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.
I think you would be safer sitting next to a suicide bomber with his thumb on the button than being anywhere around me while I'm trying to handle a loaded gun.
However, I'll gladly endanger myself and you to avoid paying $1,000 dollars in taxes.
In that case you should request a padded cell to secure your safety.
I take it no matter how much trainning you bought you would be a total clutz huh?
I maintain if you can text you can operate a hand gun or a shot gun. After all the gun was the very first single keystroke digital instrument.
Centuries ago it was possible to use a single key stroke to send a vast message.
Guns predate all enines and motors of almost every kind, which in theory means you should not pilot a vehical of any kind.
I won't say drive since almost no one can drive any more. Modern cars are all point and shoot vehicals just about.
You better hope most farmers can drive since running a combine is realitively complicated compared to drive little bubble box cages.
Also something to remember is in most states it is against the law to pilot a vehical and use a cell phone at the same time.
Guns are legal, using a cell phone that way isn't.
In that case you should request a padded cell to secure your safety.
I take it no matter how much trainning you bought you would be a total clutz huh?
I maintain if you can text you can operate a hand gun or a shot gun. After all the gun was the very first single keystroke digital instrument.
Centuries ago it was possible to use a single key stroke to send a vast message.
Guns predate all enines and motors of almost every kind, which in theory means you should not pilot a vehical of any kind.
I won't say drive since almost no one can drive any more. Modern cars are all point and shoot vehicals just about.
You better hope most farmers can drive since running a combine is realitively complicated compared to drive little bubble box cages.
Also something to remember is in most states it is against the law to pilot a vehical and use a cell phone at the same time.
Guns are legal, using a cell phone that way isn't.
Okaaay. You've been warned.
Allow me to speculate here...
I won't guarantee I'd keep up on my training or renew my license. What for? Hey, I'm just getting the gun for tax purposes anyway, not for self defense, not for a hobby.
How many millions of people do you believe would think that way?
Ah, here we go again - if one chooses not to bear arms, then they don't value their safety or that of their family as much as those who do bear arms. In other words, owning firearms is the responsible thing to do.
Owning a firearm is the responsible thing to do, but that does not mean you cannot be irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb
Well, if that's the case, then why isn't the U.S. the safest country in the Western world? We are certainly armed more so than any other.
"Safe" is for *******. If you want to live in a hermetically sealed bubble all your life, Denmark or Norway may fit your bill better than the US. But if you want liberty, there is no better nation on the planet than the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb
Now before the gun enthusiasts go crazy, understand that I have no problem with folks owning guns. I agree that one should not fear responsible, law-abiding gun owners. But I've seen no evidence that they make us safer as a society.
You have not seen any evidence only because the anti-gun media does not publish such evidence and you chose not to seek it out. Thus, remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that firearms prevent over two million crimes every year in the US according to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America."
I won't guarantee I'd keep up on my training or renew my license. What for? Hey, I'm just getting the gun for tax purposes anyway, not for self defense, not for a hobby.
How many millions of people do you believe would think that way?
I have no idea how many would think that way. It's illegal to text and drive, or talk and drive in my state, but I see people doing it all the time.
Perhaps the TAX would still be charged if you don't meet qualifications, like cops must do twice a year in my state.
Perhaps if you don't it will have some affect on a driver's lic.
'Ve have vays to make you tavk'
To me this is just because I am dead sick of the liberal gun grabber whine. Not that you did, or do. This is just one way to make them put up, or shut up.
Many of these gun grabbers add insults , comment on education, challange reasons, and not one of them know a thing about a gun.
They FEAR a pointed finger, a water color painting of 1st graders showing daddy hunting game, and act totally irrational, and yet still think they have the answer.
That answer is always the same, ban the gun.
That idea might look good on paper for 2 seconds, but then anyone with a brain can see it isn't any idea at all.
Guns have been around several centuries and it ain't no kinda rocket science to build one.
Anyone with a head who can measure close tolerances can build a gun a lot easier than they can do other common things with metals.
The gun grabbers evidently can't build anything, or they would know how foolish an idea this is.
But my point is 50+ years of whine is my limit.
I say tax them hard for the priviledge of remaining un-armed.
I have no idea how many would think that way. It's illegal to text and drive, or talk and drive in my state, but I see people doing it all the time.
Perhaps the TAX would still be charged if you don't meet qualifications, like cops must do twice a year in my state.
Perhaps if you don't it will have some affect on a driver's lic.
'Ve have vays to make you tavk'
To me this is just because I am dead sick of the liberal gun grabber whine. Not that you did, or do. This is just one way to make them put up, or shut up.
Many of these gun grabbers add insults , comment on education, challange reasons, and not one of them know a thing about a gun.
They FEAR a pointed finger, a water color painting of 1st graders showing daddy hunting game, and act totally irrational, and yet still think they have the answer.
That answer is always the same, ban the gun.
That idea might look good on paper for 2 seconds, but then anyone with a brain can see it isn't any idea at all.
Guns have been around several centuries and it ain't no kinda rocket science to build one.
Anyone with a head who can measure close tolerances can build a gun a lot easier than they can do other common things with metals.
The gun grabbers evidently can't build anything, or they would know how foolish an idea this is.
But my point is 50+ years of whine is my limit.
I say tax them hard for the priviledge of remaining un-armed.
Oh, I don't care if you have a gun or a zillion of them. I don't have one and I've gotten along OK without one... knock on wood. I haven't had a need or desire to get one.
I think you may be stretching things. Consider that every other western European nation has more stringent gun control laws than both the U.S. and Switzerland, yet they all have violent crime rates (notably murder rates) substantially lower than the U.S.
Note that I'm not arguing that more guns leads to more crime. I'm merely arguing that there's no conclusive evidence that more guns leads to less crime, yet that seems to be the argument constantly put forth by gun enthusiasts who insinuate that packing heat at home is the responsible thing to do.
" In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
...
" Besides the [Swiss] militia system requiring automatic rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols to be kept in the homes of all males aged 20 to 42, firearms are readily available for purchase in gun shops. Yet firearms are rarely used in violent crime. Notes Clinard, "These facts contrast strikingly with the belief that a low criminal homicide rate is due to strict firearms regulations." Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of firearms..."
...
"There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy."
-----------------
Gun ownership is not homogeneous in the USA.
Neither is crime.
Can you find conclusive data that well-armed law abiding folks are more at risk of crime than unarmed law abiding folks?
I think it is reasonable to conclude that unarmed people have little recourse in preventing crime. Weaponless people are at the mercy of those who are stronger, without a moral compass, or predatory... in or out of government.
Can you find conclusive data that well-armed law abiding folks are more at risk of crime than unarmed law abiding folks?
I'm not making that argument. Can you explain how other western European countries and Canada, which have more stringent gun control laws and lower rates of gun ownership, have lower murder and other violent crime rates than the U.S.?
I'm not making that argument. Can you explain how other western European countries and Canada, which have more stringent gun control laws and lower rates of gun ownership, have lower murder and other violent crime rates than the U.S.?
Their laws concerning gun ownership are much like Mexico's. Can you explain how Mexico, where firearms ownership is heavily restricted, has a much higher violent crime rate than the US or Europe?
" In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
...
" Besides the [Swiss] militia system requiring automatic rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols to be kept in the homes of all males aged 20 to 42, firearms are readily available for purchase in gun shops. Yet firearms are rarely used in violent crime. Notes Clinard, "These facts contrast strikingly with the belief that a low criminal homicide rate is due to strict firearms regulations." Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of firearms..."
...
"There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy."
-----------------
Gun ownership is not homogeneous in the USA.
Neither is crime.
Can you find conclusive data that well-armed law abiding folks are more at risk of crime than unarmed law abiding folks?
I think it is reasonable to conclude that unarmed people have little recourse in preventing crime. Weaponless people are at the mercy of those who are stronger, without a moral compass, or predatory... in or out of government.
Interesting that Switzerland is one of the few European countries that has not been invaded in a very long time.
Quote:
Prior to WWI, the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers. In response a man from Switzerland replied: "shoot twice and go home".
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.
