All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
12/31/2012 1:26 PM
FWIW, this goes back to my comment about us trying to compare our personal "need" for a gun to everyone in America.  

I don't have grizzlies in my backyard but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't.   I don't hunt for my food but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. 

I'm not comfortable telling everyone what they need.  Apparently you are.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/31/2012 2:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):

1) That less than 1% is insignificant within the context of this discussion.

2)  What percentage of the population hunts for their own food?  Again, insignificant within the context of this discussion.

3)  Do you need high-capactity assault weapons to protect you from rogue IRS paper pushers?

1.  Would 20 six year olds in Conn also be considered "insignificant"?   That's certainly far less than 1% of US citizens.

2.  Probably 1%ish.   See #1.

3.  Maybe.  I haven't had use for them yet but I'm still alive and Madame FutureTeller can't tell me what's going to happen over the next 20-30 years.

Would you say that comparing a group of six year old children in a first grade classroom to a farmer in a field being cornered by a "dangerous predator" is a fair comparison?

Do farmers tending their crops tend to carry an assault weapon slung across their backs, just in case a grizzly bear / mountain lion / sasquatch happens to show up in the corn field?
I'm not a farmer so I don't know how they defend themselves against the occassional bigfoot attack.   Nonethless, when the Yeti is bearing down on them, I doubt they give a flying **** about six year olds in a classroom or their comparison to them.   I imagine they wish they had a bazooka, federal laws be damned.

12/31/2012 2:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, this goes back to my comment about us trying to compare our personal "need" for a gun to everyone in America.  

I don't have grizzlies in my backyard but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't.   I don't hunt for my food but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. 

I'm not comfortable telling everyone what they need.  Apparently you are.
I'm comfortable with questioning people who INSIST that they need assault weapons because they might get attacked by wild boars while walking the dog, or by rogue federal employees with 1040 tax forms in hand.

Questioning why someone feels they need an AW is not the same as banning AW, no?

12/31/2012 2:50 PM
Information gathering and analysis is an important part of the process for determine a course of action, no?
12/31/2012 2:56 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2012 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/31/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 1:10:00 PM (view original):

1) That less than 1% is insignificant within the context of this discussion.

2)  What percentage of the population hunts for their own food?  Again, insignificant within the context of this discussion.

3)  Do you need high-capactity assault weapons to protect you from rogue IRS paper pushers?

1.  Would 20 six year olds in Conn also be considered "insignificant"?   That's certainly far less than 1% of US citizens.

2.  Probably 1%ish.   See #1.

3.  Maybe.  I haven't had use for them yet but I'm still alive and Madame FutureTeller can't tell me what's going to happen over the next 20-30 years.

Would you say that comparing a group of six year old children in a first grade classroom to a farmer in a field being cornered by a "dangerous predator" is a fair comparison?

Do farmers tending their crops tend to carry an assault weapon slung across their backs, just in case a grizzly bear / mountain lion / sasquatch happens to show up in the corn field?
I'm not a farmer so I don't know how they defend themselves against the occassional bigfoot attack.   Nonethless, when the Yeti is bearing down on them, I doubt they give a flying **** about six year olds in a classroom or their comparison to them.   I imagine they wish they had a bazooka, federal laws be damned.

FWIW, the comment about the farmer having an assault weapon slung across his back was prompted by a comment that a pro-gun person had made in the days after the Newtown attack. 

He had said that if the Principal had an assault weapon in her office when this all started going down, she might have been able to take some action to stop or minimize the scope of the attack as it started. 

What he failed to note was that the Principal was not in her office when this went down, she was in a conference room in a meeting.  The point being, arming teachers, principals, or other non-security personnel might not be the end-all solution the pro-gun people like to portray it to be, because not everybody is going to be within arms reach of their weapons every minute of the day.
12/31/2012 3:01 PM
I don't think arming teachers, principals, janitors or lunch ladies is a very good idea at all.
12/31/2012 4:12 PM

Did I miss anyone answering the question that is the main point of this...

CAN ANYONE SHOW ANY EVIDENCE THAT AN ASSUALT GUN BAN WOULD REDUCE CRIME IN AMERICA??

Since the left will not answer the question let me do it.

No.

We had an assualt gun ban that did nothing to reduce violent crime.

 

12/31/2012 4:28 PM
I don't think that's the objective.   I think the objective is to prevent, or reduce the chances of, another Sandy Hook.

Of course, I'm not sure an AW ban does that and no one has convinced me that it will.   But I have agreed to help fund healthcare for children so there's that.
1/1/2013 1:05 PM
Since the left continues to refuse to answer a simple question let me expand on it.

The left wants to ban private weapons. Always have.

They dont say it in public because it isnt popular but it is out there.

So when something happen like the recent shooting they go for it.

And the media refuses to ask the question I just asked. Will the assualt gun ban fix this problem.

So the question is framed do you want to reduce shootings or stand up for the Constitution. That is how the question is framed by the media and it is a lie.

Notice how any solution that does not involve a gun ban is painted as crazy by the media.

The left wants a gun ban. Dont let them have it. It will not save kids.

1/1/2013 1:50 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/31/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/31/2012 8:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/30/2012 11:43:00 PM (view original):
So none of the anti-gun types has had the guts to stand up and answer the big question...

Is there any evidence to support that an AG ban would reduce crime in America??

I realize you need to hurry up and try to ban as many guns as possible before people go back to supporting 2nd amenment freedoms but it will only take a few moments to answer the question...

Let me help you...The word that bests answers the question begins with an N and ends with an O!
Question for swamp:

Why does Joe Citizen need a high capacity assault weapon?
The very premise of the question is flawed to me.

The government does not get to ask for a reason to take the rights of citizens away. They have to show a reason to take away rights.

And example would be "We have evidence that an assualt gun ban would reduce violent crime in America".

Given that I will now address the question.

1 Farmers need them for dangerous predators
2 Hunters need them to make hunting easier.
3 Every single sitizen in America needs them in the event of a tyrannical givernment.
The Constutution gives you the right to bear arms.  It does not give you the right to bear any and all arms that you choose.  Does it give you the right to own an RPG launcher?  There already are limits to the kinds of arms that citizens can own.  Stop acting like the question of additional limits is a threat to the Second Amendment and the downfall of American society.

1) Farmers make up less than 1% of the U.S. population.  Most of them are not threatened by "dangerous predators" on a daily basis.  Most of them are probably not threatened by them ever.  So that's a bad-faith answer.

2)  Why should hunting be "easier"?  Isn't part of the attraction of hunting the thrill of the hunt itself?

3)  Do you personally feel threatened by a tyrannical U.S. government?  Do you live in an isolated cabin in the wilds of Montana or Idaho?  Are you close to completing your manifesto?
Bumped, for swamp.
1/1/2013 6:52 PM
1 I agree this isnt a lage percentage but less than 1% isnt right. There are 2.2 million farms in America. The vast majority are family farms. That puts the number of people living on them as around 6 or 7 million. Add in the number of people working on the larger farms and the number of people directly impacted by farm predators goes higher. How many people count as not enough?

2 Why shouldnt it be. Why do we have dishwashers and cars and chainsaws and swimming pools. All these things are easier than washing by hand, horses, axes and ponds. The millions of hunters in America should have the right to hunt as efficently as possible.

3 It wasnt the use of nuclear weapons that prevented global war for half a century, it was the threat of using them. Their very existance prevented war.

Thanks for the bump. I try to answer all the questions posed at me but I miss some on occasion.
1/1/2013 9:40 PM
1)  Still a bad faith answer.  Farmers are not threatened by "dangerous predators" on a regular basis, if ever.  You've pulled this out of your ***.

2)  Another bad faith answer.  Unless they are hunting for food (a very small percentage of the population), then they are hunting for sport.  If the idea of "sport" is to kill as many animals as possible as quickly as possible, then it doesn't sound very sporting to me.

3)  Are you now trying to imply that the only reason we don't have a "tyrannical U.S. government" is because Joe Citizen has assault weapons to deter the feds?

You really want to win the "most delusional person in the forums" title, don't you?
1/1/2013 10:08 PM
1 It is only a bad faith answer if you look as rights as something the government gives to you. The farmers have the right, show me a reason to take it away. I" showed a need. Lots of farmers face predators on a semi-regular basis.

2 Another case of you think I have to prove a right to the central government. Clearly there are hunters that want to hunt better. Show me the down side.

3 That is what Yamamoto implied. We will actually never know. Does anyone remember how Hitler took over Germany and talk about what might have stopped him? That was the intent of the 2nd Amendment, along with personal defense of course, so again show me a reason to take away the rights....

Again you get to take up the charge.

Show me any data that supports that an Assualt Gun ban would have a positive impact against violent crime in America!
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.