Why legalize assault weapons?
#166
Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:39 PM
And, ya know, while I'm at it... No. No you did not just argue that assault rifles would stem crime. You presented a scenario of many evil thugs armed to the teeth and bent on murder entering a home. In your bizarre murder thief story, yes, an assault rifle or similiar weapon was aarguably NEEDED because the thieves in your fantasy also carried automatic weapons. That was the argument you made.
If you went back on that pretty clear inference, you would be a smacktard. Now I'm not saying you are a smacktard, just you would be.
Quote
#167
Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:56 PM
is the best comment ever.
This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 09 June 2008 - 12:57 PM
#168
Posted 09 June 2008 - 10:58 PM
And, ya know, while I'm at it... No. No you did not just argue that assault rifles would stem crime. You presented a scenario of many evil thugs armed to the teeth and bent on murder entering a home. In your bizarre murder thief story, yes, an assault rifle or similiar weapon was aarguably NEEDED because the thieves in your fantasy also carried automatic weapons. That was the argument you made.
I presented a scenario where it would be BETTER if you had an assault rifle but it wasn’t NEEDED. I am sure you could (emphasis on could) fight off someone who has an Uzi, Sawnoff or AK with a pistol but it would be easier if you had an assault rifle.
(by the by the by, only a complete ignoramus thinks shotguns and submachine guns are assault rifles)
Well while we are using words that other people invented, you would be a big shtnozilik if you had a pudromat and randamoted to everyone while were trying to appear that you were fullyramblomatic.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#169
Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:26 PM
Are you then trying to imply then Yahtzee invented the word "smacktard"? I researched it once, seems to have come from some strategy game forum thing. And you wouldn't be doing it very well, because you seem to have made up the three unwords in that sentence anyway.
If you aren't, and are instead trying to tell him not to use words other people in general have made up, I'd like to point out every language is made entirely out of words some one else made up.
If neither of those were your point, then I fail to see any point and just have to wonder.
To make this at least marginally on-topic, I'd say I'm not personally for the sale of assault weapons but could not in good conscience be against it. I don't think we'd gain anything by being able to buy them all willy-nilly, but to restrict sale of them based on the actions of other people seems unreasonably unfair.
It's probably true that selling assault weapons to the great American public is just asking for trouble, but honestly so is selling alcohol. There are those who use alcohol responsibly, and those who use assault rifles responsibly. Drunk drivers aren't repealing the 21st Amendment and Postal Workers aren't repealing the 2nd.
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
nooooo
#170
Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:42 PM
You're really struggling here, I can see that. Earlier in the thread you inferred that it would be impossible to defend your home from an assault rifle wielding criminal without a similiar weapon. "How do you defend against an assault rifle wielding criminal using kitchen utensils, rifles or pistols?" I believe was your question. Any sane person would see that and rightly figure that you were suggesting it would be impossible to do so. Otherwise why bother asking the question unless it was meant to help your argument?
So, after 5 pages of "people should be allowed to have assault rifles to fight off home invaders" you're now saying that you were saying "it might be better if people were allowed to have assault rifles to fight off home invaders" Forgive me, but I really can't see the difference. What you're saying amounts to a doctor telling someone "It would be better to remove that tumor, but if we don't you COULD survive, who knows!" Now, that to me (and everyone else here) has a strong sub text of "lets remove that tumor". And it's the same with your argument. If that's not how you meant it, the fault lies with you for not properly communicating your ideas (or, far more likely, for going back and reinterpreting your ideas now that you know your theories are kaput.)
by the by the by the byte me, that's good. I don't think that. However they've come up quite often since you keep producing examples of video game weapons in your supposedly real world scenarios. So, yeah, for those purposes a "sawnoff", sub machine gun, or assault rifle, they all fall into the category of Deuacon's fantasy weapon fun time.
Yes, words that other people invented such as "what" or "the" or "orator" or "said".
Further comment besides that is needed, as it turns out. It's awesome that you want to act like Civ#2, but perhaps you could do so in a way that is humorous or topical, rather than a weak attempt at attacking me for using a word that is
1: Not mispelled in a humorous, Don King like manner.
2: In fairly common use in internet and gaming channels.
3: Is easily understandable when broken down to its component parts.
Also it'd help if it were funny and not just random, baseless nonsense. Just figured I'd offer a helpful hint.
Orator- I'm going to have to disagree, but my brain is too fried at the moment to explain why. There shall be debate upon this topic with you soon.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 10 June 2008 - 12:01 AM
Quote
#171
Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:32 AM
This may be over the top (let's see!), but the thing with ARs is that folks in general don't want them, and outlawing them wouldn't register with the majority. Outlawing assault rifles wouldn't lead to the crime period we saw in the time of prohibition. Outlawing alcohol would and did encourage contempt for the law, and mass civil disobedience (it also upped substantially the sale of assualt rifles!).
See, I'm going in the direction of "do what the public wants, so long as it's good for the public." The public couldn't give a toss about assault rifles, and we don't need them, so I don't care if they're legal or not. I can't understand the argument that they MUST be legal if we're to be safe, because I don't know one person who owns one, and I also don't know one person who has been victimised by home invaders. Denying people assault rifles would be inconsequential. But conversely, show me the damages of alcohol and I say it needs to be legal anyway. The consequences of denying people alcohol are too severe.
Also, everything Orator said about "Smacktard." NOT invented by Yahtzee.
http://www.urbandict...?term=smacktard
#172
Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:48 AM
JM: I await your rebuttal.
Afterthought: I suppose collector's swords might be analogous to assault weapons except that swordsmen are easier to stop. But a dude with a sword can kill a mighty number of people and they are only produced for collectors. Are there people who want collectible swords banned?
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
nooooo
#173
Posted 10 June 2008 - 04:27 AM
The answer to the question "How do you defend against an assault rifle wielding criminal using kitchen utensils, rifles or pistols?" is “not very well” even if you include “shotgun, sub machine gun, or” before “assault rifle” and change “an” to “a” or simply put “, shotgun or sub machinegun” after “assault rifle” to save time.
Yes, a “”sawnoff””, sub machinegun and assault rifle only exist in my imagination. In fact, everything we are debating is no more then a glitch in the Matrix that was created from a chicken that divided by zero.
The only place I have seen the word smacktard is on fullyramblomatic and on JM’s site. Yahtzee’s use of the word predates JM’s use of the word. I naturally assumed.
Touché.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#174
Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:47 PM
I think the danger of collateral damage from swords is minimal. Collectible sword dive-bys are even more rare than their assult rifle counterpart. I am less worried about people committing murder with assault rifles than I am with collateral damage from them. I figure any murder committed with the AR could have been committed with a handgun.
It is already illegal to carry a sword around, if that's any consolation.
As for the business of limiting what collectors can have because of crazies/gangstas, well can you tell them apart on sight? And what about chemical weapon collectors? Anthrax collectors? Nuclear bomb collectors? At some point along the line you have to stop caring about personal freedom and focus on public safety. That is after one of the basic goals of a society.
#175
Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:30 PM
And is there anything that you propose besides an assault rifle to use in defense against those assault rifle wielding criminals? Because when I want to open a can, I could use a big rock or a gun, but I don't say I'd open the can "better" without them. I say that I "need" a can opener. So your statement again boils down to "people need assault rifles to defend themselves." Are we clear on this? Now that we've stopped debating what you've been talking about the whole thread can we get back to just why it is that you've suddenly changed your tune and claimed Americans are too stupid to own guns?
You have consistently put forth a bizarre dystopian image of American society where hordes of well armed thief/assassin multiclasses attack homes with the express purpose of killing the inhabitants using the maximum number of bullets possible. So yes, those weapons do exist in real life, you get a gold star for that. But even we here in Mad Max Beyond America Dome still see them more often in video games than we do on our daily forays into the waste lands to scavenge for gas.
That smacktard was a commonly used slang term in video gaming culture being used by a video game reviewer? Why yes, that would be the natural assumption.
Quote
#176
Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:22 PM
Here in Minnesota, aerial fireworks are illegal to operate without a valid pyrotechnician's license and illegal to sell retail.
BUT in most places in the US aerial fireworks are easy to get (In Wisconsin, where we get ours, I think you need a photo ID) and the collateral damage from fireworks is potentially very high. Still not perfect, but I like analogies so I'll keep arguing with them.
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
nooooo
#177
Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:53 PM
Also, fire works are just plain rad, especially the illegal kind.
Quote
#178
Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:07 PM
That's not true, plenty of people go to shooting ranges for recreational shooting all the time, and those who don't own assault rifles themselves can rent them, just for the range. The fact that this remains profitable means assault rifles hold a clear recreational value.
And when fireworks go wrong--not your namby-pamby fountains or wheels, mind you, nice big FWEEEEEEEERRM BOOM fireworks--more than the drunk guy setting them off can get hurt.
EDIT: Stuff fixed.
Oh, and...
I don't want to get out the horrible statistics on drunk drivers, but I could. All you need to know is that the driver usually survives the crash, and the victims don't.
This post has been edited by TheOrator: 10 June 2008 - 09:11 PM
-John Carpenter's They Live
"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space
nooooo
#179
Posted 10 June 2008 - 10:01 PM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#180
Posted 10 June 2008 - 10:47 PM
Orator, I know where you're going with the illegal fireworks business, and even the drink driving thing (drinking is leagl, driving while impaired is not), and yeah. Making fireworks illegal may cause folks to obtain them illegally. I doubt it would mean that others would need to obtain illegal fireworks to use in self-defence, and I have a hard time imagining secret speakeasies where folks are admitted to firework dens on utterance of the password.
"Lenny sent me."
"Ok come on in."
"Ok, now let me see some cherry bombs."
But then again, I doubt that making assault weapons illegal would mean I'd need one to defend myself all of a sudden. Near as I can tell, they're legal now, noone owns them, and I don't need one to defend myself. I doubt banning them would create a run.