Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/5/2004 2:07:46 PM EST
I recently came across an article written in support of the AW ban, so I emailed the author of the article. Believe it or not, he actually responded to me! Most of his comments were typical of the anti crowd, and I expected him to be yet another mindless liberal. However, he claims to be a Republican, and some of his comments were rather shocking. Here are a few:

"...there has to be a limit set somewhere on the types of weapons that a civilian may own."

"Americans do not need and should not be allowed to own weapons with the capacity to kill a large amount in a short time."

"I believe that handguns should also be reduced by large percentages. Over 11,000 AMericans are killed each year by firearms, only a few hundred die in other industrialized countries."

"Guns are a threat to our society and we must therefore confront it directly in order to ensure the safety of our children."

What would you say in response to his comments?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:11:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 2:13:13 PM EST by BUCC_Guy]

Originally Posted By Jason280:
I recently came across an article written in support of the AW ban, so I emailed the author of the article. Believe it or not, he actually responded to me! Most of his comments were typical of the anti crowd, and I expected him to be yet another mindless liberal. However, he claims to be a Republican, and some of his comments were rather shocking. Here are a few:

"...there has to be a limit set somewhere on the types of weapons that a civilian may own."

Inform him of SBRs, full auto, silencers, etc in regards to the NFA

"Americans do not need and should not be allowed to own weapons with the capacity to kill a large amount in a short time."

Give me some fertilizer and a week, you smartass

"I believe that handguns should also be reduced by large percentages. Over 11,000 AMericans are killed each year by firearms, only a few hundred die in other industrialized countries."

Put the 500,000 conficted felons that were caught by the Brady background check behind bars and check back with me after one year.

"Guns are a threat to our society and we must therefore confront it directly in order to ensure the safety of our children."

See response above... career criminals are the problem, not the random lunatic. Random lunatics will use different means anyway. See response #2

What would you say in response to his comments?




- BG


EDIT: To the feds reading the site, I have no intentions of acquiring or using fertilizer for anything... I don't even like plants.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:12:55 PM EST
Sir,provide the sources for your talking points as they seem somewhat one-sided.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:16:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Jason280:

"...there has to be a limit set somewhere on the types of weapons that a civilian may own."
there are limits called the Gun Control Act of 1934 and 1968, other than that there is no need for more legislation. Simply ask what he thinks should be banned . . . "machine guns" GCA '34, "sawed off shotgun" GCA '34, etc.

"Americans do not need and should not be allowed to own weapons with the capacity to kill a large amount in a short time."
This one is just stupid. Any killing is wrong. A baseball bat or car can kill many people in a short amount of time if given the opportunity. Firearms can stop crimes that take lives.

"I believe that handguns should also be reduced by large percentages. Over 11,000 AMericans are killed each year by firearms, only a few hundred die in other industrialized countries."
you can't count suicides and if you do the math that is like .003% of the population. Do the math on "other industrialized countries" with smaller populations and you'll see that the numbers are closer than you think.

"Guns are a threat to our society and we must therefore confront it directly in order to ensure the safety of our children."Guns are what founded this country and my M-16 is what keeps it safe when I deploy.

What would you say in response to his comments?

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:17:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 2:20:41 PM EST by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:17:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 2:18:00 PM EST by Aalmeron]
"...there has to be a limit set somewhere on the types of weapons that a civilian may own."

there is...

"Americans do not need and should not be allowed to own weapons with the capacity to kill a large amount in a short time."

dont mistake the ability to ensure that you can kill one, with the probability that you will be able to kill many. if you had to shoot someone, wouldnt you want to make sure they werent going to get back up?

"I believe that handguns should also be reduced by large percentages. Over 11,000 AMericans are killed each year by firearms, only a few hundred die in other industrialized countries."

"Guns are a threat to our society and we must therefore confront it directly in order to ensure the safety of our children."

more people die each year by fists and feet in the US, than by any kind of gun, outlaw those. oh no, you can die from drinking too much watter, might as well not let us have that either. no feet, no fists, no water, the world is safe from all evil!

What would you say in response to his comments?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:20:14 PM EST
Didn't the Kennedy sniper fire 3 rounds from a bolt gun in 2 seconds? isn't that the capacity to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time? Besides, that argument is ridiculous. Would he prefer that people are killed slowly? Look at the DC sniper, they had a Bushmaster. Did they kill more than one person at a time? no. Three on one day IIRC but you could do that with a muzzleloader.

I would bet that the number of people killed in/by Honda Civics exceeds the number of people killed by assault weapons. Should we ban Honda Civics because of this? Should we ban high-performance cars like the Corvette, Viper, or Mustang? Because who needs a Corvette, really? There's no reason at all, other than to have fun with, or show off.

I read a paper by the VPC saying that "sniper weapons" were very different from hunting weapons, and they defined a hunting weapon as a .30-30 used no farther than 200 yards. Therefore, as they presented it, any weapon with the capacity to kill beyond 200 yards was a sniper weapon. In reality, they took one of the weakest rounds used by hunters, and definitely the weakest .30 cal round, and made it out to be what all hunters use, and that there was no reason to have anything more powerful.

The car analogy to that is that a 3 liter V6 making 170hp is the most anyone would ever need to get around, and that anything with more than 3 liters or 170hp or that does 0-60 in under 9 seconds should be illegal.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:21:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:25:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By 87gn:
Didn't the Kennedy sniper fire 3 rounds from a bolt gun in 2 seconds? isn't that the capacity to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time? Besides, that argument is ridiculous. Would he prefer that people are killed slowly? Look at the DC sniper, they had a Bushmaster. Did they kill more than one person at a time? no. Three on one day IIRC but you could do that with a muzzleloader.

I would bet that the number of people killed in/by Honda Civics exceeds the number of people killed by assault weapons. Should we ban Honda Civics because of this? Should we ban high-performance cars like the Corvette, Viper, or Mustang? Because who needs a Corvette, really? There's no reason at all, other than to have fun with, or show off.

I read a paper by the VPC saying that "sniper weapons" were very different from hunting weapons, and they defined a hunting weapon as a .30-30 used no farther than 200 yards. Therefore, as they presented it, any weapon with the capacity to kill beyond 200 yards was a sniper weapon. In reality, they took one of the weakest rounds used by hunters, and definitely the weakest .30 cal round, and made it out to be what all hunters use, and that there was no reason to have anything more powerful.

The car analogy to that is that a 3 liter V6 making 170hp is the most anyone would ever need to get around, and that anything with more than 3 liters or 170hp or that does 0-60 in under 9 seconds should be illegal.


IMO, all these straw arguments are losing ones.



But no less ridiculous than theirs. Fight fire with fire and such... ;)
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:34:06 PM EST

"...there has to be a limit set somewhere on the types of weapons that a civilian may own."


We already have a set of limits defined by the National Firearms Act. The bar is placed correctly now. There is no compelling reason to move it.


"Americans do not need and should not be allowed to own weapons with the capacity to kill a large amount in a short time."


Killing people is a function of behavior more than of the tool used. The most horrible mass killings are always done with something other than a firearm.


"I believe that handguns should also be reduced by large percentages. Over 11,000 AMericans are killed each year by firearms, only a few hundred die in other industrialized countries."


Most people shot to death in the USA are suicides. Most of the remainder are criminal-on-criminal. Self-defense is a legitimate reason to have a handgun. Taking handguns away from the good people would make the playing field less even, in favor of the bad people.


"Guns are a threat to our society and we must therefore confront it directly in order to ensure the safety of our children."


Guns can be used for both good and bad purposes. People who aren't violent criminals pose no threat to you whether they have a gun or not. People who are violent criminals will always have guns and any other weapon they want. Getting rid of guns is an unrealistic goal. The Genie is out of the bottle.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:35:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 2:36:50 PM EST by thecleaner]
now when some anti says stuff like that, i won't even endulge the thoughts or questions. i just cut to the chase, or rather spell out the painful truth they can't stand to hear;

"Strenghtening or enacting any new gun control is just a legistlator's & polition's way of admitting to total failure on protecting us from criminals on a large scale." seriously, big "clips" this, "deadly guns" that, it really doesn't equate to shit in the big picture.

i'll entertain retarded thoughts like that guy stated when these "legistlators & politions" actually put SOME effort into making sure they're actively puting criminals in jail & KEEPING THEM THERE!!!

i usually go on to wrap up the thought by saying; "until then, don't knock on my door for my guns just because you can't keep the monkeys tamed or caged."
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:37:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:43:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:54:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:43:03 PM EST
Sorry I would not justify that babble with a response. I'd say when you can prove your statements, and your proof does not come from the VPC/MMM and the Brady camp we'll talk.
Top Top