NBC now admitting that no assault weapons used at Sandy Hook. HANDGUNS ONLY

[LoneLaugher]

Please respond to post #93.

 

[bobcollum]

The key difference, of course, is that there is no constitutional right to commit murder.

There is, however, a constitutional right to own firearms.

Yeah, they used to drain their blood when they were ill too.

I don't feel they can offer me much practical advice these days.

Freedom's so overrated, isn't it?

Meanwhile, back in reality:

FDA approves leeches as medical devices - Health - Health care - More health news | NBC News

Not the same thing, not really close.

Nice try though.

 

[bobcollum]

I wonder what the founding fathers would say today about American's use of firearms?

Of course I know people like Daveman are all too ready to tell me they'd still be all for it.

You know, because of Liberty and whatnot.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them.

No, what it does is demonstrate that laws don't prevent people from breaking them.

There is a difference between preventing before the fact and punishing after the fact. Laws are useful for providing punishment after the fact. They aren't as useful for preventing before the fact. The Sandy Hook case prevents a prime example of the fact that restricting guns does little to prevent violent crime.

While the potential for punishment can have a certain deterring effect in some cases, the potential punishment for violating any gun control law can never be deterrent enough for anyone who is already willing to commit murder or other violent crimes. And when a perpetrator is acting out a suicide, like Adam Lanza, that's all the more true.

 

[bobcollum]

Laws are accompanied by penalties for when they are broken. The fact that people break laws is not an argument in support of not having them.

No, what it does is demonstrate that laws don't prevent people from breaking them.

There is a difference between preventing before the fact and punishing after the fact. Laws are useful for providing punishment after the fact. They aren't as useful for preventing before the fact. The Sandy Hook case prevents a prime example of the fact that restricting guns does little to prevent violent crime.

While the potential for punishment can have a certain deterring effect in some cases, the potential punishment for violating any gun control law can never be deterrent enough for anyone who is already willing to commit murder or other violent crimes. And when a perpetrator is acting out a suicide, like Adam Lanza, that's all the more true.

I completely disagree.

You don't think people base decisions on what certain legal ramifications would be?

Sure, not all people would, but I'd have to guess a good number would.

 

[Paulie]

Please choose which isolated situation you would rather be in:

A). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you. You both have handguns.

B). You encounter. Thug intent on robbing you. Neither of you have weapons of ny kind.

I like how you conveniently left out C). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you and only he has a firearm.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I completely disagree.

You don't think people base decisions on what certain legal ramifications would be?

Sure, not all people would, but I'd have to guess a good number would.

Gee, I'd really like to kill a bunch of people today, but I'd hate to risk violating gun control laws.

....Said no criminal, ever.

 

[Paulie]

I completely disagree.

You don't think people base decisions on what certain legal ramifications would be?

Sure, not all people would, but I'd have to guess a good number would.

Gee, I'd really like to kill a bunch of people today, but I'd hate to risk violating gun control laws.

....Said no criminal, ever.

This is true. When you're already willing to commit murder, I'm pretty sure you don't care about any lesser offenses.

 

[bobcollum]

I completely disagree.

You don't think people base decisions on what certain legal ramifications would be?

Sure, not all people would, but I'd have to guess a good number would.

Gee, I'd really like to kill a bunch of people today, but I'd hate to risk violating gun control laws.

....Said no criminal, ever.

You can kill a bunch of people and not violate gun control laws. You didn't know that?

Have you ever met anyone that didn't smoke weed because it's illegal? I sure as hell have.

And before you say it, I'm not saying they're right, just that they think about the law before acting.

 

[bobcollum]

I completely disagree.

You don't think people base decisions on what certain legal ramifications would be?

Sure, not all people would, but I'd have to guess a good number would.

Gee, I'd really like to kill a bunch of people today, but I'd hate to risk violating gun control laws.

....Said no criminal, ever.

This is true. When you're already willing to commit murder, I'm pretty sure you don't care about any lesser offenses.

Hypothetically speaking, if we lived in a fairly lawless society where a murderer wasn't held accountable for his actions, do you think there'd be more, less, or around the same amount of murders we see today?

 

[Inthemiddle]

You can kill a bunch of people and not violate gun control laws. You didn't know that?

Wow, that was an incredibly stupid response.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please choose which isolated situation you would rather be in:

A). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you. You both have handguns.

B). You encounter. Thug intent on robbing you. Neither of you have weapons of ny kind.

I like how you conveniently left out C). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you and only he has a firearm.

Why? Would you choose that option? Idiot.

 

[bobcollum]

You can kill a bunch of people and not violate gun control laws. You didn't know that?

Wow, that was an incredibly stupid response.

I was trying to compete with the post I was replying to.

I didn't quite get there.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

BUT WE SHOULD STILL BAN ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS AMIRITE?
who knows what other lies are being spun.

NBC Admitted: No 'Assault Rifle' Used in Newtown Shooting Independent Journal Review

NBC now admitting? Reporting. NBC was not denying anything before.


jesus, some of you people are dense

 

[Paulie]

Gee, I'd really like to kill a bunch of people today, but I'd hate to risk violating gun control laws.

....Said no criminal, ever.

This is true. When you're already willing to commit murder, I'm pretty sure you don't care about any lesser offenses.

Hypothetically speaking, if we lived in a fairly lawless society where a murderer wasn't held accountable for his actions, do you think there'd be more, less, or around the same amount of murders we see today?

I realize that laws deter. Laws against murder probably deter against murder much more than laws against other violent crimes that don't include a homicide, deter.

A criminal is much more likely to still rob a person at gunpoint regardless of the gun laws in the area. Believe it or not, no matter how retarded it might seem of the perpetrator to be committing the crime, in many cases that crime was still a calculated risk. The risk/reward scenario of armed robbery can be pretty favorable to a criminal. You can straight up ban all guns, and if I'm a criminal and I think I can get 6 figures in an armed robbery I very well may still attempt the crime.

 

[bobcollum]

This is true. When you're already willing to commit murder, I'm pretty sure you don't care about any lesser offenses.

Hypothetically speaking, if we lived in a fairly lawless society where a murderer wasn't held accountable for his actions, do you think there'd be more, less, or around the same amount of murders we see today?

I realize that laws deter. Laws against murder probably deter against murder much more than laws against other violent crimes that don't include a homicide, deter.

A criminal is much more likely to still rob a person at gunpoint regardless of the gun laws in the area. Believe it or not, no matter how retarded it might seem of the perpetrator to be committing the crime, in many cases that crime was still a calculated risk. The risk/reward scenario of armed robbery can be pretty favorable to a criminal. You can straight up ban all guns, and if I'm a criminal and I think I can get 6 figures in an armed robbery I very well may still attempt the crime.

Fair enough, I'm not trying to imply that laws are some kind of end-all to problems involving crime, I just can't listen to someone tell me they only have an effect post-crime, as inthemiddle claimed.

 

[bobcollum]

You can kill a bunch of people and not violate gun control laws. You didn't know that?

Wow, that was an incredibly stupid response.

I forgot to mention that you conveniently omitted portions of my post, for obvious beneficial reasons.

 

[Paulie]

Please choose which isolated situation you would rather be in:

A). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you. You both have handguns.

B). You encounter. Thug intent on robbing you. Neither of you have weapons of ny kind.

I like how you conveniently left out C). You encounter a thug intent on robbing you and only he has a firearm.

Why? Would you choose that option? Idiot.

It's an option that you don't have the luxury of omitting.

 

[Rozman]

Good news bad news scenario.
I would rather have a gun...Hopefully I had trained with it and was able to use it well....

Bad news.Killing the perpetrator.

You just know that the NY criminal justice system with it's liberal bias would crush me.
If I was murdered in cold blood the perpetrator was has a rap sheet a mile long and has barely done jail time would stand a better chance of getting a suspended sentence for killing me.

Me I would have to spend thousands of dollars defending myself.
The perpetrator gets free legal services.

If I happen to get a lenient sentence I will have spent most of my money defending myself in the criminal trial now I will have to spend the little I have left in a civil trial because in killing the suspect I am responsible for the end of support that this person provided to his family.

Not to mention possible Federal charges because of me denying this person of their civil rights.

Maybe I don't carry a gun and just let the criminal with the gun that the Liberals don't have any problem with kill me.The Liberals don't seem to have any problem at all with the folks in Chicago running around with guns killing each other and whoever else gets in the way.

 

[Paulie]

I mean just look at prison life. These guys are ALREADY convicted of violent crimes and many of them, WHILE LOCKED UP FOR IT, are STILL committing violent crimes inside there.

Deterrents only go so far. It's completely unfair to take firearms out of the hands of people who could use them for defense, because you think it's going to stop criminals from comitting crimes.