[ElJefe13]

Originally Posted by Blake360

If you actually cared about people dying then you would be complaining that cars aren't safe enough, since far more people die from cars than by guns. The fact that you don't proves you don't care how many people die, you just don't like guns because you're a pansy liberal who goes along with whatever msnbc tells you.

Cars, smoking, and suicides each kill more people than guns each year. Do we see more legislation against smoking? Against cars? Do we see more help for suicidal people? Not really. Liberals are pushing this because it'll make headlines and get them reelected. Republicans are saying the opposite for the same reasons. The political garbage politicians are spewing has nothing to do with the issues, and everything to do with their own personal power.

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by Ford

In the North Hollywood shootout, the attackers couldn't care less how many cops with guns were on sight.

That's because Phillips and Mătăsăreanu were bank robbers, not mass murderers in the sense that we're discussing.

Originally Posted by Ford

Columbine had armed police officers on campus and immediately after the attack began, and they had no impact.

True enough, but you have to remember that the police on the scene at Columbine initially made little effort to confront the killers, they merely worked to contain the perimeter, as per commonly-accepted police doctrine at the time. The ensuing massacre lead to a complete reworking of police protocol in "active shooter" situations.

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by ElJefe13

Cars, smoking, and suicides each kill more people than guns each year. Do we see more legislation against smoking? Against cars? Do we see more help for suicidal people? Not really. Liberals are pushing this because it'll make headlines and get them reelected. Republicans are saying the opposite for the same reasons. The political garbage politicians are spewing has nothing to do with the issues, and everything to do with their own personal power.

Wow, you and Blake believe cars and tobacco are not regulated. Cars have safety systems Built in (from design) to help save lives in case of misuse. This comparing cars to guns is complete bull****... Lets stop pretending the intended use and design of these two things are equal.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

Wow, you and Blake believe cars and tobacco are not regulated. Cars have safety systems Built in (from design) to help save lives in case of misuse. This comparing cars to guns is complete bull****... Lets stop pretending the intended use and design of these two things are equal.

If the intended use of cars isn't to kill people, than why do they kill more people than guns where the intended use of guns is to kill people according to you? This should tell you that either guns are much safer than cars, or cars are much more dangerous than guns. Either way, it doesn't look very good for your argument, so it's no surprise you don't want to talk about it.

[ElJefe13]

Originally Posted by marcozombie

Wow, you and Blake believe cars and tobacco are not regulated. Cars have safety systems Built in (from design) to help save lives in case of misuse. This comparing cars to guns is complete bull****... Lets stop pretending the intended use and design of these two things are equal.

I didn't say they weren't regulated. They're regulated similarly to how guns are regulated.

[spracks21]

Originally Posted by Blake360

If the intended use of cars isn't to kill people, than why do they kill more people than guns where the intended use of guns is to kill people according to you? This should tell you that either guns are much safer than cars, or cars are much more dangerous than guns. Either way, it doesn't look very good for your argument, so it's no surprise you don't want to talk about it.

Probably because virtually everybody has, and uses, a car....what was your point again?

[marcozombie]

Originally Posted by Blake360

If the intended use of cars isn't to kill people...

TapdancingChrist...

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Too young to buy a weapon, too reclusive to use a friends. Of course this is just this case.

Too young to buy a handgun, not too young to buy a long gun.

Originally Posted by Ford

Neither High capacity rounds, or more guns on campus have any evidence backing up that they would make any impact.

And you have no evidence that they wouldn't. What is your point?

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by spracks21

Probably because virtually everybody has, and uses, a car....what was your point again?

How is that an excuse for being okay with the fact that they kill far more people than guns do?

[spracks21]

Originally Posted by Blake360

How is that an excuse for being okay with the fact that they kill far more people than guns do?

I'm not ok with that. But I also don't want to ban all cars, just like I don't want to ban all guns. But the idea (You can let me know if this is not your position) that more guns will lead to less gun violence, seems to be in direct conflict with the car analogy you used earlier. While I am not against banning the use of cars, doing so would decrease the amount of car deaths per year, obviously. But, we need cars for transportation, which is their designed purpose. We don't need over the top weapons that are designed to kill efficiently, in civillian hands, in every day modern society. Citizens are not going to be armed as well as the military, and that's just how it is. We won't allow millionaires to buy tanks and black hawks, or average Americans to buy RPGs. Deal with it.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

I'm never going to agree to ban sales to people like his mother. In my eyes, the school shooting was unavoidable from a firearm legislative perspective and comes with the territory of right to ownership.

You should support a gun tax then.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by spracks21

I'm not ok with that. But I also don't want to ban all cars, just like I don't want to ban all guns. But the idea (You can let me know if this is not your position) that more guns will lead to less gun violence, seems to be in direct conflict with the car analogy you used earlier.

That's not an accurate comparison because you can't defend yourself from someone driving their car into you, unlike the case is with guns.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

You should support a gun tax then.

If you think the government should get even more money, you're free to give them your own. Nobody's stopping you.

[spracks21]

Originally Posted by Blake360

That's not an accurate comparison because you can't defend yourself from someone driving their car into you, unlike the case is with guns.

So you agree that the entire car-gun analogy is bull**** then?

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by spracks21

So you agree that the entire car-gun analogy is bull**** then?

No, because my analogy actually made sense. Your analogy was not the same as mine. The fact that the subject was cars in both cases doesn't mean it was the same analogy. Hone up on your reading skills before replying.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by spracks21

We won't allow millionaires to buy tanks and black hawks, or average Americans to buy RPGs. Deal with it.

Who's we? If you have the money, you can buy any of those as a civilian. You won't have the military electronics on the blackhawk but you'll get the bird. As far as the RPG goes, all NFA rules apply. Did I mention you can buy a tank too?

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-527225.html

[spracks21]

Originally Posted by Blake360

No, because my analogy actually made sense. Your analogy was not the same as mine. The fact that the subject was cars in both cases doesn't mean it was the same analogy. Hone up on your reading skills before replying.

Your analogy did not make sense either, hate to break it to you. Which is why cars and guns are not equatable. They serve different functions, require different precautions for safe use, and are not used in the same numbers and environments. For example, cars are used every day by most people in the US. Guns are not. If you need pictures to tell the difference between a gun and a car, I will oblige.

[spracks21]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

Who's we? If you have the money, you can buy any of those as a civilian. You won't have the military electronics on the blackhawk but you'll get the bird. As far as the RPG goes, all NFA rules apply. Did I mention you can buy a tank too?

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-527225.html

Can you fire the cannon, buy the ammo, and drive them around the streets? Should you be able to? Can you buy the black hawk as it is equipped, guns and all, and fly it around wherever you want? Should you be able to? What about bomber drones? Should civilians be able to own and use these?

If you are taking the position that there should be no limit to the kind of arms civilians can buy, then you are either stupid or a nutcase. Would you really want to live in a society where the richest Americans can legally purchase tanks and air craft bombers, and essentially build their own private armies?

[SniperForce-Duffek]

It was to prove that you don't know what you are talking about. You said "we won't allow..." when 'we' clearly do.

[spracks21]

Originally Posted by SniperForce-Duffek

It was to prove that you don't know what you are talking about. You said "we won't allow..." when 'we' clearly do.

We legally allow fully equipped military vehicles and RPGs to be used and purchased by civilians? We allow people to raise private armies, with equal resources as our national military? (Don't pretend you didn't know I meant that we can't buy these military items with the attatched weaponry. That's the whole damn discussion. Arms/weaponry. We aren't talking about ways to joyride.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

What you meant and what you said are two very different things. And yes, a civilian can own RPGs, grenades and m2 .50 cal machine guns with the right paperwork and cash to support it. Know how easy it is to stick a 50 cal on a civilian blackhawk? It's not that hard. Pretty sure there was an m114 for sale in those links for 70k. While it doesn't come with a canon, it's still fully equipped, minus military tracking systems.