Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 What is the difference between a gun and a car? A car's primary design intent is to convey someone safely from one place to another.A gun's design intent is to destroy a soft target from a given distance..What it is designed to do does not matter because neither can do what it is designed to do without User Input Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 What is the difference between a gun and a car? A car's primary design intent is to convey someone safely from one place to another.A gun's design intent is to destroy a soft target from a given distance.So your point here...?A) People are not killed by carsB) People are less dead when killed by carsC) Not the car's faultD) Cumquat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 [quote name=magley64;939725A gun's design intent is to destroy a soft target from a given distance.I'm just talking about the reality of the situation' date=' your government isn't afraid of your gun... It will not stop them from doing something they intend to do, it will not even slow them down, it will not affect their decision making one iota...your gun does not scare them.FBI estimations put gun ownership in the united states at around 305 million. Considering of all the US forces combined there are around 1.5 million, that does put the american citizenry on even footing with our military. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolWhip Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 What is the difference between a gun and a car? A car's primary design intent is to convey someone safely from one place to another.A gun's design intent is to destroy a soft target from a given distance.I'm just talking about the reality of the situation, your government isn't afraid of your gun... It will not stop them from doing something they intend to do, it will not even slow them down, it will not affect their decision making one iota...your gun does not scare them.That's the problem. The people should not fear the government. The government should fear the people. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 What it is designed to do does not matter because neither can do what it is designed to do without User InputSo do you support any restrictions on the kind of destructive power the average american dullard should be allowed to posses?I'll cite RPG's as an example...Should the kid who sells you french fries have the right to carry around the capability to level a building? Is that good policy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 So do you support any restrictions on the kind of destructive power the average american dullard should be allowed to posses?I'll cite RPG's as an example...Should the kid who sells you french fries have the right to carry around the capability to level a building? Is that good policy?Is an RPG considered a firearm or "assault rifle"? Here you go again trying to change the subject to something entirely crazy because your point has been beat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Is an RPG considered a firearm or "assault rifle"? Here you go again trying to change the subject to something entirely crazy because your point has been beatNo i'm trying to illustrate that we have already decided that certain weapons don't belong in civilian hands, now we're just quabbling over where to draw the line.if you don't like RPG, change it to a minigun...that's a firearm, right? Edited December 17, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Is an RPG considered a firearm or "assault rifle"? Here you go again trying to change the subject to something entirely crazy because your point has been beatI think Mag's has been playing to much Black Ops 2. Noobs always going around shooting RPGs like crazy and shit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 No i'm trying to illustrate that we have already decided that certain weapons don't belong in civilian hands, now we're just quabbling over where to draw the line.like I said, avoiding the point you've been beat and trying to sensationalize whatever other crazy shit you can think of to get people riled up and distracted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) If I may indulge in wild speculation, I'd say she's been doing it since they were a young age, because she enjoyed the hobby and to instill respect for the weapon to her children, just as a responsible gun owner would and many on this forum already do. His mental condition may not have developed until he got older, but who knows. I think you're right, we will (or at least, should) hear more about this as things develop.I have a Nephew with Asperger Syndrome, and although being very high functioning in some areas, he is severely lacking in others. I can see how a "responsible parent" would possibly use shooting firearms, as a means of self control and a fun relaxing therapy. My Nephew plays hockey and football and is pretty damn good all things considered, and I also know that he has shot firearms and bows with his big brothers and Father. Of course all firearms are locked up securely in the house, so for sure no easy access to them. We obviously have no idea the relationship or bond that the killer had with his Mother or Brother, and where the Hell is the Dad in all this? As we all know people are very manipulative and capable of doing horrific things, and if this kid was picked on allot, that would very well be a switch for violence. Now I have a very hard time believing that he in fact had Aspergers, at minimum it had to have been very mild. VERY unlikely my nephew could plan or orchestrate something like that, but of course this killer was different. I haven't really watched the news or read anything since Friday evening, I am waiting much longer until more "facts" are known before tuning in again. Real easy for us to blame the parents for this, a parent can shower nothing but love and caring toward a child, and that child is still very capable of evil things. There are those that are born damaged goods, you just never know at what point they will show and or act out their ugly side. The Mother/owner was for sure negligent in this situation, and had she survived she would probably be in hot water.The root of many problems occurs at home, now add getting picked on in school or at work, and a monster is being created. As for what is the solution to keep this from happening again, I believe it is focused toward family. Personal responsibility as a parent is HUGE, being a good role model is huge. Now as for why a AWB is coming our way, I contribute it mostly to the large capacity magazines available for mass casualties. I also believe what can be purchased online is going to be severely affected as well, and I believe that ammo could "somehow" possibly be limited and monitored. Building of AR's by civilians will become very difficult to do, and sales of them and AK's plus similar weapons will be halted. 10 round capacity for pistols and rifles will be the max, and I wouldn't put it past them to ban the purchasing of combat ready gear as well. All speculation of course.....but also a likely scenario. Could a police state and martial law occur......"unlikely" but only time will tell. Schools will be making some drastic changes in security and access I am sure, so sad and unfortunate that this is where we are as a country. Edited December 17, 2012 by Pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 So your point here...?A) People are not killed by carsB) People are less dead when killed by carsC) Not the car's faultD) Cumquata car has a purpose other than death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 What is the difference between a gun and a car? A car's primary design intent is to convey someone safely from one place to another.A gun's design intent is to destroy a soft target from a given distance.the outcome in either is the same...death...design intent doesn't matter.I'm just talking about the reality of the situation, your government isn't afraid of your gun... It will not stop them from doing something they intend to do, it will not even slow them down, it will not affect their decision making one iota...your gun does not scare them.you stated that the founding fathers envisioned the 2A during the time of flintlocks, thus implying (or perhaps i'm incorrectly inferring) that you think that were the founding fathers to draft the bill of rights today that they wouldn't bother with the 2A, as citizens have no access to "sr-71 blackbirds", et al.i was trying to point out that the SCOTUS agrees that the 2A is sound, even today, even though citizens can't go toe to toe (successfully) with the military.*edit: BPEL just croaked, I has to get back to work and earn my keep... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 like I said, avoiding the point you've been beat and trying to sensationalize whatever other crazy shit you can think of to get people riled up and distractedor you're trying to dodge my vary valid point that it is reasonable to limit the destructive power that any citizen should be allowed to posses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 a car has a purpose other than death.how can it cause death without a person at its control? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownsfan1 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 how can it cause death without a person at its control? Set the cruise control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 or you're trying to dodge my vary valid point that it is reasonable to limit the destructive power that any citizen should be allowed to posses.with no intent of dodging I will answer your question:YES, if he can legally obtain it and afford it then I wholeheartedly support Joe Burgerflipper to get an rpg.I can't believe I even typed that because of how ridiculous it even is but just to humor you I figured I would go ahead and not dodge because I have no intention of trickeration 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Set the cruise control.still need a user to input that command....smart ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 with no intent of dodging I will answer your question:YES, if he can legally obtain it and afford it then I wholeheartedly support Joe Burgerflipper to get an rpg.I can't believe I even typed that because of how ridiculous it even is but just to humor you I figured I would go ahead and not dodge because I have no intention of trickerationreally? is there ANYTHING you wouldn't want in civilian hands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coyote Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 a car has a purpose other than death.Then deaths caused by misuse of a car are OK, since the car has another purpose..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 really? is there ANYTHING you wouldn't want in civilian hands?if it can be afforded and legally obtained then I don't give a shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Then deaths caused by misuse of a car are OK, since the car has another purpose..?let's define misuse (use for other than it's designed purpose)...what are assault weapons designed for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner75 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 Well weve established that Mag's is all for criminals running around without concern. I gotta ask...What are we to do about guns in the hands of criminals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 So do you support any restrictions on the kind of destructive power the average american dullard should be allowed to posses?I'll cite RPG's as an example...Should the kid who sells you french fries have the right to carry around the capability to level a building? Is that good policy?So your argument is that the ability to carry weapons should be predicated by your intelligence or job standing?That sounds...idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 if it can be afforded and legally obtained then I don't give a shit"legally obtained" is the part we're discussing here. the arbitrary line where the government says "no, that's not legal" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted December 17, 2012 Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 So your point here...?A) People are not killed by carsB) People are less dead when killed by carsC) Not the car's faultD) CumquatI laughed very loud on this, I have not heard option D for so long I can't even remember. I mean wow, I hate/love this thread. Hate why it was started, love the discussion.Oh I have 0 to add, except my cousin has sever aspbergers(sp), and I would 100% not ever trust him with a gun. Actually, we prefer when he is not able to make family events because he is NUTS. My other cousin HAD/HAS severe Autisim, not sure if it can be cured, but be basically out grew it. I don't think they ever had him taking meds as they live in VT and are pretty much live on the land kinda people, but yeah, he's fine now. I know they always had guns in the house growing up as they had bears in their back yard, moose, etc. Now he's in college for like Aeronautical Engineering or something crazy.My first cousin plays dungeon and dragons, and as I stated, is very scary. Moral is, just depends on the person, not the disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.