So it allows someone who is not an assassin, a trained killer, or physically strong the ability to defend themselves. I'm ok with that. This is the purpose guns serve.
No, a guns purpose is to fire a projectile at lethal velocity, rapidly in the case of semi-autos/autos. Using that fact as self defense is not a 'purpose'.
Gun laws seem to prevent lunatics in most 1st world countries from doing this same thing with the same frequency. For some reason we have more deaths per capita than most other civilized countries.
The simple existence of guns denotes that there will be situations like this. Remove the fucking guns and the legality for owning them and there simply won't be any guns available or such a reduced number that it is no longer the significant problem we have today.
So yes gun laws themselves don't stop lunatics and criminals, but if the guns aren't there legally in the first place there will be far far fewer guns available for the criminals...or are you saying that's a bad thing?
How about self defense?
Since guns are orders of magnitude more likely to kill you or our family rather than any intruder, it follows they can't be used properly and should be removed from such environments.
Us gun control freaks would probably allow that guns can be possessed with a shitload of training, testing and annual recertification but guess who argues against that?
Shootings by criminals aren't the problem. Shootings by perfectly legal people having guns are the problem. Obviously after such a shooting they are criminals, but previously they were law abiding citizens.
Except we have the rest of the industrialized world that proves your point false. Look at the numbers dead from gun violence in almost any modern 1st world country that bans guns and you'll notice that per capita, we have shitloads more.
The reason why is we have the guns everywhere, legal or not.
(based on a true story in which a small part of the fence was a fraction of an inch taller than the ordnance allowed)
Actually that's an argument that you aren't involved enough in your local government, or more accurately HOA.
If you aren't willing to spend the time getting involved, then really anal people who like nothing better than telling others to do things end up running the show.
If you aren't involved in running against these people, don't complain when you are left dealing with them.
As an analogy, think of it like going to a restaurant and saying you want the $20 salmon dinner. So you eat and get your bill, and suddenly it's printed on there that it's $25 for the meal. Well, you've already eaten it, no saying you don't want it any more.
Not quite. The analogy would be if you paid $20 for 1 pound of salmon and you measured the weight and you only had 12 ounces instead.
Which *might* be a reasonable argument when they first questioned the study. Now, however, it's been definitively proven that there was blatant conflict of interest, the professor has resigned and the report retracted.
Leftist hippies or not...they were right in claiming this was a problem and have been vindicated as such.
Slashdot Mirror
So it allows someone who is not an assassin, a trained killer, or physically strong the ability to defend themselves. I'm ok with that. This is the purpose guns serve.
No, a guns purpose is to fire a projectile at lethal velocity, rapidly in the case of semi-autos/autos. Using that fact as self defense is not a 'purpose'.
Bomb deaths vs gun deaths...which is greater do you think?
Funny how we put laws in place to track fertilizer and other such explosives after that. Oh yeah, fertilizer has other uses than bombs too...
The first step at helping someone who is self-destructive...is removing the tools by which they are destructive...
Many gun opponents have been turned by having a spouse or child killed, while they watched, defenseless.
Perhaps you should as Mrs Brady that?
Gun laws seem to prevent lunatics in most 1st world countries from doing this same thing with the same frequency. For some reason we have more deaths per capita than most other civilized countries.
The simple existence of guns denotes that there will be situations like this. Remove the fucking guns and the legality for owning them and there simply won't be any guns available or such a reduced number that it is no longer the significant problem we have today.
So yes gun laws themselves don't stop lunatics and criminals, but if the guns aren't there legally in the first place there will be far far fewer guns available for the criminals...or are you saying that's a bad thing?
Who would you rather face? A knife wielding attacker or a gun wielding attacker?
I thought so.
Just to refute your shit again. Countries with very strong gun controls seem to have far fewer deaths due to guns.
linky
Oh and fuck you.
Except that in 1st world countries that DO control bullets and guns, far fewer people per captia die every year due to guns.
We can, others already do.
taking away guns doesn't fix crazy.
But it nicely keeps the crazy person that is 100 yards away from me from killing me and 100 other people in 2 minutes.
A knife can only kill a few people a minute at best and they have to be very very very local to the killer.
Guns? not so much.
How about self defense? Since guns are orders of magnitude more likely to kill you or our family rather than any intruder, it follows they can't be used properly and should be removed from such environments.
Us gun control freaks would probably allow that guns can be possessed with a shitload of training, testing and annual recertification but guess who argues against that?
they also provide a threat protection without even being fired.
They also single you out to die first when with a group. Since you're the one with a gun, taking you down means the group is easier to attack.
Because you want to have target practice is not a valid reason to allow children to die.
Here's a paintball gun. Have fun.
Ok, so you're good with banning handguns then I assume?
citation provided asshole
Shootings by criminals aren't the problem. Shootings by perfectly legal people having guns are the problem. Obviously after such a shooting they are criminals, but previously they were law abiding citizens.
Except we have the rest of the industrialized world that proves your point false. Look at the numbers dead from gun violence in almost any modern 1st world country that bans guns and you'll notice that per capita, we have shitloads more.
The reason why is we have the guns everywhere, legal or not.
(based on a true story in which a small part of the fence was a fraction of an inch taller than the ordnance allowed)
Actually that's an argument that you aren't involved enough in your local government, or more accurately HOA.
If you aren't willing to spend the time getting involved, then really anal people who like nothing better than telling others to do things end up running the show.
If you aren't involved in running against these people, don't complain when you are left dealing with them.
As an analogy, think of it like going to a restaurant and saying you want the $20 salmon dinner. So you eat and get your bill, and suddenly it's printed on there that it's $25 for the meal. Well, you've already eaten it, no saying you don't want it any more.
Not quite. The analogy would be if you paid $20 for 1 pound of salmon and you measured the weight and you only had 12 ounces instead.
I think his opinion outweighs yours.
I disagree. AC is full of really really heavy shit.
yes but maybe not for who think they work for...
if we accept that the articles are bull why bother to read them?
You must be new here. Welcome!
The East Anglia professors were completely exonerated literally years ago...do try and keep up.
As for PSU, if you mean this review of Dr. Mann, well they also found no evidence of wrongdoing on any level.
Which *might* be a reasonable argument when they first questioned the study. Now, however, it's been definitively proven that there was blatant conflict of interest, the professor has resigned and the report retracted.
Leftist hippies or not...they were right in claiming this was a problem and have been vindicated as such.
They might very well be accurate
Given that they are the ones who got UT to review this study...AND it's now been thoroughly debunked and the author resigned...
I'd say they were pretty 'accurate'.