Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[Azdgari]

A great quote by the Libyan Gargoum (National Geographic - February 2013): "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

By your logic, civilian ownership of F-16s with ordnance should be legal.

[DGFone]

A great quote by the Libyan Gargoum (National Geographic - February 2013): "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

By your logic, civilian ownership of F-16s with ordnance should be legal.

Technically it should be, and guess what? It is legal. The reason why you don't really get to see many privately owned F-16s is the same reason why people don't buy flowerless and miniguns (both of these weapons are unregulated): Do you have the $16 million to buy the F-16, as well as the money to hire mechanics and parts to keep it flight-ready? I don't think so.

There is a privately owned MiG-29 out there though. It hasn't killed anyone yet.

[Azdgari]

Can you link me to where I can buy Hellfire missiles, in that case?

[DGFone]

What are you going to put it on? I'm sure the Russians can provide you a similar missile, but as for Hellfires, considering they are government property from the get go, it's up to the government to decide who gets to have them. It's when the government starts telling citizens what to do with their private property that I don't agree with.

And it comes right back to this simple question: Can you actually afford these weapons? Want to kill a lot of people? Get a minigun. That is, if you can find one of the six owners of miniguns in private circulation and give them enough cash for them to agree to give it to you.

Ammo itself (without the gun): $150,000

[Azdgari]

So essentially what you're saying is, if I'm a wealthy person who decides to kill millions of people, all that should stand between me and nuclear weapons is money. Of course a company would have to decide to market nuclear weapons to the public first, but what's to stop them if they know that a clientelle is ready to buy?


Your ammo statistic is vague as well. About $60 per second or $3600 per minute, according to what I read. But I digress.

Y'know, let's get a little more specific. Tomorrow, a gun producer states that they are releasing a very cheap, fully automatic AK-47 knock-off to the public. This gun is accessible because of its low price and ease of use, but highly deadly. Do you regulate its use?

[DGFone]

Your ammo statistic is vague as well. About $60 per second or $3600 per minute. Not sure where your stat comes from. But I digress.

A mini-gun fires roughly 30,000 rounds per minute, or 500 a second. At $1 a bullet (which is easily the price for minigun caliber rounds), that's $500 a second. Are you really ready to burn that much cash just to kill? And once again, that's just the ammo. What about the gun?

And seriously, only a moron will save up that much money for only one gun for the sake of killing people in a massacre. There are much cheaper and deadlier ways to kill.

In the end, there is no way to stop crime. If you simply keep banning whatever weapon was used in the last headline-grabbing crime, how long until you start amputating limbs because you can kill without any weapon?

The United States was founded on the principle that it's better to let a criminal to walk free than to harm the innocent. And you know what? I'm fine with that.

[Azdgari]

DG, can you respond to my scenario?

Y'know, let's get a little more specific. Tomorrow, a gun producer states that they are releasing a very cheap, fully automatic AK-47 knock-off to the public. This gun is accessible because of its low price and ease of use, but highly deadly. Analysts speculate that this will quickly become the weapon of choice for gangs in urban environments, and are worried at the escalation of violence fully automatic firefights will entail. Do you regulate its use?

Woeler, play nice. Painting people who support gun rights as murderers is way below you. ;3

[DGFone]

Az: Regulate? Yes. Ban? Absolutely not.

Keep in mind this: I support gun rights. I support people owning whatever gun they want.

I also support pre-sale checks that disqualify people who might actually use said guns for harm. Mentally deficient? Angry at society? Might be better not to have guns.

But I don't see the reason why the regular gun owners, who know how to use guns properly, and most importantly, safely, I really don't see why they should suffer because they like one thing, and others don't.

Shouldn't we ban high-fat foods as well? They kill many more people than guns. Just saying...
Oh, and private swimming pools. Only the rich can afford them, they are often generally useless, and Woeler: kill many more innocent children than guns.

And no, Woeler: Just because I support gun rights doesn't make me a cynical, gun-toting maniac who wants to shoot the first thing that moves. Insisting that that's true only enforces my belief that I was very mature in removing your PP.

[Azdgari]

You make choices to eat fat food. You do not choose to be shot to death. That's a poor metaphor.

I think the best I can come up with is because of the general security, DG. Do you get me? Yes, a fully automatic assault weapon is not dangerous in the hands of a trained, law abiding. But why does he need that? Does the benefit of him having such a weapon outweigh the risks that come with it? The more assault weapons in circulation, greater likelihood that one will be abused. Not to politicize Sandy Hook because I hate when people do it, but those were all legally owned. Somebody went and took them. Would they have been taken if they were never there? More guns, more accidents and thefts, more illegal ownership. Do we want to escalate the base level we're playing with? Because if we legalized automatic weapons, you better bet that AR-15s will be the way of the past for mass shootings. Casualty counts will go through the roof because it's "liberty" to have these weapons despite the risks they bring.

It's like having a bomb in every household. Nothing -should- go wrong, but it inevitably does, eventually. And it's rare. But does the risk it poses outweigh the benefit of... well... enjoying playing with the bomb?

[DGFone]

And no, Woeler: Just because I support gun rights doesn't make me a cynical, gun-toting maniac who wants to shoot the first thing that moves. Insisting that that's true only enforces my belief that I was very mature in removing your PP.

No, you just use it as a method to stop people from opposing your views, because you do it every time I say something you don't like, or something that doesn't fit in your view of the world. And that is very immature.

You know my stance, I sincerely hope you don't have to experience what those things feel like. Would radically change your mind.

The reasons why I remove your PPs is because your mind the holy doesn't realize that when you disagree with something, you personally insult the person you disagree with.

If I supported gun bans, I wouldn't call people who support gun rights murderers of innocent children.

Az: Yes, guns can be abused and used to harm people, but so can anything else. If you are a lawful citizen who knows how to use a gun in a way that is safe for everyone else, at the end of the day, it's not up to the government to decide whether your allowed to have one or not.

And always look at Switzerland (and for that matter, Germany): Both of these nations have nearly, or more guns per population than the US, and they barely have any gun crimes. The reason why we have so much gun crime is because there's a problem with society, and not that we have too many guns. After all, some of the safest cities in the US are those where everyone own a gun, either to shoot for pleasure, or to hunt a deer or two for the winter.

Remember, unlike European governments, the US version is told what it cannot do. Meaning if people want guns, and they don't pose a threat to others, then they are constitutionally allowed to have their guns.