are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?
great question dunk
can any of the gun lovers answer this one?
[/quote][/quote][/quote]
I am. i cannot speak for everyeone, but I think the entire world should be able to have whatever they can get themselves. If they want nuclear energy they should have it, and if they want a nuclear weaspons program they should have it...for as much posturing as all nations do, no world leader desires the world to be blown up.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?[/quote]
great question dunk
can any of the gun lovers answer this one?[/quote]
I don't think many people are gun-lovers here. I think most people just say that putting more restriction of gun only effect law-abiding citizens and would not have stopped this from happening. also, going with that question about Iran and North Korea, i would believe that the people would have the same answer.
are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?
great question dunk
can any of the gun lovers answer this one?
[/quote][/quote]
I am. i cannot speak for everyeone, but I think the entire world should be able to have whatever they can get themselves. If they want nuclear energy they should have it, and if they want a nuclear weaspons program they should have it...for as much posturing as all nations do, no world leader desires the world to be blown up.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
sorry Mike, but i don't agree with this answer. I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons as no good comes from them.
guns are made for killing...either animals or people. I don't think many people are using handguns to kill deer, so why do people need handguns? To protect themselves? For every 100 people in this country there are 90 guns...seems like a lot. After the US, Yemen is the next closest with about 60 for every 100...why do we need so many guns in this country? I don't own any or know too much about them, but would it be crazy to ban handguns in this country aside from law enforcement? I don't know, just doesn't seem that easy for a guy to pull off a drive buy with a rifle, not too easy for a mentally insane guy to discretely carry around a rifle or a shotgun...idk. I say get rid of them all but that won't happen; we need to at least get some better ammunition laws in place. People should not be able to buy 30 round magazines for a handgun. It's not necessary at all.
I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.
I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.
You dont agree that with less bullets in a clip, less people would have died?
The guy was carrying an estimated 90 bullets, wasn't he?
Yes, but he was tackled and held down after dispensing his first clip.
a law was lifted in AZ in 2004 limiting the clip capacity.
Had the original laws been in place, some lives couldve been saved.
I cant for the life of me understand how people cant see how some laws could save lives. Its as simple as ammo limits in clips. if the clips that hold 30 rounds sre limited to 10 rounds, even if he bought two guns, he wouldnt have gotten off as many rounds. Lives could've been saved.
guns are made for killing...either animals or people. I don't think many people are using handguns to kill deer, so why do people need handguns? To protect themselves? For every 100 people in this country there are 90 guns...seems like a lot. After the US, Yemen is the next closest with about 60 for every 100...why do we need so many guns in this country? I don't own any or know too much about them, but would it be crazy to ban handguns in this country aside from law enforcement? I don't know, just doesn't seem that easy for a guy to pull off a drive buy with a rifle, not too easy for a mentally insane guy to discretely carry around a rifle or a shotgun...idk. I say get rid of them all but that won't happen; we need to at least get some better ammunition laws in place. People should not be able to buy 30 round magazines for a handgun. It's not necessary at all.
Common sense and reasoning are ignored by the pro-gun lobbies. I don't blame them as they have witnessed the fall of the cigarette industry first hand. Slowly but surely, the tobacco industry was hit with a constant barrage of laws and limitations to the point that current people that smoke are looked at like savages by a majority of the public. I believe that is why the N.R.A. is so tenacious at defending everything.
As for handguns, I believe that a test needs to be taken along with the background check. I don't think it will happen but it makes sense (when I'm king, tests and permits will be required for handguns, dangerous dog ownership, and people that are considering co-signing a loan).
Also, I do know a few people that hunt with handguns. Our state allows you to use a rifle round in a handgun during shotgun season so using a handgun gives some people a tactical advantage. But I would thing that only a slim minority do this.
As for myself, I own a handgun. Not sure why I bought it ... I think I had just read The Stand and either the bird or swine flu hype was in full swing so maybe I was a little paranoid. I only use it to target shoot and don't have it loaded with any people-stopper ammo as my neighborhood is nice.
As for using a gun for self defense, one of my good friends found himself awakened one night by a strange sound. He heard another sound a minute later and was certain that an intruder was in his house so he grabbed his .44 Magnum and went to investigate. He had the hammer cocked, turned out into his hallway were he found himself face-to-face with the intruder. He said he was very close to pulling the trigger but instead yelled for the man to hit the ground. Turns out, the intruder was one of his neighbor's cousins that was drunk and had mistakenly entered the wrong house. Anyway, my buddy was pretty shaken up over the incident as he was very close to killing an innocent person. . . I'm not sure what the point of that story is, but I thought I'd share it.
8.31pm GMT / 3.31pm ET: This is the sort of story that just makes one slap oneself on the side of the head and bang one's foreheard firmly but sharply on the nearest desk. Bloomberg reports that Glock sales in the wake of the Tucson shooting (which saw a Glock wielded to such lethal impact) have soared in the local area. Not only that, but that gun-shop owners predicted it would do so as soon as news about the massacre broke. "We're at double our volume over what we usually do," one happy shopkeeper tells the news agency. Incidentally, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre also used a Glock. That saw 32 people murdered in cold blood. The whole thing is madness. Normally this sort of "brand association" would destroy a product. But here it just brings a sales boost.
8.18pm GMT / 3.18pm ET: Defenders of gun rights have claimed – as they do after every mass shooting – that if only people nearby in Tucson on Saturday had had weapons then the death toll would have been less. Some of have even made much of the fact that one of the people who subdued Jared Lee Loughner was armed. That man, Joe Zamudio, has even been hailed as proof that more guns, more widely held would equal less deaths. Yet, as Slate points out, Zamudio, who was shopping nearby, has admitted that when he arrived on the scene the person holding Loughner's gun was no longer Loughner. It was an innocent bystander who had picked it up. It is to Zamudio's great credit that he did not shoot. But he himself admitted: "I was very lucky." Zamudio also confessed that he himself – with gun in hand – was worried he might be mistaken for a second shooter.
Far from backing up the argument for more guns, Zamudio's experience actually strengthens the reverse case. It shows that more guns = more confusion. More guns = more chances for people to be accidentally shot. Speaking of which, a fraternity party went tragically wrong at a college in Florida when a male student showing off his gun accidentally killed a young girl and wounded another student. Can we finally conclude that when college students, who may have been drinking, have guns in their dorms that maybe, just maybe, there are just too many weapons in circulation?
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
8.31pm GMT / 3.31pm ET: This is the sort of story that just makes one slap oneself on the side of the head and bang one's foreheard firmly but sharply on the nearest desk. Bloomberg reports that Glock sales in the wake of the Tucson shooting (which saw a Glock wielded to such lethal impact) have soared in the local area. Not only that, but that gun-shop owners predicted it would do so as soon as news about the massacre broke. "We're at double our volume over what we usually do," one happy shopkeeper tells the news agency. Incidentally, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre also used a Glock. That saw 32 people murdered in cold blood. The whole thing is madness. Normally this sort of "brand association" would destroy a product. But here it just brings a sales boost.
8.18pm GMT / 3.18pm ET: Defenders of gun rights have claimed – as they do after every mass shooting – that if only people nearby in Tucson on Saturday had had weapons then the death toll would have been less. Some of have even made much of the fact that one of the people who subdued Jared Lee Loughner was armed. That man, Joe Zamudio, has even been hailed as proof that more guns, more widely held would equal less deaths. Yet, as Slate points out, Zamudio, who was shopping nearby, has admitted that when he arrived on the scene the person holding Loughner's gun was no longer Loughner. It was an innocent bystander who had picked it up. It is to Zamudio's great credit that he did not shoot. But he himself admitted: "I was very lucky." Zamudio also confessed that he himself – with gun in hand – was worried he might be mistaken for a second shooter.
Far from backing up the argument for more guns, Zamudio's experience actually strengthens the reverse case. It shows that more guns = more confusion. More guns = more chances for people to be accidentally shot. Speaking of which, a fraternity party went tragically wrong at a college in Florida when a male student showing off his gun accidentally killed a young girl and wounded another student. Can we finally conclude that when college students, who may have been drinking, have guns in their dorms that maybe, just maybe, there are just too many weapons in circulation?
those are all the once anti gun owners waking up and thinking to them selfs "I need a gun to protect my family and friends"
After reading this thread, I just had to look into the Finnish laws about gun ownership. (Carrying a gun here is illegal, unless it is required in your work or you have a valid reason. Self-protection doesn't cut it.)
To own a gun you have to be 18 years old, but I guess that's a given. Health and behaviour must leave the individual fit to own a gun or any part of a gun. Drug abuse or criminal offenses in the past may and will make it impossible to get a permit.
After a school shooting in 2008 the legislation was modified to require all persons applying for a permit for a handgun to provide verification of their mental health, proving that they don't have any psychich illness or mental difficulty that could lead to them harming themselves or others. All applicants must be interviewed personally.
Applications take around two weeks to be handled, during which as wide as possible a background check is made.
If or when the application is approved, the applicant gets a time period during which to purchase their gun and within 30 days, they must present their weapon for inspection to the police.
The first permit is nearly always valid for 1-3 years, when that time is up, permit holder can apply for an indefinite permit. For this they must provide proof that their gun was only used for the purpose it was acquired for.
If the application is declined, the applicant can file a complaint, but that proves pointless most of the time (as the reasons for rejection are always valid).
Sorry if this is hard to read, but it's quite late and I'm having to jump back and forth between a dictionary, this page and the gun legislation stuff.
Anyway, I'm not saying Finland has perfected weapons legislation, but I'm quite happy with it. Yes, there have been some tragedies (two school shootings), but we've learned from them and changed the rules for everyone. (I'm not gonna get into the whole "criminals will always get guns if they want them"-debate as this post would become incredibly long.)
Why do some of you in here view fear/questioning our government as a bad thing???
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..
"Don't be faint-hearted, I have a solution! We shall go and commandeer some small craft, then drift at leisure until we happen upon another ideal place for our waterside supper with riparian entertainments."
Educate yourself on a subject before trying to argue about it.
That is all.
Hahahahaaa....
I admire your self-discipline for sticking to that self-exile.
Can't believe it was a matter of terminology rather than principle that made you snap!
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I admire your self-discipline for sticking to that self-exile.
Can't believe it was a matter of terminology rather than principle that made you snap!
There is no point arguing about something that isn't going to change. I've got better things to do. My exile was to not to participate in a pro-gun vs anti-gun discussion, of which I have not.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
wow ! I can't believe you used Columbia for an example.....hello ! now ask your self what is Columbia's cash crop and who runs those cash crops and how do they protect and enforce their laws of not so free interprise...
3rd world countries and poor or low income areas anywhere in the world usually have a higher crime rate, hungry people will do what they have to to survive and feed their family's the fact that they use guns has little to do with why they commit a crime to make a living, a gun will even the playing field for some and give an advantage to others.
"you get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word"
GUNS DO NOT CREATE CRIME PEOPLE DO !
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
wow ! I can't believe you used Columbia for an example.....hello ! now ask your self what is Columbia's cash crop and who runs those cash crops and how do they protect and enforce their laws of not so free interprise...
3rd world countries and poor or low income areas anywhere in the world usually have a higher crime rate, hungry people will do what they have to to survive and feed their family's the fact that they use guns has little to do with why they commit a crime to make a living, a gun will even the playing field for some and give an advantage to others.
"you get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word"
GUNS DO NOT CREATE CRIME PEOPLE DO !
Godfather.
A little early for ya? He used DC...as in Washington DC
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
wow ! I can't believe you used Columbia for an example.....hello ! now ask your self what is Columbia's cash crop and who runs those cash crops and how do they protect and enforce their laws of not so free interprise...
3rd world countries and poor or low income areas anywhere in the world usually have a higher crime rate, hungry people will do what they have to to survive and feed their family's the fact that they use guns has little to do with why they commit a crime to make a living, a gun will even the playing field for some and give an advantage to others.
"you get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word"
GUNS DO NOT CREATE CRIME PEOPLE DO !
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
wow ! I can't believe you used Columbia for an example.....hello ! now ask your self what is Columbia's cash crop and who runs those cash crops and how do they protect and enforce their laws of not so free interprise...
3rd world countries and poor or low income areas anywhere in the world usually have a higher crime rate, hungry people will do what they have to to survive and feed their family's the fact that they use guns has little to do with why they commit a crime to make a living, a gun will even the playing field for some and give an advantage to others.
"you get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word"
GUNS DO NOT CREATE CRIME PEOPLE DO !
Godfather.
:wtf:
District of Columbia dude... i'll give you the benefit of the doubt seeing as its a state that isnt one of the 3 that adjoin California so you might not have heard of it
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Did you read the article? Clips with 30 rounds were banned until 2004.
the AZ shooter was tackled when he tried to put in a new clip.
What if there was a law that limited a clip to 10 bullets? maybe 3 people dead instead of 6?
maybe.
does that really make 'responsible' gun owners compromise too much?
I sure dont think so.
its not a ban, its a compromise, and it coul've made a difference.
I understand you think the eye roll is disrepectful, but not EVERYBODY thinks like you. It is a smily face with an eye roll. My intentions were to jab fun. Maybe you didnt intend on offending me eitrher when you told me how I was thinking. You clearly said I was thinking of him of him as a rational law abiding, when I absolutely was not.
:roll: This smiley face is not smiling... if you could hear it there with the tisk or geez sound...not funny
and your comment 'not everybody thinks like me" I also get the jab there with your caps lock I guess you felt the need to shout that word.
Being kind is being cautious with another's feelings, and rolling eyes is not being cautious it is offensive to anothers opinion. A real put down.
This is what I said
Laws couldn't have avoided this...don't you see? he had his own law. You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are. He would have done this whatever the law,
with or without a gun. That is not speculation. He was swept into his mission. He was premeditated.
He was living out his calling. He was filled with hate. This was his outcome.
I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.
I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.
so you think this guy and all the other school shootings guys and all the other mass-shooting guys would have found a way Pandora? please answer this
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Did you read the article? Clips with 30 rounds were banned until 2004.
the AZ shooter was tackled when he tried to put in a new clip.
What if there was a law that limited a clip to 10 bullets? maybe 3 people dead instead of 6?
maybe.
does that really make 'responsible' gun owners compromise too much?
I sure dont think so.
its not a ban, its a compromise, and it coul've made a difference.
I understand you think the eye roll is disrepectful, but not EVERYBODY thinks like you. It is a smily face with an eye roll. My intentions were to jab fun. Maybe you didnt intend on offending me eitrher when you told me how I was thinking. You clearly said I was thinking of him of him as a rational law abiding, when I absolutely was not.
:roll: This smiley face is not smiling... if you could hear it there with the tisk or geez sound...not funny
and your comment 'not everybody thinks like me" I also get the jab there with your caps lock I guess you felt the need to shout that word.
Being kind is being cautious with another's feelings, and rolling eyes is not being cautious it is offensive to anothers opinion. A real put down.
This is what I said
Laws couldn't have avoided this...don't you see? he had his own law. You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are. He would have done this whatever the law,
with or without a gun. That is not speculation. He was swept into his mission. He was premeditated.
He was living out his calling. He was filled with hate. This was his outcome.
I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.
I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.
so you think this guy and all the other school shootings guys and all the other mass-shooting guys would have found a way Pandora? please answer this
I know you asked Pandi, but yes many of them would have, how bout the kids that made home made bombs ?
or use knives and bats etc.
I know you asked Pandi, but yes many of them would have, how bout the kids that made home made bombs ?
or use knives and bats etc.
Godfather.
no offence amigo, but i'll await a more cognitive response from someone else :thumbup:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
For those of you who care, here is some info on crimes in other countires. I love the generalizations from other non US posters who see an isolated incident and think the US is some barbaric country. Please take a look at the link below. All numbers will be per-capita (usually per 100,000), starting from this page, the drop-down will show other results: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita
Assaults: US 7.6 - UK 7.6 - Aus 7.0
Burglaries: US 7.1 - UK 13.8 - Aus 21.7
Car Thefts: US 3.9 - UK 5.6 - Aus 6.9
Murder: US .043 - UK .014 - Aus .015
Rapes: US .301 - UK .142 - Aus .778
Robberies: US 1.39 - UK 1.57 - Aus 1.16
Total Crimes: US 80.1 - UK 85.6 - Aus {No data}
The illusion that crime is far more rampant in the US is just that. . . An illusion.
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
Guns are a factor, but is Scotland a densely populated region that experiences rampant drug and gang violence?
In regards to Iran and North Korea, I don't believe they should have nuclear arms. They are not responsible.
He would have done this whatever the law, with or without a gun.
No he wouldn't.
Nobody except Chuck Norris would be able to kill 6 people in a busy area with a knife. And that Virginia Tech dude wouldn't have managed a head count of 36 with a knife.
Comments
I am. i cannot speak for everyeone, but I think the entire world should be able to have whatever they can get themselves. If they want nuclear energy they should have it, and if they want a nuclear weaspons program they should have it...for as much posturing as all nations do, no world leader desires the world to be blown up.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
great question dunk
can any of the gun lovers answer this one?[/quote]
I don't think many people are gun-lovers here. I think most people just say that putting more restriction of gun only effect law-abiding citizens and would not have stopped this from happening. also, going with that question about Iran and North Korea, i would believe that the people would have the same answer.
I am. i cannot speak for everyeone, but I think the entire world should be able to have whatever they can get themselves. If they want nuclear energy they should have it, and if they want a nuclear weaspons program they should have it...for as much posturing as all nations do, no world leader desires the world to be blown up.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
sorry Mike, but i don't agree with this answer. I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons as no good comes from them.
Godfather.
Yes, but he was tackled and held down after dispensing his first clip.
a law was lifted in AZ in 2004 limiting the clip capacity.
Had the original laws been in place, some lives couldve been saved.
I cant for the life of me understand how people cant see how some laws could save lives. Its as simple as ammo limits in clips. if the clips that hold 30 rounds sre limited to 10 rounds, even if he bought two guns, he wouldnt have gotten off as many rounds. Lives could've been saved.
As for handguns, I believe that a test needs to be taken along with the background check. I don't think it will happen but it makes sense (when I'm king, tests and permits will be required for handguns, dangerous dog ownership, and people that are considering co-signing a loan).
Also, I do know a few people that hunt with handguns. Our state allows you to use a rifle round in a handgun during shotgun season so using a handgun gives some people a tactical advantage. But I would thing that only a slim minority do this.
As for myself, I own a handgun. Not sure why I bought it ... I think I had just read The Stand and either the bird or swine flu hype was in full swing so maybe I was a little paranoid. I only use it to target shoot and don't have it loaded with any people-stopper ammo as my neighborhood is nice.
As for using a gun for self defense, one of my good friends found himself awakened one night by a strange sound. He heard another sound a minute later and was certain that an intruder was in his house so he grabbed his .44 Magnum and went to investigate. He had the hammer cocked, turned out into his hallway were he found himself face-to-face with the intruder. He said he was very close to pulling the trigger but instead yelled for the man to hit the ground. Turns out, the intruder was one of his neighbor's cousins that was drunk and had mistakenly entered the wrong house. Anyway, my buddy was pretty shaken up over the incident as he was very close to killing an innocent person. . . I'm not sure what the point of that story is, but I thought I'd share it.
8.31pm GMT / 3.31pm ET: This is the sort of story that just makes one slap oneself on the side of the head and bang one's foreheard firmly but sharply on the nearest desk. Bloomberg reports that Glock sales in the wake of the Tucson shooting (which saw a Glock wielded to such lethal impact) have soared in the local area. Not only that, but that gun-shop owners predicted it would do so as soon as news about the massacre broke. "We're at double our volume over what we usually do," one happy shopkeeper tells the news agency. Incidentally, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre also used a Glock. That saw 32 people murdered in cold blood. The whole thing is madness. Normally this sort of "brand association" would destroy a product. But here it just brings a sales boost.
8.18pm GMT / 3.18pm ET: Defenders of gun rights have claimed – as they do after every mass shooting – that if only people nearby in Tucson on Saturday had had weapons then the death toll would have been less. Some of have even made much of the fact that one of the people who subdued Jared Lee Loughner was armed. That man, Joe Zamudio, has even been hailed as proof that more guns, more widely held would equal less deaths. Yet, as Slate points out, Zamudio, who was shopping nearby, has admitted that when he arrived on the scene the person holding Loughner's gun was no longer Loughner. It was an innocent bystander who had picked it up. It is to Zamudio's great credit that he did not shoot. But he himself admitted: "I was very lucky." Zamudio also confessed that he himself – with gun in hand – was worried he might be mistaken for a second shooter.
Far from backing up the argument for more guns, Zamudio's experience actually strengthens the reverse case. It shows that more guns = more confusion. More guns = more chances for people to be accidentally shot. Speaking of which, a fraternity party went tragically wrong at a college in Florida when a male student showing off his gun accidentally killed a young girl and wounded another student. Can we finally conclude that when college students, who may have been drinking, have guns in their dorms that maybe, just maybe, there are just too many weapons in circulation?
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
those are all the once anti gun owners waking up and thinking to them selfs "I need a gun to protect my family and friends"
Godfather.
To own a gun you have to be 18 years old, but I guess that's a given. Health and behaviour must leave the individual fit to own a gun or any part of a gun. Drug abuse or criminal offenses in the past may and will make it impossible to get a permit.
After a school shooting in 2008 the legislation was modified to require all persons applying for a permit for a handgun to provide verification of their mental health, proving that they don't have any psychich illness or mental difficulty that could lead to them harming themselves or others. All applicants must be interviewed personally.
Applications take around two weeks to be handled, during which as wide as possible a background check is made.
If or when the application is approved, the applicant gets a time period during which to purchase their gun and within 30 days, they must present their weapon for inspection to the police.
The first permit is nearly always valid for 1-3 years, when that time is up, permit holder can apply for an indefinite permit. For this they must provide proof that their gun was only used for the purpose it was acquired for.
If the application is declined, the applicant can file a complaint, but that proves pointless most of the time (as the reasons for rejection are always valid).
Sorry if this is hard to read, but it's quite late and I'm having to jump back and forth between a dictionary, this page and the gun legislation stuff.
Anyway, I'm not saying Finland has perfected weapons legislation, but I'm quite happy with it. Yes, there have been some tragedies (two school shootings), but we've learned from them and changed the rules for everyone. (I'm not gonna get into the whole "criminals will always get guns if they want them"-debate as this post would become incredibly long.)
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..
These devices that hold the ammo are called "magazines". They are not "clips". There is a difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF21sihEgOU
Educate yourself on a subject before trying to argue about it.
That is all.
Hahahahaaa....
I admire your self-discipline for sticking to that self-exile.
Can't believe it was a matter of terminology rather than principle that made you snap!
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
FACT!
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 0.58
District of Columbia has a pop. of 5.2 million. Firearms death rate per 100,000 is 31.2
something is clearly playing a factor in this huge statistical difference don't you agree? perhaps its that we don't have any handguns?? Perhaps its that your culture is based around the availability of guns? Whatever it is I know it's not because some people believe in the 2nd and they are forming a militia.
also... is it ok for Iran and North Korea to have nuclear arms? you've never answered.
There is no point arguing about something that isn't going to change. I've got better things to do. My exile was to not to participate in a pro-gun vs anti-gun discussion, of which I have not.
Please start a thread on this, I would really like to hear more.
No place to hide a gun when you are wearing a skirt.
wow ! I can't believe you used Columbia for an example.....hello ! now ask your self what is Columbia's cash crop and who runs those cash crops and how do they protect and enforce their laws of not so free interprise...
3rd world countries and poor or low income areas anywhere in the world usually have a higher crime rate, hungry people will do what they have to to survive and feed their family's the fact that they use guns has little to do with why they commit a crime to make a living, a gun will even the playing field for some and give an advantage to others.
Godfather.
Godfather.
so you think this guy and all the other school shootings guys and all the other mass-shooting guys would have found a way Pandora? please answer this
I know you asked Pandi, but yes many of them would have, how bout the kids that made home made bombs ?
or use knives and bats etc.
Godfather.
no offence amigo, but i'll await a more cognitive response from someone else :thumbup:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...lts-per-capita
Assaults: US 7.6 - UK 7.6 - Aus 7.0
Burglaries: US 7.1 - UK 13.8 - Aus 21.7
Car Thefts: US 3.9 - UK 5.6 - Aus 6.9
Murder: US .043 - UK .014 - Aus .015
Rapes: US .301 - UK .142 - Aus .778
Robberies: US 1.39 - UK 1.57 - Aus 1.16
Total Crimes: US 80.1 - UK 85.6 - Aus {No data}
The illusion that crime is far more rampant in the US is just that. . . An illusion.
In regards to Iran and North Korea, I don't believe they should have nuclear arms. They are not responsible.
No he wouldn't.
Nobody except Chuck Norris would be able to kill 6 people in a busy area with a knife. And that Virginia Tech dude wouldn't have managed a head count of 36 with a knife.