Guns, Guns Guns

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:I stated a simple fact in response to your question.

Would national firearm control reduce homicide rates?

Yes it would. As clearly demonstrated by the entirety of all available data on that issue from across the globe.


Feel free to go off on any unhinged rant about that that you like.

Actually no you didn't to INSMHO.

Ok, to be precise, I stated a simple fact and expressed confusion about the form of your question and why you bothered bringing up differential rates of homicide across rural and metro counties as if that had any brearing on the question.

Was it that latter bit that made me a "statist"? Because if not then now I'm expressing confusion about why I just had to clarify that in the first place.

Whatever, back to ignore,

You keep saying that and then not doing it... are you sure you know what it means?

Obvious solution.
License the bullets, not the guns.
People can therefore own as many guns as they want, but in order to purchase bullets for said weapons, they need to prove they are mentally sound and can only buy limited numbers.
You may also add in a fillip that they must return the brass to get new bullets (not on a 1-to-1 basis, when hunting, it's only too easy to lose the bullet casing) in order to ensure that they are indeed replacing bullets rather than stocking up for a massacre.

End result? Gun nuts can collect as many guns as they want, it's just the using of the gun that is cut back on.

Ta-daaaa!

I suspect that the bullets are part of the "arms" the Second Amendment refers to. We don't have a right to own guns, we have a right to bear arms......Now that I think of it, our home grown lefties might just determine that this means we can wear short or no sleeves shirts with impunity. No more ordinances about no shirt, no service. Everyone knows the spelling was flexible back then.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Michael Everett wrote:Obvious solution.
License the bullets, not the guns.
People can therefore own as many guns as they want, but in order to purchase bullets for said weapons, they need to prove they are mentally sound and can only buy limited numbers.
You may also add in a fillip that they must return the brass to get new bullets (not on a 1-to-1 basis, when hunting, it's only too easy to lose the bullet casing) in order to ensure that they are indeed replacing bullets rather than stocking up for a massacre.

End result? Gun nuts can collect as many guns as they want, it's just the using of the gun that is cut back on.

Ta-daaaa!

Yet another reason to check your sources. Read the story not go by the headline:

http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ano ... d.1932245/

headline “Shooter kills 4, injures 30.”

First line of the story, "Woman arrested for drunk driving ..."

Their retraction from their website the next day. "Because of a page designer's error, a misleading headline appeared on page 3A in Sunday's Record-Eagle accompanying a story about a driver who struck and killed four people at the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade on Saturday."



Huh "page designer" "misleading",
T2M

Annachie wrote:"NRA-Backed Legislator: We Can’t Take Syrian Refugees Because It’s Too Easy For Them To Buy Guns"

"42 For I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not serve You?’

45 “He will answer, ‘Truly I say to you, as you did it not for one of the least of these, you did it not for Me.’

46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

"
WWJD, help the refugee's.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Yes please, DO something, because here, we´re getting about a thousand refugees per DAY right now.

It´s completely untenable.

Imaginos1892 wrote:That's in your country.

No, that is true in ALL countries, regardless if you comprehend it or not.

Either there is a country, with some sort of basic law, constitution or similar.

Those basic laws sets up a frame that can provide rights, or provide rights directly.
It also provides the groundwork for government of the same country.

If you want those rights, then you can have them only if you have a declaration of rights, as part of the above, but if you reject government, then there´s noone to enforce that declaration of rights, and the paper is about as valuable as toilet paper with grafitti on it.

Seriously, start using your brain before it atrophies.

A declaration of rights is only worth anything at all as long as there is something that enforces it.

A national declaration of rights is just so much garbage if you do not have a national government or administration or SOMETHING whatever that is capable of making it stick.

Got it yet? I expect not.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Here in the USA, our rights are those that the government does not take away. By default, citizens have all the rights and the government has none. Our constitution grants the government certain limited powers, and prohibits it from taking rights not explicitly given to it.

Just like in pretty much all other nations, yes. Are you having fun making yourself look ignorant?

Imaginos1892 wrote:The US Constitution does not grant us our rights

That´s a "novel" interpretation. Pure redneck style.

Tenshinai wrote:Yes please, DO something, because here, we´re getting about a thousand refugees per DAY right now.

It´s completely untenable.

While I can feel for a country that used to export people now importing people. [edit] Expecting the US to stand by an ally is questionable at best. We have often thrown them under the bus. Not a proud fact but a fact.

Instead of expecting others to bail you out what should you do to help your country?

I really am curious.

Thanks in Advance,
T2M

On the Syrian refugees. Why exactly are we accepting able bodied men of military age as refugees? Women & children, the elderly I get but Syria is THEIR country and THEY need to be the ones fighting for it. (Incidentally this opinion of mine preceded Paris).

biochem wrote:On the Syrian refugees. Why exactly are we accepting able bodied men of military age as refugees? Women & children, the elderly I get but Syria is THEIR country and THEY need to be the ones fighting for it. (Incidentally this opinion of mine preceded Paris).

I've read this opinion before elsewhere and wonder at the logic. Firstly a bit sexist and ageist, why only males of a certain age?
Secondly, how are they going to fight for their country? Which of the many religious sects will they join? What if they are atheist, christian, or buddist?
If they don't fit into a mould they wouldn't last a day, and even if they did it would just make the multi sided conflict worse. A couple of young Australians (male & female) went stupidly over there a year ago, joined an islamic armed group and were dead in a week when their group were exterminated by a bigger faction over some ideology.

Daryl, I guess you read what you wanted to read or interpret what I said. If the shoe fits, then wear it...I guess.

Addressing the point of France, I do have compassion for the people of France. Terrorism sucks! God, Allah, and/or Budda (whatever other deities or religion a person wants to substitute) is not a reason to kill another defenseless human being! Having a citizenry armed in my mind is the best defense against terrorism or disorder.

I have 2 incidents that I or my family felt threatened by people using guns or intimidation. 1) An armed robbery at a La Quinta when I was the night manager. 2) When my wife was being followed home from work by strange armed man. I was an hour away from helping her. Here in Houston, Texas only 6% human burglaries are solved according the police statistics of the Houston police department. Consequently, family/personal safety is the primary reason for owning a weapon in my household.

Take the 20th century, 4x's guns have outlawed in countries and bad actions happened within each country. China, Russia, Cambodia, and Germany stripped their citizens of firearms. Ahmm...did not bad actions occur within all these countries. That's just off the top of the old noggin! By the same token their a few countries that successfully disarmed!

Daryl correct me if I am wrong, did or did not you say that you and your wife would never visit America because of the gun laws...(it could have been a forum poster from New Zealand?!? Sorry my recollection is poor on this question.)

Now, going back to guns. 2 Veterans recently built and are acquiring a patent on thumb identification for a firearm. To activate the firearm, one places a thumb print (according to article, the process takes 1 second to activate the weapon.) on firearm to a make the firearm active and ready to rock and roll in home defense of should I say home offense. This is not a smart gun but attempt by some fellow Americans to increase gun safety and eliminate some critics. Currently, I only read the article on the Blaze and nowhere else. Translation: I need some more information and product demonstration before I could support this idea. Provided that product does what the articles say it does...I could support this for all new firearms.