Free Flight, Free Speech

Now they want to toughen up gun control to stop terrorists. How idiotic can they get? Do they realy think they will stop terrorists that way? All gun control means is that the chaps who need them won't have them. It seems Clinton, Obamo, and the rest of those twerps have never heard of the black market.

But wait a second--YOU DON'T NEED A GUN FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK! Look at the Boston Bombing! No guns required. Hang it all I could make an effective bomb in my bedroom! Or I could take fertilizer and add gasoline or diesel, and make a very nasty bomb
So if you are going to stop terrorism by banning things you will have to ban everything from gardening to science classes. How can they not see this?

Heck, you could just as well make a bomb in the toilet using.... digested food.
Some people believe this is because Obama is secretly Muslim and wants nobody to have guns to defend themselves when ISIS come.... a bit too far, I think?

But I don't like Trump either.

MIG29pilot wrote:Now they want to toughen up gun control to stop terrorists. How idiotic can they get? Do they realy think they will stop terrorists that way? All gun control means is that the chaps who need them won't have them. It seems Clinton, Obamo, and the rest of those twerps have never heard of the black market.

But wait a second--YOU DON'T NEED A GUN FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK! Look at the Boston Bombing! No guns required. Hang it all I could make an effective bomb in my bedroom! Or I could take fertilizer and add gasoline or diesel, and make a very nasty bomb
So if you are going to stop terrorism by banning things you will have to ban everything from gardening to science classes. How can they not see this?

If that's your opinion then I think you should ask yourself, and answer, the questions of:

1: should there be any limitations on what types of weapons individuals should be allowed to own?

2: if the answer to #1 is "yes", then what procedure or guiding principle will you use to determine where to draw the line?

I'd like to know the answer as well.

Yes, I do think they aught to ban assault rifles, but leave other guns unbanned. Nobody really needs such guns, even for hunting or home defense, and as this incident proves they can be very easily converted into machine guns. However, if someone at (INSERT_SHOOTING_HERE) had been able to pull out a pistol and shoot (TERRORST'S_NAME_HERE) it would have saved lives. Therefore my policy would be to ban assault weapons and leave other weapons under current restriction. Also, I would ban persons who have in their home other persons under the age of ~16 from owning guns, unless the younger parties proved themselves in official tests to be responsible and competent in the use of firearms.

MIG29pilot wrote:Yes, I do think they aught to ban assault rifles, but leave other guns unbanned. Nobody really needs such guns, even for hunting or home defense, and as this incident proves they can be very easily converted into machine guns.

So while you didn't answer the second question clearly, the above hints at an answer. It seems to me that your worry with assault rifles and machine guns is their capacity to cause greater harm. But not only that, you also touch upon "needs" such as "hunting". So you have really implied two different issues here:

1: Intended use.
2: Capacity to harm.

Now, consider the following, because I think it shows why your reasoning is flawed in the first post:

1. Intended use;

Guns = to kill and maim.
Fertilizer = to fertilize soil.
Diesel = to fuel machines.

2. Capacity to harm;

Guns = great.
Fertilizer = very low.
Diesel = low.

The common arguments from those advocating ownership of guns is that cars kill more people. But we don't use cars when we go to war, we use guns. We use guns because they're better at killing. They're better at killing because that's their purpose. If none of this mattered we should ban cars. We should ban spoons and we should ban pillows. We obviously don't, because the intended usage and utility are different, and the potential to do harm is different. That's why your argument doesn't make sense.

It would make sense if you simply said "I think people should be allowed to own hand guns for self defense, and simple rifles for hunting". But pointing to other things being potentially harmful is illogical.

MIG29pilot wrote:However, if someone at (INSERT_SHOOTING_HERE) had been able to pull out a pistol and shoot (TERRORST'S_NAME_HERE) it would have saved lives.

You don't know that. That person could have been a gun owner with terrible aim or terrible ability to choose targets. The person could have killed more innocents by aiming poorly, or misunderstanding who was doing the shooting, before him/her getting killed after which the terrorists just continue. The same argument was made in the theater shooting; but imagine trying to find your target in a poorly lit theater with people panicking.

Further more, look at police shootings. Those are people that have been trained to use a weapon, supposedly educated on what the law says, and educated on what to do in tough situations. Now, in the video that was recently made public on the police officer that shot a kid, what did we see, and what commentary did we hear before? Before the video was released officials representing the police said that the cop shot the kid once, because the kid had a knife and charged the officer. Then the video came out, and immediately before its release the officer was charged with murder, because the video shows how the kid did NOT charge the officer, and how the officer fired MANY shots, several of them in the kid's back.

Now, ask yourself: Why should we expect better from "normal" people when those who are "educated" and chosen to protect us so frequently end up killing people for no good reason? Again, I think your argument is lacking. I think it is nothing more than wishful thinking (and if I remember correctly statistics back this up).

MIG29pilot wrote: Therefore my policy would be to ban assault weapons and leave other weapons under current restriction. Also, I would ban persons who have in their home other persons under the age of ~16 from owning guns, unless the younger parties proved themselves in official tests to be responsible and competent in the use of firearms.

I have no problem with the above. And for the record: I am in principle in favor of gun ownership, but I don't think Americans are mature enough generally speaking to be trusted with them.

Here's another example, when Gabriel Giffords was shot in the mass shooting in Tuscon, there was a CCW carrier in the immediate vicinity who pulled out his weapon and started running towards the gunfire.

His problem, that another person had managed to grab Jared Lee Loughner, and subdued him, just as this gun owner got closer with his gun ready. He said that if he had tried to just shoot Loughner he might have ended up wounding or killing the only person who had subdued Loughner. Play this scenario out with about 6 or a dozen other eager to dispense justice CCW'ers in a crowded group situation.

BTW the OP's title is a bit of a troll and inflammatory, but it's not unexpected given the source.

I have a fascination with guns and military equipment just like I do with airplanes. But I would probably never own one, even if the law in my country allows it (currently where I stay it's extremely hard to get a license for just a hunting rifle alone). And even with hunting rifles, there are enough incidents in my country where people went on a shooting spree with hunting rifles, (which can't load quickly enough) so the fatality rate is low in any of such cases.

If a person goes on a killing spree, they can use anything to do so; vehicles, knife, even homemade pistols or motolov cocktails, etc... in most of those cases, you have enough time to get out of the way or fatality would be minimal, but if that person has a proper gun, that is a much too effective tool for precisely that purpose and it can become a real massacre very very quickly. And you can never guarantee if they will use it out of anger, or it gets stolen and the other side has the upper hand..

LesterBoffo wrote:Here's another example, when Gabriel Giffords was shot in the mass shooting in Tuscon, there was a CCW carrier in the immediate vicinity who pulled out his weapon and started running towards the gunfire.

His problem, that another person had managed to grab Jared Lee Loughner, and subdued him, just as this gun owner got closer with his gun ready. He said that if he had tried to just shoot Loughner he might have ended up wounding or killing the only person who had subdued Loughner.

And just how do we know if yet another gun-carrying person would mistake this good samaritan as the bad guy and shot him instead? If I were him I would think twice about drawing a gun out in such scenario.....

The problem is not the gun, the problem is the guy wielding it. This one obviously applied the old rule of observing, analysing, acting. While I am eprsonally a supporter of the 2nd Amendment (gun control has been proven as ineffective against terrorist attacks anyway) I also promote the idea that prior to handing a firearm to anybody at least a course how to handle it should be mandatory and this course should aside of how to fire it also include strategies like observe, analyse, act, maintenance and storage.

Lydiot wrote:

MIG29pilot wrote:Yes, I do think they aught to ban assault rifles, but leave other guns unbanned. Nobody really needs such guns, even for hunting or home defense, and as this incident proves they can be very easily converted into machine guns.

So while you didn't answer the second question clearly, the above hints at an answer. It seems to me that your worry with assault rifles and machine guns is their capacity to cause greater harm. But not only that, you also touch upon "needs" such as "hunting". So you have really implied two different issues here:

1: Intended use.
2: Capacity to harm.

Now, consider the following, because I think it shows why your reasoning is flawed in the first post:

1. Intended use;

Guns = to kill and maim.
Fertilizer = to fertilize soil.
Diesel = to fuel machines.

2. Capacity to harm;

Guns = great.
Fertilizer = very low.
Diesel = low.

The common arguments from those advocating ownership of guns is that cars kill more people. But we don't use cars when we go to war, we use guns. We use guns because they're better at killing. They're better at killing because that's their purpose. If none of this mattered we should ban cars. We should ban spoons and we should ban pillows. We obviously don't, because the intended usage and utility are different, and the potential to do harm is different. That's why your argument doesn't make sense.

It would make sense if you simply said "I think people should be allowed to own hand guns for self defense, and simple rifles for hunting". But pointing to other things being potentially harmful is illogical.

Recipe for possibly the worst terror attack yet: Pickup truck + Large barrel of fertilizer + diesel + match == explosion capable of bringing buildings down. Ammonia fertilizer with diesel are EXTREMELY explosive.

MIG29pilot wrote:However, if someone at (INSERT_SHOOTING_HERE) had been able to pull out a pistol and shoot (TERRORST'S_NAME_HERE) it would have saved lives.

You don't know that. That person could have been a gun owner with terrible aim or terrible ability to choose targets. The person could have killed more innocents by aiming poorly, or misunderstanding who was doing the shooting, before him/her getting killed after which the terrorists just continue. The same argument was made in the theater shooting; but imagine trying to find your target in a poorly lit theater with people panicking.

Further more, look at police shootings. Those are people that have been trained to use a weapon, supposedly educated on what the law says, and educated on what to do in tough situations. Now, in the video that was recently made public on the police officer that shot a kid, what did we see, and what commentary did we hear before? Before the video was released officials representing the police said that the cop shot the kid once, because the kid had a knife and charged the officer. Then the video came out, and immediately before its release the officer was charged with murder, because the video shows how the kid did NOT charge the officer, and how the officer fired MANY shots, several of them in the kid's back.

Now, ask yourself: Why should we expect better from "normal" people when those who are "educated" and chosen to protect us so frequently end up killing people for no good reason? Again, I think your argument is lacking. I think it is nothing more than wishful thinking (and if I remember correctly statistics back this up).

I'm thinking more of Islamic terrorists than of lunatics. Take the Sydney siege--there could have been little doubt inside as to who was the bad guy.

MIG29pilot wrote: Therefore my policy would be to ban assault weapons and leave other weapons under current restriction. Also, I would ban persons who have in their home other persons under the age of ~16 from owning guns, unless the younger parties proved themselves in official tests to be responsible and competent in the use of firearms.

I have no problem with the above. And for the record: I am in principle in favor of gun ownership, but I don't think Americans are mature enough generally speaking to be trusted with them.