Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,228
- 16,733
- 2,190
I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?