Also, because its a lot harder to reach the same amount of devastation with knives compared to guns. Take the recent attack in China where a group of 10 terrorists attacked a crowded station with swords. Around 30 people died and a lot of people got wounded. So thats an average of three dead per attacker. Now look at the average death count of a spree shooter. One person with a gun has can relatively easily kill a dozen of people.

Face it, getting stabbed generally leaves you with better odds to survive than getting shot.

And indeed, what useful purpose in Western society does a gun have? You need knives to cut stuff when you are preparing food and you need cars to get around. But what do guns do? They are marginally useful only in very specific and relatively rare instances.

Plenty of legitimate civilian uses. You ever been on a farm/ranch in rural north-east Texas?

We have plenty of rather dangerous animals around. For instance the 'water moccasin' snake. Highly poisonous, highly aggressive. Also, packs of feral dogs. Extremely aggressive but without the instinctive fear of humans that wolves tend to have. And that is just 2. Sometimes, you must protect not only your own life, but the lives of others, not to forget the lives of your livestock.

Also, putting a highly injured or very ill farm animal out of its misery.

You and others condemn guns because of their military uses, yet totally ignore their legitimate civilian uses. Then you give knives and cars a pass citing their civilian uses while totally ignoring their military uses.

Lets take knives, for instance. Invented back in the paleolithic. Down through history (even BEFORE there was recorded history) they have been used for both civilian and military uses.

A knife is a knife, be it stone or metal, whatever the design. Put a knife on the end of a stout pole, you have a spear. Put a knife on the end of a short thin pole, you have an arrow. Put a kind of handle on the end of a large knife, you have a sword. Put a wood pole on the end of a slightly different design of knife, you have an axe.

The knife, the spear, the bow & arrow, and the axe have all had a history of military use. A rather bloody history.

The car: a kind of motorized vehicle. Motorized vehicles have a history since their invention of both civilian and military use.

Face it, guns, knives, and 'cars' all have legitimate civilian uses. The 'civilian' versions are usually of different design than the 'military' versions. Possession by civilians of the 'military' versions is either highly regulated or outright illegal. They are just tools to get the job done.

Perhaps, especially in light of the opposition to the concept of 'personal responsibility', the focus of blame is misplaced. Rather than punish the person that commits an unjustified act of violence upon another, you just 'blame the tool'. In reality, the person has the responsibility. The tool is blameless. A psychopath is a danger to us all, no matter what tools they have access to.

An unjustified act of physical violence by one person on another is wrong. It is just as wrong if there is one victim, or thousands (or millions).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

More trolling.

How you link gun crime to castration and feminism is bizarre, it says more about your psyche than it does about the topic of the thread.

..and your comment about knives being for cooking therefore the perogative of women was just a slight step away from the tired old "b*tch, make me a sandwich" comment that we've all seen over and over again. How dull.

From the posting rules "No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality. "

Stop trolling. Next one gets a red X.

I am not exactly happy with his 'feminist cabal' comments either, but what are you going to do? I tried a gentle re-direct, which turned out to not be successful.

If it is their opinion, they have a right to it, and a right to 'speak' about it.

Please don't threaten censorship of people's statements that you do not approve of. Just go ahead and push the 'red X' if you feel you must, but don't threaten someone else with it.

There are FAR worse things than just having an unpopular opinion and speaking about it. In my opinion, threatening someone with censorship is one of them.

And why the abusive insults about 'trolls' anyway?

Are you seriously telling me that this wasn't a complete troll and he actually believes this? Because I don't. No one is that stupid.

I don't know. But (even though I do not agree with it) I HAVE heard such arguments made elsewhere, and I can understand the reasoning behind it. I don't agree with it, but I understand where it is coming from.


Either it IS their opinion OR they posted it specifically to get a rise out of you (one of the more outspoken feminists around here)... in which case you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

First you threatened to have them censored, now you are effectively calling them stupid. Why, because they do not agree with you? Nobody else around here agrees with me on EVERYTHING. I don't get all in a snit when someone says something I don't like. I DO say "You are wrong, in my opinion, and here is why...". Please try and show a bit more tolerance of opposing viewpoints, ok?



And another thing... the kitchen knives around here are MINE, not my wife's... I am a better cook than she is, and therefore do most of the cooking. So, of course, I selected a nice, high-quality set of knives to help make my task easier.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

So you would ban 26 Olympic sports and force hundreds of NCAA schools to drop sports along with the scholarships?

Thank you for clarifying your postilion.

What an obvious appeal to emotion. Won't anyone think of those poor sports organizations! Those poor helpless victims.

Let them do a different sport. There are still thousands of other sports to choose from that don't require guns.

Plenty of legitimate civilian uses. You ever been on a farm/ranch in rural north-east Texas?

We have plenty of rather dangerous animals around. For instance the 'water moccasin' snake. Highly poisonous, highly aggressive. Also, packs of feral dogs. Extremely aggressive but without the instinctive fear of humans that wolves tend to have. And that is just 2. Sometimes, you must protect not only your own life, but the lives of others, not to forget the lives of your livestock.

Also, putting a highly injured or very ill farm animal out of its misery.

You and others condemn guns because of their military uses, yet totally ignore their legitimate civilian uses. Then you give knives and cars a pass citing their civilian uses while totally ignoring their military uses.

Lets take knives, for instance. Invented back in the paleolithic. Down through history (even BEFORE there was recorded history) they have been used for both civilian and military uses.

A knife is a knife, be it stone or metal, whatever the design. Put a knife on the end of a stout pole, you have a spear. Put a knife on the end of a short thin pole, you have an arrow. Put a kind of handle on the end of a large knife, you have a sword. Put a wood pole on the end of a slightly different design of knife, you have an axe.

The knife, the spear, the bow & arrow, and the axe have all had a history of military use. A rather bloody history.

The car: a kind of motorized vehicle. Motorized vehicles have a history since their invention of both civilian and military use.

Face it, guns, knives, and 'cars' all have legitimate civilian uses. The 'civilian' versions are usually of different design than the 'military' versions. Possession by civilians of the 'military' versions is either highly regulated or outright illegal. They are just tools to get the job done.

Sure, farmers in rural Texas have no doubt legitimate uses for guns. Problem is, not everyone lives in rural Texas. In fact, that majority of humanity does no longer live in an area where they run the legitimate risk of being attacked by feral dogs or snakes or other wild beasts. That is one thing. The second thing is that the type of guns available to the American public have absolutely nothing to do with defending yourself from feral dogs. You can do that perfectly fine with a hunting rifle or shot gun. You don't need machine pistols, or converted military rifles for that.

Cars and knives on the other hand are tools that are pretty much requirements no matter where you live. Everyone has a kitchen and needs knives to cook. And everyone who lives a certain distance away from work probably needs some method of transport, and in a lot of cases a car is the best kind of method. Trust me, the moment cars become obsolete I'm all for banning or restricting their use.

In any case, this shows your comparison between legitimate uses for knives/cars and guns is flawed. Guns are only useful for a comparatively small group of people who actually have a legitimate use for it. For everyone else its just an accident waiting to happen.

Perhaps, especially in light of the opposition to the concept of 'personal responsibility', the focus of blame is misplaced. Rather than punish the person that commits an unjustified act of violence upon another, you just 'blame the tool'. In reality, the person has the responsibility. The tool is blameless. A psychopath is a danger to us all, no matter what tools they have access to.

An unjustified act of physical violence by one person on another is wrong. It is just as wrong if there is one victim, or thousands (or millions).

Yes, but the simple fact is that if you look at the statistics, the amount of gun related deaths in the United States is simply insane. Clearly a lot of people cannot be trusted with guns, and their ready availability has made it incredibly easy for criminals to get access to guns. Gun violence is a problem and it is caused in part by such lax gun control laws.

[quote]And another thing... the kitchen knives around here are MINE, not my wife's...

Was this before or after the Bobbitt incident? My legs are crossed as I type just thinking about it. BTW why do foreigners care if we Americans want to ski and shoot? We keep all civilian shooting in house so they have no dog in the fight.

World get ready; you are going to have something to talk about over the water cooler. A Nevada state senator is worried about the possibility of violence as the standoff between rancher Cliven Bundy’s family and heavily armed federal agents continued.So far Cliven has held off federal forces longer than some armies.

---

Let them do a different sport. There are still thousands of other sports to choose from that don't require guns.

So all of these women who dedicated their lives to be the best in the world should just switch to beach volleyball? I like watching that, good idea.

---

I don't know. But (even though I do not agree with it) I HAVE heard such arguments made elsewhere, and I can understand the reasoning behind it. I don't agree with it, but I understand where it is coming from.

From misogyny. I don't understand where misogyny comes from. I guess you have more of an inside track to that information than I do.

Either it IS their opinion OR they posted it specifically to get a rise out of you (one of the more outspoken feminists around here)... in which case you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

If I'd fallen for it I would have tried to reason with him.

First you threatened to have them censored,

You wave that around as if it means something. It was blatantly against the board rules. If someone posted an expletive or threat would you cry censorship? If so, I suggest you start a campaign to stop Sattler being banned every couple of weeks.

now you are effectively calling them stupid.

Nope, I'm calling B. S.

Why, because they do not agree with you? Nobody else around here agrees with me on EVERYTHING. I don't get all in a snit when someone says something I don't like. I DO say "You are wrong, in my opinion, and here is why...". Please try and show a bit more tolerance of opposing viewpoints, ok?

Seriously? You are going to lecture me about tolerance? Ask the mods how many times I hit the red X and then come back and tell me how intolerant I am. Get your facts straight before you start pointing the finger. But even my massive amount of tolerance has limits. It wasn't an opposing view point. It was a deliberate insult.

And another thing... the kitchen knives around here are MINE, not my wife's... I am a better cook than she is, and therefore do most of the cooking. So, of course, I selected a nice, high-quality set of knives to help make my task easier.

Exactly. My husband is a better cook than I am. All the high quality knives are his, which just shows you that his comment was meant to be insulting.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I don't understand where misogyny comes from.

Who hates women? Buzz word and insulting but I expect it. BTW I love women.

Some men know how to play the game and do it well. I was watching Judge Judy the other day. A women and her baby daddy were being sued for back rent. The women was working two jobs, Judge Judy asked baby daddy what he did. He said he was a stay at home dad. I was ROTFLMAO as Judge Judy wanted to say something but almost exploded keeping it in.

Equal should be truly equal, right. Women should also have to register for the draft or face the full penalty of the law but I won't hold my breath waiting for Congressional Caucus for Women to be truly concerned about equality. Why bring up the draft, it means nothing. To me it meant having to give up my job, car and any hope of having a normal life again. How are the draft dodgers doing up there? Like stay at home baby daddy I assume.

Male babies are more likely to die at birth and men live 15 years less then women. Women outnumber men in college 57.5% to 42.5%, yet it's the misogynistic keeping 51.3% of the population (women) down. The oppressed majority.

Sorry OP but they really don't want to hear the facts about the "progressive" standards they want enforced.

---

Sure, farmers in rural Texas have no doubt legitimate uses for guns. Problem is, not everyone lives in rural Texas. In fact, that majority of humanity does no longer live in an area where they run the legitimate risk of being attacked by feral dogs or snakes or other wild beasts. That is one thing. The second thing is that the type of guns available to the American public have absolutely nothing to do with defending yourself from feral dogs. You can do that perfectly fine with a hunting rifle or shot gun. You don't need machine pistols, or converted military rifles for that.

Yes, but if they are legal for farmers, they must be legal for everyone not otherwise disallowed from firearm ownership (for instance, unpardoned convicted felons). "Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and all".

"Majority of humanity does no longer live in...". You absolutely sure about that?

As to "types of guns"... I agree that you do not need military weaponry to defend yourself. A simple rifle, handgun, or shotgun will do nicely. But possession of fully automatic (one pull of the trigger = fire until ammo is gone), military-class firearms already IS against the law for the GREAT majority of civilians. Federal Firearms licenses are not exactly easy to get, and even then possession and use of fully automatic military-class firearms is rather regulated.

What types of firearms ARE legally available to the 'Average American'?

A bolt-action or semi-automatic (1 shot per squeeze of the trigger) rifle.
A shotgun with over a minimum barrel length with a shot capacity of 5 or less.
A revolver or semi-automatic handgun (pistol) with over a minimum barrel length.

There are a few other qualifications (such as they must be detectable by a metal-detector or similar instrument, and magazine size). Now then, some may LOOK like a military weapon... big deal... still just one shot per trigger pull. If someone is caught with an illegal military weapon, they are in serious trouble, with jail time a distinct possibility. Even if the weapon is a modified civilian version that now fires fully-automatic, it is still an illegal weapon. Can you say jail if you are caught with one?

Now then, certain criminals have fully automatic weapons. But they almost certainly did not steal them from civilians. They get them from other criminals that smuggle them into the country. No amount of gun control in the USA will stop that. Our borders are just too danged big. Most criminals don't even bother trying to go to a gun store to buy their guns, even if the guns are totally legal. They WILL get caught.

Now, all of us, unless perhaps we ARE criminals, wish to curtail crime, especially violent crime. But the answer to this is not gun control, it is reform of the criminal justice system. All gun control does is punish the law abiding citizen. I repeat, criminals do NOT get their guns legally.

Yes, but the simple fact is that if you look at the statistics, the amount of gun related deaths in the United States is simply insane. Clearly a lot of people cannot be trusted with guns, and their ready availability has made it incredibly easy for criminals to get access to guns. Gun violence is a problem and it is caused in part by such lax gun control laws.

Well, statistics... As a great American philosopher once said:

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. -- Samuel Clemens (A.K.A Mark Twain)

But, since you brought it up...

If you claim that the number of deaths due to guns in this country is insane, then the number of deaths due to automobiles in this country is even MORE insane.

The number of people that die due to automobiles is about triple the number of people that are murdered with a firearm. And a VERY significant number of people are murdered in ways not involving a firearm.

All homicides

Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

(the date on the data on both sets of statistics is 2010)

The US Murder rate is 5.3 / 100000 people. That is well below the World rate of 6.9, and the 'Americas' rate of 15.4. While the Europe rate is 3.2 per 100000 people is lower, it is not all that much lower compared to some of the REALLY dangerous places. Even Russia has a higher murder rate of 9.7.

We are FAR from the worst villains on the planet.

Look at traffic deaths. 33,687 per year. In comparison, the US Military deaths in the entire Vietnam war was 58,220.
http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html
In less than 2 years, more people die due to automobiles than in the US Military in the Vietnam War...

I agree that the homicide rate in the USA is high. Too high. But to totally ignore the Apocalypse happening on our roads and streets? I'll swear, some people have their priorities all out of whack.


Punish the guilty perpetrators of gun violence! Yes!

Leave ALONE the law-abiding citizens.

Women should also have to register for the draft or face the full penalty of the law

Sorry I didn't realise the USA still had conscription, and how you managed to turn a simple thread about the use of guns into a thread about women having to sigh up for conscription your country doesn't have I have no idea.

The original premis of this thread was comparing cars and knives to guns.

You asked me to state a yes or no, when I do you just play the childish games and say "oh well what about the farmers", er what about them, if you want to ask an adult question ask, "Who do you think should allowed guns?" or perhaps "Do you think there is ever a reason to have licenced firearms?. And allow me to answer, but you don't want a discussion you just want this childish "My arguments better than yours" Without ever hearing my arguments.

Pathetic. no one hear really want to listen, no one here is prepared to think, obviously to you having guns freely available is natural, I agree it is completely logical for the USA and I believe in freedom. Just remember the overriding reason you all wish to hang onto your guns is to bring down a corrupt government, I wish you luck there, it will of course be a blood bath and from what I see it will be soon.

---

Sigh....

Batter up, could you PLEASE stop baiting Es99 in my thread? OK.

You and Es99 going back and forth is distracting from the topic I wished to discuss.

Please be nice.

Es99, you don't have to respond to what you perceive as insults, ya know. Please be nice as well.

You asked me to state a yes or no, when I do you just play the childish games and say "oh well what about the farmers", er what about them,

That wasn't I who brought up farmers it was the OP.

My entire response.

So you would ban 26 Olympic sports and force hundreds of NCAA schools to drop sports along with the scholarships?

Thank you for clarifying your postilion.

---

Some men know how to play the game and do it well. I was watching Judge Judy the other day. A women and her baby daddy were being sued for back rent. The women was working two jobs, Judge Judy asked baby daddy what he did. He said he was a stay at home dad. I was ROTFLMAO as Judge Judy wanted to say something but almost exploded keeping it in.

I doubt Judge Judy (a show I do not watch by the way, but have seen a few times) had a problem with the fact that the roles were reversed in the relationship. I'm fairly certain that her view was that if you're behind on rent and the woman is working two jobs, perhaps the man should get a job to help out, because that is what you do when you're behind; you don't have the luxury to sit around at home if you're behind on bills.

[Edited to add: oops, I hit the quote button on Batter Up's post before I finished reading the thread because I saw something I wanted to respond to and didn't see the request to leave this topic alone.]

If weapon is accessible - it will fire eventually.
No weapon - no fire, no death. Quite simple.
It's much harder to kill with knife than to kill with gun.
No matter how regulations good or bad - if there is gun it can fire. No gun - no fire.
It's so simple that doesn't worth big thread ;)

Consider case when parent has weapon (got all needed licanses), but just forgot to lock it... then we have schoolboy killing others and teachers...
And again, if there will be no gun in home - no deaths would be.

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

As to "types of guns"... I agree that you do not need military weaponry to defend yourself. A simple rifle, handgun, or shotgun will do nicely. But possession of fully automatic (one pull of the trigger = fire until ammo is gone), military-class firearms already IS against the law for the GREAT majority of civilians. Federal Firearms licenses are not exactly easy to get, and even then possession and use of fully automatic military-class firearms is rather regulated.

Oh please, the AR-15 is a converted military rifle. All they did was remove the select fire option, so now it only shoots semi-automatic.

What types of firearms ARE legally available to the 'Average American'?

A bolt-action or semi-automatic (1 shot per squeeze of the trigger) rifle.
A shotgun with over a minimum barrel length with a shot capacity of 5 or less.
A revolver or semi-automatic handgun (pistol) with over a minimum barrel length.

There are a few other qualifications (such as they must be detectable by a metal-detector or similar instrument, and magazine size). Now then, some may LOOK like a military weapon... big deal... still just one shot per trigger pull. If someone is caught with an illegal military weapon, they are in serious trouble, with jail time a distinct possibility. Even if the weapon is a modified civilian version that now fires fully-automatic, it is still an illegal weapon. Can you say jail if you are caught with one?

Those are some pretty wide categories. The first basically allows every assault rifle as long as its semi-automatic. Would you say that an AK-47 suddenly is any less deadly and dangerous if it only has a semi-automatic fire option (I'd say that with increased stability and accuracy it only gets deadlier for anyone who actively tries to hit its target)? Yet that is perfectly legal. These definitions also allow things like sniper rifles (again, military hardware, and in this case they often don't need conversion as most sniper rifles are already semi-automatic or bolt-action). I'm not sure, but are there restrictions on caliber? If not, it would be legal to carry around one of those .50 snipers, things that were designed to take out armored cars and targets from a 1 kilometer away. Why do civilians need that kind of firepower?

With shotguns, why do you even need a shot capacity of 5? 1 or 2 should be sufficient if you only need it to defend against wild beasts.

And pistols, seriously, again without restrictions on caliber its again possible for civilians to carry hand cannons around. Those things are again way to much firepower (they aren't even practical).

Now then, certain criminals have fully automatic weapons. But they almost certainly did not steal them from civilians. They get them from other criminals that smuggle them into the country. No amount of gun control in the USA will stop that. Our borders are just too danged big. Most criminals don't even bother trying to go to a gun store to buy their guns, even if the guns are totally legal. They WILL get caught.

Now, all of us, unless perhaps we ARE criminals, wish to curtail crime, especially violent crime. But the answer to this is not gun control, it is reform of the criminal justice system. All gun control does is punish the law abiding citizen. I repeat, criminals do NOT get their guns legally.

But what you forget is the reason that criminals can get guns so easily is because there are so many legal firearms available. Even without going to the process of getting a gun legally, their presence drives market prices down, making guns very affordable, and relatively easy to get illegally, and thats without guns getting smuggled in from Mexico or Canada. Once it becomes harder to sell guns legally, you essentially decrease supply, which drives up market prices, and probably makes it harder for the small time criminals to get their hands on guns as the black market shrinks. And before long, it simply becomes to expensive and to difficult for the average liquor store robber to bother with getting a gun as its no longer profitable.

Why do you think that there is so few gun violence in Europe? If criminals don't care about the law they should all be trying to get guns in Europe as well. The simple fact is that because access to guns is severely restricted in Europe, getting a gun illegally is very expensive and requires connections to gun smugglers, connections which most criminals don't have.

But, since you brought it up...

If you claim that the number of deaths due to guns in this country is insane, then the number of deaths due to automobiles in this country is even MORE insane.

The number of people that die due to automobiles is about triple the number of people that are murdered with a firearm. And a VERY significant number of people are murdered in ways not involving a firearm.

All homicides

Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Eh, still over 2/3 of all the homicides are gun related.

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

(the date on the data on both sets of statistics is 2010)

The US Murder rate is 5.3 / 100000 people. That is well below the World rate of 6.9, and the 'Americas' rate of 15.4. While the Europe rate is 3.2 per 100000 people is lower, it is not all that much lower compared to some of the REALLY dangerous places. Even Russia has a higher murder rate of 9.7.

We are FAR from the worst villains on the planet.

That statistic is not entirely accurate. You forget that because of the large presence of guns in homes, there is also a significant amount of people that die thanks to accidents involving those guns.

Of course, you are not the worst in the world. But that is kind of a silly argument. Just because other countries are worse or much worse is not a reason to say that what you have is therefor great. Its only acceptable in comparison, but the fact that it is still a lot higher than the rest of the Western world should be cause for concern.

Look at traffic deaths. 33,687 per year. In comparison, the US Military deaths in the entire Vietnam war was 58,220.
http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html
In less than 2 years, more people die due to automobiles than in the US Military in the Vietnam War...

I agree that the homicide rate in the USA is high. Too high. But to totally ignore the Apocalypse happening on our roads and streets? I'll swear, some people have their priorities all out of whack.

You are creating a false dichotomy, by trying to insinuate only one of those problems can be tackled at the same time. Nonsense, you can go after both problems (and should) at the same time. Nothing is stopping that.

Consider case when parent has weapon (got all needed licanses), but just forgot to lock it... then we have schoolboy killing others and teachers...

I was going to suggest that all edged knives over two inches be keept in a locked cabinet.

A Russians wanting the US to disarm, sounds good to me; should we send them to the brave civilians occupying government offices in Ukraine? Though they seem well armed with automatic weapons too. That is where you should preach gun confiscation. Do we have to give up our pressure cookers too?

---

Women should also have to register for the draft or face the full penalty of the law

Sorry I didn't realise the USA still had conscription, and how you managed to turn a simple thread about the use of guns into a thread about women having to sigh up for conscription your country doesn't have I have no idea.

The original premis of this thread was comparing cars and knives to guns.

You asked me to state a yes or no, when I do you just play the childish games and say "oh well what about the farmers", er what about them, if you want to ask an adult question ask, "Who do you think should allowed guns?" or perhaps "Do you think there is ever a reason to have licenced firearms?. And allow me to answer, but you don't want a discussion you just want this childish "My arguments better than yours" Without ever hearing my arguments.

Pathetic. no one hear really want to listen, no one here is prepared to think, obviously to you having guns freely available is natural, I agree it is completely logical for the USA and I believe in freedom. Just remember the overriding reason you all wish to hang onto your guns is to bring down a corrupt government, I wish you luck there, it will of course be a blood bath and from what I see it will be soon.

Bernie Vine,

The USA no longer conscripts (drafts) people into the military. However it is still a legal requirement for 18 year old men to register for the draft (look up the Selective Service Commission).


I do agree with that other person's statement that you quoted. Under full gender equality, 18 year-old women should have to register too. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

That said, I think that most would agree that the 'Selective Service' registration crap needs to be done away with. The Government, should it find it necessary to restart the draft has all that information already available through other government records. But, I don't really see the draft coming back unless there is a major declared war involving the USA.

Now to the original premise of the thread. I started it because I noticed a double standard in the treatment (especially around here) of criminal actions causing injury and death depending on what was used to do the injury and killing. Guns = instant outrage. Other things (such as knives and cars) = no big deal... (yes, the car accident into the day care center involved criminal activity... the guy that allegedly caused the accident fled the scene... that is a crime).

Please, feel free to further discuss, if you wish. I may not fully agree with you, but I do 'listen' (more at 'read' in this case) to others arguments.

You raise a good point about 'bring down a corrupt government'. I agree it would be a blood bath. However, I don't see it happening. There are many reasons, imo, to support retaining the right to firearms. Protecting life and property. Sometimes, you got to do it yourself, because the police are too far away. And besides, I am sure that the county sheriff's department would NOT appreciate it if you called them every time you saw a snake on a rural farm. Much better to handle your own business in that case, imo.

Sigh....

Batter up, could you PLEASE stop baiting Es99 in my thread? OK.

You and Es99 going back and forth is distracting from the topic I wished to discuss.

Actually, since I gave my warning its you I've been talking to. So that isn't what is happening.

Please be nice.

Es99, you don't have to respond to what you perceive as insults, ya know. Please be nice as well.

I've already stated that I won't be responding to his insults, I will be using the red X. It was you that took issue with that.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh please, the AR-15 is a converted military rifle. All they did was remove the select fire option, so now it only shoots semi-automatic.

So? The AR-15 is a civilian weapon. Like the M-16, it fires a 5.56mm (.223) round. What do you object to? The way it looks?
Not exactly a 'high powered round'.

Those are some pretty wide categories. The first basically allows every assault rifle as long as its semi-automatic. Would you say that an AK-47 suddenly is any less deadly and dangerous if it only has a semi-automatic fire option (I'd say that with increased stability and accuracy it only gets deadlier for anyone who actively tries to hit its target)? Yet that is perfectly legal.

The AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm (30 caliber) round. Hunting rifles are stronger. .308 Winchester round is popular with hunting, yet it has a 7.62x51mm round (again 30 caliber). Weaker than a highly popular hunting rifle.

These definitions also allow things like sniper rifles (again, military hardware, and in this case they often don't need conversion as most sniper rifles are already semi-automatic or bolt-action). I'm not sure, but are there restrictions on caliber? If not, it would be legal to carry around one of those .50 snipers, things that were designed to take out armored cars and targets from a 1 kilometer away. Why do civilians need that kind of firepower?

AFAIK a 50 caliber HANDGUN is legal. I wouldn't use one. Too much of a 'wrist-breaker'. Heck, a 44-magnum is a wrist-breaker.

Sniper rifles used to be exclusively bolt-action, but I have heard of an M1-Garand being used as a sniper rifle. It is a WWII-era US Infantry weapon that is gas-operated semi-automatic, 8-shot 'clip'. Btw, it is a 30-06 caliber round (7.62x63mm, a bit longer than the .308... same bullets though.)..
Guess what, the 30-06 is also POPULAR in hunting rifles. And, last I checked, the M1 is perfectly legal for civilians to own.

Your use of the term 'assault rifle' might not be correct. The primary difference between the military weapons and the civilian rifles is the appearance and the distinction of (on non-bolt-action rifles) semi vs. full automatic. The term 'assault rifle' in its modern usage means a *civilian* weapon that looks like a military one, usually because it is a *civilian* version of a military rifle.

*CIVILIAN* weapons calibers range up to .950 for rifles (thats almost an inch) and up to .660 for handguns (2/3rds of an inch).

Heh... elephant guns. I wouldn't use them.

My favorite weapons calibers... (rifles: .22LR, .243, .308, 30-06... handguns: .22LR, .38 special... shotguns: 12 Gauge).

Shotguns: Sorry, I was wrong. It isn't 5, its 3 when hunting waterfowl (2 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber). The shotguns will hold 4+1, but must be plugged down to 2+1 when used to duck hunt. Most just leave the plug in, so when hunting season rolls around, they won't forget to put it back in and get in a HEAP of trouble. But then, my favorite shotgun (my granddad bought it) only holds 2... double barrel.

Oh, I am not a gun nut. I just grew up around them and have a reasonably good memory and some individual preferences. Believe it or not, there are some people that eat, sleep, drink, and POOP guns... To each their own, I suppose.

But what you forget is the reason that criminals can get guns so easily is because there are so many legal firearms available. Even without going to the process of getting a gun legally, their presence drives market prices down, making guns very affordable, and relatively easy to get illegally, and thats without guns getting smuggled in from Mexico or Canada. Once it becomes harder to sell guns legally, you essentially decrease supply, which drives up market prices, and probably makes it harder for the small time criminals to get their hands on guns as the black market shrinks. And before long, it simply becomes to expensive and to difficult for the average liquor store robber to bother with getting a gun as its no longer profitable.

You answered your own question here. Guns are relatively easy to get illegally. Our borders (land and sea) are VERY porous. Look at the 'War on Drugs'. Total fuster-cluck. Made things MUCH worse. Prohibition (the 'War on Booze') didn't work either. Made things MUCH worse. Do I think that a 'War on Guns' would end well? Heck no I don't.

You reduce the availability of guns, the criminals are just going to horde what they have and keep using them.

Why do you think that there is so few gun violence in Europe? If criminals don't care about the law they should all be trying to get guns in Europe as well. The simple fact is that because access to guns is severely restricted in Europe, getting a gun illegally is very expensive and requires connections to gun smugglers, connections which most criminals don't have.

Uhh... That would be 'lack of balls'. ;) Even your criminals have been... neutered, it seems. Its why Putin is giving you all such troubles of late. He still has his.

That statistic is not entirely accurate. You forget that because of the large presence of guns in homes, there is also a significant amount of people that die thanks to accidents involving those guns.

Ok... a moment.

Accidental discharge of firearms .............. (W32–W34) 606

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Table 10, page 40 of 118.

606 deaths due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2010 in the USA... 606 too many, to be sure, but still not quite a raging epidemic.

Oh please, the AR-15 is a converted military rifle. All they did was remove the select fire option, so now it only shoots semi-automatic.

So? The AR-15 is a civilian weapon. Like the M-16, it fires a 5.56mm (.223) round. What do you object to? The way it looks?
Not exactly a 'high powered round'.

Those are some pretty wide categories. The first basically allows every assault rifle as long as its semi-automatic. Would you say that an AK-47 suddenly is any less deadly and dangerous if it only has a semi-automatic fire option (I'd say that with increased stability and accuracy it only gets deadlier for anyone who actively tries to hit its target)? Yet that is perfectly legal.

The AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm (30 caliber) round. Hunting rifles are stronger. .308 Winchester round is popular with hunting, yet it has a 7.62x51mm round (again 30 caliber). Weaker than a highly popular hunting rifle.

These definitions also allow things like sniper rifles (again, military hardware, and in this case they often don't need conversion as most sniper rifles are already semi-automatic or bolt-action). I'm not sure, but are there restrictions on caliber? If not, it would be legal to carry around one of those .50 snipers, things that were designed to take out armored cars and targets from a 1 kilometer away. Why do civilians need that kind of firepower?

AFAIK a 50 caliber HANDGUN is legal. I wouldn't use one. Too much of a 'wrist-breaker'. Heck, a 44-magnum is a wrist-breaker.

Sniper rifles used to be exclusively bolt-action, but I have heard of an M1-Garand being used as a sniper rifle. It is a WWII-era US Infantry weapon that is gas-operated semi-automatic, 8-shot 'clip'. Btw, it is a 30-06 caliber round (7.62x63mm, a bit longer than the .308... same bullets though.)..
Guess what, the 30-06 is also POPULAR in hunting rifles. And, last I checked, the M1 is perfectly legal for civilians to own.

Your use of the term 'assault rifle' might not be correct. The primary difference between the military weapons and the civilian rifles is the appearance and the distinction of (on non-bolt-action rifles) semi vs. full automatic. The term 'assault rifle' in its modern usage means a *civilian* weapon that looks like a military one, usually because it is a *civilian* version of a military rifle.

*CIVILIAN* weapons calibers range up to .950 for rifles (thats almost an inch) and up to .660 for handguns (2/3rds of an inch).

Heh... elephant guns. I wouldn't use them.

My favorite weapons calibers... (rifles: .22LR, .243, .308, 30-06... handguns: .22LR, .38 special... shotguns: 12 Gauge).

Shotguns: Sorry, I was wrong. It isn't 5, its 3 when hunting waterfowl (2 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber). The shotguns will hold 4+1, but must be plugged down to 2+1 when used to duck hunt. Most just leave the plug in, so when hunting season rolls around, they won't forget to put it back in and get in a HEAP of trouble. But then, my favorite shotgun (my granddad bought it) only holds 2... double barrel.

Oh, I am not a gun nut. I just grew up around them and have a reasonably good memory and some individual preferences. Believe it or not, there are some people that eat, sleep, drink, and POOP guns... To each their own, I suppose.

But what you forget is the reason that criminals can get guns so easily is because there are so many legal firearms available. Even without going to the process of getting a gun legally, their presence drives market prices down, making guns very affordable, and relatively easy to get illegally, and thats without guns getting smuggled in from Mexico or Canada. Once it becomes harder to sell guns legally, you essentially decrease supply, which drives up market prices, and probably makes it harder for the small time criminals to get their hands on guns as the black market shrinks. And before long, it simply becomes to expensive and to difficult for the average liquor store robber to bother with getting a gun as its no longer profitable.

You answered your own question here. Guns are relatively easy to get illegally. Our borders (land and sea) are VERY porous. Look at the 'War on Drugs'. Total fuster-cluck. Made things MUCH worse. Prohibition (the 'War on Booze') didn't work either. Made things MUCH worse. Do I think that a 'War on Guns' would end well? Heck no I don't.

You reduce the availability of guns, the criminals are just going to horde what they have and keep using them.

Why do you think that there is so few gun violence in Europe? If criminals don't care about the law they should all be trying to get guns in Europe as well. The simple fact is that because access to guns is severely restricted in Europe, getting a gun illegally is very expensive and requires connections to gun smugglers, connections which most criminals don't have.

Uhh... That would be 'lack of balls'. ;) Even your criminals have been... neutered, it seems. Its why Putin is giving you all such troubles of late. He still has his.

That statistic is not entirely accurate. You forget that because of the large presence of guns in homes, there is also a significant amount of people that die thanks to accidents involving those guns.

Ok... a moment.

Accidental discharge of firearms .............. (W32–W34) 606

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Table 10, page 40 of 118.

606 deaths due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2010 in the USA... 606 too many, to be sure, but still not quite a raging epidemic.

So are you saying that most gun deaths or shootings are caused by criminals?

---

Reality Internet Personality

So are you saying that most gun deaths or shootings are caused by criminals?

The statistics I am quoting on deaths, yes... information on non-fatal shootings is a bit more difficult to dig up. I am in process of researching it.

Most gun deaths in the USA are either homicide, making the shooter a criminal, or they are police against a criminal.... or they are accidental.

Remember if a police officer shoots someone dead when it isn't justified, that makes the police officer a criminal...

So, 11078 firearm homicides vs 606 accidental firearm related deaths... Yes, it looks like criminals are WAY out front in that horse-race.

Even *IF* the shooter was NOT a criminal before committing murder by firearm, they certainly are afterwards...

So your question doesn't really make sense.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.