|
Post by antichrist on Apr 6, 2009 23:14:01 GMT -5
It never ceases to amaze me how creative us humans are when it comes to coming up with new ways to kill people. Does anyone know off hand how much of the US military budget is R&D?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 7, 2009 8:04:12 GMT -5
I agree that laws should make sense, and I also agree that gun laws are sometimes "feel-good" and cosmetic in nature, which is not helpful at all. I don't see the need for grenades or anything that assists in launching them (however accurate or inaccurate), though. To approve something that launches grenades, however faulty and inaccurate the launch, is to give de facto approval for things that launch grenades, and that is the point of the legislation against it. It doesn't matter how accurate it is or isn't, rather what matters is the statement on what the accessory is designed to do--whether it manages to do it well or not is beside the point. But the thing is, having a grenade in the first place is a violation of federal law. It's another feel good law to toss that out there, as if anyone had a chance to get their hands on the right tools, let alone the grenade, to use it. It's a useless law that just impedes others from getting something they'd like to have, and a loophole that importers to California can use to gouge the buyers. Edit On a somewhat similar note, there is a guy that designs milled 'cups' that fit on the launcher and allow the person to launch golfballs. The BATFE issued him a letter of confirmation marking it as a recreational device. Oh those poor golfers I don't think it's a "feel good" law; if a gun is designed to launch something that already is illegal, that makes the part designed de facto illegal--that the gov't had to spell it out is the more disturbing part. It's only useless until you need the law--then it's not useless. Think of it the way you would a seatbelt--they never work, until they do. It may be true that only 2-8% of crimes are caused by assault weapons--but those weapons can create incredible amounts of damage that you could not do with a redesigned golf ball launcher. Even if only one person in the history of the US ever went on a grenade throwing rampage, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make obtaining the capacity to do that illegal, just because only one person did it. If someone were to be able to do it again, the damage caused could be tremendous. And again, if you want to use the argument that we should be banning things that account for the most crime, then you do have to worry about taking your regular guns away.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 7, 2009 10:19:55 GMT -5
Well unfortunately, unless the law is spelled out completely, in detail. Somebody's going to challenge the law, and win.
Well if Grenade launchers are legal, obviously it's okay for me to add a homemade grenade (okay, that would probably blow up in your face). I just can't buy grenades.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 7, 2009 11:01:24 GMT -5
Very true, Antichrist.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 7, 2009 11:06:26 GMT -5
It never ceases to amaze me how creative us humans are when it comes to coming up with new ways to kill people. Does anyone know off hand how much of the US military budget is R&D? It's difficult to get realistic figures. Here's a link to their "official" budget for 2009, including a break down on what is spent where and what the supposed costs are: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/budget/defense.pdf. In the link, it says it plans $79 billion (if I'm reading the chart right) for R&D. It looks like their total budget is 651 billion for the 2009 FY. The conspiracy theorist in me won't allow me to fully believe the published budget, though. And I've seen other estimates by groups with a clear bias against the DOD that put the figures much higher. So, I'm not sure what should be considered as credible evidence when it comes to the gov't. But that's what they say they're spending, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 7, 2009 11:09:36 GMT -5
But the thing is, having a grenade in the first place is a violation of federal law. It's another feel good law to toss that out there, as if anyone had a chance to get their hands on the right tools, let alone the grenade, to use it. It's a useless law that just impedes others from getting something they'd like to have, and a loophole that importers to California can use to gouge the buyers. Edit On a somewhat similar note, there is a guy that designs milled 'cups' that fit on the launcher and allow the person to launch golfballs. The BATFE issued him a letter of confirmation marking it as a recreational device. Oh those poor golfers I don't think it's a "feel good" law; if a gun is designed to launch something that already is illegal, that makes the part designed de facto illegal--that the gov't had to spell it out is the more disturbing part. It's only useless until you need the law--then it's not useless. Think of it the way you would a seatbelt--they never work, until they do. It may be true that only 2-8% of crimes are caused by assault weapons--but those weapons can create incredible amounts of damage that you could not do with a redesigned golf ball launcher. Even if only one person in the history of the US ever went on a grenade throwing rampage, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make obtaining the capacity to do that illegal, just because only one person did it. If someone were to be able to do it again, the damage caused could be tremendous. And again, if you want to use the argument that we should be banning things that account for the most crime, then you do have to worry about taking your regular guns away. See, the unfortunate part of that logic is everything should be banned because atleast one person has used anything you name to kill someone. And no, I'm not a handgun owner, I stick to my rifles. Yes Anti, and for that they will be busted by the law. The very same law you're relying on to keep the other thousand gun laws upheld if anyone is that stupid to try it. Having anything explosive along the lines of a bomb is already deemed illegal by the BATFE. So question then would be, what was preventing him from making the explosive of choice?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 7, 2009 11:23:03 GMT -5
I have never suggested that things be banned because at least one person has used it. You are creating a strawman argument. What I am pointing out is that the reason certain things are considered illegal is because of their capacity to do great amounts of damage. That is why most people are OK with a ban on assault rifles, not because only 2-8% of people do the damage with them--but because people understand that even one person with a weapon like that has the capacity to murder many, many people in a way that someone with a souped up golf ball launcher clearly does not. No one can litigate murder and crime away, and no one is suggesting that is going to happen. What we can do, though, is attempt to control the damage. Nothing more. We can't prevent people from choosing to make explosives; we can simply make it difficult for them to make serious ones. In the same way that we can never keep people from choosing to make meth, but we can make it more difficult to get the ingredients. Everyone knows you're not going to stop meth completely--but most people agree it's worth trying to slow it down. Same with guns or other weapons that have the capacity to cause massive amounts of damage. We have a responsibility to try to control the damage--no one believes for a minute that we'll get rid of crime or even further that we could somehow keep people from choosing to do it in the first place. The goal is to reduce the kinds of incidents that would produce massive amounts of damage.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 7, 2009 11:39:15 GMT -5
I have never suggested that things be banned because at least one person has used it. You are creating a strawman argument. What I am pointing out is that the reason certain things are considered illegal is because of their capacity to do great amounts of damage. That is why most people are OK with a ban on assault rifles, not because only 2-8% of people do the damage with them--but because people understand that even one person with a weapon like that has the capacity to murder many, many people in a way that someone with a souped up golf ball launcher clearly does not. No one can litigate murder and crime away, and no one is suggesting that is going to happen. What we can do, though, is attempt to control the damage. Nothing more. We can't prevent people from choosing to make explosives; we can simply make it difficult for them to make serious ones. In the same way that we can never keep people from choosing to make meth, but we can make it more difficult to get the ingredients. Everyone knows you're not going to stop meth completely--but most people agree it's worth trying to slow it down. Same with guns or other weapons that have the capacity to cause massive amounts of damage. We have a responsibility to try to control the damage--no one believes for a minute that we'll get rid of crime or even further that we could somehow keep people from choosing to do it in the first place. The goal is to reduce the kinds of incidents that would produce massive amounts of damage. I dunno why you're using the golf ball thing as part of the debate, I mentioned that for shits and giggles mostly. Without the grenade launcher it's useless, it uses set screws to attach it to the launcher. Anyways. That's the same logic the Brady group used to try and ban all rifles of any sort. They managed to remill a bolt action Enfield into a full auto rifle. It was deadly as hell to it's user just as much as it's target, but, they made their case on the amount of damage a modification like that could do. It didn't fly. So basically all weapons can be banned because they have the potential to do massive damage. Even the recent shooting in New York was done by a nut with a hunting rifle, all the gunman had to do was continue pulling the trigger. So by the logic of potential damage, that must be banned aswell. The only problem I see with the meth scenario is you're comparing something addictive and already used to something that's neither addictive or used and would just be plain pointless to use. Only California bans them, I've yet to see anyone even try to use one in a crime anywhere else in the US
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 7, 2009 14:04:45 GMT -5
Heard that phrase before? Well, now some reality.... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30043893/"The gunman Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,” said Edward Perkovic, his best friend." So he donned a bulletproof vest & shot 3 police officers who were responding to a domestic disturbance call. He had recently lost his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns. I...there really are no words. I skim Rapture Ready from time to time, out of boredom mostly, and I see these same words over & over. How they're stocking up on ammo, and they've got their guns locked & loaded in case someone tries to take them away. Your thoughts? I'm a Christian and I know for a fact that not all Christians are doing such things as "stocking up", etc. If all Christians were doing that, it would be very obvious. Even if all "fundie" Christians were doing it. I also know some atheists who feel the same way and are stocked and ready to go for "the collapse", and are looking forward, albeit with trepidation due to the unknow, to the potential for an "anarchist" society. So there are definitely people who break the stereotypes on both sides, and I don't see them as rare exceptions. I think the concept of stocking up and getting ready with guns for a collapse of society is more of a right-wing idea - or fantasy - and appeals to all right-wingers alike. Obviously the fundie Christians will put a religious spin on it and the atheists will put a different ideological spin on it to justify their ideas and behaviors. Bottom line is that everyone ought to submit to the government and when they don't, they get what this Paulawski guy gets, and deservedly so. ...Now I'm confused. Your post started off so well, and then that last sentence threw everything out of whack for me. So we should submit even when the government is taking or condoning actions that are clearly illegal (Iran-Contra, torture of captives, etc.)? We should submit when the government backs policies that are unfair and unjust (numerous states passing anti-gay marriage bills)? Just when does the submission stop? When are we allowed to speak up? I'm not condoning what the Powalski did at all. It was a stupid action motivated by an irrational fear. But the sentence "Everyone should submit to (authority named here)" has the potential to be just as dangerous, especially when it leads to things like the Red Scare or the lynching of African-Americans who refused to submit to the Jim Crow laws. Clarification please?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 7, 2009 17:03:33 GMT -5
I dunno why you're using the golf ball thing as part of the debate, I mentioned that for shits and giggles mostly. Without the grenade launcher it's useless, it uses set screws to attach it to the launcher. Anyways. That's the same logic the Brady group used to try and ban all rifles of any sort. They managed to remill a bolt action Enfield into a full auto rifle. It was deadly as hell to it's user just as much as it's target, but, they made their case on the amount of damage a modification like that could do. It didn't fly. So basically all weapons can be banned because they have the potential to do massive damage. Even the recent shooting in New York was done by a nut with a hunting rifle, all the gunman had to do was continue pulling the trigger. So by the logic of potential damage, that must be banned aswell. The only problem I see with the meth scenario is you're comparing something addictive and already used to something that's neither addictive or used and would just be plain pointless to use. Only California bans them, I've yet to see anyone even try to use one in a crime anywhere else in the US "All weapons can be banned because they have the potential to do massive damage" is not true, and I suspect you know it isn't true. The ability to cause damage ranges very widely among various weapons. As a society, we have to figure out how to live together, and that usually entails trying to be safe while also trying to make sure people's rights are infringed upon as little as possible; other societies might define it differently, of course, but that tends to be the American version in a nutshell. As such, some weapons are considered "deadlier" than others to society. What would the damage have been if the gunman in NY used a gun with quicker firing capacity? Exponentially worse. It's not unreasonable for other people in society to want to be as safe as possible from weapons that could cause great amounts of damage. If you put two people side by side, give one a hand gun and give one a few grenades, point them at the general population--who do you think would do the most damage? Do you really think it would be equal? Is it wrong for the general population to prefer to be as safe as possible from threats like grenades, for example? That's what's at the heart of the issue of gun control. It's not just about those who own guns. It's also about the rest of the people who have to live with those who own guns. And the deadlier they are, the more nervous the general population rightfully is. And the more they would be interested in demanding some sort of control. That's just as much within their rights as it is within yours to own guns. Society is about give and take. I think you missed my point with the meth example. I'm not saying that meth and guns are comparable in that they're both addictive. But just like dealing with drugs that are deemed very dangerous to society, some guns/assault weapons are also deemed dangerous to society; we make laws to restrict access to them, not because we think it will completely make drug use or gun crime go away.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 7, 2009 19:39:01 GMT -5
How so, he had them all trapped in a building? what stopped him from pulling the trigger on his rifle that wouldn't have if it was a different rifle?
When have we done this? How would we?
Being safe from grenades is relatively assured because they are heavily regulated compared to, say, a pipe bomb made from common stuff bought at a hardware store. If what you seem to be stating is true beyond reason, than why is the US not in the grips of a bomb violence epidemic?
When it is impossible to use such items for what is considered deadlier purposes i.e. the launcher arguement, why should someone have to jump through hoops to aquire an otherwise legal weapon because of that one function that cannot be applied? (especially when the law enforcement that tackles such issues and makes those laws says it's just fine to have)
Furthermore, what makes items that mark assault weapons as such more dangerous compared to their 'civilian' versions that carry the same capacity?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 8, 2009 9:51:32 GMT -5
You need to read the news articles more carefully and you need to think more critically about what you're saying. Your arguments are not doing the progun side any good, because it seems you're determined not to admit to anything that could possibly give way to middle ground. They evacuated at least 37 people out of that building. Do you think the body count would have been higher or lower if he had a weapon with a faster firing capacity? Please do not deliberately dodge the issue. The question was one of scope of damage, a subject you're repeatedly choosing to ignore. The red herring of "how will we set this up" is ridiculous. The question is, which would do more damage. It's a simple question designed to demonstrate scope of damage. Don't try to slip away from it. The first part of your sentence explains it all. We are relatively assured of being safe because they are heavily regulated. That is the whole point. The reason the US is not in the grips of a bomb violence epidemic because unlike what you suggested earlier, people do NOT necessarily just glom onto the next available weapon and continue their mayhem from there. This was an assertion you made in the other gun thread about how regulation supposedly wouldn't work, because people would just carry on with the next available thing. Clearly that is not what happens, per your own reasoning above. We are not in the grips of this particular epidemic because regulation works. Because as another poster pointed out earlier, just because it's not spelled out doesn't mean someone won't challenge the law. Perhaps it would be easier on the person and keep them from jumping through hoops if the gun manufacturers did not put these accessories on weapons, knowing it's likely to cause a problem. I've noticed no one has yet mentioned any responsibility they may have in this. You will need to give me examples of what you're talking about in terms of "civilian" versions. Because if you're talking about the capacity people have to, for example, saw down the barrel of a gun, that is also not considered legal. I'm assuming you're talking about legal civilian add ons, right?
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 8, 2009 19:54:54 GMT -5
Thus far from what I read, they evacuated the people after the gunman killed himself. Again I ask, what made him stop shooting that wouldn't have with an assault rifle?
I'm not dodging anything, you compared something people can own to something people can't get ahold of and asked me who's more dangerous
It might also involve the fact that bombings are roughly an indirect way to attack someone. You really can't confirm whether you did the deed you planned, or if up close, you kill yourself in the process
"I have a grenade launcer, therfor I can launch grenades" is not anything that can be challeneged, grenades are illegal, period. Saying you have a launcher therfor you should be able to use them is already a lost case. And no, what I'm talking about is, for example, why the ar-15 more deadly than an m-1 carbine?
I'm sorry if you think I'm out not to be budged on the issue, but honestly I don't see why some laws need to exist based on your 'estimated damage capacity' idea. I don't see how ending 2-8% of problems vs hitting something else and stopping more than that equates to making sense.
|
|
|
Post by fundierefugee on Apr 8, 2009 20:06:36 GMT -5
I'm a Christian and I know for a fact that not all Christians are doing such things as "stocking up", etc. If all Christians were doing that, it would be very obvious. Even if all "fundie" Christians were doing it. I also know some atheists who feel the same way and are stocked and ready to go for "the collapse", and are looking forward, albeit with trepidation due to the unknow, to the potential for an "anarchist" society. So there are definitely people who break the stereotypes on both sides, and I don't see them as rare exceptions. I think the concept of stocking up and getting ready with guns for a collapse of society is more of a right-wing idea - or fantasy - and appeals to all right-wingers alike. Obviously the fundie Christians will put a religious spin on it and the atheists will put a different ideological spin on it to justify their ideas and behaviors. Bottom line is that everyone ought to submit to the government and when they don't, they get what this Paulawski guy gets, and deservedly so. ...Now I'm confused. Your post started off so well, and then that last sentence threw everything out of whack for me. So we should submit even when the government is taking or condoning actions that are clearly illegal (Iran-Contra, torture of captives, etc.)? We should submit when the government backs policies that are unfair and unjust (numerous states passing anti-gay marriage bills)? Just when does the submission stop? When are we allowed to speak up? I'm not condoning what the Powalski did at all. It was a stupid action motivated by an irrational fear. But the sentence "Everyone should submit to (authority named here)" has the potential to be just as dangerous, especially when it leads to things like the Red Scare or the lynching of African-Americans who refused to submit to the Jim Crow laws. Clarification please? The Christian view is that we are to submit to the government and be obedient up to the point where obedience to a government would cause us to sin directly against God. As for speaking up and all that stuff, it can be done legally, so I don't know why that would be a problem. I'm not sure I answered your question to your satisfaction, so if not, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 8, 2009 20:10:24 GMT -5
The question isn't what would've made him stop. That's a mental issue that regulation can't resolve. The question is how much more damage could he have caused? Are you now suggesting that with a weapon with faster firing capacity, he would have caused the same amount of damage? Again, you're choosing to deliberately miss the point. Why is it that a person can get ahold of the one thing, but not the other? Just because it feels good to ban it? How does this in any way prove anything you're trying to prove? This makes no sense as far as your argument goes. I agree with you. But as another poster pointed out, that doesn't stop someone from trying it as a case. That's why laws have to be written sometimes for incredibly obvious things. I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking why AR-15 is considered to be more deadly? Both of these guns are available for civilian use, depending on the state, so I'm not sure why you picked these two examples. The AR-15 was restricted for a while because of certain accessories, but it's been available since '04 and those same accessories have mostly been cleared for civ use. Not sure what your point is? OK, then maybe you should reread the part you wrote yourself about why banning grenades has NOT led to an increase in bombing violence by the next available weapon. Or let's just stick with grenades themselves, and maybe that will help resolve the issue. Why, in your opinion, are grenades banned?
|
|