Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
First, I plainly said I didn't support a ban on guns. I guess you don't speak American. What you also miss is how often each gets used. I drive just about every day, how often does the average gun owner use his gun?Untrue, when you subtract the suicide by firearm you are more likely to die by some stupid driver than by firearm but you know this already…
The fact is you support a complete ban on something you do not even own nor have ever used while being ignorant about how many people are truly killed by a firearm in a crime.
Fact is I am more likely to die from automobile than being shot and let get down to something those like you ignore and the fact you driving kills more people than you know or will accept.
Your driving pollutes the air and land which causes cancer and lung disease, so let add in those factors and you can see my chances dying from a firearm is less likely…
So let be clear you are willing to kill people just to have the luxury to drive but demand society to be without firearms that kill far less people…
Well at least you are better informed.....Hopefully it will help you form more cohesive arguments in the future.Thanks, I feel safer already.
First, I plainly said I didn't support a ban on guns. I guess you don't speak American. What you also miss is how often each gets used. I drive just about every day, how often does the average gun owner use his gun?
As concealed carry becomes more popular here I wonder if the number of gun deaths will go up or down? We'll see I guess.
Yes it is relative.... to the other things that are regulated. And almost nothing is as heavily regulated as firearms."Massively" is a relative term but we do seem to be going in the opposite direction, at least in some places.
The citizenry generally don't get involved in shoot outs with gang members and drug dealers (a good thing as this should be left to the professionals), it is the police that have to do that and the fewer assault weapons they have to face the better. IMHO.
Reddest of red herrings.I guess you think we should eliminate all laws since criminals will just ignore them. After all, rape is illegal yet rapists still do it.
In principal, any weapon that can be carried by an individual with the primary purpose of self defense. Typically, fully automatic crew serve weapons are used for suppressive fire and thus are not connected with self defense though there certainly are interpretations that try and take the further. however, this seems to be how the SCOTUS defines the term.OK, how about a fully automatic rifle? An M2? A mini-gun? A mortar? A howitzer? An M65? Draw me a line that is NOT arbitrary.
We already have seen. This is not new. Gun laws have been getting more lax in most localities for decades as the crime rate drops. During the 90's, gun control laws spiked and became harsher all over the nation. Crime rates continued to rise. There is no connection whatsoever to gun ownership rates, gun control laws and homicide rates.First, I plainly said I didn't support a ban on guns. I guess you don't speak American. What you also miss is how often each gets used. I drive just about every day, how often does the average gun owner use his gun?
As concealed carry becomes more popular here I wonder if the number of gun deaths will go up or down? We'll see I guess.
That you 'can' own one of these really is not very relevant as you do not currently enjoy the 'right' to own one. The regulations that cover such weaponry makes it a privilege in all honesty, not much different than driving though MUCH more difficult/complicated.I don't know what M65 you are referring to but you can own pretty much all of the above, I guess you never heard of the NFA (National Firearms Act). Just jump through the paperwork hoops, pay Uncle Sugar his $200, and you can purchase/own Class III restricted arms and destructive devices.
Now if you go the black powder route then you can own shoot ML cannon/mortars with no federal paperwork/fee.....Let me assure you that a round of homemade canister out of a 12lb Napoleon is no joke.
You really need to do your research before spouting off.....It makes you look ignorant.
The main thing is being able to afford to purchase/feed them.....
I ALMOST got a chance to qual on the Mk 19, god that would have been fucking awesome
That you 'can' own one of these really is not very relevant as you do not currently enjoy the 'right' to own one. The regulations that cover such weaponry makes it a privilege in all honesty, not much different than driving though MUCH more difficult/complicated.
As a side note, that looks amazingly fun. Never got a chance to qual on any of the crew serve weapons, very sad
I think the handgun limit was in response to VA guns ending up in NYC. Doesn't sound too onerous to me.That ship sailed some time ago when the dem held Virginia Legislature passed the "one gun a month" law so unless you hold a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit you are limited to one handgun a month.
Chiefs of police are appointed by the local city government and have no opinions of their ownHe may have the support of at least one group, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP):
Criminal Use of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent. Semi-Automatic assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership has approved several reauthorizations of support in the years since. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that the criminal use of semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.
Again you go off on a tangent. How does owning any explosive have a victim?In principal, any weapon that can be carried by an individual with the primary purpose of self defense. Typically, fully automatic crew serve weapons are used for suppressive fire and thus are not connected with self defense though there certainly are interpretations that try and take the further. however, this seems to be how the SCOTUS defines the term.
Explosives, clearly, do not fit in this description. Atomic weaponry is just a non starter.
I am not off on a tangent, you are. You asked me to define arms. I did. I answer your question with specifics, you hem and haw about why I am not going to argue an entirely different subject.Again you go off on a tangent. How does owning any explosive have a victim?
You said "Rape has a victim. Owning a rifle or handgun does not."
Again you are misinformed....I think the handgun limit was in response to VA guns ending up in NYC. Doesn't sound too onerous to me.
Ahh, the slippery slope. We can't do something reasonable today because it might lead to something unreasonable at some time in the future. Got it.No, because after they ban .223s, they'll start crying about how they need to get rid of 15 round mags, and then 10 round mags.
An neither is ownership of anything. That has never been my issue.Reddest of red herrings.
Ownership of a firearm isn't an act of aggression against anyone.
Why do anti-gun nuts always default to nuclear weapons, as if anyone outside of governments could afford them? You know that's not going to convince normal people to give up their firearms, right?Do you realize there's a similarity between rifles & handguns and nuclear weapons?
Because it doesn't look like you do. Neither has a victim until they are actually used. If you go back through the thread, you'll see that was my point.
I have no desire to go to England. I haven't left anything there.Go to England and try and buy that $50 rifle.
Draw your own damn lines. Stop insisting other people do your homework assignment for you. You've already failed this one. Nobody's going to give up their guns to assuage your butthurt.OK, how about a fully automatic rifle? An M2? A mini-gun? A mortar? A howitzer? An M65? Draw me a line that is NOT arbitrary.
