Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

And mandatory insurance.

And military type weapons to be painted pink.

Works for me. Although I would say that the refresher which needs to be passed happens every 24 months.

I would also like to see safety inspections. Sure have a weapon next to your bedside...but during the day (unless you are carrying) it needs to be in a lock box.

I think I am quite happy to be finally having a rational discussion. Thank you.

Hmmm..

Insurance I'm undecided on. Pink AR's already exist and sell surprisingly well to the female crowd. However, I feel that your proposed inspections are way over the top. I can think of a million other things that I would rather see my police spending my tax dollars on other then knock and searches of everyone who owns a gun in the country.

Also, not sure if you know this... but most new manufacture guns come with locks standard under current law, and most people keep their guns either in a safe, or a gun cabinet, or some other respective storage device of there choosing.

Indeed there are pink weapons and women using them. Tell me...how many women have gone on spree killings?

Re tax...I'd rather see spending on keeping children safe than say corporations receiving welfare.

[Cronatian]

Great, good for you. If the government asks you to turn in your weapons you're still expected to.

And if the government demands it?

Then you tell them your opinion, become a influtential person in goverment, go to congress demanding a vote, sway the opinion of the American people, and then lift the ban on guns. Or you could just tell them they got stolen by that Korean dude down the street, then change your name and move to Michigan. Either works about half the time.

[Ramenasia]

Which is why you deal with the criminals after... using the Singaporean model.

Yeah, home of the free and the brave. Let me correct myself, home of the opressed and obedient.

Well at least they don't have to worry about getting shot in movie theaters like in SOME countries. Or being shot anywhere in their country, for that matter.

[Big Jim P]

Yeah, home of the free and the brave. Let me correct myself, home of the opressed and obedient.

Well at least they don't have to worry about getting shot in movie theaters like in SOME countries. Or being shot anywhere in their country, for that matter.

Or ever having the responsibility of maybe shooting back? No, the State will take care of you.

[Jassysworth 1]

That means big government. Very big government. Americans hate that.

I hate it just as much as I hate gun control. And Holland. But mostly gun control.

America needs policemen... lots and lots of policemen. Their citizens are too upstart... too many dangerous hillbillies with guns. Take away all of the guns. We need order...

America can really do with some big government. No... they need it... especially to control and ban the guns
.

[Big Jim P]

I hate it just as much as I hate gun control. And Holland. But mostly gun control.

America needs policemen... lots and lots of policemen. Their citizens are too upstart... too many dangerous hillbillies with guns. Take away all of the guns. We need order...

America can really do with some big government. No... they need it... especially to control and ban the guns
.

Upstart? something a hereditary elitist would say.

[Cronatian]

Well at least they don't have to worry about getting shot in movie theaters like in SOME countries. Or being shot anywhere in their country, for that matter.

Or ever having the responsibility of maybe shooting back? No, the State will take care of you.

Yeah, lets make it mandatory that you carry a gun with you all the time, if you own a handgun and a CCW permit. Too bad it would be against peoples will, but even if it was like that, these things happen. Does not matter how much gun control, or how loose, But less gun control is better, if not none.

[Ramenasia]

Well at least they don't have to worry about getting shot in movie theaters like in SOME countries. Or being shot anywhere in their country, for that matter.

Or ever having the responsibility of maybe shooting back? No, the State will take care of you.

I guess Americans don't know what it feels like to have a government they trust.

[Big Jim P]

Or ever having the responsibility of maybe shooting back? No, the State will take care of you.

I guess Americans don't know what it feels like to have a government they trust.

Agreed. we do not trust any government. We are (arguably) free people.

[Cronatian]

I hate it just as much as I hate gun control. And Holland. But mostly gun control.

America needs policemen... lots and lots of policemen. Their citizens are too upstart... too many dangerous hillbillies with guns. Take away all of the guns. We need order...

America can really do with some big government. No... they need it... especially to control and ban the guns
.

You honestly want to ruin everything American. And enslave and enforce our people, and pacify them to a point to were the American goverment looks like the Galatic Empire. I pray to God that is not what you want, and if it is, we should deport you to North Korea where you would fit in just fine. They would love you, you might even become Kim's personal advisor.

[Cronatian]

Or ever having the responsibility of maybe shooting back? No, the State will take care of you.

I guess Americans don't know what it feels like to have a government they trust.

Yeah, because dependabiltiy on yourself is much more reliable than a goverment who only wants your vote and money.

[Cronatian]

America needs policemen... lots and lots of policemen. Their citizens are too upstart... too many dangerous hillbillies with guns. Take away all of the guns. We need order...

America can really do with some big government. No... they need it... especially to control and ban the guns
.

Upstart? something a hereditary elitist would say.

Facist dictator fits well along the discription.

[Ramenasia]

I guess Americans don't know what it feels like to have a government they trust.

Yeah, because dependabiltiy on yourself is much more reliable than a goverment who only wants your vote and money.

That's a good sign that you used your votes and money to put the wrong people in power, thus undermining your dependability. Vicious cycle, that.

[Cronatian]

Yeah, because dependabiltiy on yourself is much more reliable than a goverment who only wants your vote and money.

That's a good sign that you used your votes and money to put the wrong people in power, thus undermining your dependability. Vicious cycle, that.

No, I just enjoy my freedom. I prefer those in office to be fit for the job, and souless slobs like the majority of the American democratic party. I would love the Republicans to become less corrupt and focused on money, but progress is a start.

[Ramenasia]

That's a good sign that you used your votes and money to put the wrong people in power, thus undermining your dependability. Vicious cycle, that.

No, I just enjoy my freedom. I prefer those in office to be fit for the job, and souless slobs like the majority of the American democratic party. I would love the Republicans to become less corrupt and focused on money, but progress is a start.

If a government just wants your vote and money, you shouldn't be voting for them. Calling the Democrats souless slobs doesn't excuse the fact that the American people chose to put them in power. You cast your vote, and then whine about it for the next four years. What a lovely democracy this is.

[Veddai Hegemony]

We have approximately 14.5 times as many guns as the UK. We have roughly 6.5 times as many spree related deaths(which is the key term in this instance) as the UK, in terms of absolute numbers. Assuming that your logic held true we should have 14.5 times as many spree related deaths, since more guns, means more lunatics shooting up places. However, when we look at the populations, we find that the number of spree related deaths tracks fairly close to population(4.9x pop, 6.5x absolute number of deaths). Looking at this data we can determine that lunatics who go out and kill bunches of people are about as common in each population. Maybe slightly more here, but not enough to cause a huge panic about it.

No one ever said it had to be a ONE TO ONE correspondence. It's not a perfect relationship and your threshold for proving that gun laws have something to do with shooting sprees is really too high.

Really? You are not disturbed that the US has 6.5 times as many spree related deaths as the UK in absolute numbers? Sure the US has a lot more people than the UK but I never claimed (nor did any of my allies who want to control/ban guns) that it has to be a ONE to ONE correspondence.

Think about the number 6.5 times. Almost SEVEN times as many people are killed by a gun totting lunatic in the States versus in merry old England! And THIS doesn't scare you?! If you take a step back and look at the numbers as people rather than just as numbers... you'll clearly see that guns are too dangerous. Just imagine being in a country where the odds of getting shot to death by a lunatic (however small that odd is) is SIX POINT FIVE times as high as another developed country.

Your data still suggests that there is a connection. It's not a ONE to ONE connection (US has 14.5 times as many guns but not 14.5 times as many spree deaths) but it does have significantly MORE deaths related to sprees even compared to the UK.

Plus I never presented the UK as the role model for gun related deaths and gun laws in arguing for a gun ban. I think the model should be countries like Japan, Taiwan, or central Europe where they have had huge successes in keeping guns out of both law-abiding citizens AND criminals and where you don't hear about shooting sprees.

And don't dismiss gun-related crimes either. They are relevant to deciding whether or not the 2nd Amendment is such a great idea or not.

I am not disturbed by the fact that we have 6.5 times as many spree related deaths, because we have nearly five times as many people. The odds that there will be more lunatics to engage in violent behavior is greatly increased. You are disregarding the fact that statistically speaking, spree shootings are hilariously rare. I will take my chances at 6.5 times as likely to be involved in a statistically insignificantly probable event. The united states has more deaths by absolute numbers, but by comparison to population and per capita gun ownership, the UK is rather handily outstripping us. I would be willing to accept odds of 100 times greater chance of getting shot during a shooting spree, because the chance of it actually occurring is still so absurdly l,ow as to be almost incalculable. I believe it was stated that since 1992 we have had twenty five mass shootings. Twenty five, in twenty years. The chance that I will personally be in the wrong place at the wrong time is so miniscule that I literally cannot figure it.

[Veddai Hegemony]

No. I am merely the person who will defend his own.

Saying "I will hide my illegal weapons from the government" isn't helping your argument. People who think they have the right to fight the legitimate authority of the government are exactly the ones who shouldn't be armed in the first place.

The legitimate authority of the government is not inherent in the government, but in the will of those so governed to maintain the status quo. Never forget that. Attempting to ban weapons is and would legitimately be seen as a betrayal of the people by those we have chosen to lead us, and can be met only with the dissolution of the government, whether by ballot or by force.

[Bafuria]

Actually, I vividly recall someone doing just that. A disgruntled school teacher in China walked in and killed some 12-17 people with a machete. This is in a place where guns were otherwise illegal, this man brings a knife and kills, surprise surprise just about as many people.

That's a rare exception. And think about it... what if that guy in China had a gun instead? Would he have killed MORE than 17 people? Probably. Guns are even easier to use and they kill a lot more people a lot easier...

External factors such as the availability of escape routes, the number of people present and the time it takes for the police for arrive are much, MUCH more important than the weapon used.

If someone walks into a classroom with an axe or a knife, he can chop up everyone present.
You can't escape because the door (which is usually the only way in and out) is blocked and you can't tackle him because he'll stab or hit you.

All you can do is hope that the cops arrive before he walks up to you and kills you, which is unlikely to happen.

[Wamitoria]

Saying "I will hide my illegal weapons from the government" isn't helping your argument. People who think they have the right to fight the legitimate authority of the government are exactly the ones who shouldn't be armed in the first place.

The legitimate authority of the government is not inherent in the government, but in the will of those so governed to maintain the status quo. Never forget that. Attempting to ban weapons is and would legitimately be seen as a betrayal of the people by those we have chosen to lead us, and can be met only with the dissolution of the government, whether by ballot or by force.

And, given that we're a country with elections. If the government bans guns and isn't voted out, it is the will of the people.

In other words, you have the same mentality of the southern rebels.

[Bafuria]

No one ever said it had to be a ONE TO ONE correspondence. It's not a perfect relationship and your threshold for proving that gun laws have something to do with shooting sprees is really too high.

Really? You are not disturbed that the US has 6.5 times as many spree related deaths as the UK in absolute numbers? Sure the US has a lot more people than the UK but I never claimed (nor did any of my allies who want to control/ban guns) that it has to be a ONE to ONE correspondence.

Think about the number 6.5 times. Almost SEVEN times as many people are killed by a gun totting lunatic in the States versus in merry old England! And THIS doesn't scare you?! If you take a step back and look at the numbers as people rather than just as numbers... you'll clearly see that guns are too dangerous. Just imagine being in a country where the odds of getting shot to death by a lunatic (however small that odd is) is SIX POINT FIVE times as high as another developed country.

Your data still suggests that there is a connection. It's not a ONE to ONE connection (US has 14.5 times as many guns but not 14.5 times as many spree deaths) but it does have significantly MORE deaths related to sprees even compared to the UK.

Plus I never presented the UK as the role model for gun related deaths and gun laws in arguing for a gun ban. I think the model should be countries like Japan, Taiwan, or central Europe where they have had huge successes in keeping guns out of both law-abiding citizens AND criminals and where you don't hear about shooting sprees.

And don't dismiss gun-related crimes either. They are relevant to deciding whether or not the 2nd Amendment is such a great idea or not.

I am not disturbed by the fact that we have 6.5 times as many spree related deaths, because we have nearly five times as many people. The odds that there will be more lunatics to engage in violent behavior is greatly increased. You are disregarding the fact that statistically speaking, spree shootings are hilariously rare. I will take my chances at 6.5 times as likely to be involved in a statistically insignificantly probable event. The united states has more deaths by absolute numbers, but by comparison to population and per capita gun ownership, the UK is rather handily outstripping us. I would be willing to accept odds of 100 times greater chance of getting shot during a shooting spree, because the chance of it actually occurring is still so absurdly l,ow as to be almost incalculable. I believe it was stated that since 1992 we have had twenty five mass shootings. Twenty five, in twenty years. The chance that I will personally be in the wrong place at the wrong time is so miniscule that I literally cannot figure it.

Exactly.

US gun owners are a remarkably decent bunch of people, at least compared to British gun owners.

[Nordengrund]

I can see banning fire arms in some places, but I do not think they should be banned nationally.

Besides, in areas where possessions of firearms are legal, it is the citizens' fault for choosing not to defend themselves, so guns should not be outlawed. The citizen was not responsible for carrying a concealed weapon.

[Veddai Hegemony]

Great, good for you. If the government asks you to turn in your weapons you're still expected to.

And if the government demands it?

[/quote]

I refuse. Or, politely give them my bullets first, as I am a Southerner and a gentleman. Ish.

[Nordengrund]

And if the government demands it?

I refuse. Or, politely give them my bullets first, as I am a Southerner and a gentleman. Ish.[/quote]

I am Southern, too, and I value my right to own a firearm. I do not have one because I am under age, but I plan to get one when I am old enough.

[Ramenasia]

I am not disturbed by the fact that we have 6.5 times as many spree related deaths, because we have nearly five times as many people. The odds that there will be more lunatics to engage in violent behavior is greatly increased. You are disregarding the fact that statistically speaking, spree shootings are hilariously rare. I will take my chances at 6.5 times as likely to be involved in a statistically insignificantly probable event. The united states has more deaths by absolute numbers, but by comparison to population and per capita gun ownership, the UK is rather handily outstripping us. I would be willing to accept odds of 100 times greater chance of getting shot during a shooting spree, because the chance of it actually occurring is still so absurdly l,ow as to be almost incalculable. I believe it was stated that since 1992 we have had twenty five mass shootings. Twenty five, in twenty years. The chance that I will personally be in the wrong place at the wrong time is so miniscule that I literally cannot figure it.

Exactly.

US gun owners are a remarkably decent bunch of people, at least compared to British gun owners.

Somehow I am not reassured.

[Veddai Hegemony]

The legitimate authority of the government is not inherent in the government, but in the will of those so governed to maintain the status quo. Never forget that. Attempting to ban weapons is and would legitimately be seen as a betrayal of the people by those we have chosen to lead us, and can be met only with the dissolution of the government, whether by ballot or by force.

And, given that we're a country with elections. If the government bans guns and isn't voted out, it is the will of the people.

In other words, you have the same mentality of the southern rebels.

I'm ok with that. My several times great grandfather served with AP Hill and died in butternut.