|
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. |
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.
Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics?
|
Northern Ireland26355 Posts
On April 23 2013 20:24 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
No, and yes. I can find a million and one studies that 'prove' that. Most of it is ideologically biased, selective and useless in proving anything. Ok so you have no proof that taking away guns will reduce violent crimes, so why do you think taking away guns will reduce violent crimes?
I DON'T THINK THAT. God.
|
On April 23 2013 20:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.
Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics?
Your point is just "statistics don't mean shit unless you can back them up".
The Australian Bureau of Criminology. I can't prove that they took into account all necessary numbers. I don't know whether or not they have an agenda, but I have no reason to believe the Australian Bureau would be trying to push a pro-gun agenda. Why would Australian police departments be basing their policing strategy towards achieving these statistics??
On April 23 2013 20:58 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:24 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 20:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
No, and yes. I can find a million and one studies that 'prove' that. Most of it is ideologically biased, selective and useless in proving anything. Ok so you have no proof that taking away guns will reduce violent crimes, so why do you think taking away guns will reduce violent crimes? I DON'T THINK THAT. God.
Well then what the hell is the article wrong about then?? That was the whole point and you said "the article is wrong".
|
On April 23 2013 20:59 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.
Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics? Your point is just "statistics don't mean shit unless you can back them up". The Australian Bureau of Criminology. I can't prove that they took into account all necessary numbers. I don't know whether or not they have an agenda, but I have no reason to believe the Australian Bureau would be trying to push a pro-gun agenda. Why would Australian police departments be basing their policing strategy towards achieving these statistics??
So the point you are making is based on assumptions. You assume that there is no agenda behind them. The agenda doesn't have to be pro gun in order to make the statistics unreliable and unusable, it could be ANY agenda, which make the statistics skewed and unfair.
This is the point i was trying to prove in the first place. This is much more complex than 5+5.
|
On April 23 2013 21:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:59 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 20:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.
Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics? Your point is just "statistics don't mean shit unless you can back them up". The Australian Bureau of Criminology. I can't prove that they took into account all necessary numbers. I don't know whether or not they have an agenda, but I have no reason to believe the Australian Bureau would be trying to push a pro-gun agenda. Why would Australian police departments be basing their policing strategy towards achieving these statistics?? So the statistics you are using are based on assumptions. You assume that there is no agenda behind them. The agenda doesn't have to be pro gun in order to make the statistics unreliable and unusable, it could be ANY agenda, which make the statistics skewed and unfair. This is the point i was trying to prove in the first place. This is much more complex than 5+5.
Well I guess all statistics are worthless because anyone could have an agenda.
/sarcasm
If you have no logical reason to believe they are skewed, why can't they be used in an argument?
If you won't accept my argument that taking away guns does not reduce crimes, you can at least take away from it that Australia still has a LOT of violent crime, despite their gun laws.
|
On April 23 2013 21:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 21:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 23 2013 20:59 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 20:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.
Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics? Your point is just "statistics don't mean shit unless you can back them up". The Australian Bureau of Criminology. I can't prove that they took into account all necessary numbers. I don't know whether or not they have an agenda, but I have no reason to believe the Australian Bureau would be trying to push a pro-gun agenda. Why would Australian police departments be basing their policing strategy towards achieving these statistics?? So the statistics you are using are based on assumptions. You assume that there is no agenda behind them. The agenda doesn't have to be pro gun in order to make the statistics unreliable and unusable, it could be ANY agenda, which make the statistics skewed and unfair. This is the point i was trying to prove in the first place. This is much more complex than 5+5. Well I guess all statistics are worthless because anyone could have an agenda. /sarcasm
Your sarcasm is misplaced, because that is exactly my point.
Just look at the Reinhart thing. People assumed for years that that paper was correct. It turns out the numbers were wrong.
If fewer people had assumed it was right, there would have been no problem.
Can i ask where the Australian Bureau of Criminology gets its funding?
Sure this might all seem a bit tinfoil hat-esque, but its really not a stretch if you think about it.
If you won't accept my argument that taking away guns does not reduce crimes, you can at least take away from it that Australia still has a LOT of violent crime, despite their gun laws.
I'm not even arguing about gun crime. I have very little opinion on the matter, as all i know about it is what i have learned from this thread.
I would just argue that blindly accepting statistics without questioning their origin is a bad way to conduct a debate. It has bitten many a politician in the ass before, and i dare say it will again.
|
On April 23 2013 21:15 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 21:07 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 21:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 23 2013 20:59 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 20:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.
Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics? Your point is just "statistics don't mean shit unless you can back them up". The Australian Bureau of Criminology. I can't prove that they took into account all necessary numbers. I don't know whether or not they have an agenda, but I have no reason to believe the Australian Bureau would be trying to push a pro-gun agenda. Why would Australian police departments be basing their policing strategy towards achieving these statistics?? So the statistics you are using are based on assumptions. You assume that there is no agenda behind them. The agenda doesn't have to be pro gun in order to make the statistics unreliable and unusable, it could be ANY agenda, which make the statistics skewed and unfair. This is the point i was trying to prove in the first place. This is much more complex than 5+5. Well I guess all statistics are worthless because anyone could have an agenda. /sarcasm Your sarcasm is misplaced, because that is exactly my point. Just look at the Reinhart thing. People assumed for years that that paper was correct. It turns out the numbers were wrong. If fewer people had assumed it was right, there would have been no problem. Can i ask where the Australian Bureau of Criminology gets its funding? Sure this might all seem a bit tinfoil hat-esque, but its really not a stretch if you think about it. Show nested quote +If you won't accept my argument that taking away guns does not reduce crimes, you can at least take away from it that Australia still has a LOT of violent crime, despite their gun laws. I'm not even arguing about gun crime. I have very little opinion on the matter, as all i know about it is what i have learned from this thread. I would just argue that blindly accepting statistics without questioning their origin is a bad way to conduct a debate. It has bitten many a politician in the ass before, and i dare say it will again.
You make some good points, it just seems very unlikely to me that the Australian Bureau of Criminology would intentionally skew their statistics for a pro-gun agenda, if for any agenda at all. The best page I could find with information about them is here:
2011 Australian crime statistics
I still haven't been able to find where they get their funding, but I found this page:
Criminology Research Council
|
On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it.
Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars.
Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars.
|
On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars.
Carrying does already require licensing, which has different requirements in each state. Carrying long-guns is a little less restricted than carrying handguns, but both still usually require licenses, tests, and sometimes repeated background checks.
|
On April 23 2013 23:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. Carrying does already require licensing, which has different requirements in each state. Carrying long-guns is a little less restricted than carrying handguns, but both still usually require licenses, tests, and sometimes repeated background checks.
Are you required to register both with the DMV and with an insurance agency as well as be given random checks by patrolling officers.
|
On April 24 2013 00:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 23:37 Millitron wrote:On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. Carrying does already require licensing, which has different requirements in each state. Carrying long-guns is a little less restricted than carrying handguns, but both still usually require licenses, tests, and sometimes repeated background checks. Are you required to register both with the DMV and with an insurance agency as well as be given random checks by patrolling officers.
Well, it wouldn't be the DMV, and it varies state-to-state, even county-to-county. In NY you do have to have a license to carry a handgun (concealed or otherwise), and since you have to have a license you are basically registered. There aren't repeated, random checks that I'm aware of, but they WILL use the slightest excuse to revoke your license. If I'm not mistaken, mandatory insurance also got passed recently, but its part of the SAFE Act, which might be overturned soon.
|
On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars.
False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances.
|
On April 24 2013 02:48 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances.
Actually no--people shoot guns in their own property all the time. The charge is of endangering and disturbing the peace.
If you shoot a gun in suburbia that echoes throughout the land no one can tell if its a murder, a break in, assault, etc... cops also gets brought in if you simply have a loud enough explosion or a ruckus enough party.
Shoot a mountain lion in your property and the cops will be very very lenient. Don't have a good reason why you're being possibly dangerous to your neighbors and suddenly its a different story.
|
On April 24 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 02:48 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances. Actually no--people shoot guns in their own property all the time. The charge is of endangering and disturbing the peace. If you shoot a gun in suburbia that echoes throughout the land no one can tell if its a murder, a break in, assault, etc... cops also gets brought in if you simply have a loud enough explosion or a ruckus enough party. Shoot a mountain lion in your property and the cops will be very very lenient. Don't have a good reason why you're being possibly dangerous to your neighbors and suddenly its a different story.
You're wrong again. It almost always a weapons violation to discharge a firearm in cities and towns. It is usually a felony of some degree. Rural areas outside city limits are completely different and generally have no restrictions or very limited restrictions. See my previous posts in this thread for a description of how guns are used in rural areas.
|
On April 24 2013 03:55 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 02:48 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances. Actually no--people shoot guns in their own property all the time. The charge is of endangering and disturbing the peace. If you shoot a gun in suburbia that echoes throughout the land no one can tell if its a murder, a break in, assault, etc... cops also gets brought in if you simply have a loud enough explosion or a ruckus enough party. Shoot a mountain lion in your property and the cops will be very very lenient. Don't have a good reason why you're being possibly dangerous to your neighbors and suddenly its a different story. You're wrong again. It almost always a weapons violation to discharge a firearm in cities and towns. It is usually a felony of some degree. Rural areas outside city limits are completely different and generally have no restrictions or very limited restrictions. See my previous posts in this thread for a description of how guns are used in rural areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
Only 8 of the 50 states have explicit laws regulating the act of firearm discharge. Most other times the law that's broken is not firearm discharge but endangerment, reckless behavior, etc...
|
On April 24 2013 04:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 03:55 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 02:48 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances. Actually no--people shoot guns in their own property all the time. The charge is of endangering and disturbing the peace. If you shoot a gun in suburbia that echoes throughout the land no one can tell if its a murder, a break in, assault, etc... cops also gets brought in if you simply have a loud enough explosion or a ruckus enough party. Shoot a mountain lion in your property and the cops will be very very lenient. Don't have a good reason why you're being possibly dangerous to your neighbors and suddenly its a different story. You're wrong again. It almost always a weapons violation to discharge a firearm in cities and towns. It is usually a felony of some degree. Rural areas outside city limits are completely different and generally have no restrictions or very limited restrictions. See my previous posts in this thread for a description of how guns are used in rural areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_stateOnly 8 of the 50 states have explicit laws regulating the act of firearm discharge. Most other times the law that's broken is not firearm discharge but endangerment, reckless behavior, etc...
Those are statewide restrictions. City-specific restrictions are often stricter.
|
On April 24 2013 04:27 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 03:55 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 02:48 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars. Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars. False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances. Actually no--people shoot guns in their own property all the time. The charge is of endangering and disturbing the peace. If you shoot a gun in suburbia that echoes throughout the land no one can tell if its a murder, a break in, assault, etc... cops also gets brought in if you simply have a loud enough explosion or a ruckus enough party. Shoot a mountain lion in your property and the cops will be very very lenient. Don't have a good reason why you're being possibly dangerous to your neighbors and suddenly its a different story. You're wrong again. It almost always a weapons violation to discharge a firearm in cities and towns. It is usually a felony of some degree. Rural areas outside city limits are completely different and generally have no restrictions or very limited restrictions. See my previous posts in this thread for a description of how guns are used in rural areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_stateOnly 8 of the 50 states have explicit laws regulating the act of firearm discharge. Most other times the law that's broken is not firearm discharge but endangerment, reckless behavior, etc... Those are statewide restrictions. City-specific restrictions are often stricter.
city specific is also city council based more than anything and hence are laws literally put together by your friend's and neighbors at that tiny a demographic. But it is interesting that when people have to put together laws that affect them directly they are much more willing to enact gun restrictions--damn those civilians and their city councils.
|
On April 23 2013 16:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 16:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Don't be silly. He is referring to regular individuals in civilian settings...not a sovereign military. Why is it that word games are the focus more often than the brunt of points? Make a silly implication, get a silly response. Just because his civilians do not own guns does not mean they are not protected by them.
Incorrect. Guns don't protect people, people protect people.
|
On April 24 2013 04:41 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 16:46 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 16:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Don't be silly. He is referring to regular individuals in civilian settings...not a sovereign military. Why is it that word games are the focus more often than the brunt of points? Make a silly implication, get a silly response. Just because his civilians do not own guns does not mean they are not protected by them. Incorrect. Guns don't protect people, people protect people.
He would also be perfectly fine if only the military were allowed guns and not civilians--I think that's actually what most gun control advocates really want.
|
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
