No ma'am, I won't register my guns

1…3132343637…51

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,431
    PJPOWER wrote:
    I can find PLENTY of resources pointing to Australia experiencing a rise in violent crimes since their gun ban...I would not consider them an great place to start an argument about gun control...
    Edit: I just wanted to add a little onto your point. USA is more like Chicago than it is Australia. We do not sit on an island out in the middle of nowhere. To be effective, don't you mean that it would have to be "continent" wide? Otherwise, wouldn't people just go outside country borders to get their guns and bring them into the USA? How do you propose getting rid of all guns in South America and Mexico and prevent an illegal market from forming if you just make them illegal in the USA?
    where is the rise in australian violent crimes? i read australian news sites daily. i had an ex g/f who was aussie, so keeping up with aussie news is an old habit of mine..... one of my best friends is an aussie. i am interested to see the information you have that i don't.

    you are assuming that someone determined to commit these crimes is actually going to be so inclined to go through the trouble of going to south america or canada to get the guns. most shooters have ready and easy access to them. those guns are low hanging fruit. that, the easy access to guns, is the root of the problem. if access was more difficult, logic would dictate that that would reduce future gun violence and mass murders. hell, it would reduce suicides and accidental shootings as well.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    unsung wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

    actually, when it comes to public safety, I certainly do.


    No, you don't. If my actions are not harming another individual then I should be able to do what I want and determine my own needs. Besides the practice of a person owning a firearm does not threaten public safety.

    tell that to the family of the 6 year old who got killed by a 4 year old.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    I think its very bad form to just assume the person who wants to go on a shooting spree is going to do it no matter what.

    this is an excellent point. I mean, by the logic that if all criminals all have a way of doing what they want anyway, why have any laws at all?

    and that's the logic of the pro gun crowd. :fp:
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    I can find PLENTY of resources pointing to Australia experiencing a rise in violent crimes since their gun ban...I would not consider them an great place to start an argument about gun control...
    Edit: I just wanted to add a little onto your point. USA is more like Chicago than it is Australia. We do not sit on an island out in the middle of nowhere. To be effective, don't you mean that it would have to be "continent" wide? Otherwise, wouldn't people just go outside country borders to get their guns and bring them into the USA? How do you propose getting rid of all guns in South America and Mexico and prevent an illegal market from forming if you just make them illegal in the USA?
    where is the rise in australian violent crimes? i read australian news sites daily. i had an ex g/f who was aussie, so keeping up with aussie news is an old habit of mine..... one of my best friends is an aussie. i am interested to see the information you have that i don't.

    you are assuming that someone determined to commit these crimes is actually going to be so inclined to go through the trouble of going to south america or canada to get the guns. most shooters have ready and easy access to them. those guns are low hanging fruit. that, the easy access to guns, is the root of the problem. if access was more difficult, logic would dictate that that would reduce future gun violence and mass murders. hell, it would reduce suicides and accidental shootings as well.

    We can start with these stats by the Australian Institute of Criminology (although your friends may have done much more extensive research :fp: ) Looks like it created a free range for rapists! Remember that it passed in 1997. Most of these are stats from 1997-2007...at best, it looks like the gun control efforts were not very effective at reducing criminals from using guns and at worse very effective at causing people to be unable to defend themselves from rape, assault, robbery. Go ask your ex-gf, media outlets, and best friend how their statistics compare though, as they should be the best resources...
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... sault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... sault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... bbery.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... ctims.html
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    I think its very bad form to just assume the person who wants to go on a shooting spree is going to do it no matter what.

    this is an excellent point. I mean, by the logic that if all criminals all have a way of doing what they want anyway, why have any laws at all?

    and that's the logic of the pro gun crowd. :fp:
    Okay, when has the government stepping in and "banning" things stopped criminals from using the laws to their advantage? The war on drugs seems to have just created a war at our borders, for example. Before the war on drugs, people could go to the store and essentially buy heroine, but there was not a drug epidemic back then? hmmm. Alcohol and cigarettes have caused way more deaths in this country than guns. What happened when we outlawed alcohol? Maybe our funds spent on better education is a better route than new laws?

    edit, i forgot to add the :fp:
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,431
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Okay, when has the government stepping in and "banning" things stopped criminals from using the laws to their advantage? The war on drugs seems to have just created a war at our borders, for example. Before the war on drugs, people could go to the store and essentially buy heroine, but there was not a drug epidemic back then? hmmm. Alcohol and cigarettes have caused way more deaths in this country than guns. What happened when we outlawed alcohol? Maybe our funds spent on better education is a better route than new laws?

    edit, i forgot to add the :fp:
    please stop comparing alcohol and pharmaceuticals to guns. there is no comparison. one is invented to kill things, the others aren't, but can be fatal if abused. there is nothing similar at all.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited April 2013
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Okay, when has the government stepping in and "banning" things stopped criminals from using the laws to their advantage? The war on drugs seems to have just created a war at our borders, for example. Before the war on drugs, people could go to the store and essentially buy heroine, but there was not a drug epidemic back then? hmmm. Alcohol and cigarettes have caused way more deaths in this country than guns. What happened when we outlawed alcohol? Maybe our funds spent on better education is a better route than new laws?

    edit, i forgot to add the :fp:
    please stop comparing alcohol and pharmaceuticals to guns. there is no comparison. one is invented to kill things, the others aren't, but can be fatal if abused. there is nothing similar at all.
    The laws that I mentioned are similar...I do not want to get into an argument about the comparison either. My point was that the regulations and laws surrounding other areas have not been very effective. Comparing laws with laws if you will. Although I would argue that guns are also used to protect things from being killed as well.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,431
    PJPOWER wrote:
    We can start with these stats by the Australian Institute of Criminology (although your friends may have done much more extensive research :fp: ) Looks like it created a free range for rapists! Remember that it passed in 1997. Most of these are stats from 1997-2007...at best, it looks like the gun control efforts were not very effective at reducing criminals from using guns and at worse very effective at causing people to be unable to defend themselves from rape, assault, robbery. Go ask your ex-gf, media outlets, and best friend how their statistics compare though, as they should be the best resources...
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... sault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... sault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... bbery.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... ctims.html
    where are the mass murders? where are the mass shootings? i do not see those represented in your stats.

    and stop playing the fucking "inability to defend themselves" card. it is invalid because that means you would have to assume that all or most of those victims would have been carrying a gun at the time the crimes were committed. that assumption is laughable.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    We can start with these stats by the Australian Institute of Criminology (although your friends may have done much more extensive research :fp: ) Looks like it created a free range for rapists! Remember that it passed in 1997. Most of these are stats from 1997-2007...at best, it looks like the gun control efforts were not very effective at reducing criminals from using guns and at worse very effective at causing people to be unable to defend themselves from rape, assault, robbery. Go ask your ex-gf, media outlets, and best friend how their statistics compare though, as they should be the best resources...
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... sault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... sault.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... bbery.html
    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violen ... ctims.html
    where are the mass murders? where are the mass shootings? i do not see those represented in your stats.

    and stop playing the fucking "inability to defend themselves" card. it is invalid because that means you would have to assume that all or most of those victims would have been carrying a gun at the time the crimes were committed. that assumption is laughable.
    I was not arguing against mass shootings or mass murders, but violent crimes as a whole. And it's laughable to ignore the fact that there is a correlation between the rise of violent crimes and timing of the gun control bills. I think that's the whole argument here. Should a law be passed disarming the people as a whole from protecting themselves from rape, robbery, assault just because a person decided to go on a mass murdering spree? A couple incidents involving a mass versus a collective of many many more incidents happening one at a time? What are some other ways of taking incentives away from people that wish to do harm other than banning guns? What role does violent media play? I think it's important to look into those avenues before immediately acting on impulse after a tragedy.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Okay, when has the government stepping in and "banning" things stopped criminals from using the laws to their advantage? The war on drugs seems to have just created a war at our borders, for example. Before the war on drugs, people could go to the store and essentially buy heroine, but there was not a drug epidemic back then? hmmm. Alcohol and cigarettes have caused way more deaths in this country than guns. What happened when we outlawed alcohol? Maybe our funds spent on better education is a better route than new laws?

    edit, i forgot to add the :fp:

    so is it your assertion that all laws are useless?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,766
    unsung wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    keep posting random articles about people defending themselves with handguns or rifles. that's not the main issue here, but you gun folks tend to ignore that. no one cares about your one gun you have in the house.

    we care about the semi automatic rifles that people seem to think they need.


    You don't have the right to tell me what I need.
    Actually, he has the right to tell you anything he wants to. And you have the right not to listen to him.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Okay, when has the government stepping in and "banning" things stopped criminals from using the laws to their advantage? The war on drugs seems to have just created a war at our borders, for example. Before the war on drugs, people could go to the store and essentially buy heroine, but there was not a drug epidemic back then? hmmm. Alcohol and cigarettes have caused way more deaths in this country than guns. What happened when we outlawed alcohol? Maybe our funds spent on better education is a better route than new laws?

    edit, i forgot to add the :fp:

    so is it your assertion that all laws are useless?

    It's my assertation that *many* laws are useless.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Just out of my own curiosity, though, how does everyone here feel about the gun/ammo manufacturers packing up and moving their businesses to pro-gun states? Also, what are your thoughts about hunters boycotting states pushing strict legislation? Seems like politics are making some states lose a LOT of tax dollars right now. Will you be supporting the comming bills to raise your taxes to make up for the lack of revenue brought in by hunters? Are you comfortable with more wildlife being all over the road and moving into suburban areas due to the lack of population control? I'm willing to bet that farmers are not going to like the extra wildlife their crops!
  • fife
    fife Posts: 3,327
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Just out of my own curiosity, though, how does everyone here feel about the gun/ammo manufacturers packing up and moving their businesses to pro-gun states? Also, what are your thoughts about hunters boycotting states pushing strict legislation? Seems like politics are making some states lose a LOT of tax dollars right now. Will you be supporting the comming bills to raise your taxes to make up for the lack of revenue brought in by hunters? Are you comfortable with more wildlife being all over the road and moving into suburban areas due to the lack of population control? I'm willing to bet that farmers are not going to like the extra wildlife their crops!

    I find it funny that you accused the left of scare tactics and then unleash one yourself.
  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Just out of my own curiosity, though, how does everyone here feel about the gun/ammo manufacturers packing up and moving their businesses to pro-gun states? Also, what are your thoughts about hunters boycotting states pushing strict legislation? Seems like politics are making some states lose a LOT of tax dollars right now. Will you be supporting the comming bills to raise your taxes to make up for the lack of revenue brought in by hunters? Are you comfortable with more wildlife being all over the road and moving into suburban areas due to the lack of population control? I'm willing to bet that farmers are not going to like the extra wildlife their crops!

    do you hunt with a machine gun? if not, then your points are moo. like a cow's opinion.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • dudeman
    dudeman Posts: 3,182
    "Machine guns" are, and have been illegal in this country for years.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • BinauralJam
    BinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Just out of my own curiosity, though, how does everyone here feel about the gun/ammo manufacturers packing up and moving their businesses to pro-gun states? Also, what are your thoughts about hunters boycotting states pushing strict legislation? Seems like politics are making some states lose a LOT of tax dollars right now. Will you be supporting the comming bills to raise your taxes to make up for the lack of revenue brought in by hunters? Are you comfortable with more wildlife being all over the road and moving into suburban areas due to the lack of population control? I'm willing to bet that farmers are not going to like the extra wildlife their crops!

    do you hunt with a machine gun? if not, then your points are moo. like a cow's opinion.

    tve10049-19971030-444.jpg
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,605
    dudeman wrote:
    "Machine guns" are, and have been illegal in this country for years.

    And the country survived. The government did not ban all guns. Life went on.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited April 2013
    fife wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Just out of my own curiosity, though, how does everyone here feel about the gun/ammo manufacturers packing up and moving their businesses to pro-gun states? Also, what are your thoughts about hunters boycotting states pushing strict legislation? Seems like politics are making some states lose a LOT of tax dollars right now. Will you be supporting the comming bills to raise your taxes to make up for the lack of revenue brought in by hunters? Are you comfortable with more wildlife being all over the road and moving into suburban areas due to the lack of population control? I'm willing to bet that farmers are not going to like the extra wildlife their crops!

    I find it funny that you accused the left of scare tactics and then unleash one yourself.

    First of all, where have I accused the left of scare tactics? Secondly, it's not a scare tactic, it's the truth. Somewhere in the range of 30,000 people have cancelled their hunting vacations to CO because of these bills. Gun manufacturers are getting the hell out of these states. It's called backlash. Both sides of the argument are guilty of using "scare tactics". A few people have even been exploiting children and victims of tragedies...
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Just out of my own curiosity, though, how does everyone here feel about the gun/ammo manufacturers packing up and moving their businesses to pro-gun states? Also, what are your thoughts about hunters boycotting states pushing strict legislation? Seems like politics are making some states lose a LOT of tax dollars right now. Will you be supporting the comming bills to raise your taxes to make up for the lack of revenue brought in by hunters? Are you comfortable with more wildlife being all over the road and moving into suburban areas due to the lack of population control? I'm willing to bet that farmers are not going to like the extra wildlife their crops!

    do you hunt with a machine gun? if not, then your points are moo. like a cow's opinion.
    Wow, what an awesome opinion. Such an inteligent response is what I love about AMT. "Machine guns"!?!?!? Really?

Categories