SkyDekker

Sure, just as much as denying that the purpose of the tool is mainly killing is a dodge. Why do people use guns to defend themselves? Because it is one of the more effective tools to kill an assailant with. You want honest discourse, yet you cannot agree that the firearm was invented to kill. Or, since you ahve had firearm training, are you hear to tell me the firearm was invented for the purpose of shoot/no shoot competitions? Just like the canon was invented to start the Iron Man in Kona, right?

So as we all knew, you have no experience here, yet want to fire someone. I actually do have experience here, and know better. Maybe someday you'll get some firearm training rather than spouting from ignorance so often. Priceless. So, what is the incremental benefit of the skittles that cannot be reproduced otherwise?

or in Boston's case, feet and toes.

Some people rethink their own positions on matters in a lifetime. Kind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later. The same could be said (with different timeframes) of Marx, Keynes, Adam Smith, etc. We can only judge by their stated ideals. A lot of their ideas have been adjusted over time, based on results, effects, changes in societies, etc. Most seem to feel that is impossible when it comes to specifically the 2nd amemdment.

Sure thing. Right after you explain how you know the founding father's would have the exact same opinions they had 220 years ago, when faced with the evolution of arms.

Yes

Now that's just racist, What they ever do to you. Those things are dangerous!

Absolutely right. It is the ultimate: So there. Preferably followed with your tongue sticking out. Now of course there are some intellectually honest people who don't mind having a debate about whether that amendment is really still all that good a thing to have 220 odd years later. Unfortunately that debate often ends in one of two ways: America is the best fucking country ever, if you take away guns we won't be. or Hitler did it first. Which makes one wonder about that intellectual honesty.

Some people rethink their own positions on matters in a lifetime. Kind of silly to automatically assume that somebody would have the exact same stance and opinions 220 years later.

Denying that the guns were designed to kill is like denying that cigarettes are designed to deliver nicotine. The world over, that may be a relevant argument - guns are designed to kill and therefore can be taken away by the government. But for the last 200 years, Americans have had a Constitutional right to have them. Not in the original Constitution - the right was put there afterward. And it's still there. So people can talk all they want about the notional US where the right doesn't exist. May as well be talking about "police should have the right to search people's homes without a warrant." Arguments exist that indicate such a law would protect far more children than any other rule. But since there's that 4th Amendment, it's talking out your ass. So, to answer the original question: since there is no constitutional protection on pressure cookers, they therefor should be registered and/or banned.

The guy broke 40+ laws. What extra law(s) could there have been that would have made him say, "Maybe I shouldn't do this." Crazy people find ways to be crazy, be it with guns or pressure cookers. No extra laws. But you generally do see that when less tools are available, less work gets done. And generally, the more effective a tool, the more effective the person using it is.

Here's the point - when sandy Hook happened, when Giffords happened, when all these incidents happened, they blamed nutters with guns, so we have to pass tough new laws on guns (and nutters) When the Boston bombing happened they blamed the terrorist. Funny - there's been no mention of the terrorist being a "nutter." There's no mention of bombs causing this problem. Banning sulfur or other elements of ewxplosives. Backpacks that can conceak bombs, knives, etc. Nope - we gotta be on the lookout for evil. Not bombs. Not bomb pieces. Not crazies. Straight up evil terrorist. Use a gun? You're a nutter. Use a bomb? Ah, shucks, that's just a bad guy. There are distinct differences in how public perceptions are being molded. And the distinctions seems pretty damned arbitrary. That reaction is perfectly understandable. The US has been through enough mass shootings that the first reaction is no longer: gee who would do such a thing. Fortunately you are still at a stage where pressure cooker bombings evoke a more primal reaction. Of course, a simple explanation like that does not allow for scoring "political" points, or reinforcing ingrained positions.

Right,however in your scenario you wouldn't use your handgun to scare your prey. You would use it to kill it. That is what the tool is designed for.

Lol, that's funny coming after your highbrow comment about argument. And, calling me a jackass is the best you can do? Here I thought you could do better. I am clueless on how to put together a nuclear bomb, yet I don't think it is a good idea that countries with established poor judgement have them. Your premise as quoted above is assinine and provably false. People who display bad judgement should not be in positions where they have to rely on good judgement. FTR, have you Kelpdiver ever engaged in designing effective shoot/no shoot target practices, or have you ever been involved in researching the "science" behind the design? If not, then according to yourself you should not even be participating in this thread. If you have, maybe explain how using images clearly linked to an unresolved case, still before the courts, is going to train the decision making skills of the trainees? More specifically, how only those images could be used. Since anybody with slightly more than 5 braincells to rub together would understand that, in a public setting, it would be extremely hard to explain. So, what additional benefit is there to be had? I'll await your expert analysis.

depends on who's buying it. Indeed. If someone had a sporting clays shotgun, you could rightfully argue that its primary purpose was to shoot clay targets. That's what the gunsmith designed it to do best, and that's what the vast majority of people who buy them will only ever use them for. The VP, however, might use it to fire shots into the air in an attempt to scare off an intruder, even though now he's out of rounds. A hunter might take it out to shoot ducks, even though it's a bit heavy to be lugging around meadows all morning. Or, someone might commit murder with it, even though it's highly conspicuous and it would be illegal to do so. The primary purpose of a pressure cooker is to cook food. Some people might use it to help them make drugs, even though boiling things other than water in it is dangerous. Some people might make a bomb out of it, even though the bomb might be cumbersome and it would be illegal to do so. The point is, neither a firearm nor a pressure cooker has a primary purpose of "committing violent crimes/murdering people" so taking an approach to either that goes in assuming that's the case is silly. It does take a much less active imagination to picture someone using a firearm to commit a crime, but an important thing to remember about those that wish to erode law-abiding citizens' access to certain firearms, is that it takes a much more active imagination for them to picture themselves ever wanting to purchase one. Or one is designed to cut down cooking times, by increasing pressure. The other is designed to propel an object faster, by creating a controlled explosion behind it. Historically, we wanted to increase the velocity of that object so the weapon would be more effective at destroying what it hit. People use guns for defence and offence, because it is very effective at killing, while relatively safe for the person handling it. Objectively, there simply isn't a parallel between guns and pressure cookers. I don't understand how admitting that makes one automatically in favour of gun restrictions and a gun-o-phobe. But when it comes to America and guns, objectivity is not part of the picture.

so you like to dish it out, but can't take it in return, eh? At least you had the common courtesy to not deny it. Now I understand why you don't recognize poor judgement when you see it.

Now they are saying no arrest. Impressive reporting

good question, just so I understand, what is the primary purpose of a firearm, and what is the primary purpose of a pressure cooker?

When this happened in Canada, some of the manufacturers were found to be supplying the illegal cigarettes out the back door. This also shows that the oft repeated mantra of legalize drugs and tax it heavily, is really not such a simple solution as people like to think.

Best part is, he is upset that they talked about Right Wing groups. No care in the world that the first reaction was brown people. Go after anybody you like, just don't you dare suggest there is an extreme right wing, or that they would possibly do anything wrong.

Same with internet posters. All internet posters should get fired? all the ones that exercise poor judgement, and make wild postings without all the facts. Like you. I'll go out on a limb and say you've never done this sort of fire/no fire training and are rather unqualified to judge this. And to say this is a fireable offence, as opposed to formal or informal reprimand, is a fairly tall reach. The decision to exercise deadly force is not a black and white subject and training for it involves a lot of tough discussions. Right, and this has nothing to do with that. If he were to use pictures of Obama as a target to shoot at, he would show extremely poor judgement. That doesn't take anything away from the exercise itself. Your assertion that that gone has to go through fire/no-fire to understand that is silly. Guess you have all the facts? You were there? You witnessed all this first hand? If not, then why are you commenting on this, thought only people with all the facts can comment? In my opinion a cop displaying extremely poor judgement should not be in a job where proper judgement can result in life or death decisions. At that point there are people better suited for that position. Using (overt or covert) references to TM in a shoot or no shoot exercise is extremely poor judgement. Telling people they should get fired regarding internet postings is pretty small minded. It has actually happened on this forum before, maybe you were behind that?

Same with internet posters. All internet posters should get fired?

It sure does. And I remember the utter joy of having them on the sidelines as I ran one of my races. Being able to high five them as I ran by. I cannot comprehend the utter devastation this poor father must be going through. I don't, in any way, mean to make light of the other deaths or injured, but this scenario just is very close to "home".

I don't really care which way he used them. He should have known that this would likely be an issue if it came out in public. Hence, he just used extremely poor judgement. Cops with extremely poor judgement should get fired.

Crossing the finish line at Boston, with my kids waiting for me, has been a long time goal for me. I have a boy and a girl, at pretty much the exact same ages as these two. The girl lost a leg, the mother was in for brain sugery. An absolutely senseless act, perpetrated on random every day people, people from all over the world. I spent most of yesterday trying to get in touch with fellow runners who I knew where in Boston, who I knew had family members waiting for them. Some I don't have contact information for, so I hope to see them tonight, at one of our regular runs. If anything, this has just strengthened my resolve to make it to the Boston marathon, to train hard enough to make the qualifying standard, and to have my children at the finish line.