Feinan said:
That being said, I have never seen a need for automatic weapons in an urban environment. It's just a matter of opinion I guess. I like well placed shots. But this is the ONLY limit I would ever propose on firearms.
That is as arbitrary as anything else. As soon as you starting putting ANY restrictions on weapons based on the group not "needing" them, then you might as well keep limiting. I mean, just because you personally are opposed to automatic weapons, why should the rest of us adhere to that? What if I am opposed to whatever gun it is you happen to like?
Feinan said:
My case is that the majority of guns in inner city crimes are purchased legally in a personal sale manner.
Where do you get this statistic?
Flash said:
When I mentioned artillery I was certainly not thinking of a grenade launcher. I am thinking more of the Army's definition, like the howitzer pictured above.
You didn't respond when I answered you above, but what good does it do to our society to stop me from buying a howitzer and mounting it in my backyard? Where do you draw the line? What size of round and range of weapon is TOO much?
If I cannot purchase an artillery piece, can I still fill my van up with fertilizer and do the same thing with it? Are there any cases of artillery pieces being used to commit mass murder by a private citizen? Or do they just look bad?
Why don't we just stop banning arbitrary tools that can be used as weapons and punish the ones who use those tools (read: firearms) inappropriately. With prisons being as overcrowded as they are, wouldn't it be better to lock up 1 guy for 50 years for murder, vice 100 guys for 10 years for unlawfully possessing some arbitrary device?
Bevo said:
I agree with the premise, the problem is that when people crack their grape and turn themselves into vegetables and the state taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for 80 years of life support because they didn't sign their organ donor cards.
If the state is on the hook for the medical bills (and they are in most cases), then they should be able to make some kind of rules to mitigate the risk...
Rather than force me to change my actions (for better or worse), why don't we just say: "If you get in a wreck and you weren't doing the proper things to care for yourself (seatbelt/helmet/whatever), then the State is not going to pay for your healthcare."
Insurance companies do the same thing. If you don't follow their rules, then you are breaching your end of the contract and they will not pay.