baloney. Less guns means less gun violence. If the criminals have a harder time getting guns, as they will with strict gun control, there will be less gun violence. Country after country has shown this to be true.
No, you are exactly wrong. The U.S. has an epidemic of gun violence. I don't care about knife attacks, because the rate of knife attacks or baseball bat attacks is staggeringly low compared to gun violence. The whole issue of knife attacks is a red herring made up by ant-gun control zealots who cant take the facts at hand: in 2010 8,700 people were killed with guns, while 1,700 were killed with knives.
That means more than 4 times as many people were killed with guns. So why the hell should I care about knife attacks as much as gun attacks? KNIFE ATTACKS are NOT THE ISSUE. Gun violence is.
The rate of deaths in England due to knives is staggeringly LESS than that in the US. You did know that, right? England had 332 knife deaths in 2010...The US had 1,704.
But the US had 8,700 homicides with guns of all types. Guess how many England had?
I do realize that. Which is why I think there should be strict gun control, including for handguns.
To own a gun in Germany, for example, one must posses a license issued by the police. Target shooters must be members of a legitimate club, must attend a 3-day safety class, and must pass a written and practical exam. Strict limits are placed on the number and types of guns one may own: "Assault weapons" (defined as guns having the "outer form" of a full-auto gun, regardless of actual functionality) are illegal, and the law limits target shooters to a maximum of 8 single-shot.22s.
Germany had 158 homicides in 2011; the U.S. had 9,800.
No, gun control is the topic at hand. Whenever I point out that strict gun control = less gun violence, anti-gun control folks try to change the subject to knives. Or bats. or shurikens. Or whatever.
But those are irrelevant to the question of whether or no we should put into place strict gun control laws.
Why do you point to 1930s Germany when you can point to gun control in Germany today? I'm curious? You point to events 60 years ago when you can look at gun control in Germany today. Guess what...Germany has very strict gun control laws TODAY. And few gun deaths. And it's no longer a socialist state, in case you haven't been paying attention.
And yet Europe has few knife massacres. Isn't that astonishing? How many mass knife attacks occur in England? How many examples can you point to of people going into a crowded theater and killing 20 people with a knife? I'm curious.
Anytime I point out that countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths, gun-control opponents change the subject by saying "what about xxx". I don't give a shit about those. Given the choice between walking down the street in a bad part of town in London (say, Brixton) where I have a reasonable chance of being mugged with a knife, and walking down the street in parts of Oakland or Bayview-Hunters point in San Francisco where I could easily get shot, I would choose the former any day. Most people would.
Slashdot Mirror
Coconut crabs! The giant ones that are 3 ft in diameter. Lets import those!!!
Maybe this person's boss should hire additional HR people to help read the resumes for those 15 positions.
Of course, you'd have to wade through their resumes first....
It's still not a war crime. The OP is correct.
The rights enabled in the Constitution have never been viewed as being absolute; thus the "fire in a crowded theater" exception.
Christ in a chicken basket, shut up already.
Unless, of course, one's soul can exist in mere ashes, in which case the second option would be necessary for "you" to die.
You mean spelling.
yes, or even walk. But, the point is, there are other options.
If you want to fly, yes. Pretty simple.
There's a third option: You don't have to fly.
Or maybe you just have mental issues, and actually hate yourself.
After outlawing guns, did they see a decrease in gun-related deaths? I suspect they did.
Because more people die due to guns in the US than due to any other type of weapon. It's pretty straightforward.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html
This is key...the inability to hit someone from a distance.
Which is one of the reasons why there's a lot less deaths due to knife attacks than due to gun attacks.
So maybe we should focus on guns.
baloney. Less guns means less gun violence. If the criminals have a harder time getting guns, as they will with strict gun control, there will be less gun violence. Country after country has shown this to be true.
No, you are exactly wrong. The U.S. has an epidemic of gun violence. I don't care about knife attacks, because the rate of knife attacks or baseball bat attacks is staggeringly low compared to gun violence. The whole issue of knife attacks is a red herring made up by ant-gun control zealots who cant take the facts at hand: in 2010 8,700 people were killed with guns, while 1,700 were killed with knives.
That means more than 4 times as many people were killed with guns. So why the hell should I care about knife attacks as much as gun attacks? KNIFE ATTACKS are NOT THE ISSUE. Gun violence is.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html
The rate of deaths in England due to knives is staggeringly LESS than that in the US. You did know that, right? England had 332 knife deaths in 2010...The US had 1,704.
But the US had 8,700 homicides with guns of all types. Guess how many England had?
I do realize that. Which is why I think there should be strict gun control, including for handguns.
To own a gun in Germany, for example, one must posses a license issued by the police. Target shooters must be members of a legitimate club, must attend a 3-day safety class, and must pass a written and practical exam. Strict limits are placed on the number and types of guns one may own: "Assault weapons" (defined as guns having the "outer form" of a full-auto gun, regardless of actual functionality) are illegal, and the law limits target shooters to a maximum of 8 single-shot .22s.
Germany had 158 homicides in 2011; the U.S. had 9,800.
The bill of rights is not a suicide pact.
Should people be allowed to own a missile launcher? A bazooka with ammunition? How about a fully armed and operational tank?
If no, what is it about the second amendment that you don't understand when it says "shall not be infringed"?
I believe dumb-ass has a hyphen.
No, gun control is the topic at hand. Whenever I point out that strict gun control = less gun violence, anti-gun control folks try to change the subject to knives. Or bats. or shurikens. Or whatever.
But those are irrelevant to the question of whether or no we should put into place strict gun control laws.
Why do you point to 1930s Germany when you can point to gun control in Germany today? I'm curious? You point to events 60 years ago when you can look at gun control in Germany today. Guess what...Germany has very strict gun control laws TODAY. And few gun deaths. And it's no longer a socialist state, in case you haven't been paying attention.
In 2011, the US had 9,800 gun homicide deaths.
Germany had 158.
http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2012/12/gun-deaths-in-germany-and-the-us.html
Strict gun control = less gun violence. It's pretty clear. I know you anti-gun control people hate to hear it, but its true.
And yet Europe has few knife massacres. Isn't that astonishing? How many mass knife attacks occur in England? How many examples can you point to of people going into a crowded theater and killing 20 people with a knife? I'm curious.
Anytime I point out that countries with strict gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths, gun-control opponents change the subject by saying "what about xxx". I don't give a shit about those. Given the choice between walking down the street in a bad part of town in London (say, Brixton) where I have a reasonable chance of being mugged with a knife, and walking down the street in parts of Oakland or Bayview-Hunters point in San Francisco where I could easily get shot, I would choose the former any day. Most people would.
You don't need an assault rifle to protect yourself and your family. A handgun is all you need.