Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.
The sperm and egg that eventually made me would have found his post clever.
yes, i can control them. they usually do what i need them to.
the single celled life that eventually became the ancestors of the mitochondria in my cells would have guffawed heartily at that post if they had a central nervous system and some sort of apparatus for modulating and producing sound
You realise that both of those examples you keep bringing up were extremely sophisticated plots carried out over a period of months? There are also a lot of restrictions on the sales of explosives and fertilisers now in order to present such plans being picked up and stopped before they occur. If someone wants to commit a mass shooting they can purchase a gun, drive to a public area and start shooting. That's a couple of days tops. Implying that very large bombs and automatic weapons are somehow equal in that respect is silly.
Even more ludicrous is the 'people will still kill each other so why bother trying to prevent some of them doing so.'
The stars that exploded with the matter that would eventually become life would have solar flared in a pattern whose frequency mimics human laughter had they come to the knowledge of that post's contents.
That's why I'm not opposed to an assault weapons ban, a waiting period, background check and even a form of licensing.
Sure, bombs have the potential to kill more people at once, but that's kind of a stupid analogy as very few folks take the time to make a bomb. Reference how many mass killings (not terrorism massacres) were done with bombs vs how many with guns.
Guns allow the shooter to distance himself and maximize the casualties compared to knives, bats, etc.
I don't advocate banning guns in total: the Supreme Court has spoken and it is not possible to ban guns. I do advocate more controls, more training, more enforcement of existing laws and anything possible to reach and treat mental illness...
Penn and Teller already solved this problem (warning: language).
You do realize what gun violence is like in Japan and the U.K. and other nations that have all but banned guns, right? This logic is horrible. And it is wrong.
Please, someone explain to me how the inconvenience of tighter restrictions and background checks outweighs the lives of the thousands and thousands of people who die unnecessarily from gun violence every year. 20 of whom are now kindergartners that joined such a sad and pathetic statistic today.
And I find few things more frustrating than gun supporters cry that now is "not the time" to have this conversation and we must only mourn. When is the time? Because they happen so frequently that it's irresponsible to prevent this discussion by hiding behind the sadly perpetually reoccurring shield of being too close a tragedy.
I'd add limitations on ammo ownership (you don't need 6,000 rounds), restrictions on body armor (you don't need a full suit), limitations on extended clips and an outright ban on hundred round drums.
Trouble is they did it a long time ago before all the games and wide availability. The market is too rich to try and get rid of them all you, have to ban them the whole world over which won't happen. Sure, regulate. But again law abiding obeys, criminals do not.
We realize the criminals are not some separate species of human beings? That they are people, who, like everyone else, choose at every particular moment to do the right or wrong thing? And that those choices are influenced by the risks, benefits, and effort required to do any given thing? So that some of the people that now decide to use guns would probably not do so if it become a bigger hassle?
Would you support tougher restrictions - waiting periods, rigorous background checks, the closing of the gun show loophole?
I mean, many women have to undergo a psychological evaluation in order to get a boob job. I think it would be helpful to require people to undergo an evaluation in order to receive a permit to carry a firearm.
Really? A psych eval for a boob job?
For those who don't want to pay out of pocket, it has to be justifiable to insurance as something more than a cosmetic vanity project. Asserting that it would help redress some psychological derangement (eg depression related to body image) is one way to do that.
While that might be a good idea, I don't know how you'd make that one stick, unfortunately, although I can see the arguments for it.
it was a dumb post
penn and teller are dumber than the average jcer
that would generate some amazing data. putting psychiatrists in rooms with the kind of people who apply for CCW
Eh. Let it be. I'm more concerned about losing my life on the highways than losing my life from a gunshot. I'm not going to spoil anyone else's fun.
what fun? spree killing fun?
Contrary to your beliefs, the vast majority of gun owners don't actually kill anybody, nor do they care to.
The problem with gun control is that the far left careens over the threshold of common sense for what is necessary and proper, even going so far in some cases as to not even know what the hell they are banning to begin with.