Post by dasfuchs on Apr 9, 2009 1:03:40 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?
I don't know, you'd have to answer the other question before this one can be answered accurately. Same amount of damage, possibly, he stopped for a reason. Whatever that reason is is the answer to the riddle
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?
Because explosives are seen as an extremely destructive device. But your bearing on how that has anything to do with a gun is comparible
How does this in any way prove anything you're trying to prove? This makes no sense as far as your argument goes.
You're the one that seemed to point out I was wrong because people wouldn't adapt to the next step down in weapons. Maybe explosives of that nature are not preferred given those or other reasons
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.
If it was for two things that were legal and placed together caused massive destruction, I'd be right there with ya, but when one item is thuroughly banned and the other has no abillity to be anything more than a hunk of metal...
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?
An ar15 is considered and assault weapon, an M1 carbine is not, but both are capable of the same amount of damage. Why should one be banned over the other?
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?
If that's what you got out of it, I apologize. What I was trying to make a point on is that two states ban the launcher. It doesn't makes sense given it has no use with the other piece of the puzzle banned and regulated by the US government. I in no way meant banning grenades leads to more grenade deaths, that's just rediculous. What I was drawing off your posts is that without banning the launcher, grenades would become a common weapon. But as of yet no one's seen any of the other states that have not banned the launcher have not seen any grenades used.