People who do and do not think we should own guns

So if I say you are a communist, and someone quotes me on it, it is true? Interesting lack of logic.

 

Sorry, TDR. My point #4 was ambiguous. I was referring to weapons capable of causing mass killings, not individuals. My lack of clarity.
Edited to add: That doesn't mean if we had a way to predict which individuals would go bonkers, we should not identify them in advance. Our crystal balls aren't that good.

 

See my comment above. My bad.

 

Ok. I still disagree, but thanx for the correction.

 

:thumbs: Glad to clarify. Disagreement is fine.

 

Yes it is. You need to try again.

For your silly example to be relevant, I would have to be quoted by someone else as saying I am a communist.

Then , there would need to be actions on my part that would corroborate the quote. As there is with Obama.

You get do overs. Can't wait to see your next try.:thumbs:

 

That #4 is ambiguous for a number of reasons, as different people have vastly differing opinions on which firearms are "capable of causing mass killings" (and IMO that's a pejorative way of stating "capable of being used in mass killings".)
What defines such a weapon? Semi-auto? How about the millions of 10-22s out there, able to fire a .22 rimfire with each pull of the trigger, but which I doubt are used much in crimes, as criminals more sane than John Hinckley, Jr. want something with more power than the .22 LR? How about my Remington model 76, able to fire 5 high-powered rifle cartridges in 6-7 seconds, or its semi-auto cousin, the model 74? How about an "assault-weapon-look" rifle such as the AR-15, but with a relatively small magazine - looks evil but its .223 is much less powerful than my .30-06 deer rifle? One hopes reasonable people could come to some agreement, but most of the arguments on this topic come from those at the extremes.

 

Knives, hammers, and cleavers could be considered as such:

School attacks in China (2010–12)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)


More recently:

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

 

We all know there is a difference in the ability to create massive carnage in a short period of time between a .22 pistol and an automatic assault rifle. I'd rather charge a crazed killer with a pocket knife than one with an AK-47.

 

(Oops, double post)

 

Dead is dead, regardless of the weapon.

I would rather defend myself with a firearm out of his arm's length than to do it hand-to-hand. Distance from the attacker is good.

 

Um...I think you need to re-read Rolf's post (#29).

Someone at the mall can run through a crowd with a knife in each hand, and cause the same amount of damage that we've seen from guys in malls with AK-47's....

...*especially* if they know what to do with the knife, like slashing at throats, abdomens, and the much-harder-to-hit brachial or femoral arteries....

 

Automatic "assault rifles" are already illegal in this country (for everybody) and have been for decades. Got anything else?

Hate to break the news to you, but a .22 pistol in the hands of someone that knows how to use it is as deadly as an AR-15 in the cases you are using as an example.

Once again, you use a poor example to make your point. Could it be because you can't really make a point on this subject that is not easily refuted, at least as long as we don't let you get away with mislabeling a firearm?

 

Please, go to your local gun shop and buy an automatic weapon. I will wait here... unless you have a federal firearms permit you aren't buying an automatic weapon. That is nothing more than agenda pushers trying to make things out to be more than they are. Yes, it makes a difference.

As far as bans go... most rifles that people want banned would still be available with wooden stocks on them. Functionally the same as the scary black plastic "assault" weapon stocks they just look like hunting rifles. It's absurd. It's all about making "feel" safe.

How about this. Let's start locking up the lunatics again. Yes, lets be more humane than in the past, but the real problem is complete psycho's are roaming the streets unhindered because we might hurt their feelings.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Exactly! :thumbsup:

Repeat previous comment.

Wow, three for three. Great post, Shag. :applause:

Now please, don't withdraw all those comments just because it scares the bejeebers out of both of us that we completely agree here. :laugh:

 

So you guys sadly, once again miss the point. I was not stating that automatic firearms are legal. I was pointing out the fact that mass carnage can be done more quickly with one. I know they are banned.

Which makes my other point...we already ban certain classes of weapons. Nobody needs one of these for any legitimate purpose.