Chefelf.com Night Life: Why legalize assault weapons? - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (21 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • Last »

Why legalize assault weapons?

#166 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:39 PM

If you didnt think assault rifles were the best way to prevent crack head zombies from invading our homes, why didnt you suggest the best way? Are you keeping secrets from us? Is your head filled with delicious crack flavored braaaaaaaaaaains?

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

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#167 User is offline   BigStupidDogFacedArse Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11-January 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 09 June 2008 - 12:56 PM

I'm not going to jump in here because I'm not needed, but this comment:

QUOTE
I argued that assault rifles would stem crime. I never argued that they were needed to stem crime.


is the best comment ever.


This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 09 June 2008 - 12:57 PM

0

#168 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 09 June 2008 - 10:58 PM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 10 2008, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you didnt think assault rifles were the best way to prevent crack head zombies from invading our homes, why didnt you suggest the best way? Are you keeping secrets from us? Is your head filled with delicious crack flavored braaaaaaaaaaains?

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)

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 10 2008, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


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.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#169 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:26 PM

QUOTE (Deucaon @ Jun 9 2008, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


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.
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#170 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:42 PM

QUOTE
I presented a scenario where it would be BETTER if you had an assault rifle but it wasn’t NEEDED.


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?

QUOTE
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.


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.)

QUOTE
(by the by the by, only a complete ignoramus thinks shotguns and submachine guns are assault rifles)


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.

QUOTE
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.


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

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#171 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:32 AM

I'll disagree with Orator: alcohol isn't an assault weapon desired by a tiny minority of gun collectors, survivalists and soon-to-be-mass-murderer-suicides. It's a fairly common food product, desired by millions of people. You might as well have said that selling cars to people is asking for trouble, or bikini briefs, or those damnable iPods that everyone is wearing so they can't hear when you're about to accidentally hit them with a comically long board you're carrying over your shoulder. The problem with trying to compare one thing with another thing is that the analogy usually breaks apart well on your way to your point.

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

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#172 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:48 AM

civ2: Yeah, it was definitely a broken analogy in hindsight. That might be because there is nothing analogous to assault weapons. I still stand by my point that I don't agree with limiting what gun collectors can get because of crazies.

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?
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#173 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 10 June 2008 - 04:27 AM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 10 2008, 02:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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?


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.

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 10 2008, 02:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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, 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.

QUOTE (TheOrator @ Jun 10 2008, 02:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


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.

QUOTE (TheOrator @ Jun 10 2008, 02:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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.


Touché.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#174 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 10 June 2008 - 12:47 PM

QUOTE (TheOrator @ Jun 10 2008, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
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?

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.

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#175 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2008 - 01:30 PM

Orator- Yeah. Civ pretty much took my idea. Figures he goes after the guy who's making semi sensible arguments and I get Deuacon. Thanks, Civ!

QUOTE
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”


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?

QUOTE
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.


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.

QUOTE
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.


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

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#176 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2008 - 02:22 PM

I think I've got something now...

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. biggrin.gif
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#177 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:53 PM

Arial fireworks serve a recreational purpose just like alcohol. Assault rifles have no recreational purpose. They may provide recreation, but their purpose is to fire off an inordinate amount of bullets. Also, fire works usually only injure the person using them (much like alcohol) so its more of a personal liberties thing. When assault weapons are used improperly it more often injures other people, so its more of a social problem than a question of individual responsibility.

Also, fire works are just plain rad, especially the illegal kind.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#178 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 June 2008 - 09:07 PM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Jun 10 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Assault rifles have no recreational purpose.

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...

QUOTE (JM @ but paraphrased)
Alcohol only injures the person using it.


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

"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#179 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 10 June 2008 - 10:01 PM

I just found a perfect reason why you would need an assault rifle: you live in a mob controlled neighbourhood and the mob have come to collect their "protection fee" but you don't want to pay or you cant pay.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#180 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 10 June 2008 - 10:47 PM

What you usually do in that situation is you let them know you don't have the money, but that you would like to work it out in trade. Then Paulie lets you know that your services may be necessary at such and such a time. Hilarity ensues.

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.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (21 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size