Originally Posted by
bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2973947
Sure I've used various scenarios about what can happen with these guns, because everyone of them has happened in real life. All you have to do is read the daily paper to see that.
Anything can happen. I am not going to dispute that someone could go crazy, grab their legally owned assault weapon, and go shoot people up and down the street.
However, in justifying a ban based on such concerns, should it not be necessary to examine a few things?:
1. What is the statistical probability, based on past evidence, of this sort of thing happening with a legally owned/obtained assault weapon?
2. Do the latter numbers represent a big enough problem to justify the diminishing of everyone's rights as a result of a ban?
3. What is the probability that a ban will have a significant enough impact on such occurrences to justify the diminishing of everyone's rights as a result of it?
Ultimately, I see your point, that being that since everyone has no need to own an assault weapon, why the big deal in banning them? Unfortunately, this comes down to differences in the way you and I are looking at it.
You see it as being careful.
I see it as taking the rights away from the lawful.
In the end, facts should dictate the decision, not how people feel.
You don't want to see the overall picture. You have this vision that everyone who owns a gun is this responsible person that only uses them for sport, hunting, or home protection. Just because you have a few (I use that term loosely) bad seeds out there, you don't feel it justifies taking away your rights to own something that has no practical purpose.
What I have is statistical facts that prove that a statistically insignificant portion of crimes commited with weapons are done using legally owned and obtained weapons, and that, as a whole, the gun owning crowd is a responsible group.
And "practical purpose" is your opinion, not a fact.
Why stop at handguns or assault weapons? Why not nuclear devices? That's an armament. Why can't I have one of those sitting in my garage?
You can't use a nuclear weapon without hurting others. Show me one place in the US where a private citizen can detonate a nuclear weapon while at the same time ensuring the safety of his fellow citizens.
That's a ridiculously overblown example and you know it.
You shooting that POS car, or even owning one of these weapons doesn't directly violate my (or someone else's) right to life, liberty or property, but there's the POTENTIAL that it can. You can be the most responsible gun owner in the country, then a life changing event can turn that completely around. Loss of a love one, financial crisis, loss of your job -- any of those could set you off. Happens all the time.
This is a commonly held belief that when a gun owner has a disagreement with someone, he is going to reach for his gun and settle things with guns-a-blazin'.
Again, show me evidence to suggest that incidents of individuals whipping out their legally owned and obtained weapon and "snapping" are anything other than isolated.
Don't you see the slippery slope you start to go down when you start acting on what has the potential for this and the potential for that? I mean, we are all potential everything until we do it. I enjoy alcoholic beverages. I also drive. Any day could be the day that I make a bad decision, due to not thinking clearly (like your life changing example above), and get in the car drunk. Does that mean that alcohol should be banned? Or driving?
Ultimately, when you take something away from somebody due to their potential, you are taking away their liberties. If the government put laws in place to stop everyone from doing what they have the potential to do, what would life be like?
