The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorance"-the anti gun crowd
Way to overlook the obvious. Thirty pretty much laid out clearly how fucked it is that we 're fkn gun crazy. Live in city and have none of this paranoia of being raped or killed.
Think it would be great for you to spend couple of years in Switzerland and feel how great it is to live in a place that your not in fear of being shot by a gun.
Guns are cool mechanical devices. And deer need to be culled but we fucked ourselves into a corner.
More guns. Open carry. More guns. Bigger guns. Yee haw!!!!
Farmer Joe with hunting rifles and shotguns isn't the target of gun control. Commando Billy with his handguns and assault rifles, and gang members with their handguns and mac 10s are the target, farmer Joe is a deflection. I have a rifle, and *GASP* I have used it to put food on the spit. Doesn't mean I have to stand in the way of mag limits, BG checks, and waiting periods out of some misguided solidarity handed down by the rich men who profit from gun sales.
So how exactly do you propose taking away handguns from gang members?
Hahaha idiotic rhetoric? Relating recreation to travel should qualify. Auto travel makes medical care, family contact, and career choice possible. The car analogy works against you here, as you are concerned with recreation. Driving fast is fun and yet we all accept speed limits as rational limits to our recreation, due to the undeniable correlation between auto speed and rate of fatality.
So you are saying that everyone used a car in a legal form or fashion 100% of the time? Why are cars even built with the ability of going over the speed limit?There are limits on firearms as well, lots of them. I just fail to understand how making something illegal is going to stop people from using them in illegal ways...round and round we go. I'm tired, good luck finding a magic wand to make guns disappear.
Here in ohio only the first purchaser is subject to a bg check. In my view traceability for all sales from initial purchase on down the line would with accountability in those guns that make their way into the hands of criminals.
As it stands now in my state a "private" gun transaction happens in the "dark". I say shine a light on this shit.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorance"-the anti gun crowd
Way to overlook the obvious. Thirty pretty much laid out clearly how fucked it is that we 're fkn gun crazy.
Think it would be great for you to spend couple of years in Switzerland and feel how great it is to live in a place that your not in fear of being shot by a gun.
Excellent, there are not as many border problems, gang problems, drug problems, poverty problems, education problems in Switzerland...do those things hold no merit? Maybe if we isolated like Switzerland, so many of our gun problems would go away... I wanna wanna be like the Swiss (playing the "I want to be like Mike" music in my head)
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorance"-the anti gun crowd
Way to overlook the obvious. Thirty pretty much laid out clearly how fucked it is that we 're fkn gun crazy.
Think it would be great for you to spend couple of years in Switzerland and feel how great it is to live in a place that your not in fear of being shot by a gun.
Excellent, there are not as many border problems, gang problems, drug problems, poverty problems, education problems in Switzerland...do those things hold no merit? Maybe if we isolated like Switzerland, so many of our gun problems would go away... I wanna wanna be like the Swiss (playing the "I want to be like Mike" music in my head)
Our problems are exasperated by guns. Easier to get gun in US than in Mexico. Major source of guns in Mexico come from the US. blame everyone else other than the paranoid insecure white male gun owner. Those coloreds are gonna get you.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorance"-the anti gun crowd
Way to overlook the obvious. Thirty pretty much laid out clearly how fucked it is that we 're fkn gun crazy.
Think it would be great for you to spend couple of years in Switzerland and feel how great it is to live in a place that your not in fear of being shot by a gun.
Excellent, there are not as many border problems, gang problems, drug problems, poverty problems, education problems in Switzerland...do those things hold no merit? Maybe if we isolated like Switzerland, so many of our gun problems would go away... I wanna wanna be like the Swiss (playing the "I want to be like Mike" music in my head)
Our problems are exasperated by guns. Easier to get gun in US than in Mexico. Major source of guns in Mexico come from the US. blame everyone else other than the paranoid insecure white male gun owner. Those coloreds are gonna get you.
Wow, that's a pretty racist thing for you to say...way to demonize white male gun owners. I know plenty of white, Hispanic, and Black gun owners that would be offended by this statement. That is by far more bigotry than has ever been expressed by me. Interesting too, most of my psychology books talk about how usage of offensive sarcasm and insecurity go hand in hand. Congratulations! As far as guns getting into the hands of Mexican cartels, you can thank the current administration for that, see "Fast and Furious"
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
There is only a long term solution and no 'quick fix' to the problem your country experiences.
If you wish to curb the problem, then you need to take the first steps towards doing so. Producing and distributing more guns to 'match' the guns that are already in existence is not the answer. This is only making the problem more challenging.
I would not pretend that there are underlying issues that contribute to the whopping total of gun deaths your country has to its credit, however as you said so yourself: if there were zero guns there would be zero gun deaths.
As unrealistic as that might be... a 50% ownership rate in a decade or two might not be. And, as a result of such, fewer people would have lost their lives to a gun. Further... a 25% ownership rate in 3-4 decades might be achievable. Change must start somewhere.
Would you accept Canada's ownership and gun death ratio that I presented to you earlier?
There is only a long term solution and no 'quick fix' to the problem your country experiences.
If you wish to curb the problem, then you need to take the first steps towards doing so. Producing and distributing more guns to 'match' the guns that are already in existence is not the answer. This is only making the problem more challenging.
I would not pretend that there are underlying issues that contribute to the whopping total of gun deaths your country has to its credit, however as you said so yourself: if there were zero guns there would be zero gun deaths.
As unrealistic as that might be... a 50% ownership rate in a decade or two might not be. And, as a result of such, fewer people would have lost their lives to a gun. Further... a 25% ownership rate in 3-4 decades might be achievable. Change must start somewhere.
Would you accept Canada's ownership and gun death ratio that I presented to you earlier?
I think that ratio is irrelevant to the discussion is what I'm saying. We should take that ratio from city to city if you want a reflection of the true underlying problems. Cities like Chicago have a much higher ratio than a city with different demographics/socioeconomic structures. I'm willing to bet that El Paso has a very large population of gun owners, but why not the rampant gun deaths?
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorance"-the anti gun crowd
Way to overlook the obvious. Thirty pretty much laid out clearly how fucked it is that we 're fkn gun crazy.
Think it would be great for you to spend couple of years in Switzerland and feel how great it is to live in a place that your not in fear of being shot by a gun.
Excellent, there are not as many border problems, gang problems, drug problems, poverty problems, education problems in Switzerland...do those things hold no merit? Maybe if we isolated like Switzerland, so many of our gun problems would go away... I wanna wanna be like the Swiss (playing the "I want to be like Mike" music in my head)
Our problems are exasperated by guns. Easier to get gun in US than in Mexico. Major source of guns in Mexico come from the US. blame everyone else other than the paranoid insecure white male gun owner. Those coloreds are gonna get you.
Wow, that's a pretty racist thing for you to say...way to demonize white male gun owners. I know plenty of white, Hispanic, and Black gun owners that would be offended by this statement. That is by far more bigotry than has ever been expressed by me. Interesting too, most of my psychology books talk about how usage of offensive sarcasm and insecurity go hand in hand. Congratulations! As far as guns getting into the hands of Mexican cartels, you can thank the current administration for that, see "Fast and Furious"
Oh I get your "isolation" term. Rallying cry from pro gun people when replying on why we need guns more than more homogeneous societies.
Fast and furious was due to all the gun shops making a killing literally and figuratively selling the thousands of guns sold by republican gun shop owners to straw man purchases going to Mexico. Complete lack of statistics to think that this program in any way contributed to any meaningful percentage of guns imported to Mexico from the us. .000001% maybe?
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
I say that zero guns and zero deaths is a pretty stupid fucking thing to think will ever happen. Get real. I'm saying that I will never vote for a politician running on gun control because of all the other strings attached and because most of them clearly know nothing about what they are trying to regulate. I'm saying that I enjoy effectively hunting my own food and having something other than a baseball bat in my house if in the very rare instance someone did try to break in. I'm saying that people who use the term "assault rifle" usually don't know what they are talking about and how guns actually work.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work? Come on.
Again... you miss the glaring point, or are unable to respond while effectively holding fast to your position.
Zero guns and zero deaths are unrealistic. But a massive reduction in ownership ratios as well as placing limits on what is made available to consumers and more comprehensive background checks is not- it's been done in other countries with great success (Canada and the UK for example). Success defined as safer societies.
You say you want fewer gun deaths, but the strength of your conviction tells another story. When handguns are readily available, access to them is a breeze, and ammunition is cheap and sold to anyone... there are going to be problems. When assault rifles are accessible to madmen who wish to express their rage with violence (Holmes, Lanza)... there are going to be problems.
If Sandy Hook wasn't enough a catalyst for change then nothing will be. You are safe from necessary gun reform- just don't try to convince sensible people that this is wise... because it's not.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
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
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
Anti gun term assault rifle is rarely used to commit crimes, but don't let that fact get in the way of a good liberal lie.
0
Options
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
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
Anti gun term assault rifle is rarely used to commit crimes, but don't let that fact get in the way of a good liberal lie.
But the crimes they are used in are of the shocking variety. So shocking to some that they demand reform.
The potential military style weaponry has to inflict much harm in little time begs consideration for reform. Why does the common citizen, in a country as protected such as yours from external threat, need a military style weapon?
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
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
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I guess what makes the term "assault rifle" and "military style" idiotic to anyone that knows anything about firearms is that there is a big difference between an ar-15 and the fully automatic version that is used by the military. I do not know of any military that would use an ar-15. It is a semi-automatic rifle= one trigger squeeze, one bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a machine gun. Many people hunt with them, they are particularly effective against wild boar when out on foot because of their versatility. It may seem like nothing to someone uneducated, but to someone that knows about firearms, the term and people who use the term "military style assault rifle" is mocked and void of any credit. It shows that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to guns and makes any sensible gun owners think that only the people that are ignorant about guns are trying to push the legislation pertaining to them.
Military 'style' weapon.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
Only gun users know what an assault rifle is and how guns work?
Only anti-gunners use the term assault rifle.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
What do pro-gunners use to describe their assault rifles?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
I don't know what an assault rifle is. The word assault is a verb, an action. It is not a noun.
If you happen to be speaking of a sporting firearm like an AR-15 then I would just call them what the general government calls them when they purchase them, which is personal defense weapons.
The USA is the most armed country in the world. The USA features 97 guns per 100 people. This is the highest ownership rate in the world- by far. The second most armed country is Serbia at 58.2 guns per 100 people.
The USA boasts the highest firearm related death rate of any developed country... by far- 10.3 per 100,000 bite the bullet each year. For comparison's sake... Canada 2.38 (30.8 guns per 100 people) and the UK 0.25 (6.2 guns per 100,000).
* Note that Canada has a higher ownership rate than the UK and, correspondingly, a higher death rate as well.
So... use really weak 'car' analogies and 'walking across the street' analogies and 'kitchen fork' analogies to rationalize and preserve unchecked gun ownership... but the bottom line is... more guns= more deaths by guns. This is indisputable and a homerun for the anti-gun crowd.
People should be more forthright. Instead of using feeble arguments to justify gun ownership and making yourself look slightly goofy in the process... just say, "Mmmmm. Guns" ... because honestly... as elaborate as one might try and make themselves sound trying to convince someone of the value of guns in light of the staggering yearly death rates and shocking daily incidents... that's what the argument comes across as.
Bullshit, I think that what you stated is exactly why people use the car analogy. People owning more guns=more gun deaths. People owning more cars=more car deaths. But...anyone could also say that people owning guns=more people defending their homes with guns. People owning guns=more people using guns to avoid being kidnaped and raped...There are two sides to everything. "Mmmmmm, ignorant media tool"-the anti gun crowd
This is foolishness.
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
How am I dancing around the design and purpose argument? I use my guns to kill pigs, deer, pheasant. They kill well for me. Would you prefer me stone a deer to death? Some places use guns for avalanche control. Bows and arrows were designed to kill people. Originally, knifes and clubs were used to kill...but that does not mean that their current purpose is to kill people. Some people use things outside of their design, just as some people do use cars to kill and many gun owners use guns to shoot paper for competition. I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
Firstly, nobody here is arguing to take your hunting rifles away so that you cannot kill pigs, deer and pheasant. People are opposed to handguns and military style rifles such as the AR-15 (as well as high capacity magazines and 'easy-peasy' access).
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
Curious...wonder how many people in El Paso are gun owners? My neighbors with guns have yet to pose a problem for me. 90% of the gun violence in my area are foreigners and Mexican mafia/gang related. In fact, there have been many violent burglaries recently that have been stopped by homeowners with guns. Who is playing the fear card now?
Key word: yet.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
No, I want that price tag down as much as the next person, but my ideas as to how to make that happen are not the same as yours. But if it is elementary logic, why can you not also admit that more guns also=more people protecting themselves with guns? If there were 0 guns, then you are right, there would be 0 gun deaths, but I live in the real world. More gun safety education = more safe handling of guns. Less violent media=less violent culture. And you may not be, but trust me, there are plenty out there "shitting all over" the hunters and would like nothing better than a forceful confiscation of all firearms. The extremists are on both ends.
So you prefer no guns and zero deaths or the status quo of right to buy hand guns and assault rifles?
Anti gun term assault rifle is rarely used to commit crimes, but don't let that fact get in the way of a good liberal lie.
That's true, except sometimes in the case of mass shooting events, which America seems to have pretty much exclusively in the world. So since most crimes are committed with handguns let's get rid of them!
I see some people have been busy on here! I cannot speak for gun violence and crime in any other area except for where I live. You must remember that different places have a different set of circumstances. There are several factors that go into who someone commits a crime with a gun. Someones financial situation, unemployment, mental health, etc can influence why someone may choose to use a firearm in any other way other than self defense. I live in Indiana which is one of the most pro gun state in the country. Indiana is also one of the lowest states with gun deaths and homicides with guns. If you were to take Gary, Indiana, out of the picture then Indiana would definitely be an example for how a pro gun state has very few gun crimes. The fact is that we have to accept Gary, Indiana, in the statistics and the similarities between Gary and South Chicago are almost exact. You have very low income with very high crime. Jobs that cant compete with the money that you will make selling dope or robbing someone. I carry a gun every day and I know several people who do the same. Ive never had to use it or even take it out of the holster in any real life scenario. If I did and it saved my life or an innocent persons life, you wouldnt hear about it. You only hear the stories on the news where a crime was committed with a gun. Now dont take that last statement LITERALLY because I know you can site examples where it does make the news. I am trying to convey that tragedy makes the news. I see it often where I live. The news shows up for a story, but if no has died they leave, if someone dies, then its a top story for them.
Comments
Think it would be great for you to spend couple of years in Switzerland and feel how great it is to live in a place that your not in fear of being shot by a gun.
Guns are cool mechanical devices. And deer need to be culled but we fucked ourselves into a corner.
More guns. Open carry. More guns. Bigger guns. Yee haw!!!!
In my view traceability for all sales from initial purchase on down the line would with accountability in those guns that make their way into the hands of criminals.
As it stands now in my state a "private" gun transaction happens in the "dark". I say shine a light on this shit.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Why not add: more bubble gum= more choking deaths by bubble gum.
The countries I compared for you do not have an epidemic of the things you describe so... the 'being able to defend yourself against the bad guys' argument is another silly, silly one that gun advocates like to convince themselves of.
Part of the reason why Canada and the UK do not experience what you suggest is the fact that our despondent people do not become brazen enough to commit such acts because they do not have a cheap gun they just bought from the gas station (or on-line) that allows them to puff their chest out and become tough.
I love how you dance around the 'design and purpose' argument that is also very damaging to your case. Guns are designed to kill... so... the deaths that occur as a result of gun usage are ultimately by design. Bubble gum is designed for pleasure... so... the deaths that occur as a result of bubble gum chewing are an accident and outside the scope of bubble gum's design.
I bet Canada does not have to worry about other factors plaguing the USA either. I've never heard of cartels trying to get into the USA so that they can make their way to Canada...they end up in Houston, or LA, or Chicago. I am going to have a hard time being persuaded that they exist because guns are legal in the US.
As far as guns getting into the hands of Mexican cartels, you can thank the current administration for that, see "Fast and Furious"
Trust me when I say that Canada has it's share of the problems you speak of.
And the cartels are not something the average citizen in the US should be afraid of- unless you are in business with them. To illustrate what I mean... look at Juarez and El Paso (two cities that rest opposite each other on the Rio Grande River. In 2010, Juarez saw 3,110 murders, while El Paso had five- despite being second in the USA for banking cash deposits (obvious drug money).
El Paso, right next to Mexico, is consistently ranked as one of the USA's safest cities. So... it's not foreigners that should have you fearful... it's your neighbours with their guns that have become the problem for you.
All people who become part of gun death statistics could at one time boast yet.
I would also assume the overwhelming majority of gun owners spoke to the heightened level of responsibility for the weapons they maintained... right before their weapon discharged resulting in a death.
What am I trying to say? It's not always someone else. The people that comprise the gross gun death statistics likely didn't know they were to become part of the statistic. I'm sure many who argued adamantly against gun legislation would likely be singing a different tune if they had the chance to go back in time and reverse their poor fortunes.
It's about safeguarding people. It's not about shitting all over enthusiasts. Again... the bottom line is: fewer guns = fewer deaths by guns. Don't try and make an argument against this most elementary form of logic- it makes you appear something less than you likely are. Just admit, as some have already done, that you want guns and you are prepared to accept the price tag that comes with guns.
If you wish to curb the problem, then you need to take the first steps towards doing so. Producing and distributing more guns to 'match' the guns that are already in existence is not the answer. This is only making the problem more challenging.
I would not pretend that there are underlying issues that contribute to the whopping total of gun deaths your country has to its credit, however as you said so yourself: if there were zero guns there would be zero gun deaths.
As unrealistic as that might be... a 50% ownership rate in a decade or two might not be. And, as a result of such, fewer people would have lost their lives to a gun. Further... a 25% ownership rate in 3-4 decades might be achievable. Change must start somewhere.
Would you accept Canada's ownership and gun death ratio that I presented to you earlier?
Fast and furious was due to all the gun shops making a killing literally and figuratively selling the thousands of guns sold by republican gun shop owners to straw man purchases going to Mexico. Complete lack of statistics to think that this program in any way contributed to any meaningful percentage of guns imported to Mexico from the us. .000001% maybe?
Again... you miss the glaring point, or are unable to respond while effectively holding fast to your position.
Zero guns and zero deaths are unrealistic. But a massive reduction in ownership ratios as well as placing limits on what is made available to consumers and more comprehensive background checks is not- it's been done in other countries with great success (Canada and the UK for example). Success defined as safer societies.
You say you want fewer gun deaths, but the strength of your conviction tells another story. When handguns are readily available, access to them is a breeze, and ammunition is cheap and sold to anyone... there are going to be problems. When assault rifles are accessible to madmen who wish to express their rage with violence (Holmes, Lanza)... there are going to be problems.
If Sandy Hook wasn't enough a catalyst for change then nothing will be. You are safe from necessary gun reform- just don't try to convince sensible people that this is wise... because it's not.
Anti gun term assault rifle is rarely used to commit crimes, but don't let that fact get in the way of a good liberal lie.
Oh and ammo isn't cheap, another myth busted.
The potential military style weaponry has to inflict much harm in little time begs consideration for reform. Why does the common citizen, in a country as protected such as yours from external threat, need a military style weapon?
And there has been no myth busted here: it depends on what you define as cheap. From my perspective (and likely many others' as well), bullets are ridiculously cheap. Sorry.
In common written English language, a single quotation can be used to distinguish a word for its emphasis. In this particular usage, I chose to use a single quotation around 'style' so that it could be understood that the AR-15 was not an actual military rifle... but a rifle that has similar characteristics of one. I should have done so before, but I did not realize I was corresponding with someone who needed such a device to understand the meaning.
You don't think an 'assault' rifle differs from a traditional hunting rifle? Don't you think it's pistol grip and high capacity magazine make it a little different from, say, the .30-06 (my father's favourite hunting rifle).
I am far from ignorant of guns. I was raised by an avid hunter and fisherman who taught me everything I needed to know about guns. For many years, I spent days and nights in the interior of British Columbia's forests hunting for food we ate. For personal reasons, hunting is something neither my father or I persist in; however, I wouldn't begrudge anyone of their right to hunt themselves.
I don't know what an assault rifle is. The word assault is a verb, an action. It is not a noun.
If you happen to be speaking of a sporting firearm like an AR-15 then I would just call them what the general government calls them when they purchase them, which is personal defense weapons.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/