|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 15 2012 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:45 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low. LOL. Someone should google Chicago crime rates. They are by far the highest in the US and they have a total gun ban there. In fact, crime rates soared after they banned guns and has not gone done since, the citizens there are actually trying to fight the ban so they can have a gun for self defense. It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus.
Forreal bro. Esk you ruin the joke if you have to explain it! Comedy 101
|
Canada11349 Posts
On December 15 2012 08:56 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument. I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles.
Perhaps 'assault weapons' was a poor choice of words.
I just don't think given the power of the gun lobby, you can properly tackle handguns. But you can chip away at the edges, then perhaps it can be pushed even more that the 2nd Amendment may cover the right to bear arms (generally), but it doesn't include the right to bear absolutely any arm. If that can be more firmly established, maybe then handguns can be looked at.
But I think going for the throat too hard and fast will see too big a push back. And even if it would pass I don't the reaction would be pleasant and I don't think it would last long.
Maybe I'm misreading things, but weaponry seems too tied to the American mythos for any rapid change. Therefore I would rather slow reform even if it takes half a century or more.
|
On December 15 2012 09:10 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 15 2012 08:45 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low. LOL. Someone should google Chicago crime rates. They are by far the highest in the US and they have a total gun ban there. In fact, crime rates soared after they banned guns and has not gone done since, the citizens there are actually trying to fight the ban so they can have a gun for self defense. It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus. Forreal bro. Esk you ruin the joke if you have to explain it! Comedy 101
I know it was sarcastic lol, but most of these foreigners don't know what goes down in Chicago and New York city where there are total gun bans. Crime rates soar, the worst crime in the United States happens where there are total gun bans.
|
On December 15 2012 08:56 polishedturd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:52 Antyee wrote:On December 15 2012 08:42 polishedturd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:+ Show Spoiler +However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. It's not exactly easy for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon in the states. The act of getting a Class III license is not all that prohibitive for a responsible citizen. See below: 1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Be of sane mind
3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
4. Have never been convicted of a felony
5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application. The major barrier to entry, however, is the cost of the firearm itself, which are in the tens of thousands of dollars. This in practice makes legally purchased automatic weapons extremely rare in active shooter type scenarios. Also, the pseudo-classification of "assault-weapon" is completely inane. Don't use it if you want to have an actual discussion of this issue. If you want to ban rifles, that's fine, it's your personal belief. But let me tell you right now, there is very little variance in the capabilities of something like a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle and a big black scary AR-15. The statement of wanting to ban just "assault-weapons" is an ignorant cop-out that generally does nothing but restrict the rights of responsible citizens. Wow. We have to go through a stricter procedure to get any kind of weapon (including bb guns, trophy guns and sport guns) Sure, don't have to pay that much, but the mental and also physical check-up is stricter. And ofc you can't have any automatic weapon or anything that looks like an automatic weapon. But is that right? I don't think so.
I hate guns, because they are too easy to kill with and also makes killing someone way easier on you mentally.
Pulling a trigger and watching how the bullet goes through someone is completely different from going there and stabbing someone with a blade or crushing a skull, not speaking about choking someone.
It simply makes murder easier; and of course more efficient.
I just can't like any weapon that can kill someone else and does not need close, physical contact to do so. If you want to hurt someone, let him defend himself. Being a little bitch and shooting people to death from a distance is one of the most pitiful things.
But banning guns is impossible, so there is no real solution, since getting illegal weapons is feasible. Thank god, it isn't a problem in Hungary.
|
Guns are a sensitive area, but is it really a "right" to own military-grade weaponry? I mean, I can understand people who own hunting rifles if they are actually engaging in that activity, but I can't for the life of me understand what good will come out of owning a handgun/semi-auto rifle for "personal security issues." Thoughts go out to those affected by unnecessary gun-violence!
|
On December 15 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:56 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:
[quote]
This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive.
Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was?
Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument. I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles. Perhaps 'assault weapons' was a poor choice of words. I just don't think given the power of the gun lobby, you can properly tackle handguns. But you can chip away at the edges, then perhaps it can be pushed even more that the 2nd Amendment may cover the right to bear arms (generally), but it doesn't include the right to bear absolutely any arm. If that can be more firmly established, maybe then handguns can be looked at. But I think going for the throat too hard and fast will see too big a push back. And even if it would pass I don't the reaction would be pleasant and I don't think it would last long. Maybe I'm misreading things, but weaponry seems too tied to the American mythos for any rapid change. Therefore I would rather slow reform even if it takes half a century or more.
I tend to agree that more malicious weapons like grenades and bazookas just might not be reasonable enough for a citizen to own. However, you brought up the 2nd amendment right, which interestingly enough, intended for citizens to own military-grade weapons because that's the role they were expected to take up during that time period. So the argument can definitely be made for ownership of any type of weapon, that's just history.
Whether or not that's reasonable is another thing entirely, but I thought it was an interesting point to make.
|
Canada11349 Posts
On December 15 2012 09:14 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:56 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:
[quote]
Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries.
I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter.
Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries.
So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India.
Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined.
[quote]
I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument. I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles. Perhaps 'assault weapons' was a poor choice of words. I just don't think given the power of the gun lobby, you can properly tackle handguns. But you can chip away at the edges, then perhaps it can be pushed even more that the 2nd Amendment may cover the right to bear arms (generally), but it doesn't include the right to bear absolutely any arm. If that can be more firmly established, maybe then handguns can be looked at. But I think going for the throat too hard and fast will see too big a push back. And even if it would pass I don't the reaction would be pleasant and I don't think it would last long. Maybe I'm misreading things, but weaponry seems too tied to the American mythos for any rapid change. Therefore I would rather slow reform even if it takes half a century or more.
I tend to agree that more malicious weapons like grenades and bazookas just might not be reasonable enough for a citizen to own. However, you brought up the 2nd amendment right, which interestingly enough, intended for citizens to own military-grade weapons because that's the role they were expected to take up during that time period. So the argument can definitely be made for ownership of any type of weapon, that's just history. Whether or not that's reasonable is another thing entirely, but I thought it was an interesting point to make.
Well I am glad for that because not everyone I have run into has that view. One fellow, I tried to pin down at what it was no longer reasonable for a private citizen to obtain military weaponry, but he would not rule out a single weapon even when I started including nuclear missiles.
So yes, the 2nd amendment was intended for military-grade weapons, but as you mentioned there is the question of reasonableness. There is a substantial difference between flintlock muskets and fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers.
|
On December 15 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:56 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:
[quote]
This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive.
Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was?
Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population. Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries. I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter. Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries. So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India. Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument. I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles. Perhaps 'assault weapons' was a poor choice of words. I just don't think given the power of the gun lobby, you can properly tackle handguns. But you can chip away at the edges, then perhaps it can be pushed even more that the 2nd Amendment may cover the right to bear arms (generally), but it doesn't include the right to bear absolutely any arm. If that can be more firmly established, maybe then handguns can be looked at. But I think going for the throat too hard and fast will see too big a push back. And even if it would pass I don't the reaction would be pleasant and I don't think it would last long. Maybe I'm misreading things, but weaponry seems too tied to the American mythos for any rapid change. Therefore I would rather slow reform even if it takes half a century or more.
The 2nd Amendment is for the protection of the people not just against crime but against tyranny in government. United States won their freedom from England (a tyrannical government who taxed Americans to death with no representation of the people) with guns. US was created on the back of guns. It would be totally ironic if US then decided to ban all guns.
Having a country of disarmed citizens is dangerous. Giving the government all the power over you leads to disaster. Every government in history turned bad at some point. US government is supposed to be small and stay out of our lives and let us live.
|
On December 15 2012 09:18 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:14 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:56 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:
[quote]
I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns.
That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument. I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles. Perhaps 'assault weapons' was a poor choice of words. I just don't think given the power of the gun lobby, you can properly tackle handguns. But you can chip away at the edges, then perhaps it can be pushed even more that the 2nd Amendment may cover the right to bear arms (generally), but it doesn't include the right to bear absolutely any arm. If that can be more firmly established, maybe then handguns can be looked at. But I think going for the throat too hard and fast will see too big a push back. And even if it would pass I don't the reaction would be pleasant and I don't think it would last long. Maybe I'm misreading things, but weaponry seems too tied to the American mythos for any rapid change. Therefore I would rather slow reform even if it takes half a century or more.
I tend to agree that more malicious weapons like grenades and bazookas just might not be reasonable enough for a citizen to own. However, you brought up the 2nd amendment right, which interestingly enough, intended for citizens to own military-grade weapons because that's the role they were expected to take up during that time period. So the argument can definitely be made for ownership of any type of weapon, that's just history. Whether or not that's reasonable is another thing entirely, but I thought it was an interesting point to make. Well I am glad for that because not everyone I have run into has that view. One fellow, I tried to pin down at what it was no longer reasonable for a private citizen to obtain military weaponry, but he would not rule out a single weapon even when I started including nuclear missiles. So yes, the 2nd amendment was intended for military-grade weapons, but as you mentioned there is the question of reasonableness. There is a substantial difference between flintlock muskets and fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers.
Arguments could be made for either case here. The important point is that strict constitutionalists would argue that you could own any type of weapon, and that argument would be completely justified. So your friend might be crazy, but I wouldn't use his argument as the basis of that, because he is not wrong in that case. Let's just say I see the point he was trying to make. But yea, it's silly.
|
On February 20 2012 02:53 Hertzy wrote:
I personally believe that, in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence needed to keep society safe. However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence.
In a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need for law enforcement...
Gun's are not the problem here. If guns were harder to obtain, it wouldn't stop anyone from killing someone. A hammer, a knife, a baseball bat, a rock, a stick of dynamite, a group of men with box cutters and a 747, etc... are all alternatives that could be used to accomplish the same means.
I think if more people had guns it would make a lot of these other options less viable. At the same time, there would also be a lot of other "accidents" in relation to more people having guns, but with proper training we could probably mitigate most of these.
|
On December 15 2012 09:19 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:56 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:52 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:
[quote]
Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries.
I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter.
Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries.
So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India.
Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined.
[quote]
I bet not. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer. Why not handguns? Because this argument always ends up centering on American gun control laws. I find it doubtful that an argument around banning handguns at this point in time would gain much traction. If it was just an argument about Canadian law with only Canadians, I would argue to keep long guns and restrict or ban handguns and most any automatic weapon. But this argument is always so polarized so I usually try to limit the scope of my argument. I see what you're saying, I'm just having trouble finding a reason to go after "Assault weapons" when the main problem is handguns. I don't see it serving a purpose. People use rifles to hunt, for sport, target shooting. So if you want to ban assault rifles, there really is no line between an "assault" rifle and a "sport" rifle. State legislatures have tried in the past but there's just no way to do it without creating loopholes. You'd have to ban all rifles. Perhaps 'assault weapons' was a poor choice of words. I just don't think given the power of the gun lobby, you can properly tackle handguns. But you can chip away at the edges, then perhaps it can be pushed even more that the 2nd Amendment may cover the right to bear arms (generally), but it doesn't include the right to bear absolutely any arm. If that can be more firmly established, maybe then handguns can be looked at. But I think going for the throat too hard and fast will see too big a push back. And even if it would pass I don't the reaction would be pleasant and I don't think it would last long. Maybe I'm misreading things, but weaponry seems too tied to the American mythos for any rapid change. Therefore I would rather slow reform even if it takes half a century or more. The 2nd Amendment is for the protection of the people not just against crime but against tyranny in government. United States won their freedom from England (a tyrannical government who taxed Americans to death with no representation of the people) with guns. US was created on the back of guns. It would be totally ironic if US then decided to ban all guns. Having a country of disarmed citizens is dangerous. Giving the government all the power over you leads to disaster. Every government in history turned bad at some point. US government is supposed to be small and stay out of our lives and let us live.
See, that scares the pants off me. I barely trust most of the guys I knew in the Army with the sort of hardware you'd need to fight a modern war. The average civilian? Hell no.
Literally, in Infantry school, when they had us at the Hand Grenade range, we were throwing dummy shells with blasting caps for over half the day, and they still had us in a concrete bunker, with a drill sergeant ready to knock us flat if we did something retarded when they handed us the real ones.
|
On December 15 2012 08:56 JingleHell wrote:
And, speaking to this debate, as a gun owner, I still think the last motherfuckers responsible Americans should want owning a gun are the gun lobbyists.
Those dudes are complete fucking batshit whackjobs from hell.
This is true. I've been to a few gun fairs (It is literally as bad as you might think) it was a lot of fun but scary as hell when I started asking if the people maning the stations actualy owned the guns and I quote "Yeah but don't tell that muslum (n-word) in that black house or he'll take my guns for his fellow (n-words)". these are the guys who have top of the line military tech and use them quite frequently.
|
On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:
Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are.
The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy.
It doesn't have to be hard to do that.
Key words being: Automatic gas powered(semi-automatic included), High capacity(20+ rounds) and Military issue calibers(.223 and .308). If you have a hunting rifle that fit these criteria, you have probably not got a hunting rifle but rather you have an AR-15 with an 18" barrel, bipod and optics that you call a hunting rifle.
On topic:
In my oppinion, this is a matter of different policies. On one hand you have crime and on the other you have gun regulation.
Crime we don't want, but even if guns deter crime, the rates in the US are very high which means there is another cause for it. People concerned with crime should look for those other reasons. Here in Sweden, nobody would argue that owning a gun for self defense is reasonable because our crime rate is so low you would rarely ever need to use it.
Meanwhile, guns and regular people don't mix. People are careless, make mistakes and get angry all the time. Guns won't make any of these situations any better. If there was 0% deaths from firearms in crime all of a sudden, all we have left would be people who kill themselves by mistake or people who kill criminals in self defense. Would you still support gun ownership then? I mean, we regulate other dangerous things such as acids, explosives, drugs and even vehicles. Either we stick to prevention or we allow it all imo.
|
On December 15 2012 09:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:56 JingleHell wrote:
And, speaking to this debate, as a gun owner, I still think the last motherfuckers responsible Americans should want owning a gun are the gun lobbyists.
Those dudes are complete fucking batshit whackjobs from hell. This is true. I've been to a few gun fairs (It is literally as bad as you might think) it was a lot of fun but scary as hell when I started asking if the people maning the stations actualy owned the guns and I quote "Yeah but don't tell that muslum (n-word) in that black house or he'll take my guns for his fellow (n-words)". these are the guys who have top of the line military tech and use them quite frequently.
I know what the worst of that side looks like. I've met them. Unfortunately, they give the rest of Americans who own guns a bad name.
|
On December 15 2012 09:29 Fenris420 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:
Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are.
The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy.
It doesn't have to be hard to do that. Key words being: Automatic gas powered(semi-automatic included), High capacity(20+ rounds) and Military issue calibers(.223 and .308). If you have a hunting rifle that fit these criteria, you have probably not got a hunting rifle but rather you have an AR-15 with an 18" barrel, bipod and optics that you call a hunting rifle.
First of all, .223 and .308s are used for hunting all the time. It allows for more ethical killing. The same way you want the heaviest draw weight on your bow.
Also, I don't understand why people think a cycling mechanism for the bolt would make it an "assault" rifle. That's exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the ambiguity of trying to define an AR.
|
On December 15 2012 09:12 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 15 2012 08:45 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low. LOL. Someone should google Chicago crime rates. They are by far the highest in the US and they have a total gun ban there. In fact, crime rates soared after they banned guns and has not gone done since, the citizens there are actually trying to fight the ban so they can have a gun for self defense. It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus. Forreal bro. Esk you ruin the joke if you have to explain it! Comedy 101 I know it was sarcastic lol, but most of these foreigners don't know what goes down in Chicago and New York city where there are total gun bans. Crime rates soar, the worst crime in the United States happens where there are total gun bans.
Gosh the arguments here XD
There are densely populated area, plus the fact that you can basically drive by the nearest state and get all the guns you want kind of negates the ban. Exactly as weed consumption is higher in the North of Belgium (close to Netherlands border for the Americans), crime doesn't know any borders... crossing them with goods is even one of the main way of fueling it so ...
The point is, as a quite classical french dude, if I was falling into a nervous breakdown ( let's say a protoss canon rushed my third for the 10th time on the ladder), I could not easily get a gun, it would take me a long time to actually find one ( I am not in a gang or anything ) so I won't be going mad killing people around while yelling about the power of the swarm. Because all I would have would be a cooking knife.
I can comprehend that a policeman or a military need them but why giving them to everyone ?
We know that the human's mind can be weak and is mostly gonna breakdown during a life time, why would we give humans the means to achieve their worst morbid fantasies ?
|
pistol grip shotgun is illegal in california...
guns should be able to be modified per person's preference like game settings, cars, golf clubs 
|
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:38 Nagano wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:29 Fenris420 wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:
ethical killing.[/QUOTE]
That would be a joke right ?
|
On the one hand, I have shot and enjoyed shooting guns and have definitely been in situations where I wish I had one. On the other hand, It really doesn't make sense to make guns available to every single person that wants one. I wish there was a way for guns to go into the hands of responsible citizens while somehow severely limiting access for those who would use them for causing harm but it really seems that the guns aren't the root of the problem. Maybe just having more publicly available psych services and a culture that helps those at the bottom rather than spitting on them would go a long way to reducing the number of homicides caused by guns. But that would be socialism -_-....
On December 15 2012 09:38 CV-Mackh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:12 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 09:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 15 2012 08:45 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low. LOL. Someone should google Chicago crime rates. They are by far the highest in the US and they have a total gun ban there. In fact, crime rates soared after they banned guns and has not gone done since, the citizens there are actually trying to fight the ban so they can have a gun for self defense. It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus. Forreal bro. Esk you ruin the joke if you have to explain it! Comedy 101 I know it was sarcastic lol, but most of these foreigners don't know what goes down in Chicago and New York city where there are total gun bans. Crime rates soar, the worst crime in the United States happens where there are total gun bans. Gosh the arguments here XD There are densely populated area, plus the fact that you can basically drive by the nearest state and get all the guns you want kind of negates the ban. Exactly as weed consumption is higher in the North of Belgium (close to Netherlands border for the Americans), crime doesn't know any borders... crossing them with goods is even one of the main way of fueling it so ... The point is, as a quite classical french dude, if I was falling into a nervous breakdown ( let's say a protoss canon rushed my third for the 10th time on the ladder), I could not easily get a gun, it would take me a long time to actually find one ( I am not in a gang or anything ) so I won't be going mad killing people around while yelling about the power of the swarm. Because all I would have would be a cooking knife. I can comprehend that a policeman or a military need them but why giving them to everyone ? We know that the human's mind can be weak and is mostly gonna breakdown during a life time, why would we give humans the means to achieve their worst morbid fantasies ?
The main problem in the US is that guns have been around for a long time and there is a certain "gun culture". Even if we decided to ban all guns (never happening btw), there's almost 1 gun per person in the US. People aren't going to be willing to give them up and short of police doing searches in everyone's home there's still going to be a ton of guns out there. Hypothetically, passing a law which bans guns of any sort would not negate the problem as there would be a huge black market for them. I think its much more logical to regulate, enforce, and work on the social side of things given our saturation.
|
[quote][QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:39 CV-Mackh wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:38 Nagano wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:29 Fenris420 wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:
ethical killing.[/QUOTE]
That would be a joke right ?[/QUOTE]
No, when you are hunting, you want to bring the least amount of pain and suffering to the animal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
