How many guns ya got....?

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Didn't say it was and I didn't imply one causes the other...Now back to what I did say....Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. It is protection. Gun control laws will only affect the law- abiding citizen and not the out-laws.

As for Switzerland
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with 45.7 guns per 100 residents and one of the lowest gun related crime rate.

You say you weren't trying to imply that gun ownership has anything to do with the crime rate in Switzerland, and then you immediately double down on the idea that gun ownership explains the crime rate in Switzerland - so I will revert back to my original come back. There are twice as many privately owned guns per capita in the US than there are in Switzerland. Using your logic, the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.



[...]

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2FStkCNXm

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:Statistics have shown that folk who smoke cigs have a higher rate of auto accidents than nonsmokers.

I think we should ban tobacco, to make the highways safer.

If we do that then you'll have to drive me to the liquor store. lol

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

LOL. No problem brother.

If you would quit smoking....and not cheat, et cetera, I'd come by once a week and drive you to a liquor store.

Sal wrote:I'm seriously starting to get pissed off here.

Apparently the argument against the attempt to restrict assault weapons and high capacity magazines is that you can bring a sack full of hand guns that can do the same job slower and more cumbersomely?????

Are you fucking shittin' me??

Fuck you, idiots.

If it saves one six-year-old, it's worth it.

Then you agree that we must immediately ban all 5 gallon buckets.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Socrates

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Do you think they'll turn em in?

Wouldn't that be a hoot? That the politicians make laws which require us to turn in the guns we already have on hand? Like there's a snowball's chance in hell that could ever be enforced. lol

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Good point. I certainly wouldn't.

So how about a moratorium on the production of any new weapons in a specific category. There are already millions upon millions of guns in circulation. Don't ban them, or attempt to confiscate them....but remove them from circulation when they are used in a crime.

That used AK-47 will suddenly demand a higher price and collector's will reap major benefits to ownership.



Que the folk who will now argue that such a plan would only create another genre of criminal activity.


Side bar....Isn't it strange that we can legally buy and possess an AK-47, but marijuana is still illegal.

That's just wrong on so many levels.

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:I'm seriously starting to get pissed off here.

Apparently the argument against the attempt to restrict assault weapons and high capacity magazines is that you can bring a sack full of hand guns that can do the same job slower and more cumbersomely?????

Are you fucking shittin' me??

Fuck you, idiots.

If it saves one six-year-old, it's worth it.

Then you agree that we must immediately ban all 5 gallon buckets.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
― Socrates

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Not in your case. You just double down and spout more of the same crap that caused your side to lose in the first place.

Like now. That hackneyed over-used quote coming from you border's on mendacity. Your whole dog and pony show is a slander in the face of rational people with even limited reasoning ability.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Didn't say it was and I didn't imply one causes the other...Now back to what I did say....Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. It is protection. Gun control laws will only affect the law- abiding citizen and not the out-laws.

As for Switzerland
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with 45.7 guns per 100 residents and one of the lowest gun related crime rate.

You say you weren't trying to imply that gun ownership has anything to do with the crime rate in Switzerland, and then you immediately double down on the idea that gun ownership explains the crime rate in Switzerland - so I will revert back to my original come back. There are twice as many privately owned guns per capita in the US than there are in Switzerland. Using your logic, the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.



[...]

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2FStkCNXm

There is a difference between gun related crimes and violent crimes.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:
Didn't say it was and I didn't imply one causes the other...Now back to what I did say....Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. It is protection. Gun control laws will only affect the law- abiding citizen and not the out-laws.

As for Switzerland
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with 45.7 guns per 100 residents and one of the lowest gun related crime rate.

You say you weren't trying to imply that gun ownership has anything to do with the crime rate in Switzerland, and then you immediately double down on the idea that gun ownership explains the crime rate in Switzerland - so I will revert back to my original come back. There are twice as many privately owned guns per capita in the US than there are in Switzerland. Using your logic, the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.



[...]

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2FStkCNXm

There is a difference between gun related crimes and violent crimes.

THANK YOU!

You too noticed that a LACK of legal guns in a country does not make the citizens safer but more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. More rapes, assaults, robberies, home invasions. Why do you believe that is a good idea.

The assault weapon ban as proposed simply is wasting time. If existing assault weapons are not part of an exchange program, and if there are 900 waivers for inbetweeners.......this is simply making a mockery of the children's death......I would rather see a presidential commission where we get everybody talking about some real methods to improve gun safety.......this is a feel good until the next shooting, and then we will realize we are not getting to the heart of the issue which is gun safety which means training, longer wait periods, trigger locks with biometrics, chips, and a much tighter restrictions on the transport of weapons by vehicles where technology can assist. I am really so tired of stupid.......a partial assault weapon ban does not go far enough in gun safety and it fails to address the biggest problem which is keeping people who have no business having guns from being able to shoot the same.

Markle wrote:
THANK YOU!

You too noticed that a LACK of legal guns in a country does not make the citizens safer but more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. More rapes, assaults, robberies, home invasions. Why do you believe that is a good idea.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

So lets follow your logic here for a second. You're saying that a lack of legal guns in a country makes citizens more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. The alternative must be true as well then - the more legal guns there are in a country, the less likely someone is to be a victim of a violent crime.

Let's apply this to the US. The US dwarfs the rest of the world with respect to number of legal guns per capita. There are over 50% more guns in the US than there are in the number two ranked country. Your logic therefore dictates that the US should have the lowest occurrence of violent crime as well. Is this the case, Markle?

Joanimaroni wrote:Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.


SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE to.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

they are mostly white peple over there. not many gangs

just stating the facts...any names caled to me will be ignored

W_T_M wrote:

Go over compensate and stalk elsewhere, pseudo-religious mini-macho prick.

BTW, the empennage is the tail section of an aircraft, jarhead.

I knew you wouldn't get it, but I had to try. Obviously, you are not MILITARY at all. Thank GOD.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:
THANK YOU!

You too noticed that a LACK of legal guns in a country does not make the citizens safer but more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. More rapes, assaults, robberies, home invasions. Why do you believe that is a good idea.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

So lets follow your logic here for a second. You're saying that a lack of legal guns in a country makes citizens more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. The alternative must be true as well then - the more legal guns there are in a country, the less likely someone is to be a victim of a violent crime.

Let's apply this to the US. The US dwarfs the rest of the world with respect to number of legal guns per capita. There are over 50% more guns in the US than there are in the number two ranked country. Your logic therefore dictates that the US should have the lowest occurrence of violent crime as well. Is this the case, Markle?

In societies where guns are required, there are people of a more polite nature.

W_T_M wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Good point. I certainly wouldn't.

So how about a moratorium on the production of any new weapons in a specific category. There are already millions upon millions of guns in circulation. Don't ban them, or attempt to confiscate them....but remove them from circulation when they are used in a crime.

That used AK-47 will suddenly demand a higher price and collector's will reap major benefits to ownership.



Que the folk who will now argue that such a plan would only create another genre of criminal activity.


Side bar....Isn't it strange that we can legally buy and possess an AK-47, but marijuana is still illegal.

That's just wrong on so many levels.

The average deer rifle will rip a hole in you bigger than what an AK will do if it doesn't just dismember your torso upon impact. Don't believe me? There's plenty of proof just on YOUTUBE. I have a tape at my home that shows this. The maker of the video shoots a watermelon (similar consistency to human body) with an AK and common deer rifle. With the AK, there is just a fist sized hole through and through, but with the deer rifle, the watermelon turns into a mist and pieces parts go 360 degrees outward from the hit.

What do you want to be shot with if you have a choice?

Banning assault weapons won't keep psychos from getting them. The Black Market is too big.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:
THANK YOU!

You too noticed that a LACK of legal guns in a country does not make the citizens safer but more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. More rapes, assaults, robberies, home invasions. Why do you believe that is a good idea.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

So lets follow your logic here for a second. You're saying that a lack of legal guns in a country makes citizens more at risk of being a victim of a violent crime. The alternative must be true as well then - the more legal guns there are in a country, the less likely someone is to be a victim of a violent crime.

Let's apply this to the US. The US dwarfs the rest of the world with respect to number of legal guns per capita. There are over 50% more guns in the US than there are in the number two ranked country. Your logic therefore dictates that the US should have the lowest occurrence of violent crime as well. Is this the case, Markle?

Spurred by the Newtown school shooting massacre, Mayor Rahm Emanuel was leading a coalition of Chicago area mayors in a renewed drive for stronger gun control laws. As a state senator Obama opposed the right to use guns for self-defense in the home..

How is the current gun control thing working in Chicago. 446 school-aged children were shot in Chicago in 2012.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/28/Obama-s-Gun-Control-Not-Working-Out-So-Well-In-Chicago


The Centers for Disease Control, an agency of the federal government, has conducted studies of many of the gun-control laws in place, such as waiting periods, registration, and bans on certain types of firearms. The results showed that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth. The CDC is hardly a shill for the NRA. Political trends throughout the country have reflected the growing realization by the majority of Americans that restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is not only ineffective as a means of combating crime, but counter-productive. All of the research over the last few decades bears this out. (One of many excellent sources is “More Guns; Less Crime” by former University of Chicago and current Harvard professor, John Lott).

http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/14160460-474/cdc-exposes-gun-control-myths.html

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Do you think they'll turn em in?

Wouldn't that be a hoot? That the politicians make laws which require us to turn in the guns we already have on hand? Like there's a snowball's chance in hell that could ever be enforced. lol

If you recall, that is exactly what the Chief of Police and Mayor of New Orleans did after Hurricane Katrina. They went door to door confiscating any and all guns legal or not. They (New Orleans) was sued and lost but many have never received their guns back.

The state where this last massacre happened already had an assault weapons ban in place that was more stringent than the expired federal ban and they also included a few other weapons for giggles and grins. That went off like a turd in a punchbowl.

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Do you think they'll turn em in?

Wouldn't that be a hoot? That the politicians make laws which require us to turn in the guns we already have on hand? Like there's a snowball's chance in hell that could ever be enforced. lol

If you recall, that is exactly what the Chief of Police and Mayor of New Orleans did after Hurricane Katrina. They went door to door confiscating any and all guns legal or not. They were sued and lost but many have never received their guns back.

And just to add. The authorities took such bad care of peoples property that many of them were rusted up so bad when they were finally returned and were inoperable.

Gunz wrote:The state where this last massacre happened already had an assault weapons ban in place that was more stringent than the expired federal ban and they also included a few other weapons for giggles and grins. That went off like a turd in a punchbowl.

OH SNAP? An assault weapons ban and one was used ANYWAY? How could that be?????

2seaoat wrote:The assault weapon ban as proposed simply is wasting time. If existing assault weapons are not part of an exchange program, and if there are 900 waivers for inbetweeners.......this is simply making a mockery of the children's death......I would rather see a presidential commission where we get everybody talking about some real methods to improve gun safety.......this is a feel good until the next shooting, and then we will realize we are not getting to the heart of the issue which is gun safety which means training, longer wait periods, trigger locks with biometrics, chips, and a much tighter restrictions on the transport of weapons by vehicles where technology can assist. I am really so tired of stupid.......a partial assault weapon ban does not go far enough in gun safety and it fails to address the biggest problem which is keeping people who have no business having guns from being able to shoot the same.

Question:
Was every shot this guy took done with JUST an ASSAULT weapon or did he have others with him as well????

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The assault weapon ban as proposed simply is wasting time. If existing assault weapons are not part of an exchange program, and if there are 900 waivers for inbetweeners.......this is simply making a mockery of the children's death......I would rather see a presidential commission where we get everybody talking about some real methods to improve gun safety.......this is a feel good until the next shooting, and then we will realize we are not getting to the heart of the issue which is gun safety which means training, longer wait periods, trigger locks with biometrics, chips, and a much tighter restrictions on the transport of weapons by vehicles where technology can assist. I am really so tired of stupid.......a partial assault weapon ban does not go far enough in gun safety and it fails to address the biggest problem which is keeping people who have no business having guns from being able to shoot the same.

Question:
Was every shot this guy took done with JUST an ASSAULT weapon or did he have others with him as well????

The coroner said that all those killed were shot with a .223. The shooter took his own life with a handgun. I don't know but that is what the reports are saying.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The assault weapon ban as proposed simply is wasting time. If existing assault weapons are not part of an exchange program, and if there are 900 waivers for inbetweeners.......this is simply making a mockery of the children's death......I would rather see a presidential commission where we get everybody talking about some real methods to improve gun safety.......this is a feel good until the next shooting, and then we will realize we are not getting to the heart of the issue which is gun safety which means training, longer wait periods, trigger locks with biometrics, chips, and a much tighter restrictions on the transport of weapons by vehicles where technology can assist. I am really so tired of stupid.......a partial assault weapon ban does not go far enough in gun safety and it fails to address the biggest problem which is keeping people who have no business having guns from being able to shoot the same.

Question:
Was every shot this guy took done with JUST an ASSAULT weapon or did he have others with him as well????

The coroner said that all those killed were shot with a .223. The shooter took his own life with a handgun. I don't know but that is what the reports are saying.

Any asshole can hit with a rifle when little kids are the target from point blank range. You coudl use a .22 pistol from that kid's range where he shot the 6-7 year olds. Personally, it's akin to hunting deer, which I do not do for personal reasons, as neither one stand a chance against the shots being made. Once a person has had to hunt other men in their life, there is no comparison. That is a personal opinion that I have garnered after many years of military experience.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The assault weapon ban as proposed simply is wasting time. If existing assault weapons are not part of an exchange program, and if there are 900 waivers for inbetweeners.......this is simply making a mockery of the children's death......I would rather see a presidential commission where we get everybody talking about some real methods to improve gun safety.......this is a feel good until the next shooting, and then we will realize we are not getting to the heart of the issue which is gun safety which means training, longer wait periods, trigger locks with biometrics, chips, and a much tighter restrictions on the transport of weapons by vehicles where technology can assist. I am really so tired of stupid.......a partial assault weapon ban does not go far enough in gun safety and it fails to address the biggest problem which is keeping people who have no business having guns from being able to shoot the same.

Question:
Was every shot this guy took done with JUST an ASSAULT weapon or did he have others with him as well????

The coroner said that all those killed were shot with a .223. The shooter took his own life with a handgun. I don't know but that is what the reports are saying.

Any asshole can hit with a rifle when little kids are the target from point blank range. You coudl use a .22 pistol from that kid's range where he shot the 6-7 year olds. Personally, it's akin to hunting deer, which I do not do for personal reasons, as neither one stand a chance against the shots being made. Once a person has had to hunt other men in their life, there is no comparison. That is a personal opinion that I have garnered after many years of military experience.

Nobody deer hunts anymore unless you call hunting planting iron clay peas and rape on a plot and then waiting to shoot them when they come to eat

Yep. Canned hunts for gun totin' deer killers.

Gunz wrote:
Nobody deer hunts anymore unless you call hunting planting iron clay peas and rape on a plot and then waiting to shoot them when they come to eat

Sorry Gunz, but I do not consider that hunting. I hunt the old fashioned way. I have never baited a site in my entire life. I hunt on some private property near Thomasville Alabama and have never failed to get quota each year I have been hunting there.

You hunt w/ a spear....?

Seems tiresome. I'd bring a gun.