Gun Control

[TrainingDummy]

I've met pro-gun communists, poll is flawed.

[fatfencer]

He posts that according to Christian Holy Writ that Wives are to be beaten by their Husbands... and cites Ephesians 5:22 saying he KNOWS the verse.

So I post it.

He's not only wrong but doesnt have the balls to admit it.

Again, QED.

Fatfencer

[Lady Quindecim]

1) The former is a prerequisite for the latter.

2) Historically, the former almost always seems to transform into the latter.

3) If you read the statements of the heavy hitters in the gun control movement, they specifically avow that it is their intent to transform the former into the eventual latter.

Ok... where gun control is limited to:
Hitting what you are aiming for.
Keeping them out of my hands.
....

There is a city in Georgia with a rather bold gun control law:
"Home owners mus have a gun" - and crime dropped way down after it was passed.
This an example contrary to your #1, but I see your point.

[fatfencer]

To be truly protected.


IMHO:

1) 30-06. If you have this gun you can hunt anything worth eating.... deer elk, buffalo, neighbor's cow.

2) Shotgun that has re barreled with a shorter barrel for home defense.

3) 40 cal handgun for stopping power

Personally I think they should offer tax credits to those Minutemen factions who patrol our borders. No I don't mean Border Patrol. Those guys are so handicapped by BS regs.

We're the only country that has difficulty in shooting an illegal crossing the border.

4) If there was a 4th gun it would be a 50cal or the 20mm. Whisper in the ear from that baby.....

Fatfencer

[Lady Quindecim]

I subscribe to the theory that there are people in the world who probably should not have firearms of any kind. Ever.
That caveat aside, those three seem sensible, generally speaking, I suppose. #4 is a little OTT.

[fatfencer]

I subscribe to the theory that there are people in the world who probably should not have firearms of any kind. Ever.
That caveat aside, those three seem sensible, generally speaking, I suppose. #4 is a little OTT.

Yeah, I too believe that white people shouldnt have guns. They've done so much more damage with them over the last 50 years and wars and stuff. I think only certain rational Asians like myself should have them.


I'm not so sure about the blacks either... but Bll Cosby and Alvin Poussaint can have one. Eddie???? Yeah I spose.

The kind of people that DON'T want them should have them.
I'd give one to Carlos Mencia too but he'd just sell it to an illegal.

Ok Ok... so I'm kidding. But really. The people who don't want guns because they fear them should be trained and encouraged to own one. Even if they ever get over the fear of them, they will always respect its use.


FF

[telkanuru]

1) The former is a prerequisite for the latter.

2) Historically, the former almost always seems to transform into the latter.

3) If you read the statements of the heavy hitters in the gun control movement, they specifically avow that it is their intent to transform the former into the eventual latter.

Exactly how many times have you thrown "slippery slope is a fallacy not an argument" at people? Hypocrisy is a thing up with which I will not put.

Can someone list for me please all the countries in which firearms are actually entirely banned (as opposed to heavy regulation)?

[Bayou Bum]

Yeah, I too believe that white people shouldnt have guns. They've done so much more damage with them over the last 50 years and wars and stuff.

LOL. You are so right. The white people bombed Pearl Harbor. But I guess that wasn't with a gun so it doesn't count. We'll also overlook those little conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

[Bayou Bum]

Exactly how many times have you thrown "slippery slope is a fallacy not an argument" at people? Hypocrisy is a thing up with which I will not put.

Can someone list for me please all the countries in which firearms are actually entirely banned (as opposed to heavy regulation)?

The only country I am aware of is East Timor. Although the UK is extremely close.

I like Switzerland where everyone is required to own an assault rifle.

I have heard that all mass public killings have occurred at places that guns are not allowed. I know that if I were hiding under a table in a restaurant while someone was shooting everyone, I would hope that someone else there would have a gun to stop them.

[fatfencer]

LOL. You are so right. The white people bombed Pearl Harbor. But I guess that wasn't with a gun so it doesn't count. We'll also overlook those little conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

Hey I was totally kidding.. but just to play devils advocate..... See my PPS after you read this thru....


Hmm... is that all? Ignoring the white contingent is a dangerous thing when talking about Pearl Harbor. In fact its strawman fallacious. Sure the Japanese bombed PearlHarbor, but I was making reference to Stalin killing 26 million along with Hitler and 6 million Jews.

What about Britain forcing themselves on every continent such that the Sun Never Set? How unnatural.

Who has the largest repository of Nukes? Whiteys. US and Russia.... Who has the largest standing armies? Whiteys.

Who populates the largest hate groups in the US? Whiteys.

Lets look at world war one. No Asians there that time. Hmm that war was all whiteys in charge.

Who enslaved the black man, destroyed Amerindian culture, ran the Japanese Concentration Camps "internment", forced the Indians on to the "res"?? You guessed it. White folks.

Dropped the world's only Nuclear occurence.. twice?

How many minorities worked on or were in high ranking positions during the development of the Nuclear Bomb? None, essentially none.

Two World Wars, several hundred years of Colonialism, Vikings, Goths, Romans, etc.

All whitey. All cracker.

Seems like if God magically erased the white folks the world would be a better place. But hey... hindsight's 20/20.

If we added Japan that would pretty much erase Asian culpability in Modern War. I don't include Vietnam since we invaded them and we lost.

Don't even get me started on Apartheid....

FF
PS: If you mention Korea, there were white folks who killed lots of people there too. Although we benefited it can be successfully argued that it wasnt done for our benefit. It was done to benefit the white man's capitalistic pocketbook. Our benefit was merely a happy serendipitous happenstance.... one for which I will be eternally grateful however. So the white man did something right for once.... one right doesnt erase a multitude of sins.

PPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl-N__xMwds

[Lady Quindecim]

I know that if I were hiding under a table in a restaurant while someone was shooting everyone, I would hope that someone else there would have a gun to stop them.

I would be wondering if I left dirty dishes in the sink. That would be so embarrassing.

For the record, I know my way around a rifle and am a rather good shot. It is largely because of my proficiency that I became terrified of them.

[Hauptman]

The only country I am aware of is East Timor. Although the UK is extremely close.

I like Switzerland where everyone is required to own an assault rifle.

I have heard that all mass public killings have occurred at places that guns are not allowed. I know that if I were hiding under a table in a restaurant while someone was shooting everyone, I would hope that someone else there would have a gun to stop them.

While I would guess that mass public killings do occur where there are less guns in public, the statistics I've seen all show that the overall gun death rate per capita is higher in areas with fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The states with the highest rate of death by shooting tend to be Republican and have fewer restrictions to guns. This makes sense when you realize that more accidents, suicides, and domestic violence using guns will occur where guns are more common.

I'm not taking sides on the gun ownership issue, but if you make the argument that these mass public shootings would diminish with fewer gun laws then you might want to look at the offset number of shooting deaths that result from having more guns in circulation.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The states with the highest rate of death by shooting tend to be Republican and have fewer restrictions to guns. This makes sense when you realize that more accidents, suicides, and domestic violence using guns will occur where guns are more common.{snip}

I'm not sure this is really the case. AIUI, the highest rates of death by shooting correlate more with highly urbanized area--whether Democratic or Republican controlled, and with little to no (or even inverse) correlation to the severity of the urban area's restrictions on guns.

--Philistine

[keith]

The only country I am aware of is East Timor. Although the UK is extremely close.

For the UK gun ownership is only tricky if you want to own one but don't want to shoot furry or feathery things with it.

Or more exactly, the types of gun you can own are tightly regulated.

[Hauptman]

I'm not sure this is really the case. AIUI, the highest rates of death by shooting correlate more with highly urbanized area--whether Democratic or Republican controlled, and with little to no (or even inverse) correlation to the severity of the urban area's restrictions on guns.

--Philistine

I would have thought the same thing, but Google "gun death rates by state".

Some list the District of Columbia, but others don't. DC would fit with your urbanized area theory, but next is usually Alaska.

Some broke the data down showing a correlation between Republican/Democrat voting percentage in the state versus gun deaths. Interesting stuff.

[TrainingDummy]

I like Switzerland where everyone is required to own an assault rifle.

Only former militiamen (basically all Swiss men over 18) are required to own guns.

[I_luv_saber]

For the record, I know my way around a rifle and am a rather good shot. It is largely because of my proficiency that I became terrified of them.

Which is why I think the problem has to do less with regulation and more with education. If people knew about and gained that respect for guns, there would be far fewer problems. I don't know the best way of going about doing it, but some sort of public gun education would be useful, I think. Or of there is one, then more widespread.

Justa thought.

[Lady Quindecim]

Well, maybe a license that requires a class to get would help law-biding, honest people legally acquire firearms for their protection is a good thing. It cannot be the only thing, but *IF* my complaint were: "I need a gun to protect myself from the criminals who get them illegally," then such a license should be nothing for me to complain about.

*IF* my complaint is that "the MAN is trying to keep me down by making me get a license when I can just go steal one," then such a license would, again, be nothing for me to complain about.

*IF* my complaint were, "No one should have guns, anywhere, any time," then once more, the license is the least of my worries.

*IF* my complaint were, "First a license, what's next? Total Ban like they did with alcohol?" then I would be paranoid and a license ought to be fairly low down on my list of worries.

[I_luv_saber]

Well, I think as far as the last complaint goes, it's more of a worry that if that is done the government could, possibly, institute overly strict gun control by having impossibly difficult qualifications and that they can then keep track of who has guns and who doesn't (presumably argued as a bad thing).

Personally, I don't know how I fall on that issue, it is a fine line... but I do know a lot of people who are firmly against it and that is their reasoning.

[Lady Quindecim]

Oh, what's the difference... humans have no trouble beating, abusing, killing each other with whatever is handy. At least guns would make it quicker.

nevermind me.........