Piers Morgan Deports? for what ** you may be offended **

[David]

....+1...

Could not have said it better myself...in fact I obviously didn't

He didn't actually say anything. Yes 30 round clips can fire more then 6 round magazines. That said, 30 round clips cause fewer deaths then 6 round magazines because criminals don't hold up convenience stores or mug people with machine guns. Pistols are both more plentiful and better suited to the task of armed robbery. An AK won't do you much good unless you're dealing with 10 armed opponents at the same time, otherwise a pistols accuracy or a shotguns stopping power are better.

 

[myp]

He didn't actually say anything. Yes 30 round clips can fire more then 6 round magazines. That said, 30 round clips cause fewer deaths then 6 round magazines because criminals don't hold up convenience stores or mug people with machine guns. Pistols are both more plentiful and better suited to the task of armed robbery. An AK won't do you much good unless you're dealing with 10 armed opponents at the same time, otherwise a pistols accuracy or a shotguns stopping power are better.

First off, we are trying to reduce overall gun crimes and time and time again these shootings at schools have been with guns other than pistols.

And again, your point that pistols are used more in robbery is irrelevant- there are more of them, so what?

You seem to be making the argument that since pistols exist and are common, we should not ban or regulate other guns either. Should we legalize industrial bomb ownership too? Extreme example, but following the logic of your argument it works and in turn shows the weakness in your argument. Correct me if I misinterpreted what you are trying to say because I am not completely sure anyway.

 

[tecoyah]

He didn't actually say anything. Yes 30 round clips can fire more then 6 round magazines. That said, 30 round clips cause fewer deaths then 6 round magazines because criminals don't hold up convenience stores or mug people with machine guns. Pistols are both more plentiful and better suited to the task of armed robbery. An AK won't do you much good unless you're dealing with 10 armed opponents at the same time, otherwise a pistols accuracy or a shotguns stopping power are better.

Yes...he did, obviously.

Lets just pretend you have a couple 30 round clips, have just blown away 20 kids and stop for a second to reload....at which point I tackle your ass and pummel you into an unconscious state, take your firearm and duct tape you to a freakin' wall.


20 Kids are still dead, you are incapacitated, and no more kids die.

Same scenario...but you have 6 shots before I beat you into submission.


6 kids are dead, and you are screwed either way.

I think 6 dead kids are better than 20...care to argue with that?

 

[David]

First off, we are trying to reduce overall gun crimes and time and time again these shootings at schools have been with guns other than pistols.

And again, your point that pistols are used more in robbery is irrelevant- there are more of them, so what?

You seem to be making the argument that since pistols exist and are common, we should not ban or regulate other guns either. Should we legalize industrial bomb ownership too? Extreme example, but following the logic of your argument it works and in turn shows the weakness in your argument. Correct me if I misinterpreted what you are trying to say because I am not completely sure anyway.

You're attacking a position I'm not taking.

 

[myp]

You're attacking a position I'm not taking.

Like I said, your position was not clear to me. Care to explain?

 

[tecoyah]

You're attacking a position I'm not taking.

Okay.....so be it

Yes 30 round clips can fire more then 6 round magazines. That said, 30 round clips cause fewer deaths then 6 round magazines because criminals don't hold up convenience stores or mug people with machine guns.

 

[David]

Okay.....so be it

Which has nothing to do with me wanting to not regulate guns (or rather the people who use them).

 

[tecoyah]

Which has nothing to do with me wanting to not regulate guns (or rather the people who use them).

It has Much to do with regulation of weapons that can do the damage being discussed. If we can lessesn the prevelance of these opportunities, we will inevitably lessen the use of such things....simple logic.

No one can kill a couple dozen people if they do not have the means to do so.

The fact is will not prevent all instances of such destructive situations, does not mean it will not make is less likely.

 

[David]

It has Much to do with regulation of weapons that can do the damage being discussed. If we can lessesn the prevelance of these opportunities, we will inevitably lessen the use of such things....simple logic.

No one can kill a couple dozen people if they do not have the means to do so.

The fact is will not prevent all instances of such destructive situations, does not mean it will not make is less likely.

The problem is the whole point is to kill lots of people. Remember, the 2nd Amendment had the US Gov't in mind, not thieves in the night. The 2nd Amendment is pointless if the people don't have a fighting chance if the time comes to depose the gov't. What needs to be regulated are the people, not the guns (actually weapons in general if you read the actual wording of the Constitution).

 

[myp]

The problem is the whole point is to kill lots of people. Remember, the 2nd Amendment had the US Gov't in mind, not thieves in the night. The 2nd Amendment is pointless if the people don't have a fighting chance if the time comes to depose the gov't. What needs to be regulated are the people, not the guns (actually weapons in general if you read the actual wording of the Constitution).

I addressed this already. There might be better solutions that don't cost so many lives to hedge against the tail risk.

But even then, the world the founding fathers lived in is not the world we live in. The way tech has gone, the state has so many resources that it will be able to crush rebellion fairly easily- unless of course part of the revolution is amongst the military (or people raid military equipment).

 

[David]

I addressed this already. There might be better solutions that don't cost so many lives to hedge against the tail risk.

But even then, the world the founding fathers lived in is not the world we live in. The way tech has gone, the state has so many resources that it will be able to crush rebellion fairly easily- unless of course part of the revolution is amongst the military (or people raid military equipment).

Or people already have military equipment and the training to use it...

 

[tecoyah]

The problem is the whole point is to kill lots of people. Remember, the 2nd Amendment had the US Gov't in mind, not thieves in the night. The 2nd Amendment is pointless if the people don't have a fighting chance if the time comes to depose the gov't. What needs to be regulated are the people, not the guns (actually weapons in general if you read the actual wording of the Constitution).

I see...so the freedom to form a militia now means we are cinstitutionally guaranteed the right o shoot each other?

Interesting interpretation.

The right to bear arms does not (at least to me) mean you have the right to take another life.

 

[myp]

Or people already have military equipment and the training to use it...

David, what is your ultimate goal here? Is it not to maximize the utility of the people long (and short) run? If so, it comes downs to costs and benefits. I understand your way is an option, but to blow everything else off the table doesn't make sense if there are better options.

 

[chris7375]

My problem is not regulating who gets guns which is fine by me. You want to make it harder for people to acquire firearms then so be it. Though to ban guns even some guns is not going to lower any statistics. Whether you ban semi auto magic weapons with clips. You still allow revolver which can do the same damage a semi auto can do. With the right equipment for the revolver you can make it virtually impossible to stop you while reloading.

So again if you ban on tool that kills you should ban Knives, Swords, Bats, and all the other potential weapons that could be used to kill people.

 

[Cerise]

Yet it doesn't because statistics say otherwise. What you are basically it could happen. but if we live with always with the mindset "If this Happens" we never progress.

But surely thats exactly what you're saying....you have guns because you need to defend yourself against something that might happen.
Ofcourse...and lets hope it never does...the something might never happen and so you dont need a gun...so the risk of a child getting hold of it is lessened etc etc

 

[myp]

Though to ban guns even some guns is not going to lower any statistics.

Do you have anything to prove this? I don't buy it. I really don't understand how you can say it is just as easy to kill xx people with a knife as it is with a semi-automatic.

 

[Cerise]

My problem is not regulating who gets guns which is fine by me. You want to make it harder for people to acquire firearms then so be it. Though to ban guns even some guns is not going to lower any statistics. Whether you ban semi auto magic weapons with clips. You still allow revolver which can do the same damage a semi auto can do. With the right equipment for the revolver you can make it virtually impossible to stop you while reloading.

So again if you ban on tool that kills you should ban Knives, Swords, Bats, and all the other potential weapons that could be used to kill people.

People will always find a way to get what they want be it firearms, bombs or the like. The point is that you can make it as difficult as possible and lay in place consequences if they act illegally.
You mention that anything that can be used as a weapon should be banned. I see your point of trying to illustrate that people can use any implement thats to hand but its not a sound argument to name things that were not DESIGNED to kill with in the first place. Cars have been mentioned..yes ofcourse you can mow someone down in one but they were not meant for that, likewise bats, golf clubs,vases, bricks and so on. Guns are weapons whose sole purpose is to kill with. Thats why they should be banned.
Its illegal here to carry a knife in the street...same for you?

 

[Cerise]

Do you have anything to prove this? I don't buy it. I really don't understand how you can say it is just as easy to kill xx people with a knife as it is with a semi-automatic.

It isnt is it? For a start, you have to get right up close to someone to stab them or slit thier throat unless ofcourse you can throw really accurately from a distance. Having thrown your knife though, you obviously cant reuse it until you retrieve it. Likewise pulling th knife out of your victim takes a little longer than firing off a few more shots i would guess.

 

[chris7375]

Do you have anything to prove this? I don't buy it. I really don't understand how you can say it is just as easy to kill xx people with a knife as it is with a semi-automatic.

If you ban certain gun you really think the statistic will really drop? Again maybe if you banned all gun it may drop but I am a big skeptic, You ban guns that are semi automatic. You still have revolvers, shotguns, and rifles. Do you own a gun? If you do how long does it take you to reload your gun. My 38 revolver I have reload clips where the bullet are already to load in the cylinder. It takes me next to no time to reload my revolver. My shotgun a 12 gauge hold 5 rounds in the pipe and one in the breach for a total of six. Though it take me more time to load that I still know how to load it round right into the breach in no time flat.

Well first off I did not say that to kill any set of people so let me correct you there. I was talking about the specific incident in CT that very well could have be done with a knife just as well as a gun. I again gave you the reasoning behind this. Those women never expected what happen to happen hence why they are now dead. A knife is quieter last time I looked. You slit the principals throat she can't scream. Again no one none the wiser. The knife can be concealed better even a big knife. the two secretaries done in a matter of seconds not a big deal again dispatching them in similar ways. That is three right there. If done right it can be just as deadly as a gun.

How can I talk this way from years of experience which I can say you don't have. See when I was younger I have had guns pointed at me I been in fights with knives. I was not a stand up goodie goodie citizen all of my life. I did what I needed to do to survive at points when I was younger. I really did not grow up until my daughter was born. So I speak from experience where do you speak from?

 

[chris7375]

But surely thats exactly what you're saying....you have guns because you need to defend yourself against something that might happen.
Ofcourse...and lets hope it never does...the something might never happen and so you dont need a gun...so the risk of a child getting hold of it is lessened etc etc

No the right to bear arms was given to us to defend ourselves from the government if it came to that at some point. That was the premise behind the Right to bear arms. It has developed overtime in to keeping one safe their family safe. As did having a sword or knife in ones house in the middle ages was done for most likely the same reason. Throughout time there have always been the troublemakers and there always will be it is a never ending cycle.

It may never happen Where I live in Royal Palm Beach made the news. The boy who was shot body was at my front door. He was trying to steal my neighbors motorcycle the man went to stop him. One of the three boys pulled out a gun the neighbor was armed and shot the one boy dead in self defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qD6hOtvsJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x3UKJK_ga4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJdLwoY0Co&playnext=1&list=PLE3CAB5472126D3A7&feature=results_main

This boy was stealing the bike one of them pulled a gun out on the man and he shot him dead and rightfully so. This was right at my front door where my kids are so the what if happens and I want the means to defend my family.