guns and bullets

Blockhead

eMMI wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

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..

Lol... What, I am afraid of heights. I don't get angry climbing a tower crane for my job, nor does it lead me to hate my job or have any suffering.

haffajappa

dunkman wrote:

are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?

C'mon dunk... If we ask them to stop...... think of all the job losses.

unsung

Ok, I'm breaking my self imposed exile to straighten something out.

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.

wolfamongwolves

unsung wrote:

Ok, I'm breaking my self imposed exile to straighten something out.

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!

dunkman

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

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.

unsung

wolfamongwolves wrote:

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!

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.

unsung

Jason P wrote:

(when I'm king, tests and permits will be required for dangerous dog ownership,

Please start a thread on this, I would really like to hear more.

cincybearcat

dunkman wrote:

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

No place to hide a gun when you are wearing a skirt.

Godfather.

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

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.

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.

cincybearcat

Godfather. wrote:

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

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.

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

Moonpig

Godfather. wrote:

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

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.

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.

come on man - re read the post

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

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.

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

Godfather.

yeeeeah I haven't wiped the eye boogies out yet,in any case good morning train passengers.

Godfather.

Godfather.

you got me !!!! I bow in shame !

Godfather.

dunkman

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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

Godfather.

dunkman wrote:

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

Godfather.

dunkman

Godfather. wrote:

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:

Blockhead

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.

Jason P

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

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.

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.

Byrnzie

pandora wrote:

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.