reduce the root causes of crime and violence, let's also try to limit the damage that can be caused in the meantime.

Because it doesn't actually limit the damage. It's only a feel-good solution.

quote:
You say I have a phobic fixation on assault rifles, but it seems to me that you have a phobia of anything that might restrict in any way your god-given-right-to-do-whatever-I-damn-well-please-and-I-don't-need-to-justify-anything-I-wany-to-buy-or-own-or-carry-to-you-or-anyone-else.

Again, you are so fixated on what you _think_ I said or what you _think_ I think, that you're ignoring anything I'm actually saying.

Posted by Rob on 01-18-2002 05:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Easy. The second amendment and its original intent (documented in many statements of the founders and the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers).

And if memory serves, the words "well regulated" appear in the 2nd amendment.

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Furthermore, I never said any restriction sounded bad.

But you seem to oppose the banning of certain classes of particularly powerful guns.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-18-2002 05:37 PM:

Let's outlaw divorce and alcoholism.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
And if memory serves, the words "well regulated" appear in the 2nd amendment.

Yes, and 'regulate' does not always mean 'pass laws'. It also says 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed'. Funny that the first amendment supposedly protects pr0n when the second amendment supposedly doesn't protect what it was clearly intended to protect.

quote:
But you seem to oppose the banning of certain classes of particularly powerful guns.

Yes, I oppose the banning of weapons on an arbitrary basis by those who do not have a clue as to how powerful they may or may not be when compared to other guns which they supposedly don't want to ban. Now, again, I'll bow out of this discussion before I start unintentionally offending people who didn't ask for it.

Posted by Rob on 01-18-2002 05:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
quote:

Why is it so unreasonable to say that while we continue to try and reduce the root causes of crime and violence, let's also try to limit the
damage that can be caused in the meantime.

Because it doesn't actually limit the damage. It's only a feel-good solution.

You are correct to oppose gun restrictions if they indeed do not further the goal of reducing damage/death. But how can you be so sure that banning specific types of powerful guns won't limit the damage? And does your argument apply equally to other very dangerous things, like explosives?

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Let's outlaw divorce and alcoholism.

Now that I'll vote for.

Posted by Rob on 01-18-2002 05:46 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Yes, I oppose the banning of weapons on an arbitrary basis by those who do not have a clue as to how powerful they may or may not be when compared to other guns which they supposedly don't want to ban.

As I said earlier, I am not personally qualified to determine what weapons fall into which class. But you said yourself that there should be different classes of licenses (CGLs, right?). So who decides what guns go into which class? The only difference between us seems to be that I think there should be one class that is actually banned, while you seem to think that all classes should be allowed as long as the person has taken the extra training/education for that class of weapon.

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
You are correct to oppose gun restrictions if they indeed do not further the goal of reducing damage/death. But how can you be so sure that banning specific types of powerful guns won't limit the damage?

History.

quote:
And does your argument apply equally to other very dangerous things, like explosives?

Yes. Those are already regulated but fairly easily obtainable (because there are very legitimate reasons for having fertilizer or TNT). How do you think that Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing happened? However, if a few nuts start beating people to death with computer monitors, I don't see that computer monitors should be outlawed.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-18-2002 05:49 PM:

Actually Rob, I think you're trying to attribute my sentiment about rights to Toby. We can discuss this at length if you please. To start, did you have to stay in from recess when other kids misbehaved?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Rob on 01-18-2002 05:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

quote: Originally posted by dick-richardson
Let's outlaw divorce and alcoholism.

Now that I'll vote for.

Divorces don't break-up families. People break-up families.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-18-2002 05:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
Divorces don't break-up families. People break-up families.

Okay, that was funny.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Rob on 01-18-2002 05:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Actually Rob, I think you're trying to attribute my sentiment about rights to Toby. We can discuss this at length if you please. To start, did you have to stay in from recess when other kids misbehaved?

No, but all kids were restricted from taking weapons to school. I'm not sure if there was an actual shooting or knifing at my school before they instituted the policy, or if they were just thinking ahead.

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:54 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
As I said earlier, I am not personally qualified to determine what weapons fall into which class.

Then how do you presume to be qualifed to think that some should be banned?

quote:
But you said yourself that there should be different classes of licenses (CGLs, right?).

The CGL thing was a play on words, but close enough.

quote:
So who decides what guns go into which class?

Jeff Cooper and Massad Ayoob.

quote:
The only difference between us seems to be that I think there should be one class that is actually banned, while you seem to think that all classes should be allowed as long as the person has taken the extra training/education for that class of weapon.

Yes, but the key difference is that I actually know a bit about guns and what they can and can't do.

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Okay, that was funny.

I thought so too. Too bad the logic isn't consistent.

Posted by Toby on 01-18-2002 05:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Rob
No, but all kids were restricted from taking weapons to school. I'm not sure if there was an actual shooting or knifing at my school before they instituted the policy, or if they were just thinking ahead.

Weird. Here they didn't have to restrict it when I was a kid. People just didn't do it. I say ban cities and suburbs.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Pages (73): « First ... « 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page