Thread: Guns do NOT kill people.

I just don't see the reason for everyone to carry a gun in a civilised society. Even more worrisome in an uncivilised society though. If they're obnoxious, you can still stab 'em with a fork or something. But if every joe's already got one, you might as well work on ways to deal with that fact rather than wishing it weren't so. Whats with selling guns to nutters? I doubt the swiss do that.

I had a cop pull me for speeding in Noo Joysey once. He seemed nervous, understandably I guess. But when he found out I was from oz, he just wanted to talk about croc dundee. Now thats a knife.

Originally Posted by sabang

By what perverse logic is it necessary to register a motor vehicle, but not a gun?

Deaths per year:

Guns - 15.5 per 100,000 people
Automobile - 15.5 per 100,000 people

By what perverse logic are you using to suppose that gun registration would make one iota's difference?

Sabang ya better stick to the continual slagging of GWB and co. You're much more apt with that sort of logic.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

By what perverse logic are you using to suppose that gun registration would make one iota's difference?

1- less nutters would be able to buy them. a lot less. Nutters and guns don't mix- I mean, you don't let them in the Army, so why let them on the streets with guns?.
2- you'd think twice about selling them on to your local drug dealer, if you knew what was good for you.
3- even if you did, the scumbag wouldn't be able to buy ammo without a license
4- to get a license, you'd need to show you could handle a gun (like a car license). thats better than accidentally blowing your own or mums head off. Or even one of dicks lawyer pals.
5- you could also regulate the type of weapons sold. someone who wants a snub nosed fully automatic Uzi ain't exactly a deer hunter.

Stuff like that. Refer back to my post about the Australian experience in this thread- with licensing and registration, the rate of gun crime there plummeted drastically. And we never had a problem like the US does, to start with.

It makes sense, and you know it.

Sabang ya better stick to the continual slagging of GWB and co

Sure- like a typical Republican, he didn't want to do anything to addrress the ploblem.

I have been all over the globe and there are not too many places where guns are not available, all you have to do is know where to look and have cash. The scariest part of this is that what is offered is pretty much hard core and or military grade from our Communist neighbors.

Your gonna have to clean house there first.

You can't eliminate gun crime- but you can reduce it. Plenty of examples out there.
Like, "a man has got a right to carry a gun", that old canard.
In a kindergarten? school?
Political meeting, or protest rally?
Hospital, or abortion clinic?
Rave party? Rock concert?
Airport? House of Congress or State Assembly?

Originally Posted by sabang

You can't eliminate gun crime- but you can reduce it. Plenty of examples out there.
Like, "a man has got a right to carry a gun", that old canard.
In a kindergarten? school?
Political meeting, or protest rally?
Hospital, or abortion clinic?
Rave party? Rock concert?
Airport? House of Congress or State Assembly?

Yes you are correct, but I can not stress how easy it is to obtain them. The individuals that do this are only looking for one thing and it is very lucrative. The stakes are high; but these individuals are well connected and even have assistance from the very system that is in place that regulate it.

The problem with the old knee jerk "gotta register" logic is that it completely ignores the core issues of "education" and "personal responsibility" and the numerous other social factors which contribute to gun violence.

The evil nasty firearm is very convenient target for the shallow thinking, hysterical, knee jerk "gun control" reactionary.

The firearm itself hasn't the capacity to defend itself against these highly emotionally charged attacks against it's very existence.

Gun control proponents ignore the plain facts:
1. Bad people exist.
2. Good people have the right to protect themselves against bad people.
3. People can't trust government for protection.

those be the facts etched in the cold hard steel.
Elegant and easy to understand.
You just don't argue with Mr Smith and Wesson model 629.


"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? "

Never posted in issues before so go easy on me!



What are the rules in here?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world

You learn something new every day- so that was why it was dirty Harry's choice.
As for 'personal responsibility', well a nutter has none- by law actually, if they're certified. You indeed have a personal responsibility if you carry a gun, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by The Fresh Prince

What are the rules in here?

Theres a sticky at the top of Issues FP, that explains 'the rules'.

Originally Posted by sabang

Gun control proponents ignore the plain facts: 1. Bad people exist. 2. Good people have the right to protect themselves against bad people. 3. People can't trust government for protection.

The truth is, 99.999% of the people who own firearms are never in a situation where they are confronted in dangerous situation by any of those things.

Do they do referendums in the states? This would be a decent reason for one.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Gun control proponents ignore the plain facts:
1. Bad people exist.
2. Good people have the right to protect themselves against bad people

If one takes away the legality of 'Bad People' to own guns then one naturally reduces the threat against Good People. Therefore The Good People won't feel a need to possess a firearm themselves.

Successive US Governments appear not to have taken a responsible position on gun ownership, possibly because of becoming unpopular with pro-gun fraternities. (voters).
The UK themselves suffered uproar from certain groups in recent times when they also placed further restrictions on gun ownership (even fox-hunting) and certainly the media were milking it for all that it was worth, despite the fact that the number of citizens who owned firearms were minuscule compared to the population.

Accessability to illegal firearms will always exist for the Bad People but they may suffer heavy consequences when caught in possession. At the moment it appears that most are able to possess legally. A worrying situation for the good citizens of USA