US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Big Jim P]

A Hummer is an assault car. So is a Jeep. Gotta ban them.

True, Jim can you remember the source for Class 3 Homicides? I Can't find it in my bookmarks.

Let me look.

Don't have it bookmarked.

[Yes Im Biop]

DO you know how many Homicides have involved Class 3 weapons Since 1934? 3. That's 3 in what? 80 or so years...Come on math work for me!.
One was by a Cop.

Source? The US had eight shark deaths in the past century. Most causes of deaths are more likely than shark attacks.

8 per YEAR

3 Per 80 years is a lot less then 8 per year.

True, Jim can you remember the source for Class 3 Homicides? I Can't find it in my bookmarks.

Let me look.

Thank's man... Is your avatar you?

[Hornesia]

1. We would enforce the law extensively, than. When so many people's lives are at stake, and many of these guns being sold will end up in the hands of criminals, we can't afford to skimp on enforcement.
2. There are fewer tests on gun owners than there are on car owners. To get a car, you must be of age and pass a test. To get a gun, you must appear to be of age, and that's it.
3. Semi auto's may fire one shot per trigger, but there's no need to reload after each shot. That's the difference. Semi-automatic weapons are completely unnecessary for self defense or for hunting, and they just give criminals more people to shoot.
4. The AR15 is semi automatic. I don't care what it looks like, people have no need for semi-automatic weapons, they just allow people (including criminals) to shoot much faster.

1. How do you propose to do so in a practical sense?

2. Where do you live? I need to move ASAP if that's true.

3&4. So we go back to 18th century muskets and flintlocks then? Good luck going on a hunting trip or defending yourself from an attacker with a weapon that fires 2-3 shots per min.

Yeah, as someone with 19th century weapons knowledge, you'd be better off with a baseball bat than a musket

[Uieurnthlaal]

Source? The US had eight shark deaths in the past century. Most causes of deaths are more likely than shark attacks.

8 per YEAR

3 Per 80 years is a lot less then 8 per year.

You answered a request for a source by repeating yourself. I can pull a number out of my hat, namely that I was actually wrong, and only one person was killed by shark attacks since the history of America. However, because of this source, I know that the actual number is 36 during the part 450 years, giving an approximate 8 within the past 100 years.

[Yes Im Biop]

1. How do you propose to do so in a practical sense?

2. Where do you live? I need to move ASAP if that's true.

3&4. So we go back to 18th century muskets and flintlocks then? Good luck going on a hunting trip or defending yourself from an attacker with a weapon that fires 2-3 shots per min.

Yeah, as someone with 19th century weapons knowledge, you'd be better off with a baseball bat than a musket

I donno. If someone had a Blunderbuss I'd make myself really scarce really quick

[Big Jim P]

Source? The US had eight shark deaths in the past century. Most causes of deaths are more likely than shark attacks.

8 per YEAR

3 Per 80 years is a lot less then 8 per year.

Let me look.

Thank's man... Is your avatar you?

Yes, that is me.

[Hornesia]

Yeah, as someone with 19th century weapons knowledge, you'd be better off with a baseball bat than a musket

I donno. If someone had a Blunderbuss I'd make myself really scarce really quick

A blunderbuss is as likely to explode as fire. The only practical use of a musket today would be a bayonet platform.

[Yes Im Biop]

8 per YEAR

3 Per 80 years is a lot less then 8 per year.





Thank's man... Is your avatar you?

Yes, that is me.

You look like Glen Flemming

I donno. If someone had a Blunderbuss I'd make myself really scarce really quick

A blunderbuss is as likely to explode as fire. The only practical use of a musket today would be a bayonet platform.

If someone had Elmer Fudd's gun I would GTFO Ether way XD

[Ifreann]

I don't believe you. I think you're lying.

leave my nation.

I don't think I'm in your nation. Even if I was, I'm not about to leave anywhere on the say so of some nobody on the internet.

[Agritum]

Yes, that is me.

You look like Glen Flemming

A blunderbuss is as likely to explode as fire. The only practical use of a musket today would be a bayonet platform.

If someone had Elmer Fudd's gun I would GTFO Ether way XD

Elmer Fudd had a double barrel shotgun, actually.

EDIT:...nope, an hunting rifle. Damn memory.

[Yes Im Biop]

You look like Glen Flemming




If someone had Elmer Fudd's gun I would GTFO Ether way XD

Elmer Fudd had a double barrell shotgun, actually.

...
True...

[Hornesia]

Every time a school tells my reenactment group to leave the rifles at home during a demonstration, I laugh, "Fire! No, wait, stop running while we reload"

[Uieurnthlaal]

1. How do you propose to do so in a practical sense?

2. Where do you live? I need to move ASAP if that's true.

3&4. So we go back to 18th century muskets and flintlocks then? Good luck going on a hunting trip or defending yourself from an attacker with a weapon that fires 2-3 shots per min.

Yeah, as someone with 19th century weapons knowledge, you'd be better off with a baseball bat than a musket

1. Doesn't matter how, same way enforce all laws on businesses. Have many law enforcement officials conduct tests to make sure all facilities are following the rules. If they're not, take legal action specified by the law.
2. I live in the US. I was referring to texas, where you can get an AR15 by walking into a gun show, paying for it, and walking out with it, no license required. Meanwhile, if you buy a car, licenses are required (maybe not to buy, but definitely to use the car, since most of us use cars in places where it's possible to enforce the license law if anything seems strange).
3. No, go back to single-fire weapons, and non-automatic at that. And if your on a hunting trip, that will do, as it has for centuries. If your attacked, well than too bad, even if you had a fully automatic weapon, the bullets whizzing in all directions would be unlikely to hit the attacker at all, so having a more powerful gun is no help.

[Big Jim P]

Yeah, as someone with 19th century weapons knowledge, you'd be better off with a baseball bat than a musket

1. Doesn't matter how, same way enforce all laws on businesses. Have many law enforcement officials conduct tests to make sure all facilities are following the rules. If they're not, take legal action specified by the law.
2. I live in the US. I was referring to texas, where you can get an AR15 by walking into a gun show, paying for it, and walking out with it, no license required. Meanwhile, if you buy a car, licenses are required (maybe not to buy, but definitely to use the car, since most of us use cars in places where it's possible to enforce the license law if anything seems strange).
3. No, go back to single-fire weapons, and non-automatic at that. And if your on a hunting trip, that will do, as it has for centuries. If your attacked, well than too bad, even if you had a fully automatic weapon, the bullets whizzing in all directions would be unlikely to hit the attacker at all, so having a more powerful gun is no help.

I love the underlined attitude.

[Hornesia]

Yeah, as someone with 19th century weapons knowledge, you'd be better off with a baseball bat than a musket

1. Doesn't matter how, same way enforce all laws on businesses. Have many law enforcement officials conduct tests to make sure all facilities are following the rules. If they're not, take legal action specified by the law.
2. I live in the US. I was referring to texas, where you can get an AR15 by walking into a gun show, paying for it, and walking out with it, no license required. Meanwhile, if you buy a car, licenses are required (maybe not to buy, but definitely to use the car, since most of us use cars in places where it's possible to enforce the license law if anything seems strange).
3. No, go back to single-fire weapons, and non-automatic at that. And if your on a hunting trip, that will do, as it has for centuries. If your attacked, well than too bad, even if you had a fully automatic weapon, the bullets whizzing in all directions would be unlikely to hit the attacker at all, so having a more powerful gun is no help.

No, it will not fucking do. You'd get maybe one kill total. Pistols are semi auto. You saying women in cities shouldn't be able to own pistols for self defense? Also, in Georgia, you do need a background check at a gun show, and anyone saying otherwise is lying.

[Ifreann]

1. Doesn't matter how, same way enforce all laws on businesses. Have many law enforcement officials conduct tests to make sure all facilities are following the rules. If they're not, take legal action specified by the law.
2. I live in the US. I was referring to texas, where you can get an AR15 by walking into a gun show, paying for it, and walking out with it, no license required. Meanwhile, if you buy a car, licenses are required (maybe not to buy, but definitely to use the car, since most of us use cars in places where it's possible to enforce the license law if anything seems strange).
3. No, go back to single-fire weapons, and non-automatic at that. And if your on a hunting trip, that will do, as it has for centuries. If your attacked, well than too bad, even if you had a fully automatic weapon, the bullets whizzing in all directions would be unlikely to hit the attacker at all, so having a more powerful gun is no help.

No, it will not fucking do. You'd get maybe one kill total. Pistols are semi auto...

Except when they're not.

[Merriwhether]

I am going to attempt what might be the impossible: a reasoned, trollless, and logical debate about the merits or flaws of gun control in the US.

Wrong site, wrong forum, wrong idea.

[Uieurnthlaal]

I am going to attempt what might be the impossible: a reasoned, trollless, and logical debate about the merits or flaws of gun control in the US.

Wrong site, wrong forum, wrong idea.

Yeah...
That idea collapsed the moment people started commenting.
Then, I tried to reply to the people who were too angry or baseless, telling them that they were breaking the rules. Then, they replied back with comments calling me condescending, and all talking about how bad an OP this was. Then, I tried a laissez-faire approach, and than we get this. A thread where people are spewing their anger, throwing a few irrelevant stats every now and then, and never achieving anything the least bit valuable.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Wrong site, wrong forum, wrong idea.

Yeah...
That idea collapsed the moment people started commenting.
Then, I tried to reply to the people who were too angry or baseless, telling them that they were breaking the rules. Then, they replied back with comments calling me condescending, and all talking about how bad an OP this was. Then, I tried a laissez-faire approach, and than we get this. A thread where people are spewing their anger, throwing a few irrelevant stats every now and then, and never achieving anything the least bit valuable.

Welcome to NSG. That's what most threads in General are like. Once in a while if the story is ridiculous or new information comes out a majority opinion might be reached, but on more controversial topics not so much.

Gun control happens to be on of those more controversial topics.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Yeah...
That idea collapsed the moment people started commenting.
Then, I tried to reply to the people who were too angry or baseless, telling them that they were breaking the rules. Then, they replied back with comments calling me condescending, and all talking about how bad an OP this was. Then, I tried a laissez-faire approach, and than we get this. A thread where people are spewing their anger, throwing a few irrelevant stats every now and then, and never achieving anything the least bit valuable.

Welcome to NSG. That's what most threads in General are like. Once in a while if the story is ridiculous or new information comes out a majority opinion might be reached, but on more controversial topics not so much.

Gun control happens to be on of those more controversial topics.

The thing about these discussions is that there is a right answer, but nobody will ever admit that they're wrong, so we'll never get anywhere.
That's fairly predictable, actually. I showed that in a study that I cited in the first post.

[Chernoslavia]

I know in the UK you can be put in JAIL for having a butter knife!

Liar.

Butterfly knives while not illegal to possess in the UK, are illegal to carry in public.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Welcome to NSG. That's what most threads in General are like. Once in a while if the story is ridiculous or new information comes out a majority opinion might be reached, but on more controversial topics not so much.

Gun control happens to be on of those more controversial topics.

The thing about these discussions is that there is a right answer, but nobody will ever admit that they're wrong, so we'll never get anywhere.
That's fairly predictable, actually. I showed that in a study that I cited in the first post.

*sigh* That's the problem, there isn't. These are opinions, not answers. What that opinion is is going to be influenced by lifestyle, education (on guns, in particular here), and values.

[Helvereos]

You want hate speech? Fuck Obama.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Welcome to NSG. That's what most threads in General are like. Once in a while if the story is ridiculous or new information comes out a majority opinion might be reached, but on more controversial topics not so much.

Gun control happens to be on of those more controversial topics.

The thing about these discussions is that there is a right answer, but nobody will ever admit that they're wrong, so we'll never get anywhere.
That's fairly predictable, actually. I showed that in a study that I cited in the first post.

Another problem is that people are very contrarian, so when I tell them to be civil, both sides start spewing out irrelevant hate speech. Whether you're against gun control or for gun control, spewing out hate does nothing but give a false sense of accomplishment, regardless of who you're targeting.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Thats the dumbest shit Ive ever heard.I live in a rural area and the only gunshots I hear are my own and of my 'friends' which are being fired at wooden planks and soda cans.

Well of course. Gun deaths are higher in rural areas, but rural areas are all extremely spread out. So of course you won't hear crime related gun shots often, but what you hear in a few hundred acres makes no difference as to what happens in the rest of america.

With the exception of the largest tribal casino in the world (Foxwoods Resort and Casino), my hometown of Ledyard, CT is a rural area. I've seen deer in my backyard, heard gunfire in the woods within spitting distance of my apartment, and have heard owls living nearby. The last murder that occurred in Ledyard (that I can find) was in 2006, and that was apparently due to blunt force trauma.

BTW, here's a few pics of my hometown, to show just how rural Ledyard is.

http://0.tqn.com/d/gonewengland/1/0/4/q ... ndfall.JPG
http://icons-ak.wunderground.com/data/w ... /3-800.jpg
Here's a picture of Ledyard's largest traffic draw, Foxwoods. Notice the oasis in the sea of green. http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5032736343985127&pid=1.7