General Category > General Discussion
CT school-Newtown CT
wiggy:
Palmer, nobody claimed that the murders were the fault of guns (at least not as I understood it). Rather its the ability that a gun has to cause such rapid, massive devastation when compared to almost anything else.
There's a reason why we don't hear about nail gun school murders; it would be extremely difficult to kill a mass of people with one for so many reasons. Same with bombs. Hard to obtain, hard to make, hard to implement, etc. And anything else besides a firearm.
I have a LOT of friends that are into and own many guns. Personally, I think handguns should be outlawed. There's absolutely no need for any civilian to own one other than to defend themselves from someone else who also has one. The 2nd ammendment wasn't intended to give people access to automatic weapons. It was intended to help the people of a then infant nation hunt and protec themselves at a time when such a thing was absolutely necessary (I.e. no social services such as a police force).
@arseen - I wasn't at all citing anything you said. Just generally speaking ;)
SasoriSoren:
--- Quote from: wiggy on December 15, 2012, 12:27:19 PM ---Palmer, nobody claimed that the murders were the fault of guns (at least not as I understood it). Rather its the ability that a gun has to cause such rapid, massive devastation when compared to almost anything else.
There's a reason why we don't hear about nail gun school murders; it would be extremely difficult to kill a mass of people with one for so many reasons. Same with bombs. Hard to obtain, hard to make, hard to implement, etc. And anything else besides a firearm.
I have a LOT of friends that are into and own many guns. Personally, I think handguns should be outlawed. There's absolutely no need for any civilian to own one other than to defend themselves from someone else who also has one. The 2nd ammendment wasn't intended to give people access to automatic weapons. It was intended to help the people of a then infant nation hunt and protec themselves at a time when such a thing was absolutely necessary (I.e. no social services such as a police force).
@arseen - I wasn't at all citing anything you said. Just generally speaking ;)
--- End quote ---
Bingo. The Second Amendment even says it is the right of the militia to own firearms, not every citizen. That militia is now or national armed forces (which did not exist at the time of the constitution) and national guard.
Assault weapons are meaningless and serve no purpose for a civilian to have them. And you are all worried about government control. Do you honestly think if the government decided to have martial law in the USA that your one pesky assault weapon is going to do anything? They have airplanes that will destroy your house before you even know what is going on. The government already has the control, thinking otherwise is deluded.
n64gamer4ever:
--- Quote from: SasoriSoren on December 15, 2012, 12:33:14 PM ---Bingo. The Second Amendment even says it is the right of the militia to own firearms, not every citizen. That militia is now or national armed forces (which did not exist at the time of the constitution) and national guard.
Assault weapons are meaningless and serve no purpose for a civilian to have them. And you are all worried about government control. Do you honestly think if the government decided to have martial law in the USA that your one pesky assault weapon is going to do anything? They have airplanes that will destroy your house before you even know what is going on. The government already has the control, thinking otherwise is deluded.
--- End quote ---
Quick debunk of that. Standing armies aren't even supposed to exist in the US. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
2nd amendment is for the citizens to protect their liberties, and it's not so we will have food lol. Here's a nice little piece about it.
Gun control laws do the exact OPPOSITE, like DC for example. Isn't it the murder capital of the country? Check out their gun laws. So yeah, let's ban handguns since that works really well in DC.
wiggy:
DC comparison holds no water.
Let's not pretend that there are fewer guns in DC than anywhere else. And before you argue that the guns which ARE there were illegally obtained, let me remind you that there needs to be legally obtainable handguns available BEFORE their serial numbers are removed.
n64gamer4ever:
--- Quote from: wiggy on December 15, 2012, 02:53:04 PM ---DC comparison holds no water.
Let's not pretend that there are fewer guns in DC than anywhere else. And before you argue that the guns which ARE there were illegally obtained, let me remind you that there needs to be legally obtainable handguns available BEFORE their serial numbers are removed.
--- End quote ---
What about Chicago? No water either?
I'm not pretending there are fewer guns. The argument is that by banning guns to citizens, there is more murder, because of lack of ability to self protect, or protect others.
If I'm not mistaken, the shooting in CO was actually in a gun-free zone. Logically, by no one being allowed to have a gun, he was allowed to take out whomever he wanted with no threat of being shot and killed himself. Gun laws keep guns out of ordinary law abiding citizens hands, not those that are bent on doing something bad.
It's the same with drug laws. Laws that are passed always do the opposite of their intention. It's called unintended consequences. Anytime government gets involved in trying to prevent something, it's ALWAYS worse. Look at welfare. Meant to help the poor, instead it creates generations that expect a hand out and don't want to do better for themselves.
--- Quote ---let me remind you that there needs to be legally obtainable handguns available BEFORE their serial numbers are removed.
--- End quote ---
Have you purchased a handgun lately?