Arizona shooting range accident

[Rollo]

The tyranny of the left is as oppressive, or sometimes more so, than the tyranny of the right. Always beware the zealots who are so sure that they "know what is good for you" (right and left). They also usually fancy themselves as smarter than those who don't agree with their way of thinking - a false premise based on the conceit that they are always right.

What definitions of left and right are you using? On a Statist / Laissez-faire axis or a Libertarian / Authoritarianism axis?

[BDunnell]

While I've agreed with your opinion regarding the thread topic on every level, I have found the way you have expressed your opinion as quite....ungentlemanly.

Oh, I quite agree. I've been extremely rude and ungentlemanly. The reason is because I'm utterly fed up with what I view as the inane arguments used by those in favour of the status quo, especially the refusal of people to acknowledge that they consider the death toll acceptable as it is as a price to pay. Clearly they do.

[BDunnell]

Even the simpletons could probably figure out fairly quickly that US laws and policies are not influenced very much by the will of an internet warrior from another country claiming they know the right way to do everything. But if that has escaped you, by all means keep trying.

Do I expect to have influence? Obviously not. But I would imagine you have, at some point, voiced opinions on the internet on subjects over which you have no influence. That's all I'm doing here.

[555-04Q2]

Oh, I quite agree. I've been extremely rude and ungentlemanly. The reason is because I'm utterly fed up with what I view as the inane arguments used by those in favour of the status quo, especially the refusal of people to acknowledge that they consider the death toll acceptable as it is as a price to pay. Clearly they do.

Thats the beauty of individuals, we all hold our own opinions and we are all neither right nor wrong in our opinions and beliefs. Imagine not having a choice/say in life. Different cultures have different beliefs and opinions.

[airshifter]

Do I expect to have influence? Obviously not. But I would imagine you have, at some point, voiced opinions on the internet on subjects over which you have no influence. That's all I'm doing here.

Expression of an opinion is not uncommon.

In your case you are expressing an opinion, attaching shallow stereotypes, professing to be more intelligent, etc due to your opinion and little else.

Anyone who actually looked objectively at the mounds and mounds of statistics on the issue would find that it's not the everyday gun owner who commits these crimes, it's the thugs by a vast percentage. That being, the people that don't legally obtain or own their guns to begin with, and many who are by law prohibited from doing the same. There are also pages upon pages proving that the cities with the highest murder tolls are most often those cities with strict anti gun laws, the reason being that above mentioned thugs have little chance of being opposed with equal force.

The link provided earlier by Rollo shows a snapshot of the current reality. Legal un sales are soaring in the US, the population is still growing, and virtually all violent crime remains in decline for a couple of decades now. The primary argument from the anti gun crowd seems to be that more guns = more crime and death. But that doesn't agree with actual statistics.

I could attach a shallow stereotype to yourself or anyone else ignoring the facts, but this dumb redneck gun toter is smart enough to understand that shallow stereotypes are often cast due to a lack of understanding and the inability to grasp that not all of us have the same opinions.

[Lousada]

Anyone who actually looked objectively at the mounds and mounds of statistics on the issue would find that it's not the everyday gun owner who commits these crimes, it's the thugs by a vast percentage. That being, the people that don't legally obtain or own their guns to begin with, and many who are by law prohibited from doing the same. There are also pages upon pages proving that the cities with the highest murder tolls are most often those cities with strict anti gun laws, the reason being that above mentioned thugs have little chance of being opposed with equal force.

Anti-Gun laws in cities are not designed as gun-prevention. Without borderpatrols between states or around cities, it is impossible to prevent the transportation of guns within the US. It is silly therefore to claim that Anti-Gun laws in cities are not good in helping gun prevention when that is an impossible aim to begin with.
Anti-Gun laws only work when there is a clear distinction between the pro-gun and anti-gun areas. This distinction does not exist within the US. It does exist between countries, and statistics clearly show that when a country bans guns and enforces strict border controls to enforce this ban, violent crime drops. Example: Australia.

The link provided earlier by Rollo shows a snapshot of the current reality. Legal un sales are soaring in the US, the population is still growing, and virtually all violent crime remains in decline for a couple of decades now. The primary argument from the anti gun crowd seems to be that more guns = more crime and death. But that doesn't agree with actual statistics.

I could attach a shallow stereotype to yourself or anyone else ignoring the facts, but this dumb redneck gun toter is smart enough to understand that shallow stereotypes are often cast due to a lack of understanding and the inability to grasp that not all of us have the same opinions.

Violent crime is dropping everywhere in the western world also in areas where there are no guns at all. It is therefore too simple to claim that the reason for the drop is pro-gun laws.

[Roamy]

As I have mentioned. The answer is to register your gun with the Federal Gov and receive a national concealed carry license. Then they will know where the honest guns are and we can carry at will without all the stupid state and city laws. The best one right now is Arizona - If you got it pack it any way you like no license required.

[airshifter]

Anti-Gun laws in cities are not designed as gun-prevention. Without borderpatrols between states or around cities, it is impossible to prevent the transportation of guns within the US. It is silly therefore to claim that Anti-Gun laws in cities are not good in helping gun prevention when that is an impossible aim to begin with.
Anti-Gun laws only work when there is a clear distinction between the pro-gun and anti-gun areas. This distinction does not exist within the US. It does exist between countries, and statistics clearly show that when a country bans guns and enforces strict border controls to enforce this ban, violent crime drops. Example: Australia.

Example of reality: Australia

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

The murders with firearms was on the decline well before the gun ban, and the murder rate in the years surrounding the gun ban peaked years after. Shoots a big hole in the theory doesn't it?

Violent crime is dropping everywhere in the western world also in areas where there are no guns at all. It is therefore too simple to claim that the reason for the drop is pro-gun laws.

Violent crimes rates are far from dropping in much of the western world. But the US has seen declines for decades, despite more legally owned guns.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...imes-per-1000# Overall crime rates realities

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html



As I've stated may posts above, what falls when guns are banned is usually only the murders committed with guns. Very rarely does it affect the murder rate. So what does it accomplish other than taking guns out of the hands of the legal owners who by statistics, will rarely if ever use them for a crime?

If the deaths by drunk drivers primarily took place at the hands of unlicensed drivers, would the solution be to ban cars?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As I have mentioned. The answer is to register your gun with the Federal Gov and receive a national concealed carry license. Then they will know where the honest guns are and we can carry at will without all the stupid state and city laws. The best one right now is Arizona - If you got it pack it any way you like no license required.

But from my experience of my brief visit to the US different laws for state and city seems like the best solution. The rural parts of New York state I visited were like a different country to NYC with a completely different way of life. It would be ridiculous to govern the two as one.

[Rollo]

Example of reality: Australia

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

The murders with firearms was on the decline well before the gun ban, and the murder rate in the years surrounding the gun ban peaked years after. Shoots a big hole in the theory doesn't it?

Mass shootings in Australia:
1984 - Milperra Masacre - 7 people
1987 - Hoddle Street massacre - 7 people
1987 - Queen Street massacre - 9 people
1990 - Surry Hills massacre - 5 people
1991 - Strathfield massacre - 7 people
1992 - Central Coast Massacre - 6 people
1996 - Port Arthur massacre - 35 people

1997 - $350m Federal Gun Buyback Scheme - 643,000 firearms were handed in
Number of shootings where more than 3 people have been shot in a single incident since: 0
Yes, it does shoot a big hole in the theory.

Namely, that the policy worked.