Horrific Newtown, CT school shooting

[GPK]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Thanks. I didn't know either.

Some cal them MSR. Evidently the CEO has made the call to stop selling them ASAP.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GPK

Some cal them MSR. Evidently the CEO has made the call to stop selling them ASAP.

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

Let's look at this specific situation. If this douchebag's mother didn't have the weapons in her home, would he have been able to pull off this hideous act? Maybe. Although by most accounts he could barely function around people, so it would have made it a lot more difficult.

Which is the entire point. Let's try and make it harder for people to commit these acts, by limiting (or denying) access to weapons that people have no business owning. Of course people might still be able to get them by illegal means, but it won't be so easy.

Why would anyone not in the military need a military style assault rifle? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to muster up an answer other than to say "because I can."

Brilliant.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Let's look at this specific situation. If this douchebag's mother didn't have the weapons in her home, would he have been able to pull off this hideous act? Maybe. Although by most accounts he could barely function around people, so it would have made it a lot more difficult.

Which is the entire point. Let's try and make it harder for people to commit these acts, by limiting (or denying) access to weapons that people have no business owning. Of course people might still be able to get them by illegal means, but it won't be so easy.

Why would anyone not in the military need a military style assault rifle? I've asked and asked and no one seems to be able to muster up an answer other than to say "because I can."

Brilliant.

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

As you point out, this nutjob didn't buy the weapon himself. He took his mom's weapons. But once you make the step to something like "If person A didn't have the guns, person B wouldn't have been able to commit the crime", it's unenforcable short of bans and confiscation on everybody.

Even then, criminals, by virtue of the very status conveyed by that word, don't follow rules or laws. Therefore, as the oft-repeated but true cliche' goes, "If you criminalize guns, then only criminals will have them." - not counting the police who always have to show up AFTER a crime has occurred or started.

[Danzig]

i want a tank. i guess i should be able to buy one, fully operational. wonder if they're available on ebay?
of course, i would only use it for target practice. i'd never actually blow up anything.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

In a free society, purchases with one's own money don't have to be driven by need, or your assessment of another's needs. "Want" is enough. Much of our economy, everything from sports cars to iPads is driven by preferences and capitalism. So your opinion (not picking on you - anybody's opinion) of what someone chooses to buy is irrelevant. And with 99.999% of people who buy "assault" rifles not hurting anybody, reacting to ban them seems like punishment to the law-abiding enthusiast.

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I figured you would avoid answering a pretty direct question. I am well aware of the difference between needs and wants. But this isn't Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and people aren't Veruca Salt.

Wanting something doesn't mean you should just be able to obtain it if you have the money. There needs to be restrictions on things to protect the public.

So again...why do people not in the military need to have military style assault rifles? I'm genuinely curious.

Oh I answered it. I'll be more clear:

Your opinion of what others need is irrelevant. This is a free society, meaning by definition that whatever is not prohibited is allowed. And citizens are not a bunch of children that need supervision by self-proclaimed elites in Washington.

Wanting something is enough so long as you have the means to legally acquire it, and that often means money. Money to buy whatever it is, money to maintain it, insure it if necessary, take lessons on how to operate it.

Paul Newman used to own racecars and compete in races. He had the money. He paid to get lessons to be every bit as good as the other drivers. Paid his own pit crew.

John Travolta has an airliner parked in back of his house. He paid to learn how to fly, get all the licenses.

For most people, race cars and airliners are out of reach financially. Obviously an unprepared or malevolent person could take out more people with an airplane (and maybe a racecar) than somebody with a rifle.

[Dahoss]

As I figured.

You are absolutely right my opinion is irrelevant, much like your posts. Which is why I am looking for an answer from you or anyone as to why people should be able to own these type of weapons.

Of what purpose does it serve to own a weapon like this? Because if the answer is none...then why are they legal?

That is my point, which I know you are aware of. Are you really this bored? Wouldn't it be nice to have a discussion where actual points of view are shared instead of just talking around what people say?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are a business and can run it however they like.

It is a symbolic (and meaningless) gesture. The demand will simply be met by someone else - legally, until they ban it, then illegally afterwards.

no, it's not. once made illegal, much of the demand will disappear. the street value of those already owned will rise-but if at the same time all private sales were banned(with stiff penalties for people who buy or sell privately), and cities instituted buy backs, many would be destroyed and gone forever. yes, right now many own these guns- because they can (yeah, the slippery slope argument). but if they can't, they'll get rid of them.

do you think everything should be left as is? that we just throw up our hands and say 'such is life' and not do a thing?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, it's not. once made illegal, much of the demand will disappear. the street value of those already owned will rise-but if at the same time all private sales were banned(with stiff penalties for people who buy or sell privately), and cities instituted buy backs, many would be destroyed and gone forever. yes, right now many own these guns- because they can (yeah, the slippery slope argument). but if they can't, they'll get rid of them.

do you think everything should be left as is? that we just throw up our hands and say 'such is life' and not do a thing?

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Actually, the desirability of those weapons will increase. Whether that translates to demand of undertaking the risk to get one through the black market is another matter. It becomes the forbidden fruit. Everyone knows that the gun was banned because it was "too good" in terms of performance, for the average guy to have.

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree. you can't take the position that most people who own guns are law-abiding, and then turn around and say that certain guns would become more popular if made illegal.

The law is not a constant. They are about to get more restrictive.

Some (not all) will not obey the new law. Nobody would get hurt any more than when the law was not in effect. The same guys who would not hurt anybody with an "assault" rifle still would not hurt anybody with that same rifle.

So good point on "law-abiding". The smart and determined will find a way to get what they want - though again, those kinds of people - the ones not of the sort to go hurt somebody with a gun - are not the danger in the first place.

This whole issue is degrading nationally to the point where people just want to see "something, anything" done so they'll feel better, even though the measures being proposed would not have helped avert this horrible crime.

And the professional politicians are acting more to further an anti-gun agenda rather than provide any real safety as a result of new legislation. And they know it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The law is not a constant. They are about to get more restrictive.

Some (not all) will not obey the new law. Nobody would get hurt any more than when the law was not in effect. The same guys who would not hurt anybody with an "assault" rifle still would not hurt anybody with that same rifle.

So good point on "law-abiding". The smart and determined will find a way to get what they want - though again, those kinds of people - the ones not of the sort to go hurt somebody with a gun - are not the danger in the first place.

This whole issue is degrading nationally to the point where people just want to see "something, anything" done so they'll feel better, even though the measures being proposed would not have helped avert this horrible crime.

And the professional politicians are acting more to further an anti-gun agenda rather than provide any real safety as a result of new legislation. And they know it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

no, i think most people understand that we don't need to do 'something'. big difference between a knee jerk reaction and common sense restrictions. only the ultra-zealous gun control folks are going to ask for a complete ban-everyone knows that won't happen.
by the same token, do we just say 'meh, can't do a thing'? no, no reason for that either.