Criminals don't care about following the law ... that's what makes them criminals.
They won't register any firearms they own regardless of the situation. These knee-jerk measures only serve to disarm law abiding citizens. How does that help?
.. Unless you care to share your magical plan to remove ALL firearms from EVERYONE in the US, and to disallow the possibility of any new guns entering the country ever. (Hint: Impossible)
How many lives are worth losing? That's an interesting comment. It's certainly inflammatory. Freedom isn't free. Perhaps we should have just listened to and obeyed King George III in the late 18th century?
1) Win the next game.
2) See goal #1
"The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
IF guns equaled homicides, I guess we could put a map of the US up, look at the areas with the highest levels of firearms per capita, and it would match pretty well with the areas of highest homocides per capita, is that not a logical thought???
Of course we know that is NOT the case, that highest homicide percapita map would match up pretty well with the worst socio-economic areas. Are we also supposed to forget Biden being caught on camera SAYING THIS LATEST GUN CONTROL BS WILL DO NOTHING?
This is no different than any of the other methods of gun control, it does not get rid of the guns, it just decides who can have them and why. You will NEVER, and I mean NEVER hear ANYTHING about complete disarmament....no, no, YOU give up YOUR guns, the police still need them because obviously they encounter different people than regular people ever do, and our government certainly needs guns for all those wars that mean so much to our MIC...
Here are some real numbers for all those people that want you to THINK they are SO concerned about saving a life or two. Approx 2.5 million people die in the US every year, with the vast majority being of natural causes. You can do your best to put the rest of those deaths blame on many things, probably the biggest being tobacco. You would work your way through the rest of the big ones like medical errors, unintentional injuries, alcohol, motor vehicle accidents, poisoning, drug abuse, etc. etc. before you get to actual GUN HOMICIDES (which include some circumstances you wouldn't think belong) at about a whopping 1%!!!
Just want to save lives??? Yeah, right more like hauling water for a favorite political group, I really liked them better when they were anti-war.
Last edited by phinfan3411; 03-03-2014 at 01:53 PM.
And in any case, every country has criminals. Yet countries with aggressive gun control laws have fewer gun homicides and homicides in general. Strange how that works.
I don't have a plan. Even if I did, it would be unconstitutional. I'm merely stating a preference because I recognize a problem. You don't even recognize there is a problem... Unless you care to share your magical plan to remove ALL firearms from EVERYONE in the US, and to disallow the possibility of any new guns entering the country ever. (Hint: Impossible)
Yeah, because that's the appropriate opposite number here. Returning to the British Empire.How many lives are worth losing? That's an interesting comment. It's certainly inflammatory. Freedom isn't free. Perhaps we should have just listened to and obeyed King George III in the late 18th century?
It's nonsensical to say that gun control laws -- properly designed and enforced -- won't help stem the tide of gun deaths. As you make anything harder, fewer people will go through the trouble. That's basic common sense. Look at what it takes to get a gun permit in Japan. It's arduous and labyrinthine, as it's supposed to be. And as a result they have like four or five gun deaths per year.
You disagree. "Criminals are criminals". It doesn't matter how hard we make it to get a gun, criminals will still get guns. And while we're at it why make drinking and driving illegal? People are still going to do it. Might as well let them.
Freedom is definitely not free. I agree with you there. Just how many lives is this particular freedom worth?
Last edited by TheWalrus; 03-03-2014 at 02:10 PM.
The was no right to bear arms in 1928 over there. The law enacted back then was to disarm private armies not regular citizens who had no right to bear arms in the first place. And the Nazis did not get into power until 1931.
And lets not forget that photo being shown of supposedly Germans handing guns over was a picture from 1940 France.
"You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
"What's that? A criminal?"
"Worse. A politician."
Source: Under The Dome
Same with mass killing, mass killing were the highest in 1929 and have fallen since even though gun ownership has risen dramatically.
I laugh at people who act like we are living in Iraq when it comes to public safety and guns, I don't have any fear of getting shot even with all these so called "loonies" armed and lurking around or country lol.
I don't agree with all his points or agree will all Libertarians in general but the man makes some very very valid points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg
I looked at the 100+ page statistical study of Australia and the determining factors despite what people say have not be able to show any statistical relevances to gun control and a reduction in violent crime. Other factors were found to be more significant on the overall reductions.
Both sides cherry pick their stats but overall there are many many other things that could also be linked to violent crime but people tend to point the blame at the smoking gun (pun intended).
Peace and Humptiness Forever
The potential for the hardened criminal to find a way to get a gun and do what he's going to do -- if he's really, really determined -- is going to be reasonably good no matter what you do, though you can work on that by working on supply (increasing the price). But gun control will absolutely have an effect on the former. Road Rage Guy isn't going to tend to go on the black market and risk imprisonment so he can carry a pistol around in his car. Some will, but not as many. And not as many = fewer murders.
Because they're trying to fix the problem only it's a bigger problem than one city has the ability to fix? It's pretty hard for the city of Chicago to control guns in their city when you can drive like 20 minutes to Indiana and get whatever you want.Anybody find it interesting that most gun murders occur in areas with the strictest gun control measures?
One might wonder why that would be the case.
Meaningful changes will have to occur at the nationwide level.