Jump to content

echo1

Member
  • Content Count

    4291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by echo1


  1. What about the alcohol...where is the necessity of that?

    Exception that vindicates the rule... Same with cigarettes.

    If either of those things were invented today, they would probably be banned (definitely in the case of cigarettes)

    The banning of cigarettes will inevitably happen in Western countries, albeit not any time soon. Attempts to ban alcohol have failed because it is something that has ingrained (to pardon the unintentional pun) itself in human civilization. I don't we are attached to guns in the same way. Again, look at countries with strict gun law - they aren't exactly collapsing into anarchy.

    Why do you think when people go on a rampage they go to Colleges,High Schools,Courthouses,and Shopping Malls.....Because they all are No firearm zones...All of them..You can do all the damage you want because nobody has a gun..Remember the guy who went on a shooting rampage in front of the white house..he didn't last long..because people had guns there...These massacres didn't happen because of guns..it happened because of a lack of guns..

    So basically you're shifting the blame for gun crime onto the victim for not defending themselves?

    No this a more safe place. Manchester Firing Line Range There's no reason you need to own them..

    I think a case could be made for private ownership of stuff like heavy machineguns if the weapons were stored, and only allowed to be fired, in a specially designated premises.


  2. He is right.. We have 38 thousand deaths due to automobile accidents, 11 thousand of those deaths are associated with alcohol every year.We have around 16 thousand murders every year..only 8000 are with firearms.

    Like Mosh says..nobody talks about banning cars or alcohol...or fried chicken..that's even deadlier....

    There's a necessity value associated with cars that you don't have with private ownership with guns.

    And for those who are going to inevitably try and make a case for guns being essential, look at... well, just about any western country outside of the US.


  3. A pregnant girl brought a snub nose 38 to my HS back during my junior year, she planned on shooting her boyfriend because he knocked her up and when he found out he dumped her. The heartbreak mixed with the extreme emotions involved with pregnancy caused her not to think rationally and she stole her dad's gun to kill her baby's father. Thankfully someone who was responsible told the school resource officer (BKA school cop) and she was stopped before she murdered someone or killed herself.

    Would you shoot a pregnant girl just because she wasn't thinking rationally for very good reasons? I wouldn't, not even if she planned on killing me. Stop being a troll.

    In case anyone hasn't noticed, schools and colleges (the younger college students anyway) tend to be full of people either in, or just coming out puberty. Hormones make them a bit tetchy and emotional. Combine this with the amount of bullying and fighting that goes on in schools, and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Seriously - the odds of someone losing control of themselves and shooting someone over a minor dispute are thousands of times higher than the odds that a Columbine scenario is going to occur. In the former situation, letting people carry guns turns gun crime from a premeditated crime into a spur of the moment mistake. If you want to kill the guy who you don't like in school, ordinarily you'd have to go home, get your gun, load it and probably wait till the next day to do anything. The odds are that 90% of people will cop on by that stage and not go ahead with it. Encourage everyone to go around with guns? You don't have that cool down period. In a moment of strong emotion, you just take out the gun and kill without properly considering what you are doing.

    So yeah, people who suggest that guns should be brought into schools are either trolls, or those who have put zero thought into what they are saying. Not sure which is worse...

    Again, this is the problem with American attitudes towards guns (on both side of the fence) - it's all based on fringe cases, without any assessment of the regular realities of the situation that just don't happen to get as much air time on Fox News.


  4. You know what would really protect people from mass shootings? Getting rid of the inane "gun-free zone" doctrine that makes it illegal for anyone to carry a firearm in places like schools (hell of a lot of good that has done for every school shooting ever -- didn't the mass murderers see the "this is a gun-free zone" sign?). If it were allowed, then the non-psychopathic types who choose to arm themselves would have the opportunity to defend themselves and others well before the police even arrive at the scene. And what's more, a would-be school shooter might even think twice now that he can't be sure that everyone's so defenseless anymore. Imagine.

    This HAS to be a troll.


  5. Really ? when was that ? ...... just a couple of days ago i was reading about somebody from Boeing bragging about successful tests and how awesome the laser technology is and that they are thinking of expanding it for other targets.

    I dont remember how old the report was though, and as expected I cant seem to find it now :(

    Edit: oh wait found it here

    Here

    They'll probably make a new version with the sort of solid state used in the anti-air laser in the original post.


  6. No shit Sherlock.

    My point was that there is at least one nuclear-armed power in the world that is far more unstable, yet the US doesn't seem to care. Seems like they have their priorities wrong.


  7. The IRGC has been labeled a terrorist organization with some hard proof to back up that label and it's officially sanctioned by the Iranian government. America is by no means innocent we trained some of central and south america's most infamous characters at the "School of the Americas" but in retrospect I do not believe we ever sent one our military units to intentionally bomb embassies or hijack planes. I just fear what the IRGC would do with a nuke and I don't believe it would be a random nuclear bombing, but pretty much turning Tel Aviv into the world's biggest glass bowl.

    Could be worse, a country like Pakistan could have nuclear weapons.

    Oh wait...


  8. But what can they prevent? I think your asking extremely much from the government here.

    Easy and legitimate access.

    Sure, some (maybe even a lot) will be able to get their hands on them through the black market. But it's like anything - should we not illegalize cocaine because people can still get their hands on it?


  9. But surely making it excessively easy for someone to get their hands on a gun just exacerabates that problem? You say that most murders are commited by those with a history of crime... shouldn't there be laws to prevent such people getting their hands on a gun?


  10. The 2nd amendment does not mention an armed overthrow of the government.

    I'm an idiot. I got confused and thought that thing about the right to revolution within the Declaration of Independence that was part of the 2nd amendment.

    Or, you know, the American Revolution. That is exactly how we overthrew our government back in the 18th century, and we want to make damn sure that we never lose that ability against our government today.

    That line didn't work all that well for Timothy McVeigh...


  11. Seen from a European point of view, this arguing seems hardly believable.

    The bit I have trouble with is the 2nd amendment. Armed militias to overthrow the government? Sounds like the Somali constitution.

    I used to live in Alaska. Believe me when it's -60 degress out you won't want to do hunting or target shooting.

    I hear shooting bears out of helicopters is all the rage though.


  12. The ability to protect oneself against aggressors, especially at the workplace (very useful for people who repossess cars for example).

    If certain high-risk jobs require people to carry guns, that makes sense. I just don't think anyone who so wishes to have a gun should be allowed to carry one around. Without necessity, you just end up with a lot of paranoid people running around with guns. Not good.

    Criminals will always be able to obtain guns if they want and indeed need them to carry out whatever violent act they intend to commit. Gun legislation that restricts the use of firearms is absurd and does nothing but frustrate law abiding people who shoot for recreational purposes.

    As I said in my post above, the sale of cheap, low-quality guns, and the lack of restriction makes it easy for random thugs to get their hands on guns. Such people commit the sort of 'spur of the moment' gun crime which I'm sure accounts for a greater percentage of gun crime related deaths than serious criminals carrying out premeditated crimes. The odds are that if you are into recreational shooting, you are going to buy a gun that is at least half way decent, and that it isn't going to inconvenience if the local police have the details of the guns you own, and your purchase is subject to you not having a criminal/psychological record. Cut down on 'saturday night specials' and have a regulated and properly enforced system for regulating the sale of guns, and you really cut into gun crime where you actually can.

    I really don't see why things like automatic weapons cannot be legally owned by the public if their sale and use was properly regulated (albeit to a higher level than regular rifles and shotguns)

    One simple belief I have... Criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed. I'm really glad they have to wonder if the law abiding citizen they're about to victimize has one or not... I also feel safe knowing me and all my friends and family are protected at all times by the guns we carry.

    A substantial percentage of people who get shot in their homes in the US are shot with their own weapons. I'm pretty sure that there's a similar statistic for US policemen being killed by their own weapon. Very much the double edged sword.

    I think the problem is moreso one of those hard to quantify "cultural/societal" issues than simply what sort of guns you're able to buy, and how/how not you can carry them.


  13. I think laws against cheap weapons, and controls on how the weapons are bought and used make an awful lot more sense than laws against things like large-cap magazines and automatics. It seems to me that the anti-gun lobby in the US promulgates moral panic about "assault weapons" predicated on things like Columbine or the North Hollywood bank robbery, when the real gun crime problem is when two-bit imbeciles get their hands on cheap weapons without any proper regulation, and end up killing someone on the spur of the moment in a crime of opportunity.

    The former cannot really be stopped with laws, but the latter can be quite easily - if someone needs an AK-47 or silencer or both for a planned crime, odds are that they can get one whether they are legal or not. The real issue is how you prevent stupid people getting their hands on guns and using them in stupid ways.

    But yeah, people carrying concealed pistols is stupid, it just normalizes mass paranoia, and is going to lead to unnecessary violence when someone with a gun gets twitchy and shoots someone, or worse, misses and kills a bystander. I doubt the average "concerned citizen" has the training or cop-on to use guns in such a scenario.


  14. Zuni rockets are a bit more potent than a molotov cocktail...

    I think Baff was being somewhat hyperbolic.

    Nonetheless, the rocket didn't explode. It just caused a gas tank to catch fire. So it all started with a fire really...


  15. Please explain how a molotov coctail would be able to sink a aircraft carrier.

    STGN

    You could always put it out of action...

    ---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

    @Walker: I seriously doubt that any air force is going to be crazy enough to bomb a nuclear power plant, they'd probably send in a ground team with specialists to deal with the reactors.

    Eat moar history


  16. Aww, but now everybody who reads the last few posts in this thread will be under the impression that WP is a chemical weapon :(

    :Sad Panda:

    Negative, it's a biological weapon :wink_o:

×