Author Topic: Seems like it WAS the gun's fault after all (Read 981 times)

vorticon · « **Reply #45 on:** September 12, 2004, 02:54:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Ya.. that will work just fine... just like drugs.. if you ban them they will just go away because criminals obey laws. Thanks for clearing that up.

no they wont just "go away" they will however become harder for just anyone to get.

most shootings are done inner city street gangs, using the most readily available guns, just imagine how much more damage they could do if they could walk 2 blocks, and pick up a rpg, ak-47, rpk etc. etc. or if one of them damn depressed loners decide to go on a killing spree, imagine how much more damage they could have done if they had that sort of weapon thats the sort of thing gun control is about,

because as many people have pointed out...psycho serial killers will kill no matter what, and more "professional" criminals will obtain that sort of thing no matter what.

and thats all i really have to say about it. no doubt im completly wrong, and lazs will throw a couple pro gun cliche slogans at me to prove it.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #46 on:** September 12, 2004, 03:18:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
no they wont just "go away" they will however become harder for just anyone to get.

most shootings are done inner city street gangs, using the most readily available guns, just imagine how much more damage they could do if they could walk 2 blocks, and pick up a rpg, ak-47, rpk etc. etc. or if one of them damn depressed loners decide to go on a killing spree, imagine how much more damage they could have done if they had that sort of weapon thats the sort of thing gun control is about,

because as many people have pointed out...psycho serial killers will kill no matter what, and more "professional" criminals will obtain that sort of thing no matter what.

and thats all i really have to say about it. no doubt im completly wrong, and lazs will throw a couple pro gun cliche slogans at me to prove it.

Well.. your right.. you are wrong.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #47 on:** September 13, 2004, 12:24:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
no they wont just "go away" they will however become harder for just anyone to get.

LOL not really. They will just be harder for just anyone to get legally.
Illegally, Well lemme put it this way.
Its goin on 1:30 AM where I am now.
I could leave my house right now and be home by daybreak toting any kind of gun I wish. And I do mean ANY kind.
Its already tons harder to get guns legally then illegally.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #48 on:** September 13, 2004, 12:27:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

certainly... if there were no rifles at all in the world... the exact same sniper killings would not have occured. The pair may have had to turn to hillside strangler or jack the ripper tactics.

lazs

OR Crossbows:D

lazs2 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:20:49 AM »

vort and beetle... in the case of these snipers they fired ONE shot from a distance of 100 or so yards in each case.

If they (the snipers) would have been limited to single shot or bolt action hunting rifles they would have been just as deadly... in fact... more so. They could have killed from a greater distance. they would have probly killed for a longer time before being caught.

Neither of you is against people owning these more deadly hunting rifles. vort is against people owning "assault rifles" because they.... well... they look bad and his liberal friends told him they were evil and that people used em in gang shootings and stuff all the time. even tho they are probly the least likely weapon to be used in a crime.

if you ban the so called "assault weapons" you don't cure anything but you set a gun banning precedent. Better to have the anti gun nuts whining about harmless "assault rifles" than my Garand and mini 12 and semi auto pistols and revolvers.

They know better than to try to ban too many weapons at once... total brick wall for em every time they try.

Better to convince the naive and foreigners that some guns are worse than others.

lazs

lazs

beet1e · « **Reply #50 on:** September 13, 2004, 09:21:16 AM »

So... maybe we should just throw our hands in the air, and accept that the deaths of the 10 victims is the price that MUST be paid for the right to bear arms. After all, the US economy would collapse in the absence of Bushmaster hunting rifles.

NUKE · « **Reply #51 on:** September 13, 2004, 09:33:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
So... maybe we should just throw our hands in the air, and accept that the deaths of the 10 victims is the price that MUST be paid for the right to bear arms. After all, the US economy would collapse in the absence of Bushmaster hunting rifles.

Yeah, like drunken driving deaths are the price we MUST pay to allow alcohol to freely available to almost everyone. I'm glad you understand now.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #52 on:** September 13, 2004, 09:44:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
So... maybe we should just throw our hands in the air, and accept that the deaths of the 10 victims is the price that MUST be paid for the right to bear arms. After all, the US economy would collapse in the absence of Bushmaster hunting rifles.

Beetle,

I hearby nominate you for this months "Baghdad Bob" award for your ceaseless campaign against observable fact in order to forward a personal agenda. Can I have a second?

BTW, they could have done this with any rifle. That rifle was stolen, not obtained through legal channels so outlawing it would be pointless.

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 13, 2004, 10:08:34 AM »

beetle... the U.S. economy would not be affedted in the least by the removal or the bushmaster or even if it were reduced to half price. The numbers of murders in the U.S. would not change if there were no buwshmasters or one in every legal gun owners collection. but...

if guns were outlawed in the U.S. there is a lot of evidense that crime would go up (just as it did on your island) and that with 2-3 million crimes being prevented with firearms every year.... even a tiny fraction of those being homicides... then homicides would go up..

you are asking us to get rid of firearms even tho they prevent crime and homicides.... you are asking us to throw up our hands in despair and let the criminals rule because.... because firearms are evil looking? You don't like em? what?

You are willing to condone higher crime rates and more murders to be able to say that you got rid of guns?

I hear kerrie is meeting with fienstein and boxer and the brady bunch as we speak... they are discussing the lapsing of the assault weapons and magazine ban.

I hope this meeting get's lot's of publicity but it probly won't.

lazs

vorticon · « **Reply #54 on:** September 13, 2004, 10:24:26 AM »

Neither of you is against people owning these more deadly hunting rifles. vort is against people owning "assault rifles" because they.... well... they look bad and his liberal friends told him they were evil and that people used em in gang shootings and stuff all the time. even tho they are probly the least likely weapon to be used in a crime.

nope, i didnt say they are used in gang shootings, i said if gangs could easily and cheaply obtain them, there would be even more deaths from that sort of gang violence.

ive never said "ban all guns" and ive never said crime rates would fall if they were, or if incredibly massive limitations were put on owning them. ive always said that that the harder it is for a criminal to obtain an assault rifle or automatic weapon, the more likely they are to use something else, and the easier it will be for citizens like yourself or the police to stop them.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #55 on:** September 13, 2004, 11:14:26 AM »

it is already illegal for felons to own firearms. How about enforcing existing laws instead of passing more?

lazs2 · « **Reply #56 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:30:51 PM »

but vort... everyu study ever done on the subject shows that the ban did had absolutely no effect on crime or homicides.

What is it that you would like to see exactly? and... what are your reasons?

lazs

2stony · « **Reply #57 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:53:27 PM »

The dealer's shop that had to pay the $$$ is about 3-4 miles from my house(lol).

beet1e · « **Reply #58 on:** September 14, 2004, 07:48:12 AM »

Lazs said "you are asking us to get rid of firearms" No, I never said that. You didn't read part of my post above ^ which was:

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
By the way, I have never advocated the banning of guns in the US. Never. I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament. The genie's out of the bottle, and won't go back in. Besides, your government(s) get too many backhanders from the NRA for that ever to be a possibility.

lazs2 · « **Reply #59 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:13:46 AM »

beetle.. Ok, so what is it... you feel that without a bushmaster the snipers would have never existed. "seems it was the guns fault"....

I claim that the snipers would have been better served with a more conventional hunting rifle. Would you have felt better if they would have had a more effiecient tool and been able to kill more people at longer range?

what guns do you feel I shouldn't be able to own and for what reasons?

lazs