Gun control debate (merged)

#10,054
#10,054
LouderVol said:
Man you really do hate minorities. You are whistling past some pretty serious grave yards. Especially with our governments history with Tuskegee, the natives, Japs, etc. That's without even looking at HIV/AIDS or really any STD.
Click to expand...
I'm just happy delusional paranoia is not contagious.

Hang on a sec., maybe it is.
 
#10,055
#10,055
LouderVol said:
Is 2000 bullets even enough to load 39 guns. By my math 39 high capacity rounds is almost 4000 rounds. Dude needs more ammo
Click to expand...

Actually the fascination with the ammo and "arsenals" is pretty silly for the most part unless the idea is arming multiple people for coordinated mayhem. An individual shooter is only going to be able to use a very limited number of guns for any given task. Even Paddock (Vegas shooter) using modified weapons and specifically setting up a target rich shooter's nest only fired 1100 or so rounds. The next biggest shooting was the Orlando club (Mateen). I've seen conflicting reports on just how many rounds were used in that one but the highest I've seen is just over 200.
 
#10,056
#10,056
luthervol said:
I'm just happy delusional paranoia is not contagious.

Hang on a sec., maybe it is.
Click to expand...

How is it delusion when we have proof that the government and prominent groups will take away a persons rights based on their perceptions and theories ? I believe that’s called history . The important question is ... what happens when we ignore our history?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#10,057
#10,057
0nelilreb said:
How is it delusion when we have proof that the government and prominent groups will take away a persons rights based on their perceptions and theories ? I believe that’s called history . The important question is ... what happens when we ignore our history?
Click to expand...
We elect a clown?
 
#10,059
#10,059
0nelilreb said:
The irony of your trust in government and its policies to do the right thing only to complain about Trump and his administration , is thick .
Click to expand...
I think you guys may overestimate my opinion of the government. I view it as a necessary evil. The only thing worse than government is the absence of government.
 
#10,060
#10,060
hndog609 said:
Actually the fascination with the ammo and "arsenals" is pretty silly for the most part unless the idea is arming multiple people for coordinated mayhem. An individual shooter is only going to be able to use a very limited number of guns for any given task. Even Paddock (Vegas shooter) using modified weapons and specifically setting up a target rich shooter's nest only fired 1100 or so rounds. The next biggest shooting was the Orlando club (Mateen). I've seen conflicting reports on just how many rounds were used in that one but the highest I've seen is just over 200.
Click to expand...
I was making a joke playing on certain people's irrational fears.
 
#10,066
#10,066
1972 Grad said:
Now, there is no way he could buy a gun, not even from the black market. He will never, ever be able to buy another firearm. It would be impossible.



If he really wants to kill, he will find a way.
Click to expand...

So if a kid wants to hit another kid, we shouldn't take the hammer away since they'll just find something else to hit the kid with. Awesome logic!
 
#10,068
#10,068
evillawyer said:
So if a kid wants to hit another kid, we shouldn't take the hammer away since they'll just find something else to hit the kid with. Awesome logic!
Click to expand...

You aren’t dealing with a kid or a hammer . You are dealing with adults and rights . Bad example on your part with the nanny state angle . If a man is in front of you wanting to hit another man with a hammer are you going to take the hammer away from him ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#10,070
#10,070
1972 Grad said:
Yep. That's exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...

I critiqued the obviously absurd FORM of reasoning you gave, which is something along the lines of:

(1) If a person wants to kill, then he will ultimately kill.
(2) If a person will ultimately kill, taking away a weapon will not prevent him from killing.
Therefore, we should not take away weapons since it won't prevent him from ultimately killing.

What this stupid argument overlooks is (1) some means of killing are more efficient/easier than others, (2) some means of killing (guns, for example) can result in more deaths than others (baseball bat) before the perpetrator can be subdued.
 
#10,071
#10,071
evillawyer said:
I critiqued the obviously absurd FORM of reasoning you gave, which is something along the lines of:

(1) If a person wants to kill, then he will ultimately kill.
(2) If a person will ultimately kill, taking away a weapon will not prevent him from killing.
Therefore, we should not take away weapons since it won't prevent him from ultimately killing.

What this stupid argument overlooks is (1) some means of killing are more efficient/easier than others, (2) some means of killing (guns, for example) can result in more deaths than others (baseball bat) before the perpetrator can be subdued.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and a truck can run over a lot of people, or a bomb can kill a lot of people, or a truck loaded with explosives can kill a lot of people, and so on and so forth. I guess that guy shouldn't have access to a vehicle either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#10,072
#10,072
evillawyer said:
I critiqued the obviously absurd FORM of reasoning you gave, which is something along the lines of:

(1) If a person wants to kill, then he will ultimately kill.
(2) If a person will ultimately kill, taking away a weapon will not prevent him from killing.
Therefore, we should not take away weapons since it won't prevent him from ultimately killing.

What this stupid argument overlooks is (1) some means of killing are more efficient/easier than others, (2) some means of killing (guns, for example) can result in more deaths than others (baseball bat) before the perpetrator can be subdued.
Click to expand...
Or a rented Home Depot dump truck crashing through a crowd and killing more than a magazine of bullets?

ECRNnNeWwAEi8Xn.jpeg
 
#10,074
#10,074
evillawyer said:
I critiqued the obviously absurd FORM of reasoning you gave, which is something along the lines of:

(1) If a person wants to kill, then he will ultimately kill.
(2) If a person will ultimately kill, taking away a weapon will not prevent him from killing.
Therefore, we should not take away weapons since it won't prevent him from ultimately killing.

What this stupid argument overlooks is (1) some means of killing are more efficient/easier than others, (2) some means of killing (guns, for example) can result in more deaths than others (baseball bat) before the perpetrator can be subdued.
Click to expand...
What your argument overlooks is the multiple rights involved in this.

Now in this particular case guy seems like a nutjob. Not sure why they couldnt get a judge to weigh in and get a warrant? You know the process part of due process. There are already processes for this. The red flag laws are simple government oversteps to remove rights, and you cant wait to put on your latex and ball gag and ask for more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top