Ultimately I would really just like to stick to the topic at hand which is what happened to this guy that spoke out about assault weapons? I'd like to know your thoughts on them.
I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.
If anyone has a valid use that the general population would require them for. And why people seem so worried about banning them. I'm just really curious to hear. Truly.
[/quote]
This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.
This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.
So what are the differences jeff? Because I'm confused.
A semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired, the shell ejected, and a new one chambered automatically. It means you don't have to "cock" the gun each time. A large percentage of shotguns are semi-automatic. A large percentage of handguns are semi-automatic (basically anything that isn't single-shot or revolver). A number of rifles are semi-automatic. Depending upon how they look, and what capacity of magazine they have, they may be labeled an "assault weapon" for some reason.
An automatic weapon will fire multiple shots by continuing to depress the trigger. They are very rare in this country, and it takes a special permit to obtain one (the permit is extensive and costly, and the firearms are prohibitively costly). Sometimes these are called full-auto, fully automatic, or machine guns. They are generally used by the military.
The firearms referenced in the original post was about semi-automatic rifles and had nothing to do with automatic firearms.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
A semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired, the shell ejected, and a new one chambered automatically. It means you don't have to "cock" the gun each time. A large percentage of shotguns are semi-automatic. A large percentage of handguns are semi-automatic (basically anything that isn't single-shot or revolver). A number of rifles are semi-automatic. Depending upon how they look, and what capacity of magazine they have, they may be labeled an "assault weapon" for some reason.
An automatic weapon will fire multiple shots by continuing to depress the trigger. They are very rare in this country, and it takes a special permit to obtain one (the permit is extensive and costly, and the firearms are prohibitively costly). Sometimes these are called full-auto, fully automatic, or machine guns. They are generally used by the military.
The firearms referenced in the original post was about semi-automatic rifles and had nothing to do with automatic firearms.
Ok, so the gun that I fired, the .22 would be considered a semi-automatic then? I think yes. Judging by your description that is what happened when I pulled the trigger. And this is the gun that onelongsong is indicating in post #35 is used in the extermination of prairie dogs? So besides the prairie dogs this gun would have uses in a rural setting for the extermination of pests? And if that is the case then couldn't the licence and ownership of these guns be conditional on the address and occupation of the owner?
I am glad that you clarified the difference for me. Thank you. Makes a lot more sense now.
I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.
Ah, thanks for reminding me. It's been a long thread.
Yeah, I agree, that his comments were probably ill advised in that he had a better opportunity available to him to make change by working within the organization. The outcome of his comments is understandable.
This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.
Yep that makes sense. Knew I'd read about prairie dogs somewhere!
Yeah, I suspect that kind of weapon would be very useful in a farming environment. I think we have special laws allowing farmers to own them here for the purpose of eradication.
Who here has advocated for the possession of automatic weapons?
My mistake. I didn't check the original post. I thought it was talking about automatics, not semi-automatics. My argument is still the same, that nobody needs to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, but since we already agreed not to bang on about it, I won't start again now.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Hey Jeans, big day for you on this thread, I've been following with a degree of interest. I think your personal experiences, and how you dealt with them give you a lot of cred here.
The reasonable arguments about sensible use of irearms in a rural environment are not really relevant to the overall gun debate though are they ?? As you have noted, we manage here in Oz without guns in general communities, while having strict but workable laws about not just gun ownership, but also storage, to enable legit sport shooters and rural users to access firearms safely.
Extrapolating beyond that environment and use though is a different story.
My take is that the US has really left it too late to eradicate guns as there are too many, and their use and possession is too deply entrenched into teh national psyche.
Sad really !!
My mistake. I didn't check the original post. I thought it was talking about automatics, not semi-automatics. My argument is still the same, that nobody needs to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, but since we already agreed not to bang on about it, I won't start again now.
Hiya scott, so you're saying not necessary for hunting, but you don't mean for farming do you?
Hey Jeans, big day for you on this thread, I've been following with a degree of interest. I think your personal experiences, and how you dealt with them give you a lot of cred here.
The reasonable arguments about sensible use of irearms in a rural environment are not really relevant to the overall gun debate though are they ?? As you have noted, we manage here in Oz without guns in general communities, while having strict but workable laws about not just gun ownership, but also storage, to enable legit sport shooters and rural users to access firearms safely.
Extrapolating beyond that environment and use though is a different story.
My take is that the US has really left it too late to eradicate guns as there are too many, and their use and possession is too deply entrenched into teh national psyche.
Sad really !!
Ta love. Not that I wanted to air dirty laundry but it seemed pertinent to the personal issues that onelongsong put forth. And it's interesting to see that everybody has a different take on what is pretty much some common experiences. Interesting how we would behave differently. And I guess seeing how he would respond, well I can understand that.
Particularly given the differences in culture between Oz and the US. I wonder though if we really are that different? I mean I know people here who are avid hunters, that have always had guns. And I agree that they should have the right to have them. I am constantly musing about what would happen if the US did manage to somehow introduce stricter controls and it makes me laugh to think what kind of furore a national buy back similar to the one we had here would create there!! Can you imagine it? Boy, it created a big enough furore here and most of us supported it! Istill hold out hope that the Americans will find ways to improve and streamline their gun laws and ownership and manufacture. I know it's entrenched but I have heard some really heartening things here on this thread. Quite reasonable comments from both sides of the debate. So that makes me optimistic about the future both here and in the US. And lets face it Luce, who have thunk that we would see the kinds of reforms and education that we have seen with regard to smoking. I mean big tobacco is pretty much on it's knees on the mat at the moment. And I bet that's something we never thought we'd see 20 years ago!!
Hiya scott, so you're saying not necessary for hunting, but you don't mean for farming do you?
Ok, here is my position, just for the sake of clarity.
For animal control/hunting purposes, there is absolutely no need for automatic OR semi-automatic firearms, or firearms with a magazine capacity of more than five or ten rounds. If hunting is done in an ethical manner, the person handling the firearm should not be firing more than two shots at any animal. I say two shots, because although one is preferable, sometimes the first shot does not kill the animal outright, and a second is neccessary to finish it off. A bolt action rifle with a low capacity magazine or similar firearm in the hands of properly skilled operator is sufficient for that purpose. If the weapon is of insufficient calibre to stop a large animal with one or two shots, it shouldn't even be aimed at that animal. Hunting animals like pigs, deer or kangaroos with a .22 for example, is inhumane, as it will most likely take several shots to kill them.
Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines, and since they are completely unneccessary for hunting, they should not available to the general public.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I guess because many Americans in general feel under attack. So coming from that view point it's hard for them to have this discussion without feeling that it's an attack on their constitutional freedoms. Which maybe it is. For them. I guess from our point of view it isn't. Right? We'd just like to know why right?
didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.
Ok, here is my position, just for the sake of clarity.
For animal control/hunting purposes, there is absolutely no need for automatic OR semi-automatic firearms, or firearms with a magazine capacity of more than five or ten rounds. If hunting is done in an ethical manner, the person handling the firearm should not be firing more than two shots at any animal. I say two shots, because although one is preferable, sometimes the first shot does not kill the animal outright, and a second is neccessary to finish it off. A bolt action rifle with a low capacity magazine or similar firearm in the hands of properly skilled operator is sufficient for that purpose. If the weapon is of insufficient calibre to stop a large animal with one or two shots, it shouldn't even be aimed at that animal. Hunting animals like pigs, deer or kangaroos with a .22 for example, is inhumane, as it will most likely take several shots to kill them.
Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines, and since they are completely unneccessary for hunting, they should not available to the general public.
hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies? as for the ability to kill; i have a single shot bolt action. in 2005 i had to kill a deer for food. i killed it with 1 shot from 300 yards. i couldn't have done that with an assault rifle. the bullets are too small for one. assault weapons are made to injure and that's the second reason. in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
as for hunting; if an animal hears a twig snap; all you'll see is tail for a brief moment.
it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have.
In the same manner? It's not in the same manner at all. I'll try and find a link that explains the Swiss system for you.
And as for why people "shits on about loose gun laws" in the States in stead of on Switzerland, it might have something to do with school shootings, which acted as a catalyst in the gun debate. There hasn't been a single school shooting in Switzerland (correct me if I'm wrong) and how many in the States, dozens?
hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies?
I'm sorry but that's a pretty weak argument, imo.
Scott said: Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines
So you'd have to compare battle that were fought with manual action firearms with battles fought with automatic weapons. A comparison like that isn't really possible. And there's not ethical way of testing this.
I'm going to go with logic here and agree with Scott.
in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
But people have been very innovative since WWI and weapons have become far more effective than the weapons used in WWI.
In the same manner? It's not in the same manner at all. I'll try and find a link that explains the Swiss system for you.
And as for why people "shits on about loose gun laws" in the States in stead of on Switzerland, it might have something to do with school shootings, which acted as a catalyst in the gun debate. There hasn't been a single school shooting in Switzerland (correct me if I'm wrong) and how many in the States, dozens?
so we punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of a dozen? i recall a school shooting in canada not too long ago. WTF? they have strict gun laws. so strict that i personally brought a handgun into canada several times.
so that's the way we think now, huh? we rewrite our inalienable rights and our constitution for the crimes of a dozen when it will have NO IMPACT AT ALL on illegal guns. sounds like conveluted logic to me. does this mean we should imprison ALL mexicans because of the actions of a few? let's imprison all middle easterners for 9/11 too. it all fits into that train of logic.
Scott said: Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines
So you'd have to compare battle that were fought with manual action firearms with battles fought with automatic weapons. A comparison like that isn't really possible. And there's not ethical way of testing this.
I'm going to go with logic here and agree with Scott.
But people have been very innovative since WWI and weapons have become far more effective than the weapons used in WWI.
then why were more people killed (per capita) in WWI than in WWII? WWI used heavier bullets with the capacity to kill humans. with an automatic weapon you "spray and pray" as it's almost impossible to control because of muzzle lift. with single shot or low capacity magazines a soldier aims at his target.
the "44 minutes" incident in california proved that modern automatic weapons are inferior. on the other hand; the washington sniper incident proved that low capacity manual weapons are superior as evidenced in their kill rate.
so we punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of a dozen?
Who said anything about punishment?
so that's the way we think now, huh? we rewrite our inalienable rights and our constitution for the crimes of a dozen when it will have NO IMPACT AT ALL on illegal guns.
Google the school shootings and see how many were with illegal guns.
then why were more people killed (per capita) in WWI than in WWII?
Any evidence?
the "44 minutes" incident in california proved that modern automatic weapons are inferior. on the other hand; the washington sniper incident proved that low capacity manual weapons are superior as evidenced in their kill rate.
Google the school shootings and see how many were with illegal guns.
i can walk into any big city and buy an illegal gun within hours. as for school shootings; google the school shootings and see how many of the shooters were old enough to legally own a gun. if they were under age; it was illegal for them to carry that gun. guns are not allowed on school property which also made it illegal. it's illegal to kill by any means so that made it illegal too. as i recall; some had pipe bombs capable of killing many more people. so how many laws do we need to make the same crime MORE illegal?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i can walk into any big city and buy an illegal gun within hours. as for school shootings; google the school shootings and see how many of the shooters were old enough to legally own a gun. if they were under age; it was illegal for them to carry that gun. guns are not allowed on school property which also made it illegal. it's illegal to kill by any means so that made it illegal too. as i recall; some had pipe bombs capable of killing many more people. so how many laws do we need to make the same crime MORE illegal?
You made it sound like crimes were only commited with illegal firearms. Yes, it was illegal for the kids to have these etc. but most likely their father or mother bought them legally.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
I know the topic went down a tangent. I did, actually, comment directly on the firing. Posts #2 & #4 speak directly to the original topic.
[/quote]
This was actually covered by Onelongsong pretty well when he explained why it would make sense for someone to use a lower caliber, semi-automatic rifle to "hunt" varmints. Post #35 covered that one.
So what are the differences jeff? Because I'm confused.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Cool. Thanks jeff!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
A semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired, the shell ejected, and a new one chambered automatically. It means you don't have to "cock" the gun each time. A large percentage of shotguns are semi-automatic. A large percentage of handguns are semi-automatic (basically anything that isn't single-shot or revolver). A number of rifles are semi-automatic. Depending upon how they look, and what capacity of magazine they have, they may be labeled an "assault weapon" for some reason.
An automatic weapon will fire multiple shots by continuing to depress the trigger. They are very rare in this country, and it takes a special permit to obtain one (the permit is extensive and costly, and the firearms are prohibitively costly). Sometimes these are called full-auto, fully automatic, or machine guns. They are generally used by the military.
The firearms referenced in the original post was about semi-automatic rifles and had nothing to do with automatic firearms.
Ok, so the gun that I fired, the .22 would be considered a semi-automatic then? I think yes. Judging by your description that is what happened when I pulled the trigger. And this is the gun that onelongsong is indicating in post #35 is used in the extermination of prairie dogs? So besides the prairie dogs this gun would have uses in a rural setting for the extermination of pests? And if that is the case then couldn't the licence and ownership of these guns be conditional on the address and occupation of the owner?
I am glad that you clarified the difference for me. Thank you. Makes a lot more sense now.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Ah, thanks for reminding me. It's been a long thread.
Yeah, I agree, that his comments were probably ill advised in that he had a better opportunity available to him to make change by working within the organization. The outcome of his comments is understandable.
Yep that makes sense. Knew I'd read about prairie dogs somewhere!
Yeah, I suspect that kind of weapon would be very useful in a farming environment. I think we have special laws allowing farmers to own them here for the purpose of eradication.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
My mistake. I didn't check the original post. I thought it was talking about automatics, not semi-automatics. My argument is still the same, that nobody needs to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes, but since we already agreed not to bang on about it, I won't start again now.
-C Addison
The reasonable arguments about sensible use of irearms in a rural environment are not really relevant to the overall gun debate though are they ?? As you have noted, we manage here in Oz without guns in general communities, while having strict but workable laws about not just gun ownership, but also storage, to enable legit sport shooters and rural users to access firearms safely.
Extrapolating beyond that environment and use though is a different story.
My take is that the US has really left it too late to eradicate guns as there are too many, and their use and possession is too deply entrenched into teh national psyche.
Sad really !!
Hiya scott, so you're saying not necessary for hunting, but you don't mean for farming do you?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Ta love.
Particularly given the differences in culture between Oz and the US. I wonder though if we really are that different? I mean I know people here who are avid hunters, that have always had guns. And I agree that they should have the right to have them. I am constantly musing about what would happen if the US did manage to somehow introduce stricter controls and it makes me laugh to think what kind of furore a national buy back similar to the one we had here would create there!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Ok, here is my position, just for the sake of clarity.
For animal control/hunting purposes, there is absolutely no need for automatic OR semi-automatic firearms, or firearms with a magazine capacity of more than five or ten rounds. If hunting is done in an ethical manner, the person handling the firearm should not be firing more than two shots at any animal. I say two shots, because although one is preferable, sometimes the first shot does not kill the animal outright, and a second is neccessary to finish it off. A bolt action rifle with a low capacity magazine or similar firearm in the hands of properly skilled operator is sufficient for that purpose. If the weapon is of insufficient calibre to stop a large animal with one or two shots, it shouldn't even be aimed at that animal. Hunting animals like pigs, deer or kangaroos with a .22 for example, is inhumane, as it will most likely take several shots to kill them.
Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines, and since they are completely unneccessary for hunting, they should not available to the general public.
-C Addison
http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar50.htm
why the hell would you ever need that fuckiing thing?
any gun that weighs 34 pounds and comes with tylenol is not designed for hunting.
didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.
hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies? as for the ability to kill; i have a single shot bolt action. in 2005 i had to kill a deer for food. i killed it with 1 shot from 300 yards. i couldn't have done that with an assault rifle. the bullets are too small for one. assault weapons are made to injure and that's the second reason. in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
as for hunting; if an animal hears a twig snap; all you'll see is tail for a brief moment.
In the same manner? It's not in the same manner at all. I'll try and find a link that explains the Swiss system for you.
And as for why people "shits on about loose gun laws" in the States in stead of on Switzerland, it might have something to do with school shootings, which acted as a catalyst in the gun debate. There hasn't been a single school shooting in Switzerland (correct me if I'm wrong) and how many in the States, dozens?
naděje umírá poslední
I'm sorry but that's a pretty weak argument, imo.
Scott said: Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines
So you'd have to compare battle that were fought with manual action firearms with battles fought with automatic weapons. A comparison like that isn't really possible. And there's not ethical way of testing this.
I'm going to go with logic here and agree with Scott.
But people have been very innovative since WWI and weapons have become far more effective than the weapons used in WWI.
naděje umírá poslední
so we punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of a dozen? i recall a school shooting in canada not too long ago. WTF? they have strict gun laws. so strict that i personally brought a handgun into canada several times.
so that's the way we think now, huh? we rewrite our inalienable rights and our constitution for the crimes of a dozen when it will have NO IMPACT AT ALL on illegal guns. sounds like conveluted logic to me. does this mean we should imprison ALL mexicans because of the actions of a few? let's imprison all middle easterners for 9/11 too. it all fits into that train of logic.
then why were more people killed (per capita) in WWI than in WWII? WWI used heavier bullets with the capacity to kill humans. with an automatic weapon you "spray and pray" as it's almost impossible to control because of muzzle lift. with single shot or low capacity magazines a soldier aims at his target.
the "44 minutes" incident in california proved that modern automatic weapons are inferior. on the other hand; the washington sniper incident proved that low capacity manual weapons are superior as evidenced in their kill rate.
naděje umírá poslední
Any evidence?
Actually, that doesn't prove a single thing.
naděje umírá poslední
i can walk into any big city and buy an illegal gun within hours. as for school shootings; google the school shootings and see how many of the shooters were old enough to legally own a gun. if they were under age; it was illegal for them to carry that gun. guns are not allowed on school property which also made it illegal. it's illegal to kill by any means so that made it illegal too. as i recall; some had pipe bombs capable of killing many more people. so how many laws do we need to make the same crime MORE illegal?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yes; check your history.
thousands of bullets sprayed at hundreds of police and bystanders without a death doesn't prove anything? what the hell kind of proof do you need?
You made it sound like crimes were only commited with illegal firearms. Yes, it was illegal for the kids to have these etc. but most likely their father or mother bought them legally.
The pipe bombs didn't go off.
naděje umírá poslední
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't have info on the deaths per capita.
Real proof, not a single event.
naděje umírá poslední
so why keep coming back?
you seem to know everything; do some research.