Author Topic: Gun Nut Sets "Trap" for First Responders After Committing Arson. Kills Several  (Read 6191 times)

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39314
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
lol... no thank you.  I wanted a high quality firearm... not a plastic piece of junk.

The new printers print in metal as well, BT.
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

Adam W

  • Guest
"My own belief is that laws are relevant only for defining the penalties for engaging in acts that virtually everybody agrees are wrong. When prohibitionists sputter, "so ... so ... should we just legalize rape because some people still do it?" they're missing the point. Rape is rightfully and effectively illegal because almost everybody in our society agrees it's wrong and should be punished. It also has a victim who generally takes great exception to being abused and is inclined to seek punishment for the criminals. Take a victimless activity and add a constituency that thinks it's a good thing and that the law is what's wrong, and you have the perfect makings for legal impotence."

He switches logical horses mid-stream here. First he makes the claim that, "Bans fail because enough people to whom the prohibitions apply refuse to obey them." Then he states that drivel above (or should I say he 'sputters' about it, since he seems to love that word, using it twice to derisively refer to those he disagrees with).

It's all well and good to make some high-minded claims about how we shouldn't legalize rape because we all feel rape is a bad thing. But he seems to forget he made the argument in the preceding paragraph that you can't prohibit anything because those who aren't inclined to follow the law won't bother following the law! There is no special clause there for bans where the general public accepts that a particular behavior is reprehensible.

This guy is just playing mental gymnastics in an attempt to come up with an argument to "logically" explain why laws or bans actually work sometimes - because if he admits they work, he undercuts his blanket position that there is no possible way gun controls (no one is seriously arguing for a total ban on guns anyway) would actually lead to a reduction in gun homicide.

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11872
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
lol... no thank you.  I wanted a high quality firearm... not a plastic piece of junk.

The new printers print in metal as well, BT.

How about Wood... with grain?  No desire whatsoever for a 3d printed firearm.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
I would not trust a 3D printed firearm unless it was wayyyy overbuilt.

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11872
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
I would not trust a 3D printed firearm unless it was wayyyy overbuilt.

Trust is part of it... craftsmanship another.  You can buy a poster of a painting... or one painted by an artist.
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39314
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
I would not trust a 3D printed firearm unless it was wayyyy overbuilt.

Like these newfangled 'factory' made ones.
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
BT, I'm with you 100%  Guns and 3D printing have no business together (yet).  I'm sure it will get there one day.  Better outlaw the 3D printers!!!

I would not trust a 3D printed firearm unless it was wayyyy overbuilt.

Like these newfangled 'factory' made ones.

What factory made ones?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 02:58:58 PM by acme54321 »

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39314
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
Just a few points

A more accurate  "car" analogy  would be "Would you ban a certain car because some guy drove it into a crowd on the street?"

If you think that drug abuse is a "victimless" crime, you are sorely uneducated.

The term "reduce availability of guns" doesn't make any sense to me.  The modern sporting rifles that so many choose to call "assault weapons" are responsible for a very, very small percentage of murders.  If what you are really trying to do is make "mass shooting" happen less often, then "reducing the availability of guns" is the wrong path to go down unless you are talking about banning firearms.  The only way to reduce "mass shooting" in this country is through the mental health reform path.  While banning modern sporting rifles would not make any noticeable difference in the firearms that are available that can perform exactly as they can, a serious effort to identify, treat, and, if necessary, house our mentally ill would remove the real threat...those that would kill large numbers of people for no apparent reason.

Actually in my metaphor about consumer choice, my analogy was perfect.

However I find your suggestion to ban firearms interesting.  In relate, I think the actual statistics are against you notnow.

New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  Wonder whats happening there?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/new-york-city-murder-rate-2012-nypd-homicides-historic-low_n_2366852.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york

Quote
With less than a week left in 2012, the murder rate in New York city is still on track to reach its lowest level in over half a century.

NYPD data shows that as of this last weekend, 414 people in New York City had fallen victim to homicide in 2012, an 18.5% drop from 2011, when a total of 515 people were murdered.

By the time the ball drops in Times Square on December 31st, New York City will likely see its lowest murder rate since the early 60s.

(The murder rate this year is so low, it could happen that more people in NYC died of suicide this year, than of murder. For even more perspective: In 1990, 2,245 people were murdered in New York City.)

You described a consumer product that would "blow up" regardless of the actions of the owner/operator.   I described a consumer product being used as a weapon of murder, used not as intended by the manufacturer of the product and in violation of the laws of the land.  Which is a more accurate description of the recent crimes we are discussing?

As for the rest of your post, it does not appear that you understood my argument.  My point was that banning the types of rifles that many are calling "assault rifles" will have little to no effect on the occurrence of "mass murder".   I based that argument on the fact that there are many weapons which do not fall under the "assault weapon" ban that perform in exactly the same way.   Not to mention the evidence which exists from the ten year Clinton "assault weapons ban" that shows no effect on the crime rate overall. 


You seem to be arguing for the implementation of gun laws similar to those of NYC on a national basis, is that correct?  And your argument for such a change is the Huff piece that you cited?
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love