All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK?
1/29/2013 5:20 PM
That's fine.  Just don't take the one he has already.
1/29/2013 5:30 PM
Either way we're making a gun owner do something that they didn't have to do before.

Registering is less invasive than taking, but they are both invasive.
1/29/2013 6:01 PM
Most people take less invasive when invasive is inevitable.    I think something is inevitable.  Ineffective but inevitable.
1/29/2013 6:09 PM
Can you envision any non-swamplike-delusional scenario in which continued ownership of HCAW will help to deter or minimize the scope of mass shootings?
1/29/2013 6:18 PM
I feel like this is one mighty circle jerk where nobody remembers anything.   If a person possessing a HCAW decides to use that as his weapon of choice in a mass shooting, not having a HCAW would minimize the damage he could do with his non-existent HCAW.    But, as I've said time and time again, the crazies aren't using HCAW as their primary weapon in mass shootings with the exception of Sandy Hook.  
1/29/2013 6:52 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Most people take less invasive when invasive is inevitable.    I think something is inevitable.  Ineffective but inevitable.
I'd say that taking HCAW away will be more effective at limiting crimes committed with HCAW than making people register them.


1/29/2013 7:04 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/29/2013 6:09:00 PM (view original):
Can you envision any non-swamplike-delusional scenario in which continued ownership of HCAW will help to deter or minimize the scope of mass shootings?
I'd say there are some things that would be more effective. 

Far more important and more likely to help would be better care of people who are designated to have mental instabilities and are described as "a danger to himself and others". These people shouldn't be anywhere but in an institution where they cannot commit mass murder.

Time and time again we learn after an incident that there were many warning signs. Too often these signs aren't taken seriously enough.

On the other hand it can go too far in some instances as in the case of a couple of HS kids who were discussing different weapons in the game "Call of Duty", and apparently made some students uncomfortable. The students were reported and the investigation determined that they were discussing a game, yet they are, according to the principal, facing serious consequences, due to their zero tolerance policy. Seems like common sense would say if the investigation determined there was no real threat case should be closed. Do your due diligence to not dismiss any warning signs but no need to go overboard when it is determined there is no real threat.
1/29/2013 7:26 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 6:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Most people take less invasive when invasive is inevitable.    I think something is inevitable.  Ineffective but inevitable.
I'd say that taking HCAW away will be more effective at limiting crimes committed with HCAW than making people register them.


You seem to think people tote HCAW around and commit crimes.   I don't think that's true.
1/29/2013 7:43 PM
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.
1/29/2013 7:47 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 7:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 6:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Most people take less invasive when invasive is inevitable.    I think something is inevitable.  Ineffective but inevitable.
I'd say that taking HCAW away will be more effective at limiting crimes committed with HCAW than making people register them.


You seem to think people tote HCAW around and commit crimes.   I don't think that's true.
The certainly won't if they are taken away. They probably still will if they are registered...the Sandy Hook gun would have been registered by Lanza's mother if that had been a requirement. But she still would have had it for him to take.
1/29/2013 7:49 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.
You would still be allowed to bear arms.
1/29/2013 8:05 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/29/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):
The right to K&B arms isnt a throw away. You need to show a clear reason to take it away.

There is not evidence to support any gun ban would help. I am no talking about loose theories, I am talking about actual evidence.

My points about gun effectiveness is to show the idea that banning any type of weapon will somehow prevent a crime or even make it less severe isnt based on logic.

The end point is the same people who have always wanted to ban private arms are at it again, and it will only harm America.
Why do you believe the "right to keep and bear arms" MUST be interpreted as the "right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"?

Do you believe that if HCAWs are banned, that the government's next step will be to send tanks to your neighborhood to oppress you?
1/29/2013 8:08 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 7:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 7:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2013 6:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Most people take less invasive when invasive is inevitable.    I think something is inevitable.  Ineffective but inevitable.
I'd say that taking HCAW away will be more effective at limiting crimes committed with HCAW than making people register them.


You seem to think people tote HCAW around and commit crimes.   I don't think that's true.
The certainly won't if they are taken away. They probably still will if they are registered...the Sandy Hook gun would have been registered by Lanza's mother if that had been a requirement. But she still would have had it for him to take.
And a ban of AW doesn't take them off the street.  It takes them off the legal street.

Aurora shooter, you think he gave a **** about illegal?
1/29/2013 8:16 PM
Dual Survival, Discovery, right now.  Wild boar.
1/29/2013 8:21 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/29/2013 8:16:00 PM (view original):
Dual Survival, Discovery, right now.  Wild boar.
I think I saw part of that episode last week.  Doesn't the new guy kill the wild boar with a knife?

I don't recall the Dual Survivor guys ever being armed with assault weapons as a survival tool.  Cody doesn't seem the type (although Dave probably would have welcomed it).
of 26
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.