Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Household chemicals aren't specifically designed to be used in bombs (weapons). Guns are designed to be weapons. Please stop with the invalid comparisons.

Why am I not surprised, more dodging and dismissing. I'm not trying to make a comparison between household chemicals and guns. The point is: if assault rifles had never been invented, this tragedy could still have happened, or possibly been even worse.

[Rukentuts]

Why am I not surprised, more dodging and dismissing. I'm not trying to make a comparison between household chemicals and guns. The point is: if assault rifles had never been invented, this tragedy could still have happened, or possibly been even worse.

You accuse me of dodging, and you're playing the "what-if" game?

[Tinykong]

An even more scary thought, the next mass killer could potentially be alive right this second. He/she could potentially already have a cache of weapons and ammunition. A non-retroactive ban would do absolutely nothing to prevent this hypothetical person from committing the same type of mass murder.

[Lockon Stratos]

Household chemicals aren't specifically designed to be used in bombs (weapons). Guns are designed to be weapons. Please stop with the invalid comparisons.

Actually his comparison is quite valid, you are just ignorant.
I hate to use wikipedia as a source, but in this case it has accurate information:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

In case you're too lazy to educate yourself, the bomb that killed 168 people was made using ammonium nitrate(the nitrate of ammonia with the chemical formula NH4NO3, is a white crystalline solid at room temperature and standard pressure. It is commonly used in agriculture as a high-nitrogen fertilizer, and it has also been used as an oxidizing agent in explosives, including improvised explosive devices. It is the main component of ANFO, a popular explosive. It is used in instant cold packs, as hydrating the salt is an endothermic process.),
Nitromethane is an organic compound with the chemical formula CH3NO2. It is the simplest organic nitro compound. It is a slightly viscous, highly polar liquid commonly used as a solvent in a variety of industrial applications such as in extractions, as a reaction medium, and as a cleaning solvent. As an intermediate in organic synthesis, it is used widely in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, pesticides, explosives, fibers, and coatings. It is also used as a racing fuel in Top Fuel drag racing, and as an important component in the fuel for miniature internal combustion engines that are used in radio-controlled models.

[Tinykong]

You accuse me of dodging, and you're playing the "what-if" game?

I'm pointing out how ridiculous your logic is: banning guns will not prevent mass murders from taking place. They could be obtained illegally, grand fathered, stolen from police/military control, perpetrated with countless other equally effective methods. You're like Cnut the Great setting your throne on the beach and decreeing that the tide won't come in...

[Rukentuts]

Actually his comparison is quite valid, you are just ignorant.

I'm still waiting for the argument that fertilizer was specifically designed to be explosive.

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 12:46 PM ----------

I'm pointing out how ridiculous your logic is: banning guns will not prevent mass murders from taking place. They could be obtained illegally, grand fathered, stolen from police/military control, perpetrated with countless other equally effective methods. You're like Cnut the Great setting your throne on the beach and decreeing that the tide won't come in...

Yeah, my logic is "ridiculous" because I'm the one throwing out fantasy hypothetical scenarios. LOL!

Playing "what-if" doesn't prove anything. But by all means keep trying to believe it's valid.

[Tinykong]

I'm still waiting for the argument that fertilizer was specifically designed to be explosive.

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 12:46 PM ----------

Playing "what-if" doesn't prove anything. But by all means keep trying to believe it's valid.

And pretending that a gun ban is going to prevent mass murders is dangerously ignorant. I’m not surprised, since you seem incapable of separating yourself from the flawed logic that a gun is designed solely to kill humans.

[Porcell]

You accuse me of dodging, and you're playing the "what-if" game?

It's all a what-if game though. What-if assault weapons had been banned, this would never have happened. That's the argument, right? One solution was to allow teachers (who choose to carry) to carry firearms. The response is "Well, what if a student takes it from them" or "What if the teacher accidentally kills someone." All what-if games.

An often repeated statement is "Weapons are designed for killing." Okay. I'll take that as a statement of fact. So what? What does making that statement mean for the anti-gun argument? Yes weapons are designed for killing; that's why I own one and carry it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms that are legally owned and not used to kill people or otherwise used in an illegal way. Why would you ban "assault weapons" because of 500 deaths per year? You shouldn't ban assault weapons for the same reason you shouldn't ban any other item that occasionally is used to commit murder or that occasionally causes a death.

And drunk driving, from a high level perspective, is quite a valid comparison. People unlawfully use an object and cause harm and death to others. Putting further restrictions on alcohol, how you can purchase and use alcohol, might reduce that harm and death, but the 99% of legal alcohol users would clamor about "I use alcohol responsibly, why are you trying to limit my rights?"

[Rukentuts]

It's all a what-if game though. What-if assault weapons had been banned, this would never have happened. That's the argument, right? One solution was to allow teachers (who choose to carry) to carry firearms. The response is "Well, what if a student takes it from them" or "What if the teacher accidentally kills someone." All what-if games.

No, the argument is to lower the possibility of it occurring again.

An often repeated statement is "Weapons are designed for killing." Okay. I'll take that as a statement of fact. So what? What does making that statement mean for the anti-gun argument? Yes weapons are designed for killing; that's why I own one and carry it.

There's a vast difference in the lethal potential of a rifle with 10 rounds in a magazine, and 30. If you don't have the capacity to see this then I shouldn't waste any more time on you.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms that are legally owned and not used to kill people. Why would you ban "assault weapons" because of 500 deaths per year? You shouldn't ban assault weapons for the same reason you shouldn't ban any other item that occasionally is used to commit murder or that occasionally causes a death.

Did you read my post about the difference between restrictions on magazine sizes and bans of these weapons outright?

And pretending

Pot, meet kettle.

[Lockon Stratos]

I'm still waiting for the argument that fertilizer was specifically designed to be explosive.

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 12:46 PM ----------

Yeah, my logic is "ridiculous" because I'm the one throwing out fantasy hypothetical scenarios. LOL!

Playing "what-if" doesn't prove anything. But by all means keep trying to believe it's valid.

Can you not read?

"The chemical compound ammonium nitrate, the nitrate of ammonia with the chemical formula NH4NO3, is a white crystalline solid at room temperature and standard pressure. It is commonly used in agriculture as a high-nitrogen fertilizer, and it has also been used as an oxidizing agent in explosives, including improvised explosive devices. It is the main component of ANFO, a popular explosive. It is used in instant cold packs, as hydrating the salt is an endothermic process."

What does it matter if it was specifically designed or not? The fact is its properties makes it explosive, and any lunatic with a chemistry book and some cold packs or a bag of fertilizer can blow up a bunch of people. Barely educated people can cook meth, are you really as stupid as to think that a guy like James Holmes wouldn't be able to make a bomb using readily available chemicals?

[Tinykong]

I'm still waiting for the argument that fertilizer was specifically designed to be explosive.

---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 12:46 PM ----------

Yeah, my logic is "ridiculous" because I'm the one throwing out fantasy hypothetical scenarios. LOL!

Playing "what-if" doesn't prove anything. But by all means keep trying to believe it's valid.

These aren't fantasy hypothetical scenarios:

Bath School disaster 1927,
Oklahoma City bombing

Both these events claimed more lives than any mass shooting, and had nothing to do with assault rifles.

[bergmann620]

It's all a what-if game though. What-if assault weapons had been banned, this would never have happened. That's the argument, right? One solution was to allow teachers (who choose to carry) to carry firearms. The response is "Well, what if a student takes it from them" or "What if the teacher accidentally kills someone." All what-if games.

An often repeated statement is "Weapons are designed for killing." Okay. I'll take that as a statement of fact. So what? What does making that statement mean for the anti-gun argument? Yes weapons are designed for killing; that's why I own one and carry it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there are hundreds of millions of firearms that are legally owned and not used to kill people or otherwise used in an illegal way. Why would you ban "assault weapons" because of 500 deaths per year? You shouldn't ban assault weapons for the same reason you shouldn't ban any other item that occasionally is used to commit murder or that occasionally causes a death.

That gets back to the other question he refuses to answer:

Who gets to decide which, among the many things we don't need, we will sacrifice in order to save lives?

The next question is,

Do we decide which things we ban/regulate on the basis of cost/benefit, or pure emotion.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Fun fact, you need a 40 hour course to handle hazardous substances that are potentially dangerous on their own when mishandled. Funny how regulations vary.

[Rukentuts]

These aren't fantasy hypothetical scenarios:

Bath School disaster 1927,
Oklahoma City bombing

Both these events claimed more lives than any mass shooting, and had nothing to do with assault rifles.

Like I said, until you can pull up the cognitive capacity to discern that fertilizer wasn't explicitly designed to be explosive, there's no point in attempting to debate you.

Can you not read?

That's funny, I was about to ask you the same thing. Apparently the term "improvised" means nothing to you.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That gets back to the other question he refuses to answer:

Who gets to decide which, among the many things we don't need, we will sacrifice in order to save lives?

The next question is,

Do we decide which things we ban/regulate on the basis of cost/benefit, or pure emotion.

Well if we look at number of deaths caused by a source and completely ignore ease of use or intent of object, we should make sharks with laser beams a legal weapon to use in self defense and ban water. Water kills more people than anything else, but sharks with lasers haven't killed anyone.

Oh and cars/alcohol. Because murderers wake up one day thinking man I'm gonna go kill a bunch of people with alcohol and my car.

[vaeevictiss]

I had three links earlier in this thread about him expanding gun rights, how about you link this "voting record"?

this is just a few...

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...n_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioio...n_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/b..._on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ur...aw-enforcement.)

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bara...un_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.


now while there are a couple in there that i see no problem with, you can see how extreme he gets. I really see no reason people shouldnt be trained if they are to carry a weapon. Even here in VA you have to take a training course to get a CHP. I didnt need to tho as i was Honorably Discharged from the military. Anyone with military or law enforcement do not need the training.

He is no friend to gun owners or 2nd amendment...he is an opportunist waiting on the opportunity....

[Tinykong]

Like I said, until you can pull up the cognitive capacity to discern that fertilizer wasn't explicitly designed to be explosive, there's no point in attempting to debate you.

You don't need just fertilizer to make a bomb. You can buy black powder from a hard ware store by just proving you're over the age of 18. You're completely missing the point, which is why you've activated the "I'm not debating with you" defense. You don't need an assault rifle to easily enact a mass killing.

[Rukentuts]

You don't need just fertilizer to make a bomb. You can buy black powder from a hard ware store by just proving you're over the age of 18. You're completely missing the point, which is why you've activated the "I'm not debating with you" defense. You don't need an assault rifle to easily enact a mass killing.

Apparently your literacy is in question as well when it comes to the term "improvised".

[Mayhem]

I'm pointing out how ridiculous your logic is: banning guns will not prevent mass murders from taking place. They could be obtained illegally, grand fathered, stolen from police/military control, perpetrated with countless other equally effective methods. You're like Cnut the Great setting your throne on the beach and decreeing that the tide won't come in...

while i think banning would be not the best solution... stricter regulations would prevent criminals from getting guns as easy as now, if they´d have to commit another crime just to get the gun the risk of getting caught is pretty much doubled, i´d say criminals are the ones who really don´t want to get caught

you seem to think that obtaining guns illegally is just as easy as getting them legally... is there any logic in there, i fail to see?

[Grizzly Willy]

What does it matter if it was specifically designed or not? The fact is its properties makes it explosive, and any lunatic with a chemistry book and some cold packs or a bag of fertilizer can blow up a bunch of people. Barely educated people can cook meth, are you really as stupid as to think that a guy like James Holmes wouldn't be able to make a bomb using readily available chemicals?

This has already been discussed. Anybody buying enough fertilizer to make a bomb is going to raise a lot of alarms in the process.