Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next
Author Message
Profile DEAD
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 2163
Credit: 3,657,786
RAC: 3,718
United States
Message 1319755 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 0:31:25 UTC

Saw a pic of the Webster Whack Job.

Man 'O Live. Like looking In The Mirror at meself.

Age is A MO FO. FO SHO.

Can't remember if his hair is parted. Well, guess it depends how he let the Final Round Fly. he a he a he.

Lady said 80 Million Moms are not going to let 5 Mil NRA members push them around. Flex it Momma.

Tiny Bubbles Broheim. Tiny Bubbles. When I was stationed at Pearl, I watched a guy in a bar play his uke and sing Tiny Bubbles.

Memories. Like when I parted my hair in The 60s.

DEMON...I Remember HOT
____________


Profile zaezl
Send message
Joined: 10 Sep 00
Posts: 2
Credit: 222,223
RAC: 375
United States
Message 1319759 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 0:57:41 UTC

What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary is unthinkable. I expect people to have an emotive, visceral response to such a tragedy. I am a father. Upon hearing the news I rushed home and held my daughter tight and I wept. I am sure a lot of Americans did. But I also rushed home to hold my daughter when I saw the leaked gunship footage from the Bradley Manning bundle, which depicts a US military helicopter blowing civilian vehicles to bits, vehicles with Iraqi children in them. My fear is that that is the difference between me and most Americans. Their response to tragedy is not evenly apportioned. It is often myopic and divorced from broader acts of savagery undertaken by their own government. Their response is often simplistic, easily goaded by political leaders and the media with ad metum and ad bellum appeals. I believe that most Americans live in an infantilized, Disney-fied version of the world, where it's somehow alright to decry gun violence when a domestic shooting occurs in an American mall or school, but fail to possess the same indignation and outrage when a US military drone kills a dozen children in Pakistan. Human savagery behaves like a liquid; you cannot agitate it without causing ripples. It spills over and leaks. It gathers and concentrates in the lowest possible points, and it doesn't magically stop at fences and concertina wire. Every facet of the US economy and indeed every mainstream political agenda, liberal and conservative, is intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the culture of militarism and conquest that the United States has imbibed in since at least the Spanish American war. America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth by far. Her social policies and welfare state depend utterly on a GDP that is super charged by global economic marginalization and an unfair advantage in world markets and natural resource extraction, and this is accomplished through militarism, clandestine warfare and bloody regime pacification, which the US engages in regularly under the auspices of its rapacious foreign policy and its endless actual and notional wars, such as the war of terror and the war on drugs. A huge byproduct of this paradigm are the countless military grade weapons waiting to leak through US borders in the event of the supply vacuum caused by a new prohibition on gun ownership. Many of these weapons would be American made and our savagery on the world stage would come home to roost in an even more violent and sadly ironic way than it has with our plethora of deranged gunman. That is not a pro-gun statement. It is a pro-reality assertion. It is cheaper to jump through legal hoops and acquire a gun than it is to deal with the black market, but a gun prohibition would eradicate this cost prohibition, and just like heroin and cocaine before them, M4 rifles would make their way onto American streets. The same weapons that have killed and maimed in the hands of despots would now simply trickle into the US and continue to kill and maim in the hands of gangs or lunatics. Instead of guns flowing out and drugs flowing in, guns and drugs would flow in, because prohibition does not work. You cannot bridle supply by ignoring or legislating against demand. Guns are a symptom, not a cause, and this nation has some deep soul searching to do, about what kind of nation it wants to be and how it wants to project itself at home and abroad, and our militaristic teleology needs to be parsed before any other cultural, clinical or other contributors to these shootings can be addressed. Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle.

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8685
Credit: 245,020
RAC: 136
Canada
Message 1319760 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 1:02:36 UTC - in response to Message 1319759.

What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary is unthinkable. I expect people to have an emotive, visceral response to such a tragedy. I am a father. Upon hearing the news I rushed home and held my daughter tight and I wept. I am sure a lot of Americans did. But I also rushed home to hold my daughter when I saw the leaked gunship footage from the Bradley Manning bundle, which depicts a US military helicopter blowing civilian vehicles to bits, vehicles with Iraqi children in them. My fear is that that is the difference between me and most Americans. Their response to tragedy is not evenly apportioned. It is often myopic and divorced from broader acts of savagery undertaken by their own government. Their response is often simplistic, easily goaded by political leaders and the media with ad metum and ad bellum appeals. I believe that most Americans live in an infantilized, Disney-fied version of the world, where it's somehow alright to decry gun violence when a domestic shooting occurs in an American mall or school, but fail to possess the same indignation and outrage when a US military drone kills a dozen children in Pakistan. Human savagery behaves like a liquid; you cannot agitate it without causing ripples. It spills over and leaks. It gathers and concentrates in the lowest possible points, and it doesn't magically stop at fences and concertina wire. Every facet of the US economy and indeed every mainstream political agenda, liberal and conservative, is intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the culture of militarism and conquest that the United States has imbibed in since at least the Spanish American war. America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth by far. Her social policies and welfare state depend utterly on a GDP that is super charged by global economic marginalization and an unfair advantage in world markets and natural resource extraction, and this is accomplished through militarism, clandestine warfare and bloody regime pacification, which the US engages in regularly under the auspices of its rapacious foreign policy and its endless actual and notional wars, such as the war of terror and the war on drugs. A huge byproduct of this paradigm are the countless military grade weapons waiting to leak through US borders in the event of the supply vacuum caused by a new prohibition on gun ownership. Many of these weapons would be American made and our savagery on the world stage would come home to roost in an even more violent and sadly ironic way than it has with our plethora of deranged gunman. That is not a pro-gun statement. It is a pro-reality assertion. It is cheaper to jump through legal hoops and acquire a gun than it is to deal with the black market, but a gun prohibition would eradicate this cost prohibition, and just like heroin and cocaine before them, M4 rifles would make their way onto American streets. The same weapons that have killed and maimed in the hands of despots would now simply trickle into the US and continue to kill and maim in the hands of gangs or lunatics. Instead of guns flowing out and drugs flowing in, guns and drugs would flow in, because prohibition does not work. You cannot bridle supply by ignoring or legislating against demand. Guns are a symptom, not a cause, and this nation has some deep soul searching to do, about what kind of nation it wants to be and how it wants to project itself at home and abroad, and our militaristic teleology needs to be parsed before any other cultural, clinical or other contributors to these shootings can be addressed. Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle.

Wow,

Excellent first post. Welcome to the forums.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9201
Credit: 1,357,841
RAC: 1,715
United States
Message 1319769 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 1:29:53 UTC - in response to Message 1319755.

Saw a pic of the Webster Whack Job.

Man 'O Live. Like looking In The Mirror at meself.

Age is A MO FO. FO SHO.

Can't remember if his hair is parted. Well, guess it depends how he let the Final Round Fly. he a he a he.

Lady said 80 Million Moms are not going to let 5 Mil NRA members push them around. Flex it Momma.

Tiny Bubbles Broheim. Tiny Bubbles. When I was stationed at Pearl, I watched a guy in a bar play his uke and sing Tiny Bubbles.

Memories. Like when I parted my hair in The 60s.

DEMON...I Remember HOT



You're right, people don't part their hair anymore.
Can we keep him distracted?
May the odds
be ever in your favor
in 2013.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12147
Credit: 6,426,811
RAC: 8,101
United States
Message 1319797 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 4:06:45 UTC - in response to Message 1319760.

What happened at Sandy Hook Elementary is unthinkable. I expect people to have an emotive, visceral response to such a tragedy. I am a father. Upon hearing the news I rushed home and held my daughter tight and I wept. I am sure a lot of Americans did. But I also rushed home to hold my daughter when I saw the leaked gunship footage from the Bradley Manning bundle, which depicts a US military helicopter blowing civilian vehicles to bits, vehicles with Iraqi children in them. My fear is that that is the difference between me and most Americans. Their response to tragedy is not evenly apportioned. It is often myopic and divorced from broader acts of savagery undertaken by their own government. Their response is often simplistic, easily goaded by political leaders and the media with ad metum and ad bellum appeals. I believe that most Americans live in an infantilized, Disney-fied version of the world, where it's somehow alright to decry gun violence when a domestic shooting occurs in an American mall or school, but fail to possess the same indignation and outrage when a US military drone kills a dozen children in Pakistan. Human savagery behaves like a liquid; you cannot agitate it without causing ripples. It spills over and leaks. It gathers and concentrates in the lowest possible points, and it doesn't magically stop at fences and concertina wire. Every facet of the US economy and indeed every mainstream political agenda, liberal and conservative, is intrinsically tied to and dependent upon the culture of militarism and conquest that the United States has imbibed in since at least the Spanish American war. America spends more on its military than any other nation on earth by far. Her social policies and welfare state depend utterly on a GDP that is super charged by global economic marginalization and an unfair advantage in world markets and natural resource extraction, and this is accomplished through militarism, clandestine warfare and bloody regime pacification, which the US engages in regularly under the auspices of its rapacious foreign policy and its endless actual and notional wars, such as the war of terror and the war on drugs. A huge byproduct of this paradigm are the countless military grade weapons waiting to leak through US borders in the event of the supply vacuum caused by a new prohibition on gun ownership. Many of these weapons would be American made and our savagery on the world stage would come home to roost in an even more violent and sadly ironic way than it has with our plethora of deranged gunman. That is not a pro-gun statement. It is a pro-reality assertion. It is cheaper to jump through legal hoops and acquire a gun than it is to deal with the black market, but a gun prohibition would eradicate this cost prohibition, and just like heroin and cocaine before them, M4 rifles would make their way onto American streets. The same weapons that have killed and maimed in the hands of despots would now simply trickle into the US and continue to kill and maim in the hands of gangs or lunatics. Instead of guns flowing out and drugs flowing in, guns and drugs would flow in, because prohibition does not work. You cannot bridle supply by ignoring or legislating against demand. Guns are a symptom, not a cause, and this nation has some deep soul searching to do, about what kind of nation it wants to be and how it wants to project itself at home and abroad, and our militaristic teleology needs to be parsed before any other cultural, clinical or other contributors to these shootings can be addressed. Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle.

Wow,

Excellent first post. Welcome to the forums.

+1

____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12147
Credit: 6,426,811
RAC: 8,101
United States
Message 1319803 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 4:50:07 UTC - in response to Message 1319759.

Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle.

Actually you can rather easily make many assault rifles in a garage workshop today. See http://www.cncguns.com/ for example. Obviously drug cartels have more than enough cash to purchase equipment capable of turning out dozens of such weapons per day. They also wouldn't be bound to make them semi-auto either, or have size requirements on magazines or put serial numbers on them. No, the genie is out of the bottle forever, just like stills were out of the bottle for prohibition.

____________

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8685
Credit: 245,020
RAC: 136
Canada
Message 1319805 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 5:00:59 UTC - in response to Message 1319803.

Might I also remind this particularly tech savvy audience that 3D printers are only getting smaller and more powerful. Guns can already be "printed." The implications for this are that the 2nd Amendment is effectively redundant, and with it, law enforcement and the desire to put the genie back in the bottle.

Actually you can rather easily make many assault rifles in a garage workshop today. See http://www.cncguns.com/ for example. Obviously drug cartels have more than enough cash to purchase equipment capable of turning out dozens of such weapons per day. They also wouldn't be bound to make them semi-auto either, or have size requirements on magazines or put serial numbers on them. No, the genie is out of the bottle forever, just like stills were out of the bottle for prohibition.

I do find it strange here that the pro-gun lobby here seem to getting confused with the difference between gun regulation and prohibition. Then throwing up arguments against gun regulation based on this.

Even the UK doesn't have gun prohibition. They just have very strict regulation on who can have guns, what sort of guns and how they are stored.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1319809 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 5:54:07 UTC
Last modified: 25 Dec 2012, 5:56:15 UTC

I cannot deny that what happened is tragic. I will not deny that I too was saddened to my core and cried. If one did not feel for the loss then one is the same as the young man who took innocent life. That was the whole point of the questions tossed at me here by a number of people. They only wanted to make a point and at any cost. Even to the point of being intellectually dishonest.

Most people do cry out for solutions. And this is what bothers me deeply. It is the emotion that always gets us in trouble. The elected have this down pat. We get more government programs, homeland security, the CIA running around within our Country, the New York police running around outside of our Country, TSA, all of this unconstitutional and against reason but good for the Country so they say because jobs are created. What they don't understand is that the government doesn't created jobs, they take your money. The government cannot provide security, they take away liberty. I point at both parties for this. One side calls for war. War is always good for the economy, so they say. So, with that said they play the football game where no one really intends to win. One side calls for war and that gives the other side an opportunity to bash them. Just as soon as the other side gains power from the people for that war and its expense, the war continues and the one who started the war shuts up because they started it, you don't want bashed after a election loss. If the democrats really wanted the war ended anyone of the democrats elected as a governor in a state could call for a recall of his/her troops from a unjust and undeclared war, that is the law. But this never happens, war is good for the economy. It is good for votes, its damn good for votes. And the sheeple buy it up.

No, you cannot stop immoral people from getting what they want. Then again, there is no guarantee in life that you will remain safe. If someone has told anyone here that life is fair then you have been lied to. Life isn't fair. You cannot keep your children safe 100% of the time. That is why the N.R.A. has called for cops in every school and FEDERAL funding for it. It is a deflection from the real problem. It is also another unconstitutional federal program that takes from the people themselves the right to run their local schools as they wish. It is an appeal to our emotions, not a fix to any problem. This latest attack will also be used as an appeal to our emotions, it has already started here. Is emotions a fix to a problem, no, it isn't.

So, what is a fix? How can such a problem be fixed? I was also assaulted here for saying that I take care of my own and I'm not a drain to the public because of that. But in reality that is the fix to the problem. I'm a parent. I'm not a sheeple. As a parent I pass on my morality to my children. Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated is first and foremost on our list of teachings. I will never trade my morals for ethics. It is ethics that has gotten us into so much trouble. Ethics tells us that we can rain death from above on a bus load of children in a Country on the other side of the rock. Ethics tells us what National interest is and that it is right and just to go after it at any cost. Ethics tells us that a little lie to anyone is Okay as long as no one knows or gets hurt. And ethics are what is bantered in the Halls of Congress.

Some may take issue and wonder if I have really given a fix to the problem. The answer is, yes; I have done just that. If they have not seen the answer they have traded morals for ethics and there is nothing I can do for them. They have become sheeple of their own accord. They will pass their sheepleness on to their own children and the cycle will start all over again. In the end I can only do what I have done and that is to take care of my own, and in doing so I point to the right direction. Which in the end is the only thing I can do.

There is such a thing as Just War. In my minds eye I have the right to protect my own and that in and of itself is the start of Just War Principle/Doctrine.

*the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
*all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
*there must be serious prospects of success;
*the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Some here have eluded that as Christian man I must turn the other cheek for my second helping of abuse. They do not know Christianity, (Luke 22:36). How am I to be reconciled in this issue? Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked is how. If that evil is just one like at Sandyhook the same applies as far as I'm concerned. If that evil is a nation the same applies. But all of it must fall within Just War Principle/Doctrine. This is not ethics, this is morality.

I have wrestled in the past with ethics. I have been told that morality cannot be legislated. But then again, every last law ever passed is an attempt at legislating morality. It is when we attempt to legislate ethics that we get into trouble. When we start with a lie the only thing that can come of it is a bigger lie. I'm sure most here have been told or know that once you lie you must tell another to cover it up. Best off coming clean right from the start. That is what most laws are now. Just a lie placed on another.

If find is almost amusing that some people don't believe in God. But eagerly believe in the long odds of life on another planet. They look to this as if such a finding of that life might lead to a better one here. Such a find would not change my mind on my Faith in God. I would find it a wonder mainly because of the odds, but at the same time I wouldn't find it as a answer to our fixing of our problems. If such life did travel the long distances in space with technology of faster then light speed or wormholes, they have already fixed the problem that we now have. And since life, as we know it, evolves the same way over and over again we can make a real good assumption they had the same problems and fixed them with morals, not ethics. They would have treated each other as they themselves would like to be treated. I'll call this fact, and I'm sure many will not like it. And I'll point to two reasons why. They got to the point of that technology without destroying themselves. And we will never see them here because we ourselves do not treat our neighbor as we ourselves would like to be treated. Some will say I argue in a circle. I do not. I speak the truth.

Merry Christmas, peace and goodwill to mankind.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,127,929
RAC: 15,728
United Kingdom
Message 1319810 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 6:14:00 UTC - in response to Message 1319805.
Last modified: 25 Dec 2012, 6:27:31 UTC

It also surprises me that for all the guns in the US they don't seem to appear anywhere near the top in sports that use guns.

In my distant past before my knees gave out I used to do Biathlon, so follow it quite a bit. The USA team only just manages to get better results than the UK. Even though they have much better conditions, a larger population and definitely have a lot better access to guns.

Quick explaination of Biathlon, race around cross country circuit,
stop and fire weapon at five targets* (.22, 50yds),
repeat 2 or 4 times,
race one circuit to finish.
* firing from prone or standing position as directed, depending on type of race. There are sprints, mass starts, persuits and relays.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,127,929
RAC: 15,728
United Kingdom
Message 1319816 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 6:42:50 UTC - in response to Message 1319809.
Last modified: 25 Dec 2012, 6:44:12 UTC

Are you sure your understanding of ethics and morals are correct?

I thought ethics was about using reasoning to find the solution, whilst morals was about making the correct choice.

Therefore if I am correct your whole line of reasoning is suspect and probably false.

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8685
Credit: 245,020
RAC: 136
Canada
Message 1319820 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 7:00:03 UTC - in response to Message 1319816.

Are you sure your understanding of ethics and morals are correct?

I thought ethics was about using reasoning to find the solution, whilst morals was about making the correct choice.

Therefore if I am correct your whole line of reasoning is suspect and probably false.

I think that pretty much covers it.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8685
Credit: 245,020
RAC: 136
Canada
Message 1319821 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 7:04:38 UTC - in response to Message 1319809.

I cannot deny that what happened is tragic. I will not deny that I too was saddened to my core and cried.

...

Sad? You should be angry. Very, very angry.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 21
United States
Message 1319903 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 16:26:48 UTC

If you only spoke the language you would know the difference.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12147
Credit: 6,426,811
RAC: 8,101
United States
Message 1319918 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 17:34:13 UTC - in response to Message 1319809.

The moment ethics and morality are separated you have none of either. Fatwa is one result. The inquisition is another. The suspension of one because of the other. There is no suspension ever. They are identical.


____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12147
Credit: 6,426,811
RAC: 8,101
United States
Message 1319919 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 17:40:57 UTC - in response to Message 1319805.

I do find it strange here that the pro-gun lobby here seem to getting confused with the difference between gun regulation and prohibition. Then throwing up arguments against gun regulation based on this.

The proposals are prohibitions, not regulation.

Regulation, you must sell a trigger lock with every gun.
Regulation, you must have a gun safe.

Prohibition, it is illegal to sell a 30 round magazine.
Prohibition, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon.



____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,127,929
RAC: 15,728
United Kingdom
Message 1319926 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 18:22:18 UTC - in response to Message 1319919.

I do find it strange here that the pro-gun lobby here seem to getting confused with the difference between gun regulation and prohibition. Then throwing up arguments against gun regulation based on this.

The proposals are prohibitions, not regulation.

Regulation, you must sell a trigger lock with every gun.
Regulation, you must have a gun safe.

Prohibition, it is illegal to sell a 30 round magazine.
Prohibition, it is illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon.



But there does have to be a limit on what weapons a private citizen can own. Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc.

There is no circumstances that I can think of where 30 round magazines or assault rifles are needed.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,651,266
RAC: 2,962
United States
Message 1319935 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 18:54:36 UTC

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

source

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

source

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has 31 nations it terms "High Income", they are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime provides details of firearm homicides per 100,000 of the population here. Of the OECD High Income nations, the US has the highest firearm homicide rate at 3.2, in second place is Switzerland, with a rate of 0.8. USA #1 by a factor of 4, yay us.

How the NRA operates.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12147
Credit: 6,426,811
RAC: 8,101
United States
Message 1319936 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 18:54:59 UTC - in response to Message 1319926.

Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc.

This may come as a surprise to you but I know someone who does own them.

____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8518
Credit: 23,127,929
RAC: 15,728
United Kingdom
Message 1319940 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 19:08:14 UTC - in response to Message 1319936.

Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc.

This may come as a surprise to you but I know someone who does own them.

Are they modern and are they in working order.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12147
Credit: 6,426,811
RAC: 8,101
United States
Message 1319956 - Posted: 25 Dec 2012, 20:17:42 UTC - in response to Message 1319940.

Under your definition all weapons above that limit are prohibited, or should people be able to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery guns etc.

This may come as a surprise to you but I know someone who does own them.

Are they modern and are they in working order.

For security reasons I shouldn't answer that. Take that non-answer as your answer.

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Copyright © 2014 University of California