Welcome to the Android Central Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Page 119 of 185 FirstFirst ... 116117118119120121122 ... LastLast
Results 2,951 to 2,975 of 4617
Like Tree2067Likes
  1. #2951  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairclough View Post
    I push it for own team mates safety who study there. A lot of athletes from my school and the league of schools go their to study and race competitively. We know their 30x more likely to die there than here.
    Prior to this incident with Chris Lane how many of your team mates have been killed here?

    It may be a language issue, but here when you say team mate you are talking about a person that you were on a sports team with, or perhaps even the same work crew etc. Is that the case with you and Chris Lane?


    What is the population of Australia, and what is the population of the US?

    You do realize that there are over 100 million legal gun owners in the US.

    Show me where the 3 thugs that were responsible for Chris Lanes death purchased the 22 legally.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  2. #2952  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairclough View Post
    Actually the buy back was a pretty generous offer with its price, basically under the law you basically had to get a licence or get rid of it. If the US in operated a similar law it would actually be great. If you do the maths out government paid over $714 per gun to buy it back in 1996! So your out of pocket loss argument under such a scheme is basically redundant. You rather sell it back anyways than have an unlicensed firearm and getting it confiscated. The guns were destroyed not resold, a quick type into YouTube will show you that.

    Your missing the point, every massacre we had and America has had were done by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO BOUGHT THEIR WEAPONS LEGALLY.

    The fact is prior to the law in 18 years 102 dead from massacres. Post law for 16 years no one dead from massacres.

    Now one night argue a ar15 is not a military weapon, well its been used for the past 4 massacres. It was used to kill 35 people in Port Arthur.

    It is a given if you kill you would be charged with using a weapon with a knife. Its a fact it is a lot harder to do so with a knife though than a gun, particularly automatic and semi autos.

    If you don't need a gun, you shouldn't have a gun.

    Posted via Android Central App
    714.00 per gun, so how about the ar15's and 30's that I have invested several thousand dollars each in. The ar15 that my daughter shoots has over 2k worth of mods and that's after the initial purchase. Let's not even discuss gun safes, ammunition, display case's, range fee's, etc.

    Legal purchases? Jared Laughner LIED on the ATF background check to purchase the Glock he used in the Gabby Gifford's shooting, which is a felony. On a related note her husband Mark decided to show everyone how easy it is to obtain an ar15 similar to what Adam Lanza used, his purchase was also denied and later it was revealed that he also LIED on the ATF background check form. On that form he stated it was for 'personal use' during a press conference he announced his plan to donate it to local law enforcement. This lie makes the purchase what they call a straw purchase (when one person buys a firearm for another person) which is also a felony.

    Adam Lanza was denied the purchase of an ar15 at a gun shop a few miles away from his home. So he STOLE weapons that his mother had purchased legally and then killed her with them. So he did not purchase those weapons legally, and theft is a crime. So also this was not a 'massacre' with legally purchased weapons.

    James Holmes: If the university where he had studied had property submitted his mental health issues to the state like they were supposed to, he never would have passed the back ground check. Also I think it's safe to assume that he did not list mass murder on the ATF form as his reason for purchasing the firearms.

    The ar15 is not a US military weapon, it is not issued by any branch of the US military. So by definition it is not a military weapon.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
    Thanked by 2:
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
  3. #2953  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    7,224 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,268 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Serial Fordicator View Post
    Our most crime stricken city has the highest gun control.
    Sorry to get stuck on the causation issue here... this isn't really helping the argument either way but writing it down helps to understand it.

    Shouldn't it? This statement seems to be spun around to imply that gun control causes crime, rather than gun control being a reaction to high crime areas. Leading indicators to crime in the US are socioeconomic in nature, such as education levels, employment opportunities, population density, poverty and the criminal justice scene. Gun control in large population centers does not cause firearm homicides, or the Tokyo area would be one of the highest shoot 'em up saloons on earth. With nearly double the population of New York, NY (+part of NJ & CT) (and over double the population density) the Tokyo Yokohama area leads urban areas in population and yet, despite having some of the toughest gun regulations on the planet, Japan manages to have less firearm homicides in an entire year than the US does in 9 hours.

    Approximately 974:1 is the ratio firearm homicides of US to Japan. The population ratio is approximately 2.5:1. The overall murder rate in the US is 4.8 per 100k (32nd highest) and in Japan it is .4 per 100k (81st highest). That one is about 12:1.

    I'm not sure any causation can be found from gun control into gun related crimes. The reverse is fairly intuitive though...if you had the highest crime rate city, or even a top 100 city, and were doing nothing about it... that'd be odd. Much more odd than passing laws without cause and then watching the opposite of the intended reaction arise for decade upon decade without ever reversing course. One way or another, with less than 3 times the population of Japan, the US manages to murder 400% of that ratio and when looking at firearm homicides, that disproportion grows to over 38,000%. Clearly gun control does not lead to higher murder rates by itself, especially those by firearm.

    Stats from UNODC Homicide Statistics
    Intentional homicide is defined as unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.

    One thing that might lower our numbers... taking guns out of the hands of criminals, morons, junkies and the mentally ill.

    What I haven't heard is how to do that without impacting the Constitutional Rights of those that are not in those 4 categories.
    Thanked by:
    Fairclough likes this.
  4. #2954  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Just one thing for people to keep in mind about gun statistics for both sides of the field.
    Groups like the NRA have through lobbying stopped the ATF from releasing any sort of numbers. I believe the CDC also did studies and those were shut down fast. Most agencies which try to research gun statistics are usually budget threatened: If you research about guns, your budget is cut.
    No one lobbies harder for the supression of gun related statistics harder than Pro-Gun. Why? Simple: The numbers tell a different tale than what pro gun owners are saying.

    No one has reliable information about gun deaths, gun use in crimes, etc. Most of the evidence has to come from 3rd parties, they cannot use any information given by the parties involved and the police is not allowed to release such information either.The only places that do (ATF), have been forbidden from releasing such information to the point of it being a criminal act.

    PS: I am anti gun, and know about guns enough to know they are NOT a toy, and they are meant to kill. In a civilized society, we should have no need for violence.
    And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place?
    Thanked by 2:
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
  5. #2955  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    7,224 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,268 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBThree View Post
    Violence, especially gun violence, is occurring at a LOWER rate now than when the city had a handgun ban.
    That's the trend nationally as well though, is there anything to imply causation there or is are they just two data points going the same direction because of a mutually shared underlying lead?
  6. #2956  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    7,224 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,268 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by asanatheist View Post
    PS: I am anti gun, and know about guns enough to know they are NOT a toy, and they are meant to kill. In a civilized society, we should have no need for violence.
    And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place?
    So while I'll never move my family into a high crime area, I do not feel anyone is obligated to move out of their home if it happens to be in an area that has a high crime rate. The criminals are the ones under obligation to remove themselves, and if they do not, that's what are laws should be accomplishing.
  7. #2957  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    That's the trend nationally as well though, is there anything to imply causation there or is are they just two data points going the same direction because of a mutually shared underlying lead?
    No one really knows. There have been some studies of the numbers though that had Chicago outpacing the national average in both directions. (When the handgun ban was instituted and after it was overturned) That would certainly imply at least some causation, but everything I've read had study authors being very careful about drawing any conclusions since there are so many variables.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
  8. #2958  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by asanatheist View Post
    Just one thing for people to keep in mind about gun statistics for both sides of the field.
    Groups like the NRA have through lobbying stopped the ATF from releasing any sort of numbers. I believe the CDC also did studies and those were shut down fast. Most agencies which try to research gun statistics are usually budget threatened: If you research about guns, your budget is cut.
    No one lobbies harder for the supression of gun related statistics harder than Pro-Gun. Why? Simple: The numbers tell a different tale than what pro gun owners are saying.

    No one has reliable information about gun deaths, gun use in crimes, etc. Most of the evidence has to come from 3rd parties, they cannot use any information given by the parties involved and the police is not allowed to release such information either.The only places that do (ATF), have been forbidden from releasing such information to the point of it being a criminal act.

    PS: I am anti gun, and know about guns enough to know they are NOT a toy, and they are meant to kill. In a civilized society, we should have no need for violence.
    And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place?
    I believe the FBI has some stats on gun violence on their site, myself and others have linked to it several times.

    As for your post script statement: saying that the victim's of a crime are responsible for that crime simply because of where they live, or where they happen to be leaves me almost speechless, but hey let's roll with it anyway. So according to you a woman is responsible for getting raped because she put in a few extra hours at work so her son/daughter could have new shoes for school and she had to take a later bus. An old man is responsible for getting beaten and mugged because he stayed late at the hospital or nursing home where his wife is on their anniversary.... Please explain and justify this..
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  9. #2959  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    7,224 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,268 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    If you walk down a dark alley in NYC that's controlled by the Genovese and you're decked out in blue and flashing crip gang signs to yourself with dozens of hundred dollar bills taped to your jacket, screaming about how much of a war criminal Christopher Columbus is and telling little children that you raped their mother... are you going to get robbed, beaten and probably murdered? Yep. Are you an *****? Yep. Is it your fault that they chose to take your expressions of free speech as cause to commit crimes against you? Nope. In no court, ever.

    A woman should be able to walk drunk and naked through any street in america and the only hands reaching out to her should be to offer her some clothes and help her to her door. Rape is the rapists fault every time.

    If you live Washington Park in Chicago and a stray bullet comes through your window, is it your fault? Nope, it's the criminal's fault, every time. Could you have avoided all of these situations? Sure, but you have no obligation to not be an *****, that's just a request.

    Stupid doesn't cause crime, criminals do.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
  10. #2960  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by asanatheist View Post
    PS: I am anti gun, and know about guns enough to know they are NOT a toy, and they are meant to kill. In a civilized society, we should have no need for violence.
    And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place?
    As for that whole civilized society thing, tell that to the violent criminals.

    I carry a gun because I have seen enough of the world to know that there are evil people in it that are capable of some truly heinous crimes. As a husband and father it is my responsibility to protect my wife and children at all times.

    Well that and honestly I like guns...
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  11. #2961  
    Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    Posts
    455 Posts
    ROM
    das bamf 3.0 rc4

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by asanatheist View Post
    Just one thing for people to keep in mind about gun statistics for both sides of the field.
    Groups like the NRA have through lobbying stopped the ATF from releasing any sort of numbers. I believe the CDC also did studies and those were shut down fast. Most agencies which try to research gun statistics are usually budget threatened: If you research about guns, your budget is cut.
    No one lobbies harder for the supression of gun related statistics harder than Pro-Gun. Why? Simple: The numbers tell a different tale than what pro gun owners are saying.

    No one has reliable information about gun deaths, gun use in crimes, etc. Most of the evidence has to come from 3rd parties, they cannot use any information given by the parties involved and the police is not allowed to release such information either.The only places that do (ATF), have been forbidden from releasing such information to the point of it being a criminal act.

    PS: I am anti gun, and know about guns enough to know they are NOT a toy, and they are meant to kill. In a civilized society, we should have no need for violence.
    And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place?
    Umm... See the FBI stats.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  12. #2962  
    Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    Posts
    455 Posts
    ROM
    das bamf 3.0 rc4

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    Sorry to get stuck on the causation issue here... this isn't really helping the argument either way but writing it down helps to understand it.

    Shouldn't it? This statement seems to be spun around to imply that gun control causes crime, rather than gun control being a reaction to high crime areas. Leading indicators to crime in the US are socioeconomic in nature, such as education levels, employment opportunities, population density, poverty and the criminal justice scene. Gun control in large population centers does not cause firearm homicides, or the Tokyo area would be one of the highest shoot 'em up saloons on earth. With nearly double the population of New York, NY (+part of NJ & CT) (and over double the population density) the Tokyo Yokohama area leads urban areas in population and yet, despite having some of the toughest gun regulations on the planet, Japan manages to have less firearm homicides in an entire year than the US does in 9 hours.

    Approximately 974:1 is the ratio firearm homicides of US to Japan. The population ratio is approximately 2.5:1. The overall murder rate in the US is 4.8 per 100k (32nd highest) and in Japan it is .4 per 100k (81st highest). That one is about 12:1.

    I'm not sure any causation can be found from gun control into gun related crimes. The reverse is fairly intuitive though...if you had the highest crime rate city, or even a top 100 city, and were doing nothing about it... that'd be odd. Much more odd than passing laws without cause and then watching the opposite of the intended reaction arise for decade upon decade without ever reversing course. One way or another, with less than 3 times the population of Japan, the US manages to murder 400% of that ratio and when looking at firearm homicides, that disproportion grows to over 38,000%. Clearly gun control does not lead to higher murder rates by itself, especially those by firearm.

    Stats from UNODC Homicide Statistics
    Intentional homicide is defined as unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.

    One thing that might lower our numbers... taking guns out of the hands of criminals, morons, junkies and the mentally ill.

    What I haven't heard is how to do that without impacting the Constitutional Rights of those that are not in those 4 categories.
    There is a difference in here and Japan. Japanese people are very honorable. When the tsunami happened, you didn't hear of people looting, shooting at rescue helicopters, or blaming Bush.

    Here thug life is glamorized. Its cool to rob someone but stupid to work at McDonald's and earn money.

    What might work well in Japan or Australia, won't work the same here because of different cultures and state of mind.


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  13. #2963  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBThree View Post
    Your post just proved that any laws here wouldn't work. It is impossible to regulate guns here to the extent that Australia did. Any comparison is irrelevant.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    You can easily tackle a constitution reform, our constitution more or less dictates what the government can do rather than cannot - Gun control wasn't in there, thus what occurred was John Howard forced the hand of each state to change their legislation and the federal level they barraged imports. If that didn't occur a referendum would of occurred to legally than modify the constitution. If it happened for equality, why cant it happen for guns? People should stop hiding behind the constitution - it once said people could have slaves, times change and so should it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Live2ride883 View Post
    Prior to this incident with Chris Lane how many of your team mates have been killed here?
    It may be a language issue, but here when you say team mate you are talking about a person that you were on a sports team with, or perhaps even the same work crew etc. Is that the case with you and Chris Lane?
    What is the population of Australia, and what is the population of the US?
    You do realize that there are over 100 million legal gun owners in the US.
    Show me where the 3 thugs that were responsible for Chris Lanes death purchased the 22 legally.
    By Team mates, I refer to members of my sports team - which in states comparison would be the varsity first string. Chris Lane, is another Aussie I don't know, my team mates are rowers not baseball players. I used Chris as his an example as his a college athlete on a scholarship there for sport aswell. The population of Australia is about 22 million, I believe the states is about 350. we are more urban that America on the percentage of people in cities etc. Yes I do realize that there is over 100 million gun overs, the recall we did if it was in American terms would mean about 40 million of those owners would turn their guns in. When I talk about gun control, I mean the level we have or higher. To legally get a gun here is not sign a piece of paper, your sweet heres a gun. To get one legally means you have to attend the range for about 2 years I believe prior, meet the check ups, storage etc. Than you have to continuously provide evidence of usage. If you want something, lets say strong. You have to prove why you need it and why the current gun isnt suffice. The fact is if they were under our law it would be very unlikely they would of got their hands on a gun, whether they tried stealing it or what not. In Chris Lanes case, the other gun had its serial numbers shaved to prevent gun id.

    Quote Originally Posted by Live2ride883 View Post
    714.00 per gun, so how about the ar15's and 30's that I have invested several thousand dollars each in. The ar15 that my daughter shoots has over 2k worth of mods and that's after the initial purchase. Let's not even discuss gun safes, ammunition, display case's, range fee's, etc.


    The ar15 is not a US military weapon, it is not issued by any branch of the US military. So by definition it is not a military weapon.
    Once again, if you have a need for one you can have one. Who needs a gun which can unload 100 bullets. Last time I checked it shot about 20 people in 90 seconds. The fact is in most massacres ar15's have been used, its an automatic weapon. If you arguing for self defense, who the **** carries needs a automatic rifle for that. You do the $700 was in todays dollars but 1996 so that would be significantly higher now, under law you would be allowed your hand guns etc and thus your safe would still be needed, you could still go to the range as that counts as an need for a hand gun or another gun which is required to be stored at the range if its not a hand gun or a shot gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serial Fordicator View Post
    What might work well in Japan or Australia, won't work the same here because of different cultures and state of mind.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Its odd we had a very very similar culture to America, we were labelled America's little twin because of Howard / Bush relationships. Just after 102 dead in massacres we realized that our love of guns were hurting us as a nation. We figured - which do we value more 10 lives per year or our guns. Facts speak for themselves, since the banning of automatic guns and tighter control on who has access we have not had a massacre, in the same time period we had 102 deaths, same time period after control 0 Massacre deaths.

    Oh you know the gun which was used in the massacres... an AR15. Its not a military gun but its the weapon of choice for loonies. Yes before our gun control, all these guns were bought by law abiding citizens. It just takes an angry man with a gun to do damage.
    Tom Fairclough
    Credo faber est quisque fortunae suae
    I believe every man is the artisan of his own fortune
    Thanked by:
    msndrstood likes this.
  14. #2964  
    llamabreath's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    87 Posts

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Any loony or malcontent with a desire to kill people (with or without a gun) will find a way to do so with zero regard for the law.

    So much time wasted on debate of the laws, when the time and effort should really be spent on fixing the mentality/culture of the population.

    Period.

    Live2ride883 likes this.
  15. #2965  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Live2ride883 View Post
    I believe the FBI has some stats on gun violence on their site, myself and others have linked to it several times.

    As for your post script statement: saying that the victim's of a crime are responsible for that crime simply because of where they live, or where they happen to be leaves me almost speechless, but hey let's roll with it anyway. So according to you a woman is responsible for getting raped because she put in a few extra hours at work so her son/daughter could have new shoes for school and she had to take a later bus. An old man is responsible for getting beaten and mugged because he stayed late at the hospital or nursing home where his wife is on their anniversary.... Please explain and justify this..
    Don't put words in my mouth. Heard them all before from pro gun folks. You wont be saying anything new, and are doing exactly what pro gun people do once they have exhausted their skewed and often misunderstood statistics (which they themselves are suppressing). They begin to attack people's character since they can't win anything else, and well attacking someone's character is easier than looking at one's self in the mirror.

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    So while I'll never move my family into a high crime area, I do not feel anyone is obligated to move out of their home if it happens to be in an area that has a high crime rate. The criminals are the ones under obligation to remove themselves, and if they do not, that's what are laws should be accomplishing.
    So if you know fire burns you after you experience it once, you will stick your back in? For what reason? Are you obligated to stop touching fire? No, you really are not but if you must insist go ahead this is a free country.
    Lastly obligated is a rather weak word to use but go ahead and use it, you are obligated to monger up drama and shock jock.
    msndrstood likes this.
  16. #2966  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hustleman View Post
    Wouldn't be able to steal mine, I sleep with it within arms reach, and if you come into my home you'll set off my security system. I'll hear you long before you get to me.

    Plus my other guns are locked in a safe bolted to the floor.

    Oh here's the difference

    voices.kansascity.com/entries/difference-between-clip-and-magazine/

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    Right fair enough but how useful is your electronic security system if say I was to bring down your electricity supply? Then break into your house and whack you on the head with a frying pan then shoot your bum.

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
  17. #2967  
    llamabreath's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    87 Posts

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by mysticmeg View Post
    Right fair enough but how useful is your electronic security system if say I was to bring down your electricity supply? Then break into your house and whack you on the head with a frying pan then shoot your bum.

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
    Battery back-up.

    Live2ride883 likes this.
  18. #2968  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by llamabreath View Post
    Battery back-up.

    Beat me to it.

    When it switches to battery backup, it makes a loud noise to wake me up

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
  19. #2969  
    llamabreath's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    87 Posts

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hustleman View Post
    Beat me to it.

    When it switches to battery backup, it makes a loud noise to wake me up

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    And with the (almost) daily home invasions we have here in Atlanta, it's a necessity.

  20. #2970  
    msndrstood's Avatar

    Posts
    1,147 Posts
    ROM
    Stock JB 4.1.2

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by llamabreath View Post
    And with the (almost) daily home invasions we have here in Atlanta, it's a necessity.

    I'd be getting the hell out of Atlanta.

    Sent via Note II
    What?!...I'm msndrstood.

    Sent via Note 2
    Fairclough likes this.
  21. #2971  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by asanatheist View Post
    Don't put words in my mouth. Heard them all before from pro gun folks. You wont be saying anything new, and are doing exactly what pro gun people do once they have exhausted their skewed and often misunderstood statistics (which they themselves are suppressing). They begin to attack people's character since they can't win anything else, and well attacking someone's character is easier than looking at one's self in the mirror.
    Exactly how am I putting words in your mouth? You are the one that stated

    "And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place"


    To me you are stating that the victim is responsible for the crime, simply because they live in or happen to be in a 'dangerous' place when the crime takes place. Then I gave examples of hot idiotic this concept is.

    You also stated

    No one has reliable information on gun deaths, guns used in crimes, etc.

    I simply directed you to the FBI website for that information..

    As for this

    'You are doing exactly what pro gun people do once they have exhausted their skewed and often misunderstood statistics (which they themselves are suppressing). They begin to attack people's character since they can't win anything else, and well attacking someone's character is easier than looking in the mirror'

    How am I responsible for the stats on the FBI site? I have to assume those are the stats you are referring to since they are the only ones I have mentioned since you started participating in this thread.

    If I am directing you to the stats on the FBI site how am I suppressing them?

    For discussions sake let's say I am skewing the stats at the FBI site, then why would I have any desire to suppress them since I have made them show exactly what I want.

    None of this is intended to be an attack on your or anyone else's character.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
  22. #2972  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fairclough View Post
    You can easily tackle a constitution reform, our constitution more or less dictates what the government can do rather than cannot - Gun control wasn't in there, thus what occurred was John Howard forced the hand of each state to change their legislation and the federal level they barraged imports. If that didn't occur a referendum would of occurred to legally than modify the constitution. If it happened for equality, why cant it happen for guns? People should stop hiding behind the constitution - it once said people could have slaves, times change and so should it.


    By Team mates, I refer to members of my sports team - which in states comparison would be the varsity first string. Chris Lane, is another Aussie I don't know, my team mates are rowers not baseball players. I used Chris as his an example as his a college athlete on a scholarship there for sport aswell. The population of Australia is about 22 million, I believe the states is about 350. we are more urban that America on the percentage of people in cities etc. Yes I do realize that there is over 100 million gun overs, the recall we did if it was in American terms would mean about 40 million of those owners would turn their guns in. When I talk about gun control, I mean the level we have or higher. To legally get a gun here is not sign a piece of paper, your sweet heres a gun. To get one legally means you have to attend the range for about 2 years I believe prior, meet the check ups, storage etc. Than you have to continuously provide evidence of usage. If you want something, lets say strong. You have to prove why you need it and why the current gun isnt suffice. The fact is if they were under our law it would be very unlikely they would of got their hands on a gun, whether they tried stealing it or what not. In Chris Lanes case, the other gun had its serial numbers shaved to prevent gun id.


    Once again, if you have a need for one you can have one. Who needs a gun which can unload 100 bullets. Last time I checked it shot about 20 people in 90 seconds. The fact is in most massacres ar15's have been used, its an automatic weapon. If you arguing for self defense, who the **** carries needs a automatic rifle for that. You do the $700 was in todays dollars but 1996 so that would be significantly higher now, under law you would be allowed your hand guns etc and thus your safe would still be needed, you could still go to the range as that counts as an need for a hand gun or another gun which is required to be stored at the range if its not a hand gun or a shot gun.



    Its odd we had a very very similar culture to America, we were labelled America's little twin because of Howard / Bush relationships. Just after 102 dead in massacres we realized that our love of guns were hurting us as a nation. We figured - which do we value more 10 lives per year or our guns. Facts speak for themselves, since the banning of automatic guns and tighter control on who has access we have not had a massacre, in the same time period we had 102 deaths, same time period after control 0 Massacre deaths.

    Oh you know the gun which was used in the massacres... an AR15. Its not a military gun but its the weapon of choice for loonies. Yes before our gun control, all these guns were bought by law abiding citizens. It just takes an angry man with a gun to do damage.
    I really don't think you understand what's actually necessary for what you are describing. The only way what you describe could happen in the US is with a constitutional amendment, and that won't be happening.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
  23. #2973  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hustleman View Post
    Beat me to it.

    When it switches to battery backup, it makes a loud noise to wake me up

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    But what if I found out you had a battery back up too and had destroyed that too. Heck what would the FBI or CIA or mi5 do if no electronic device ever worked to power their systems. How useless would secret secret services become due to electricity not working

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2
  24. #2974  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Live2ride883 View Post
    To me you are stating that the victim is responsible for the crime, simply because they live in or happen to be in a 'dangerous' place when the crime takes place. Then I gave examples of hot idiotic this concept is.
    Playing with words, in a bad way.
    Apparently you need to be explained, since you are being quite bias and are still putting words in my mouth.

    "And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place"

    What I am saying is:
    If person A finds situation B dangerous (in terms of high risk: keep in mind I said HIGH risk), and person A continually exposes himself to harmful situation B. So Person A now has to carry an Object A which is also just as dangerous as situation B.
    Does it really solve the problem? No. You are merely bandaging a situation and avoiding the real problem. Why expose yourself repeatedly?

    Thanks for the stats I will check them out later, and see what sources they are using.
  25. #2975  

    Default Re: Why is it that most anti gun people...

    Quote Originally Posted by asanatheist View Post
    Playing with words, in a bad way.
    Apparently you need to be explained, since you are being quite bias and are still putting words in my mouth.

    "And if you really need a gun to protect yourself, why exactly are you so stupidly irresponsible to let your family live or put your family in a dangerous place"

    What I am saying is:
    If person A finds situation B dangerous (in terms of high risk: keep in mind I said HIGH risk), and person A continually exposes himself to harmful situation B. So Person A now has to carry an Object A which is also just as dangerous as situation B.
    Does it really solve the problem? No. You are merely bandaging a situation and avoiding the real problem. Why expose yourself repeatedly?

    Thanks for the stats I will check them out later, and see what sources they are using.
    I cannot speak for anyone else here, but personally I do not repeatedly put myself or my family in dangerous situations. I carry a weapon because ANY situation can turn dangerous despite the precautions you might take.

    What I'm not going to do is get into an argument with you about putting words into your mouth or attacking someones character. All that would do is get this thread closed and I for one do not want to see that happen.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
    Thanked by:
    cdmjlt369 likes this.

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 12:03 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 08:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 12:00 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 05:28 AM

Posting Permissions