posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:36 PM
Disclaimer: This thread is 100% hyperbole and conjecture. I thought about putting it in the Gray area because of that but thought here would be
better, if not the mods will take care of it.
So let's say there's a guy who snaps and decides he's going to drive his car through a huge line of people, let's say at a movie premiere, Black
Friday shopping, or whatever. He decides laws against murder aren't going to stop him; he has a deep seated desire to cause pain and mayhem.
After a certain amount of time, people start speaking their opinions about the issue. Some say we need more time to process the event and others feel
the need to do something to prevent future events. Some think it's still too early to make rash decisions and others want to use the momentum to get
laws changed/bills passed. Both sides have their merits/downfalls.
The type of car used in the crime is brought up as a "vehicle of mass destruction" or an "assault vehicle". Some agree that types of cars, top
speeds, and acceleration need to be regulated to prevent accidents in the future. Others believe that people should be allowed to buy whatever car
they want because only a tiny percentage of cars are used in crimes. They also say top speed, acceleration, and type of car isn't a deciding factor
in how deadly a car can be in the right hands.
So what do we do? Millions of cars on the roads and every single one of them is a deadly projectile in the hands of a lunatic. Every single one of
them is also a paycheck in the hands of a family. Is it really justifiable to deny somebody food on the table because a tiny percentage of others may
use their car to do harm to others?
The only right applicable in the Constitution is the right to free travel, nothing about driving. Without an enumerated right or the people's
support, the right to own any car you like for whatever reason is up for debate. Even with a Constitutional amendment and people's
support, apparently the right to own whatever gun you want for whatever reason is up for debate.
Estimates suggest there are ~300 million guns in this country. That's roughly 1 gun for every adult US citizen. That's about 300 million guns
not used in crimes every single day. In terms of murders, more people are killed by hammers than rifles in the US, even including "mass
shootings". The tool used to murder people shouldn't matter, but if it does to you: handguns are the real culprit, not rifles.
I don't make a lot of threads but after hearing propaganda BS on the radio the other day, I just had to put my thoughts out there. The news guy
described the AR the Orlando shooter used as a "high-power artillery rifle". I heard that and was like WTF? I have no idea where he got
"artillery" from but even worse is equating a .223/5.56 round as high-powered. I mean the projectile is 0.003 inches larger than a .22 bullet, just
with more powder. Worse than a poke in the eye but not even legal for hunting an animal the size of a deer in many places because of it's lack of
knockdown power. Minnesota only allows deer hunting with shotguns or bows and the only thing I've ever hunted with .223 is coyotes. I'm assuming
the shooter's AR was 5.56 but I could very well be wrong there; AR's are infinitely customizable. No matter, being an AR does not make the gun
deadlier or more accurate. Guns DO NOT shoot themselves unless there is a mechanical failure in the mechanism itself.
If somebody is passionate about a subject, I expect them to be at least a little knowledgeable. If someone is just reporting on a topic, I expect
them to at least know the basics. Spewing regurgitated talking points helps nobody and making # up just confuses the topic. I guess if anything is
to be taken from this OP it's: Don't talk about things you have no interest/information about. Everybody else will be better off.