[highsider]

Originally Posted by joeswamp

You can take this argument in the other direction, since it's all about people and not the tool, why not make private ownership of cheap nukes legal? You could argue that the 2nd amendment guarantees our individual right to own them.

I think trying to draw a correlation between a gun and a bomb is a bit of a stretch.

[Kham]

Originally Posted by bigred875

then articulate your view better...

ps - you'll shoot your eye out.

you pay little more attention. i said im not for or against. im extending your view with whatif. i could be wrong like everyone else. are you pissed or something brother?

[richw]

Sorry I can't come to work today






































The voices told me to clean my guns

[joeswamp]

Originally Posted by highsider

I think trying to draw a correlation between a gun and a bomb is a bit of a stretch.

No, my point is that both are tools that allow the user to conduct big massacres (although the bomb is a lot bigger). If our argument is that the tool is never the problem -- the user is -- then it's hypocritical to ban one tool and not another.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by hessogood

Of course all the signs were there now that we're using hindsight. The event was not preventable. Look around you, anyone you see could stand up at any second and start firing. Any of the thousands and thousands of people you drive or walk by everyday could start shooting at anytime. And then after the fact we'll hear everyone say, 'the signs were all there'.

the signs were there and people will make excuses as to why people ignored them.

Va. gunman had 2 past stalking cases - Yahoo! News

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by joeswamp

You can take this argument in the other direction, since it's all about people and not the tool, why not make private ownership of cheap nukes legal? You could argue that the 2nd amendment guarantees our individual right to own them.

you could if you were stretching logic in order to prove a point.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by joeswamp

You can take this argument in the other direction, since it's all about people and not the tool, why not make private ownership of cheap nukes legal? You could argue that the 2nd amendment guarantees our individual right to own them.

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind your comparions between a nuclear weapon and a gun.

Nuclear weapons are built for one SOLE purpose, destruction on the scale of massive quantities.

Now guns on the other hand have can be used for protection in various different ways, and can be used as a hunting tool for food.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Kham

red, please... people with my view? don't underestimate me like those that do with Cho. i can shoot a gun. i actually have a bb gun.

In case no one has pointed this out... I do not consider a BB gun a deadly weapon.

[Doc]

You all just knew I would be chiming in...

Playing devils advocate here so bear with me... Couldn't we make it a little more difficult to buy a gun and still have freedoms for ownership?

They guy had to show 3 forms of ID a License, a GREEN CARD!! and a CHECKBOOK!!!

Next thing you know you can show a Hall pass and your Jail ID and off you go with a gun!

I propose to purchase a firearm you need to go through a course, you want a CCW permit that is another course... You pass and you get a card saying such and you can purchase whatever weapon you are licensed to use. IF you fail by being a psycho or some such BS you don't get a damn thing!

[Kham]

Originally Posted by Doc

In case no one has pointed this out... I do not consider a BB gun a deadly weapon.

no that's why you can get at walmart. just give me a real gun and i'll show you.

[joeswamp]

Originally Posted by BadBoyBilly

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind your comparions between a nuclear weapon and a gun.

Nuclear weapons are built for one SOLE purpose, destruction on the scale of massive quantities.

Now guns on the other hand have can be used for protection in various different ways, and can be used as a hunting tool for food.

My only point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and why do we draw it where we do?

You argued that if we say it's the tool and not the person, we should ban everything, including hammers.

However if you argue "it's never the tool, it's always the person" you're implying that there's no need to ban anything.

Let's say I invent a death ray. It looks like a handgun, costs $50, and if I pull the trigger everyone within a hundred feet of me (except me) drops dead. Should this thing be banned?

[bigred875]

i think the line is drawn when somethings sole purpose is mass murder.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by Doc

IF you fail by being a psycho or some such BS you don't get a damn thing!

What if I go through all your proposed laws and courses and pass, then one day I wake up and TOTALLY snap. There's no way to protect against that, except for other armed citizens who are in good health.

[Honclfibr]

To me, guns are like religion. I don't care if you've got one or not, just don't go around waving it in everybody's face.

[Adrenalinechic]

Originally Posted by bigred875

if you want to blame anyone for this particular incident....start with the criminal who commited the crime, then look at his parents, teachers and advisers....the signs were all there and ignored.

not true. the teacher that banned him from class referred him to counselling and attempted to council him herself; however, you cannot force a person to seek help. she did what she could within her limitations. if she went to the police and said "this kid has problems, yada yada" they wouldnt be able to do anything b/c no crime had been committed. i had a stalker a few years ago and no lawful action could be taken because he never physically harmed me. all i could do was change my email, block him from all forms of communication, make sure my blinds were closed, and walk with other people. i couldnt even go to class b/c that psycho waited for me IN the classroom.

what they DID fail to do was successfully follow up on the teacher's reports.

hindsight is 20/20

[Doc]

Originally Posted by BadBoyBilly

What if I go through all your proposed laws and courses and pass, then one day I wake up and TOTALLY snap. There's no way to protect against that, except for other armed citizens who are in good health.

..... With WEAPONS!

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Adrenalinechic

not true. the teacher that banned him from class referred him to counselling and attempted to council him herself; however, you cannot force a person to seek help. she did what she could within her limitations. if she went to the police and said "this kid has problems, yada yada" they wouldnt be able to do anything b/c no crime had been committed. i had a stalker a few years ago and no lawful action could be taken because he never physically harmed me. all i could do was change my email, block him from all forms of communication, make sure my blinds were closed, and walk with other people. i couldnt even go to class b/c that psycho waited for me IN the classroom.

what they DID fail to do was successfully follow up on the teacher's reports.

hindsight is 20/20

You coulda got a restraining order... or a gun

[Kham]

Originally Posted by joeswamp

My only point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and why do we draw it where we do?

You argued that if we say it's the tool and not the person, we should ban everything, including hammers.

However if you argue "it's never the tool, it's always the person" you're implying that there's no need to ban anything.

Let's say I invent a death ray. It looks like a handgun, costs $50, and if I pull the trigger everyone within a hundred feet of me (except me) drops dead. Should this thing be banned?

there's the point i wanted to make. don't be a pissed off little... if i can't express at first. maybe it's you (not you joe) and not me.

[bentbryan]

Don't ban guns. Ban Asians with guns!


Kham ->

[Adrenalinechic]

Originally Posted by Doc

You coulda got a restraining order... or a gun

i got a big guy to tell him he'd kill him if he came near me again, then he moved to FL...anyway, off topic just pointing out that you need a certain amount of evidence/intent to have anything legal done

[benVFR]

IMO part of the problem with the 2nd ammendment today is even if we are allowed to have full auto assault rifles we wouldn't have much luck if the government really tried to crack down on us and things got really ugly.

Citizens basically need weapons of mass destruction, as the government has them. When the 2nd ammendment was written the gap between what the government had and what the citizens had was much much smaller.

At best we'd put up a fight like the Iraqis, but the government would still be able to wipe us out on a whim when they had the guts to do so and we'd never really be able to fight back in any meaningful way.

I want to throw a question out to the anti gun people on this forum if there are any. Pretend you're a bad person and you want to rob a store. Would you rather rob a store in an environment where the majority of the population is armed, or an environment where the population is not allowed to be armed. Which one do you choose?

You really think criminals care at all? The majority of people in LA seem to have weapons and you think that stops any of the gangsters from comitting crimes? Every state has crime problems regardless of their gun control stand. As a country we're already about as liberal with guns as we can be compared to other developed countries and it's not helping us at all.

Neither restricting or allowing guns seems to make any difference at all in this country. Time to ignore the guns and move on to our other problems.

This also still ignores the issue that most people just don't want to carry guns around. I'm not terribly anti-gun. We had them in the house when I was growing up, I've been out to shoot a handful of times, got the lecture, instead. Would it be fun to go target shoot ocassionally? Sure. Would I want to have to deal with carrying every day? Hell fucking now. What a PITA, and I'm nowhere near thinking it would make me safer in any way. It's just not that dangerous out there, even with events like 9/11, Columbine, and this VA Tech shooting. If we get to the point where we all are carrying everywhere just to be overcome fear and be able to leave our houses in the morning the country is definitely fucked. If it gets that violent I'll go live in the woods or something.

[hessogood]

Originally Posted by joeswamp

My only point is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and why do we draw it where we do?

You argued that if we say it's the tool and not the person, we should ban everything, including hammers.

However if you argue "it's never the tool, it's always the person" you're implying that there's no need to ban anything.

Let's say I invent a death ray. It looks like a handgun, costs $50, and if I pull the trigger everyone within a hundred feet of me (except me) drops dead. Should this thing be banned?

You have no logic here. You're comparing guns to death machines. the intended purpose of a gun is hunting, recreation, and personal protection. A nuclear device and a 'death ray' have no purpose other than to kill on a massive scale and without cause.

[hessogood]

Ben, have you ever read up on gun laws in California. They are far from relaxed.

[Kham]

Originally Posted by hessogood

You have no logic here. You're comparing guns to death machines. the intended purpose of a gun is hunting, recreation, and personal protection. A nuclear device and a 'death ray' have no purpose other than to kill on a massive scale and without cause.

i think the correct term is to "kill", "do damage", or "stop" the intended target.

imagine if everyone is a solder, everyone can go to class with AK47 or M16. then a psycho solder like Cho would probably come up with something to wipe out the entire group of solders with AK and M16.

[joeswamp]

Originally Posted by hessogood

You have no logic here. You're comparing guns to death machines. the intended purpose of a gun is hunting, recreation, and personal protection. A nuclear device and a 'death ray' have no purpose other than to kill on a massive scale and without cause.

Well that's not how I'd market my death ray either, I'd call it the "ultimate personal defense system" or maybe point out that now blind people can go hunting too, something like that.

Also, I'm pretty sure that back in the 50's people were looking at nuclear devices for all kinds of peaceful purposes, like digging mines, stuff like that.

I think the line needs to be drawn at not the ostensible "purpose" of device, but rather its potential for mass killing.