Thread: Gun-Control
View Single Post
Old 04-09-2009, 08:13 AM   #40
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Oh and TA, I'd rather be able to go out and purchase them legally. I have the contacts to purchase them illegally. Heck if I had an extra 6000, I could even get a rocket launcher(single shot... not a good investment in my eyes... plus what good would that be on Z-Day). The problem is that law abiding citizens can't get what criminals can get.
I'm not denying that you can't get your hands on them. You can get an Ak-47 for like $30 in some of the more questionable areas.

But it seems to be the cold war concept. Sure, the weapon is there and you can get it, but does that necessarily mean that it should be available to everyone? If the public gets the big guns, aren't the criminals going to jive for -bigger- weapons? Then the cops need to stock up more, which beats on the tax payer as well as giving the criminals more incentive to get bigger weapons.

While your logic says "criminals should get them, then the civilians should get them to protect themselves", I see it as a somewhat opposite where this just leads to a civilian/criminal arms race

Also, when was the last time you heard about a bunch of guys gunning down some cops with an RPG in the USA? While it probably does happen, should we just keep the way to get it in the black market area to limit that happening? Wouldn't making that rocket and other non-prejudice based weaponry legal just increase the chances of them being used?

Because my supposition is that if you build it, they will come. Crime is always going to happen, but I'd prefer that these weapons be somewhat difficult to get and kept within a small world instead of making them available at k-mart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Merely your subjective opinion. Not inherent fact. Merely owning any weapon with a magazine that holds >1 bullet can make you a hazard in the abstract. Frankly, unless I mount a 50cal on a toyota/vehicle (like in 3rd world countries) and tool around the neighborhood firing at whatever catches my eye, your fear is dramatically overstated. Besides, how many people do you see commiting crimes with a 50 cal in the US anyway? Too damned impracticle.
You don't see many people committing crimes with .50 cal weapons because, for the most part... they aren't freely available? I thought that was the definition of gun control.

I feel my fear is justified when the weapon can go through the target you are shooting quite easily. It is a heavy arms weapon desined to take down tanks and other vehicles so I'd like, as I said way above, a reason better justified than "it is my right" in order to sway me to allowing civilians to own such a weapon.

This is not a criminal/civilian issue with me really. It is a person by person reason, and the people that currently can get their hands on a .50 cal weapon (namely a rifle) are so trained, licensed, etc.

If that is your point, then I agree. I just don't feel that anyone should be able to walk in with a gun liscene and say "I want a .50 cal. Just put it in the truck."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
No offense, but since we aren't talking about frag grenades, suitcase nukes or AFVs/APCs, or other heavy weapons (how many people could afford an ICBM in their backyeard anyway? ), you've only demonstrated a fear of something and little else (esp in light of prior mentioned "minimal" preconditions).
Hardly. Your example was a .50 cal weapon, which is banned due to its indiscriminate nature of going through multiple walls and people.

Other indiscriminate weapons include grenades and high explosives, so I feel the category fits. If you would like to narrow it down, then feel free.

And yes, Totenkopf, I do in fact fear a weapon that can go through a tank, building, etc being handed over the counter to someone. Sorry if that sounds unreasonable, or unpatriotic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Primary reason for knives and other edged weapons is to cause harm. I'd say Skin has a fairly good grasp of that concept.
I think you are misunderstanding me.

I don't think they should be banned outright, but that they should be heavily controlled due to their nature as high damage weapons.

From your post, I felt you were implying it was your right as an average joe to go to the mart and purchase a .50 cal weapon. In which case I respectfully disagree.

Also, A knife is controlled. It is in your hands, and you guide the attack (unless you throw it). I think you are missing my point about weapons that harm without prejudice being controlled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
As the Rolling Stones sang.....you can't always get what you want. Besides, if you believe many of the indiscriminate claims by liberal news sources, you'd think that 90% of all guns used my the cartels are from America. Fact is, the US border is so porous and enforcement so relatively lax, that getting guns illegally would likely only be a matter of $$. Interesting that you trust the goverment only as much as you trust the "average citizen", but are quite content to have same unworthy govt control all the guns? Selective paranoia, no? (rhetorical question here)
Sorry, you lost me at "liberal news."

But, as far as the paranoia goes, I don't trust myself, you, or frankly a "licensed" civilian as described by Skin (within the context of 'drivers license') with a weapon of that size. For more information look at my comments on indiscriminate weaponry.

And you'll have to elaborate on the theory of because the criminals have something, everyone should have that something as well. It, again, seems to be an arms race deal.

If it is so bad that people have access to these weapons, our solution is to... make them more easily available?

I, personally, just cannot follow that logic very well in this situation.

Also, I can't exactly follow the logic on why just because it is available in Mexico, every citizen should have it. You can buy any prescription drug you want down in Mexico, but we control them within the states for good reason.


But, again, I am replying to you under the assumption you are support indiscriminate weaponry being available to the public. You will have to narrow down exactly which weapons you want, because just saying ".50 cal" puts it in the indiscriminate weapons category. Maybe you were using it as an example, maybe not. I'm just working off of what I read.

Last edited by True_Avery; 04-09-2009 at 08:19 AM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,