Everyone Should Have a Machine Gun and Armed Tanks

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.

[/quote]

People could own 32oz Sugar Drinks in NYC if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current Soda laws either don’t have any effect on mass gain or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another. [/quote]

I would agree. I think soda is a bit more trite than guns but it holds true. They are hardly completely analogous but close enough.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.

[/quote]

Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.

After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]

Wise words… Liberals can never understand that we lose our rights when we abuse them. They seem to think it’s from not “exercising” them.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is how I want to roll…

[/quote]

We should ban all Hummers.

[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.

[/quote]
People could drive cars if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current driving laws either don’t have any effect on traffic fatalities or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.

Oh, wait… people can drive cars. If they can afford it.

Know what, though? People can own machine guns if they can afford it!

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.

[/quote]
People could drive cars if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current driving laws either don’t have any effect on traffic fatalities or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.

Oh, wait… people can drive cars. If they can afford it.

Know what, though? People can own machine guns if they can afford it![/quote]

Its much harder to get an automatic weapons permit than a driver’s license.

Not sure why this is causing such an issue. There is always an economic analysis done more or less on things that are legal. Why some vehicles are street legal, why some guns are, even why some large sodas are or aren’t. The consequences of the laws are deemed acceptable or the laws are changed.

All I was saying is that if everyone were a rational actor then there would be no need to stop people from owning machine guns or grenades or tanks or drinking 32 oz sodas or whatever. Everyone is not a rational actor so there are some lines drawn. Some people are happy with the current laws. Some would like more permissive some more prescriptive.

Largely the consequences of current firearms laws and many others are deemed acceptable because the likelihood of a personal cost is low. While the school shooting was a horrible tragedy, it effects most of us personally not at all.

Sort of like why people smoke. The consequences are much removed in time so they are largely ignored.

Its not an anti gun argument to say that one is willing to live with gun deaths to keep the current laws.

Just as I am willing to live with the deaths caused by auto accidents or soda consumption and so on.

Getting a Class 3 license, waiting for months for approval, the expensive
fees involved, getting the County Sheriff to sign off on you owning one,
AND getting periodic SURPRISE visits from the Feds for mandatory inspections?
No thanks, sounds like a big pain in the ass to me… no Machine Guns for ‘Moi’.

I knew what you were gettin’ at, groo. I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous it is to want to outlaw one thing because it can be used to kill a few people (as heinous as that act is in and of itself), when there are other things that kill so many more people.

In 2007, ~41,000 people were killed in traffic fatalities here in the U.S.

That same year, ~31,000 people died from gunshot wounds, total.

More people get killed with cars than with guns, yet there is no clamor to ban cars. There is no clamor to tighten licensing restrictions. There is no clamor to restrict cars to 40mph so that its safer to drive. There will be no ‘national talk’ about traffic fatalities…

…because you can’t defend your country from tyranny with cars.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I knew what you were gettin’ at, groo. I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous it is to want to outlaw one thing because it can be used to kill a few people (as heinous as that act is in and of itself), when there are other things that kill so many more people.

In 2007, ~41,000 people were killed in traffic fatalities here in the U.S.

That same year, ~31,000 people died from gunshot wounds, total.

More people get killed with cars than with guns, yet there is no clamor to ban cars. There is no clamor to tighten licensing restrictions. There is no clamor to restrict cars to 40mph so that its safer to drive. There will be no ‘national talk’ about traffic fatalities…

…because you can’t defend your country from tyranny with cars.
[/quote]

It is a god damn national uproar when a 90 year old has their driver’s licence taken away who is half blind…

People are too emotional to make laws.

And yes, they can be used as an effective weapon for mass killing;

EDIT: Come to think of it, it would be pretty darn tough to stop a vehicular mass murder with another car. Gunmen have proven extremely easy to stop. All you have to do is stand up against them, and as long as they see you have a gun, they usually off themselves.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I knew what you were gettin’ at, groo. I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous it is to want to outlaw one thing because it can be used to kill a few people (as heinous as that act is in and of itself), when there are other things that kill so many more people.

In 2007, ~41,000 people were killed in traffic fatalities here in the U.S.

That same year, ~31,000 people died from gunshot wounds, total.

More people get killed with cars than with guns, yet there is no clamor to ban cars. There is no clamor to tighten licensing restrictions. There is no clamor to restrict cars to 40mph so that its safer to drive. There will be no ‘national talk’ about traffic fatalities…

…because you can’t defend your country from tyranny with cars.
[/quote]

It is a god damn national uproar when a 90 year old has their driver’s licence taken away who is half blind…

People are too emotional to make laws.[/quote]
My sentiments exactly.

Another man pushed under the train in the subway by a “mumbling to herself” person:

Where are the calls to ban the subway? Or subway control? Why not slow it down to a 20 MPH speed? Why not go back to horse and carriages?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Another man pushed under the train in the subway by a “mumbling to herself” person:

Where are the calls to ban the subway? Or subway control? Why not slow it down to a 20 MPH speed? Why not go back to horse and carriages?

[/quote]

I understand the rhetorical nature of your post. Nonetheless the answer is…drumroll…the statists understand that a well armed populace is an impediment to their goals.[/quote]

I laughed at the “drumroll”.

It is shocking how the sheep do not see that the real control issue here is the one you just mentioned.

[i]"Are sheep blind?

Yes, but they can see but not very good. They go by what they hear not what they see

Sheep have horizontal slit-shaped pupils, and have excellent peripheral vision; with visual fields of approximately 270° to 320°, sheep can see behind themselves without turning their heads. However, sheep have poor depth perception. In general, sheep have a tendency to move out of the dark and into well-lit areas, and prefer to move uphill when disturbed. Sheep also have an excellent sense of smell. Sheep have good hearing, and are sensitive to noise when being handled."[/i]

That makes a lot of sense, though one would think even if they can’t see what is right in front of their eyes they would at least be able to smell a rat.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Its much harder to get an automatic weapons permit than a driver’s license.

Not sure why this is causing such an issue. There is always an economic analysis done more or less on things that are legal…

[/quote]

Why did you not respond to my comparison with the freedom of speech?[/quote]
Hmm? Because I think its treated the same way, there are many laws limiting speech.
To focus on guns broadly speaking I think most should be legal because I think most things should be legal.
most people won’t abuse owning them, street gangs apparently already have most small and medium arms the military had according to this touching show I just saw and they dont care what the law is. And there are likely better ways to keep the crazies disarmed.
That being said I think the idea of a populace holding off any modern military with solely small arms is ludicrous.

[quote]groo wrote:

That being said I think the idea of a populace holding off any modern military with solely small arms is ludicrous.[/quote]

People have been saying this since the dawn of society.

I’m not sold on the government winning in a blowout. Not even close.

For what it’s worth, I would imagine the reason people don’t even consider making cars/subways/other things that can kill illegal is that they have an easily visible purpose beyond bringing harm to another being. In 99.9999% of cases, people buy/use cars for reasons other than harming another being.

Guns, even if used defensively, are ultimately tools that were created for bringing harm to another being. Now, that harm can be justified (self-defense), for sport (hunting/target shooting), or for simple peace of mind against a variety of factors. You can even argue that greater prevalence of guns ultimately prevents more harm on the whole, as the threat of harm is enough of a deterrent to dissuade would-be-aggressors. I would imagine however that the ultimate intended use of guns is the major driver for regulation/banning.

Granted, I do not support further gun regulation. I just feel that drawing parallels between guns and cars to argue against further gun regulation is nonsensical.