Some weapons are so dangerous that they cause a serious potential harm to the owner/operator of the weapon. The weapons you mention are so inherently dangerous that the operators themselves would be killing themselves half the time. That's why they need to be controlled at such a level. It isn't to protect people from intentional killings, it's to protect people from accidentally harming themselves and others.exactly. So why are we accepting of the existing bans on grenades, Gatling guns and other stuff? I'd like to mount a turret gun on my car, mad max style. Hunting would be much more fun.
We have all gotten older and.... have matured?I think this is the most level-headed discussion we've had on a hot button issue in DCC history.
If only the people in charge of the country could do the same on similar issues.
~flush~depends on which town. Full of Muslims?
we succeeded at throwin Americans into internment camps, but they were Japanese or at least looked like them. The relocation seemed peaceful enough, but If the japs had guns, maybe open a tank and fire.
Same here. In fact, I think the opposite would happen. If the order was given to start mowing down the American population, I think a lot of those in charge of those weapons would secure them and keep them from those in power. And probably use them against them.Personally I wouldn't and I'd like to think that most American serviceman wouldn't either.
I don't see that anyone has really addressed Townsend's point about the angry useless teen males being raised in this country versus elsewhere.
He's essentially saying that these types aren't in other developed countries that have gun control laws. Counterpoint?
Why wouldn't they? Cops do it all the time to private residences. SWAT goes in in full military gear, flash banging cribs, maybe kill innocent dude protecting his house because they no knocked it only to find out it was the wrong house. oopsYou are/were military, right? If you received an order to drop bombs into an American town, would you follow it? Or drive a tank in and open fire? I wouldn't. And I doubt the vast majority of American servicemen and women would, either.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass, and all that.
Someone can correct me, but I doubt one shot, other than a Luke Skywalker-to-Deathstar-moneyshot, could take a whole plane down. Otherwise, why the fuck do we have so many windows on planes for a terrorist to just punch through?I mean, it takes one shot to take the whole plane down. On the ground, if you miss most of the time you just miss and it harms no one. In the air you can kill 180 people by missing. I am in favor of people being able to carry guns in just about every other scenario you can dream up, though.
Stadiums, concerts, classrooms, courtrooms?I am in favor of people being able to carry guns in just about every other scenario you can dream up, though.
This is what I think (hope) would happen.Same here. In fact, I think the opposite would happen. If the order was given to start mowing down the American population, I think a lot of those in charge of those weapons would secure them and keep them from those in power. And probably use them against them.
Possibly.Wouldn't you agree that an armed citizenry would've prevented 9/11 from happening?
Absolutely. I think we are to the point now where all teachers should be armed and trained to use the gun they are armed with.Stadiums, concerts, classrooms, courtrooms?
This one, maybe, or maybe not, but then there have been several of these over the past few years so we could probably have prevented some of them. We do need more education and awareness of keeping these weapons out of young people's hands. Sure, they might just break into and rob a gun store, but then if they are caught doing that they go to prison for a felony and your shooting could potentially be averted there.I wouldn't be opposed to that, but even that wouldn't necessarily stop things like this from happening. He very well could have taken one of his dad's guns. I don't know that he did, just saying he could have and adding this restriction wouldn't have kept this from happening.
Yeah, I've been kicking that one around in my head for a while. As a gun owner I'd like to see a common sense solution before we get giant sweeping bans and end up back on the road to having no rights in this country like Booze wants.Is this your idea? That's one of the smartest approaches to this I've read
That's not actually true, that whole explosive decompression thing is a myth. The worst you get is cabin pressure drops and the O2 masks come down, even if you emptied a magazine into the skin of the plane.I mean, it takes one shot to take the whole plane down. On the ground, if you miss most of the time you just miss and it harms no one. In the air you can kill 180 people by missing. I am in favor of people being able to carry guns in just about every other scenario you can dream up, though.
Still not sure I would want guns on a plane. Maybe it's just the idea in my head of having no way out if something went wrong.That's not actually true, that whole explosive decompression thing is a myth. The worst you get is cabin pressure drops and the O2 masks come down, even if you emptied a magazine into the skin of the plane.
I don't want guns on a plane because of how freaking crowded it is. You'd have to be shooting Jesus not to hit a bystander under pressure while people were panicking and getting in your way, jumping up out of their seats. I think a taser or stun gun would take down a hijacker pretty effectively.Still not sure I would want guns on a plane. Maybe it's just the idea in my head of having no way out if something went wrong.
~flush~You are/were military, right? If you received an order to drop bombs into an American town, would you follow it? Or drive a tank in and open fire? I wouldn't. And I doubt the vast majority of American servicemen and women would, either.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass, and all that.
Civil War, anybody? They slaughtered plenty of Civilians then. Your fact checking is as awesome as ever.