My Postal Challenge

[disciple Clint]

Update: that's what Law Enforcement authorities do. That takes an AR-15? 'Hunting', 'sports', enjoyment? .. And you believe those are more important than what, 50, 60 deaths at a time, caused by a single AR-15?
Thar's ya problem right there, lady!

Update: when was the last legal militia formed in the US needing AR-15s? Get real.

'Platform' is a euphemism for ignoring and covering up the reality of the purpose of using an AR-15 and what such usage has already done to many innocent victims' families.

I do not have a problem "lady". unlike you, I do not have a fear of inanimate objects.

 

[disciple Clint]

Context is important. Why was the 2nd Amendment written? Was it to allow formation of a militia if necessary or was it to allow anyone who so desired to own a weapon (not necessarily a gun)?

didn't you just make a post about playing silly semantic games? Game over.

 

[SelfSim]

I do not have a problem "lady". unlike you, I do not have a fear of inanimate objects.

I don't fear anything there.

Inanimate objects like AR-15s have been designed by humans for a very specific purpose. Those who acquire them are fully aware of that purpose and revel in the perceived 'power' that represents to them.
That kind of 'power' is an illusion .. and they are the ones experiencing fear.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I do not have a problem "lady". unlike you, I do not have a fear of inanimate objects.

Indeed -- it's the person with the pathological need to stockpile them that is cause for concern.

 

[disciple Clint]

Stop avoiding the question.

I made a direct answer to your question, now are you sorry you asked or what exactly is it that you seem to be upset about?

 

[disciple Clint]

And do you think that Jimbo, Big Pete and Buford who think the gubmint is commin' to take their guns count as part of a well-regulated militia?



Pray tell, what is a good reason for having an AR-15?



I see you're going with Homer Simpson's "If there was a law, it would be against it" argument.



What in the world are you talking about?

If you're going to continue ranting like this, there's no point in talking to you. I haven't mentioned anything at all about liberals, conservatives, or made the claim that criminals have more rights than victims.

I agree with one thing in your post: there is no point in talking to you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't fear anything there.

Inanimate objects like AR-15s have been designed by humans for a very specific purpose. Those who acquire them are fully aware of that purpose and revel in the perceived 'power' that represents to them.
That kind of 'power' is an illusion .. and they are the ones experiencing fear.

There is truth to this... the people who stockpile weapons for security always seem perpetually insecure about the big, bad guv'ment coming to take them away...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

didn't you just make a post about playing silly semantic games? Game over.

You don't understand the difference between semantics and context, do you?

 

[disciple Clint]

In a world where everyone is either well-adjusted or locked up, there wouldn't be a need for guns

Unfortunately, only a tiny number of countries have good mental health services; for the rest, it's a pipe-dream. Here in the UK, we have very poor mental health services, but strict gun controls and very low levels of gun crime. That speaks for itself...

our culture is very, very different. How is your violent crime rate there, what is your police response time.

 

[disciple Clint]

But very few people seem to do that in countries where firearms are not readily available. This suggests that the kind of 'killers' you're talking about are rare, and not the cause of most shootings.

Accidental shootings, fit-of-rage shootings, and revenge shootings (schools, workplaces, 'going postal', etc) all seem less likely if guns were not readily available. Accidental shootings would be rare, violent fits-of-rage would more likely result in direct physical assault, and revenge fantasies would either remain fantasies or take less deadly effect - e.g. direct physical assault, arson, etc. That's not to say people wouldn't be killed, but far fewer.

We have to deal with what is not what we would like it to be. It is common now to get shot at in urban areas over nothing more than road rage.

 

[disciple Clint]

This is a reasonably facile argument. Since cars have other uses it would be irrational to limit cars. But guns are specifically made to task and made for exactly one purpose: causing grievous physical injury to a living thing.

But if, as you hypothesize, killers gonna kill, then why aren't mass car-murders as common as mass-gun murders? Probably because you can't carry a car concealed into an office building or theater.

Yes there are many ways to kill a lot of people using everyday objects. But guns are special made for the task and in America rather easy to get ahold of.

So because there are a few killers the solution is to take away the guns from everyone now that is a facile argument

 

[Opdrey]

So because there are a few killers the solution is to take away the guns from everyone now that is a facile argument

It would be if I had said that. So instead of going with what you made up about my point let me note I never said take all guns away from everyone. I merely noted that if guns were under stricter control and there were fewer of them it would stand to reason that the probability of gun homicides would decrease.

Remember some key facts: America has about the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the developed world and the highest gun homicide rate in the developed world.

Given that we have ample evidence of multiple countries are similarly situated as us economically and sociologically with dramatically lower rates of gun homicides and those same countries have far fewer guns in circulation it is a reasonable guess.

 

[disciple Clint]

I don't fear anything there.

Inanimate objects like AR-15s have been designed by humans for a very specific purpose. Those who acquire them are fully aware of that purpose and revel in the perceived 'power' that represents to them.
That kind of 'power' is an illusion .. and they are the ones experiencing fear.

We have discussed the purpose for AR 15 and there are very valid reasons for owning one, for you to judge everyone who owns one is a bit much dont you think.

 

[disciple Clint]

Indeed -- it's the person with the pathological need to stockpile them that is cause for concern.

very seldom are gun collectors killers. Look up the facts. But almost always people who perpetrate mass killings have mental health problems. Wisdom dictates putting the money to work where the problem is and leaving those who obey the law alone.

 

[disciple Clint]

You don't understand the difference between semantics and context, do you?

I recognize foolishness when I see it.

 

[Opdrey]

We have discussed the purpose for AR 15 and there are very valid reasons for owning one, for you to judge everyone who owns one is a bit much dont you think.

I believe we have been told that AR-15's differ only slightly from more standard guns. It is made to look more "exciting", more "tactical", more "manly" but it is not an assault rifle.

I always assume that people like the AR-15 because it "looks cool". Since it is not an assault rifle per se it appears that it is largely "for show" to make the bearer feel like a real soldier of fortune takin' out the bad guys.

 

[Opdrey]

very seldom are gun collectors killers.

Correct. All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs. It's the dogs we're worried about. Because the vast majority of gun owners will never kill another person doesn't really help ease anyone's mind because a tiny minority can kill a very large number of people very quickly.

But almost always people who perpetrate mass killings have mental health problems.

Agreed! So we need to put a lot more of our tax money to improving healthcare across the board, ESPECIALLY mental healthcare. Since my favorite hobby (collecting synthesizers) is inherently less dangerous for those around me (with a few exceptions) I shouldn't have to pay extra to keep guns away from mentally ill people...but people who like guns and collect guns should. If improved mental health would mean fewer mass shootings then those who like guns should be HAPPY to pay a surcharge on their ammo and gun purchases to support this.

 

[Opdrey]

our culture is very, very different.

Are Americans simply a more dangerous "species" of human? Americans value killing others moreso?

How is your violent crime rate there, what is your police response time.

That's not an argument for more guns, that's an argument for better social safety nets and better support for emergency services (ie higher taxes).

Guns are more fun than paying taxes, though. Pew, pew.

 

[Gene2memE]

Seriously I answered you question you just didn't like the answer.

No, you evaded the answer by claiming "he would have found another way" to commit mass murder.

Here's the question again: Would an individual be capable of replicating the results of the Las Vegas shooting if they were limited to muzzle loading muskets? Or lever action rifles? Or bolt action rifles? Or break action rifles?

 

[TLK Valentine]

very seldom are gun collectors killers. Look up the facts. But almost always people who perpetrate mass killings have mental health problems. Wisdom dictates putting the money to work where the problem is and leaving those who obey the law alone.

We agree -- however, the people with the mental health issues who go on shooting sprees almost always acquire those firearms legally... and any attempt to address this part of the issue makes those who obey the law very nervous...