Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
Yes. And by definition a "civiliian version" is not a "Millitary Version", as I am sure you'd agree.
|
But see, my point is that's part of the problem - we designate a weapon rifle civilian even though it's virtually the same as a military grade, minus a switch that enables to shoot auto/burst...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
So now you're limiting it only to objects "designed to kill" eh?
I wonder how consistent you are in that seemingly convenient limitation...
|
Yea, I think things that are designed to kill should be heavily regulated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
Yes, you are assuming, with facts not in evidence.
Replace his AR-15 with any number of other semi-auto handguns, multi-round shotguns or semi-automatic rifiles (or a host of other violence-capable items, like trucks or bombs or the like), and the situation is (materially) unchanged. Hell, a man with a knife can stab and kill a dozen people in a go, and have, without being taken down, if the circumstances are right.
Remind me (because I honstly forget), what did the Va Tech shooter use on his rampage? Was it an AR-15 type as well, or something else?
|
Yes, I'm assuming that an AR-15 has the potential to kill more people than any of the weapons you cite, except for a bomb, which I already previously addressed is far more difficult to come by, as one must make it themselves.
The VA Tech shooter had 2 pistols and shot less people, but killed more. Though he obtained his weapons illegally, whereas the murderer in Colorado obtained his legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
Interesting that you get half of it, but not all.
The correct answer is "Anyone will always be a problem if they decide to go psycho".
It's not the gun. It's the wielder. Take away guns, you can be assured that those who "go psycho" will find other convenient methods of exacting violence on innocents. There is no shortage of ways with which to kill the fragile beigns we are.
It is the idea that everyoen should be barred for the actions of a tiny few that I take issue with. 99,999 could never show a hint of illegal violence, but they should be barred, because 1 man, with a host of issues well beyond ownign a gun, choose to engage in violence.
In effect, it's communal punishment for individual crime.
|
Yes, it is the people, not the guns. I don't ascribe human psychological problems to guns. I just think certain guns have far too great a potential for destruction, in the hands of the wrong people, and therefore should not be allowed for purchase.
All things being equal, the AR-15 wielding person has an advantage over the person with two pistols.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
See, now if I were a liberal, I'd decry you as "stupid" and "ignorant" and a "science denier" for this reply. Because science can show a clear psychological factor for exposure to tv and movie violence and those who commit violent acts. It's not definitive, of course, but it's as well proven as say, primarily-man-caused-climate-change.
One has to wonder, are you in denial opver the effects of violence on TV and film, because most of Holywood and the industry are liberal and give generously to (D), or simply because you (like I) enjoy these products, and you (nor I) have ever been violent because of them?
In either case, the scicne and the studies are there, if you wish to persue them.
So a factor in the creation of violence is to be ignored, while the tool of the violent is to ba banned?
Interesting.
We should also ignore the factors that lead to individual poverty, and simply ban profit too, right?  |
We already regulate violence in film and television to a degree I'm comfortable with. And no, I was not aware the scientific community had a "consensus" on this issue. By all means, enlighten me.