Agreed. I know two people who shot themselves on accident. I don't know why we don't have a mandatory safety class for firearms. As far as home protection, i've heard a dog is just as effective but I haven't seen any stats or official investigations on the matter. Guns are freakin' cool though. I've never owned one but they are fun as hell to shoot
Yeah, when you cut through all the bullshit about defending ourselves from criminals/terrorists/Obama/whatever, for most people it really boils down to "guns are fun" and "I want to shoot animals with them." And really, those are damned good reasons to me. I'm all about shooting guns and killing stuff to eat. I'm getting ready for deer season here myself! I just don't see why we've got to dress it up with a bunch of nearly religious talk about the second amendment. For example, a lot of people have a shitload of fun having premarital, consensual sex. Nobody needs to wax poetic about how it's a constitutional right or anything. They just go out and fuck. I did too when I was single. I liked it. Meh, I'm probably over-simplifying it. I just think a lot of NRA-types (including members of my own family) go a little crazy about gun rights.
Come on Mook.... SAM's are a terrible analogy. Guns have been manufactured and used for hundreds of years. There are millions of guns in the US, probably billions of guns in the world. Guns have been owned by private parties since the beginning of colonization. How many SAM's have been produced in this country? How many are owned by private parties? The point is, if the US government decided to outlaw guns, the only people it would affect would be law abiding citizens. Criminals would still be able to obtain them. Maybe not as easily but it could still be done. I also suspect a large portion of firearms would end up buried in the back yard, or stowed away in the basement. The abolition of firearms in this country would be a near impossible task. We can't even stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigration into this country, what makes you think we could ever stop guns?
1. I think that 7 year olds parents should be making that decision, not a law. Chances are if the parents are making bad decision, a law won't make a difference anyhow. 2. There is a reason the devices you list above are called cannons and anti aircraft missiles. In fact they are also already regulated, so you are beating a dead horse. 3. You are correct, your rifle would make little difference between a government crackdown. Unless you are really smart.
There have been rockets around for quite a while too. "The rockets red glare/bombs bursting in air".... Very few have been made, relatively speaking. Why not? Certainly not because of a lack of market demand. I know I sure as hell would get a kick out of firing one of those puppies. The reason they aren't owned by private parties is....wait for it....government regulation. See, I find this argument absolutely disingenuous. It makes it seem that ALL criminals are Hannibal Lecter-esque brilliant masterminds. A lot of criminals are dumb as fuck. A lot of crimes happen spontaneously. A guy has no money and gets drunk. He has a gun in his house used for normal home protection. He decides on a whim to rob the local liquor store. You can't tell me that such instance don't happen all the time. Or that they'd happen just as often because the drunk guy will slur out the five necessary illicit conversations needed to execute the purchase of an illegal gun and then still be drunk enough to think the robbery was a good idea. Tons of crimes happen every year with perfectly legal weapons. It's just not an honest argument to say that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them would happen if guns were illegal. They wouldn't. We all know that. It's dumb to pretend that wouldn't be the case. It's true that a lot of crimes would still happen. But it's just not believable that every single crime committed today with a legal gun would be committed if guns were outlawed. If the government wanted to, it could. Maybe not absolutely, but it could eliminate 99% of them. Just like it could stop illegal immigration or drugs. The thing is that we've never really given the government the resources it'd really take to do those things. Quadruple the number of police officers. Devote 20 times the manpower we do now to our borders. Become more and more intrusive, to the point where you have a literal 1984-type state. It could get really, really spooky. I certainly wouldn't advocate it. But it could certainly be done. And if you don't think it would work, you ought to read 1984 again. Anyway, my point isn't that we should outlaw guns. We could, but I like them. I don't want to. Besides, it isn't worth it. My point is that guns are fun and hunting is fun. They can still be just as fun if we register them like we do cars. In the process of doing so, we'd definitely stop some crimes along the way. That's a tradeoff I can live with.
So if a cop sees a 7 year old holding a pistol, you think it's the cop's job to ask the parents if that's ok? Yikes. I guess we just disagree on that one. Yes they are regulated. My point is: Why? The obvious answer is that because it's worth regulating the rights of an individual to shoot them for the safety of the greater good. I don't think anybody disputes this. We should use this same measure in evaluating any weapon that can harm lots of people. We don't need to take the weapons away, necessarily, but we should regulate them.
i don't think that's what he said at all. he said this that doesn't say anything about every crime being committed. it says that if the government outlaws guns, the law abiding citizens would give up guns while criminals would still get them(though technically that would have to be true as anyone who kept a gun would in turn be breaking the law).
I am okay with bolt action rifles, and that's about it. (for hunting) If you want to keep your guns in a militia, I'd be alright with that too. I am strongly against rapid fire weapons and hand guns. But I doubt this is a surprise to anyone. ;] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/21/weekinreview/0422marsh.1270.1060.jpg gun deaths are about 4 per 100,000 in the us
What makes Bolt action rifles ok, but semi-auto (which I'm assuming you're talking about when you say rapid fire) rifles or handguns not? How about shotguns? In that graph, all it states is homicide rates, not gun related homicides. Also note, the data is from 1997, around the time all hell was breaking loose in the Balkans, which I'm sure skews the data some.
It's delusional to think that a military coup would involve a tank at each doorstep in America. How many tanks does the US have? And it's silly to say citizens armed with rifles, shotguns and pistols are no match for the biggest miltary on Earth. I'd say Iraqi citizens have already proven they are.
Also, here are some other per 100,000 death stats: Motor Vehicle Deaths- 15.5 Cancer- 321.9 Circulatory Diseases- 265 Digestive Diseases- 20.5 Source As I originally thought, 4 per 100,000 seems pretty low by comparison.
QUOTE=mook;2126675 So if a cop sees a 7 year old holding a pistol, you think it's the cop's job to ask the parents if that's ok? Yikes. I guess we just disagree on that one. It's none of the cop's business. There is no law against holding a pistol. You are getting irrational over this. It is perfectly legal in Oregon and about 45 other states to go anywhere you want at any time you want in public with a loaded gun in your hand, on your belt, slung over your back, or mounted in your vehicle AS LONG AS IT IS IN CLEAR SIGHT. A permit to carry is only needed if you want to conceal the weapon (still not needed if you follow the Constitution). I have not heard this has ever caused any problems Yes they are regulated. My point is: Why? The obvious answer is that because it's worth regulating the rights of an individual to shoot them for the safety of the greater good. I don't think anybody disputes this. I dispute it, but that's not the issue at all. It has nothing to do with shooting as a sport or hunting. It has to do with personal right to life. But just for laughs, I've owned guns for nearly 5 decades, my family and I have been threatened at gunpoint, and yet I've never harmed anyone with a gun intentionally or by accident. And you think you have some personal priviledge to know my defenses, tax them, and restrict them to the point of endangering my family because you fear the unknown? It's not my responsibility to assuage your irrational fears. Better that you grow a set.
Wow. Maybe there's something wrong with me. I thought it was common sense that a 7 year old really shouldn't be holding a handgun. Maybe you and hasoos just know more responsible 7 year olds than I do. But then my dad had me start shooting a .22 rifle when I was 10. Who knew he was over-protective.
motor vehicle deaths: drive the speed limit cancer: put on sunscreen and don't smoke circulatory diseases: don't eat so much fattening food and sugar I understand that may seem a low number, but in my opinion why increase your risk? The point was to show that UK has very low homicide rate. In reference to bolt action, I said that because you can still go hunting. I don't like semi-automatic because I can't imagine a lot of sport in that for hunting. But most importantly you can't kill as many people compared to a semi-automatic. Shot-guns are pretty slow too, so I guess they'd be alright.
QUOTE=mook;2126670The reason they aren't owned by private parties is....wait for it....government regulation. Funny, I thought terrorists had been using them for decades. Thanks for proving regulation doesn't work A lot of crimes happen spontaneously. A guy has no money and gets drunk. He has a gun in his house used for normal home protection. He decides on a whim to rob the local liquor store. You can't tell me that such instance don't happen all the time. Or that they'd happen just as often because the drunk guy will slur out the five necessary illicit conversations needed to execute the purchase of an illegal gun and then still be drunk enough to think the robbery was a good idea. Nice fairy tale, but let's get real here. Anyone law abiding enough that they would comply with registering their weapons would never do this. It's simply not in their DNA. Never happened, never will. Tons of crimes happen every year with perfectly legal weapons. Untrue. It's just not an honest argument to say that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them would happen if guns were illegal. They wouldn't. We all know that. It's dumb to pretend that wouldn't be the case. What's not honest is speaking for what you assume others "know". Nearly all crimes committed with guns are pre-meditated, and committed by people who have already been forbidden by law to have guns. This alone disproves your arguement. Crimes of passion happen suddenly, and the weapon is whatever's handy, a knife, a hammer, a rock, bare hands...most people don't carry guns on them all the time. So I don't think it's any stretch to say if guns were illegal the number of gun crimes would at minimum stay the same, but more likely rise severely. It's true that a lot of crimes would still happen. But it's just not believable that every single crime committed today with a legal gun would be committed if guns were outlawed. Actually, it's already been proven by Australia, where they outlawed guns, confiscated them, and the violent crime rate has skyrocketed since, especially on weak and elderly citizens who previously had a way to defend themselves. Armed robbery is a certain payday now for criminals there. If the government wanted to, it could. Maybe not absolutely, but it could eliminate 99% of them. Just like it could stop illegal immigration or drugs. The thing is that we've never really given the government the resources it'd really take to do those things. Quadruple the number of police officers. Devote 20 times the manpower we do now to our borders. Become more and more intrusive, to the point where you have a literal 1984-type state. It could get really, really spooky. I certainly wouldn't advocate it. But it could certainly be done. And if you don't think it would work, you ought to read 1984 again. You are in fact advocating it. It starts with gun control and registration, cannot succeed without it. Like complacent Jews in the early days of Hiltler's rise, you are your own worst enemy. Anyway, my point isn't that we should outlaw guns. We could, but I like them. I don't want to. Besides, it isn't worth it. My point is that guns are fun and hunting is fun. They can still be just as fun if we register them like we do cars. In the process of doing so, we'd definitely stop some crimes along the way. That's a tradeoff I can live with. Guns are not toys. Your attitude about their uses disturbs me, and your owning them might make me feel a bit uneasy, I certainly wouldn't feel safe hunting with you, but I'll defend your right to own them without question. I cant' live with the tradeoff.
Both my Dad and my cousin taught Hunter's Safety classes for years, so yeah, I've met a lot of very responsible 7 year olds. Gun ownership was probably a huge part in them becoming responsible at an early age as I know it was an unavoidable condition for my gun ownership as a child. Unfortunately many adults think they don't need a gun safety class. Morons.
You can drive the speed limit religiously and still die in a car wreck. You're not the only person on the road. You can wear sunscreen and not smoke, and still get cancer. Charles Whitman killed 14 people with a bolt action rifle. Although they may not shoot as fast, their effective range is generally much further than that of semi-auto rifles. Heck, fire a "slow shooting" shotgun into a crowd, and you'd cause some serious damage. I guess my point is that in the wrong hands ALL guns are dangerous. Just as automobiles, knives, golf clubs, and baseball bats are. It doesn't make much sense to say some guns are ok, but others aren't.
Two reasons: 1. I don't want to have to allow the person in my home to get that close to me. 2. If they have a gun themselves, I'm going to feel pretty silly aiming my taser at them.
