how so?
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
how so?
I'm afraid you're wrong.
What is a difference between killing a person with a knife or a gun?
These IS terrorist- they kill with knifes. Is that any better/ different than killing with a gun? Kitchen sink? stone?
The intent and the result matter, not the tool. If you don't understand that, well that's bit sad.
to protect life, health, property.
How's that not practical?
how is that fair that politicians are protected by armed body guards and yet you cannot? Isn't that an A-level hypocrisy from a anti-gun politicians?
Your whole argument is a car crash, so I'm tempted to leave well enough alone but just on the point in bold, do you think ISIS would have killed, more, less or about the same number of people in the region if they really did only use knives?
To make it clear.
I have a gun licence, so does my Dad. He also owns a gun.
I think anybody (given the person is healthy, mentally stable and such) should have a right to own a gun. I'm not really in the mood to convincing anybody that I'm right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't get one. Simple.
I have a gun licence, so does my Dad. He also owns a gun.
I think anybody (given the person is healthy, mentally stable and such) should have a right to own a gun. I'm not really in the mood to convincing anybody that I'm right. If you don't want to have a gun, don't get one. Simple.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
The difference is huge, in pretty much every aspect.
The debate isn't about stopping everyone from ever owning a gun. There are loads of legally held guns in the Uk and Ireland, for example. My dad also owns a gun fwiw.
The debate is about ease of avaialibility and range of guns and ammunition available. Which is where America evidently has got it badly wrong.
I like how there's an entire category dedicated to 'pushed or thrown out window'.
There was an armed guard at Columbine, he even shot at Eric Harris but missed. There has been mass shootings in military areas like Fort Hood and Washington Navy Yard, surely there would have been a 'good guy with a gun' to stop the murderer right?
There's also no evidence that mass shooters target gun free zones, most of them target locations which have some meaning to them like schools or workplaces.
I'm watching Justified, an American TV series set in Eastern Kentucky. It is fascinating how engrained guns are in the heart of the country. There's an entire demographic who you'd literally have to kill to take their guns.
Result for sure. But to get said result is a whole different matter. A gun involves pulling on an inanimate trigger and is over in milliseconds. The others you have to get up front and VERY personal. If you don't understand that, well thats a bit sad.
Now about normal. Care to define that?
These are terrible arguments.
"Guns don't kill people, golfers do"
It turns out that we have a fair amount of blunt objects, strings/wires and knives that we actually have to use in our daily lives. You know for DIY, cooking, sports etc. Or are we going to ban, say, chairs because you can pick one up and kill whoever you want to?
Guns don't have the same everyday uses. You want to fire one at a gun range? Fair enough, store it at the place.
To use that comic to make a point is one of the most silly things I've seen on here in a while.
....
Bad guys bend the rules so we should abolish the rules. The fact that most of the guns in the hands of your simplistic black hatted villains in the states were taken from law abiding owners should point to a potential solution in reducing the risk of bad guys getting guns ...
Sorry Bury, this isn't a fact but rather a fallacy perpetuated by law enforcement. There is no evidence that a majority of illegally held guns were taken from law abiding owners. Straw man purchases and guns smuggled out of manufacturing plants piece by piece and assembled later are the most common sources. Next up are guns lost or stolen from law enforcement and military users (they don't like this getting out hence their propensity to make good citizens look bad rather than taking responsibility for their own incompetence). In fact, only about 10% of illegally held weapons were stolen from law abiding owners.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Maybe I used the wrong terminology Doc but while the article does state that only 10-15% of the guns used to commit crimes were stolen for the purpose of committing those crimes it also goes on to describe how the straw sales, sales through corrupt federally licensed retailers and stolen or gifted from friends and family divert guns that were either headed to the market through legal sources or were in legal public ownership prior to being diverted into criminal hands.
The fact is, if guns weren't so readily available legally they would also be far harder to obtain illegally.
No worries, just clarifying. Straw man purchases are indeed dastardly. A lot of those guns end up smuggled into countries like Canada. The US would do well to make it just a little more difficult to obtain one.
The tactic I adopted was pointing out that his link contained a section that was detrimental to his point. It's typical amongst anyone criticizing a link. care to point out where I made a daft comparison?
Your criticism of the link was related to a terrorist assault carried out by 8 people armed with meat cleavers and knives, hardly a fair comparison to the crazed lone knife attacker kills nobody vs crazed lone gunman point Pogue chose to back up with the article. Your refusal to say "oops, didn't realise that, I was wrong" from the first time I pointed that out is where things got daft.
The context you keep mentioning wasn't in the link therefore my criticism of the link is valid. This is getting tedious though.
I prefer to attach my bayonet to the end of my modified semiautomatic rifle, just in the event I use up all my ammo I can then go on a knifing rage.
Eh, I'd argue there's a sizable portion of the gun loving crowd that go in another direction, more towards an unhealthy obsession.
Which is why my first comment was "Do a bit of research first". It was a fairly big news story, described at the time as China's 911, I remembered it quite clearly and merely used google to check how many attackers there were. If the link had mentioned Harold Shipman killing over 200 people and you'd cited that as proof that going to the doctor can be just as dangerous as guns you'd have been just as wrong for failing to admit that you took things out of context.
Obama has nukes and drones. I demand equality.
Stolen legal guns are the #1 source of illegal guns in Australia.
These are terrible arguments.
Those of a 12 year old gun nut. On that basis tactical nukes should be freely available at Walmart.
Sadly, the arguments from the gun control side so far are way more effective in convincing people to buy more guns in a panic rush.
I had a little a fun with that post. Not usually one to troll but I couldn't help myself.
In all seriousness guns are dangerous things which require care and respect. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens and are taught gun safety at an early age. I have no problem with sensible regulation (proper background checks and the like) but guns are a part of American society, for better or for worse, and owning guns is a constitutional right that I believe should be protected and respected.
And yes, guns are also pretty fun. I certainly enjoy going to a buddy's ranch and shooting some skeet or blowing up some tannerite with an AR on some private property.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...her-6-self-after-food-dispute-sheriff-n330351
I guess this could have been avoided if the 6 yo was armed.
I guess this could have been avoided if the 6 yo was armed.
A Thirteen year old shoots and kills his six year old brother over a childish argument over food and then realises what he's done and kills himself. Same argument different day.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...her-6-self-after-food-dispute-sheriff-n330351
EDIT: Same link as post above.
Are there any positives to gun ownership? It's such a ridiculous law
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...her-6-self-after-food-dispute-sheriff-n330351
EDIT: Same link as post above.
Are there any positives to gun ownership? It's such a ridiculous law
I blame the parents. Even if you choose to have a gun in your house, leaving it loaded and accessible to kids is just such a stupid thing to do.
I presume this is the same incident? A caf member knows the family really well.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/hudson-child-murder-suicide.402934/#post-17298290
If it wasn't so fecked up it'd be funny.
American is scary.
Matt perhaps lacks an more intrinsic understanding of American pawn shops and their operating climate.
Awash with cash and frequented by desperate or unsavory people they can be a target for robbery. As such, the proprietors are usually heavily armed, armored and/or otherwise protected (big scary dogs for instance). The poor attempt at kitschy humour aside, to me there's very little to be shocked, dumbfounded or amazed by in that sign and I'm not even American, although in fairness I did kind of grow up on their fine network television programming.
I wouldn't be shocked or offended by a sign about dogs. Big, scary or otherwise.
I have been having a debate about this with a bunch of Americans on a gaming forum. Their latest response was this:
No wonder they have a massive problem, their politicians are heavily retarded.
His summary goes as follows: Our rights come from god. I'm having a gun because our outdated constitution says so. If I leave my gun the government will crush me and I won't be able to defend myself against threats to me and my family. You can sell your gun to anyone, its not the governments business what you do.
No wonder they have a massive problem, their politicians are heavily retarded.
His summary goes as follows: Our rights come from god. I'm having a gun because our outdated constitution says so. If I leave my gun the government will crush me and I won't be able to defend myself against threats to me and my family. You can sell your gun to anyone, its not the governments business what you do.
Whenever this discussion comes up there is always the argument from gun owners that if somebody comes into their house they want to be able to defend their family from the intruder and therefore need a gun. Something has always struck me as a bit odd about this, maybe its just me but I've never had this fear and yet it seems to be a very common thing for gun owners in the US to say. Is it something to do with the idea that an intruder in the US is almost certain to have a gun themselves? Whenever I imagine a burglary in the UK v the US I do imagine very different things to be honest and I know which situation I feel more comfortable with personally.