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.
The facts are on my side. Have you ever looked at gun statistics in America? Maybe studies on whether or not they actually make one safe? Then maybe thought to compare to every other developed nation on the planet? Pro-gun attitides in this country are what I consider a mental illness.
You are entitled under the constitution to bear arms, I am not denying that. But to think that the rate of ownership today, and the type of weapons available are what the founding fathers envisioned, is ludicrous to say the least.
Please. Not everyone was born in a mall. Firearms are a normal part of growing up in most areas of the US. You know, farms, ranches, even urban areas.
I am from the UK. All the countries you listed, well, are all countries that have the tough laws I speak of and yet hardly any gun crime. Go figure..
Then go back! Newsflash! This isn't the damn UK, nor do we wish to emulate the UK, or pay tribute to a Queen who BTW has no power anyway! I wish folks that came to this country would stop trying to bring their BS to our country and leave their baggage behind!
The facts are on my side. Have you ever looked at gun statistics in America? Maybe studies on whether or not they actually make one safe? Then maybe thought to compare to every other developed nation on the planet? Pro-gun attitides in this country are what I consider a mental illness.
You are entitled under the constitution to bear arms, I am not denying that. But to think that the rate of ownership today, and the type of weapons available are what the founding fathers envisioned, is ludicrous to say the least.
So the founding fathers never envisioned anything past the printing press either? This free flow of information is just too much and needs to be regulated. Unlicensed discussions should only happen face to face. This interweb thing with its forums is not what the founding fathers ever had in mind when they wrote the free speech part of the First Amendment.
The facts are on my side. Have you ever looked at gun statistics in America? Maybe studies on whether or not they actually make one safe? Then maybe thought to compare to every other developed nation on the planet? Pro-gun attitides in this country are what I consider a mental illness.
You are entitled under the constitution to bear arms, I am not denying that. But to think that the rate of ownership today, and the type of weapons available are what the founding fathers envisioned, is ludicrous to say the least.
Please kindly point out which fact is on your side. I haven't seen any real facts that are on your side. I also need to remind you facts aren't truth and correlation is not necessarily causation.
The facts are on my side. Have you ever looked at gun statistics in America? Maybe studies on whether or not they actually make one safe? Then maybe thought to compare to every other developed nation on the planet? Pro-gun attitides in this country are what I consider a mental illness.
You are entitled under the constitution to bear arms, I am not denying that. But to think that the rate of ownership today, and the type of weapons available are what the founding fathers envisioned, is ludicrous to say the least.
No, the facts aren't on your side and you clearly have never looked at the gun or crime statistics in America. You have clearly bought into the usual anti gun propaganda from dishonest people looking to push an agenda and believe them since it fits your bias and you're not intellectually honest enough to admit it.
Fortunately what you consider means absolutely nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
Yup, write off what you don't comprehend as "mental disease"
Does hypocrisy mean anything to you? You seem to be fitting the stereotype of the typical US anti gun nut to a T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
I am from the UK. All the countries you listed, well, are all countries that have the tough laws I speak of and yet hardly any gun crime. Go figure..
Well that explains why you're so ignorant on the topic, you don't even know what the "gun crimes" are in your own country or that they've been constantly increasing since your enlightened lords banned them.
So the founding fathers never envisioned anything past the printing press either? This free flow of information is just too much and needs to be regulated. Unlicensed discussions should only happen face to face. This interweb thing with its forums is not what the founding fathers ever had in mind when they wrote the free speech part of the First Amendment.
Lol. Indeed. I'm sure the Founders intented that the peoples access to firearms technology was to stay stagnant. Bright as they may have been, they could not envision a time where the Brown Bess musket might become obsolete. I suppose that if the citizens were restricted to firearms technology 50 years behind current military issue, things would be better? Not that I consider the M1Garand to be an ineffective piece, but parts are getting scarce, and she's a heavy old girl. As I get on in years, an AR is far easier to carry. Both rifle and ammunition.
Still, functionally, the Garand and AR are, basically, the same. Gas operated, semi auto. So how is the AR deemed to be so much higher tech, and inappropriate for civilian use, according to what some believe? Interesting, yea? These, supposedly, "more deadly" types of weapons we've seen referred to, are only , cosmetically different, from ones of elsewhen. The only genuine "improvement" has been in the higher capacity, detachable magazine. That doesn't make modern firearms any more "deadly", or capable. Perhaps, less so, in that the ammunition they take, is far less potent than older, military standards. 30 06 vs 5.56x41. Rather like locomotive vs Honda Accord.
In that regard, perhaps we would be better served by older technology?
Lol. Indeed. I'm sure the Founders intented that the peoples access to firearms technology was to stay stagnant. Bright as they may have been, they could not envision a time where the Brown Bess musket might become obsolete. I suppose that if the citizens were restricted to firearms technology 50 years behind current military issue, things would be better? Not that I consider the M1Garand to be an ineffective piece, but parts are getting scarce, and she's a heavy old girl. As I get on in years, an AR is far easier to carry. Both rifle and ammunition.
Still, functionally, the Garand and AR are, basically, the same. Gas operated, semi auto. So how is the AR deemed to be so much higher tech, and inappropriate for civilian use, according to what some believe? Interesting, yea? These, supposedly, "more deadly" types of weapons we've seen referred to, are only , cosmetically different, from ones of elsewhen. The only genuine "improvement" has been in the higher capacity, detachable magazine. That doesn't make modern firearms any more "deadly", or capable. Perhaps, less so, in that the ammunition they take, is far less potent than older, military standards. 30 06 vs 5.56x41. Rather like locomotive vs Honda Accord.
In that regard, perhaps we would be better served by older technology?
Case in point, the old 740. Semi .30-06 ten round mag. Why isn't anyone afraid of the ol meat gun? It's been around 60 or so years and off everyone's radar.
Case in point, the old 740. Semi .30-06 ten round mag. Why isn't anyone afraid of the ol meat gun? It's been around 60 or so years and off everyone's radar.
People that want guns will get them illegally and use them against those of us that obey the law. Banning guns does nothing but make the weak weaker. One should be able to protect themselves as well as those around them. A criminal will willingly use a firearm against those he knows don't have one because hes weak, however, that same criminal may think twice about using one if there may be other people there with a firearm that will use it against him if need be.
The real issue here are criminals, not law abiding citizens. If we didn't have criminals there would be no need to want to carry a weapon. Instead of focusing on needing to carry a gun to protect yourself why not focus on criminals themselves who are committing these crimes. The focus as usual in this country is in the wrong place.
Actually, the ones who have no idea are the ones who claim that guns equal safety, or that having a gun makes one safe. The only thing that will change America's culture is a radical change in law. An all out ban on most guns combined with an intrusive background check, health history assessment and strong regulation is the way forward. The 2nd A would be repealed and replaced, tons of anti-gun commercials (like smoking) would also be part of the plan, along with hefty sentences for anyone in violation .
You've made me giggle. So cute, so naive.
Read up on the Volstead Act (18th Amendment) and the 21st Amendment (repeal). What can you tell us of Prohibition? Was it successful? Was alcohol use eradicated, and not a single drop found in the US? Define bathtub gin. What was the economic impact of Prohibition? Which groups benefitted? Were there any groups which were given legal exemptions, if so, why? If there were exemptions, were they widely interpreted and flauted? Why was Prohibition repealed?
Next up, tell us about the US war on drugs. How it has eliminate drugs from our streets, and how no one can get illegal drugs.
On to guns: why is it that the areas with the strictest gun laws (Chicago, NYC, DC) happen to have the highest amount of gun crimes? Are those committing those crimes licensed to carry? If there are strict sentences already in place, why hasn't that deterred these crimes?
Placing more laws and restrictions on the lawabiding is not going to stop the lawless from continuing their violent ways -- whether it be a gun, a knife, or their bare hands. If you want to stop violence, you must get to the root of the problem.
If you have a crappy carpenter who can't build a level shelf, do you blame the wood and the level, or the person building it?
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.
I wish folks that came to this country would stop trying to bring their BS to our country and leave their baggage behind!
