If only all that stuff were true. MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US. TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves.....In fact, if the same survey methodology that Gary Kleck used to measure defensive gun use is used to measure criminal gun use, many more people will report that they have been a victim of a gun crime according to a report by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center: "After controlling for other aspects of the surveys, these surveys indicate that criminal gun use is far more common that self-defense gun use. MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997. TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws....Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent. MYTH: If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns. TRUTH: If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other (source). So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it. http://guninformation.org/index.html
Take a look in the mirror, bud. You are the one that resorted to personal attacks, not me. I have been sticking to the discussion, and I never called the mods to help me. Not sure where you are getting that fantasy material. "every last one of your posts on every last thread is like that" Wow, are you seriously trying to say that every comment I've ever made here is belittling someone? Seriously? I can't imagine how you expect anyone to take anything else you say seriously when you spout such lies. :F-A-Q:
So? The NRA propaganda machine rolls on and the pro-gun side laps it up. I AM always amazed when people who I'd thought to be quite clever simply parrot NRA talking points. And, it DOES show the power of propaganda. :FAQ: I'm similarily amazed when intelligent people believe in ghosts, religion, or any other simple superstitions, but that's a topic for another day.
No, the people selling them are putting them on the street. Get it right. Everybody has to give up some freedoms to live in a society. "The first power, viz. of doing whatsoever he thought for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of nature."(The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter IX Section 129) http://http://guninformation.org/freedom.html Gun control already exists. The only question is what level is best for the common good?
Yes, yes, yes and if my gradma had balls she'd be my grandpa. I've heard it before from both sides buddy. There's always a group with a rationalization that will justify the extreem of both sides and they're both rediculous. I'm a libra and I believe in balance so if we can start the conversation there that would be great but the liberals taste blood in the water and they're ready to kill some rights in the name of their own sense of self righteousness and apathy for humanity. I'd love to live in a world and a country with a cop on every corner ready to respond to a threat to me and or my family at a moments notice with the appropriate amount of force but that's not reality. If we could balance the real need for self-defense for some while reassuring others that guns are reasonably restricted so as to create an environment of reasonable protection for those not comfortable with guns we reasonable people can be satisfied. The extreemists will never be happy until everyone or noone has a gun. Balance grasshopper. Balance. And Hank: Balance grasshopper. Balance.
Yah, but are any of us politicians? Fuck no, then how the hell would we know? None of us here have a single clue how anything internal gov. related and if you think you do, your EGO is insane This isnt even a debate on anything, its a bunch of dopers barfing what "they" want n think is the right thing to do, in lieu of some mental-case killing little kids I know I dont run around trying to save lives at car accidents, why????? Cuz im a goddamn concrete finisher and carpenter...thats why Just cuz someone can type what seemingly is an intelligent sentence, for SURE does not make them intelligent, Charles Dickens was a maniac but dude could write a hellofa story
Yaaaah and if bullshit were music you would be a brass band!! :new_blackey::new_blackey::new_blackey::new_blackey::new_blackey::new_blackey:
:roffl:Good one!:roffl: Man, I've got nothing!:roffl: Ok it was vodka this time. One of youz guys is gonna owe me a laptop if you keep fucking with me with the bullshit! I'm not fuckin' around!:roffl: Oh shit, was that too many cuss words on the internet at one time? Fuck!
I think the liberals are trying to create a safer society with less unnecessary loss of life. The video you posted, the interviewer was all like 'but what if banning these big magazines could save just a few lives, wouldn't it be worth trying?' On the pro-gun side was no, no, and no. Self-righteousness may be on both sides, but to say the liberal side has an "apathy for humanity" is absolutely outrageous. Admin lynching
Then don't read it CC. Pretty simple if you ask me.:bong-2: Locke was a framework, not the document itself Hank. Shall we start referencing the Magna Carta next on issues concerning public safety and direct Second Amendment Rights?
The quote expressed the basic principle that to live in a society you must give up some "natural" rights. It's an appropriate response to "Don't steal my freedom plea." :F-A-Q:
I think you missed the point of the article. What the article was saying is that when these 3-D printers come down in price, making a gun will be as easy as downloading the plans pushing print, and doing some assembly. So, yes actually easier than growing a plant. You might need a few metal parts like a spring (easy enough to get), firing pin (finishing nail would work), and a barrel, (some plumming pipe or stainless steel tube?). You wont need to be a gun maker or machinist. Of course, it will be illegal to do so, and this is why I mentioned growing pot. Just because it is illegal, wont stop some one who wants to do it from doing it. Yes, right now it is much easier and cheaper to just buy a gun in the U.S. (I believe I said that) but that could change shortly. My first sentence was, "Go ahead and ban guns..." imp, "If guns were banned..." And to this point: "The vast majority of people who buys guns couldn't or wouldn't go to the effort of actually making their own. It's unbelievable pro-gunners actually suggest they would." You are correct because the vast majority of people who buy guns are law abiding. The part you ignore are those who don't obey the law and while they are not part of the "vast majority," they do seem to be the ones who give guns a bad name. Don't you think that if those who would be inclined to use a gun to murder, rob, or rape, could just make guns by just having a computer and a $500 printer, they would?
A 500$ printer would make it more expensive than growing a plant, but I'm not at all familiar with that technology and am a bit surprised at how easy you think it would be. I know the criminals ignore the laws, gun laws or otherwise. The illegal guns were once legal. Stem the flow of legal guns and you stem the flow of illegal guns. It should be a multi-faceted approach at reducing the number, availability, types of guns in society, imho. Guns could be made scarce enough that the average criminal just doesn't have one, and bullets could be made scarce enough that the people that do have them think twice before wasting them. asssit:
I said easier than growing a plant, not less expensive. I just came across that article and thought I would throw it up for discussion. Now will it REALLY be that easy to make a gun with one of those? I really don't know, but if those printers ever got that cheap, I would love to have one. Not to make guns of course (I would hate to break the law), but just to mess around with, make toys, maybe some hydroponic equipment. Anyway, we will soon find out if the technology works for making guns. I would guess within 5 years. Probably not in the US, but in a place where guns are heavily regulated... say, the UK. You guys in the UK, if you read about some one commiting crimes with a home made plastic gun, please post it up. So, let's say that happens, then what? The only thing that could be done would be to control the ammo.
Even if people were able to make their own guns on 3-D printers, not being able to buy them in stores would still reduce their availability by a very, very large degree. (Still not sure it would be easier than growing a plant. Faster, yes.)
Yes, if guns were banned and the only way a normal citizen could get one would be to print one up, I'm sure it would limit the availability by a large degree, but only to those who would use them for legal purposes. Now, in this thread, Hank and Nippie posted up two conflicting results from the ban in Australia. One saying there is more crime and the other saying there is less crime after the ban. Obviously, you cannot both be right. Could you guys please link your sources so the rest of us can look at the actual data and make our own judgement as to which is correct? Thanks.
You're kidding right? I guess the Soviet style government would suit you well. Let's give up freedom of speech also, how about the Fifth and fourth as well. You know crime would be much easier to solve if we could just torture people or throw them into a cell until they confessed. It would be better for society to know exactly whom committed an offense so if innocent people are punished, so be it, as long as we find a boogie man to blame it on then society would benefit. What makes you think you should be the one to decide which freedoms one should keep? Quite frankly I can use Locke to defend gun ownership as it's property is it not? It's the Government's job to defend my property is it not? Or are guns perishable goods? Not sure why you would cherry pick info from Locke as you can use his writings to support almost any argument known, kinda like the Bible. Alien, I never used the Aussie reports as it's not a good indicator of anything. Not like Hank was pointing out though, because if you use his argument, then you wouldn't be able to provide any evidence or change either way. This is more cherry picking by Hank as if how data is reported is changed, then you cannot compare the two. The reason I didn't use it as a comp if because its an apples and oranges comp. The Aussies never had the right to own firearms like we did, so any change in laws would not reflect onto our society as we have held this right for almost 250 years. Hank would like you believe that his citations would lead you to believe crime went down, but that would be like America totally banning full-auto weapons. Would crime go down? Who knows?!! There are so little full auto weapons in our society that you could never know a true cause and effect. And then we have the "wouldn't it be worth it" argument...lol Well considering vehicles kill more than guns in this country why not ban them? How about accidental deaths do to drugs (scripts)...should we ban those? Or more along the line of Hanks thinking, because we don't know whats best for ourselves, lets ban fast food, grocery stores, and any kind of shelf stable products as once again these products DWARF guns in the deaths they caused. Wouldn't you think that since Hank and those like him are so willing to give up our freedoms they should be willing to give up some of theirs? So let's just take their freedoms away...period. We'll take him, his family, and all those that think like him and lock them in a padded room. That way nothing bad could ever happen to them...and they'd be safe from those evil guns. You'd be for that wouldn't you Hank, because you are so willing to give up those 'natural' freedoms for a safe society? So we'll create a safe society for people like you in a prison, because you don't need those rights anyways. Or are you the one that gets to decide which freedoms people must give up. This is after society came to the conclusion that people that grow/deal in marijuana create crime......many studies show that.....tell me what most of us do around here again?
What about swimming pools lvs....lets get rid of those too. Do you know how many children die from drowning each year? Btw. Im with on banning zippers...
