All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
12/29/2012 3:10 PM
Ban all the weapons you want... Bluntly put... If a news anchor can illegally obtain a weapon I'm sure anyone that really wants illegal arms will get one. I know my friends with guns will get theirs no matter what the law... Just like the people I know who do drugs get their drugs despite the law. It is what it is. Fine ban them all.... But it won't FIX a thing. Jmo.
12/29/2012 3:13 PM
Perhaps lethal injection for convicted murderers would work.   Doesn't stop Sandy Hook but there are a couple more firemen still alive.   And we don't have to pay more taxes to house the murderers.
12/29/2012 3:24 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps lethal injection for convicted murderers would work.   Doesn't stop Sandy Hook but there are a couple more firemen still alive.   And we don't have to pay more taxes to house the murderers.
And perhaps getting rid of the "criminal insanity" defense.  Wouldn't the "criminally insane" be exactly the people we don't want walking among us?
12/29/2012 3:36 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps lethal injection for convicted murderers would work.   Doesn't stop Sandy Hook but there are a couple more firemen still alive.   And we don't have to pay more taxes to house the murderers.
Surprisingly it costs more taxpayer money to execute than to imprison.
12/29/2012 4:14 PM
I'm sure that can be remedied. 
12/29/2012 6:15 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 12/29/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
tec, I've watched the discussion without comment and you've brought up some solid questions, but the "Do baseball cards kill people?" argument is assinine.  No, they don't.  Neither do guns.  Or knives.  Or cars.  The people wielding them do the killing.  A gun kills people in much the same way that a spoon makes people fat.  If you want to argue that no one needs to buy 700 rounds of ammo in a month, that's an argument worth listening to.  As is the argument that nobody needs an extended magazine or an assault rifle.  Hell, if you want to argue that Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendent (that "well-regulated militia" is discarded in favor of "the people") is wrong, that's worth discussing too. The argument that "guns kill people" is base fear-mongering and a fallacy.  You could grab your computer monitor right now and kill someone, if you were so inclined.

Personally, I'd like to know where the outrage is against a psychiatric community that tells us these lunatics can be rehabilitated.  That has helped "inform" the creation of laws that allow a convicted murderer to re-integrate into society, where he can place a 911 call to lure volunteer firefighters to their deaths.  My guess is that it's just less comfortable to say "some people can't be fixed and need to be removed from society" than it is to say "guns kill people".

My baseball card comment was tongue-in-cheek.  I agree with everything else you said.  The Christmas Eve ambush in upstate New York is a perfect example.  The fact that the old POS used the same weapon as the lunatic kid in Newtown was irrelevant . . . he could have just as easily killed two firefighters with a more conventional hunting rifle.

My point in this thread has been multi-faceted . . . the problem of incidents such as these need to be addressed from multiple angles.  Additional gun control, mental health reform, media sensationalism, and now rehabilitation of criminals all need to be topics of discussion on the table.

Like I've also said . . . you can't "solve" this problem . . . many people who want to kill will still find ways to kill.  But anything that can be done the minimize the frequency and scope of such attacks should be a goal.

12/29/2012 6:18 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't think that would be the weapon of choice.  It probably wouldn't be very effective if the shooter's goal was maximum carnage in a short period of time.
So, if a gun collector wanted to have the biggest collection of single shot deringers, why should he be restricted to buying 10 per month?

Maybe it's time to address the problem rather than scream "GUNS BAD!!!!"
I'm not saying "GUNS BAD".

A gun collector buying ten single shot Derringers a year might be OK.  A guy buying ten high capacity assault weapons might not be.

What do you think?  Where's the acceptable line?
12/29/2012 6:20 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 12/29/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Those are two separate issues.  Restrictions on gun and ammo purchasing don't solve the problem in any way.  Is Sandy Hook prevented under that scenario?  No.  Is it less of a tragedy if 12 kids died instead of 20?  No.  The issue is that we allow people who have been identified as "troubled" and "severely anti-social" and "convicted murderers" to walk among us because we don't want to feel guilty about the alternative.  Would I pay more in taxes to keep those people off the streets?  You bet your *** I would.  Because it is the one and only way to prevent this from happening.  Quarantine guns and those same people find other weapons.  Quarantine those people and the existence of weapons makes no difference.
12 dead kids instead of 20 is still a tragedy.  But it's still better than 20 dead kids.
12/29/2012 6:31 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2012 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps lethal injection for convicted murderers would work.   Doesn't stop Sandy Hook but there are a couple more firemen still alive.   And we don't have to pay more taxes to house the murderers.

The "pussification of America", as you have coined it, has made the death penalty a joke.

One of the most heinous crimes in Connecticut in recent years (before the Newtown massacre) was the Petit family murders in 2007.  Both of the murderers were convicted and sentenced to death in cases that received national coverage.  Yet just a little over four months after the second conviction (which was widely celebrated in the state), the State of Connecticut repealed the death penalty for cases going forward (not made retroactive, so both Hayes and Komisarjevsky are still on death row).

I'm still shaking my head over that decision.

12/29/2012 7:24 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2012 6:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't think that would be the weapon of choice.  It probably wouldn't be very effective if the shooter's goal was maximum carnage in a short period of time.
So, if a gun collector wanted to have the biggest collection of single shot deringers, why should he be restricted to buying 10 per month?

Maybe it's time to address the problem rather than scream "GUNS BAD!!!!"
I'm not saying "GUNS BAD".

A gun collector buying ten single shot Derringers a year might be OK.  A guy buying ten high capacity assault weapons might not be.

What do you think?  Where's the acceptable line?
I thought I was pretty clear on page 1 when I said "Joe Citizen doesn't need a HCAW."

But you asked "Why would anyone need to buy 10 guns a year?"    I told you why and explained how that the purchase of 10 guns doesn't necessarily mean a gun-wielding rampage is imminent. 
12/29/2012 9:32 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 12/29/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 12/29/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 12/29/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
tec, I've watched the discussion without comment and you've brought up some solid questions, but the "Do baseball cards kill people?" argument is assinine.  No, they don't.  Neither do guns.  Or knives.  Or cars.  The people wielding them do the killing.  A gun kills people in much the same way that a spoon makes people fat.  If you want to argue that no one needs to buy 700 rounds of ammo in a month, that's an argument worth listening to.  As is the argument that nobody needs an extended magazine or an assault rifle.  Hell, if you want to argue that Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendent (that "well-regulated militia" is discarded in favor of "the people") is wrong, that's worth discussing too. The argument that "guns kill people" is base fear-mongering and a fallacy.  You could grab your computer monitor right now and kill someone, if you were so inclined.

Personally, I'd like to know where the outrage is against a psychiatric community that tells us these lunatics can be rehabilitated.  That has helped "inform" the creation of laws that allow a convicted murderer to re-integrate into society, where he can place a 911 call to lure volunteer firefighters to their deaths.  My guess is that it's just less comfortable to say "some people can't be fixed and need to be removed from society" than it is to say "guns kill people".
I've always found the guns don't kill people, people do argument asinine myself.
Then I assume you believe that knives kill people, automobiles kill people, blunt objects kill people, etc. and that all those things should be regulated in the same way that guns should.

I'm not saying guns don't make it easier for someone who is predisposed to kill someone to perform the act.  I'm saying that person is going to perform the act, regardless.  You can't get rid of every available weapon, and getting rid of some of them won't solve the problem.  It might mitigate it and make you feel better, but it won't solve it.  The problem lies with the people who are predisposed to commit the crime.
Hah, guns aren't NEARLY as regulated as automobiles/driving is.


How many people did the knife wielder in China kill?

How many people did the gun wielder in Newtown kill?


They may be predisposed to kill, but a gun in their hands makes it much much much much more easy than any other item, except for maybe a bomb...and those are already illegal.
12/29/2012 10:10 PM

Or a boxcutter on an airplane.  

 

12/29/2012 10:14 PM
Fixed and remedied.  Actually that makes a good point in the favor of stronger gun laws.  When you see a situation that requires fixing, fix it.  It's time to revisit gun laws.
12/29/2012 10:19 PM
So we should make gun owners take off their shoes?

You are insane if you think people can't get dangerous items on a plane nowadays.

The ol' will and way saying.
12/29/2012 10:21 PM
I'll got back to my two shotguns, a bag of shells and a classroom full of 6 years olds with one way out example.     If they're not fearless, trained ninja 6 year olds, we've got another massacre.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

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.