439 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

At the very least, children aren't capable of making life and death decisions for themselves.  Jonestown was a massacre whether a majority of people committed suicide or not.    What's the point of trying to claim this was merely a "mass suicide"?   To imply that mass murder isn't possible without guns.

A good reason for bringing Jonestown up as a case study is because it demonstrates how much more deadly a vat full of kool aid can be to an assault rifle with a box full of bullets.   900 people aren't going to stand in line and step right up on stage to receive a bullet in their head.   Drinking the sweet cherry drink and falling asleep sounds a lot more appealing, even though it's still stunning to think even that was possible.   The example demonstrates that a vat of fruit punch can be more deadly than an AR-15.

"Children can not make that decision for themselves.  They are children.  Parents have to make the choice for their child."  ~Laura Johnston Kohl

[Tiggs]

I'm fairly sure that the "If I had access to a publicly unavailable and heavily restricted substance such as Cyanide and managed to persuade several hundred adults to commit suicide using it, then I could kill way more than 20 children if I wanted to, so therefore I should be allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon" argument isn't exactly a winning one.

Edited by Tiggs, 19 January 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Yamato]

Neither is restricting access to drugs and Kool Aid after Jonestown, or gasoline and matches after Waco.  

Matches don't kill anyone.  Kool Aid doesn't kill anyone.  Gasoline or other flammable substances don't kill anyone.  Gigantic arsenals of nuclear weapons don't kill anyone.   Starting to understand?

[Stellar]

Yamato, on 19 January 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Neither is restricting access to drugs and Kool Aid after Jonestown, or gasoline and matches after Waco.  

Matches don't kill anyone.  Kool Aid doesn't kill anyone.  Gasoline or other flammable substances don't kill anyone.  Gigantic arsenals of nuclear weapons don't kill anyone.   Starting to understand?

It wasn't koolaid that killed anyone, it was cyanide. And last I checked, you can't go into the store and, ask for cyanide and walk out with it.

[Tiggs]

Stellar, on 19 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

It wasn't koolaid that killed anyone, it was cyanide. And last I checked, you can't go into the store and, ask for cyanide and walk out with it.

Indeed. Cyanide was, and remains, restricted

It's not that there's not an argument to be made that guns aren't the only thing that can kill people.

It's that attempting to make that argument with a restricted substance can be easily dismissed by the argument that dangerous things should be restricted.

[Yamato]

Stellar, on 19 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

It wasn't koolaid that killed anyone, it was cyanide. And last I checked, you can't go into the store and, ask for cyanide and walk out with it.

Kool aid isn't dangerous without poison, oxygen isn't dangerous without fuel and a spark, and guns aren't dangerous without bullets.    You can buy gasoline and lighters at the store.   These dangerous items aren't restricted.   You can buy them on every street corner in the country.   You can't buy cyanide at the store, but you can cook up poisonous concoctions from constituent parts that you can buy, and kill people with them.  

If you don't disagree with Americans being able to buy bullets at the store, then what all of these examples have in common is that they're just inanimate objects that don't kill anyone.