Utah - Man Takes AR-15 Rifle To The Mall
Jan 24th 2013, 11:33 am
#76
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: East Seaxe
Posts: 72,634
Re: Utah - Man Takes AR-15 Rifle To The Mall
Not just some. Virtually every single one of them will slip through.
Screening is ineffective. The best way to prevent gun abuse is to prohibit guns so that few people have access to them.
Ironically, I think that you're being duped by the pro-gun movement, which claims that only "bad people" misuse weapons, that the law should be limited to barring said "bad people" from having them, and that presumes that the aforementioned "bad people" can be easily identified. But in the real world, it's hard to know which guns will be abused and which ones won't be; it's the fact that they are in circulation and can be obtained quite easily that is the cause of the problem.
Screening is ineffective. The best way to prevent gun abuse is to prohibit guns so that few people have access to them.
Ironically, I think that you're being duped by the pro-gun movement, which claims that only "bad people" misuse weapons, that the law should be limited to barring said "bad people" from having them, and that presumes that the aforementioned "bad people" can be easily identified. But in the real world, it's hard to know which guns will be abused and which ones won't be; it's the fact that they are in circulation and can be obtained quite easily that is the cause of the problem.
Jan 24th 2013, 12:02 pm
#77
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: Utah - Man Takes AR-15 Rifle To The Mall
They are doing it everywhere
Jan 24th 2013, 2:06 pm
#82
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Jan 24th 2013, 2:53 pm
#85
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,770
Jan 24th 2013, 2:54 pm
#86
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Re: Utah - Man Takes AR-15 Rifle To The Mall
Isn't the M16 essentially a military AR-15? Oh well - plus points for the girls having nice arses and remembering to take the mags out of the rifles as well.
Thank f**k ...
An offese?
And, no.
Thank f**k ...
And, no.
Jan 24th 2013, 2:56 pm
#87
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,770
Re: Utah - Man Takes AR-15 Rifle To The Mall
Keyboard Malfunction - I've been suffering a lot from that, recently. - Duly Corrected.
Jim.
Jan 24th 2013, 3:02 pm
#88
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Jan 24th 2013, 11:55 pm
#89
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 899
Re: Utah - Man Takes AR-15 Rifle To The Mall
But the point that you missed is that without a gun, they have a much higher percentage of failing to accomplish the task, whilst with a gun, even a second rate effort is far more likely to succeed.
Then again, you don't really have a issue with a bunch of people getting killed, so why is this a surprise.
Then again, you don't really have a issue with a bunch of people getting killed, so why is this a surprise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiB9L3dG-Aw
What problem are you trying to solve?
Why not?
Being constrained in the sense that certain types of weapons would be banned, does not constrain people in practice from exercising their general rights to own and bear arms. And the benefit to society as a whole may be larger.
We effectively do this with driving vehicles on public roads, for example. This is done for safety and crime prevention reasons, affecting the broad majority because of the actions of a very small minority.
In terms of applying to the rest of our rights, the First Amendment is restricted in a number of aspects, endorsed by the SCOTUS, but not in a way that fundamentally undermines or restricts that right.
I saw on a forum somebody stating that the Second Amendment gives them the right to have a nuclear weapon. Er, no. The Second Amendment guarantees that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not confer any rights on anybody. Banning a class of weapon that is not in general use in the population is not an infringement. Thankfully.
Being constrained in the sense that certain types of weapons would be banned, does not constrain people in practice from exercising their general rights to own and bear arms. And the benefit to society as a whole may be larger.
We effectively do this with driving vehicles on public roads, for example. This is done for safety and crime prevention reasons, affecting the broad majority because of the actions of a very small minority.
In terms of applying to the rest of our rights, the First Amendment is restricted in a number of aspects, endorsed by the SCOTUS, but not in a way that fundamentally undermines or restricts that right.
I saw on a forum somebody stating that the Second Amendment gives them the right to have a nuclear weapon. Er, no. The Second Amendment guarantees that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not confer any rights on anybody. Banning a class of weapon that is not in general use in the population is not an infringement. Thankfully.
Now that the admin has stated they wanted to ban said type of weapon and you cannot find one in a store, I think the "not in general use argument" is blown. Any semi-auto you can name is backordered and unavailable for weeks or months due the public Demand....
That isn't what " "begging the question" means. The expression means assuming without proof a premise that actually requires proof so that your whole proposition is simply a fallacy - in this case, that the nub of the problem is "good" people being able to buy guns, or not.
Jan 25th 2013, 1:03 am
#90
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078