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 28 2012 07:31 micronesia wrote: When I was in a youth riflery club shooting target 22s, we used single-shots and had to reload after each round. I found that to make more sense for target shooting than semi-auto. Semi-auto does have its purposes, but single-shots have some real advantages as well.
True story. Any kind of manual action is actually more consistent and accurate.
That's why the M24 sniper rifle is built off of the Remington 700 platform. Bolt action may take longer between shots, but without the spring, and gas powered or blowback action of semi-autos, you don't have as many variables affecting ballistics and recoil.
On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote: LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4.
LOL at you for thinking that it's normal to know such a thing.
Normal is irrelevant when it comes to firearms because people constantly spout uninformed, political terminology that just makes them look like morons. It's a lot like most technical things, really. Cars, computers, guns, etc all have people that pretend to know what they're talking about just to have an opinion.
Oh, and yeah, it is pretty normal to know stuff, regardless of what it is.
Of course it's normal to know stuff, regardless of what it is. But you can't expect that everyone should know the gun control laws of a certain state in the United States. I don't think that qualifies as common knowledge.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
False. Simply shooting heroin doesn't hurt anyone besides the user, and in most cases it hardly does that. Allowing heroin to take priority over morals and values such as theft, robbery, murder etc is harmful to others. Why the drug and gun analogy ever developed is beyond me. And stop associating drugs with fucking heroin. Someone says drugs you automatically escalate to one of the most potent opiates on the fuckin planet. You can talk about cigarettes, alcohol, and pot instead of jumping to fuckin IV scheduled narcotics.
edit: The only true fact to the analogy is All drug users aren't addicts; the same as all Gun Owners aren't sadistic murders.
"This is a 10 minute action packed video of a helicopter feral hog eradication flight on the Brazos River in central Texas. These non-native wild pigs breed incredibly fast and cause thousands of dollars of property damage. Freedom Aviation (www.freedomav.com) was able to safely and efficiently remove nearly 150 wild pigs in less than 4 flight hours."
I grew up on a 400 acre ranch off the Brazos River in central Texas and would do this in a heart beat to help my father protect his land/livestock if it didn't cost so much.
These are civilians using high capacity mags in an AR-15 for a completely legal and rational use.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
False. Simply shooting heroin doesn't hurt anyone besides the user, and in most cases it hardly does that. Allowing heroin to take priority over morals and values such as theft, robbery, murder etc is harmful to others. Why the drug and gun analogy ever developed is beyond me. And stop associating drugs with fucking heroin. Someone says drugs you automatically escalate to one of the most potent opiates on the fuckin planet. You can talk about cigarettes, alcohol, and pot instead of jumping to fuckin IV scheduled narcotics.
edit: The only true fact to the analogy is All drug users aren't addicts; the same as all Gun Owners aren't sadistic murders.
I know. I always make these analogies not because I believe them, but because the situation is so similar, especially with alcohol. I find that a large percentage of gun-control advocates simply have no experience with guns. They don't mind legislating against things that don't matter to them. The thing is, I can make the same arguments about alcohol that they make about guns, and occasionally, I convince them that they haven't totally thought things through.
I only said heroin because that's what the guy I was replying to said.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
False. Simply shooting heroin doesn't hurt anyone besides the user, and in most cases it hardly does that. Allowing heroin to take priority over morals and values such as theft, robbery, murder etc is harmful to others. Why the drug and gun analogy ever developed is beyond me. And stop associating drugs with fucking heroin. Someone says drugs you automatically escalate to one of the most potent opiates on the fuckin planet. You can talk about cigarettes, alcohol, and pot instead of jumping to fuckin IV scheduled narcotics.
edit: The only true fact to the analogy is All drug users aren't addicts; the same as all Gun Owners aren't sadistic murders.
I know. I always make these analogies not because I believe them, but because the situation is so similar, especially with alcohol. I find that a large percentage of gun-control advocates simply have no experience with guns. They don't mind legislating against things that don't matter to them. The thing is, I can make the same arguments about alcohol that they make about guns, and occasionally, I convince them that they haven't totally thought things through.
I only said heroin because that's what the guy I was replying to said.
The thing that gets me about all of these arguments is the scrutiny of said object. It is always comes to cherry picking something and using it as a scapegoat for a problem that existed long before the object.
It's like saying bees cause people to die from an allergy; exterminate all bees. No, we look at this more objectively because its been documented for so long. We are aware that bees kill people, we believe they don't do it out of malice, we also know just about how many people they will kill each year, so we accept our losses. But not with guns, because we believe that WITHOUT that gun my brother wouldn't have been 'shot'. It's not to suggest drugs or guns or whatever you want to talk about is an allergy but more of a synergy. Without a plane 9/11 would never have occurred. Do we remove all planes? No, because they offer a lot.
The ultimate point I am trying to make is that its not what you use, its how you use it. There has been so many lives lost due to alcohol both direct and indirect but there is very little talk about prohibiting the use of alcohol. It is a Synergy Effect across the board for just about every item man comes in contact with but we can't prohibit everything no r should we have to.
By the way, I don't own a gun nor do I really care to, but, the Government man. It's time we quit allowing laws to interfere with morals. Laws that we follow because we are afraid of repercussion. Laws that exist because of some derelict who couldn't fucking get with the program. That asshole everyone knows in high school who drank too much wrecked his car and sold everyone out at the party to the cops. That fucking guy...And if you ARE that guy, it's okay man. YOU CAN BOUNCE BACK. Just quit fuckin it up for everyone.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
False. Simply shooting heroin doesn't hurt anyone besides the user, and in most cases it hardly does that. Allowing heroin to take priority over morals and values such as theft, robbery, murder etc is harmful to others. Why the drug and gun analogy ever developed is beyond me. And stop associating drugs with fucking heroin. Someone says drugs you automatically escalate to one of the most potent opiates on the fuckin planet. You can talk about cigarettes, alcohol, and pot instead of jumping to fuckin IV scheduled narcotics.
edit: The only true fact to the analogy is All drug users aren't addicts; the same as all Gun Owners aren't sadistic murders.
I know. I always make these analogies not because I believe them, but because the situation is so similar, especially with alcohol. I find that a large percentage of gun-control advocates simply have no experience with guns. They don't mind legislating against things that don't matter to them. The thing is, I can make the same arguments about alcohol that they make about guns, and occasionally, I convince them that they haven't totally thought things through.
I only said heroin because that's what the guy I was replying to said.
The thing that gets me about all of these arguments is the scrutiny of said object. It is always comes to cherry picking something and using it as a scapegoat for a problem that existed long before the object.
It's like saying bees cause people to die from an allergy; exterminate all bees. No, we look at this more objectively because its been documented for so long. We are aware that bees kill people, we believe they don't do it out of malice, we also know just about how many people they will kill each year, so we accept our losses. But not with guns, because we believe that WITHOUT that gun my brother wouldn't have been 'shot'. It's not to suggest drugs or guns or whatever you want to talk about is an allergy but more of a synergy. Without a plane 9/11 would never have occurred. Do we remove all planes? No, because they offer a lot.
The ultimate point I am trying to make is that its not what you use, its how you use it. There has been so many lives lost due to alcohol both direct and indirect but there is very little talk about prohibiting the use of alcohol. It is a Synergy Effect across the board for just about every item man comes in contact with but we can't prohibit everything no r should we have to.
By the way, I don't own a gun nor do I really care to, but, the Government man. It's time we quit allowing laws to interfere with morals. Laws that we follow because we are afraid of repercussion. Laws that exist because of some derelict who couldn't fucking get with the program. That asshole everyone knows in high school who drank too much wrecked his car and sold everyone out at the party to the cops. That fucking guy...And if you ARE that guy, it's okay man. YOU CAN BOUNCE BACK. Just quit fuckin it up for everyone.
Totally agree. We shouldn't ban alcohol or guns. But if people want to ban guns because statistically they might correlate with increased fatality rates, we have to ban alcohol too, or else we're hypocrites.
Honestly, statistics-based arguments simply don't do it for me, unless the statistics are huge and obviously not biased in any way. People should only argue based on moral principles, because stats don't really matter. What is right should not be sacrificed for what is expedient.
Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs. Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving.
On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote: Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs. Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving.
The above direct piece about drunk driving...Yes drunk driving is illegal but alcohol isn't. Nor is driving your car to the bar. But from experience I myself don't personally know people that lose confidence through alcohol consumption and are man enough to call a cab to get a ride home. They are confident, shit THEY'RE convinced they're not drunk. They get behind a wheel and run over a child. Vehicular Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Man 2 <--- All accompanied byyyy, you got it alcohol. Alcohol killed the child. No the car killed the child. The man killed the child. All conclusions drawn from the incident. The truth is the drunk driver killed the child.
I'm not going to derail this into an argument about drugs but the drugs I named, that happen to be illegal ARE tools or are a bi product of a tool. Without poppy there is no heroin, but at the same time there also isn't any narcotic prescription pain medication. And coming from someone who has struggled with addiction there is no margin of difference from prescription pain medication and heroin aside from the prescription which isn't hard to obtain.
The primary lens I'm trying to get you to look through is everything can be viewed as detrimental but it can also serve purpose, whether it be survival, business, or pleasure. Everything can be harmful without mature moderation. Without such moderation can come a lot of pain, misery, and torment. But without me, or you, or all of the other yous the gun is simply just a gun the same goes for the drug. Completely and ultimately harmless. Moderation already exists in Western society but moderation hardly works with full momentum let alone a society so on the fence about an issue. One man is for guns, one against. One state is for guns, one against. So Tommy from Pennsylvania (Where I live) where it's as easy as going to the farm show in Harrisburg to a gun show and buying a hand gun without a background check obtains this gun, he then proceeds to jump on the Interstate heading north enters NYC and sells this gun at a much higher rate in the city where it is illegal to have a gun. It's completely counter productive.
Regardless I could fucking care less. I am an advocate for freedom. If you want to go bang your fucking head off your monitor until ya bleed to death I COULD CARE LESS THAT'S YOUR RIGHT I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST VIDEO GAMES OR YOUR MONITOR KILLED YOU. Extreme, but my belief EVEN having used drugs so fucking painfully unsuccessful for the better part of my life STILL believe that its my choice. UNTIL I start directly hurting others through theft, robbery, assault, murder it really is no ones fucking business unless I make it such.
I keep wanting to say very little and end up saying so much more than I wanted. If you're too lazy to read the whole thing just read this. YOUR WRONG. BUT WHAT ABOUT? BUT? NO YOU'RE WRONG. Until we start accepting our role in things and individually and collectively making a change it doesn't really even fucking matter what is legal.
You seem to have some anger or caps lock related issues.
To make it short: Gun = Produced for killing. Car/Alcohol/Whatever = Not produced for killing.
Yeah, everything can be viewed as determinal, but all of this stuff has other uses than to kill other beings.
I also find the "making it illegal won't do anything" argument really amusing. Why do you have laws or regulations in the first place then? Because they obviously don't work? Fact is: They might not have a 100% or even 90% success rate, but they still make a (big) diffrence.
On December 28 2012 19:11 Velr wrote: You seem to have some anger or caps lock related issues.
To make it short: Gun = Produced for killing. Car/Alcohol/Whatever = Not produced for killing.
Yeah, everything can be viewed as determinal, but all of this stuff has other uses than to kill other beings.
I also find the "making it illegal won't do anything" argument really amusing. Why do you have laws or regulations in the first place then? Because they obviously don't work? Fact is: They might not have a 100% or even 90% success rate, but they still make a (big) diffrence.
I wish you would have got this. The concept really isn't that hard to grasp. The belief in choice. Not government authority, regulations or laws.
I'm glad you find it amusing and suggest that I'm angry but you have it all twisted. I'm not advocating guns necessarily or drugs. I'm suggesting a way of life. I will even go as far as to say you have a point in the moderation but again..you live in Switzerland. HERE, In America, laws vary from State to State or even from County to County so moderation that exists in Allegheny County might be different than those in Schuylkill. Counter Productive.
People = ? Produced for killing ? If not they're doing a great job...Because I didn't know reason for development was actually a basis for legalization as opposed to the actual effects. You're playing both sides of the coin on the issue as opposed to just conceding to one true fact, people kill people. They make a choice to kill people. It's the decisions we make....
I get your point, i just find it utterly retarded. Your against goverment regulations, thats fine. I also would rather have less regulations than more in general but when it comes to guns i just don't see how "deregulating" them as much as possible is good in ANY way.
The choice to buy a killing tool? Yay, FREEDOOOOM. What freedom? The freedom to at all times have a tool handy to steal other peoples lives? Or which freedom are you actually making purchaseable here?
What good, GOOD, comes from a high % of Guns per citizen in a country? How does it improve your country? How does it increase your living standard? It just doesn't do any good, all it does is increasing gun related "accidents".
On December 28 2012 19:56 Velr wrote: I get your point, i just find it utterly retarded. Your against goverment regulations, thats fine. I also would rather have less regulations than more in general but when it comes to guns i just don't see how "deregulating" them as much as possible is good in ANY way.
The choice to buy a killing tool? Yay, FREEDOOOOM. What freedom? The freedom to at all times have a tool handy to steal other peoples lives? Or which freedom are you actually making purchaseable here?
What good, GOOD, comes from a high % of Guns per citizen in a country? How does it improve your country? How does it increase your living standard? It just doesn't do any good, all it does is increasing gun related "accidents".
You take a wholesome argument and turn it into a shit slinging political defamation. I personally could really care less about guns...You however seem overly attached to the idea that guns steal peoples lives, almost like you are family or friend to someone who lost theirs as a result.
While having a debate its best not to allow emotion to take priority over intellect.
I suggest to you a philosophy that isn't necessarily advocating guns and you load your six shooter and fire of shots about retardation and you mock the ideology. Where does your belief stem from? It sounds like you get off on being told what to do. It seems like you don't have faith in yourself as a human to make mature decisions so you don't believe others should be given the opportunity.
You suggest gun regulation and you mock my philosophy of freedom. You follow these MAN MADE laws because obviously you can't formulate an idea for yourself.
My ultimate question to sheep like you is..Are you okay with the herder being armed?
You must have missed my question and instead began throwing around the "sheep" argument (rofl) people like you love so much, so i ask again: What good, GOOD, comes from a high % of Guns per citizen in a country? How does it improve your country? How does it increase your living standard? It just doesn't do any good, all it does is increasing gun related "accidents".
I told you that im against most regulations and feel like there are to many on certain topics in switzerland, i just don't see what good it does when it comes to guns, except in the alternate universe libtards like you live.
Btw: If you live in a democracy "the Herder" is "you" and the community you live in... Taking up arms against "the Herder" is called Terrorism.
Btw2: It's hardly a debate when your arguments sum up to 1: FREEDOM, 2: XXX also creates problems and 3: FREEDOM.
"This is a 10 minute action packed video of a helicopter feral hog eradication flight on the Brazos River in central Texas. These non-native wild pigs breed incredibly fast and cause thousands of dollars of property damage. Freedom Aviation (www.freedomav.com) was able to safely and efficiently remove nearly 150 wild pigs in less than 4 flight hours."
I grew up on a 400 acre ranch off the Brazos River in central Texas and would do this in a heart beat to help my father protect his land/livestock if it didn't cost so much.
These are civilians using high capacity mags in an AR-15 for a completely legal and rational use.
Really? There is no safer and more reasonable way of controlling population in an ecosystem?
I'm not saying that there is mind you, I'm no expert in the field, but I still think it's safe to assume that there is.
"This is a 10 minute action packed video of a helicopter feral hog eradication flight on the Brazos River in central Texas. These non-native wild pigs breed incredibly fast and cause thousands of dollars of property damage. Freedom Aviation (www.freedomav.com) was able to safely and efficiently remove nearly 150 wild pigs in less than 4 flight hours."
I grew up on a 400 acre ranch off the Brazos River in central Texas and would do this in a heart beat to help my father protect his land/livestock if it didn't cost so much.
These are civilians using high capacity mags in an AR-15 for a completely legal and rational use.
Really? There is no safer and more reasonable way of controlling population in an ecosystem?
I'm not saying that there is mind you, I'm no expert in the field, but I still think it's safe to assume that there is.
I have yet to see/hear a more efficient or safer way. I'm not an expert on this matter either but I am very close to the situation.
"This is a 10 minute action packed video of a helicopter feral hog eradication flight on the Brazos River in central Texas. These non-native wild pigs breed incredibly fast and cause thousands of dollars of property damage. Freedom Aviation (www.freedomav.com) was able to safely and efficiently remove nearly 150 wild pigs in less than 4 flight hours."
I grew up on a 400 acre ranch off the Brazos River in central Texas and would do this in a heart beat to help my father protect his land/livestock if it didn't cost so much.
These are civilians using high capacity mags in an AR-15 for a completely legal and rational use.
Really? There is no safer and more reasonable way of controlling population in an ecosystem?
I'm not saying that there is mind you, I'm no expert in the field, but I still think it's safe to assume that there is.
I have yet to see/hear a more efficient or safer way. I'm not an expert on this matter either but I am very close to the situation.
But heres the thing, no one is arguing that guns should be illegal for everyone at all times. If you have a good reason to use it, and you send in an application and go through a bit of mandatory training, as well as having your background check go through, then you should be allowed to buy a gun for that purpose.
What we really want to get rid off is the massive amount of guns in the hands of regular citizens who barely know what a trigger is, with the warped idea that this will somehow "protect" them. (Or worse, those who buys their guns for "liberty" and in case of "tyrannical government". I don't trust those with a pickaxe, much less a gun).
edit: Ok, some people might argue to a complete ban of all guns. Those are idiots too. Guns can be used as tools as well, and sometimes necessary. Like the scenario in the quoted posts.
On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote: Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs. Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving.
I personally just see about 0 reasons to drink alcohol... That's probably because I like to maintain my presence of mind.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked shooting at people is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your shooting.
On December 28 2012 18:34 Velr wrote: Banning a killing tool with next to no other purpose is hardly the same as banning certain drugs. Drugs might are a part of the reason why someone goes on a killing spree, but it's still the, often easily obtained, gun that makes them possible.
If you want an outright ban or not is another story, but some kind of regulation does not sound like a bad idea? I personally just see about 0 reasons to own a gun... Thats probably because I live in a society where the state protects his citizens well and not many fucked up people walk around.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked drunk driving is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your drunk driving.
I personally just see about 0 reasons to drink alcohol... That's probably because I like to maintain my presence of mind.
Btw: To counter your argument: Last time i checked shooting at people is illegal basically everywhere and you face punishment even when no one got hurt by your shooting.
Reproduction.
Alcohol is the poison many of us needs to get over the shyness level required to talk to girls..or to simply have fun for that matter.
I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population?
It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum.
Hunting rifles are obviously included here. Such weapons in sweden are not designed for mass murder. It's also very rarely those kind of rifles that are used in shootings.
It says 30 guns for 100 people, not every 3rd person has a gun in France. And yes, that is all civilian owned guns.
France is definitely one of the gun-happier countries in Europe. The rate of guns is comparable to other major countries (mainly Germany) but France has a lot less restrictions on the kinds of guns recreational shooters can own. Especially if you want to shoot with (semiauto) assault rifles France has a lot less restrictions. Also France probably has a higher percentage of people that own guns, I would guess between 5-10% of the population, which is on the higher end for central Europe.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1b1ke.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cf3ee.jpg)
