US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[colubridae]

I apologise for the internet points douchy, I meant it as light humour.

What you say is relevant on other threads concerned with legality and majority dictates.

(Claiming that it is reasonable is only saying that it’s the choice of a lot of people etc… We can get into an argument on semantics if you wish, but it won’t be helpful.)

If you want to talk about the bill of rights etc. go ahead, it’s a free thread/country.
But it isn’t what I’ve been arguing.

All the thread has been about is banning guns. Because some people who happen to carry a temporary lobbying strength wish it. Not for any moral reasons.

This is my central issue.
The gun ban lobby have taken the moral high ground and they have no right to it.
I’ve used the car analogy to demonstrate that the moral issues don’t add up.
And it still stands morally

Ban guns, gun deaths cease.
Ban cars, car deaths cease.

Humans lived for many millennia without cars so ‘necessity’ arguments are not valid, it’s simply convenience.
And, just to repeat, allowing car deaths for convenience sake is immoral. Slice it how you want, change the goalposts how you want, the morality of a gun ban doesn’t add up. So it simply becomes an issue of an arbitrary abuse of power.

Banning me from having a gun in my home for self protection is an arbitrary and immoral abuse of power.
The car ban nonsense highlights the issue.
Sorry if you don’t agree.

[Coito ergo sum]

I apologise for the internet points douchy, I meant it as light humour.

What you say is relevant on other threads concerned with legality and majority dictates.

(Claiming that it is reasonable is only saying that it’s the choice of a lot of people etc… We can get into an argument on semantics if you wish, but it won’t be helpful.)

Well, not exactly. The idea is that different things can and often should be treated differently. Cars are different than guns. Cars are different than guns in their utility, their purpose, their necessity for modern living, etc. Legislation/regulation is imposed, ostensibly, to serve a purpose and not merely make a point. So, we don't have to treat, say, barber shops the same as auto mechanic shops, because they are different things, serve different purposes, have different utilities and are, well, different things.

That is where, I think, your analogy goes wrong, because cars are not the same or substantially similar to guns. Heck, even certain guns are not the same as other guns. Why are their handgun permits in the same jurisdiction where long guns can be purchased without such permits? Why can I go to Dick's Sporting Goods down the street right now and walk out with a deer rifle or a clay pigeon gun, but I can't walk out with an M16 or an Uzi 9mm? It's because a rational determination can be made about the safety, utility, purpose etc., of these differing things.

That is my point - this doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing. We don't have to say - shit - b.b. guns are legal, so Stinger missiles must also be legal. We don't have to say - if a 30 year old can buy a rifle, then a 12 year old must also be able to buy a rifle. And, we don't have to say, if I can carry a gun out in the woods, I can also carry it to the final hearing in my divorce case.

If you want to talk about the bill of rights etc. go ahead, it’s a free thread/country.
But it isn’t what I’ve been arguing.

Yes, I know. You've been arguing that if people are opposed to guns because of the injuries and deaths they cause, that they should just as much be opposed to cars because they cause as many or more deaths. I get what you're saying, and I was addressing that. The reason I don't agree with you is because cars and guns are materially different, and therefore may be rationally treated differently. I hope I've made that clear. I wasn't making any argument about mere constitutionality. I raised the constitutional issue from the standpoint that advocating reasonable regulation doesn't mean one is advocating "banning."

All the thread has been about is banning guns. Because some people who happen to carry a temporary lobbying strength wish it. Not for any moral reasons.

This is my central issue.
The gun ban lobby have taken the moral high ground and they have no right to it.

I agree.

I’ve used the car analogy to demonstrate that the moral issues don’t add up.
And it still stands morally

I disagree, for reasons stated. And, I will add to that the fact that morals are essentially arbitrary, and that neither you nor the gun ban folks have demonstrated that it is "immoral" to own guns, not own guns, own cars, or not own cars, or to treat cars differently than guns relative to regulation, or to treat cars the same as guns relative to regulation.

All we have are the purposes, uses, utility, and effects of different items: cars, rocks, rifles, handguns, miniguns, shoulder fired Stinger missiles, butterfly nets, plastic bags, computers, and staircases, and billions of other things. By your logic, every single thing has to be treated as if they were the same thing when they aren't the same thing. Different things may rationally be treated and regulated differently.

Ban guns, gun deaths cease.
Ban cars, car deaths cease.

True. But, ceasing deaths is not the only interest or concern. Ban cars, and modern society as we know it ceases, and arguably there will be millions, if not billions of deaths because there would be no transportation of food, except by train and airplane, and in our society today that would be catastrophic.

Humans lived for many millennia without cars so ‘necessity’ arguments are not valid, it’s simply convenience.

Now you're not making sense. People lived in different societies without cars. The internal combustion engine and transportation based on it is one of the things that allowed our culture to grow to what it is now. Eliminating them now would destroy the very fabric of our society, and we would descend back to something akin to the way we lived before 1920. Millions would die, because our current population could not be sustained with 19th century transportation technology.

And, just to repeat, allowing car deaths for convenience sake is immoral.

Cars are not mere conveniences. Simply because some other society in a different time survived without them does not change the fact that millions, if not billions, of people in today's society depend on them for their very livelihoods, sustenance and survival.

Further, you can't simply decree something as immoral, other than for yourself. Allowing deaths for convenience is plenty moral, in my view. For example, people are allowed to have swimming pools for mere entertainment, and we know for a fact that little children will drown in them. Eliminate all swimming pools, and all swimming pool deaths would go away. Are you suggesting that it is "immoral" to own or to allow the ownership of swimming pools? That does appear to be what you're saying.

I think swimming pools are quite moral, and even though children will drown in them, and adults will drown in them, and people will even murder other people by sticking their heads under water and using the pool as a weapon, I think that swimming pools should be legal. Am I immoral?

Slice it how you want, change the goalposts how you want,

You either don't know what it means to "change the goalposts" or you're throwing that out there to deflect or hand-wave away something you don't like. I haven't shifted any goalposts - at all.

the morality of a gun ban doesn’t add up.

I agree. I, and most people, don't advocate gun bans.

So it simply becomes an issue of an arbitrary abuse of power.

Not necessarily. There is certainly the potential for reasonable regulation to address particularized concerns, such as we have for automobiles - requirements of certain braking ability, crash testing and requirements of certain strengths in vehicles to withstand accidents, minimum driving ages, testing and training on how to drive, etc.

Banning me from having a gun in my home for self protection is an arbitrary and immoral abuse of power.

Whether it is immoral is an arbitrary opinion on your part, and really rather meaningless. The Amish think it's immoral to shoot someone in self-defense. So what?

Banning you from having a gun in your home would be arbitrary if it was not based on good reason or if you were being singled out. Banning you from having a Stinger missile or a minigun firing 2,000 to 6,000 RPM in your home because nobody is allowed to have those weapons (or because there are strict requirements limiting who may own such weaponry) is not arbitrary (or, in my opinion, immoral). Moreover, telling you you can't carry your gun to your final divorce hearing, or into a school, is not arbitrary, if the rule is uniformly applied.

The car ban nonsense highlights the issue.
Sorry if you don’t agree.

I don't agree with your rationale, because it doesn't make sense.

I agree with you that the idea of banning cars is nonsense.

[colubridae]

I would, sideways, take issue with several other points you raised

First risk/benefit analysis
We both know that no such analysis has been made. Using it in your posts, as pappa did is nonsense. The situation regarding traffic has simply been ‘allowed’ to develope.
If such an analysis has been performed where are the figures?

Second if road traffic is a necessity that means that any amount of deaths are acceptable on the roads 20 million, 40 million, whatever. If you claim traffic is necessary then any number is acceptable.

Thirdly where are the risk/benefit figures for a gun ban. In fact making such a claim is sort of doubly self-defeating. A civilian gun ban should effectively zero civilian gun deaths. Clearly this has not occurred so a gun ban is not effective. If it’s a risk/benefit analysis at which point can the ban be lifted? If the ban works it should ‘self-lift’.
E.g. “This year deaths from guns are below the cost/benefit level, so the ban should be lifted.”

Otherwise it’s not a cost/benefit analysis type ban and claiming so is spurious.
As I keep saying it's simply an arbitrary abuse of power.


So this is fun?

[Coito ergo sum]

I would, sideways, take issue with several other points you raised

First risk/benefit analysis
We both know that no such analysis has been made.

About cars? I know for a fact that risk/benefit analysis regarding safety regulations have been made by the NTSB, and state and federal legislatures. It's how they come up with reasonable regulations.

Using it in your posts, as pappa did is nonsense. The situation regarding traffic has simply been ‘allowed’ to develope.

Yes, but take speed limits for example. A policy decision was made to reduce speeds to 55, and save gasoline in doing so, and also supposedly save lives. Now the speed limits are back up to 60, 65 and 70MP - even 75MPH in some places I'm aware of, and I think Montana at least for a while had a highway with no speed limit. There are definitely analyses done as to highway deaths, accident rates, etc., traffic, gas mileage, etc. Cost/benefit is used every day.

If such an analysis has been performed where are the figures?

All over the place. e.g. http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/, http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/HAR7604.htm , http://www.insideline.com/car-news/texa ... limit.html, http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html

Second if road traffic is a necessity that means that any amount of deaths are acceptable on the roads 20 million, 40 million, whatever.

Absolutely not. There are many laws and regulations concerning roadways that help to keep the number down. Roadway engineering is one - speed limits are another - regulations improving automobile design are another - regulations concerning driving under the influence of substances is another, etc.

Food is a necessity, but that doesn't mean that all substances that can be ingested must be legal, or treated the same. Pot brownies are illegal even though food is a necessity.

If you claim traffic is necessary then any number is acceptable.

Not really - certainly - if 100% of the population would be killed, then that wouldn't be acceptable. Moreover, you're being obtuse. I said that cars are a necessity to maintain our modern society, and that if we eliminated them, then millions of people would likely die because our food distribution system relies heavily on cars and trucks, and since most people drive cars to work they couldn't do their jobs without them. So, while they are not necessary to prevent human extinction, if they were made illegal tomorrow then millions of people would die, millions more would have to become subsistence survivors growing and foraging food from their local communities, etc., which means that our current society could not be maintained in its present form without them. That's what I mean by "necessity."

Thirdly where are the risk/benefit figures for a gun ban.

Who is talking about a gun ban other than a few in the extreme anti-gun lobby? And, to get their numbers, all you have to do is googles. They'll tell you all about the stacks of deaths attributable by them to guns. And, you can also googles the number of lives some folks think are saved by guns. There - risk/benefit.

In fact making such a claim is sort of doubly self-defeating. A civilian gun ban should effectively zero civilian gun deaths.

A perfectly enforced gun ban would do so, yes.

Clearly this has not occurred so a gun ban is not effective.

Where have we seen a perfectly enforced gun ban?

If it’s a risk/benefit analysis at which point can the ban be lifted? If the ban works it should ‘self-lift’.

I'm not now, and never have been, in favor of a ban, nor are most people who have been posting on this thread.

My point in talking to you was only that your car/gun analogy does not work. I showed you why.

E.g. “This year deaths from guns are below the cost/benefit level, so the ban should be lifted.”

Well, yeah - that's kind of how I think about it, although not in the context of a ban, because even the countries where folks like Huxley are from have not "banned" guns. Lots of Brits have guns, they just have heavier regulations and an onerous permit process.

But, to me - what's reasonable does depend on risks/benefits. I don't think shoulder fired Stinger missiles have much of a necessity or benefit, and the capacity to have folks just bring down airliners and helicopters is not worth having them around. I think the risks are too great, and the benefits are too small. However, as with all risk/benefit analyses, they boil down to judgment calls based on the evidence. I'd be willing to listen to anyone else's opinion on it, and I would love to hear the best case put forward as to why John Q. Public, in Detroit, Michigan, or New York City, New York ought to have the legal right to own a Stinger missile without so much as a license, permit or registration. Care to advance one?

If your argument is - "cars kill more people in the US than Stinger missiles and miniguns, so if you ban Stinger missiles and miniguns you would be immoral in not banning cars," I would have to respectfully disagree with you.

Otherwise it’s not a cost/benefit analysis type ban and claiming so is spurious.
As I keep saying it's simply an arbitrary abuse of power.

It is not arbitrary when different things are being treated differently. Treating different things differently is pretty normal and rational, provided the treatment of the different things are rational. Rationality does not require treating different things the same.

So this is fun?

[/quote][/quote]

Fun for me. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Seth]

I don't agree with him, though, because I think it can be rationally argued that the same logic doesn't apply. His opposition can reasonably argue that while there is a higher death toll from cars than guns, the greater utility and necessity in daily life of cars as opposed to guns warrants a public policy that allows cars to be used with less restriction than guns. There is a rational argument for treating those two different things differently.

It’s only rational if you try to assign values to deaths/utility.

Well, of course, and that happens all the time with legislation. When we decide when to allow kids to start driving cars, we might be able to see statistically that raising the driving age to 18 will save X lives from car accidents where minors are the drivers. We make a public policy judgment, though, that we'd rather have minors driving than save the X lives that would be saved by not letting them drive.

And good god do we ever do that here. Take baby cribs for example. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently banned the sale or transfer in commerce of any baby crib that has not been approved and meets a new government standard. This regulation is intended to prevent crib deaths. It's predicted that the regulation will cost both the manufacturing industry and the child care industry as much as 680 million dollars. That might seem worthwhile until you realize that the government is regulating this industry, at great cost to the economy, because of a mere 35 deaths over the last three years of infants that can be traced to defective or ill-designed cribs.

That's more than 14 million dollars per dead child.

And it's important, when trying to understand why those of us who own guns are so vociferous about defending our rights, to know that the anti-gun forces in the US (and abroad) are trying hard, and are lobbying hard, to put gun control under the aegis of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or perhaps the National Institute of Health. One of the plans is to regulate them as a "public health hazard," which is merely a convenient expedient they want to use because they cannot convince Congress to ban guns, so they will use Progressive tactics of regulating them under existing laws to achieve their goal of banning them.

We gun owners are under constant, unrelenting attack, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest boosters of gun bans there is. And then there's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, the most dangerous man in America right now, who is happy to "nudge" society using regulatory authority in defiance of the will of the people to achieve a Progressive agenda.

So you'll just have to forgive us if we draw a hard line when it comes to our natural, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. We've been under attack for nearly a hundred years from Progressives and Liberals, and the battle lines are well drawn.

Fortunately for us, the tide is turning in favor of an armed citizenry in substantial and real ways, at the state level, and we have plenty of pro-gun Republicans and Democrats alike who are keeping the barbarian hordes from the gates at present. But, we cannot afford to be lax or lazy in our defense of our fundamental rights, lest we lose them and become sheeple.

The First Amendment Freedom of Speech is the premier "right" embodied in the Bill of Rights - it is one of the broadest rights that we have as citizens, yet even that is subject to some regulation.

Guns are highly regulated.

What I would suggest for gun rights is not banning, but that in certain places we might not have an unfettered right to exercise it: (1) courtrooms,

Acceptable, so long as EVERYONE is disarmed at a checkpoint and there are armed guards (police officers) there to defend those who have been disarmed.

(2) schools,

You do realize that by banning guns on school and college campuses you are creating "predator free-fire zones" don't you? I suggest exactly the opposite, I suggest that it be the law that some minimum number of teachers and administrators MUST be armed at all times, and that further, strategically placed gun lockers containing shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, accessible only to trained teachers and administrators, be installed in schools, along with other security measures that can compartmentalize the school with the push of a button to keep an active shooter from moving through the school.

Concealed carry for college students over age 21 who have obtained a permit should also be universally lawful, and instructors should also be required to carry arms themselves, since they are responsible for their charges.

(3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire,

Why? Have you heard of a lot of shootings at movie theaters? What happens when the gangbangers who disobey such laws decide to shoot up a movie theater with their illegal guns? What defense do the law abiding of the community have then?

(4) city council meetings in session, etc.,

Why? Unless you're going to search everyone at the door, all you're doing is ensuring that when some angry nutcase with a grudge against the council shows up HE is the only one with a gun in the room. Stupid idea.

and that certain weapons be limited like: (1) M120's, (2) roof-mounted mini-guns firing 2,000+ rounds per minute, (3) LAWS rockets, (4) rocket-propelled grenades, (5) Stinger missiles capable of downing airplanes and helicopters,

Seen a lot of crime committed with lawfully-owned weapons of this sort in the US? .... Didn't think so.

(6) fully automatic weapons, except in limited circumstances, etc.

Did you know that of the more than 400,000 machine guns in private ownership in the US, only ONE of them has ever been used by its lawful owner to commit a crime?

I think there is room for State and local permitting of concealed weapons, perhaps background checks on potential gun owners, and maybe even required/mandatory safety and use training for different types of weapons.

The power to license is the power to deny. When you give the government the power to determine who may and may not possess weapons, it ALWAYS ends up forbidding weapons to all but its own agents. Dangerous precedents are set by exercising prior restraint of a fundamental right.

As for mandatory training, I happen to fully agree. Firearms safety, maintenance and marksmanship training should be mandatory for EVERY CHILD beginning in the first grade and continuing through high school with graduated, age-appropriate training culminating in qualification with pistol and rifle and the issuance of a CCW permit, a government-supplied handgun and a government-supplied battle rifle to every qualified high school graduate.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

The First Amendment Freedom of Speech is the premier "right" embodied in the Bill of Rights - it is one of the broadest rights that we have as citizens, yet even that is subject to some regulation.

Guns are highly regulated.

I agree, they are regulated, to one degree or another, depending on the jurisdiction.

What I would suggest for gun rights is not banning, but that in certain places we might not have an unfettered right to exercise it: (1) courtrooms,

Acceptable, so long as EVERYONE is disarmed at a checkpoint and there are armed guards (police officers) there to defend those who have been disarmed.

Whatever.

(2) schools,

You do realize that by banning guns on school and college campuses you are creating "predator free-fire zones" don't you?

No. I went back to visit my high school, and the only way to get in there was to go through a check-in area and obtain a pass. They didn't let anyone in there armed or who was not known, registered and identified. Public schools can adopt reasonable regulations that they feel are conducive to the safety of their students. Private colleges can make whatever rules they want to make, as far as I'm concerned, whether requiring each student to carry a firearm openly, or the opposite.

I suggest exactly the opposite, I suggest that it be the law that some minimum number of teachers and administrators MUST be armed at all times, and that further, strategically placed gun lockers containing shotguns and semi-automatic rifles, accessible only to trained teachers and administrators, be installed in schools, along with other security measures that can compartmentalize the school with the push of a button to keep an active shooter from moving through the school.

Interesting suggestion, but not one that I agree with.

Concealed carry for college students over age 21 who have obtained a permit should also be universally lawful, and instructors should also be required to carry arms themselves, since they are responsible for their charges.

Such regulations are for the states to make, so I'm against a federal encroachment on states rights there.

(3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire,

Why? Have you heard of a lot of shootings at movie theaters?

Some, yes.

What happens when the gangbangers who disobey such laws decide to shoot up a movie theater with their illegal guns?

People will die. With regard to movie theaters, I think I'd leave it up to the theater owner and make him liable for negligence if he didn't take reasonable steps to keep his patrons safe.

What defense do the law abiding of the community have then?

Guns and other weapons owned and carried lawfully. But, that doesn't mean they can carry them everywhere, anytime, and in whatever manner, without restriction.

(4) city council meetings in session, etc.,

Why?

So that people aren't armed at a time when the city council is evaluating things and making decisions that effect the people who are sitting their armed.

Unless you're going to search everyone at the door,

Happens in most city, state and federal buildings around me. We have metal detectors and security guards checking things out airport-style.

all you're doing is ensuring that when some angry nutcase with a grudge against the council shows up HE is the only one with a gun in the room. Stupid idea.

Hasn't happened around here. Things are pretty safe. I'm comfortable with it.

and that certain weapons be limited like: (1) M120's, (2) roof-mounted mini-guns firing 2,000+ rounds per minute, (3) LAWS rockets, (4) rocket-propelled grenades, (5) Stinger missiles capable of downing airplanes and helicopters,

Seen a lot of crime committed with lawfully-owned weapons of this sort in the US? .... Didn't think so.

That's because they are highly regulated, and it is limited who can own them, and where they can be carried. Mount a minigun on the roof of one's hummer and whether it's loaded or not, you're going to be arrested if you drive that thing through the city where I work.

(6) fully automatic weapons, except in limited circumstances, etc.

Did you know that of the more than 400,000 machine guns in private ownership in the US, only ONE of them has ever been used by its lawful owner to commit a crime?

Good. Sounds like the current restrictions are working well. I'm comfortable with them as is.

I think there is room for State and local permitting of concealed weapons, perhaps background checks on potential gun owners, and maybe even required/mandatory safety and use training for different types of weapons.

The power to license is the power to deny.

Profound.

When you give the government the power to determine who may and may not possess weapons, it ALWAYS ends up forbidding weapons to all but its own agents.

Hasn't seemed to....the government has had this power for some time now, and the trend seems to be toward "shall issue" type permits.

Dangerous precedents are set by exercising prior restraint of a fundamental right.

Well, all fundamental rights have restraints -- there are prior restraints on free speech, like "no obscenity" and "no threats against the life of the President," and whatnot.

As for mandatory training, I happen to fully agree.

The power to require training is the power to make the training so difficult that only a minority of people can pass it...

Firearms safety, maintenance and marksmanship training should be mandatory for EVERY CHILD beginning in the first grade and continuing through high school with graduated, age-appropriate training culminating in qualification with pistol and rifle and the issuance of a CCW permit, a government-supplied handgun and a government-supplied battle rifle to every qualified high school graduate.

I don't see why one would make that "mandatory." I don't want folks telling me what my child must do relative to guns. If someone wants to have a gun, I think it would be fine for the State to require training. I see no reason for the State to have the authority to force someone to be trained for something they aren't doing or going to do.

[colubridae]

It's how they come up with reasonable regulations.

We were specifically talking about banning. Why are you introducing ‘reasonable regulations’.
If you want to blather on about legalities go ahead but it wasn’t what we were discussing.
My discussion is about the moral issues behind ‘banning’ and specifically banning guns.
No one has spoken about reasonable regulations. I’m all in favour of reasonable regulations.

If you want to hijack discussions to promote your views on what is reasonable and what is not, or how well you know the law, go ahead, just count me out.

Yes I’m sure you will glibly claim whatever victory you think you’ve won. Be my guest.
Every single point I made you simply ignored or covered with irrelevant nonsense about how well you can check on satutes and stats. Bravo but beside the point.

You claimed that there was a risk/benefit analysis on gun deaths. It can’t be done, you cannot quantify the benefit to a homeowner of owning a gun. You cannot quantify his/her peace of mind.

I’m sorry but I’m not going to continue with you. You ‘win’ by stamina. My congrats.

This isn’t discussion, it’s verbal marathon. I prefer discussion. Good luck with your life. Etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Where's the fun in that, CES? Why deny myself the opportunity to help you get yourself all worked up?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's how they come up with reasonable regulations.

We were specifically talking about banning. Why are you introducing ‘reasonable regulations’.
If you want to blather on about legalities go ahead but it wasn’t what we were discussing.
My discussion is about the moral issues behind ‘banning’ and specifically banning guns.
No one has spoken about reasonable regulations. I’m all in favour of reasonable regulations.

If you want to hijack discussions to promote your views on what is reasonable and what is not, or how well you know the law, go ahead, just count me out.

Yes I’m sure you will glibly claim whatever victory you think you’ve won. Be my guest.
Every single point I made you simply ignored or covered with irrelevant nonsense about how well you can check on satutes and stats. Bravo but beside the point.

You claimed that there was a risk/benefit analysis on gun deaths. It can’t be done, you cannot quantify the benefit to a homeowner of owning a gun. You cannot quantify his/her peace of mind.

I’m sorry but I’m not going to continue with you. You ‘win’ by stamina. My congrats.

This isn’t discussion, it’s verbal marathon. I prefer discussion. Good luck with your life. Etc.

Well, one, I don't recall there being any parameters set on this discussion relative to banning or reasonable regulation. I've never been talking about a ban, and I think only one or two people posting on this thread are talking about a ban.

If you're talking specifically about banning all guns, then I'm against that, but not on "moral" grounds (because morality is a meaningless term here - and one person's morality is another person's immorality). I am in favor of banning the private ownership of shoulder fired nuclear weapons, uranium tipped bullets and other ammunition, radiological weapons fired from hand-held devices, shoulder fired Stinger missiles capable of bringing down commercial airliners, 2,000 to 6,000 round miniguns, M-60 machine guns, and the like. Beyond weapons like that, I wouldn't advocate banning of automatic weapons completely.

No one has spoken about reasonable regulations? I have. Gawdzilla has. I'm pretty sure everyone except maybe mistermack has. I think even Huxley, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is not in favor of a complete ban on all gun ownership. Maybe you can specify who has been advocating complete gun bans?

"Every single point I made you simply ignored or covered with irrelevant nonsense about how well you can check on satutes and stats." -- that's not true. I addressed every single point you made. Irrelevant nonsense? You asked me for the cost/benefit analysis data - I answered your question. Now you claim that was just about "how well I can check stats?" Bullshit. You asked the question, and now you're pissed off I provided a clear and succinct answer. Well, don't ask questions if you don't want them answered, or at least specify that they are rhetorical.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Page 55.

[Gallstones]

More people die from falling down stairs than from being shot, in the UK. So I should probably call for stairs to be banned if I call for guns to be banned.....

Why not mention alcohol and tobacco? Banning the former was a huge failure. Nobody even tried to ban the latter on account of that failure, even though it's a monumentally bigger killer.

I think you may have shot yourself in the foot.

I think you might have missed my point.

If we should ban cars if we are going to ban guns, then we should also ban stairs, as they are also deadly. Apparently.

Being born is 100% fatal.

[Gallstones]

Page 55.

Is it?

Why yes it is.


Thank you page monitor for that prompt.

[JimC]

Was I imagining it, or were there ostriches being raped earlier in this thread?

[Ian]

Was I imagining it, or were there ostiches being raped earlier in this thread?

I wouldn't be surprised, but I cannot possibly be arsed to look.







See how I used the term "arsed" there? I'm picking up a few things from the Brits around this place.

[Hermit]

Was I imagining it, or were there ostriches being raped earlier in this thread?

If there were, they would only be the ones who allowed criminals to be their masters by immorally and cowardly refusing to equip themselves with pistols, rifles and shotguns. Serves them right, I say.