Why should only police have guns?

So let me explain how this, unlike climate change denialism, has some basis in fact rather than being a conspiracy theory

1.
See there CAN be manipulation of public opinion - yes?? This point I will not back because it is a self evident truth based on the fact that the entire advertising industry relies on this happening.

2.
There is a different cultural belief system in America surrounding use and ownership of guns than there exists in the rest of the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture

3.
The NRA exists only in America and is an extremely powerful lobby that like the tobacco industry and the climate denialism industry paid and pays a lot of money to sway public opinion. Again this is evident in the difference between the beliefs systems surrounding guns found in America as opposed to virtually anywhere else in the world
http://www.peoplesworld.org/u-s-gun-culture-diagnosed-as-a-social-disease/

4.
There are clear and easily identified links between the NRA and the armaments industry (follow the money)

5. Armaments industry is making money off of America's fear

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/
5.
Roots in Racism

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

There is more - Oh! So much more!! Go to any White nationalist website and see the lurking fear displayed openly - but then you do not even have to go that far - look at the many of the threads on this very board to see the number of members posting things like "Yet another black killer on the loose"

 

People who "support gun control" generally support only the banning of weapons of mass destruction, not all guns.

 

Actually there is a whole spectrum of people with a vast list of "controls"

i.e. Mental health restrictions
age restrictions
disability (eyesight, tremor, palsy)
previous criminal history
type of gun i.e. should people own ground to air missiles?
What constitutes a "gun" (nail guns can be lethal)

Lots and lots of issues

 

Those things go without saying.

 

IF this was true,then Clinton would not of passed the assault gun ban. It has been my experience that the anti-gun crowd favor banning all types of guns.

 

And have they succeeded?

 

That doesn't make sense. Assault guns are weapons of mass destruction. Also, Clinton passing a law doesn't necessarily reflect general support. GET LOGIC!

 

Yes they have succeed. Look at the gun polices of Chicago Illinois as a example.

 

The reason citizens should carry guns, because it is too hard to carry a policeman.

 

That would mean that all semi automatic rifles are weapons of mass destruction. How about trying some of that logic on yourself.

For the general purposes of national defense,[23] US Code[24] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[25]

For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[26] US Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons."

 

How do you figure that the weapons that were under the assault gun ban to be weapons of mass destruction? By your logic a firearm that can fire only one round at a time is equal to a IED. There is no mass destruction from a weapon that can only fire one bullet at a time. .

 

I think I'll go play with my AUG,

 

The name is "assault rifle" and the AK type rifles available in the USA are not 'assault rifles" as they do not fire full auto.

Also, you are inventing a definition, calling them WMDs. This is called "fail".

Get some vocabulary before you try to go on to logic, let alone instructing others in it.

 

I'm using a logical definition of "weapons of mass destruction," rather than a legal one.

 

Use a logical definition of "weapon of mass destruction" and see that I am right.

 

Like Humpty Dumpty in "thro' the Looking glass"!

"Words mean exactly what i say they mean; nothing more nor less"

At least he was straight about it, rather than claiming logic.

 

You really need to define what "logical definition" means. Right now I take it to mean "a definition that I made up to fit my argument".

The reason I say that is because when I look up "Weapon of Mass Destruction", all I get is:

"nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons that can cause indiscriminate death or injury on a large scale" -- From dictionary.com

or

"Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also called WMD." -- From thefreedictionary.com

These are common definitions and are quite logical...

Notice how both define the means of destruction and even the most liberal one specifically excludes "the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon"; this rules out your inclusion of semi-automatic (or even automatic) firearms. This makes sense when you think about it - what is causing the destruction, the gun or its ammunition - each is useless without the other.

Expanding further, both definitions do not include conventional weapons (lead rounds), but rather exceptional devices only. Individual bullets generally aren't designed to be effective against "large numbers of people" (though one round may pass through more than one person, I would argue the design parameters don't generally define this as a requirement - in fact many ammunition designs attempt to avoid doing this in an effort to dump all of their energy into one target - ex: hollow points).

Sorry for the long post - but basically you're wrong with your "logical" definition of WMDs.

 

That's plain stupid.

 

You aren't making much sense.

 

"mass destruction" implies killing lots of people quickly and indiscriminately. Rifles don't kill indiscriminately, and unless the targets are standing in the open in nice neat rows, you are unlikely to kill many people very rapidly.