Guns & Gun Violence

bearkat42

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
You may very well be right. What boils down to essentially, profiling, may be the answer. It certainly has worked for Homeland Security and airports.
Click to expand...
Obviously speaking as someone who isn't regularly profiled.
 
texasjack

texasjack

Well-Known Member
ZaraBeth420 said:
Why does anyone oppose stricter checks for gun buyers? That would not keep any qualified people from getting guns. Yet the nra opposes it. I don't understand. its almost like they are trying to be difficult. How could they oppose more background checks? My dad is in the nra, so I don't hate the nra. I just don't understand them sometimes.
Click to expand...
Gun rights supporters tend to not trust the government too.
 
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
http://digg.com/2015/americas-gun-problem-what-we-learned

- 355 Mass Shootings in 338 days so far, in 2015.
- Amongst developing nations, US is #1 in gun violence on the planet. By far.
- In 12 years, Guns have killed more than AIDS, war and drug overdose, combined.

And here are the big ones:
- Gun ownership directly correlates to gun death.
- Guns are not responsible for drops in crime rates.

Most of you know where I stand on guns. So, what do we do about guns?
Click to expand...
Shove them all into your ass for safe keeping. Then America can finally be at peace. It's the only way to be sure.
 
texasjack

texasjack

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Not sure that's entirely accurate. We've [US] never had "stricter" checks across the nation. In states where gun laws are more prohibitive and checks are more strict, we do see less gun violence related crimes. But that's not to say gun violence doesn't exist in those places. So does it really help? Well statistically speaking it does.

But will it at the national level. I don't know. Looking at Chicago for example, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country... well we know the story there.

Personally, I'm for making it more difficult for people to get them, legal or otherwise. But still have the ability to get them, across the board. What say you?
Click to expand...
Chicago does not have "some of the most restrictive gun laws" this is a gun rights myth. NYC has stricter laws as do many east coast cities. Plus none of those cites share a border with a very easy to get a gun state. On our side of the border you can see gun shops a couple feet from Chicago.
 
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
Actually more guns might work. Make it mandatory for everyone to carry. If you don't carry and try to protect yourself then you don't get any police he3lp.
Click to expand...
Mandatory gun ownership works as seen in Kennesaw Georgia vs Morton Grove Illinois where handguns were banned.

After passing the law Kennesaw grew as a city over the next ten years or so, nearly doubling in population. This urbanization typically causes crime to increase. Morton Grove however began with a relatively low crime rate and a fairly urbanized city that remained constant throughout the next ten years. In a direct comparison, Kennesaw ought to be more predisposed for crime to increase. However, in reality, the opposite happened.

Immediately after the passage of Kennesaw’s law, the amount of burglaries was cut in half. Violent crime within the city dropped at all levels. The community did not suffer a murder for years after that, and according the police chief at the time that was done by a knife. The gun requirement acted as a deterrent for criminals around the city. According to a past police chief D. Wilson, inmates had contacted the government of Kennesaw with the message that they would avoid Kennesaw because of the gun requirement. Those criminals knew that their potential victims would probably be armed, and that fear caused them to go elsewhere. Other fears with a mandatory gun law include escalations in domestic violence and an increase in fatal accidents involving children. Since the law was enacted, neither has happened. In the decade after the law was passed, there were no instances of handguns used against spouses nor were there any instances of children being injured due to accidental discharge. That in itself supports the theory that guns are safe in the hands of a safe person.

Now that we have examined the effects of the law on the Kennesaw community, let us examine the effects in Morton Grove. The complete ban of private ownership of handguns did not cause crime to go down. In fact, violent crime increased by 15% in the city the following year. In the surrounding areas, crime increased only 3%. This increased rate stayed constant in the years after. Statistically speaking, the ban led to an increase in crime. Pundits can debate the reasons for this until we all puke, but it makes sense to think that the ban makes criminals more active. Either way, in this case, the ban did not have the effect of reducing crime.
 
2ANONYMOUS

2ANONYMOUS

Well-Known Member
I think they do not need to worry about guns but they need to up the retard hospitals in the USA
PS i just ordered a M4 carbon assault rifle 419 bucks with couple parts few more rails for to make it look real pretty :) threaded barrel for the silencer add on you know, for stealth and o course 5.56 green tip 62 grain Full metal jacket
I;ll make sure to post pictures when it arrives UPS lol

PS whats the odds i can find on the net how to DIY a M4 to fully auto anyone
 
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member
Mandatory gun ownership at the national level.

U.K. and Australia have nothing on Switzerland.

 
Last edited:
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member
2ANONYMOUS said:
I think they do not need to worry about guns but they need to up the retard hospitals in the USA
PS i just ordered a M4 carbon assault rifle 419 bucks with couple parts few more rails for to make it look real pretty :) threaded barrel for the silencer add on you know, for stealth and o course 5.56 green tip 62 grain Full metal jacket
I;ll make sure to post pictures when it arrives UPS lol

PS whats the odds i can find on the net how to DIY a M4 to fully auto anyone
Click to expand...
300 bucks will get you legal FA.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
Not sure why civilians have any desire. I guess its cool to run a couple mags through a buddies, but after that you hand it back and are happy you aren't paying for some useless function that does nothing but consume ammo.

I guess if I had to suppress multiple targets at the same time it'd be useful, but isn't the war over? Thought it ended back in April....1865?
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:
Mandatory gun ownership at the national level.

U.K. and Australia have nothing on Switzerland.
Click to expand...
Noooope, you can't really bring up Switzerland because their population is far smaller (if you're going to pull this argument on healthcare we can certainly pull it on gun ownership). Moreover, military service is compulsory in Switzerland and that's the reason why they have rifles. Moreover, having military ammunition is illegal (though you can buy compatible ammunition which is expensive and also requires a 30 day wait). Once you've ended your military service you can get a weapons acquisition permit to keep your rifle, however it will be fully converted from automatic to semi-auto. Gun ownership rates have been declining rapidly. Moreover you cannot carry a weapon in public, though if you're on military service you can carry a loaded weapon en route. Usually the only private citizens that can carry are working in security.

Edited to add: also their gun culture is different.
 
Last edited:
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
spandy said:
Not sure why civilians have any desire. I guess its cool to run a couple mags through a buddies, but after that you hand it back and are happy you aren't paying for some useless function that does nothing but consume ammo.

I guess if I had to suppress multiple targets at the same time it'd be useful, but isn't the war over? Thought it ended back in April....1865?
Click to expand...
I love to hunt and target shoot to hone my skills of hunting, as I don't want my prey to suffer partly because of the humanity in me and partly because it tastes better when killed instantly.

I love all the variables involved in shooting accurately. Probably why I enjoyed land surveying so much.

Being proficient with firearms is a huge step towards self-sufficiency. And since I live in the country, the sheriff department can respond in anywhere between 5 minutes and 90 minutes. Seriously.

As for public carry, just because a guy has a gun when a mass shooting breaks out don't mean that the logical thing to do is confront the threat. As a husband and father, my main objective is protecting my family. Getting them clear of harm, or if they aren't with me, getting home to them.

My choice to support public carry is a self preserving one. Not saying that I wouldn't intervene in a mass shooting, but saving someone without the foresight to arm themselves is kinda low on my list of priorities.
 
Lord Kanti

Lord Kanti

Well-Known Member
All of what you said shows is that a country can exist with guns in nearly every home and function as it should. If it's not a gun problem, what is the problem then? You mentioned culture, is it that?

What about health care? I never mentioned that large countries shouldn't offer health services to their citizens. Are you mistaking me for someone else?
pnwmystery said:
Noooope, you can't really bring up Switzerland because their population is far smaller (if you're going to pull this argument on healthcare we can certainly pull it on gun ownership). Moreover, military service is compulsory in Switzerland and that's the reason why they have rifles. Moreover, having military ammunition is illegal (though you can buy compatible ammunition which is expensive and also requires a 30 day wait). Once you've ended your military service you can get a weapons acquisition permit to keep your rifle, however it will be fully converted from automatic to semi-auto. Gun ownership rates have been declining rapidly. Moreover you cannot carry a weapon in public, though if you're on military service you can carry a loaded weapon en route. Usually the only private citizens that can carry are working in security.

Edited to add: also their gun culture is different.
Click to expand...
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
I love to hunt and target shoot to hone my skills of hunting, as I don't want my prey to suffer partly because of the humanity in me and partly because it tastes better when killed instantly.

I love all the variables involved in shooting accurately. Probably why I enjoyed land surveying so much.

Being proficient with firearms is a huge step towards self-sufficiency. And since I live in the country, the sheriff department can respond in anywhere between 5 minutes and 90 minutes. Seriously.

As for public carry, just because a guy has a gun when a mass shooting breaks out don't mean that the logical thing to do is confront the threat. As a husband and father, my main objective is protecting my family. Getting them clear of harm, or if they aren't with me, getting home to them.

My choice to support public carry is a self preserving one. Not saying that I wouldn't intervene in a mass shooting, but saving someone without the foresight to arm themselves is kinda low on my list of priorities.
Click to expand...

Same here. If I could send one in from a "safe" location I'd probably do it, but rushing in and saving the day is not what I get paid for. But like you said, family is first and a father/husband still needs to walk though that front door at the end of the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top