Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.
Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.
Sounds like an excellent plan to get guns out of law-abiding hands. You haven't thought it through, have you? |
|
|
|
|
Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.
Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Last five posts are rather laughable.
Oldest of the five seems to agree that there's a correlation with guns and homicides. Thank you for pointing this out.
Four: disagrees with five, and considering it's the same poster, demonstrates inconsistent thought processes.
Three: a pathetic post, somehow requiring us to buy into the idea that said countries are not free. Pathetic.
Two: classic misuse of culture as a defense for different statistics. Biggest mistake is not realizing that many making said posts are in fact the culture, not realizing it's in part their attitude which is the cause, if culture is the cause.
One: The bible for gun rights advocates, fraught with dubious facts and data that has undergone mysterious revisions upon criticism, then mysterious reversions upon further criticism.
|
|
|
|
And American culture is healthy? Do you have studies that demonstrate that a Japanese citizen's apparent lack of desire or ability to murder other people is the cause of suicide? Upon further investigation, I find your attempt at deflection to be one of the most pathetic things that ever landed in a forum. Japanese suicide rates are about 50 percent greater than in the United States. Compare that to the ratio of Japanese gun deaths and homicides to those of the United States. You sir, suck at making points. |
|
|
|
How about all junior and seniors take classes that teach
- Gun Safety
- Gun proficiency
- The affect of shooting or killing someone
- Gun Laws
The biggest problem we have today is gun ignorance.
If you make guns illegal then only the criminals have guns!
Is that what they do in Japan to realize a murder rate of 0.3? Or their firearm related death rate of 0.07 vs. the United States firearm death rate of 10.2 per 100,000? |
|
|
|
Most people are lemmings hence so few of them lead meaningful lives or achieve anything.
Feel free to post some charts and graphs that correlate meaningful life to gun ownership. For that matter, feel free to post some charts and graphs that correlate life expectancy with gun ownership. |
|
|
|
Yes, cities with "gun control" have more crimes than suburbs without.
Federal gun control would work better than cities with gun control. People can cross city boundaries. Did you know that? |
|
|
|
I'm just curious as to where and how you acquired your view on life. But anyway: Cars do require certain attributes to be legal, such as meeting safety regulations. Also, traffic laws, including speed limits are indeed laws which put limits on behavior regarding the use of cars. How about behavior laws for guns, such as when and where you may use one, have one on your person, how many bullets you can shoot, etc. Remember, not only is your behavior with cars limited on the roadways, but it is also restricted to roadways. Last time I checked, nobody is going to approve of you driving your car through a playground, a park, a department store, or a movie theater. You're in luck, those laws already exist with respect to guns... Same as cars. In fact, it's a lot harder to get a hold of a gun than it is to get a hold of a car, typically speaking. You can kill just as many if not more people faster with a car, too. It's a lot easier to hide a gun than a car. And cars are useful on a daily basis. Sorry, but the car/gun analogy is so tenuously weak, that it isn't worth discussing. Regarding my views: outside of this forum, they're pretty mainstream. Hang out with some different people for a change and you might discover this yourself. |
|
|
|
FirstAscent, can I ask what state or country you live in? I'm curious as to if it's the US or not... I thought you mentioned you lived in the US or at least by inference did, but I'm curious where you live in the US or what country you are in.
And you're curious because you suddenly want to go on a photography adventure with me? I sincerely doubt it. What's your motivation for this information? |
|
|
|
|
Distribution,
Your analogies don't really hold up. Consider:
Cars do require certain attributes to be legal, such as meeting safety regulations. Also, traffic laws, including speed limits are indeed laws which put limits on behavior regarding the use of cars. How about behavior laws for guns, such as when and where you may use one, have one on your person, how many bullets you can shoot, etc. Remember, not only is your behavior with cars limited on the roadways, but it is also restricted to roadways. Last time I checked, nobody is going to approve of you driving your car through a playground, a park, a department store, or a movie theater.
|
|
|
|
I often hear the argument, "What do you need it for?" as if practicality is ultimate decider in what is legal and illegal. In Florida, the highest speed limit is 70mph. Why would one need a car that goes faster? The numbers imply that the faster one is traveling, the more deadly accidents are. When I bring this up, people disregard it as a stupid argument. The government tells them that the most dangerous speed for them to drive is 70, but they think, "I know how to handle a car going 75, I know how to be safe. I drive over the speed limit everyday and don't hurt anyone." So they feel they shouldn't be punished because others don't know how to operate their vehicles responsibly and end up killing innocent people.
I suspect that somewhere in here is an attempted point about speed limits, but I'm having trouble finding it. Try again with different words, so those of us who actually understand the value of speed limits can understand what the heck you're trying to say. |
|
|
|
Notice that Myrkul did not provided any explanation for the statistics he posted. Myrkul also forged the second statistic. The second reference do not contain the data which he published. Mykul doctored the evidence. Taking to simply lying now, are we? Page 6, just under that table I mentioned: Risk of becoming a victim
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime one or more times a year for those interviewed by
the BCS in 2003 was 4.1 per cent.
Tell me, what percentage of 100000 is 4100? Wrong numbers. Because you don't understand what numbers means. USA - Murder & non negligent manslaughter, Forcible rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault UK - above and ALL assaults Myrkul has never let data get in his way of portraying things the way he wants them to be. |
|
|
|
You should just take away that I believe their are basic responsibilities that I do not believe some private entity will be a good custodian of, better than a central administration (ie: a government).
Is there any reason that central administration can not be run as a for-profit company, rather than pointing guns at people to get their money? Not this again. Stop using the state's infrastructure without paying if you don't want a gun pointed at you. Just like sooner or later, if you keep using your landlord's house without paying, you're going to get physically abused. |
|
|
|
"But what if you used a bank vault door? Then your safe right?" I asked.
Without saying a word he knocked on the door and when my brother opened it, Dad just looked over at me and smiled. Locks are a joke to the serious thug.
Dous your brother open the door in the middle of the night? Does your brother open the door when he is not home? Does your brother not use a peephole? I would use a peep hole. But one could just throw a rock through your window... and now your inside. FirstAscent, you could get in your home in one min, right? So could anyone. It depends on the home and its location. Homes isolated from others are easier targets. Such homes are also, inexplicably owned by the people who leave their doors unlocked. And when someone does come in, the gun is only useful if it's in your hand before encountering the intruder. And the handily available gun is the one the children find. It's also the gun the intruder finds, for his next foray. |
|
|
|
"But what if you used a bank vault door? Then your safe right?" I asked.
Without saying a word he knocked on the door and when my brother opened it, Dad just looked over at me and smiled. Locks are a joke to the serious thug.
Dous your brother open the door in the middle of the night? Does your brother open the door when he is not home? Does your brother not use a peephole? |
|
|
|
BAN KNIVES! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Knives have utility. Your post actually shows intense disrespect. And let me head you off before you come back with more lame argumentation. If you wish to respond by stating knives are more effective weapons than guns, and far more dangerous, then it follows that nobody actually needs guns, and even the military would not need guns. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
