Ban full and semi autos now!!!

[Bneterasedmynam]

He's not saying you can't own a weapon. He's just limiting your rate of fire.

Wouldn't hindering people's effectiveness at killing cause a reduction of casualties in mass murder situations? It wouldn't make the numbers go higher.

Often there's an argument that knives and other weapons kill also, so why not ban them too, but frankly I see it as an apples and oranges argument. Take this, for example: http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/sto...ng-victim.html

A guy goes on a rampage with a knife and a hammer through an apartment building, and no one died. Would there have been a difference if he was carrying guns? We can only speculate, but I would think that there would have been at least one death, and more if we're talking about something with a really high rate of fire.

Also, I'm reminded of this:

I'm a little curious on if you want fists banned too.

[submessenger]

Full-automatic and semi-automtic firearms should be banned from public ownership. Also, the right to carry a firearm on one's person (either concealed or displayed, as in a holster) should be limited to law enforcement officials and, in some instances, security guards.

Deputize all CCW holders!

[huge]

Oh, and no, I don't think that is what he is saying. Since rate of fire is how fast a weapon can fire it's projectiles. As in rounds per minute or rounds per second. He said that the right to cary a firearm should be limited to LEO and security guards. Not that they should be forced to shoot slower.

You're correct, I forgot about his second sentence and focused on the thread title.

Meh, we could do this all day.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Man-w...hool-1979.html

If he had a more efficient weapon, how many more could have died?

I'm not saying knives don't kill people, I'm saying that it's easier to kill people with a fully automatic weapon than with a knife.

I'm a little curious on if you want fists banned too.

Clearly that's the point I was making. Good for you for picking up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I have never understood, and I still don't, how not having access to guns that can be modified to have a higher rate of fire with a conversion kit, while still having access to a less efficient gun infringes upon the second amendment.

[DerAuslander]

Full-automatic and semi-automtic firearms should be banned from public ownership. Also, the right to carry a firearm on one's person (either concealed or displayed, as in a holster) should be limited to law enforcement officials and, in some instances, security guards.

Thank you for willfully showing your ignorance of United States firearm laws.

[DerAuslander]

I have never understood, and I still don't, how not having access to guns that can be modified to have a higher rate of fire with a conversion kit, while still having access to a less efficient gun infringes upon the second amendment.

Are you Canadian?

[Bneterasedmynam]

You're correct, I forgot about his second sentence and focused on the thread title.



If he had a more efficient weapon, how many more could have died?

I'm not saying knives don't kill people, I'm saying that it's easier to kill people with a fully automatic weapon than with a knife.



Clearly that's the point I was making. Good for you for picking up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I have never understood, and I still don't, how not having access to guns that can be modified to have a higher rate of fire with a conversion kit, while still having access to a less efficient gun infringes upon the second amendment.

So then we are in agreement that this guy is just as dangerous as an automatic weapon.:

[huge]

Are you Canadian?

Yes. Which is likely why I don't get it.

[submessenger]

I'm not saying knives don't kill people, I'm saying that it's easier to kill people with a fully automatic weapon than with a knife.

Curious, how many fully automatic weapons have you fired? What qualifies you to make this analysis?

[huge]

So then we are in agreement that this guy is just as dangerous as an automatic weapon.:

I don't believe that we are. How do you figure?

[Bneterasedmynam]

I don't believe that we are. How do you figure?

My point is flying right over your head isn't it?? The argument you are making is the same one I can make, just to a different extent of stupidity.