Time to register/ban Pressure Cookers?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

good question, just so I understand, what is the primary purpose of a firearm, and what is the primary purpose of a pressure cooker?

Here's the point - when sandy Hook happened, when Giffords happened, when all these incidents happened, they blamed nutters with guns, so we have to pass tough new laws on guns (and nutters)

When the Boston bombing happened they blamed the terrorist. Funny - there's been no mention of the terrorist being a "nutter." There's no mention of bombs causing this problem. Banning sulfur or other elements of ewxplosives. Backpacks that can conceak bombs, knives, etc. Nope - we gotta be on the lookout for evil. Not bombs. Not bomb pieces. Not crazies. Straight up evil terrorist.

Use a gun? You're a nutter.
Use a bomb? Ah, shucks, that's just a bad guy.

There are distinct differences in how public perceptions are being molded. And the distinctions seems pretty damned arbitrary.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>creating a bit of a strawman, here.

A handgun's primary purpos is to kill people. That's why people practice with human-shaped targets, and why things like "stopping power" are used as metrics. That makes them inherently different than something designed to cook food.

Anyone who does not understand the difference probably shouldn't own a gun.

Think you have a skewed perception of gun owners. I don't shoot at human silohette targets or zomies for that matter, personally, I find it distatefull.

That said, ill conceed that a handguns primary purpose, for most people, is to stop a threat. I believe leo refers to a force continuem.

If you can find a bulletproof way of setting up barriers to keep people who do feel a guns primary purpose is to kill people and yet not infringe on the rights of others, I'm all ears.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Or at least put a cap on their capacity?

"Never let a crisis go to waste..."

let's see: on an average day in the USA approx. 30 people are killed with guns. 365 days each year. What is the average per day with pressure cookers?

Your post just makes you look extremely silly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

I see the liberals wringing their collective hand and lamenting, "We HAVE to do something"

[yoink 321]

With very little training, effort or knowledge you could go out, buy a firearm, load it and then kill a dozen people if that's your thing. It requires no special effort and as such is perceived as incredibly easy. Too easy in the eyes of the 'liberals'.

Try doing that with the homemade bomb scenario... First you actually have to know what goes into it, and then in what ratios. I could GIVE you all the ingredients you need and chances are you couldn't make them explode.
So then you have to actually make the damned stuff and construct the device itself without blowing yourself up. Then you have to fashion a detonator. Only then can you go out and kill a bunch of people...

That's only ONE of the reasons why it's an apples / oranges comparison.

I don't believe anyone has said that nutters couldn't use bombs to commit an atrocity. Just historically they don't... The nutters, the ones who seem to have no reason to kill a bunch of people before offing themselves, just seem to prefer guns.
That suggests to me that we should attempt to control that situation, before looking at other ones that might further impose on peoples freedoms.

[sfzombie 3]

i agree with you there, we need to control that situation. but the answer to controlling the situation is not to enact more laws when the ones on the books won't prevent these atrocities in school shootings or mass killings (i'm not counting gang or drug related shooting). the statistics of these kinds of killings are insanely small when taken in context. the odds of me getting killed in a shooting incident are almost nil. granted, i could venture to some places at some times and greatly increase my chances, but on average, they're non-existant.

i'm thinking more along the lines that if it's not broke, don't fix it. there is absolutely no way to prevent shit like the ct school shootings by limiting law abiding citizens rights,

http://kitswv.com

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

>creating a bit of a strawman, here.

A handgun's primary purpose is to kill people. That's why people practice with human-shaped targets, and why things like "stopping power" are used as metrics. That makes them inherently different than something designed to cook food.

Anyone who does not understand the difference probably shouldn't own a gun.

Here I thought they were invented to kill rattlesnakes, mountain lions or bears when you're too far from your long gun.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

With very little training, effort or knowledge you could go out, buy a firearm, load it and then kill a dozen people if that's your thing. It requires no special effort and as such is perceived as incredibly easy. Too easy in the eyes of the 'liberals'.

Try doing that with the homemade bomb scenario... First you actually have to know what goes into it, and then in what ratios. I could GIVE you all the ingredients you need and chances are you couldn't make them explode.
So then you have to actually make the damned stuff and construct the device itself without blowing yourself up. Then you have to fashion a detonator. Only then can you go out and kill a bunch of people...

That's only ONE of the reasons why it's an apples / oranges comparison.

I don't believe anyone has said that nutters couldn't use bombs to commit an atrocity. Just historically they don't... The nutters, the ones who seem to have no reason to kill a bunch of people before offing themselves, just seem to prefer guns.
That suggests to me that we should attempt to control that situation, before looking at other ones that might further impose on peoples freedoms.

We could actually start listing off all the mad bombers in us and world history in order to show how ill thought out that statement is, but it pretty stands out all by itself as being ridiculous and one-sided...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[billvon 2,393]

>on this, i can say you are completely wrong. a handgun's ONLY purpose is to shoot bullets.

Bullshit. That's like saying a reserve's ONLY purpose is to catch air, not to save your life.

Handguns are designed to be convenient deadly weapons. It is used to shoot people. That's why criminals use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to commit crimes. That's why cops use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to prevent crime. That's why homeowners own them - so that they can kill, or threaten to kill, intruders. That's why people practice with them using targets that are shaped and sized like humans.

There are plenty of weapons designed for other things. Hunting rifles, for example, are generally long guns because they are more accurate and more efficient. Why aren't handguns designed this way? Because that design is not ideal for their primary purpose, which is to be a convenient deadly weapon.

[billvon 2,393]

>That said, ill conceed that a handguns primary purpose, for most people, is to stop a threat.

Agreed. And that threat is not an epidemic or impending hurricane, it is a person intent on doing you harm. Thus a gun's primary purpose is to kill that person, or threaten them with death to get them to stop. The threat is valid because a handgun is designed to kill people - and does a good job at it.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Or at least put a cap on their capacity?

"Never let a crisis go to waste..."

let's see: on an average day in the USA approx. 30 people are killed with guns. 365 days each year. What is the average per day with pressure cookers?

Your post just makes you look extremely silly.

Really? Lets break things down by indecent....

How many people were hurt/killed per indecent, by guns? How many people here hurt/killed by these pressure cookers?

And yes, this is a valid argument. How many incidents a year involve assault weapons? Yet they still want to ban them.

And who really uses pressure cookers any more? The only reason a person would buy a pressure cooker now a days is for nefarious reasons...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I see the liberals wringing their collective hand and lamenting, "We HAVE to do something"

As much as it gives you a boner to mindlessly use the word "liberal" as a pejorative, you'd be surprised how many people are moderates, and how many moderates think a compromise measure is reasonable. (For example: the 91% of the people who want enhanced background checks.) Those people are appalled at the simplistic politics of "do nothing". Those same people are disgusted at being summarily demonized and lumped-into some "enemy camp", as though they're a bunch of fools. Those same people tend to be the swing votes that carry close elections; and if you haven't noticed, a lot of elections are pretty close.

Want to see more, and more, and more, Democrats elected, some of them pretty liberal, enacting policies you don't like? Keep doing what you're doing. In the long run, you're not rallying the troops, you're alienating a huge cohort of swing voters, and increasing your losses at the polls.

[yoink 321]

Quote

And who really uses pressure cookers any more? The only reason a person would buy a pressure cooker now a days is for nefarious reasons...

Pressure cookers are super trendy at the moment. Along with water baths...

[normiss 622]

While some people see a straw as simply a delivery vehicle for drugs....most of us are smart enough to realize that's not the only way they are used.

I've never slit my wrists with razor blades, but they can be used for that.
I never sniffed glue, yet I have a hard time finding a decent plastic cement should I want to build a model.

There are a million items on this planet with more than one use.
Do we stop when we take a cop home to simply supervise our use of any item to make sure we behave?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Handguns are designed to be convenient deadly weapons. It is used to shoot people. That's why criminals use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to commit crimes. That's why cops use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to prevent crime. That's why homeowners own them - so that they can kill, or threaten to kill, intruders. That's why people practice with them using targets that are shaped and sized like humans.

You're already contradicting your strawman, now. You had said their only purpose was to kill people. Now you've added several more. It's almost a certainty that when someone makes a stupid statement like X's only purpose is to do Y (and Y is bad, therefore X is bad), that they're trying to avoid a significant part of the issue.

And you still forgotten about their role with non human animals. (Ever see Jaws?)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Try doing that with the homemade bomb scenario... First you actually have to know what goes into it, and then in what ratios. I could GIVE you all the ingredients you need and chances are you couldn't make them explode.
So then you have to actually make the damned stuff and construct the device itself without blowing yourself up. Then you have to fashion a detonator. Only then can you go out and kill a bunch of people...

Gasoline is pretty easily obtained. No ratios to worry about, either.

[quade 3]

Quote

Gasoline is pretty easily obtained. No ratios to worry about, either.

If you want to make a fire with gasoline, you're right.
If you want to make an explosion with gasoline, you're wrong.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

Handguns are designed to be convenient deadly weapons. It is used to shoot people. That's why criminals use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to commit crimes. That's why cops use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to prevent crime. That's why homeowners own them - so that they can kill, or threaten to kill, intruders. That's why people practice with them using targets that are shaped and sized like humans.

You're already contradicting your strawman, now. You had said their only purpose was to kill people. Now you've added several more. It's almost a certainty that when someone makes a stupid statement like X's only purpose is to do Y (and Y is bad, therefore X is bad), that they're trying to avoid a significant part of the issue.

And you still forgotten about their role with non human animals. (Ever see Jaws?)

Well, no, he didn't - he called someone else out on stating that was their 'only' purpose, quite firmly. He also covered the animal part when he differentiated between the primary suited purpose of rifles vs handguns. Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one, it's the wrong tool for the job. I reckon Bill made a spot on assessment splitting the two out.

ETA: I'm not stating that either type of weapon is inherently good or bad. A sports shooter is not using their weapon to kill someone when they shoot targets, they're demonstrating a skill. Doesn't change the fact that the device they use to demonstrate that skill was originally conceived and designed to kill, whether for noble purposes or evil ones.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Gasoline is pretty easily obtained. No ratios to worry about, either.

If you want to make a fire with gasoline, you're right.
If you want to make an explosion with gasoline, you're wrong.

But if you want to make explosions with gasoline vapors, your right...

Edited to add:
All you need is a pressure cooker....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[devildog 0]

Quote

With very little training, effort or knowledge you could go out, buy a firearm, load it and then kill a dozen people if that's your thing. It requires no special effort and as such is perceived as incredibly easy. Too easy in the eyes of the 'liberals'.

Try doing that with the homemade bomb scenario... First you actually have to know what goes into it, and then in what ratios. I could GIVE you all the ingredients you need and chances are you couldn't make them explode.
So then you have to actually make the damned stuff and construct the device itself without blowing yourself up. Then you have to fashion a detonator. Only then can you go out and kill a bunch of people...

That's only ONE of the reasons why it's an apples / oranges comparison.

I don't believe anyone has said that nutters couldn't use bombs to commit an atrocity. Just historically they don't... The nutters, the ones who seem to have no reason to kill a bunch of people before offing themselves, just seem to prefer guns.
That suggests to me that we should attempt to control that situation, before looking at other ones that might further impose on peoples freedoms.

Building a bomb is actually very, very easy. It only takes a little guidance, and in the Google-Age, a matter of seconds to find a set of good instructions. You can make very deadly ones out of plenty of easily bought things -- not even counting gunpowder which obviously is a great and easy thing to use.

In fact, if I'm purely buying from commercial stores w/o any sort of license (like a CCW that lets you skip the waiting period), I can buy components for and build a very powerful bomb in less than a day where as I have to wait much longer as a background check puts my handgun purchase on hold.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Handguns are designed to be convenient deadly weapons. It is used to shoot people. That's why criminals use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to commit crimes. That's why cops use them - so they can easily kill people or threaten to kill people to prevent crime. That's why homeowners own them - so that they can kill, or threaten to kill, intruders. That's why people practice with them using targets that are shaped and sized like humans.

You're already contradicting your strawman, now. You had said their only purpose was to kill people. Now you've added several more. It's almost a certainty that when someone makes a stupid statement like X's only purpose is to do Y (and Y is bad, therefore X is bad), that they're trying to avoid a significant part of the issue.

And you still forgotten about their role with non human animals. (Ever see Jaws?)

Well, no, he didn't - he called someone else out on stating that was their 'only' purpose, quite firmly. He also covered the animal part when he differentiated between the primary suited purpose of rifles vs handguns. Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one, it's the wrong tool for the job. I reckon Bill made a spot on assessment splitting the two out.

ETA: I'm not stating that either type of weapon is inherently good or bad. A sports shooter is not using their weapon to kill someone when they shoot targets, they're demonstrating a skill. Doesn't change the fact that the device they use to demonstrate that skill was originally conceived and designed to kill, whether for noble purposes or evil ones.

then I reckon you'd both be wrong. One purpose of a handgun was to be there after you shot your prey and approached it, in case it either wasn't dead, or some of it's family was still around. or for those times when you're busy doing something else, and some other animal interrupts you. Or for those times when you were out riding the range and you came upon one of your herd who had broken a leg and needed to be put out of its misery. Yes, it wasn't your 'primary' weapon, but it was certainly your secondary.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[philh 0]

"a 2011 study in the Journal of Trauma compared the United States with similar nations and found that U.S. homicide rates were “6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries.”

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/mass-murder-shooting-sprees-and-rampage-violence-research-roundup?utm_source=2012-12-18-campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JR-email#


Surely this is the issue of concern, why are these numbers so high and what do you want to do about it?
If they were deaths by overseas terrorists I suspect there would be a stronger response.
I do think we can argue that the higher rate of gun crime in the USA compared to similar countries is due to the higher number and easier access to guns.
Does anyone seriously think that the higher homicide rate is due to pressure cookers, even after the last 3 tragic deaths in Boston? if not, you don't have a serious argument.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Here's the point - when sandy Hook happened, when Giffords happened, when all these incidents happened, they blamed nutters with guns, so we have to pass tough new laws on guns (and nutters)

When the Boston bombing happened they blamed the terrorist. Funny - there's been no mention of the terrorist being a "nutter." There's no mention of bombs causing this problem. Banning sulfur or other elements of ewxplosives. Backpacks that can conceak bombs, knives, etc. Nope - we gotta be on the lookout for evil. Not bombs. Not bomb pieces. Not crazies. Straight up evil terrorist.

Use a gun? You're a nutter.
Use a bomb? Ah, shucks, that's just a bad guy.

There are distinct differences in how public perceptions are being molded. And the distinctions seems pretty damned arbitrary.

Last time I checked you couldn't buy a bomb at Walmart.

- Dan G

[mistercwood 287]

I used the qualifier "primary" for a reason. Your points raised are absolutely valid to still potentially have a handgun with you, I thought examples such as you've given as self-evident enough I didn't need to state it explicitly. If anything though, you reinforce my point - the handgun is in your examples the device to remove an immediate threat as quickly as possible with lethal force.

I dunno, guys. I just find the refusal to admit a gun is primarily designed to kill, is like saying a nuke isn't designed to take out a large population centre in one go. Sure, you could use one to move an annoying mountain out of the way, but that's not what it was made for.

That could be a really shitty analogy but it's late and I'm tired and I don't care...

[brenthutch 383]

Bullshit. That's like saying a reserve's ONLY purpose is to catch air, not to save your life.

Not so fast Bill, a reserve is designed to catch air, inflate quickly, and reduce ones decent rate. A deployed reserve will do all of that, but as we all know it will not necessarily save you life.

I have put tens of thousands of rounds through pistols and have yet to kill anybody. Either I am terrible at using handguns or you are wrong with your assessment of their purpose.