Horrific Newtown, CT school shooting

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Let's look at this specific situation. If this douchebag's mother didn't have the weapons in her home, would he have been able to pull off this hideous act? Maybe. Although by most accounts he could barely function around people, so it would have made it a lot more difficult.

Which is the entire point. Let's try and make it harder for people to commit these acts, by limiting (or denying) access to weapons that people have no business owning. Of course people might still be able to get them by illegal means, but it won't be so easy.

Why would anyone not in the military need a military style assault rifle? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to muster up an answer other than to say "because I can."

Brilliant.

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

As you point out, this nutjob didn't buy the weapon himself. He took his mom's weapons. But once you make the step to something like "If person A didn't have the guns, person B wouldn't have been able to commit the crime", it's unenforcable short of bans and confiscation on everybody.

Even then, criminals, by virtue of the very status conveyed by that word, don't follow rules or laws. Therefore, as the oft-repeated but true cliche' goes, "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have them." - not counting the police who always have to show up AFTER a crime has occurred or started.

[Danzig]

i want a tank. i guess i should be able to buy one, fully operational. wonder if they're available on ebay?
of course, i would only use it for target practice. i'd never actually blow up anything.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh I answered it. I'll be more clear:

Your opinion of what others need is irrelevant. This is a free society, meaning by definition that whatever is not prohibited is allowed. And citizens are not a bunch of children that need supervision by self-proclaimed elites in Washington.

Wanting something is enough so long as you have the means to legally acquire it, and that often means money. Money to buy whatever it is, money to maintain it, insure it if necessary, take lessons on how to operate it.

Paul Newman used to own racecars and compete in races. He had the money. He paid to get lessons to be every bit as good as the other drivers. Paid his own pit crew.

John Travolta has an airliner parked in back of his house. He paid to learn how to fly, get all the licenses.

For most people, race cars and airliners are out of reach financially. Obviously an unprepared or malevolent person could take out more people with an airplane (and maybe a racecar) than somebody with a rifle.

[Dahoss]

As I figured.

You are absolutely right my opinion is irrelevant, much like your posts. Which is why I am looking for an answer from you or anyone as to why people should be able to own these type of weapons.

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

That is my point, which I know you are aware of. Are you really this bored? Wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion where actual points of view are shared instead of just talking around what people say?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

As I figured.

You are absolutely right my opinion is irrelevant, much like your posts. Which is why I am looking for an answer from you or anyone as to why people should be able to own these type of weapons.

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

That is my point, which I know you are aware of. Are you really this bored? Wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion where actual points of view are shared instead of just talking around what people say?

Everything is legal that is not expressly prohibited.

A purpose is not necessary at all. Like pet rocks and wallpaper.

But most gun owners do have one or more purposes. Most popular are self defense, home defense, target shooting (they do have automatic rifle competitions for that), just having fun with it at shooting range...

I guess here is the discriminator - guns, even automatic rifles, can be used for sport, hobbies and defensively. That would not be true of explosives, which are rightly banned outside of industry and the military, or other more destructive weaponry.

Where we disagree is, I think you're saying "Ban it unless there is a purpose to allow it." I'm saying "Allow it unless there is a reason to ban it." It sounds like a subtle difference but it's not.

[Dahoss]

You shouldn't think. You might hurt yourself.

I think my point of view is pretty easy to understand. You might not agree but I am not for banning things that serve no purpose. I am for banning things that we should not have because it poses safety risks.

Things like military assault rifles. Not pet rocks.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You shouldn't think. You might hurt yourself.

Spoken like a true intellectual, with manners no less.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Everything is legal that is not expressly prohibited.

A purpose is not necessary at all. Like pet rocks and wallpaper.

But most gun owners do have one or more purposes. Most popular are self defense, home defense, target shooting (they do have automatic rifle competitions for that), just having fun with it at shooting range...

I guess here is the discriminator - guns, even automatic rifles, can be used for sport, hobbies and defensively. That would not be true of explosives, which are rightly banned outside of industry and the military, or other more destructive weaponry.

Where we disagree is, I think you're saying "Ban it unless there is a purpose to allow it." I'm saying "Allow it unless there is a reason to ban it." It sounds like a subtle difference but it's not.

Like a Woman's right to choose. Some will say you stop caring about protecting our kids once they come out of the womb. Not me mind you but others may think that.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Like a Woman's right to choose. Some will say you stop caring about protecting our kids once they come out of the womb. Not me mind you but others may think that.

Who's hijacking now? Nice try.

It's more the reverse: 99% of us are upset about what happened Friday at Sandy Hook, especially because kids were killed. Almost all of us - on both sides of the gun control argument - are upset by that. Six year olds should not be killed.

The number drops to 50% for babies 6 months premature and prior, via the "right to choose" (destruction of the growing baby) - just completing that oft-repeated sentence fragment.

Maybe they don't see it that way, but it is one way to look at it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Everything is legal that is not expressly prohibited.

A purpose is not necessary at all. Like pet rocks and wallpaper.

But most gun owners do have one or more purposes. Most popular are self defense, home defense, target shooting (they do have automatic rifle competitions for that), just having fun with it at shooting range...

I guess here is the discriminator - guns, even automatic rifles, can be used for sport, hobbies and defensively. That would not be true of explosives, which are rightly banned outside of industry and the military, or other more destructive weaponry.

Where we disagree is, I think you're saying "Ban it unless there is a purpose to allow it." I'm saying "Allow it unless there is a reason to ban it." It sounds like a subtle difference but it's not.

people want hard core drugs. people want child porn. people want sex slaves. i still want my tank.
what's that got to do with it? i want it, so i should have it? of course not. many things are regulated, restricted, etc. why do guns get a pass? and there is a line drawn already on them. i don't have rpg's. the neighbor doesn't have sam's.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

Because the NRA is essentially a lobbying arm now for gun and ammo manufacturers (it wasn't always, but it is now) and it's all about moving product. They want these things kept legal so they can sell them.

It's not the only think the NRA has lobbied about- I learned today that, since the 1980's, they have lobbied successfully for convicted felons to get their guns back. And many do, with no sort of review. Voting rights, they can't have back, but their guns, why sure. Because only one of those things can be purchased legally and it's all about moving product.

Federally convicted felons are still banned for life, but most felonies are state crimes, and many states now permit felons to own guns after they complete their sentence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us...irlY8lBrPWnmxg

As George Carlin said about war, it all comes down to stuff. In this case, selling stuff.