Gun control debate (merged)

#24,230
#24,230
LouderVol said:
You are assuming people with nukes or AA will use them and harm innocents, and thus shouldnt have them. You are assigning them guilt with no reason to.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that if enough people have them because of easy availability, someone will.
Kind of like assuming that more guns in circulation results in more accidental gun deaths.
 
#24,232
#24,232
luthervol said:
No one (at least not me) is asking you to give up what you already have or your right to purchase and own a firearm.
I'm just trying to keep nukes and anti-aircraft weaponry out of the hands of the people who would use them for mass destruction.
Click to expand...
This is straight up BS and doesn't fit your narrative over the last decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, GroverCleveland and StarRaider
#24,235
#24,235
luthervol said:
That's because they are not easily available.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that is what I said; they are not readily available because of the price point. However, to the point I think you are trying to make, it is because the government placed constraints on the purchase of said firearms. The price point of more exotic items, such as nukes, are pretty much beyond the reach of anyone, outside of buying an ex-Russian warhead, and the people capable of obtaining one are under such scrutiny any number of governments are not going to allow them to either (a) have it and (b) develop the capability to use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and StarRaider
#24,236
#24,236
GroverCleveland said:
I am pretty sure that is what I said; they are not readily available because of the price point. However, to the point I think you are trying to make, it is because the government placed constraints on the purchase of said firearms. The price point of more exotic items, such as nukes, are pretty much beyond the reach of anyone, outside of buying an ex-Russian warhead, and the people capable of obtaining one are under such scrutiny any number of governments are not going to allow them to either (a) have it or (b) develop the capability to use it.
Click to expand...
$3,500-$12,000 for a .50 is probably less to a lot of people than $500 (for a decent pistol) is to a poor, inner city gang member.

Luther, if you're local I can hook you up with a Barrett today for $9k. Or, you can order online and have several make options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#24,237
#24,237
luthervol said:
I'm assuming that if enough people have them because of easy availability, someone will.
Kind of like assuming that more guns in circulation results in more accidental gun deaths.
Click to expand...
So a correlation argument and not a causation argument.

Guns dont go off on their own. The number of guns in existence doesnt impact accidental discharges.

If you want that number to go down, you would teach and push safety for what is already out there. Instead you teach people to fear and hate and that induces a lack of understanding, and thus safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, 82_VOL_83 and StarRaider
#24,238
#24,238
kiddiedoc said:
$3,500-$12,000 for a .50 is probably less to a lot of people than $500 (for a decent pistol) is to a poor, inner city gang member.

Luther, if you're local I can hook you up with a Barrett today for $9k. Or, you can order online and have several make options.
Click to expand...
Not talking about the Barrett. Talking about M-2s. They are out there. As are Maxims, MG34s, MG42s, M1919s, etc. But well north of $50K IF you can find one.
 
#24,239
#24,239
GroverCleveland said:
I am pretty sure that is what I said; they are not readily available because of the price point. However, to the point I think you are trying to make, it is because the government placed constraints on the purchase of said firearms. The price point of more exotic items, such as nukes, are pretty much beyond the reach of anyone, outside of buying an ex-Russian warhead, and the people capable of obtaining one are under such scrutiny any number of governments are not going to allow them to either (a) have it and (b) develop the capability to use it.
Click to expand...

An explosive device isn't a firearm so don't play into Luther's absurdity.
 
#24,240
#24,240
82_VOL_83 said:
This is straight up BS and doesn't fit your narrative over the last decade.
Click to expand...

At an absolute minimum the "nobody" is an outright lie. There are LOTS of people that absolutely, positively "want" people to "give up what they already have". If they could they would in a nanosecond.

It's also a little tiresome to go from "firearms" to "nukes and AA". I understand the philosophical argument but ffs actually trying to make a point regarding keeping nukes and AA out of the hands of the civilian population is tantamount to getting on a soapbox about not having sasquatches or unicorns as pets. Without a total upheaval (on the scale of actually having squatches and unicorns) of weapons laws it's a strawman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and StarRaider
#24,242
#24,242
GroverCleveland said:
I guess I was doing a poor job of illustrating his absurdity. As subsequently stated, the nuke argument is nothing more than an straw man.
Click to expand...
He has always wanted to remove guns from owners and limit what and how many can be sold. His whole premise is to get guns out of private ownership. i.e., over time all guns would eventually be removed if a gun ban were put into place.
 
#24,243
#24,243
luthervol said:
What person or people have nukes? Countries have nukes, and that is EXTENSIVELY regulated and controlled.......because it is rational and reasonable to do so.
Click to expand...

Pakistan. A country where they stone gays. Kill women who report rapes for adultery. Have assasinated a PM and hung her father in an army coup. A nation that harbored AQ members and raped over a million Bengali women to effectively change the demographics of the country? Only a lunatic like you would think that’s regulated and controlled. Actually it is controlled. The CIA knows where there nukes are at all times and Delta has a plan to snatch them. Very reassuring.
 
#24,246
#24,246
GroverCleveland said:
I am pretty sure that is what I said; they are not readily available because of the price point. However, to the point I think you are trying to make, it is because the government placed constraints on the purchase of said firearms. The price point of more exotic items, such as nukes, are pretty much beyond the reach of anyone, outside of buying an ex-Russian warhead, and the people capable of obtaining one are under such scrutiny any number of governments are not going to allow them to either (a) have it and (b) develop the capability to use it.
Click to expand...
So even if someone can afford it, and they are available, they will not be allowed to because of legitimate concern over the dangers? Fascinating concept!!!!
 
#24,249
#24,249
hndog609 said:
At an absolute minimum the "nobody" is an outright lie. There are LOTS of people that absolutely, positively "want" people to "give up what they already have". If they could they would in a nanosecond.

It's also a little tiresome to go from "firearms" to "nukes and AA". I understand the philosophical argument but ffs actually trying to make a point regarding keeping nukes and AA out of the hands of the civilian population is tantamount to getting on a soapbox about not having sasquatches or unicorns as pets. Without a total upheaval (on the scale of actually having squatches and unicorns) of weapons laws it's a strawman.
Click to expand...
Simply making a point that gun nuts choose to conveniently ignore.....so it probably looks like a strawman to you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top