Time to register/ban Pressure Cookers?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

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...

Give it up. This is the official thread of idiotic analogies.

[DanG 1]

Quote

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.

Come on. You say you're a former LRS soldier, so I'd bet that in firing most of those rounds you were practicing killing people.

Guns are weapons. If you take the position that guns are not weapons, then you can't complain when they ban guns, since the 2nd amendment is about protecting the right to own weapons. You can't have it both ways.

I'm against banning or heavily restricting guns, but I see no problem with background checks. If Walmart sold ready-made bombs (instead of pressure cookers that need major modifications to be used in bombs), I doubt most people would have a problem with requiring background checks to buy one.

- Dan G

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

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.

Or it means you've used your weapons in a recreational manner, responsibly, rather than as the device was originally intended to be used as its primary purpose. My issue has never been with responsible gun ownership. My issue is that the "responsible" part is not reinforced in any way, and without that part all it takes is a brain fart and someone ends up dead. Or at least a lot breezier than they were a few seconds ago.

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

[mistercwood 287]

My other favourite is the gun control -> nazi germany angle, history repeats itself etc etc... Yeah it's been so tough for me here under this fascist regime the last 16 years...

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[mistercwood 287]

I'm stubborn, Andy. I have abandonment issues. I can't let go.

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

[sfzombie 3]

wow. you really believe this shit you're spouting, don't you? i go to a gun range frequently and most of the targets used there are either circular or rectangular. i guess the circle can represent head shots, if you want to stretch it. when was the last time you went to a gun range? or do you just regurgitate whatever you hear that supports what you say, without fact checking? all guns were designed to propel a projectile farther than was possible before. that's all. if you really want to examine the effectiveness of killing, look to the ammunition, not the gun. the design of the gun is almost unchanged in over 100 years, with the notable exception of the addition of safety devices (handguns, not rifles).

http://kitswv.com

[lawrocket 3]

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

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

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

Right,however in your scenario you wouldn't use your handgun to scare your prey. You would use it to kill it. That is what the tool is designed for.

[philh 0]

and if that projectile never hurt anyone when it hit them presumably the demand for guns would be unchanged or no?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

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.

That reaction is perfectly understandable. The US has been through enough mass shootings that the first reaction is no longer: gee who would do such a thing.

Fortunately you are still at a stage where pressure cooker bombings evoke a more primal reaction.

Of course, a simple explanation like that does not allow for scoring "political" points, or reinforcing ingrained positions.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

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

Right,however in your scenario you wouldn't use your handgun to scare your prey. You would use it to kill it. That is what the tool is designed for.

The point is, bill von and others have been saying the purpose, what it was designed for, was to kill 'people'. That is untrue. The gun is a tool, yes.

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

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]That reaction is perfectly understandable.

[mistercwood 287]

To kill. People, animals, hell I've seen videos of people cutting down trees with gunfire. The primary purpose is to kill, or threaten to kill. I'm yet to see anyone refute that.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

To kill. People, animals, hell I've seen videos of people cutting down trees with gunfire. The primary purpose is to kill, or threaten to kill. I'm yet to see anyone refute that.

Ergo post #51. Or maybe alter-ego thereto. Whatever.

Anyhow, stop being logical.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

To kill. People, animals, hell I've seen videos of people cutting down trees with gunfire. The primary purpose is to kill, or threaten to kill. I'm yet to see anyone refute that.

Denying that the guns were designed to kill is like denying that cigarettes are designed to deliver nicotine. The world over, that may be a relevant argument - guns are designed to kill and therefore can be taken away by the government.

But for the last 200 years, Americans have had a Constitutional right to have them. Not in the original Constitution - the right was put there afterward. And it's still there.

So people can talk all they want about the notional US where the right doesn't exist. May as well be talking about "police should have the right to search people's homes without a warrant." Arguments exist that indicate such a law would protect far more children than any other rule. But since there's that 4th Amendment, it's talking out your ass.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Quote

To kill. People, animals, hell I've seen videos of people cutting down trees with gunfire. The primary purpose is to kill, or threaten to kill. I'm yet to see anyone refute that.

Denying that the guns were designed to kill is like denying that cigarettes are designed to deliver nicotine. The world over, that may be a relevant argument - guns are designed to kill and therefore can be taken away by the government.

But for the last 200 years, Americans have had a Constitutional right to have them. Not in the original Constitution - the right was put there afterward. And it's still there.

So people can talk all they want about the notional US where the right doesn't exist. May as well be talking about "police should have the right to search people's homes without a warrant." Arguments exist that indicate such a law would protect far more children than any other rule. But since there's that 4th Amendment, it's talking out your ass.

So, to answer the original question: since there is no constitutional protection on pressure cookers, they therefor should be registered and/or banned.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Sidenote - you missed my point completely. And deliberately.

You too.

My point was that requiring a background check for a pressure cooker because it could be modified to be one part of a weapon is not the same as requiring a background check for ... a weapon.

- Dan G

[okalb 78]

Quote

So, to answer the original question: since there is no constitutional protection on pressure cookers, they therefor should be registered and/or banned.

Completely false, the Boston marathon bombs have shown that pressure cookers can be used as weapons and therefore are protected by the second. Duh

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[lawrocket 3]

Sounds odd, but banning pressure cookers is like banning lead paint. Or lawn darts. Or magnetic "buckyballs." Or chlorofluorcarbons. Or asbestos. Or patent medicines. Or sodas. Or salt. Or prostitution. Or drugs. Or high-flow toilets. Or incandescent bulbs. Or ban wages below $20.00 per hour.- There is no Constitutional right to any of those things.

It's thus far more difficult to ban guns than it is to ban toothpicks or any of those other things. The intellectually honest would view restrictions on gun use like restrictions on voting - a Constitutionally protected right subject to reasonable regulation. Yes - it's easier to ban pressure cookers than to ban guns.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Sounds odd, but banning pressure cookers is like banning lead paint. Or lawn darts. Or magnetic "buckyballs." Or chlorofluorcarbons. Or asbestos. Or patent medicines. Or sodas. Or salt. Or prostitution. Or drugs. Or high-flow toilets. Or incandescent bulbs. Or ban wages below $20.00 per hour.- There is no Constitutional right to any of those things.

It's thus far more difficult to ban guns than it is to ban toothpicks or any of those other things. The intellectually honest would view restrictions on gun use like restrictions on voting - a Constitutionally protected right subject to reasonable regulation. Yes - it's easier to ban pressure cookers than to ban guns.

Absolutely right. It is the ultimate: So there. Preferably followed with your tongue sticking out.

Now of course there are some intellectually honest people who don't mind having a debate about whether that amendment is really still all that good a thing to have 220 odd years later.

Unfortunately that debate often ends in one of two ways:

America is the best fucking country ever, if you take away guns we won't be.

or

Hitler did it first.

Which makes one wonder about that intellectual honesty.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

So, to answer the original question: since there is no constitutional protection on pressure cookers, they therefor should be registered and/or banned.

Completely false, the Boston marathon bombs have shown that pressure cookers can be used as weapons and therefore are protected by the second. Duh

Taken to its logical extreme, that argument can be made. Most technically, anything that can be considered to be within the category of "arms" can be argued to be protected under the Second.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So, to answer the original question: since there is no constitutional protection on pressure cookers, they therefor should be registered and/or banned.

Completely false, the Boston marathon bombs have shown that pressure cookers can be used as weapons and therefore are protected by the second. Duh

You can have my pressure cooker when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

or in Boston's case, feet and toes.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Now of course there are some intellectually honest people who don't mind having a debate about whether that amendment is really still all that good a thing to have 220 odd years later.