Not to mention vehicle operation requires a regularly updated government-issued operator’s license, registration and insurance, whereas firearm ownership, um, er...
Printable View
Not to mention vehicle operation requires a regularly updated government-issued operator’s license, registration and insurance, whereas firearm ownership, um, er...
Don't try to improve your society, better not to want to give an answer then to give up on guns. It's great to have the 'freedom' of choice isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Because if guns are used properly then all they do is perfume the house and plant flowers, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
So is a gun, free and fast transportation between this world and the one of Hades.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
You forgot regular technical inspection and winter tires.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Posted before but very apropó
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/20/6y3ere5u.jpg
They do the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
1) Provide meat for those who hunt.
2) Provide a source of competition and skill for those who target shoot.
3) Provide some defense against those who would invade one's home to steal or assault the occupants.
4) Provide a means of recourse against abusive government. (Rarely used, but necessary for free people remaining free over the long term.)
Re read what I wrote and tell me again exactly how, as stated, it's false. You have added other, not stated, qualifications. Also, how does intended use, as opposed to actual use, have anything to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Yes, it is. Too bad you don't have it. I feel for your loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It's also legal to produce HGV's, Semis, APCs etc. but it doesn't mean that we just let everyone use them does it? There are conditions which accompany the use of heavy vehicles on the road and in some cases even stricter limits on the speeds that they travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
More generally, there are a host of rules about where one can drive, where they can park, how fast you can drive and where. You can't just arbitrarily drive at 130mph past a school at 3pm on a Wednesday. It's dangerous and the law reflects this.
Germany, which by the way has even stricter rules about how to behave on the roads, about the proper maintenance and the design rules which go into the building of a motor car.
Ah, but you can do it anytime you want. You'll be breaking the law of course, but your vehicle will allow you to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
It keeps coming back to some people believing that, just because there is a law, bad things won't happen. Those people are WRONG.
The law most certainly shapes people's behaviour doesn't it? If the speed limit is 60km/h people will generally obey it. If a police car is driving down the street, then almost as if by magic people follow the law more closely. Put up a speed camera and fine people for breaking the law and people almost certainly drive past at under 60km/h.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The enforcement of speed limits varies between NSW and Victoria. Drive in NSW and people tend to cruise along at 115km/h on the motorway (in a 110 zone) but the second you stray into Victoria, people will almost sit at exactly 110 for they reason they they know that the law is harsher.
Of course bad things will invariably happen. Enforce the law and enact tougher legislation and the effect of it is seen in a safer society. Hence the reason why I live in a nation almost 50 times safer on a per capita basis when it comes to the issue of firearms.
Research proves over and over again that more guns trends with more homicide.
Homicide - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health
I pity you for holding a view so depressing — that freedom can only be had by way of possession of guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I believe your concept of gun ownership has injected into US society at best a deeply unpleasant element, and I believe it has, subconsciously perhaps, contributed to many a tragedy. Attempt in your mind to separate them out if you wish, but I feel it's a link that deserves deeper consideration than you or your ilk are prepared to give it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The triteness of these concepts as expressed by you and others like you is apparent in your need pointlessly to capitalise them — quite apart from the fact that you go on about them as though they are America's and America's alone. Given the well-known lack of knowledge of the more insular American about other countries, I would suggest that this view is misguided.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I meant 'you' as in 'America', or 'Americans'.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I simply don't believe it is. You ignored completely the very reasonable point made, namely that a car is not intended as a weapon; a gun is. You might argue that this is unimportant — I would disagree completely. I, for one, would never want to possess anything intended purely as a weapon, for it's completely unnecessary, and would indicate to me that things, whether in my life or the society in which I live, had gone badly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
All of them useless or outdated needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The downside for me is that I will not have to worry about my children's lives being wasted. I can live with it.
I fully support your right to own a gun (not so sure about all the things invented since the founding fathers did their it, maybe you shouldn't have a right to those), I would also fully support 500% tax on guns and 1000% tax on ammo. Feel free to own one, and a couple of bullets if it makes you feel safe, but you could never afford to amass enough of either to go on a spree
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
No 2, I think, can't be criticised. Target shooting is a perfectly legitimate sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Which of us seem more relaxed in ourselves — the Europeans or the Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
You are 30 times more likely to be shot in America than you are in the UK. The downside to this for us Brits is that we can only change our government through voting in elections. Somehow this makes us less free?
Maybe Obama's handling of this will define his presidency more than the killing of Bin Laden or his economic plans. He could go down in history as the president who finally made Americans see sense at the madness of these massacres.
Think about how warped a notion it is — the gun as a symbol of positivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Race, my mind boggles as to how The United States of America is going to even partially get rid of 200+million guns. How can this be processed?Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Then, not to be outdone, we are having random drive-by shootings regularly in Australia. I think it is gang related, possibly drug turf warfare, but us Ozzies are not going to let the US of A get away with all the attention; Our guys shot one dead, it seems.
I should think since it's in the Olympics and most countries field teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It will never happen here. I am not a gun nut or even pro-gun but I know that no one will ever come and take everyones guns. I fail to see how it would be possible and I don't get how people believe it could happen. At best they might get some registered weapons, some. But there are plenty of people with plenty of unregistered weapons. And people will find another way. Case in point, I posted earlier about a school shooting here in town. The shooter tried to buy a firearm and the background checks were taking too long or he didn't pass them so he went and bought a compound bow and arrows and giant knives. His "note" was released today and he was a very very disturbed individual who basically diagnosed himself with Aspbergers syndrome and because he believes CHina is a far more responsible nation than we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
Your condescending tone is not welcome here, and does your arguments no favor. I have never once said that those concepts are American's alone. They are capitalized in the document I am referring to, so if you have an issue with that perhaps you should take it up with Mr. Jefferson. And your insular views of the American is disturbing to me. You drone on and on about how people in the US are not "tolerant" of other's views, and yet you show absolutely zero tolerance of the views of those who happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment is there for a purpose. The Bill of Rights is not some random collection of stuff. They were well thought out and introduced in the order they were for a reason (it's to protect us from the government, since you probably have no idea of said reason).Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And you will come back, yet again, with some clap-trap about how you feel sorry for Americans because we all live in fear, and need to be pandered to. Yet the data proves out that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die in one of these mass shootings. But still you are so fearful and paranoid about this happening to you that you must beg your government (and our's as well I suppose) to pander to your fears and outlaw guns. I feel sorry for you that you feel so powerless to do anything on your own. I feel sorry for you that you must grovel at the feet of your leaders to protect you, feed you, take care of you. Most citizens of the United States feel much differently. We feel that government is a hindrance to us, that they do nothing to lift us up, only drag us down. But in all your "tolerant" views, you will simply miss that point totally.
Short of the tag and title(handguns and guns like an AR15 are registered) liability insurance and the annual renewals of a licence my state requires all of that for handgun and restricted gun purchases already.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
And to address BDunnell's assertion that we live in fear, quite the contrary. I am quite comfortable in my ability to defend myself. I am not fearful, but I am prepared. I don't live in fear, but I am quite in touch with the realities of living and working where I do. I work in a violent city. Removing firearms from my possession does nothing to make any situation safer for me. REGULATING, recording, monitoring, etc. sales, I'm fine as I have said before. I am a licensed firearms owner, I am a registered owner and I am a federally licensed collector. I have no problem being registered or having the government knowing how many firearms I own. They'll know they will have a fight the day they ever come to even attemt to take them. Outright BANNING, and restricting sales, ownership and possession and the ilk, I am not.
Is it illegal to have large thermo-nuclear devices in schools ?
I asked about why guns are generally banned in most schools in the US , but I didn't really get many straight answers .
You could probably whack a good bunch of people with a school chair , if you really tried .
And , pencils are sharp .
You can strangle anyone with thier own shirt .
It seems like there's a point at which an item becomes "overkill" , when we are trying to reach a safe place .
Perhaps it's just the efficiency of the item in it's ability to take lives .
When someone has reached the point at which they want to make this sort of statement , it seems they will opt for the numbers .
This guy could have taken even more lives with a full auto , and reports are showing he was trying to purchase guns only a few days earlier .
It is only because he was denied by regulations that he was forced to opt for his mother's weapons .
Without those regulations , he easily could have plugged far more wee children .
With a decent thermonuclear device , he could have taken out the whole town .
What is it with you Americns and breaking gun Laws? We get one member that boasts he wanders around Europe with an illegal concealed firearm and now you.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
I believe where you live, it is a Class D Felony for anyone under the age of 21 to own a Firearm. Class D is a serious Felony carrying a imprisonment term of between 5 and 10 years and up to $250k fine, yet you boast here that you have had owned a firearm since you were 10.
Do you think it sensible for all 10 year old children to have posession of fireams or just the 'good' criminals like you?
Utterly amazing :(
Thank you for the math lesson. The point was, the registered owner is required to keep individual guns locked, with a stricter standard of storing locked guns in locked storage for homes with children under 18. The son was not the registered owner and SHOULD NOT have had access to the locked weapons. The keys to my weapons are in my pocket with me at all times and kept in my finger print controlled gunsafe at night where only I can access them. I am a responsible gun owner. She clearly was not unfortunately for the 28, she clearly was not considering she had a 20 year old son with known neurological and emotional problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And tax me 60+% of my personal earnings to pay for those too damed lazy to work for it... Naaah, you can keep that system. Government regulation and the socialized program we already have is 90% of the problem. an I know this first hand. I work in it and strive every day to eliminate the problems we do have where I am able.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Our country's freedom from a tyrannical government was earned through private possession of firearms ... a fact that was not lost by the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights of our country. One that was so important to our founders that is spelled out and guaranteed not to be infringed in the document that rules our country. That right is second only to the right to free expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Not a one of these shootings was carried out with an automatic weapon. In essence they already are banned or tightly regulated. I agree it is unreasonable to have unrestricted access to what I call high capacity magazines, but that definition varies. The aurora shooter had a drum magazine that failed after 30 rounds, which is very common. 10 rounds or 30 rounds, it really is a difference in a second or two. Banning semi-automatic handguns, shotguns, rifles ..Good luck with that. Even the 1994 assault weapons ban wasn't really a ban, it was a restriction that in essence created guns like the civilian bushmaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
You might want to check local US laws. Remember, These things are NOT regulated at the Federal level in this country. Many states do have required permits that do require renewal. I'm not aware of any carry permits that do not require renewal. You don't need a permit to OWN a car. You do need a permit to operate it on the road. That's not totally different than in the US. you are not allowed to carry in many juristictions without a permit. in most states, you can not hunt anywhere outside of your own property without a hunting permit, whether it be firearms, archery or bare handed. Hunters are prohibited from hunting with anything other than black powder, shotguns or archery in my county.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
There is a gross misconception that firearms purchase and ownership is totally unregulated in this country. That is far from reality, but that is not the place of the federal government. That's precisely the type of regulation our constitution is supposed to prevent. Firearms regulations are a state issue and are regulated as local attitudes deem fit, provided they do not contravene the second amendment. States CAN and DO regulate, and occasionally those regulations are deemed unconstitutional when deemed overly restrictive.
A buddy of mine , in a kind of uncomfortable way , told me yesterday that the bushmaster was the rifle he was thinking of getting his wife for Christmas .
They are originally from North Carolina , and live here with thier daughter to be safe .
They live about five miles from me .
They hunt . I have some of the venison in my freezer .
For them , it isn't a feeling of overt oppression by a horribly restrictive government , but rather , a feeling of safety , due to still being armed , but in a society that doesn't condone weapons designed for killing humans .
They simply feel much less likely to greet a handgun on the street or at thier door .
We're redneck enough in my country to have had the government scrap a really expensive gun registry program due to public outcry . And , but for Quebec , all provinces have destroyed the records they did manage to compile .
Hell , I played "army" when I was a kid , and i was a ruthless foe , taking no prisoners .
And , there were a few "wackos" back then as well .
But , rarely were they so efficient . They didn't have the right tools .
I'd never buy my wife a gun - it'd be the death of me!
It is a very confusing and, dare I say primative message that this thread has given me of the USA. It seems a little less extreme across the border in Canada, but the same mindset is there too.
Would there be the same public outcry now to a registry in light of recent events?
Merry Christmas from the family!
Scottsdale Gun Club in Arizona invites children to pose with Santa... and a fire arm | Mail Online
"...
A gun club in Scottsdale, Arizona is inviting children to pose for pictures with Santa Claus – and a high-powered firearm.
Each family member carries their choice of weapon, from pistols to $80,000 machine guns. ..."
:jawdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
It is at a gun club I'd like to point out.. Not at a shopping mall.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko