Damn Assault Hammers...Ban'em All!!!!

Typical brainless analogy from someone who wishes the world was simplisticly Right and Wrong. All government is abot finding the acceptable mix of freedom and conceeding freedom for something else--often security in some form.

The freedom/security mix for guns and hammers is gust a little bit different don't you think? Your exact same "logic" would lead me to the following:
--Hammers can kill, but banning personal ownership of hammers is dumb
--Therefore since guns can kill, banning personal ownership of guns is dumb
--Therefore since nukes can kill, banning personal ownership of nukes is dumb

It doesn't follow in either direction--from guns to hammers or guns to nukes--because the freedom/security equation is very different qualitatively. Allowing wide, untracked ownership of guns causes more potential risk to society than the wide, untrackedownership of hammers. That doesn't mean that guns should or should not be registered/lisenced/banned or some combination thereof--but quit the stupid analogy to hammers.

How many homocides by hammer per 100,000 hamers? How many homocides by gun per 100,000 guns? Not every non-zero number is the same, no matter how you want to argue it. Originally Posted by Old-T

And they say Conservatives have no sense of humor. Regardless, Old-T, I'll try to keep it simple for you. It is not the implement that kills, but rather the person wielding said instrument. We can quote statistics back and forth ad infinitum and regulate everything from AR-15's to toothbrushes, but that won't change the fact that an inanimate object cannot kill.

Boy are YOU a day late and a dollar short, Yappy Lap Dog. You'd be much better off taking your daily ass whipping from Slunty Kayla than trying to talk when grown ups are having a discussion! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More constructive input from Assup. You never disappoint, DOY!!

And they say Conservatives have no sense of humor. Regardless, Old-T, I'll try to keep it simple for you. It is not the implement that kills, but rather the person wielding said instrument. We can quote statistics back and forth ad infinitum and regulate everything from AR-15's to toothbrushes, but that won't change the fact that an inanimate object cannot kill. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Agree, but when there are sick individuals out there--or just basicly evil ones--I can try to guess which ones are dangerous in advance and lock them up in a preemptive way, seriously undermining our liberties.

Or I can wait until it happens and exact a penalty--but often they plan on killing themselves anyway. This starts to sound like "acceptable losses" for the people they kill.

Or I can try to remove items that make them more lethal, and in so doing impinging upon the rights of people who have no ill intent.

None of these is the complet answer, and none is without negative effect. I am against any "One size" solution and believe serious debate is needed. I don't see either side willing to negotiate in serious debate--each side says "My solution fits me, so it must be right for everyone."

IMO the reason most people are against reimplementing the ban on assault type weapons is that they fear the government will use that as a stepping stone to eventually try to ban all firearms Originally Posted by satexasguy

Kind of like gay marriage leading to tisk, tisk, CC. Or the limits on free speech leading to my not being able to talk to my neighbor.

When the attempt to "ban all firearms" begins, then you'll have an argument concerning the idea of "banning all firearms".

Agree, but when there are sick individuals out there--or just basicly evil ones--I can try to guess which ones are dangerous in advance and lock them up in a preemptive way, seriously undermining our liberties.

Or I can wait until it happens and exact a penalty--but often they plan on killing themselves anyway. This starts to sound like "acceptable losses" for the people they kill.

Or I can try to remove items that make them more lethal, and in so doing impinging upon the rights of people who have no ill intent.

None of these is the complet answer, and none is without negative effect. I am against any "One size" solution and believe serious debate is needed. I don't see either side willing to negotiate in serious debate--each side says "My solution fits me, so it must be right for everyone." Originally Posted by Old-T

Reasonable points. And you're right, there will probably never a one-size solution that pleases everyone. My immediate solution is the same as my answer to a host of other issues, such as illegal immigration, which is to enforce the laws on the books. Criminals have little respect for law enforcement these days and that has to be corrected.

You saying another post is reasonable is like a dog saying another dog's ass is uninteresting.

You're the worst Johnny Come Lately we've had in the Sandbox since Hating Kayla got run outta here.

Proxy bitch!

Don't confuse the Democrats with facts, it just makes their language more foul.

Fuck you!

Fuck you! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your silver tongued debating skills are truly awe inspiring Sir!

Don't confuse the Democrats with facts, it just makes their language more foul. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Fuck you! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I thought this thread was about assault hammers...

Fuck you! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Pathetic, yet typical...thanks for contributing to the dialogue, DOY.

Don't confuse the Democrats with facts, it just makes their language more foul. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

There's an old saying in the legal profession: If the facts on your side, you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. If neither one is on your side, you pound the table. That's what we see liberals constantly doing in the Sandbox. They can't win an argument with facts and reason, so they curse and engage in personal attacks. Foul language is the only arrow in their quiver.

And the right wingers are the decorum of civility.

I normally don't weigh in on political issues, but there is something crying out to be said. Mea Culpa if it's already been addressed and I missed it...
-
To all you clowns (and I use the word with full knowledge of its literal definition) who cry about banning hammers, or baseball bats, or any other inanimate object, get me a story, JUST ONE VERIFIABLE STORY, of a hammer that killed someone from a range of a thousand yards. Or of a baseball bat that killed fifteen and wounded thirty in the space of sixty seconds.
-
Gun violence in this country is a serious problem, and to address it we need serious people with serious ideas. What we don't need are idiots who want to spout off platitudes in the hopes of making points, or of trying to sound funny. You don't. You sound idiotic. If you have nothing worthwhile to share, don't share.
-
I for one am not sure where I stand on this issue. I believe in the Second Amendment, yet I deplore the way a fully automatic weapon can end so many lives so quickly, and I question the need (note that word please, it's not want or desire) for a private citizen to own such weapons. Still, the road to restricting personal freedoms starts as a gentle, well meaning slope, and can get out of hand quickly if we're not careful.
-
I don't profess to have the answers. But I do want to be involved in serious debate and discussion, in the hopes of reaching a consensus. Just please don't tell me that I need to ban cast iron skillets just because some broad in Peoria killed her husband with one.