Another gun toting 'NUT JOB'...

[pocketfullofshells]

Cool! I've always wanted one for burning out the fence rows around my house.

flame thrower, also known as, most likey weopon to kill yourself with on accident , or at least realy screw yourself up with I bet

 

[dahermit]

I don't want to give you nightmares or anything, but there's no federal law, and few at lower levels, against flamethrowers.

There is a federal law against "...destructive devices...", cannons, flame throwers, M49 grenade launchers, etc.

 

[dahermit]

Okay, that's fair enough and largely I agree with you, in fact I have never been an advocate of gun control even though I have no desire to own one myself.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A person with a gun is very powerful and therein lies the problem. We restrict what kinds of weapons are allowed to the general public for this very reason. Fully automatic weapons or flame throwers are just too powerful so we deny their ownership to civilians. The post I responded to was comparing guns to staplers and that's a fallacious comparison.

Class three, that is fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are legal at the federal level and many people who can afford the class three license and transfer tax own them.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Okay, that's fair enough and largely I agree with you, in fact I have never been an advocate of gun control even though I have no desire to own one myself.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A person with a gun is very powerful and therein lies the problem. We restrict what kinds of weapons are allowed to the general public for this very reason. Fully automatic weapons or flame throwers are just too powerful so we deny their ownership to civilians. The post I responded to was comparing guns to staplers and that's a fallacious comparison.

Would you have managed to not miss his point if he had said knife instead of stapler? Many people get killed with knives every year. Should we heavily regular sharp objects of any kind? What about slingshots? You know they make hunting slingshots that fire little steel ball bearings. You could kill with one of those. Should we outlaw bows and arrows? You can easily kill a person from 50 yards away with a compound bow. What about rocks? People kill other people with rocks all the time. Should we regulate rocks? Should we restrict ownership of rocks based on size, weight? If so, we should pay particular attention to former MLB pitchers as I imagine that Nolan Ryan could kill me with a fist sized rock from 100 feet away quite easily.

Does this make sense to you yet, or do I need to continue? Are you picking up the inanimate object (stapler) reference now? If not, I can go on. Should a man with strong hands have to register them, since he could easily throttle the life out of somebody with them? Ok ok... that was the last one.... unless you require more.....

 

[dahermit]

I tried, but couldn't remember an instance of someone being killed with a stapler. When you pick up a gun you hold the power of life or death over people and that's what makes you a gunman.

Funny how women don't seem to commit slaughters with guns, are there any cases of women doing shootings?

There are, and have been, many murders committed by women using all sorts of means. Poison is very popular (especially antifreeze), hand guns have been used, Lizzy Borden used an ax.

In a case that appeared on television, a woman claimed she shot her husband by accident, in her sleep, by reaching under his pillow and shooting him in the head. It was accepted with a jaundice eye for awhile until detectives discovered that, that was the manner of death of her first husband also.

There was another where a female prosecutor/lawyer flew back East to shoot her estranged husband from the bushes, and then flew back home.

Such murders are frequently on popular crime documentaries. If you are unaware of them, you must not be watching them. Don't get out much?

There are many instances of women killing someone, sometimes with a gun, sometimes with something else. So, what exactly is your point?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think the reference here is that firearms, and thier collective parts are nothing on thier own, it takes a human or outside intervention for them to operate. Therefore guns are not the problem, people are the problem.

As a left leaner, I am still an ardent supporter of gun ownership, and the rights and also responsibilities surrounding that, but guns are nothing without a human to operate the object.

I've never been a proponent of gun control--though I fail to see the value of fully automatic weapons in the hands of the general public. I don't personally own any guns anymore because I might shoot someone and I'm trying to get through this life without that kind of bad karma. From a philosophical standpoint if someone guns me down, then I win: no bad karma for killing, no more IRS in my life, and I get to find out what happens after one dies. You gotta look on the bright side of these things.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't want to give you nightmares or anything, but there's no federal law, and few at lower levels, against flamethrowers.

Well, by God, I'm gettin' me one then! Turret mounted on my work van it will come in handy when people cut me off or don't let me change lanes.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Would you have managed to not miss his point if he had said knife instead of stapler? Many people get killed with knives every year. Should we heavily regular sharp objects of any kind? What about slingshots? You know they make hunting slingshots that fire little steel ball bearings. You could kill with one of those. Should we outlaw bows and arrows? You can easily kill a person from 50 yards away with a compound bow. What about rocks? People kill other people with rocks all the time. Should we regulate rocks? Should we restrict ownership of rocks based on size, weight? If so, we should pay particular attention to former MLB pitchers as I imagine that Nolan Ryan could kill me with a fist sized rock from 100 feet away quite easily.

Does this make sense to you yet, or do I need to continue? Are you picking up the inanimate object (stapler) reference now? If not, I can go on. Should a man with strong hands have to register them, since he could easily throttle the life out of somebody with them? Ok ok... that was the last one.... unless you require more.....

None of the weapons you mentioned have the simplicity and power of guns, most of the things you mentioned are useless without a LOT of practice and a high level of skill. Guns are easy... and therein lies the danger. With a bow and arrow you can get off 6 shots a minute and you're accurate up to about 8 feet, slingshots about the same, but any idiot with a semi-auto rifle and extra clips can get off a hundred rounds a minute with bullets that will kill at half a mile or more.

Your argument could be used the other way too, why limit ANY weapon? Is there any weapon that you think SHOULD be regulated? Atomic bombs? Cruise missles? Tanks?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are, and have been, many murders committed by women using all sorts of means. Poison is very popular (especially antifreeze), hand guns have been used, Lizzy Borden used an ax.

In a case that appeared on television, a woman claimed she shot her husband by accident, in her sleep, by reaching under his pillow and shooting him in the head. It was accepted with a jaundice eye for awhile until detectives discovered that, that was the manner of death of her first husband also.

There was another where a female prosecutor/lawyer flew back East to shoot her estranged husband from the bushes, and then flew back home.

Such murders are frequently on popular crime documentaries. If you are unaware of them, you must not be watching them. Don't get out much?

There are many instances of women killing someone, sometimes with a gun, sometimes with something else. So, what exactly is your point?

"Don't get out much?" Hello? It's because I do get out that I don't sit at home and watch TV. In fact I don't watch any broadcast TV.

My point was that women don't use guns like men do. What is it, 98% of gun killings are done by men? Can you find a case of a woman doing a mass killing like so many men have done? Has a woman ever gotten up in a tower at a University in Texas and shot strangers on the streets below? Gone to a Post Office and started killing everybody in sight?

Staplers have very little power, guns have a huge amount of power, we regulate them somewhat because of that power just like we regulate atomic bombs because of the amount of power they embody.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

"Don't get out much?" Hello? It's because I do get out that I don't sit at home and watch TV. In fact I don't watch any broadcast TV.

My point was that women don't use guns like men do. What is it, 98% of gun killings are done by men? Can you find a case of a woman doing a mass killing like so many men have done? Has a woman ever gotten up in a tower at a University in Texas and shot strangers on the streets below? Gone to a Post Office and started killing everybody in sight?

Staplers have very little power, guns have a huge amount of power, we regulate them somewhat because of that power just like we regulate atomic bombs because of the amount of power they embody.

they load the kids up in the car and drive them into a lake instead...

they aslo kill themself with guns far far less

 

[dahermit]

"Don't get out much?" Hello? It's because I do get out that I don't sit at home and watch TV. In fact I don't watch any broadcast TV.

My point was that women don't use guns like men do. What is it, 98% of gun killings are done by men? Can you find a case of a woman doing a mass killing like so many men have done? Has a woman ever gotten up in a tower at a University in Texas and shot strangers on the streets below? Gone to a Post Office and started killing everybody in sight?

Staplers have very little power, guns have a huge amount of power, we regulate them somewhat because of that power just like we regulate atomic bombs because of the amount of power they embody.

True, a women's weapon of choice usually is not a gun. They use stress to kill us men. They dive us to hypertension and heart disease. They marry us and then drive us into the grave with their nagging, whining, complaining, etc., until those who do not die from the stress, commit suicide. It is no wonder that most of the people who snap and commit multiple murders are men...women do not have to put up with being married to women. Given the statistics on the longevity difference between men and women, women are the more murderous of the two. For God's sake women, have a little mercy just shoot us!!!

 

[samsara15]

Why are we such a violent nation, Bunz?

We seem to be more violent than most other Western nations. Perhaps I am wrong about gun laws, but why are we more violent than the nations of Western Europe? Is it something in our history of culture? I'm willing to listen.

 

[dogtowner]

I tried, but couldn't remember an instance of someone being killed with a stapler. When you pick up a gun you hold the power of life or death over people and that's what makes you a gunman.

Funny how women don't seem to commit slaughters with guns, are there any cases of women doing shootings?

for your edification

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

for your edification

Thank you, that bears out my contention that women rarely use guns, they usually prefer other less bloody ways of killing people. Remember, dog, we're discussing guns here. Not one example of a woman getting a gun and slaughtering strangers in a Post Office or from a Texas University tower--those kinds of rampages seem to be particularly masculine.

What percentage of serial killers are women, I wonder.

 

[Bunz]

Well it appears a long dead thread somehow got some life back into it. I am one who doesnt always buy into the all to often strawman argument when it comes to comparing lets say an AR-15 versus a butcher knife. While I understand the potential deadliness in both the scope and other practical uses make this an apples and oranges comparison.

That being said, and having done a few thousand FFL transfers of various types, I think the process in place is generally fair and fast enough to have in place the necessary safe guards in most cases and provides a reasonable ease of use to the consumer(at least in Alaska). Of course there are some glaring examples of a non-perfect system but unfortunately I dont see a real way around that in modern America.