<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not saying I know of crimes that have been commited with silencers involved, but I do know how it would make crimes involving firearms a hell of a lot easier. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> then i must ask... WHY would a criminal go through all the red tape and annual fees (already in place) to get a suppressor to commit a illegal act?
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 05:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why must the license be part of the plan?
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> believe it or not... people don't go psychotic every other day and shoot up their office. Just because you hear alot about it doesn't mean it happens every day.
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+Sep 18 2004, 08:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Sep 18 2004, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 05:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why must the license be part of the plan?
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> believe it or not... people don't go psychotic every other day and shoot up their office. Just because you hear alot about it doesn't mean it happens every day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I put the "it's not going to be very likely" part. Frankly I just used the postal worker example because it humors me, as tasteless as that is <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
mmmm i love the smell of flogic in the morning <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+Sep 18 2004, 08:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Sep 18 2004, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Sep 18 2004, 05:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Sep 18 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why must the license be part of the plan?
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> believe it or not... people don't go psychotic every other day and shoot up their office. Just because you hear alot about it doesn't mean it happens every day. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nah, instead in Colorado you have people making concrete tanks out of bulldozers.
This question came into my mind when I was browsing the cannabis thread.
One of the most common arguements in this thread are concerned that the danger of an improperly handled firearm necessitates that they be more heavily regulated. However, the same arguement can be more accurately applied to alcohol and vehicles. These two items when combined form one of the most dangerous things we face in today's society.
We have outlawed drunk driving. We have outlawed mishandling of firearms.
If you seek a ban or increased regulation of firearms, why do you not also seek increased legislation for alcohol, a thing that has no real benevolent attributes?
I do not argue for increased legislation of firearms or alcohol. In fact I support an overhaul of our laws regarding both. What terrifies me is the black market that will develop and grant enormous amounts of power to criminals if either are outlawed. We tried it with alcohol and failed with disasterous results. Imagine the result if we tried such a thing with firearms, the illegal manufacture of which is much easier to perform and conceal than alcohol ever was.
I guess I am willing to take the risk of both alcohol and firearms in exchange for living free to make my own decisions.
People are going to kill people so long as there are people. It dosen't matter if its with an AK-47 or with a glock. They Will Die. This law was another case of curing the symptom and not the problem.
Comments
then i must ask... WHY would a criminal go through all the red tape and annual fees (already in place) to get a suppressor to commit a illegal act?
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well.
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
believe it or not... people don't go psychotic every other day and shoot up their office. Just because you hear alot about it doesn't mean it happens every day.
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
believe it or not... people don't go psychotic every other day and shoot up their office. Just because you hear alot about it doesn't mean it happens every day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I put the "it's not going to be very likely" part. Frankly I just used the postal worker example because it humors me, as tasteless as that is <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Example: A postal worker could already have went through all the burning hoops of doom to get the license, and years afterwards decide he's going to grab his uzi and climb a clocktower. It's not going to be very likely, no. But I'd rather the "responsible owner of an automatic weapon" not be the "responsible owner of a silencer" as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
believe it or not... people don't go psychotic every other day and shoot up their office. Just because you hear alot about it doesn't mean it happens every day. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, instead in Colorado you have people making concrete tanks out of bulldozers.
Probably wouldn't hit a single person. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
One of the most common arguements in this thread are concerned that the danger of an improperly handled firearm necessitates that they be more heavily regulated. However, the same arguement can be more accurately applied to alcohol and vehicles. These two items when combined form one of the most dangerous things we face in today's society.
We have outlawed drunk driving. We have outlawed mishandling of firearms.
If you seek a ban or increased regulation of firearms, why do you not also seek increased legislation for alcohol, a thing that has no real benevolent attributes?
I do not argue for increased legislation of firearms or alcohol. In fact I support an overhaul of our laws regarding both. What terrifies me is the black market that will develop and grant enormous amounts of power to criminals if either are outlawed. We tried it with alcohol and failed with disasterous results. Imagine the result if we tried such a thing with firearms, the illegal manufacture of which is much easier to perform and conceal than alcohol ever was.
I guess I am willing to take the risk of both alcohol and firearms in exchange for living free to make my own decisions.