Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
It doesn't matter... the fact that they oppose just about any kind of gun control means that criminals will inherently end up armed. You realize that, right?
Criminals end up winning the arms race either way. All we're talking about here is how well-armed common citizens should be.
Quote:
Why do regular citizens need semi-automatic rifles? Can you name a single good reason?
Why do people need oversized clips like the kind that enabled Jared Loughner to shoot 20 people within a short period of time?
That's not how laws work in this country. Can you name a single good reason to BAN semi-automatic rifles? Because if there's no pressing need to legislate, there should be no law.
Quote:
Without the NRA, regular "law-abiding citizens" wouldn't be able to get either.
Which is the point.
Quote:
Screw the NRA and its totally irresponsible policies that have been responsible for tens of thousands of lives lost over the decades.
Yeah, who needs picky little things like Constitutional rights agreed to by countless generations over two centuries? One person acts irresponsibly with a firearm, so out the door they go.
Criminals end up winning the arms race either way. All we're talking about here is how well-armed common citizens should be.
No, the point is that the more guns are available in general, the easier it is for criminals to get hold of them. When the NRA works to prevent any kind of gun control, criminals most assuredly end up winning the arms race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
That's not how laws work in this country. Can you name a single good reason to BAN semi-automatic rifles? Because if there's no pressing need to legislate, there should be no law.
Yes. Because if semi-automatic rifles are available, more people will be killed when (not if) criminals get their hands on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Which is the point.
Why does anyone other than law enforement or the military need either? The sole result is that innocent people end up getting killed. No oversized clip in the Gaby Giffords incident means that several people most likely do not lose their lives and several others are not injured. How can you defend that? You can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Yeah, who needs picky little things like Constitutional rights agreed to by countless generations over two centuries? One person acts irresponsibly with a firearm, so out the door they go.
I don't think the Constitution precludes any kind of gun control legislation. As ****ed-up as the Second Amendment is in the first place, it doesn't expressly prohibit guns from being regulated.
100,000 gun deaths and injuries a year = one person acting irresponsibly with a firearm?
Hey, I really have no reason to complain. I now live in a country in which guns are highly regulated and criminals are rarely armed. And as a result the violent crime rate is negligable. Too bad the U.S. is saddled with the Second Amendment and will never know what it's like to be free of gun violence.
Criminals end up winning the arms race either way. All we're talking about here is how well-armed common citizens should be.
Untraceability of weapons and more easily availability of weapons makes it easier for criminals to acquire firearms. Thus you end up with more heavily armed criminals.
Quote:
Yeah, who needs picky little things like Constitutional rights agreed to by countless generations over two centuries? One person acts irresponsibly with a firearm, so out the door they go.
"Constitutional" doesn't make de facto "Moral". Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it the right or the wrong thing.
It doesn't matter... the fact that they oppose just about any kind of gun control means that criminals will inherently end up armed. You realize that, right?
This thread boils down to this nonsense. Do you think criminals care about gun laws? Do you think any sort of restrictive law is going to have a real effect in a country where guns outnumber people? The only thing crap legislation like the assault weapons ban does is make pre-ban stuff more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
Why do regular citizens need semi-automatic rifles? Can you name a single good reason?
Bolt action rifles are just as lethal. Might want to learn about Charles Whitman some day. A plain old hunting shotgun can be ultra lethal if used right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
Why do people need oversized clips like the kind that enabled Jared Loughner to shoot 20 people within a short period of time?
Why do people need 1 ton trucks? After all, they have the potential to cause more fatalities in an accident when compared to a small compact car. That he used hicap mags does not take away from the fact that Jared Loughner was there to kill people. You make it sound like he is representative of the average gun owner when that's not the case. Serial killers have killed more with their bare hands. Come on now. Living in a free, open society means that you accept the trade-offs. Bad people will do bad things. If you consider the sheer amount of guns and owners that never do anything crazy, it's relatively harmless. More people die from car accidents and DUI related deaths. Why don't we ban cars or alcohol? Guns, like cars, can be used irresponsibly or in a dangerous manner. I'm far more terrified of a teen girl texting while on the highway. I have statistical reason to be.
Who's going to save you if your life is in serious jeopardy? The police? They are minutes away when seconds matter. The truth of the matter is that you're far more likely to be murdered by someone you know, gun or not, than to be shot randomly on the streets. I live in a state that has the most liberal gun laws in the country and it's not exactly chaos. I don't need any sort of permit, license, registration or training to conceal carry. Pretty awesome. Would be terrifying to those who irrationally fear guns and other people though.
We shouldn't legislate or ban things because of a select few. If you believe some sociologists, the Jared Loughners of the world will never go away. They become a fact of modern society. I'm not sure why some people feel the need to infringe upon the rights of others because of a few crazies. It's like those bills are passed so everyone can feel good about themselves while completely ignoring the fully automatic AKs coming across the border. Thank god joe blow, average gun owner with no criminal record can't get 15 round mags. That'd give him 5 whole extra shots!
Gun control is really not about the guns or the violence, in the end. It's about personal freedoms.
This thread boils down to this nonsense. Do you think criminals care about gun laws? Do you think any sort of restrictive law is going to have a real effect in a country where guns outnumber people? The only thing crap legislation like the assault weapons ban does is make pre-ban stuff more expensive.
How many times does this question have to be answered before gun advocates will notice? It is not relevant whether criminals care about gun laws. What is relevant is that criminals will get their hands on whatever guns are available. If they are not available in the first place, then criminals will not get their hands on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Bolt action rifles are just as lethal. Might want to learn about Charles Whitman some day. A plain old hunting shotgun can be ultra lethal if used right.
Yeah, Jared Loughner would have killed and injured just as many people in Tuscon had he had a bolt-action rifle, right? And bolt-action rifles are just as easy to carry around surrepticiously, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Why do people need 1 ton trucks? After all, they have the potential to cause more fatalities in an accident when compared to a small compact car. That he used hicap mags does not take away from the fact that Jared Loughner was there to kill people. You make it sound like he is representative of the average gun owner when that's not the case. Serial killers have killed more with their bare hands. Come on now. Living in a free, open society means that you accept the trade-offs. Bad people will do bad things. If you consider the sheer amount of guns and owners that never do anything crazy, it's relatively harmless. More people die from car accidents and DUI related deaths. Why don't we ban cars or alcohol? Guns, like cars, can be used irresponsibly or in a dangerous manner. I'm far more terrified of a teen girl texting while on the highway. I have statistical reason to be.
Already covered a few posts ago, but for your benefit: the purpose of a car is transportation. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill and maim. Your analogy is therefore ludricous. You could have come up with an equally ludricous analogy like "Why should multi-story buildings be legal, when people can easily be pushed off of them?" The benefit of transportation to society outweighs the costs. The benefit of allowing every jackass to own a gun most certainly does not outweight the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Who's going to save you if your life is in serious jeopardy? The police? They are minutes away when seconds matter. The truth of the matter is that you're far more likely to be murdered by someone you know, gun or not, than to be shot randomly on the streets. I live in a state that has the most liberal gun laws in the country and it's not exactly chaos. I don't need any sort of permit, license, registration or training to conceal carry. Pretty awesome. Would be terrifying to those who irrationally fear guns and other people though.
You live in Arizona, correct? Your liberal gun laws really came in handy when the lunatic shot Gaby Giffords, murdered 6 people and unjured 14 others, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
We shouldn't legislate or ban things because of a select few. If you believe some sociologists, the Jared Loughners of the world will never go away. They become a fact of modern society. I'm not sure why some people feel the need to infringe upon the rights of others because of a few crazies. It's like those bills are passed so everyone can feel good about themselves while completely ignoring the fully automatic AKs coming across the border. Thank god joe blow, average gun owner with no criminal record can't get 15 round mags. That'd give him 5 whole extra shots!
100,000 gun deaths and injuries = a select few? Wow, I'm sure a lot of gun violence victims and their families would find that really conforting.
A whole extra five shots in the worst case equals a whole extra five people killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Gun control is really not about the guns or the violence, in the end. It's about personal freedoms.
Personal freedoms that people in most other first-world countries are damn glad they don't have.
How many times does this question have to be answered before gun advocates will notice? It is not relevant whether criminals care about gun laws. What is relevant is that criminals will get their hands on whatever guns are available. If they are not available in the first place, then criminals will not get their hands on them.
This stance is beyond ignorant. Creating legislation does NOT make it harder for criminals to acquire weapons. A criminal buying a grey or black market gun does not give a **** about background checks or licenses. You're also implying that legislation will somehow have an impact on the estimated 250-300 million guns in the United States. Awesome. Continue to demonstrate your astounding lack of knowledge of how the industry works. It pleases me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
Yeah, Jared Loughner would have killed and injured just as many people in Tuscon had he had a bolt-action rifle, right? And bolt-action rifles are just as easy to carry around surrepticiously, right?
You were *****ing about semi automatic rifles. Loughner used a pistol. Are we going to ban everything? What about hunting shotguns? Are you still claiming Loughner is in any way representative of the average gun owner? Is that still absurd?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
The sole purpose of a gun is to kill and maim.
Used for sport and recreation. And the odd revolution or two. Worth it. The benefit of armed citizenry it hard to quantify, I'll admit, but it's something that the founding fathers went out of their way to establish as a right. Food for thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
You live in Arizona, correct? Your liberal gun laws really came in handy when the lunatic shot Gaby Giffords, murdered 6 people and unjured 14 others, huh?
And if it was an old person who had a heart attack at the wheel, plowing through the crowd? Again, it's flashy and easy to claim that guns need to be banned when you use examples of when it goes horribly wrong. Too bad you don't give all the law abiding citizens who quietly enjoy ownership the same amount of consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
100,000 gun deaths and injuries = a select few? Wow, I'm sure a lot of gun violence victims and their families would find that really conforting.
100,000 deaths? Cite me that son, because you're full of it. Number of gun related homicides is usually around 10,000 a year. The rate of homicide, including non gun deaths, is about 2 higher per 100,000 (5.5ish total, usually) So you're telling me you want to enact expensive legislation and all that jazz to save an extra ~5,000 people per year? Keeping in mind that these poor people likely died as a function of the poor quality of life in their neighborhood more so than the presence of a gun. Also being mindful of simple things like smoking and obesity, which have a far larger negative impact on society despite being personal choices.
[QUOTE=Ugmo;47462707]
A whole extra five shots in the worst case equals a whole extra five people killed./QUOTE]
Yeah, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Newsflash; criminals buy things through illegal channels. That's why they're criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
Personal freedoms that people in most other first-world countries are damn glad they don't have.
Can't miss what you've never had. It's also ingrained in the culture here. And at 250 million +, good luck making any sort of major change.
Why do regular citizens need semi-automatic rifles? Can you name a single good reason?
I've for the most part tried to avoid reading posts here, because I know the thread is just going to frustrate me - but I saw this line quoted in another post - and I have to ask:
Have you ever gone shooting? Do you actually have experience with guns? What is the inherent danger that you're afraid of with semi-automatic rifles? I know a fellow that can fire his lever action with more speed and accuracy than the vast majority of people can fire a semi-automatic. Are you going to tell me that lever-actions need to be banned?
Semi-automatics are inherently less accurate and less reliable. There's a reason that they are not recommended for hunting, especially for dangerous game. But I sure enjoy having one when I'm shooting gophers, or just plinking.
I find that most people who put out the kind of statements you've been putting out really know nothing about guns, and are afraid of unreasonable things. Here in Canada, because I haven't bothered to get a restricted license, I can not get a semi-automatic version of the 5.56mm rifles that the military uses. My hunting rifle chambered in .338, not a problem - and yet if I wanted to create some real damage, it's far more deadly.
Gun control is really not about the guns or the violence, in the end. It's about personal freedoms.
Close. It's about personal freedoms vs. fear. These people who are out to take away gun ownership rights aren't doing it for no reason. They're not generally vindictive or petty. They just fear from ignorance.
All some of them know about firearms is that they're "designed to kill" and that Hollywood says anyone shot once with a firearm dies. They look at them as magic death wands and don't want someone they don't necessarily trust having the potential to point one at them. That's all they know, and all they think they need to know.
Also I think some of them have a very low opinion of 'the average American" and that doesn't help their sense that those people should be armed.
If you outlaw guns, criminals will still have guns since they do not fear the punishment of having an "illegal" gun as they engage in criminal activity.
Your simple mind and thought process would have us believe that once guns are banned completely that they would simply no longer exist and we would enter a state of complete Nirvana.
But your simple mind shows that you are not thinking. Here is a thought for you (if you disengage your simple mind for a second and think critically).
Cocaine is illegal in the US. However, it is smuggled into this country on a daily basis and it is easily obtained if you want it.
If guns were made illegal in the US, they would be easily smuggled into this country on a daily basis and would be easily obtained by anyone not afraid of engaging in criminal activity.
So while law abiding citizens would be without guns for self-defense, the "criminals" who "illegally" possess guns would be able to commit all sorts of crimes against an unarmed populace.
Grasping that concept yet? If you are a liberal, I doubt that you have that capacity.
Do me a favor since you are so anti-gun. Put a sign on your front door that says this.............."I do not own a gun. There are no guns in this apartment/house."
Thanks.
You clearly read nothing and surely didn't think about it. Thanks.
If guns get outlawed, then I'll gladly go through the same illegitimate, underground channels that the criminals do on a daily basis to acquire one, because I'm not living in my house without one.
Making them illegal won't make them magically disappear.
This stance is beyond ignorant. Creating legislation does NOT make it harder for criminals to acquire weapons. A criminal buying a grey or black market gun does not give a **** about background checks or licenses. You're also implying that legislation will somehow have an impact on the estimated 250-300 million guns in the United States. Awesome. Continue to demonstrate your astounding lack of knowledge of how the industry works. It pleases me.
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me or something? Once again, the fact that America is swamped with guns is the reason why it is easy for criminals to get hold of them too. In countries where guns are not widely available, criminals also have a hard time getting hold of them. Is this a difficult concept for gun nuts to grasp?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
You were *****ing about semi automatic rifles. Loughner used a pistol. Are we going to ban everything? What about hunting shotguns? Are you still claiming Loughner is in any way representative of the average gun owner? Is that still absurd?
Ahh... you know, you're right. When I quoted your post, I only saw your responses and not my original post, and lost my train of thought a little. But since you ask, yes, I don't see any reason why regular Joes should have pistols either. It's the 21st century - that's an anachronism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Used for sport and recreation. And the odd revolution or two. Worth it. The benefit of armed citizenry it hard to quantify, I'll admit, but it's something that the founding fathers went out of their way to establish as a right. Food for thought.
See, this is more of that paranoid gun nut logic I admit I will never understand. It's a shame you have so little faith in over 235 years of democracy that you think your gun is the only thing standing between you and tyranny. And the only thing keeping the government from becoming a dictatorship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
And if it was an old person who had a heart attack at the wheel, plowing through the crowd? Again, it's flashy and easy to claim that guns need to be banned when you use examples of when it goes horribly wrong. Too bad you don't give all the law abiding citizens who quietly enjoy ownership the same amount of consideration.
What is it with you and this absolutely horrible analogy? Vehicles are for transportation - a vital function in our society. Guns are for shooting people and things - not a vital function for the vast majority of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
100,000 deaths? Cite me that son, because you're full of it. Number of gun related homicides is usually around 10,000 a year. The rate of homicide, including non gun deaths, is about 2 higher per 100,000 (5.5ish total, usually) So you're telling me you want to enact expensive legislation and all that jazz to save an extra ~5,000 people per year? Keeping in mind that these poor people likely died as a function of the poor quality of life in their neighborhood more so than the presence of a gun. Also being mindful of simple things like smoking and obesity, which have a far larger negative impact on society despite being personal choices.
You didn't read my post very closely, because it clearly says "100,000 gun deaths and injuries."
No, I'm not telling you I want to enact any kind of legislation. I don't recall saying that anywhere, because I think the U.S. is beyond ****ed with this issue thanks to the Second Amendment and the NRA. The cat is out of the bag and the U.S. is saddled with a problem it can no longer solve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Yeah, no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Newsflash; criminals buy things through illegal channels. That's why they're criminals.
Except that if the oversized gun clips were not available in the first place, even criminals wouldn't be able to get hold of them. That's always the gun nut argument: "Criminals can get hold of anything - so why even try to make it difficult for them?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Can't miss what you've never had. It's also ingrained in the culture here. And at 250 million +, good luck making any sort of major change.
Can't miss what you've never had... good point. If Americans had any idea how pleasant it is to be able to go anywhere they want, in any section of any city, at any time of the day or night, and not have to worry about getting shot, they'd probably never want it any other way. Put the shoe on the other foot and I highly doubt it.
I've for the most part tried to avoid reading posts here, because I know the thread is just going to frustrate me - but I saw this line quoted in another post - and I have to ask:
Have you ever gone shooting? Do you actually have experience with guns? What is the inherent danger that you're afraid of with semi-automatic rifles? I know a fellow that can fire his lever action with more speed and accuracy than the vast majority of people can fire a semi-automatic. Are you going to tell me that lever-actions need to be banned?
Semi-automatics are inherently less accurate and less reliable. There's a reason that they are not recommended for hunting, especially for dangerous game. But I sure enjoy having one when I'm shooting gophers, or just plinking.
I find that most people who put out the kind of statements you've been putting out really know nothing about guns, and are afraid of unreasonable things. Here in Canada, because I haven't bothered to get a restricted license, I can not get a semi-automatic version of the 5.56mm rifles that the military uses. My hunting rifle chambered in .338, not a problem - and yet if I wanted to create some real damage, it's far more deadly.
So why do they need to be legal? If they're useless for hunting, why does anyone else need to be able to get hold of one? So you can plink at gophers? Well that's a really valuable asset for society.
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me or something? Once again, the fact that America is swamped with guns is the reason why it is easy for criminals to get hold of them too. In countries where guns are not widely available, criminals also have a hard time getting hold of them. Is this a difficult concept for gun nuts to grasp?
Let me know what you plan is for addressing 250 million guns. I'd love to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
See, this is more of that paranoid gun nut logic I admit I will never understand. It's a shame you have so little faith in over 235 years of democracy that you think your gun is the only thing standing between you and tyranny. And the only thing keeping the government from becoming a dictatorship.
Might want to look up some historical uses of gun control. Or, you know, the whole Arab spring thing. An armed society is a more polite society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
You didn't read my post very closely, because it clearly says "100,000 gun deaths and injuries."
I'm asking for a source, unless you just pulled that out of your ass to be sensationalist. Let us know, so we can just ignore your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
The cat is out of the bag and the U.S. is saddled with a problem it can no longer solve.
I know right? Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year simply because they have a gun in the home. What an epidemic. Errr, wait. That isn't happening. People are still being murdered, even without guns. Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
Except that if the oversized gun clips were not available in the first place, even criminals wouldn't be able to get hold of them. That's always the gun nut argument: "Criminals can get hold of anything - so why even try to make it difficult for them?"
You have absolutely no idea how the gun industry (or criminals, for that matter) works. Even if your argument had merit, you're complaining about something that's been going on for nearly a century. Just flapping your gums? I live in a border state. I can get any type of drug or weapon that I want, yet I live in a perfectly safe area and have never been the victim of a crime. Gun legislation means nothing when you live in an open society. Switzlerland, by the way, has an extremely high rate of gun ownership. The crime rate there is 1 in every 250,000. Statistically speaking, that's not even worth mentioning or legislating against. More guns does not equal more crime. It just scales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo
Can't miss what you've never had... good point. If Americans had any idea how pleasant it is to be able to go anywhere they want, in any section of any city, at any time of the day or night, and not have to worry about getting shot, they'd probably never want it any other way. Put the shoe on the other foot and I highly doubt it.
I can tell you don't live in the states and have never visited. No one feels that way unless you live in a ghetto. I've been to Europe and there are parts, even within 'civilized' countries like France, that the police won't go. Every country has blight, crime and shady places you don't want to be, guns or not. This comment, for me, cements the suggestion that you are just paranoid and have an irrational fear of guns.
No, the point is that the more guns are available in general, the easier it is for criminals to get hold of them. When the NRA works to prevent any kind of gun control, criminals most assuredly end up winning the arms race.
Glad that you do not live in the US. We have enough idiot liberals already.
You do realize that England for all intents and purposes eliminated private gun ownership by its citizens in 1997.
Explain these stats to me lefty.......
Against a background of a small number of shocking individual incidents of fatal violence involving firearms, the overall number of gun crime offences recorded by police forces in England and Wales rose significantly between 1997/98 and 2001/02.
It then continued to rise more slowly until 2003/04, before a slight fall in 2004/05, the latter driven mainly by a 14 per cent reduction in air weapon offences (see Figure 1.1).
In 1997/98 there were included 78 firearm homicides and 1,378 attempted homicides and other acts endangering life (including wounding).
Excluding air weapons, recorded firearms offences in England and Wales more than doubled in the seven years between 1997/98 and 2004/05 from 4,903 to 10,964 offences (data for 1997/98 from Povey and Kaiza, 2005: 39). 12,805 offences recorded by the police in England and Wales that involved a firearm (including air weapons), including 54 offences recorded as homicide and 696 offences of attempted homicide and other acts endangering life (including wounding). By 2003/04 the total had risen to 24,094 offences, before falling back slightly to 22,789 offences in 2004/05.
If guns get outlawed, then I'll gladly go through the same illegitimate, underground channels that the criminals do on a daily basis to acquire one, because I'm not living in my house without one.
Making them illegal won't make them magically disappear.
I just came back from shooting. We had a Ruger 10/22 in .22lr, a Lakefield Mossberg in 12 gauge, a Cooey in 12 gauge, and a Tikka T3 Lite in .338 win mag with us... strangely enough, no one was murdered, no one was accidentally shot, and fun was had by all. One guy did cut himself on the eyebrow - he got a case of scope eye when he assumed that the .338 would have kick comparable to the 5.56mm rifles he fired as a marine - but I'm sure his eye and his pride will recover. Guns can be perfectly safe and harmless.
So why do they need to be legal? If they're useless for hunting, why does anyone else need to be able to get hold of one? So you can plink at gophers? Well that's a really valuable asset for society.
Because you don't get to decide things are illegal just because. Let's make Pokemon illegal. What good do they do? How about the Call of Duty games. Let's ban Zydeco music. Don't be an idiot.
Easy solution to that: have the guns stored and locked away at the shooting range. Pick up your gun when you get there, lock it away when you leave.
That'd be fine.
Quote:
Screw the NRA. If you take on the function as its President, you've taken on the role as a cold-hearted scoundrel. That's part of his legacy now.
EDIT: Heston's wiki page is interesting. The guy went completely off the deep end, veered hard right and then claimed "I didn't change. The Democratic party changed." Bullsh....t. If anything the Democratic Party didn't veer as hard to the right as he did.
Basically what he is saying is pretty accurate. There was a time when the Democrats didn't appeal to the left either. You could be rather conservative and still vote Democrat. It changed in later years and Heston claims he didn't so the Republican party appealed to him more. I believe that's what Heston meant.
I don't think its right that he was pigeon holed that way though as Prez of the NRA (although certainly not everyone bought into it). The NRA has its purpose. If law-abiding home owners don't own a gun - or have the right to own one - then the only ones that will have one will be the criminals. To an extent, guns need a strong voice to go to bat for them. And wasn't there an interview where Heston said the NRA spends $1 million in education to teach children if they spot a gun to tell an adult?
One of my main reasons for believing that the public should be armed is to keep the government from doing what it wants irrespective of human rights and such.
I would venture to guess that many of the genocides that have taken place in history have involved a large group of unarmed citizens being rounded up by a group of armed ones. Granted, I don't expect this to happen in a Western government, but with guns, it becomes even less likely.
I have a Tutsi friend from Rwanda who was 6 when his parents and 6 of his siblings were killed by the Hutus. The government armed the Hutus, the Tutsis were not armed. He and some other Tutsis took refuge in a church, which was then attacked by Hutus who lobbed grenades in the church, and then walked through and hacked the survivors. He was hit on the head, but it (obviously) didn't kill him. He saw his sister's throat blown open by shrapnel.
Anyway, if the Tutsis had been armed, the slaughter wouldn't have been as one sided. It might not have stopped it, but it certainly would have made the Hutus think twice.
Let me know what you plan is for addressing 250 million guns. I'd love to hear it.
I never said I had a plan. I said it's a hopeless cause. I love how you keep ignoring everything I say just so you can be a condescending a-hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
Might want to look up some historical uses of gun control. Or, you know, the whole Arab spring thing. An armed society is a more polite society.
Brilliant. You're comparing a bunch of countries that have NEVER known democracy to the world's preeminent democracy, with a 236-year tradition. It is impossible to take you as anything other than a paranoid gun nut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
I'm asking for a source, unless you just pulled that out of your ass to be sensationalist. Let us know, so we can just ignore your posts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5]with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]
---------------------------------------------------------
105,668 in 2000. Happy now? Or are you still going to be a dick about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
I know right? Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year simply because they have a gun in the home. What an epidemic. Errr, wait. That isn't happening. People are still being murdered, even without guns. Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
What the hell does this mean? 100,000 deaths and injuries a year due to guns isn't an epidemic? If it were a handful of kids choking on Kinder surprise eggs they'd ban them, but 100,000 gunshot incidents a year is something for you to brush aside like it's nothing. And you wonder why people consider gun rights activists to be selfish and unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
You have absolutely no idea how the gun industry (or criminals, for that matter) works. Even if your argument had merit, you're complaining about something that's been going on for nearly a century. Just flapping your gums? I live in a border state. I can get any type of drug or weapon that I want, yet I live in a perfectly safe area and have never been the victim of a crime. Gun legislation means nothing when you live in an open society. Switzlerland, by the way, has an extremely high rate of gun ownership. The crime rate there is 1 in every 250,000. Statistically speaking, that's not even worth mentioning or legislating against. More guns does not equal more crime. It just scales.
I love how gun advocates always bring up Switzerland, which is pretty much the only country in the world where a lot of people are armed but the crime rate is low. Guns in Switzerland are also heavily regulated, AND it's a much more equitable society than the U.S., with an extremely high standard of living. Meaning crime is low there in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab
I can tell you don't live in the states and have never visited. No one feels that way unless you live in a ghetto. I've been to Europe and there are parts, even within 'civilized' countries like France, that the police won't go. Every country has blight, crime and shady places you don't want to be, guns or not. This comment, for me, cements the suggestion that you are just paranoid and have an irrational fear of guns.
I grew up in the states and lived there for 14 years. "No one feels that way unless you live in a ghetto." Yes, and so can have your arsenal of guns to play with, thousands of people a year get killed in ghettos.
The city I live in has 2 million people, and there are 20 murders a year - most of them domestic violence incidents and hardly any of them with guns. Because people don't own guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab
Glad that you do not live in the US. We have enough idiot liberals already.
You do realize that England for all intents and purposes eliminated private gun ownership by its citizens in 1997.
Explain these stats to me lefty.......
Against a background of a small number of shocking individual incidents of fatal violence involving firearms, the overall number of gun crime offences recorded by police forces in England and Wales rose significantly between 1997/98 and 2001/02.
It then continued to rise more slowly until 2003/04, before a slight fall in 2004/05, the latter driven mainly by a 14 per cent reduction in air weapon offences (see Figure 1.1).
In 1997/98 there were included 78 firearm homicides and 1,378 attempted homicides and other acts endangering life (including wounding).
Excluding air weapons, recorded firearms offences in England and Wales more than doubled in the seven years between 1997/98 and 2004/05 from 4,903 to 10,964 offences (data for 1997/98 from Povey and Kaiza, 2005: 39). 12,805 offences recorded by the police in England and Wales that involved a firearm (including air weapons), including 54 offences recorded as homicide and 696 offences of attempted homicide and other acts endangering life (including wounding). By 2003/04 the total had risen to 24,094 offences, before falling back slightly to 22,789 offences in 2004/05.
Hey liberal ruh-tard. Where did the criminals get these guns when they were banned in England?
Do you still believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy? Or are you just an ignorant liberal ruh-tard without a clue about reality?
Please stay in whatever country you are living in now..........Thanks.
Do you realize with your "liberal ruh-tard" nonsense, you're probably even embarrassing your fellow gun advcoates here? The level of debate is actually relatively high here - you are completely dragging it down by acting like you're posting at redstate.com or Rush Limbaugh's facebook page with the other imbeciles.
And then you post statistics about England that make my argument for me. 78 firearm homicides in a country of, what, 60 million people? LOL. You dunce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestrel
Because you don't get to decide things are illegal just because. Let's make Pokemon illegal. What good do they do? How about the Call of Duty games. Let's ban Zydeco music. Don't be an idiot.
Yeah, well none of those things are deadly, unlike guns. If you want to be taken seriously then come up with a serious argument.
pretty accurate. There was a time when the Democrats didn't appeal to the left either. You could be rather conservative and still vote Democrat. It changed in later years and Heston claims he didn't so the Republican party appealed to him more. I believe that's what Heston meant.
If you read through his wiki page though, it was definitely Heston himself who changed. He started out as a liberal Democrat peacenik and ended up as a conservative Republican war hawk.
You guys are really amusing with your use of the word liberal.
Both the Republican and Democrat parties are liberal political parties. Hell, I would even go to say that the Republican party is staunchly liberal, considering their absolute adherence to the public/private dichotomy and constitutionalism.
