kelpdiver 2 #76 December 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteCombine the two together and the conclusion is that it's about the people, not the tools they use. Right, but the interesting discussion is on how people chose their "tools". Is it? I saw a claim that Cho couldn't have possibly done what he did without the guns. If you only want to consider the negative effects of a freedom, the significance of it is greatly dampened if the same negative effects would happen without the freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #77 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour opinion is no more valid than mine. Probably less so since you clearly have emotional attachment to your guns. Mine are more valid than yours since I know about them. Yours are based on ignorance and the emotion of fear. So even if we both have an emotional aspect... Fear is a stronger emotion than "attachment" and I at least have knowledge about the objects based in training and experience. QuoteNot relevant in the least. Very relevant... You are trying to compare a private company policy about an object in a specific set of circumstances to a State law forbidding ownership of an object to anyone. HIGHLY relevant to the point I made (which you conveniently ignore). Insurance companies make their money by ACCURATELY assessing risk, an d can lose a fortune (AIG) when they get it wrong. Quote You do know that you can get insurance for a Corvette at 20 right? That is TONS different than a law forbidding an object to anyone. STRAW MAN. I didn't suggest banning anything. You might want to check how much State farm wants to insure a 20 year old student in a Corvette (or Camaro, for that matter). They KNOW full well that it's a high risk proposition, and not because the car is intrinsically dangerous. IMO The kind of person that wants a "scary" (ref. millertime's post, also aggiedave and tankbuster in previous threads) looking weapon has the same maturity level (low) as the 20 year old who wants the Camaro. Quote Just admit your example and logic use is faulty and move on. You only fool yourself. Have a nice Christmas.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #78 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteCombine the two together and the conclusion is that it's about the people, not the tools they use. Right, but the interesting discussion is on how people chose their "tools". Is it? I saw a claim that Cho couldn't have possibly done what he did without the guns. . Shooting a bunch of people IS difficult without guns. Crossbows take such a long time to reload.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #79 December 22, 2009 Quote So bombers aren't average, but a crazy kid that kills 32 people is average? This guy is not average bomber, pretty much as the guys who flew planes into WTC weren't average murderers. Those actions require long-time conspiracy and preparation, obtaining relevant experience (one might easily get proficient using legal guns, but how long would it take him to become proficient in creating and using 2 ton ammonium nitrate explosives?), good observation skills (target selection), self-control and so on. Such people are quite rare. Most recent shootings were just regular Joes who went crazy or just were pissed off, and killed a bunch of people on impulse. For those I'm pretty sure that if they didn't have access to guns, the number of dead would be significantly less.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #80 December 22, 2009 Quote Unless there are local/state laws being violated (mag capacity or something similar), yes. It is legal to build a weapon for your own use. Interesting. So why would anyone then go through obtaining permits, fingerprinting, waiting period if they can just order "parts kit", and assemble a gun themselves?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #81 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote So bombers aren't average, but a crazy kid that kills 32 people is average? This guy is not average bomber, pretty much as the guys who flew planes into WTC weren't average murderers. Those actions require long-time conspiracy and preparation, obtaining relevant experience (one might easily get proficient using legal guns, but how long would it take him to become proficient in creating and using 2 ton ammonium nitrate explosives?), good observation skills (target selection), self-control and so on. Such people are quite rare. Most recent shootings were just regular Joes who went crazy or just were pissed off, and killed a bunch of people on impulse. For those I'm pretty sure that if they didn't have access to guns, the number of dead would be significantly less. Under the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act, people are required to register with the Dept. of Homeland Security before manufacturing, selling, or buying AN. The seller will be required to maintain records. If anyone violates these new regulations they can be fined up to $50,000 per violation. I guess gun owners would be OK with similar rules since they like to draw parallels.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #82 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYour opinion is no more valid than mine. Probably less so since you clearly have emotional attachment to your guns. Mine are more valid than yours since I know about them. Yours are based on ignorance and the emotion of fear. So even if we both have an emotional aspect... Fear is a stronger emotion than "attachment" and I at least have knowledge about the objects based in training and experience. QuoteNot relevant in the least. Very relevant... You are trying to compare a private company policy about an object in a specific set of circumstances to a State law forbidding ownership of an object to anyone. HIGHLY relevant to the point I made (which you conveniently ignore). Insurance companies make their money by ACCURATELY assessing risk, an d can lose a fortune (AIG) when they get it wrong. Quote You do know that you can get insurance for a Corvette at 20 right? That is TONS different than a law forbidding an object to anyone. STRAW MAN. I didn't suggest banning anything. You might want to check how much State farm wants to insure a 20 year old student in a Corvette (or Camaro, for that matter). They KNOW full well that it's a high risk proposition, and not because the car is intrinsically dangerous. IMO The kind of person that wants a "scary" (ref. millertime's post, also aggiedave and tankbuster in previous threads) looking weapon has the same maturity level (low) as the 20 year old who wants the Camaro. Quote Just admit your example and logic use is faulty and move on. You only fool yourself. Have a nice Christmas. John, while I see your point it is somewhat flawed. Yes, insurance for corvettes cost more but, it is not just about horse power and the chance for accident. The possibility of theft (because these are wanted cars) is as much if not more part of the cost increased. So some fooling is being done. But not just by the side you accuse of it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #83 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuote Unless there are local/state laws being violated (mag capacity or something similar), yes. It is legal to build a weapon for your own use. Interesting. So why would anyone then go through obtaining permits, fingerprinting, waiting period if they can just order "parts kit", and assemble a gun themselves? Dont have to here in iowa. I find interesting YOU think that because some one would like to own and gun like and AR15 they are dangerous. Again, laws passed and put into place do not mean shit to criminals. And to those who laws do mean something, well, they would not shoot anybody with any kind of gun if there were no controls at all in place. That is a fact you refuse to acknowledge. Period Sorry you are afraid of something you show you know little if anything about"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #84 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCombine the two together and the conclusion is that it's about the people, not the tools they use. Right, but the interesting discussion is on how people chose their "tools". Is it? I saw a claim that Cho couldn't have possibly done what he did without the guns. . Shooting a bunch of people IS difficult without guns. Crossbows take such a long time to reload. Just to keep you honest: "Do you really think Seung-Hui Cho would be able to kill 32 people if he didn't have access to guns?" Kill, not shoot. Or would you be fine with it if he had gassed or nuked them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #85 December 22, 2009 >Kill, not shoot. Or would you be fine with it if he had gassed or nuked them? I think most people could fire a weapon enough times to kill 32 people with minimal/no training. I think most people could not develop home portable chemical or nuclear weapons sufficient to kill 32 people. Even with training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 December 22, 2009 Quote Insurance companies make their money by ACCURATELY assessing risk, an d can lose a fortune (AIG) when they get it wrong. Don't be naive. They make they money by charging as much as they can in premiums, and paying out as little as possible in claims. Airflight insurance, AD&D, and kiddie insurance policies are all examples where they make money like gravy. Motorcycle and car policies are often priced to encourage certain customer types to go elsewhere, with little interest in actual risk. They also do their best to keep the LEOs equipped with radar/lidar and any other tools that can results in more points being assigned to drivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 December 22, 2009 Quote>Kill, not shoot. Or would you be fine with it if he had gassed or nuked them? I think most people could fire a weapon enough times to kill 32 people with minimal/no training. I think most people could not develop home portable chemical or nuclear weapons sufficient to kill 32 people. Even with training. In a no CCW state like CA, probably true. No one is equipped to respond. But in the other states, I'd put greater odds for 'success' of the chemist or pipe bomb maker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #88 December 22, 2009 Quote The discussion is about killing potential, not difficulty. And no, it's not that difficult to make a bomb - the Anarchist Cookbook has been available on the internet since the beginning. No, it would make no sense to discuss a killing potential alone, without considering ability of average Joe to use it. A nuclear bomb has much more significant potential, but a chance for average Joe to get one to blow his ex-coworkers or ex-GF are prety much zero. Fortunately Army grenades are not sold in gun stores, and making a reliable bomb with blast force enough to make significant damage is much more difficult and dangerous than getting to a gun store and buying a couple of guns. Properly using them is also a skill. In Russia most of "Anarchist Cookbook" readers ended up with something which doesn't work. Those "lucky" who went further, ended up with torn limbs/eyes. Quote Much easier to make something blow up once than to design a repeat use gun. And they had to break the law to get their guns, whereas the materials for bomb making are readily available. Sure! To compare apples with apples. if Cho or other guys made his own guns and ammunition himself, I would definitely consider him not an average person. But he didn't. Quote Yes, their bombs failed, so they instead shot 13 people. We'll never know the alternative outcome had the guns not been available. A possible alternative was that they might have tried to obtain guns or explosives illegally, a police would get a tip and arrested them all.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #89 December 22, 2009 Quote I find interesting YOU think that because some one would like to own and gun like and AR15 they are dangerous. It's really interesting to me as well. Could you please point out the exact post? (and I hope, you do understand the difference between "dangerous" and "more danger"). Quote Again, laws passed and put into place do not mean shit to criminals. No, they are. This is widely discussed in Russia each time someone brings a "legalize handguns" subject, which typically happens once a year. Not every criminal knows an illegal arms dealer who would sell to him. Crime goes by specialization, and while a hitman would definitely know one, a thief or inside stock trader would very unlikely know anyone. And if they just try to find one, they might easy end up in law enforcement entrapment. Another issue is training. If one cannot just go and practice in a shooting range, it creates a whole set of problems - transporting guns and ammo (what if you're stopped for speeding or get into accident?), not being seen by locals who'd report you to the police, and so on. Quote And to those who laws do mean something, well, they would not shoot anybody with any kind of gun if there were no controls at all in place. That is a fact you refuse to acknowledge. Period Law means something for everyone - until they break it. This is strawman.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #90 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuote I find interesting YOU think that because some one would like to own and gun like and AR15 they are dangerous. It's really interesting to me as well. Could you please point out the exact post? (and I hope, you do understand the difference between "dangerous" and "more danger"). Quote Again, laws passed and put into place do not mean shit to criminals. No, they are. This is widely discussed in Russia each time someone brings a "legalize handguns" subject, which typically happens once a year. Not every criminal knows an illegal arms dealer who would sell to him. Crime goes by specialization, and while a hitman would definitely know one, a thief or inside stock trader would very unlikely know anyone. And if they just try to find one, they might easy end up in law enforcement entrapment. Another issue is training. If one cannot just go and practice in a shooting range, it creates a whole set of problems - transporting guns and ammo (what if you're stopped for speeding or get into accident?), not being seen by locals who'd report you to the police, and so on. Quote And to those who laws do mean something, well, they would not shoot anybody with any kind of gun if there were no controls at all in place. That is a fact you refuse to acknowledge. Period Law means something for everyone - until they break it. This is strawman. Nope, no straw man, and this is the USA we are talking about. Laws are made to (in most cases) punish the non-law abiding. Laws (again in most cases) do not deter those who are determined to be criminal. Your last line in this post contradicts itself"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #91 December 22, 2009 Quote Nope, no straw man, and this is the USA we are talking about. The criminals are pretty much the same. Quote Laws are made to (in most cases) punish the non-law abiding. And "non-law abiding" is someone who does not follow the law. Congratulations, you just showed a typical example of circular logic. Quote Laws (again in most cases) do not deter those who are determined to be criminal. Your last line in this post contradicts itself Well, people are not born criminals, and it may take a second for someone to switch to a criminal. Note that this is the law which defines who is criminal.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #92 December 22, 2009 Quote In a no CCW state like CA, probably true. No one is equipped to respond. Well, if it's summer, it is quite easy to see those who can conceal carry (i.e. not dressed in fitting t-shirt and shorts), and target them first.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuote In a no CCW state like CA, probably true. No one is equipped to respond. Well, if it's summer, it is quite easy to see those who can conceal carry (i.e. not dressed in fitting t-shirt and shorts), and target them first. Same applies for the gunman.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #94 December 22, 2009 QuoteSame applies for the gunman. Not even close, as he will strike first.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSame applies for the gunman. Not even close, as he will strike first. Nope. If he can detect/shoot those oh-so-obvious gun carriers, then they can detect and shoot HIM.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #96 December 22, 2009 QuoteNope. If he can detect/shoot those oh-so-obvious gun carriers, then they can detect and shoot HIM. The trick here is that until someone started actually shooting or threatening people, he's just another citizen, and if you shot him just because you think he is going to start a massacre, you'll be a murderer, and will end up in jail (or on a chair). So, except in the most stupid cases, the shooter has the "first shot", and of course he'll try to make it less obvious (and so far msot of them succeeded here).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #97 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuote Insurance companies make their money by ACCURATELY assessing risk, an d can lose a fortune (AIG) when they get it wrong. Don't be naive. His statement isn't naïve; it's accurate.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #98 December 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteNope. If he can detect/shoot those oh-so-obvious gun carriers, then they can detect and shoot HIM. The trick here is that until someone started actually shooting or threatening people, he's just another citizen, and if you shot him just because you think he is going to start a massacre, you'll be a murderer, and will end up in jail (or on a chair). *rolls eyes* I'm sure NOBODY here but you ever thought of that... QuoteSo, except in the most stupid cases, the shooter has the "first shot", and of course he'll try to make it less obvious Probably, if he's smart. Luckily, most criminals aren't. Quote(and so far msot of them succeeded here). Where? You're not talking about the spree killings again, because they go where guns (except theirs) AREN'T. Yes, the element of surprise can give an initial advantage - but ONLY an initial advantage. After that point, it's down to the relative skills of the individuals involved.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #99 December 22, 2009 Quote*rolls eyes* http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=*rolls+eyes*&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=post_time&mh=100 STOP THAT You do that WAY too much.. they may get stuck... and end up looking like this....http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/upload/2006/11/marty_feldman.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 December 22, 2009 Quote Quote *rolls eyes* http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=*rolls+eyes*&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=post_time&mh=100 STOP THAT You do that WAY too much.. they may get stuck... and end up looking like this....http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/upload/2006/11/marty_feldman.jpg How about 'long suffering sigh' - can I do that one?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
