03-06-2004, 03:57 AM
I'll work backwards here.
First of all, you used the status quo to defend the status quo when you said "because I can." Even if you put all the burden of proof on myself, you still can't use the fact that you are allowed to own assault rifles as a reason why the law shouldn't be changed.
As for automobiles: vehicles that exceed 65 mph can be used for legal purposes (it is legal, for example, drive over the speed limit while attempting to merge on the highway). An assault rifle used as a fully automatic weapon can be used for only one purpose: to injure or kill someone or something. That's why guns don't follow the same logic as other 'tools:' because guns can be used only to kill. I do not refute the usefulness of guns in many situations, as a means of self defence or for hunting.
The main reason I think assault rifles should be banned leads right back to where this thread began: the more available those weapons are, the more they will be seen in the public. If everyone owns an assault rifle, soon enough bank robbers and other 'bad guys' will be using rocket launchers and grenades regularly. That's the real danger. If you take aggressive steps to limit the availability of assault rifles and crack down hard whenever they are found, instances of their use against law enforcement agents will be almost nonexistant.
I'm curious to know if you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to self defence and owning guns. Should Bill Gates (or anyone else who can afford it) be allowed to arm a few hundred guards with assault rifles? How ammount tanks and anti aircraft weapons? Jets and helicopters? Small nuclear warheads?
gekko
First of all, you used the status quo to defend the status quo when you said "because I can." Even if you put all the burden of proof on myself, you still can't use the fact that you are allowed to own assault rifles as a reason why the law shouldn't be changed.
As for automobiles: vehicles that exceed 65 mph can be used for legal purposes (it is legal, for example, drive over the speed limit while attempting to merge on the highway). An assault rifle used as a fully automatic weapon can be used for only one purpose: to injure or kill someone or something. That's why guns don't follow the same logic as other 'tools:' because guns can be used only to kill. I do not refute the usefulness of guns in many situations, as a means of self defence or for hunting.
The main reason I think assault rifles should be banned leads right back to where this thread began: the more available those weapons are, the more they will be seen in the public. If everyone owns an assault rifle, soon enough bank robbers and other 'bad guys' will be using rocket launchers and grenades regularly. That's the real danger. If you take aggressive steps to limit the availability of assault rifles and crack down hard whenever they are found, instances of their use against law enforcement agents will be almost nonexistant.
I'm curious to know if you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to self defence and owning guns. Should Bill Gates (or anyone else who can afford it) be allowed to arm a few hundred guards with assault rifles? How ammount tanks and anti aircraft weapons? Jets and helicopters? Small nuclear warheads?
gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"