Ban full and semi autos now!!!

**huge** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 12:39pm

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

Ok now this one is better a weapon vs. weapon debate to support your cause, but do me favor replace "knife" with "fire" and make the same argument.

What's the delivery method of the fire? Flamethrower? Zippo? Bomb? Torch? Like this?

Click image for larger version.

Name: 4498628517_3c2fdd2ea5_z.jpg
Views: 12
Size: 22.5 KB
ID: 14448

**huge** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 12:49pm

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

Please explain how it would make a difference, either way dead is dead. Without attacking the problem of why they go nuts changing the weapon they use will make little difference.

Sorry, I missed this line:

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

<snip> And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun. </snip>

In that case, no there is no difference.

I have to ask, what are the circumstances that have to be met in order for someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun? What, are the circumstances in which someone with a gun is as unstoppable as someone with a gun? ;) Which has a higher chance of happening?

**Permalost** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 12:55pm

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

And yes under the right set of circumstances someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun.

If I could bet on raw strength vs guy with a gun matches, I'd be a millionaire.

Do you really think a classroom with gradeschool kids would fare any better against someone who could toss them 20 feet in the air?? You see any weapon or advantage can be demonized.

Yeah dude, a guy with a gun could certainly kill more gradeschool kids with less time and effort than some strongman who could toss kids 20 feet in the air. Furthermore, there's a precedent for that happening with guns. Ever heard a news story about a strongman on a rampage on a school campus? I know you wanna fit in on a gun forum by agreeing that guns aren't the problem but this argument is really foolish.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 1:01pm

Originally Posted by Permalost

If I could bet on raw strength vs guy with a gun matches, I'd be a millionaire.

Yeah dude, a guy with a gun could certainly kill more gradeschool kids with less time and effort than some strongman who could toss kids 20 feet in the air. Furthermore, there's a precedent for that happening with guns. Ever heard a news story about a strongman on a rampage on a school campus? I know you wanna fit in on a gun forum by agreeing that guns aren't the problem but this argument is really foolish.

::sigh:: you did read the whole thread right?? My whole point was that it is a stupid argument.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 1:05pm

Originally Posted by huge

Sorry, I missed this line:

In that case, no there is no difference.

I have to ask, what are the circumstances that have to be met in order for someone with extreme strength could be just as unstoppable as someone with a gun? What, are the circumstances in which someone with a gun is as unstoppable as someone with a gun? ;) Which has a higher chance of happening?

Well first you would have to tell me how either would be able to be stopped by a classroom of kids.

On a side note, you do realize the rabbit hole this discussion is jumping down right??

**submessenger** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 1:05pm

Originally Posted by huge

Only because that is what spurs the debate. If it wasn't for recent events that involve mass shootings, the level of gun debate would be much lower. Again, I stated that it's speculation on my part, I claim no expertise. I am making assumptions, but I'm trying to be upfront about it.

Originally Posted by huge

Discounting mass shootings, I agree wholeheartedly.

Once again, mass shootings are the outliers. All of the deaths from all of the mass shootings in the last 30 years of American history total a fraction of all of the gun-related deaths in America in just one year. And, I do mean a fraction: 513 (source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ones-full-data) compared to 9,400 firearm deaths in 2010 (source: Scrapper http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118979). Arguing for gun control from this perspective is asinine.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 1:08pm

Originally Posted by huge

What's the delivery method of the fire? Flamethrower? Zippo? Bomb? Torch? Like this?

Hahahahaha I really hope this is a troll post.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 1:14pm

Ok I have a question, can anyone in this thread show me the statistics on wether or not banning weapons does in fact have a serious impact on murder rates?? And if so is there a trade off in other crimes due to disarming the public?? Serious question here I have tried to look this up several times and find only conflicting data.

**submessenger** · Posted On: 2/04/2013 1:19pm

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

Ok I have a question, can anyone in this thread show me the statistics on wether or not banning weapons does in fact have a serious impact on murder rates?? And if so is there a trade off in other crimes due to disarming the public?? Serious question here I have tried to look this up several times and find only conflicting data.

There are studies referenced in this thread: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118979