Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even scarrier: a street in an American city that looks like one in Mogadishu: people walking around with military grade rifles...
What exactly is a military grade rifle? The m-16 was chosen because it is light, the ammunition is light and it's fairly cheap to make. The civilian version is the AR-14. The m-16 replaced the m-14, a much more powerful weapon but not exactly ideal for the military because it's expensive and a lot heavier. The m-14 shoots a .308 round which is common in hunting rifles. Does that make any semi automatic hunting rifle a military grade weapon? Matter of fact snipers will use this round, are all .308's military grade?
What exactly is a military grade rifle? The m-16 was chosen because it is light, the ammunition is light and it's fairly cheap to make.
What difference does it make here? Do you want our streets to resemble those in Mogadishu or Tikrit or rather Paris, London or Rome? Just so you know, there are no people walking around with rifles in Paris...
You're afraid; alright, I get it. I'm not. I have a concern over the lack of Monarch butterflies this year; I am however NOT afraid. English enough for you?
As regards the rest of your offering: see your post for what you believe constitutes "mental gymnastics".
No I'm not afraid, I have fears which I know and understand, and I mitigate the risks I take, thus it permits me to be unafraid. It's a pretty simple concept.
All I'm pointing out is that any risk mitigation can only be motivated by a fear that the risk may come to realization. Doesn't matter the risk, nor the mitigation, the motivation is still the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I'll agree to disagree with you if you'll agree to disagree with me. I'm getting tired of typing.
Dunno how we can disagree on the definition of plain English, but sure whatever.
Of course there is positive correlation why did you think all of the other rich industrialized nations like the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Australia, Japan, Canada and other banned guns or extremely restricted their gun laws?
As someone already explained to you gun law in the US are extremely ineffective toward crime as the lack of state laws make the transfer of guns between states having different attitudes towards guns very easy.
California may have strict gun laws but guns are still flowing into california from other states.
Better example are other industrialized nations that "coincidentally" all banned or radically restricted access to guns....
There you go bringing up other countries again. The first thing you should understand is that America is not demographically similar to any of the countries that you mentioned. And you exclaiming that there is a positive correlation between guns and homicide, doesn't make it so. Multiple studies have shown that an increase in concealed carry reduces crime. As I said, there is not ONE study that has been done that shows stricter gun control leads to reduced homicides in America.
Your idea that gun laws in the US are ineffective is true, but not for the reason that you stated. They are ineffective because gun restrictions mainly affect law abiding citizens, not criminals. If you think that strict gun laws don't work for states and municipalities, then why would they work across the whole of the country when we have such a porous border? Do you think guns couldn't get in?
They are defining mass shootings as events where 4 or more people are killed by a gun. Looking at the report, many of the shootings involved drug exchanges, robberies or domestic violence. These aren't what people typically think about when they think about mass shootings; they usually envision a gunman going on a shooting spree. The report also says that mass shootings only account for a tiny fraction of gun homicides (less than 1 percent) so they aren't as common as you suggest.
There you go bringing up other countries again. The first thing you should understand is that America is not demographically similar to any of the countries that you mentioned.
Why do conservatives always pretend that America is any different than other countries? Do you think America is so much different than Canada or Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
And you exclaiming that there is a positive correlation between guns and homicide, doesn't make it so. Multiple studies have shown that an increase in concealed carry reduces crime.
Is it so? Can you name any?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Your idea that gun laws in the US are ineffective is true, but not for the reason that you stated. They are ineffective because gun restrictions mainly affect law abiding citizens, not criminals.
But this is true for every country, including Canada and Australia. How is it different in the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
If you think that strict gun laws don't work for states and municipalities, then why would they work across the whole of the country when we have such a porous border? Do you think guns couldn't get in?
Because Canada which has strict gun control has also an extremely porous border with the US but its homicide rate that is four time lower than ours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
