Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #302541 is a reply to message #302536] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 14:29   |
|
|
| IronWarrior |
Good try in an answer but no.
It is harder to build a bomb then it is to pull a trigger on a gun.
It is much harder for a human to kill a other human with a knife then it is with a gun.
And trying to mass murder people with a knife is not like counter strike, also the chances of a person living after being stabbed is higher then it is with a gun.
I talk from experience my friend.
|
The point is, if someone has the intention of hurting others, nothing is going to stop them.
If he obtained the rifle illegally, it would only further my point that you're not going to keep the weapons out of a criminal's hands if he wants it. Then, the best way to combat these situations is to let law abiding citizens who are on the scene respond to the situation. Obviously, anybody THERE would be able to respond to the shooter quicker than any police force ever could.
So now that we (should) realize that banning weapons doesn't affect a determined person's desires to go on a killing spree, there's no reasonable explanation as to why we should keep the gun out of the reach of law-abiding citizens. If a shooting does occur, law-abiding citizens react much quicker than an absent police force which would otherwise take minutes to arrive on the scene to combat the killer who may have already taken more victims. Oh, and citizens retain more of their liberties!
Yay for logic.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Tue, 11 December 2007 14:31] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #302560 is a reply to message #302541] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 15:58 |
 |
IronWarrior
Messages: 2460
Registered: November 2004
Location: England UK
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 15:29 |
| IronWarrior |
Good try in an answer but no.
It is harder to build a bomb then it is to pull a trigger on a gun.
It is much harder for a human to kill a other human with a knife then it is with a gun.
And trying to mass murder people with a knife is not like counter strike, also the chances of a person living after being stabbed is higher then it is with a gun.
I talk from experience my friend.
|
The point is, if someone has the intention of hurting others, nothing is going to stop them.
If he obtained the rifle illegally, it would only further my point that you're not going to keep the weapons out of a criminal's hands if he wants it. Then, the best way to combat these situations is to let law abiding citizens who are on the scene respond to the situation. Obviously, anybody THERE would be able to respond to the shooter quicker than any police force ever could.
So now that we (should) realize that banning weapons doesn't affect a determined person's desires to go on a killing spree, there's no reasonable explanation as to why we should keep the gun out of the reach of law-abiding citizens. If a shooting does occur, law-abiding citizens react much quicker than an absent police force which would otherwise take minutes to arrive on the scene to combat the killer who may have already taken more victims. Oh, and citizens retain more of their liberties!
Yay for logic.
|
Just because you are a law-abiding citizen today, doesn't mean you will be tomorrow, this is where your logic fails.
This is the same logic to justfiy the Nuclear Arm race, they have nukes, we gotta have nukes, they have 10,000 tanks, we need 20,000 tanks and so on.
Thing about the guns in the USA, is that you can buy high grade military types, there is really no need for a person to have a machine gun of military grade.
Rifles and shotguns yes, they are used for hunting, if they are used in a crime, then the death toll should be lower as these weapons are slower loading then a mag fed weapon.
As always, if a person ever loses it, am happy to take him on if he holds a knife, but if he has a gun, all he needs to do is pull the trigger.
But with a knife, I have a fair chance of taking him down.
I also gotta say this, even if you do have a gun, doesn't mean you gotta use it to defend yourself, most humans will sit themselfs while they let the guy carry on killing.
The answer is not to give guns to people, but have a bigger police force.
[Updated on: Tue, 11 December 2007 15:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #302562 is a reply to message #302541] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 15:59 |
 |
BlueThen
Messages: 2402
Registered: February 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 15:29 |
| IronWarrior |
Good try in an answer but no.
It is harder to build a bomb then it is to pull a trigger on a gun.
It is much harder for a human to kill a other human with a knife then it is with a gun.
And trying to mass murder people with a knife is not like counter strike, also the chances of a person living after being stabbed is higher then it is with a gun.
I talk from experience my friend.
|
The point is, if someone has the intention of hurting others, nothing is going to stop them.
If he obtained the rifle illegally, it would only further my point that you're not going to keep the weapons out of a criminal's hands if he wants it. Then, the best way to combat these situations is to let law abiding citizens who are on the scene respond to the situation. Obviously, anybody THERE would be able to respond to the shooter quicker than any police force ever could.
So now that we (should) realize that banning weapons doesn't affect a determined person's desires to go on a killing spree, there's no reasonable explanation as to why we should keep the gun out of the reach of law-abiding citizens. If a shooting does occur, law-abiding citizens react much quicker than an absent police force which would otherwise take minutes to arrive on the scene to combat the killer who may have already taken more victims. Oh, and citizens retain more of their liberties!
Yay for logic.
|
It'd minimize murder though.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Man returns gun ammo to walmart at 1300 feet per second [message #302594 is a reply to message #283422] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 18:23 |
|
|
What part of "PEOPLE WILL OBTAIN THE WEAPONS REGARDLESS OF THEIR LEGALITY" do you people not understand? If they're going to murder someone, they're not going to care about whether or not the weapon is illegal.
If I'm going to snap, I'm going to harm someone whether or not I have a gun, and if I attack someone, it's probably going to be someone I can overwhelm WITHOUT the use of a gun, so you fighting back would be futile. However, a person planning a killing spree doesn't just "snap" and immediately take action. They usually plan out everything, which explains why people have several thousand rounds with them and several weapons. These are the people you have to watch out for, and these are the people you can't prevent from obtaining illegal weapons.
If I want a fully-automatic weapon, I should have every right to own one. Do I need one? No, but we don't NEED most of the things we have. We could do without computers and games. We could do without cars and currency. If you want to live with no luxuries, that's fine, but owning high powered weapons is just another luxury some people are interested in.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 14 00:29:46 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00878 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
