Nathan F wrote:
I see you aren't very well versed in the applications of semi-automatic pistols. The Colt 1911A1 .45ACP is one of the most popular target shooting and self defense pistols in existence, as well as a weapon widely used in hunting. There are MANY semi-auto pistols that are used for target and hunting purposes.
And the posted guns are, as previously said, effing cool and fun to shoot!
Would you hunt with a fully automatic weapon like an Uzi pistol?
multiple game in close quarters
Look I know you're joking but I want to make a point. The UZI pistol has an effective range of around 50 feet. Which means if you shoot at a deer and attempt to track it on full auto, the bullets will NOT go in the direction you just aimed at for very long. It's fucking dangerous to anybody within your area.
and tell me this... you can honestly say that the thought of popping a few dozen round into a target at the range doen't sound the least bit fun? honestly?
No it sounds like a heck of a good time. But I'm totally ok with sacrificing my potential fun factor here.
Nice red herring. No one here is advocating RPG legalisation on the basis of the fact that shooting them is fun.
Yeah, I know that
It was simply a question about Heston
Oh, OK. Possibly. Heston is becoming less sane by the day.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Alyeska wrote:
Same reason as owning a vehicle that has a top speed above any posted speed limit. Because its fucking cool when used safely and properly. Firing weapons at a firing range, especialy fast semi-autos or fully automatics is FUN.
I bet firing a RPG into a mountain would be even cooler and funnier, let's legalise those!
Nice strawman, you dumb shit.
How was it a straw man? He used "fun" and "cool" as justification for legalising full auto weapons. Why can't we apply this to RPG's too?
RedImperator wrote:
Which brings me to my next point: full auto weapons are already illegal and that's not likely to change. .
*runs over Red Imperator*
They're legal - just have to go through lots of fucking red tape and you
can't own anything made after 1986
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
BoredShirtless wrote:
I bet firing a RPG into a mountain would be even cooler and funnier, let's legalise those!
Nice strawman, you dumb shit.
How was it a straw man? He used "fun" and "cool" as justification for legalising full auto weapons. Why can't we apply this to RPG's too?
Because RPGs are so dangerous by their nature that banning them produces a pretty obvious benefit to the public safety. The weapons Alyeska and others have been referring to aren't.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
BoredShirtless wrote:
How was it a straw man? He used "fun" and "cool" as justification for legalising full auto weapons. Why can't we apply this to RPG's too?
Because RPGs are so dangerous by their nature that banning them produces a pretty obvious benefit to the public safety. The weapons Alyeska and others have been referring to aren't.
Where the government can prove that the weapons in question are in fact dangerous enough to warrant an all-out banning.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Where the government can prove that the weapons in question are in fact dangerous enough to warrant an all-out banning.
Which is proven with full automatic weapons. So why should "fun" and "cool" be used as some sort of leverage against current legislation?
No one here is claiming that it should be used as leverage against current legislation for genuinely dangerous stuff. Just for stuff that hasn't been proven to be dangerous.
And like Red said, it doesn't matter whether something is fun, cool, or necessary; it should only be banned if it produces a objective, verifiable improvement in the public safety.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Come now, surely an RPG used in a proper, safe manner is no threat to anyone?
What about a flamethrower then?
That little thing in the constitution says nothing about a maximum firepower for the arms people have a right to bear afterall....
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Where the government can prove that the weapons in question are in fact dangerous enough to warrant an all-out banning.
Which is proven with full automatic weapons. So why should "fun" and "cool" be used as some sort of leverage against current legislation?
No one here is claiming that it should be used as leverage against current legislation for genuinely dangerous stuff. Just for stuff that hasn't been proven to be dangerous.
So why are full auto weapons banned then, cause the government's a killjoy?
And like Red said, it doesn't matter whether something is fun, cool, or necessary; it should only be banned if it produces a objective, verifiable improvement in the public safety.
Uh you did see my point about using full autos to hunt right?
Keevan_Colton wrote:
What about a flamethrower then?
Flamethrowers ARE legal in the US - hell of a great snow removal
device
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Keevan_Colton wrote:
What about a flamethrower then?
Flamethrowers ARE legal in the US - hell of a great snow removal
device
Piss does it better and cheaper
"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."
Bah, what about a 155mm barriage? Used to be you could literally own
a 155mm howitzer in the US before 1968, then it cost you $200 to register
it and then $200 per shell
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
MKSheppard wrote: then it cost you $200 to register
it and then $200 per shell
EDIT:
Then after 1968 you had to register it, pay $200, and $200 per
shell since it was a "destructive device" with a bore larger than
12.7mm
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
With the money you wasted on the shells and weaponry, I could have a 3 way spaghetti chili and piss on the snow, and have natural fun in the process
"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."
Where the government can prove that the weapons in question are in fact dangerous enough to warrant an all-out banning.
Which is proven with full automatic weapons. So why should "fun" and "cool" be used as some sort of leverage against current legislation?
No it hasn't been. Fully automatic weapons are almost never used in any form of criminal act because they are fucking expensive in the United States and will remain so even without a ban. You don't rob a 7-11 with a 500-1000 dollar rifle or submachine gun you'll have to dump ten minutes later. You don't commit a drive by with a thousand dollar weapon.
And the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. The highest law in the United States says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any additional regulation is infringment so you've got to justify it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Where the government can prove that the weapons in question are in fact dangerous enough to warrant an all-out banning.
Which is proven with full automatic weapons. So why should "fun" and "cool" be used as some sort of leverage against current legislation?
No it hasn't been. Fully automatic weapons are almost never used in any form of criminal act because they are fucking expensive in the United States and will remain so even without a ban. You don't rob a 7-11 with a 500-1000 dollar rifle or submachine gun you'll have to dump ten minutes later. You don't commit a drive by with a thousand dollar weapon.
And the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. The highest law in the United States says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any additional regulation is infringment so you've got to justify it.
Why do you require special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department to own a full automatic weapon? Is it because the government cares about the state of your bank account?
I don't have to prove full auto weapons are more dangerous: legislation already proves it for me.
BoredShirtless wrote:
I don't have to prove full auto weapons are more dangerous: legislation already proves it for me.
By that stupid reasoning slavery was okay because it was legal as well, so is beating your wife and lots of other things. You've proved jack shit.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
BoredShirtless wrote:
I don't have to prove full auto weapons are more dangerous: legislation already proves it for me.
By that stupid reasoning slavery was okay because it was legal as well, so is beating your wife and lots of other things. You've proved jack shit.
not because the law exists, but because of the reason for it. If you can prove that there's an alternate reason besides the fact it's just too damn dangerous, I may conceed [depends on your reason] that "fun" and "cool" could be valid justification for legalising full auto weapons.
IIRC Grenade launchers, mortars, and flamthrowers themselves are legal to have after you've done all of the paperwork and payed all of the various taxes?
Rubberanvil wrote:IIRC Grenade launchers, mortars, and flamthrowers themselves are legal to have after you've done all of the paperwork and payed all of the various taxes?
Yeah but the paperwork is goddamned annoying
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
BoredShirtless, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the banning of automatic weapons boosts public safety. I propose the following:
Compare the percentage of crimes commited with a certain type of automatic weapon before and after it was banned, and see how much the number has dropped. There are probably a few other factors, but this seems reasonable to me.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
HemlockGrey wrote:BoredShirtless, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that the banning of automatic weapons boosts public safety. I propose the following:
Compare the percentage of crimes commited with a certain type of automatic weapon before and after it was banned, and see how much the number has dropped. There are probably a few other factors, but this seems reasonable to me.
Apparently full auto's were banned in 1934. I've got no idea where to look for stats before that.
Regarding a proof. What would the full auto weapon be used for? If you give me context, I will try and show how public safety would be improved if an alternate gun is used.
BoredShirtless wrote:
Apparently full auto's were banned in 1934. I've got no idea where to look for stats before that.
Fucking hell
*pulls out Uzi and fills BS full of fucking LEAD*
They weren't banned. You had to register them and pay a $200 tax for
transfer
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
I see you aren't very well versed in the applications of semi-automatic pistols. The Colt 1911A1 .45ACP is one of the most popular target shooting and self defense pistols in existence, as well as a weapon widely used in hunting. There are MANY semi-auto pistols that are used for target and hunting purposes.
