Guns don't kill

#51
#51
BeecherVol said:
Your all over the place Ed. Are you resending your "hunting rifles" comment? Or are you specifically speaking about the automatic types?



Do you think the gun control advocates would stop with automatic rifles and military type weapons? I don't.

As to the question. Yes, they do make it easier. Thus the reason the military's have moved away from sling shots.
Click to expand...

but you can't define it as "military type" that easily either. Can I own an M40?

VOLatile said:
Ban all guns. *runs and hides*
Click to expand...

which is what you'd be doing if that happened
 
#52
#52
Ed12111 said:
I'm not going to pretend to know which specific gun does what, but any reasonable person knows there are weapons available that are above and beyond anything necessary to hunt. You could hunt with an AR you could hunt with a grenade. You don't need either.
Click to expand...

But you've shifted the debate to relative weapon capability rather than whether guns kill people. All of thise you're implying as acceptable can kill people too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#53
#53
I debated on whether to post this in the Pub or Politics. Looks like I made the right choice. :)
 
#54
#54
BeecherVol said:
Your all over the place Ed. Are you resending your "hunting rifles" comment? Or are you specifically speaking about the automatic types?



Do you think the gun control advocates would stop with automatic rifles and military type weapons? I don't.

As to the question. Yes, they do make it easier. Thus the reason the military's have moved away from sling shots.
Click to expand...

I'm all over the place? When did the military come into it? There already is weapon control, so the issue is where to draw the line not if there should be one.
 
#55
#55
well to tie it back to the OP, how would banning assault rifles or handguns have saved the kid in the story?
 
#57
#57
Ed12111 said:
I'm all over the place? When did the military come into it? There already is weapon control, so the issue is where to draw the line not if there should be one.
Click to expand...

Then your point regarding the mortality stats in Britain is worthless, or are we dense again?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#58
#58
utvolpj said:
well to tie it back to the OP, how would banning assault rifles or handguns have saved the kid in the story?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Splitting hairs about weapon capabilities and specs is senseless in this context.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
utvolpj said:
but you can't define it as "military type" that easily either. Can I own an M40?



which is what you'd be doing if that happened
Click to expand...

Says who? The evidence says that's very far from the truth. Banning guns has been done before. It's not like we get to take your imagination as fact we can just look at say South Korea.
 
#60
#60
utvolpj said:
but you can't define it as "military type" that easily either. Can I own an M40?



which is what you'd be doing if that happened
Click to expand...

All I tried to do was separate those typically used for hunting and those that were not. What a man legally owns is his business.

I have eaten small game kill with a .38 special.:)
 
#62
#62
The problem with banning guns now is that everyone has them already and 99% of the people won't give them up.
 
#63
#63
Ed12111 said:
1. Not my stats.

2. Yes, that makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were yours. Your defense of them when someone said they make no sense in this thread is at issue.

Did you mean to post number 2 in a different thread?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#64
#64
VOLatile said:
The problem with banning guns now is that everyone has them already and 99% of the people won't give them up.
Click to expand...

And that our founders believed them invaluable to citizens in protecting their freedoms against tyrannical government.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
VOLatile said:
The problem with banning guns now is that everyone has them already and 99% of the people won't give them up.
Click to expand...

So? At one point in time everyone had cocaine or opium, but once it's illegal to buy the rate goes down.
 
#66
#66
Ed12111 said:
I'm all over the place? When did the military come into it? There already is weapon control, so the issue is where to draw the line not if there should be one.
Click to expand...

You didn't do very well separating your previous comments.

That was why I asked.

The question is why is it an issue? As stated before, do guns make killing easier? Yes

If you get rid of guns, and the number of steak knife deaths increase by 1000% what do we do?
 
#67
#67
BigPapaVol said:
I didn't say they were yours. Your defense of them when someone said they make no sense in this thread is at issue.

Did you mean to post number 2 in a different thread?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Please clarify. I'm not sure what you're point is regarding the mortality rate in G.B.
 
#69
#69
BeecherVol said:
You didn't do very well separating your previous comments.

That was why I asked.

The question is why is it an issue? As stated before, do guns make killing easier? Yes

If you get rid of guns, and the number of steak knife deaths increase by 1000% what do we do?
Click to expand...

That's not a serious position though. I don't think you honestly think people would go around strangling people at the same rate people are shot today.
 
#71
#71
VOLatile said:
I don't, nor ever will, own a gun and I'm not hiding. I live in a rather sketchy neighborhood, too.
Click to expand...

Good for you.

Thats your decision to make for yourself, and no one should tell you otherwise.

I own weapons and don't hide either.
 
#74
#74
Ed12111 said:
That's not a serious position though. I don't think you honestly think people would go around strangling people at the same rate people are shot today.
Click to expand...
Why do people shoot people? In their mind, (right or wrong) they find a reason/rationale. Guns make it easier, but not impossible without.

Are those deaths other than from guns less important?
 
#75
#75
BigPapaVol said:
And that our founders believed them invaluable to citizens in protecting their freedoms against tyrannical government.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's debatable. Taking that as true though I've got three problems with that.


1. You really think a bunch of people with their firearms could defeat the U.S army?

2. The founding fathers couldn't possibly know what type of firearms would exist today.

3. The founding fathers believed a lot of things we don't today. No black or women voters as just one example.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top