Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[ChrisL]

More people die from drowning than from mass shootings, so why don't these people want to ban swimming pools? Many, many more children die in swimming pools than in mass shootings every year.

How many people have tried to kill other people with a swimming pool?

What? What does that mean? Isn't your concern about people dying? Or is it the manner in which they die that has you all hot and bothered?

Of course the manner in which they die is important. If I die due to my own stupidity, that is one thing. To die because of somebody else's is a an entirely different scenario.

So, now you are concerned with accidental gun deaths? YOU are all over the place. Just what is it you would like to see done? If you say "registration," then how do you propose that would stop gun deaths due to accidents?

 

[ChrisL]

So? Are you concerned with mass killings or not? How many mass killings would be acceptable to you?

None are acceptable. However, if you say there is a no difference between one country having one mass killing and another country having 60+ then you're an idiot.

Not there's no difference. Just that banning guns or severely restricting them to a virtual ban is no guarantee against having mass shootings.
In the case of the US of course banning guns, even if legally possible, would have no effect on crime, except to make it worse.

I totally agree with this.

 

[ChrisL]

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

Congrats on the red herring and non-sequitur all wrapped up in one statement.

We both know the truth of my statement absolutely negates your argument; difference is that -I- will admit it.

BS it's a red herring. It is just as relevent as your 99.990E=MC2 percent of guns don't kill people scenario.

Oh, so now it's "safety features" you're concerned with? Well, guns do have safeties.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

Congrats on the red herring and non-sequitur all wrapped up in one statement.

We both know the truth of my statement absolutely negates your argument; difference is that -I- will admit it.

BS it's a red herring. It is just as relevent as your 99.990E=MC2 percent of guns don't kill people scenario.

Oh, so now it's "safety features" you're concerned with? Well, guns do have safeties.

They're very safe. I've heard of guns blowing up from stupid people reloading ammo and no one was hurt. The gun functions completely as designed. That some chowderhead wants to misuse it is his choice, not the gun's fault.

 

[ChrisL]

Who is talking assault weapons? Not I. I know part of this thread people are bringing it up, I'm talking firearms in general.

Really.
99.9961% opf the guns in the US will NOT be used to murder someone this year.
Guess how that compares to the rest of the civilized world.

Really.
Show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense,

And 250 million cars won't be involved in car accidents - but hey, let's get rid of seatbelts, front guards, air bags, chassis' etc, and all other safety features in a car.

Congrats on the red herring and non-sequitur all wrapped up in one statement.

We both know the truth of my statement absolutely negates your argument; difference is that -I- will admit it.

BS it's a red herring. It is just as relevent as your 99.990E=MC2 percent of guns don't kill people scenario.

Oh, so now it's "safety features" you're concerned with? Well, guns do have safeties.

They're very safe. I've heard of guns blowing up from stupid people reloading ammo and no one was hurt. The gun functions completely as designed. That some chowderhead wants to misuse it is his choice, not the gun's fault.

And I'm still trying to understand how registering guns or whatever else these anti-second amendment people are suggesting is going to prevent accidents from happening?

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course the manner in which they die is important. If I die due to my own stupidity, that is one thing. To die because of somebody else's is a an entirely different scenario.

So, now you are concerned with accidental gun deaths? YOU are all over the place. Just what is it you would like to see done? If you say "registration," then how do you propose that would stop gun deaths due to accidents?

Registration would never work. Licensing, background checks and a limit on the type of guns that can be owned.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course the manner in which they die is important. If I die due to my own stupidity, that is one thing. To die because of somebody else's is a an entirely different scenario.

So, now you are concerned with accidental gun deaths? YOU are all over the place. Just what is it you would like to see done? If you say "registration," then how do you propose that would stop gun deaths due to accidents?

Registration would never work. Licensing, background checks and a limit on the type of guns that can be owned.

And that is going to stop accidents from happening how again?

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course the manner in which they die is important. If I die due to my own stupidity, that is one thing. To die because of somebody else's is a an entirely different scenario.

So, now you are concerned with accidental gun deaths? YOU are all over the place. Just what is it you would like to see done? If you say "registration," then how do you propose that would stop gun deaths due to accidents?

Registration would never work. Licensing, background checks and a limit on the type of guns that can be owned.

And that is going to stop accidents from happening how again?

They'll only give licenses to people who have never made a mistake!


Of course licensing, background checks and limits on types of guns will not prevent anything. How do we know? Because we've tried all of those things and they don't work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

Lesse....
-You avoided the issue put to you
-You tried to change the subject by interjecting something irrelevant to it,
Red herring.

99.9961% of guns will not murder someone this year; any argument you may have against the widespread ownership of guns is therefore unsound. We both know this, though you won't admit it.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the need for firearms in a so-called civilised society is irrational -- please show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense.

Me comparing your scenario to a similar one is not a red herring, it is giving an example of how weak your argument is.

Still avo8iding the issue, ah? No surprise.

People NEVER having a need and RARELY having a need are a lot closer linked than you say

Still waiting for you to show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense

 

[ChrisL]

[

Lesse....
-You avoided the issue put to you
-You tried to change the subject by interjecting something irrelevant to it,
Red herring.

99.9961% of guns will not murder someone this year; any argument you may have against the widespread ownership of guns is therefore unsound. We both know this, though you won't admit it.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the need for firearms in a so-called civilised society is irrational -- please show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense.

Me comparing your scenario to a similar one is not a red herring, it is giving an example of how weak your argument is.

Still avo8iding the issue, ah? No surprise.

People NEVER having a need and RARELY having a need are a lot closer linked than you say

Still waiting for you to show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense

They don't care about that . . . obviously. They only care about parroting the Democrat/liberal party platform. I think that anyone who votes for a democrat has lost his/her mind now that it is quite clear that they are traitors against the people of the United States who want to infringe upon and limit our rights because they are stupid as hell and they actually believe that disarming the populace will mean that guns will magically disappear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course the manner in which they die is important. If I die due to my own stupidity, that is one thing. To die because of somebody else's is a an entirely different scenario.

So, now you are concerned with accidental gun deaths? YOU are all over the place. Just what is it you would like to see done? If you say "registration," then how do you propose that would stop gun deaths due to accidents?

Registration would never work. Licensing, background checks and a limit on the type of guns that can be owned.

None of these things will prevent crime.
None of these things will prevent accidents.
None of them.
And so, there's no reason to have them as they uselessly infringe on the right to arms.

 

[Dr Grump]

And that is going to stop accidents from happening how again?

Less guns less chance of an accident. Although why you're bringing accidents into it.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course licensing, background checks and limits on types of guns will not prevent anything. How do we know? Because we've tried all of those things and they don't work.

When has it been tried? It is in place in NZ and Australia. Seems to work fine. However, if any of those ideas were implemented in the US it would take decades to see if it worked. You'd need a good 50 years to get rid of most of the illegal firearms etc because your nation is so awash with them.

 

[Dr Grump]

None of these things will prevent crime.
None of these things will prevent accidents.
None of them.
And so, there's no reason to have them as they uselessly infringe on the right to arms.

Only in the US. In other countries that have stricter gun control laws there is a lot less gun crime and a lot less firearm-related homicides, which I believe is due in some part to these restrictions. Now, I have no evidence that this is due to a lack of guns, neither do you have anything solid that guns prevent crimes. I do find it somewhat compelling though that your country is awash with guns and the number of homicides caused by firearms (including accidental deaths) is a lot higher than those countries without such a proliferation of guns.

 

[Dr Grump]

Still waiting for you to show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense

I don't care if they have. I weigh up the odds and you have to make a decision - is the number of people that have used a weapon in self-defence vs the high number of people murdered by firearms worth it? ie, if 15000 people have defended themselves with firearms and 17,000 have died by them, you might have a case. If 50 people have defended themselves with firearms and 17,000 have died by them, you might not (IMO).

Of course, the problem with the US is that your nation is so awash with firearms it's hard to know what would happen if there were bugger-all around because it's a 'what-if' situation.

I could counter the above and ask how many people have been accidentally shot by trigger-happy idiots (trick or treat anyone?)...

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course licensing, background checks and limits on types of guns will not prevent anything. How do we know? Because we've tried all of those things and they don't work.

When has it been tried? It is in place in NZ and Australia. Seems to work fine. However, if any of those ideas were implemented in the US it would take decades to see if it worked. You'd need a good 50 years to get rid of most of the illegal firearms etc because your nation is so awash with them.

New York, California, New Jersey, Mass, etc have licensing. We all have background checks. The Clinton era saw an AWB on some kinds of guns (esp the gun that are rarely used in crimes).
None of it worked.
Fifty years? You're joking, right? There are 300M guns in the US, more or less. They have a service life of at least 100 years. Additionally making guns is really not that difficult. You would disarm honest citizens, the ones who obey the law, and empower criminals, the ones who wont. Additionally you will turn millions of law abiding Americans into criminals because they wont give up their guns or go for any kind of scheme like that.

Austrailia's crime rate skyrocketed when guns were effectively outlawed. So much for that.
Dr Gump is a great example of someone incapable of thinking past Stage One.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still waiting for you to show that people never have a need to use deadly force in self-defense

I don't care if they have. I weigh up the odds and you have to make a decision - is the number of people that have used a weapon in self-defence vs the high number of people murdered by firearms worth it? ie, if 15000 people have defended themselves with firearms and 17,000 have died by them, you might have a case. If 50 people have defended themselves with firearms and 17,000 have died by them, you might not (IMO).

Of course, the problem with the US is that your nation is so awash with firearms it's hard to know what would happen if there were bugger-all around because it's a 'what-if' situation.

I could counter the above and ask how many people have been accidentally shot by trigger-happy idiots (trick or treat anyone?)...

Gee, you want to be one of those few people who need a gun for self defense and are disarmed? Go ahead and volunteer.
You're sure quick to sacrifice others on the altar of a failed philosophy.

 

[The Rabbi]

None of these things will prevent crime.
None of these things will prevent accidents.
None of them.
And so, there's no reason to have them as they uselessly infringe on the right to arms.

Only in the US. In other countries that have stricter gun control laws there is a lot less gun crime and a lot less firearm-related homicides, which I believe is due in some part to these restrictions. Now, I have no evidence that this is due to a lack of guns, neither do you have anything solid that guns prevent crimes. I do find it somewhat compelling though that your country is awash with guns and the number of homicides caused by firearms (including accidental deaths) is a lot higher than those countries without such a proliferation of guns.

You believe it's due to the restrictions because you have no proof of it.
Mexico has strict gun laws. And lots of crime.
Switzerland has relative lax gun laws. And little crime.
Memphis has lax gun laws. So does Knoxville. They have the exact same laws. Yet the crime rate is in no way comparable.
So remind me why you think laws rather than culture determine crime.

 

[Dr Grump]

New York, California, New Jersey, Mass, etc have licensing. We all have background checks. The Clinton era saw an AWB on some kinds of guns (esp the gun that are rarely used in crimes).
None of it worked.
Fifty years? You're joking, right? There are 300M guns in the US, more or less. They have a service life of at least 100 years. Additionally making guns is really not that difficult. You would disarm honest citizens, the ones who obey the law, and empower criminals, the ones who wont. Additionally you will turn millions of law abiding Americans into criminals because they wont give up their guns or go for any kind of scheme like that.

Austrailia's crime rate skyrocketed when guns were effectively outlawed. So much for that.
Dr Gump is a great example of someone incapable of thinking past Stage One.

Oh, please stats to Aussie crime rate:
1) Skyrocketing
2) If it did (and it didn't btw), please prove the correlation between the buyback and skyrocketing crime. Take your time.

If you initiated a buy-back scheme like Australia, millions of firearms would be off the street. This would also make it easier to catch crims, and eventually (over a long, long time because of the aforementioned proliferation of guns in your country) it would become harder and harder for crims. That aside, note I am not seeking a ban. You can still have your peashooters - just not certain types.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

None of these things will prevent crime.
None of these things will prevent accidents.
None of them.
And so, there's no reason to have them as they uselessly infringe on the right to arms.

Only in the US. In other countries that have stricter gun control laws there is a lot less gun crime and a lot less firearm-related homicides, which I believe is due in some part to these restrictions. Now, I have no evidence that this is due to a lack of guns, neither do you have anything solid that guns prevent crimes. I do find it somewhat compelling though that your country is awash with guns and the number of homicides caused by firearms (including accidental deaths) is a lot higher than those countries without such a proliferation of guns.

You believe it's due to the restrictions because you have no proof of it.
Mexico has strict gun laws. And lots of crime.
Switzerland has relative lax gun laws. And little crime.
Memphis has lax gun laws. So does Knoxville. They have the exact same laws. Yet the crime rate is in no way comparable.
So remind me why you think laws rather than culture determine crime.

Switzerland in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM has lax gun laws.