What if: Terrorist attack rather than disturbed shooter

SuperBeetle wrote:You seem to like to mention hand grenades and the like all the time. Facts are facts. Cars kill and maim people every day. Cars were never meant to kill they were meant for transportation. They are unsafe and innocent people are killed by them all the time. People kill people...............always have and always will.

please refer to my previous post to understand exactly why the majority of American people do not accept your analogy of assault weapons VS. automobiles.

baddawg wrote:Nope, and to answer you next question. If my kid shot himself, would I give up my guns then. Nope. If my kids were killed in a plane crash, would I demand that all planes be grounded? NOPE. Next Question

Well, that wasn't my next question, but you need to compare apples to apples. Airplanes like cars were created for transportation. That argument isn't really a valid comparison. But, let's say for your sake, that it is. People except that there is a number of risks involved with flying and driving. When that risk exceeds the benifits something is done about it. Aeronautical designs are changed like in the case of the DeHavilland Comet or the Corvair in automobiles. You can draw your own conclusions about how that might play out to fire arms that are inherently dangerous and apply the same logic.

dcrane wrote:

SuperBeetle wrote:You seem to like to mention hand grenades and the like all the time. Facts are facts. Cars kill and maim people every day. Cars were never meant to kill they were meant for transportation. They are unsafe and innocent people are killed by them all the time. People kill people...............always have and always will.

please refer to my previous post to understand exactly why the majority of American people do not accept your analogy of assault weapons VS. automobiles.

Not one of my guns were built or purchased with the intent to kill or harm someone. Not all of my guns were built to shoot or kill animals or anything besides paper. So how do my guns differ from my car. I could use my car for defense of an angry mob. Some nut job can use there vehicle to kill and Mame many and have done so. We do not need Jet aircraft (airliners) they can build more trains, they would be hard to steer into a building. Now we have cloud computing so less need to travel for business is needed anyway. So to me my Black modern rifle is not any different than a black Volkswagen. In my control if there is no need for me to defend myself I will use neither to harm anyone. But if I would need to run some bad guy down to get out of danger, damn right I would. You cannot reason with taking away the tool is the right strategy. Oh yea the stops on skis have not caused any change to the way they perform and did not cause more risk to the owner/ user. And they are a good idea for both sides. Limiting me to how much ammo is in my gun. Well that puts me at a major disadvantage against a bad guy that ignores the law. I will not accept that. I hope I never have to protect myself or my family by taking another persons life, but I also hope that I am prepared to if the need should ever arise. 10 rds are not always enough and that has been proven time and time again. Ask any police officer in a large city if they would leave carrying less than 10 rds. And I don't buy it that they are police and need that more than I do. Where I live the police would only get there in time to fill out the report.

dcrane wrote:

baddawg wrote:What are cameras at the schools going to do?? really??

So dcrane, if just one life would be saved are you willing to give up you car,truck,motorcycle,bicycle,skateboard, whatever you use to get around? Should I have to give up mine, because that's the way YOU (your herd) think?

I knew someone would respond with the whole "give up your car then" theory Answer: some things have a valid enough purpose or "need" in life that the risk is a necessity (cars, trucks, airplanes obviously fall into this category), however most people feel that their is no such "necessity" for people to own, use and play with assault weapons and hand grenades (therefor... it not worth human lives for us to enjoy this unnecessary play is what most Americans are thinking right now).

Probably the majority of the country thinks there is no reason to be burning coal for home heat, are you gonna give that up I mean miners get killed, it pollutes the land, poisons the water, you can't even go outside without an air mask on cause it is making the air unbreathable


Eric

Coalfire wrote:

dcrane wrote:

baddawg wrote:What are cameras at the schools going to do?? really??

So dcrane, if just one life would be saved are you willing to give up you car,truck,motorcycle,bicycle,skateboard, whatever you use to get around? Should I have to give up mine, because that's the way YOU (your herd) think?

I knew someone would respond with the whole "give up your car then" theory Answer: some things have a valid enough purpose or "need" in life that the risk is a necessity (cars, trucks, airplanes obviously fall into this category), however most people feel that their is no such "necessity" for people to own, use and play with assault weapons and hand grenades (therefor... it not worth human lives for us to enjoy this unnecessary play is what most Americans are thinking right now).

Probably the majority of the country thinks there is no reason to be burning coal for home heat, are you gonna give that up I mean miners get killed, it pollutes the land, poisons the water, you can't even go outside without an air mask on cause it is making the air unbreathable

Eric

EXACTLY !!! Once again Your making my point beautifully my friend The EPA stepped in because of the mass ongoing health issue and created new laws for us back in 1990ish (so yes indeed... Skier's and coal burners and 1000's of other industries and products have been regulated, banned and controlled when their is a problem)... The EPA limited our rights to burn coal in an uncontrolled manner (even though most of us could do it responsibly and efficiently and burn in a way that is even better then an EPA approved stove) they imposed these laws across the board (even to the responsible coal burners).... ya dont hear me whining do ya

dcrane wrote:


EXACTLY !!! Once again Your making my point beautifully my friend The EPA stepped in because of the mass ongoing health issue and created new laws for us back in 1990ish (so yes indeed... Skier's and coal burners and 1000's of other industries and products have been regulated, banned and controlled when their is a problem)... The EPA limited our rights to burn coal in an uncontrolled manner (even though most of us could do it responsibly and efficiently and burn in a way that is even better then an EPA approved stove) they imposed these laws across the board (even to the responsible coal burners).... ya dont hear me whining do ya

What massive health issues, I know the mayor has posted charts that since coal burning has gotten cleaner, and less of it asthma rates have gone up. I think if you follow the money you will always find the answer. It is always easy to say ban things from people that you don't use readily. I mean cars were for transportation, so you claim we need them. Assault rifle are for defense, don't we have the right to defend ourselves?


Eric

DC,So, We've answered (in your mind) why its ok to take my guns away but not my 4,000 brick that I drive down the road that gets 15mpg on a good day.

I still want to know what good are cameras at the schools? What more are they going to do then give the media some more crap to keep replaying on the tv until the next nut case can't stand it any more and wants to be more famous (in his mind) and goes out and blows up the next mark so everybody will be talking about him? Do you really think someone is going to walk up to the front door and wave around a sign that they would like to come in and harm people? No, maybe the next nut job takes his car/truck and plows into the soccer field full of kids. It doesn't have to be kids, what if he does it at the county fair? what do we do about that?

"You cannot reason with taking away the tool is the right strategy"

nobody is taking away our "tools" (Guns)... they are merely limiting their holding capacity (making changes to what is acceptable/reasonable in the eyes of the majority).
They did not ban the Pinto because the gas tank was an ongoing threat and danger to people, they merely made them move it forward and secure it better. Nobody is saying to Ban Guns!!! only modify them to what a "reasonable" person would find acceptably safe for our communities.

I do think the AR-15 is a gun and I have heard "somebody" say BAN them. I guess I could be wrong, but I do live in NY.

"reasonable" person

But everybody thinks that they are the epitome of "reason". I don't want you making policy about what is reasonable for me to own. I'll stick to my own thank you.

Kevin

dcrane wrote:
EXACTLY !!! Once again Your making my point beautifully my friend The EPA stepped in because of the mass ongoing health issue and created new laws for us back in 1990ish (so yes indeed... Skier's and coal burners and 1000's of other industries and products have been regulated, banned and controlled when their is a problem)... The EPA limited our rights to burn coal in an uncontrolled manner (even though most of us could do it responsibly and efficiently and burn in a way that is even better then an EPA approved stove) they imposed these laws across the board (even to the responsible coal burners).... ya dont hear me whining do ya

Actually EPA has an exemption for residential anthracite coal burning. Because it is a small niche market and the recent testing showed it to be very clean. There is no EPA approved coal stove. They may be EPA approved for wood burning.

Flyer5 wrote:

dcrane wrote:
EXACTLY !!! Once again Your making my point beautifully my friend The EPA stepped in because of the mass ongoing health issue and created new laws for us back in 1990ish (so yes indeed... Skier's and coal burners and 1000's of other industries and products have been regulated, banned and controlled when their is a problem)... The EPA limited our rights to burn coal in an uncontrolled manner (even though most of us could do it responsibly and efficiently and burn in a way that is even better then an EPA approved stove) they imposed these laws across the board (even to the responsible coal burners).... ya dont hear me whining do ya

Actually EPA has an exemption for residential anthracite coal burning. Because it is a small niche market and the recent testing showed it to be very clean. There is no EPA approved coal stove. They may be EPA approved for wood burning.

SEE

KLook wrote:

"reasonable" person

But everybody thinks that they are the epitome of "reason". I don't want you making policy about what is reasonable for me to own. I'll stick to my own thank you.

Kevin

it will inevitably be what the majority finds to be "reasonable" and if you differ from what the majority of the people in this country feel is "reasonable" you will not be happy nor will you agree with any of it... BUT obey it you WILL!

Flyer5 wrote:

dcrane wrote:
EXACTLY !!! Once again Your making my point beautifully my friend The EPA stepped in because of the mass ongoing health issue and created new laws for us back in 1990ish (so yes indeed... Skier's and coal burners and 1000's of other industries and products have been regulated, banned and controlled when their is a problem)... The EPA limited our rights to burn coal in an uncontrolled manner (even though most of us could do it responsibly and efficiently and burn in a way that is even better then an EPA approved stove) they imposed these laws across the board (even to the responsible coal burners).... ya dont hear me whining do ya

Actually EPA has an exemption for residential anthracite coal burning. Because it is a small niche market and the recent testing showed it to be very clean. There is no EPA approved coal stove. They may be EPA approved for wood burning.

hate to go of topic here but *censored*, can i start slapping together some of the old mans coal stoves and sell them? maybe just take out any ref. to wood burning in them? They are all already UL listed (i dont think that ever goes away?)

dcrane wrote:

Flyer5 wrote:

dcrane wrote:
EXACTLY !!! Once again Your making my point beautifully my friend The EPA stepped in because of the mass ongoing health issue and created new laws for us back in 1990ish (so yes indeed... Skier's and coal burners and 1000's of other industries and products have been regulated, banned and controlled when their is a problem)... The EPA limited our rights to burn coal in an uncontrolled manner (even though most of us could do it responsibly and efficiently and burn in a way that is even better then an EPA approved stove) they imposed these laws across the board (even to the responsible coal burners).... ya dont hear me whining do ya

Actually EPA has an exemption for residential anthracite coal burning. Because it is a small niche market and the recent testing showed it to be very clean. There is no EPA approved coal stove. They may be EPA approved for wood burning.

hate to go of topic here but *censored*, can i start slapping together some of the old mans coal stoves and sell them? maybe just take out any ref. to wood burning in them? They are all already UL listed (i dont think that ever goes away?)

As long as you have the paperwork sure.