Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Lucifer1904, Feb 14, 2017.

  1. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Well to be honest, you are right but I'm playing along. It's not a military-type weapon, it's a semi-automatic rifle made to look like a military-type weapon (like an M-16 or M4). The ammo caliber is different and it's not fully-automatic. Altering to make it full-auto is illegal but that's true of any semi-auto rifle.

    Same thing holds true for an AK-47. If it's designed as full-auto, it's a military weapon. If not, it's just another semi-auto rifle like an AR-15.

    Based on this then none of those 49 mass shootings involved a military type weapon.
     
  2. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    You know, it boggles the mind that after all the people we've had killed by guns in this country, you people still want to argue about which guns they used in the mass killings. Will it take one of your family members being a victim before you open up your stinking eyes to the truth? I'm done here.
     
  3. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    You also said this.

    You were the first on this thread to start talking about which guns. Is this a standard tactic to bring up a subject and then mock someone else that argues your subject? Yes "boggles the mind" is a mock attempt although a very weak one.

    One last thing. If I buy a Jeep and paint it olive drab or forest green, does that make it a military type vehicle? Or do I have to go a little further and throw a little camouflage into the body paint? Will that now make it a military type vehicle? Inquiring minds want to know.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2018
  4. ShadowWarload

    ShadowWarload Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    How many mass killing by random people you saw in Europe lately! Teenagers can get emotional too often of silly reasons and if they have access to guns they can become a mass murderer. otherwise, they would just go away from home for a few hours.
     
  5. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    So we prevent emotional teenagers from getting access to guns. Any ideas Shadow?
     
  6. Titris Thrawns

    Titris Thrawns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2017
    Hrmm, I haven't waded into a Gun debate discussion in awhile. Time to see how many blindsides I have.

    Supposition argument: If we take into account police response and/or Blaze of glory types, it certainly would be an advantage to force the 'bad guys' to slow down to switch mags now and then.

    I agree that there isn't much difference other than that, but that seems like a clear advantage for controlling the .01% of crazies who don't bother to secure bigger mags.

    Regardless, it leads to the question of why the rest of us non-crazies need the bigger mags. If the only defense is 'because I want to fire off 30 rounds', then that raises a red flag on that person's 'non-crazy' status in my book. Need > Want would be what I'd support, but I admit that gets subjective quick.

    I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree with your logic. Red Tape = blarg. On the other, if we accept waiting periods as necessary, then the 'once a year' stance isn't tenable. Also, the smart gun buyer will buy in bulk once a year rather than get hit with the cost of multiple background checks a year due to poor impulse control in purchasing.

    I have to ask you to see your sources on the 'most people don't stay angry more than a day or two'. If a crazie has decided they want a gun to shoot someone(s), then I don't think their anger is 'normal'. I suppose another reason for the waiting period is to give authorities a chance to catch up? 10 days may allow them to catch the crazy in the plotting stage? I guess the weakness of that argument is if the background check is done in 2-3 days, then is there an actual check at the end of the 10 day period, or is it just a hopeful 'let's see if the crazy reveals their plan early and gets caught by the authorities before they pick up their gun(s)'.

    Regardless, the sad truth of any regulation in regards to mental state is going to be weird since there is little medical technology can do now to 'quantify' anger cool down. When Medical Technology DOES hit that kind of level... then we have to deal with Minority Report type struggles.

    This kinda ties into the previous point. I'll just add: Forcing everyone to go to a shrink before they buy a gun would be 'nice'... If we could get your previous slippery slope questions answered in a way we like. Probably would need socialized health care to avoid the pitfall of social economic status robbing one of their 2nd amendment right. The issue I have with mental checks, regardless of seriousness, is how it could act as a determent from people getting the help they need for their issues. *shrugs*

    On the one-hand, I agree with Captain America. On the other hand, Stark kinda has a point. I have to go research how Driver's Licenses work now.


    Sadly, I think that has to be part of the argument. Unless all guns are banned, good regulation should take each gun into account. If magazine or 'automatic' status is part of the regulation debate, then this further shows that the 'type of gun' should be looked at. I think the 'type of gun' issue suffers majority to what SJS said about either side working the definitions to fit their agenda.


    Anywho, that probably ended up being more sharing than arguments. I try to play it safe when it comes to guns.
     
    cton2.forge likes this.
  7. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Titris, I'll try to answer each point the best I can.

    And this is where you lost me. There's that word again - 'need'. Government should never have the power to determine what we need unless we prove otherwise.

    I'm thinking more like a license (not much different than a fishing or hunting license) good for one year after passing a background check. Your ID number authorizes you to purchase a gun without having to get a background check to purchase it. Each year you renew it with a background check. Annual fees would pay for the creation of cards and running the data system.

    In regards to them buying bulk once a year, they wouldn't need to since they can buy anytime during that year without having to get a background check.

    Maybe I'm an optimist. I would never expect someone, that suddenly became angry, to stay angry very long once the issue passed. Now, deep-seated anger, means nothing and there's no time-limit how long someone will wait.

    However, the idea that the extra time helps the authorities to catch that person, plotting to do something bad, needs to have some numbers to back it up. How many times has the 10 day period prevented someone from getting a gun who shouldn't have gotten one? What you offer is speculation, what I ask for is proof.

    There's the dilemma we face for the future. At what point, as a society, do we start charging and sentencing people BEFORE they commit a crime?

    Loki has a point also. Think about that the next time you visit the DMV.
     
  8. Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

    Ozyman Tremble Weaklings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    We already do, at least in the US, it's just called a conspiracy to commit.
     
  9. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    That's not the same thing as what I am talking about.
     
  10. Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

    Ozyman Tremble Weaklings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Please enlighten me on the difference.
     
  11. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Sure.

    Conspiracy to commit: In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense.

    1) Requires 2 or more people
    2) Requires at least one overt act

    What I am referring to is charging (even a single person) and sentencing before a crime is even committed. Shades of "Minority Report" kinda. Let's say for example some idiot posts on twitter or facebook that he is going to rob a bank. Or someone overhears him talking about it. He actually hasn't committed a crime yet nor done anything to clearly indicate the crime is going to be committed (other than him saying it). Should he be charged and sentenced?

    The day that starts to happen is the day we are screwed as a society. Wouldn't you agree?
     
  12. Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

    Ozyman Tremble Weaklings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    I think we're already at that point, but the tweeter wouldn't be immediately arrested. The post would be justification enough for a warrant which would then have to provide evidence of an overt act. But people are already being arrested for tweets as an individual, usual justification is that the post is attempting to cause public unrest or undue anxiety to the population as a whole. I don't like this comparison to Minority Report though, those arrests are based off people seeing events happening the future, not just the threat of an event happening.
     
  13. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Good point. Using Minority Report wasn't a good example.

    Again, I was specific about charging and sentencing someone. Law enforcement gets warrants all the time but that doesn't give prosecutors the authority to charge someone and doesn't give a judge the authority to sentence someone unless an actual crime was committed.

    So, once again, what will happen to society when someone can be charged and sentenced for a crime (not conspiracy to commit which is a crime) that they haven't committed yet?
     
  14. Ozyman Tremble Weaklings

    Ozyman Tremble Weaklings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    No need to worry then, the laws will be rewritten to make the threat the offense so they wll be violating the law. So instead of that being reserved just for terrorist threats and threats against anyone under Secret Service protection (only two I can think of off the top of my head) it'll be a blanket law that makes it illegal to even think about breaking a law.
     
  15. ozzonelayyer

    ozzonelayyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2016
    Just what we need. Thought Police.
     

Top