We should also ban fertilizer and gasoline. Because Timothy McVeigh killed a lot more people with that stuff (and a rental truck (maybe we should ban those too)) than anyone has with a gun.Narupug wrote:
This reminds me of a joke
You know why people in New York are depressed?
Because the light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey.
(sorry if that's off topic)
Anyway, I think any gun that can't be used, or is unneccessary, to hunt should be banned. I mean what's the point of some of these semi automatics? You want to own one so you can fire it? That's all fine but how would it make you feel if someone stole your guns and went to a school and started killing people? Just because you want to have fun firing a weapon that is capable of killing dozens of people in a short amount of time, doesn't mean you have to right to own it.
Guess you missed the memo, guns are designed to kill people. Gasoline and fertilisers are not.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
We should also ban fertilizer and gasoline. Because Timothy McVeigh killed a lot more people with that stuff (and a rental truck (maybe we should ban those too)) than anyone has with a gun.
I believe it was fertilizer and diesel, but that doesn't matter. Gasoline cars will soon be obsolete, but could easily end up being replaced with hydrogen. Which as the hindenberg showed us, is extremely explosive. This will have to be dealt with at some time in the future.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
We should also ban fertilizer and gasoline. Because Timothy McVeigh killed a lot more people with that stuff (and a rental truck (maybe we should ban those too)) than anyone has with a gun.Narupug wrote:
This reminds me of a joke
You know why people in New York are depressed?
Because the light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey.
(sorry if that's off topic)
Anyway, I think any gun that can't be used, or is unneccessary, to hunt should be banned. I mean what's the point of some of these semi automatics? You want to own one so you can fire it? That's all fine but how would it make you feel if someone stole your guns and went to a school and started killing people? Just because you want to have fun firing a weapon that is capable of killing dozens of people in a short amount of time, doesn't mean you have to right to own it.
Anyhow guns are the easy way to kill people, they don't require any knowledge of fuses or swordplay or knife work or what common chemicals to mix to create an explosive. It is simply like a camera, point and shoot.
Not really explosive, but it does burn.Which as the hindenberg showed us, is extremely explosive.
And not all guns are designed to kill people.
Fuck Israel
Like a taser gun. lolDilbert_X wrote:
Not really explosive, but it does burn.Which as the hindenberg showed us, is extremely explosive.
And not all guns are designed to kill people.
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really explosive, but it does burn.Which as the hindenberg showed us, is extremely explosive.
And not all guns are designed to kill people.
Yeah well along those lines we have this:S3v3N wrote:
hmmm..
Cop beats a black kid.. ZOMG moral outrage!
Cops die at the hands of criminals.. ZOMG Ban Guns.. Tougher Gun Laws.
You people fucking amaze me.
http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2009-07-01/index.htm
a program inacted by the NAACP to help citizens catch cops on video doing things the NAACP would deem as bad, yet it has no program inacted to help citizens catch criminals on video in an effort to aid police.
I read this from Herman Cain, a talk show host, who used to be a member. I looked it up and sure as shit there it is.
gotta love the NAACP
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.Narupug wrote:
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really explosive, but it does burn.Which as the hindenberg showed us, is extremely explosive.
And not all guns are designed to kill people.
To protect themselves from a tyrannical Federal Government if the need arose. Also to protect from military coup/other.RAIMIUS wrote:
The US doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms for hunting. Think about it for a second. Why would a bunch of revolutionaries want to make sure people had access to firearms?...
James Madison wrote:
"To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." (Federalist Papers #46)
Samuel Adams wrote:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ...or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)
George Mason wrote:
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised ...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." (In Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless - by disarming them." (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)
"I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil." (In Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:381)
RAIMIUS wrote:
...but to throw more wrenches in your argument...
Almost every gun can be used to hunt.
Many semi-auto shotguns are specifically designed to be used for hunting.
What if someone stole my guns and shot up a school? Are you kidding me?
Someone could also steal my car and run over people, but that doesn't really concern me very much. I lock my car and my firearms. If someone figures out where my firearms are, breaks through the multiple locks on them, then uses them for crime...well, that sucks for the victims (including me)...but it's not my fault.
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.Narupug wrote:
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really explosive, but it does burn.
And not all guns are designed to kill people.
Trained Concealed Carry Permit Holders shoot innocents in error 1/3 as many times as Police annually.Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.Narupug wrote:
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.
Not going to happen. Pay sucks and is definetly not worth the amount of stress(well atleast here in NYC).Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.Narupug wrote:
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.
Really? Even after they told us that police are not legally obligated to protect us? Can I have some of that rock you smokin?Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.Narupug wrote:
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.
Do you plan on having police officers live with you for protection in your home, or are you content with them showing up 1/2 hour later, to mop you up?Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.Narupug wrote:
Yes I know, long guns are made for hunting. I said that all guns without a use for hunting should be banned, read up.
I like my police lurking, they should be able to enforce laws but not invade privacy.lowing wrote:
Do you plan on having police officers live with you for protection in your home, or are you content with them showing up 1/2 hour later, to mop you up?Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.
Yeah and how many officers do ya think it wouldtake to "lurk" around everyones house?Narupug wrote:
I like my police lurking, they should be able to enforce laws but not invade privacy.lowing wrote:
Do you plan on having police officers live with you for protection in your home, or are you content with them showing up 1/2 hour later, to mop you up?Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?
Another thought, defending yourself is hardly an invasion of privacy.
In oxygen it's very, very explosive...Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really explosive, but it does burn.Which as the hindenberg showed us, is extremely explosive.
Of how many shootings? What is the ratio of concealed carry holders to police? Blinkered analysis often leads to these sort of conclusions, but when you look at more complete data sets you see these trends disappear or reverse.nickb64 wrote:
Trained Concealed Carry Permit Holders shoot innocents in error 1/3 as many times as Police annually.Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?lowing wrote:
Yes because banning guns from law abiding citizens makes more sense than punishing criminals ( who will still have them) by enforcing the laws.
Strange that you believe all this nonsense, because whenever any of the research papers asserting this stuff have been looked at for secondary analysis they've been found to be bullshit. How many of these papers have been approved by major research institutions? I expect it isn't any. I know a lot have been rejected though.
It's not neccessary to lurk at every house, you only need 1 cop car for every two blocks and even then that's too much.lowing wrote:
Yeah and how many officers do ya think it wouldtake to "lurk" around everyones house?Narupug wrote:
I like my police lurking, they should be able to enforce laws but not invade privacy.lowing wrote:
Do you plan on having police officers live with you for protection in your home, or are you content with them showing up 1/2 hour later, to mop you up?
Another thought, defending yourself is hardly an invasion of privacy.
Only if the ratio is perfect, even then not very explosive at all, compared with, say, an average explosive.Bertster wrote:
In oxygen it's very, very explosive...
Its pretty hard to get the ratio dead right, improbable by accident.
As for gun laws, I'm still waiting for proposals from either side which will efficiently restrict criminals access to guns without impinging on the law-abiding.
'Ban all guns' is too harsh, blindly supporting unrestricted gun ownership without regard for the consequences is foolish.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-20 02:45:31)
Fuck Israel
No thanks, instead of funding that kind of budget, I will just let the criminal take his chances with breaking into my house while I am at home.Narupug wrote:
It's not neccessary to lurk at every house, you only need 1 cop car for every two blocks and even then that's too much.lowing wrote:
Yeah and how many officers do ya think it wouldtake to "lurk" around everyones house?Narupug wrote:
I like my police lurking, they should be able to enforce laws but not invade privacy.
Another thought, defending yourself is hardly an invasion of privacy.
You do realize your argument is not well lit with reality, right?
Ban cars or alcohol cos drunk driving kills a shitload of people
Sadly, you'll be hard pressed to find any good research that proves anything but the "DUH!" type of facts.Bertster7 wrote:
Of how many shootings? What is the ratio of concealed carry holders to police? Blinkered analysis often leads to these sort of conclusions, but when you look at more complete data sets you see these trends disappear or reverse.nickb64 wrote:
Trained Concealed Carry Permit Holders shoot innocents in error 1/3 as many times as Police annually.Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?
Strange that you believe all this nonsense, because whenever any of the research papers asserting this stuff have been looked at for secondary analysis they've been found to be bullshit. How many of these papers have been approved by major research institutions? I expect it isn't any. I know a lot have been rejected though.
If you think Kellerman proved owning a gun is dangerous to your safety, you haven't looked at the facts.
If you think Lott proved CCW reduces crime, you haven't studied it very carefully.
What many of these studies DO show is there are correlations we don't fully understand.
Narupug wrote:
How dare I say? More police officers?
-Warren v. District of Columbia...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
You lemmings do realise than cops are under no legal obligation to protect you? In fact, the only people they must protect are the criminals in their custody.
What a prejudiced, ignorant thing to say. A couple of police officers beat up some kid, so all police deserve to be shot at? Look a their fucking job! They have to live with the possibility that they could get shot at and or killed by some maniac all day. Stupid comment, S3v3N.S3v3N wrote:
hmmm..
Cop beats a black kid.. ZOMG moral outrage!
Cops die at the hands of criminals.. ZOMG Ban Guns.. Tougher Gun Laws.
You people fucking amaze me.