All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > WHEN WILD BOARS ATTACK?
1/24/2013 4:59 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/24/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I think I've been pretty clear about what I think in both this thread and tec's "OMG!!!!  WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" thread.

In fact, I'd say I make more sense than anyone regarding firearms of all types.

Unfortunately, your singular focus on the seldom used for murder/mass shooting HCAW prevents you from seeing that.

Answer this.   When mad cow disease was a concern, did you stop eating fish?

Quote the whole post and then answer the question.

1/24/2013 5:01 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/24/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I think I've been pretty clear about what I think in both this thread and tec's "OMG!!!!  WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" thread.

In fact, I'd say I make more sense than anyone regarding firearms of all types.

Unfortunately, your singular focus on the seldom used for murder/mass shooting HCAW prevents you from seeing that.

Answer this.   When mad cow disease was a concern, did you stop eating fish?
In fact, I'd say I make more sense than anyone regarding firearms of all types. 

Oh reeeaaally??? In your ever-so-humble opinion?

In fact, professor douchemcpants, I'd say you play dumb and constantly ignore the points other people make. Then you quote and re-quote yourself like you're motherfuckin socrates.

Everyone knows that a total gun ban is not an option. No one, in this thread or the other, is advocating for a total gun ban. Even if that would make us more safe than a partial gun ban. Banning HCAW is a good idea. An idea you seem to be at least somewhat behind because you've argued that we should restrict the manufacture of HCAW or force gun makers to price everyone out of the market. If HCAW aren't a danger, why bother with even those restrictions?
1/24/2013 5:03 PM
Simple fact of the matter is that you KNOW the most used, and dangerous, guns will not be banned.   So, because that's a lost cause, you want something to feel good about.   Very few people own AW, very few people want to own AW and very few people will get an AW.   So, much like "Tax the rich!", get behind an idea that doesn't affect very many people, and has little to no effect of the perceived problem, and go after that.

There's a six letter word for what you want.

Stupid.
1/24/2013 5:04 PM
And you failed to answer the question.

When beef is contaminated, do you stop eating fish?
1/24/2013 5:08 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/24/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Simple fact of the matter is that you KNOW the most used, and dangerous, guns will not be banned.   So, because that's a lost cause, you want something to feel good about.   Very few people own AW, very few people want to own AW and very few people will get an AW.   So, much like "Tax the rich!", get behind an idea that doesn't affect very many people, and has little to no effect of the perceived problem, and go after that.

There's a six letter word for what you want.

Stupid.
If I know something will never happen, why waste time trying to make it happen? That would be stupid.

Instead, I'd put effort towards making a smaller improvement that's actually possible.

Based on your previous posts on gun control, you seem to agree that restrictions on HCAW are necessary. Even if you now claim that restrictions on HCAW are pointless.
1/24/2013 5:25 PM
STUPID
1/24/2013 5:28 PM
Descartes??? Is that you?
1/24/2013 5:31 PM

Based on my previous posts on gun control, a sensible person would recognize that I think gun ownership should somewhat mirror the right to drive.

1. Get your car.  Register it.   Don't ban that Porsche because it goes 175 MPH and there's nowhere on earth that you can legally drive 175 MPH.
2. If you don't have a driver's license(registration for guns), you are subject to penalty. 

No one is confiscating your legally purchased property.   No one is making your car illegal.   We're just making sure you're a responsible driver.

1/24/2013 5:33 PM
You resort to analogies because you're unable to actually argue the point at hand.

Cars aren't guns.
1/24/2013 5:37 PM
What's funny to me is that my only real objection to the ban on HCAW is the government seizure of property that was purchased legally.

I'm surprised that so many of you are OK with that in order to make a "small", yet unsubstantiated, improvement in public safety.
1/24/2013 5:40 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/24/2013 5:33:00 PM (view original):
You resort to analogies because you're unable to actually argue the point at hand.

Cars aren't guns.
I've argued the point at hand ad nauseum.   Your tiny little, one-track brain can't see the stupidity in your suggestion.    What you want does nothing.  There has been one mass shooting that featured a HCAW.   One.   By a person who lived with his mother and his mother was going to send him away to a place that could take care of him.   I'd rather lock up crazy people.   Or gun them the **** down with a HCAW than start accepting that the government can seize whatever they see fit.
1/24/2013 6:08 PM
Up in Canada, there's been 0 mass shootings that featured a HCAW. That despite all our doors being unlocked.

And our government seizes nothing. Doesn't need to, because there are no guns up here.

Tuesdays are free love days on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
1/24/2013 6:20 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/24/2013 5:37:00 PM (view original):
What's funny to me is that my only real objection to the ban on HCAW is the government seizure of property that was purchased legally.

I'm surprised that so many of you are OK with that in order to make a "small", yet unsubstantiated, improvement in public safety.
9/11 changed my attitude about sacrifices that need to be made in exchanges for security.  Not just for myself, but also for my family.

I assume you've flown both before and after 9/11 and know what I'm talking about (even if you don't agree).

I'll also admit that not being a gun owner myself, and not understanding the deep seated passionate NEED for personal ownership of HCAW that some people seem to have, is easy for me to be OK with the government taking them away.
1/24/2013 7:51 PM
I read the laws of guns in Canada.

It is a long list of laws and doesnt have to mean what it seems to say.

Is it true you cannot keep a gun in the house to defend yourself without keeping the ammo and weapon seperate?
1/24/2013 8:09 PM
Yes, guns and ammo stored seperate.
"Defend ourselves"...from what? Every one of my neighbours that has a gun uses it to shoot turkey, deer or coyotes.
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.