For the sake of showing how utterly ridiculous any of this tripe that Glorified Ape has put forth is, I've combed through his last response.
Glorified Ape said:
How is it a stupid comparison? So what if it's "more deadly"? If firearm owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions because of criminal behaviour by others, the deadliness of the weapons shouldn't matter since responsible weapon owners don't commit crimes. As for the "strategy" of shooting, from what I've read firing a Russian RPG takes windage considerations at any considerable distance. It's immaterial. The option of using an RPG or mortar for fun is still there, it just takes a larger, more fortified range. Insofar as utility and necessity are concerned, for the average gun owner a firearms is as unnecessary as a RPG.
Who cares about the level of damage done by the weapon - that's something to worry about only if a criminal gets ahold of the weapon, which shouldn't be a consideration in legalizing it because that would punish responsible weapon owners.
Driving 100 KMH on the highway is inherently dangerous - go find the Safe Driving guide and it'll tell you all about reaction times, yadayadayada. But it is a risk that we must allow for the sake of not treating the average citizen like a 2-year old child.
Driving 200 KMH down the highway is dangerous by an exponential factor to the point that the risk is deemed to outweigh the necessity of permitting everbody to bury the needle. So, in the interest of greater public safety, it is deemed unsafe and is illegal and punishable by fine and/or suspension of a license.
The same applies to firearms and your bringing of High Explosive munitions into the equation.
Yes, thank you. That completely misses my point. If one applies the same arguments used for firearms to RPG's, mortars, etc. one inevitably arrives at the conclusion that those weapons should be legal too. To concede otherwise based on the degree damage inflicted, firearm owners would have to acknowledge that A) that potential for criminal misuse should be a consideration in banning weapons, and B) that the damage potential inherent in the weapon should be a consideration (good bye assault rifles).
Again, your lack of any real knowledge of firearms is showing through.
If you can prove financial dependency on the meat you get from hunting, you should be able to have a firearm.
Thanks for that - it is good to know that Big Brother will let me be on this. :
Only because they're not legal, which they should be by some people's logic.
As Michael Dorosh and Wesley pointed out, they (RPG's and Mortars) are legal. If I remember correctly, it is because they don't fit the legal definition of a firearm.
Geez, looks like you're talking out of your hat again.
I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours.
WHOOT, WHOOT, WHOOT!!! TANGENT ALERT!!!
So, now you are going to use taxes as a reason to strip people of property rights? That should be a stretch.
I don't think the "look evil" thing was a consideration. As for military roots not being a legitimate reason for a ban, we're back to RPG's, grenades, and mortars.
So, what is the logical reasons for banning a certain firearm while leaving a different one with similar characteristics as unrestricted. Again, explain the difference between outlawing an FN while leaving an M-14 on the market.
You seem awefully eager to put forth that defence but don't seem willing to back it up with any facts.
Indeed, why ban one when you can ban them all.
Why stop at firearms, hey. You could use that sentence with regards to Rights and Freedoms as well, I guess - then it would just be easier for everyone to appeal to your own (juvenile) impressions of how society works.
I agree - the costs of the programs, both to the public and the government is ridiculous. Far more money would be saved by simply banning them.
To date, you've advocated banning them outright because you don't like them. This is an empty argument that has no logical leg to stand on. Again, you're showing you ideological bent and that you don't really have a clue on what your talking about. Unless you are going to come up with a credible defence of banning all firearms, stick to picking your nose in class and maybe pay attention next time your Poli Sci professor mentions John Locke.
Again, I agree - all the more reason to reduce the availability of deadly implements which, to the overwhelming majority, are completely useless and unnecessary for functioning in daily life.
Overwhelming majority? Care to back that up? Come out of the urban environs and you'd find yourself hard pressed to prove that.
Anyways, since when was the "tyranny of the majority" the way things are done in this country. Your type seems so eager to defend minorities, Iraqis, gays, Latin Americans, and anyone else who happened to interact with the United States, but all of the sudden "majority rules" when it comes to people who enjoy the recreational use of firearms?
HYPOCRITE
Anything can be used as a bat that's sufficiently long and hard. Banning baseball bats isn't going to prevent anyone from using blunt objects to kill.
Is banning firearms going to prevent the use of guns in crimes? If you think so, you got your head in the sand right next to P Kaye.
There aren't many implements that can be used as a gun except a gun.
What is a firearm? A method of projecting an implement (the round). I could use a bow and get the same effect. How about a blowgun? Hell, I could use a rock to throw at some one to bash their skull in if I wanted to.
Weak argument, guy.
As for knives, they are neither useless nor unnecessary for functioning in daily life as they are essential to the preparation of food and have utility as a tool in many other common activities. Firearms fulfull neither criterion.
Shooting is an Olympic sport, both in the Summer and Winter games. Is sport a "common activity"? I don't recall ever seeing a Gold Medal for Knife Fighting.
Weak argument, guy.
Cars go the same as knives - useful, and for rural and suburban populations, necessary to functioning in daily life without imposing undue hardship. Firearms aren't. Gasoline is necessary to the functioning of cars - a legitimate implement - and to various other necessary and useful devices such as generators, tractors, etc.
That's funny, civilization seemed to get by for six thousand years without the automobile. It is a tool, like a firearm. They can be used for malicious purposes (a weapon), they can be used for utility (farming/hunting), they can be used for sport (marksmanship/auto racing), and they can be collected by those who simply find them interesting.
Now, if this activity doesn't extend into criminal areas, is it up to you to decide what others may do with their spare time?
The potential, and intentionally designed lethality of firearms combined with their complete and utter uselessness for the population makes them a prime, and I believe to some degree appropriate, candidates for removal.
Again, you're defining "utility" through your own limited and narrow experiences. It seems that you feel that your own experiences trump those of others.
I said it once, and I'll say it again - Hypocrite, pure and simple.
Dude, your credibility to think coherently around these forums is in the sewers....
One compromise that I think would be decent would be an absolute ban on handguns with the retention of existing restrictions on long guns.
Why?
How about crime rates lower in Canada that are higher in the US? Or lower in Japan that are higher in the US?
Does having a gun have anything to do with a Crime Rate? How about Switzerland, which has a lower crime rate then Canada and the US and where every citizen has an Assault Rifle and Ammunition in their closet?
Linking two different phenomenon - Crime (which may or may not be violent and may or may not involve a firearm and/or weapon) and Gun Ownership - is pretty weak; but after reading your arguements, it's par for the course.
