Why would the average citizen need to own an AR-15?

[Willie99]

this is the worst argument to make to your opposition.

The difference between a car and a gun is vast.

Life without cars would be a major inconvenience and detrimental to the economy. Cars are worth the risk. But with that said, we're continually getting better. The same is NOT happening with guns.

1. The technology of safety in cars. Cars are engineered to withstand accidents, to save lives. 2. We're trending to a driverless society which in theory should drastically reduce the accidents. 3. laws continually adapt to the automobile.. raised speed limits, lowered speed limits, engineering of roads, understanding of traffic patterns, use of data analytics for such things...

Cars are not intended to be weapons. Guns are.

4. Guns can't be concealed. You see a car coming in most cases, cant bring a car inside a school.... 5. Hitting mass amount of people with a car vs a gun, a gun will do far more damage (see charlottesville. A car rammed through a crowd, one died vs if he was carrying, who knows how many would have died.)

I could continue. But if you want to really talk about guns, I think you only hurt your argument with analogies that don't really apply.

Totally missing my point, it's not the inanimate object that commits a crime, it's the person

And just in case you missed it, cars have been weaponize. ISIS has called for using vehicles to run over large groups of people.

8 people were run over and KILLED in NYC in October 2017
8 people were killed and 46 injured when a van ran over pedestrians in London June 2017
86 people killed and 450+ people injured when a truck was used as a weapon in France July 2016

So my question is this

Were those 102 people killed by the vehicles? or the person driving those vehicles?

Are people who think taking guns away from law abiding citizens also advocating taking vehicles away from law abiding citizens? Maybe we should all be forced to drive smaller, lighter and less powerful vehicles!!!!! Maybe we should all just rude bikes?

It's not about the size of the inanimate object, it's about the intent of the person / criminal.

There are other demographics that would love disarming Americans beside democrats, terrorists and criminals would love that as well (am I being redundant?) .

Go ahead, make their day, lets punish scores of millions of law abiding Americans

whoop whoop whoop

 

[HarryCaray]

Not all people that do this are mentally ill though.

Not this again. You're still beating this drum? Why is it so important to you that everyone else agree with this (very weird) viewpoint?

If you walk into a building and start firing on strangers for no apparent reason...you are mentally unstable, period, 100% of the time, always always always.

 

[Enfuego]

Not this again. You're still beating this drum? Why is it so important to you that everyone else agree with this (very weird) viewpoint?

If you walk into a building and start firing on strangers for no apparent reason...you are mentally unstable, period, 100% of the time, always always always.

You don't have to respond if you don't want to.

 

[slapshot]

gonna go pick me up another one

 

[Enfuego]

Very few serial killers (which we typically associate with a mental illness) have a mental illness. At least to the extent they are considered to be insane by the criminal justice system. The classification to be considered legally insane is that an individual must be unable to comprehend that an action is against the law at the exact moment the action is taken.

 

[slapshot]

Not this again. You're still beating this drum? Why is it so important to you that everyone else agree with this (very weird) viewpoint?

If you walk into a building and start firing on strangers for no apparent reason...you are mentally unstable, period, 100% of the time, always always always.

page 10 I had to do it :toast:

 

[slapshot]

 

[HarryCaray]

Very few serial killers (which we typically associate with a mental illness) have a mental illness. At least to the extent they are considered to be insane by the criminal justice system. The classification to be considered legally insane is that an individual must be unable to comprehend that an action is against the law at the exact moment the action is taken.

You do realize there are varying degrees and manifestations of mental illness between "sane" and "legally insane", right? It's not black and white, it's a spectrum.

To say a serial killer does not have a mental illness just because they couldn't prove themselves insane by the legal standard is ridiculous.

 

[Enfuego]

You do realize there are varying degrees and manifestations of mental illness between "sane" and "legally insane", right? It's not black and white, it's a spectrum.

To say a serial killer does not have a mental illness just because they couldn't prove themselves insane by the legal standard is ridiculous.

I understand your point but the legal standard is all we have.

Killers don't have boundaries. They are very narcissistic and often times shift blame to others. Often times, this kind of behavior is considered a disorder not a mental illness.

 

[HarryCaray]

I understand your point but the legal standard is all we have.

Killers don't have boundaries. They are very narcissistic and often times shift blame to others. Often times, this kind of behavior is considered a disorder not a mental illness.

It's the only standard we have that defines whether or not someone is capable of legal culpability.

If you walk into a room and start shooting strangers, you are mentally unstable, regardless of whether or not you are legally sane.

 

[Enfuego]

It's the only standard we have that defines whether or not someone is capable of legal culpability.

If you walk into a room and start shooting strangers, you are mentally unstable, regardless of whether or not you are legally sane.

In some cases sure. We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[whyguy223]

Easy answer to this post questions. Because we can and always will be able to!

 

[HarryCaray]

Easy answer to this post questions. Because we can and always will be able to!

Cool!!!!!

 

[HarryCaray]

Most gun people just completely refuse to engage in any constructive conversation about change. Just a blanket "you ain't taking my guns" with a reasoning of "because the Constitution".

It's like a sickness. And btw it makes you look really fucking dumb.

 

[whyguy223]

Cool ? No, it's just fact! The gun didn't kill these people. Thats what is lost in all this. It's a horrible what happened but hand gun or rifle doesn't matter. Its people that have issues. It's the Drunk in drunk driving not the car! But Libs and anti-gun people just want to fight the gun but not the real problem.

 

[Enfuego]

Most gun people just completely refuse to engage in any constructive conversation about change. Just a blanket "you ain't taking my guns" with a reasoning of "because the Constitution".

It's like a sickness. And btw it makes you look really fucking dumb.

The change comes when we figure out why kids and adults do this. That's how you initiate positive change. Not take away guns just because.

 

[HarryCaray]

Cool ? No, it's just fact! The gun didn't kill these people. Thats what is lost in all this. It's a horrible what happened but hand gun or rifle doesn't matter. Its people that have issues. It's the Drunk in drunk driving not the car! But Libs and anti-gun people just want to fight the gun but not the real problem.

You're right, the gun doesn't kill these people. The maniac does. The gun just enables the maniac to kill 17 people instead of 2. I guess that's all good in your world, because the founding fathers wrote an amendment that has zero relevance in today's environment.

 

[whyguy223]

Umm,well you can count mass shootings on two hands like you can people that mow down people in trucks or cars or Machete's 20-30-40 at a time trying to kill as many as possible in the last 10 years. You will never take guns away from people. Thats just not going to happen. So that isn't the solution, It's finding away to stop these lunatic people from doing it.

 

[Enfuego]

You're right, the gun doesn't kill these people. The maniac does. The gun just enables the maniac to kill 17 people instead of 2. I guess that's all good in your world, because the founding fathers wrote an amendment that has zero relevance in today's environment.

The 2nd Amendment was created to provide our country's citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. How do you figure this amendment has zero relevance today?

 

[HarryCaray]

The 2nd Amendment was created to provide our country's citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. How do you figure this amendment has zero relevance today?

You just want to constantly fucking argue always about fucking everything. Don't play coy, obviously that amendment was written in a completely different time by people who couldn't even begin to fathom the way the world would be in 200 years.

a) the king of England isn't showing up at your door to take you back to the motherland anytime soon and b) it was written in the days of the musket

Civilians no longer need guns to protect themselves against the federal government, that's fucking ludicrous.

The original intent of the amendment has been warped as reasoning for civilians to stockpile assault weapons with no good reason other than "the constitution says we can".