or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 33

post #481 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

So we should allow police to have them? Are police not people?

Fuck off, Europoor. You don't have any voice here anyway and it is none of your business.

Falcon, I am nominating you for a Joe Louis Award.

The award to the individual who most succeeds in displaying traits that are a credit to his race.

Congrats!

PS: This is much more prestigious than a Nobel.
post #482 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

So we should allow police to have them? Are police not people?
Fuck off, Europoor. You don't have any voice here anyway and it is none of your business.

This terror attack happened in Europe mate, so bugger off
post #483 of 1434
Turkey isn't in europe
post #484 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

Turkey isn't in europe

Ataturk Airport is on the western bank of Instanbul, it is Europe
post #485 of 1434

Let's be real, Turkey isn't Europe. It's partly on the European Continent but it's not Europe. 

post #486 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

laws can be broken, therefore laws are stupid

only bad guys break the law, therefore laws are stupid

hurr hurr HIGH FIVES ALL AROUND WE WON THE ARGUMENT AGAIN

Laws work when applied to normal society. They don't tend to work well when applied to suicide bombers who, by definition, aren't going to be around to face consequences. Expecting deterrents to have similar effects on ordinary citizens and suicide bombers doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

and you shouldn't give them AK47s either

The handgun in my nightstand holds 17 rounds in a standard mag (they make 33rd mags for it). It's semi-automatic, just like the AK-47s available to the public. Why should we allow one but not the other?

This rifle can hold 20 (or more) rounds. Should we allow it to be sold?

post #487 of 1434
Unless you have a FFL you can't sell or buy that assault rifle. Likewise AK-47s, which are not available to the public.
post #488 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The handgun in my nightstand holds 17 rounds in a standard mag (they make 33rd mags for it). It's semi-automatic, just like the AK-47s available to the public. Why should we allow one but not the other?

This rifle can hold 20 (or more) rounds. Should we allow it to be sold?

 

Really, thats the only difference between a handgun and a rifle?

 

You can't just choose one characteristic and say - well, this small subset is equal, therefore the whole object is equal.

post #489 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Really, thats the only difference between a handgun and a rifle?

You can't just choose one characteristic and say - well, this small subset is equal, therefore the whole object is equal.

You're right. Pistols are used for far more murders than all rifles combined.
post #490 of 1434
Rifles are much deadlier if you have time to line up a shot. Handguns are less accurate as a result of barrel length, recoil, and trigger feel. But they are much better in close quarters. Being able to adjust one's aim quickly, with a wider field of view, is important when confronted with desks, walls, doors, and a quickly moving target.
post #491 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


You're right. Pistols are used for far more murders than all rifles combined.

This has zero to do with my argument. I did not argue for, or against, banning. Merely that the ability to have the same number of rounds in a magazine and ability to go semi-auto does not mean they are the same as a whole.

post #492 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Really, thats the only difference between a handgun and a rifle?

You can't just choose one characteristic and say - well, this small subset is equal, therefore the whole object is equal.

No, but it's an important similarity when considering the arguments we hear. The most common arguments relate to capacity and how quickly they can fire. Plenty of handguns and non-scary rifles share those features. Most of these mass shootings happen in confined spaces. You don't need a rifle for that. It's true that rifles are easier to shoot accurately at almost all distances beyond point blank range, but when the victims are taken hostage and trapped in a small room, it doesn't really matter. My question of why ban one and not the other isn't for hardcore gun control advocates who want to outlaw private ownership of just about every gun, but for people who think that banning certain types of rifles is going to be effective.
post #493 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

No, but it's an important similarity when considering the arguments we hear. The most common arguments relate to capacity and how quickly they can fire. Plenty of handguns and non-scary rifles share those features. Most of these mass shootings happen in confined spaces. You don't need a rifle for that. It's true that rifles are easier to shoot accurately at almost all distances beyond point blank range, but when the victims are taken hostage and trapped in a small room, it doesn't really matter. My question of why ban one and not the other isn't for hardcore gun control advocates who want to outlaw private ownership of just about every gun, but for people who think that banning certain types of rifles is going to be effective.



I really believe that the motivation of a gun control law is driven by a need to feel good about oneself.

It is a symbolic act.

Whether the law works is not important. This is why we see stupid proposals such as "no fly, no buy", or bans of guns based on plastic add-ons (the "assault weapons" ban for example).

Hardcore gun control advocates are a bit different. This group is made up of survivors or family members, statists (true believers in the Hobbes world view), really really dumb people ("gun bad, Oprah good"), and Europeans.
post #494 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post
 

This has zero to do with my argument. I did not argue for, or against, banning. Merely that the ability to have the same number of rounds in a magazine and ability to go semi-auto does not mean they are the same as a whole.

Well what's the defining characteristic that makes it disingenuous to compare the two in that way?

Pistols are smaller and easier to conceal.  Rifles often shoot higher caliber ammo, but some weapons defined as a rifle shoot the same caliber.  They're both capable of holding similar amount of rounds and at the same rate.

Really, the difference is size, which changes conceal-ability and accuracy.

post #495 of 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

The handgun in my nightstand holds 17 rounds in a standard mag (they make 33rd mags for it). It's semi-automatic, just like the AK-47s available to the public. Why should we allow one but not the other?

ak47 holds way more ammo, its bullet has more power and can be modified to full auto
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread