Weapons Registrations Results In Confiscation?

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by WhiteKnight77 (12014 posts) -

The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it and The Gun Confiscation Notice an NYC Resident Reportedly Received Will Likely Send Chills Down Your Spine both show how one gun owner in NYC got a letter telling him he has weapons that have to high a capacity after registering his weapons.

Maybe Airshocker can shed some light, but if this is actually happening, I truly see NY and NYC as the nanny state and where civil liberties as a thing of the past.

What do you think?

#2 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

Scary times

#3 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

Thanks for fixing the links

#4 Edited by deeliman (1858 posts) -

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

#5 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

@deeliman: look at the history and loss of freedom that comes with losing certain rights.

#6 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12014 posts) -

Suspect in carjacking a molester (killed by passerby) has details about how someone armed with a weapon of their own prevented a second carjacking after the carjacker had a collision with a cement truck that killed the owner of the car he carjacked. He was also suspected in a brutal rape just days earlier. Cops had been called, but hadn't caught up to the suspect yet. In the US in urban areas, the average time for police to show up to a crime in progress is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it is 12 minutes or more.

#7 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@deeliman: look at the history and loss of freedom that comes with losing certain rights.

Do you think you will lose your freedom if you lose your right to bear arms?

#8 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

Suspect in carjacking a molester (killed by passerby) has details about how someone armed with a weapon of their own prevented a second carjacking after the carjacker had a collision with a cement truck that killed the owner of the car he carjacked. He was also suspected in a brutal rape just days earlier. Cops had been called, but hadn't caught up to the suspect yet. In the US in urban areas, the average time for police to show up to a crime in progress is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it is 12 minutes or more.

I get that owning a gun can be helpful in these kind of situations, but isn't he still allowed to carry a gun with 5 bullets? Shouldn't that be enough to stop things like this?

#9 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

@deeliman: the loss of such a fundamental rights does seem to indicate that other rights are well on their way to getting chipped off

#10 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@deeliman: the loss of such a fundamental rights does seem to indicate that other rights are well on their way to getting chipped off

A lot of rights have already been chipped off over the last years.

#11 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

The more reason to be concerned

#12 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@dave123321: I just don't understand why a lot of people regard it as the most important one, as this is the one people make the biggest fuss about

#13 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12014 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

Suspect in carjacking a molester (killed by passerby) has details about how someone armed with a weapon of their own prevented a second carjacking after the carjacker had a collision with a cement truck that killed the owner of the car he carjacked. He was also suspected in a brutal rape just days earlier. Cops had been called, but hadn't caught up to the suspect yet. In the US in urban areas, the average time for police to show up to a crime in progress is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it is 12 minutes or more.

I get that owning a gun can be helpful in these kind of situations, but isn't he still allowed to carry a gun with 5 bullets? Shouldn't that be enough to stop things like this?

When criminals do not care about laws, removing the ability to have a larger capacity or carry more than that, would put others at risk. As it is right now in the US, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the US and the highest rate of violent crimes by criminals with guns due to citizens inability to have what is guaranteed constitutionally. FBI: Chicago passes New York as murder capital of U.S. Unlike England where person can be arrested trying protect himself from criminals, we in the US have that ability to do so with whatever means we can.

#14 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

What are the stats for gun violence in the UK anyway?

#15 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

@deeliman: some people here have a gun obsession it seems. They also seem to find comfort and a level of satisfaction in the deaths of criminals rather then simply finding a level of acceptance. Some, not all. Small some.

#16 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -
#17 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

Suspect in carjacking a molester (killed by passerby) has details about how someone armed with a weapon of their own prevented a second carjacking after the carjacker had a collision with a cement truck that killed the owner of the car he carjacked. He was also suspected in a brutal rape just days earlier. Cops had been called, but hadn't caught up to the suspect yet. In the US in urban areas, the average time for police to show up to a crime in progress is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it is 12 minutes or more.

I get that owning a gun can be helpful in these kind of situations, but isn't he still allowed to carry a gun with 5 bullets? Shouldn't that be enough to stop things like this?

When criminals do not care about laws, removing the ability to have a larger capacity or carry more than that, would put others at risk. As it is right now in the US, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the US and the highest rate of violent crimes by criminals with guns due to citizens inability to have what is guaranteed constitutionally. FBI: Chicago passes New York as murder capital of U.S. Unlike England where person can be arrested trying protect himself from criminals, we in the US have that ability to do so with whatever means we can.

Do states with the loosest gun laws have the lowest crime rates?

#18 Posted by Planeforger (15319 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

#19 Edited by lamprey263 (21022 posts) -

I think the person got their guns taken away for violating the weapon laws is why that letter got sent.

When batshit crazy Republicans talk about the government taking peoples guns away it's during some right wing fantasy of Obama and the UN leading Marxist/Muslim death squads going door-to-door to round-up white people and their guns, giving their guns away to an Obama army of criminal blacks and illegal alien Mexicans and taking the patriotic white Americans to some FEMA death camps where they'll be shot by firing line made up of Obamacare death panel doctors. The children will be put into indoctrination camps to teach them to be gay and love abortion for remedying any accidental straight sex they might have.

BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE THERE TC!!

#21 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

What are the stats for gun violence in the UK anyway?

Low, but their knife crime rate is incredibly high.

#22 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

@deeliman said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

Suspect in carjacking a molester (killed by passerby) has details about how someone armed with a weapon of their own prevented a second carjacking after the carjacker had a collision with a cement truck that killed the owner of the car he carjacked. He was also suspected in a brutal rape just days earlier. Cops had been called, but hadn't caught up to the suspect yet. In the US in urban areas, the average time for police to show up to a crime in progress is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it is 12 minutes or more.

I get that owning a gun can be helpful in these kind of situations, but isn't he still allowed to carry a gun with 5 bullets? Shouldn't that be enough to stop things like this?

When criminals do not care about laws, removing the ability to have a larger capacity or carry more than that, would put others at risk. As it is right now in the US, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the US and the highest rate of violent crimes by criminals with guns due to citizens inability to have what is guaranteed constitutionally. FBI: Chicago passes New York as murder capital of U.S. Unlike England where person can be arrested trying protect himself from criminals, we in the US have that ability to do so with whatever means we can.

Do states with the loosest gun laws have the lowest crime rates?

Kinda-ish.

States with least amount of legal gun owners = more crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

There's been books written about the subject using FBI statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

#23 Posted by worlock77 (22508 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

@deeliman said:

@WhiteKnight77 said:

Suspect in carjacking a molester (killed by passerby) has details about how someone armed with a weapon of their own prevented a second carjacking after the carjacker had a collision with a cement truck that killed the owner of the car he carjacked. He was also suspected in a brutal rape just days earlier. Cops had been called, but hadn't caught up to the suspect yet. In the US in urban areas, the average time for police to show up to a crime in progress is 9 minutes. In rural areas, it is 12 minutes or more.

I get that owning a gun can be helpful in these kind of situations, but isn't he still allowed to carry a gun with 5 bullets? Shouldn't that be enough to stop things like this?

When criminals do not care about laws, removing the ability to have a larger capacity or carry more than that, would put others at risk. As it is right now in the US, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the US and the highest rate of violent crimes by criminals with guns due to citizens inability to have what is guaranteed constitutionally. FBI: Chicago passes New York as murder capital of U.S. Unlike England where person can be arrested trying protect himself from criminals, we in the US have that ability to do so with whatever means we can.

Do states with the loosest gun laws have the lowest crime rates?

Kinda-ish.

States with least amount of legal gun owners = more crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Notice how those states with more crime also have higher populations? Also take a look at murder and gun violence rates (rather that going by sheer numbers alone). Take Alabama and Alaska, for instance. Both states have a high rate of gun ownership and few murders, but they also have small populations. Now compare Illinois, which has a much higher population than both of the aforementioned states combined. Naturally it has more murders and more gun murders. However take a look at rates (per 100,000 inhabitants) - note that Alabama and Alaska both have a higher murder rate than Illinois (with the gun murder rate being pretty much equal).

#24 Edited by airshocker (27269 posts) -

I haven't heard of any confiscation due to the SAFE act. That doesn't mean that it can't happen, though. Nor does it mean that I think the SAFE act was a good idea.

#25 Posted by airshocker (27269 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

#26 Edited by Aljosa23 (23612 posts) -

@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

#27 Edited by plageus900 (781 posts) -

@Aljosa23: That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

Where do you come up with that information? My entire family owns firearms and I'd say about 95 percent of my friends and their families own them as well, none of which have EVER had an accident with one. However, I've known 5 people kill someone with a car by accident. They've either been driving around a corner at night and hit someone that was crossing the road when they shouldn't have been, or there was a bunch of ice on the road and they've slid into the side of another car and killed that person, etc.

If you know someone that has killed a family member or friend with a firearm, they in fact are completely incompetent and have the mindset of a 3 year old. Anyone who knows how a firearm works and knows how to handle one with caution will never have an accident. Guns don't get up and walk around by themselves and shoot someone.

Some statistics:

In 2007, 613 people in America were fatally shot in a gun accident - http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents

In 2007, 41,259 people in America were killed in a car accident - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Per year, roughly 210,000 Americans were killed by medical mistakes in hospitals - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals&page=2

It seems more careless to drive a car or trust your doctor than to own a firearm.

#28 Posted by airshocker (27269 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

#29 Edited by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

#30 Posted by lostrib (26254 posts) -

Well that already happened during hurricane katrina. The police and national guard were ordered to forcibly remove guns from citizens, which resulted in only criminals having firearms

#31 Posted by ad1x2 (5235 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

Negligence is one of the biggest reasons accidents happen with firearms. It is the main reason accidental discharges in the military can be punished under UCMJ. A person trained on the proper way to handle a firearm is very unlikely to shoot the wrong person versus some person who is totally clueless on how to handle a firearm. Airshocker is law enforcement and former military, so I would assume he would know a little more about gun safety than your average OT poster.

#32 Edited by airshocker (27269 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

It is bullshit because you don't know anything about me. You have no conception of the steps I take to protect my firearm and make sure its not being touched by those who don't know how to use it. You have no idea what kind of training I've received, or what kind of holster I use to carry my weapon, or even what weapon I DO carry when I'm off-duty.

You have no idea that I had my glove compartment in all of my vehicles modified so that they can't be pried open or that I keep my pistol there when I'm around children and I know we're going to be safe.

So, again, don't come at me with your fucking horseshit. Especially when you know absolutely nothing about me.

#33 Edited by plageus900 (781 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

You're a complete idiot without ANY common sense. With your argument, it stands to reason that, because my automobile is parked at my house, and that because there are 4 times more automobile deaths than there are accidental firearm deaths, I'm putting myself and my family at extreme risk of death. You're a real peach. Before you start making asinine comments about firearms, something you've obviously never been exposed to or given proper training on, make sure you know what you are talking about.

When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in …that’s just human nature - Senator Dianne Feinstein (the epitome of stupid fucks in this country)

#34 Posted by dave123321 (32601 posts) -

People really need to get a handle on stats

#35 Edited by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@plageus900 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

You're a complete idiot without ANY common sense. With your argument, it stands to reason that, because my automobile is parked at my house, and that because there are 4 times more automobile deaths than there are accidental firearm deaths, I'm putting myself and my family at extreme risk of death. You're a real peach. Before you start making asinine comments about firearms, something you've obviously never been exposed to or given proper training on, make sure you know what you are talking about.

When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in …that’s just human nature - Senator Dianne Feinstein (the epitome of stupid fucks in this country)

Except comparing cars and guns is apples and oranges. Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Wow, gun nuts sure get defensive when their objects of compensation get threatened. Life's a roulette, I guess.

#36 Posted by deeliman (1858 posts) -

For the people who compare guns with cars, please don't. It's a very stupid comparison.

#37 Posted by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

It is bullshit because you don't know anything about me. You have no conception of the steps I take to protect my firearm and make sure its not being touched by those who don't know how to use it. You have no idea what kind of training I've received, or what kind of holster I use to carry my weapon, or even what weapon I DO carry when I'm off-duty.

You have no idea that I had my glove compartment in all of my vehicles modified so that they can't be pried open or that I keep my pistol there when I'm around children and I know we're going to be safe.

So, again, don't come at me with your fucking horseshit. Especially when you know absolutely nothing about me.

Who's coming after you? I didn't say a word about you. Quit being so damn defensive, officer.

#38 Edited by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

LOL, noob statistics. Control your stats only for police officers with an extensive background with firearms from the military, and see if it's the same as the all-encompassing average that includes criminals, drug addicts, mentally ill persons, careless rednecks, people who do not lock their guns and/or leave guns within reach of children, etc.

Math is hard. :<<<<<

And when trained police officers with extensive backgrounds with firearms from the military are the only ones who own firearms (or are even in the majority of people who own firearms) I will control for only that one specific factor.

#39 Posted by plageus900 (781 posts) -

@Makhaidos: Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Again, your reasoning. In this case, we shouldn't own knives or sharp objects because they're even easier to get a hold of and kill than a gun is. I have to load a magazine, put it in the gun, put a round in the chamber and pull the trigger to fire it. With a knife I can pick it up and slice away.

This is the kind of reasoning that our nanny government has. We can't take care of ourselves, so they need to do it for us.

@deeliman: It is a stupid comparison, that's why I used it, because it's as stupid as the comment I responded to. At any rate, this argument is going nowhere. No goofball politician, lobbyist or anyone here with no concept of the real world is going to stop me from owning them.

#40 Edited by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@plageus900 said:

@Makhaidos: Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Again, your reasoning. In this case, we shouldn't own knives or sharp objects because they're even easier to get a hold of and kill than a gun is. I have to load a magazine, put it in the gun, put a round in the chamber and pull the trigger to fire it. With a knife I can pick it up and slice away.

Then why is it that 67.8% of weapons-related homicides in the United States are from firearms whereas only 13.4% are from knives?

#41 Edited by deeliman (1858 posts) -

@Makhaidos: Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Again, your reasoning. In this case, we shouldn't own knives or sharp objects because they're even easier to get a hold of and kill than a gun is. I have to load a magazine, put it in the gun, put a round in the chamber and pull the trigger to fire it. With a knife I can pick it up and slice away.

This is the kind of reasoning that our nanny government has. We can't take care of ourselves, so they need to do it for us.

@deeliman: It is a stupid comparison, that's why I used it, because it's as stupid as the comment I responded to. At any rate, this argument is going nowhere. No goofball politician, lobbyist or anyone here with no concept of the real world is going to stop me from owning them.

Nobody's interested in stopping you from owning firearms.

#42 Posted by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@plageus900 said:

@Makhaidos: Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Again, your reasoning. In this case, we shouldn't own knives or sharp objects because they're even easier to get a hold of and kill than a gun is. I have to load a magazine, put it in the gun, put a round in the chamber and pull the trigger to fire it. With a knife I can pick it up and slice away.

This is the kind of reasoning that our nanny government has. We can't take care of ourselves, so they need to do it for us.

@deeliman: It is a stupid comparison, that's why I used it, because it's as stupid as the comment I responded to. At any rate, this argument is going nowhere. No goofball politician, lobbyist or anyone here with no concept of the real world is going to stop me from owning them.

Nobody's interested in stopping you from owning firearms.

I don't know; I doubt plageus900 would pass a psychological evaluation to own a firearm legally.

#43 Posted by plageus900 (781 posts) -

@Makhaidos:

Out of that 67.8%, how many were committed by criminals and how many were justifiable through the means of self-defense by law abiding citizens? Criminals use guns to kill people. So if you outlaw guns, criminals will continue to use guns to kill people. See what I'm saying? Gun free zones, etc. do nothing but empower thugs.

#44 Edited by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:
@coolbeans90 said:

@Makhaidos said:

@airshocker said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@airshocker said:
@Planeforger said:

@deeliman said:

Those articles don't look biased at all...

Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?

As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).

There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.

Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).

People have fire extinguishers in case of fire. I carry a gun in case of danger to myself or others.

That sounds careless considering you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than a burglar/bad guy.

That's bullshit and you know it. You know nothing of me or what I do to safeguard my weapon.

That's not bullshit; that's statistics. It's also common sense; your gun is closer to your family far more often that it's closer to bad guys. There are also many, many more shootings (whether accidental or otherwise) involving family members than attackers.

LOL, noob statistics. Control your stats only for police officers with an extensive background with firearms from the military, and see if it's the same as the all-encompassing average that includes criminals, drug addicts, mentally ill persons, careless rednecks, people who do not lock their guns and/or leave guns within reach of children, etc.

Math is hard. :<<<<<

And when trained police officers with extensive backgrounds with firearms from the military are the only ones who own firearms (or are even in the majority of people who own firearms) I will control for only that one specific factor.

You could also, I dunno, just avoid making an ass of yourself altogether. I understand that it can be difficult, though.

Your well-thought rebuttal has completely changed the way I view the world. Truly, you are a philosopher amongst sophists.

#45 Posted by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@Makhaidos:

Out of that 67.8%, how many were committed by criminals and how many were justifiable through the means of self-defense by law abiding citizens? Criminals use guns to kill people. So if you outlaw guns, criminals will continue to use guns to kill people. See what I'm saying? Gun free zones, etc. do nothing but empower thugs.

Homicide is a crime, so all of them are criminals. One reason why criminals have guns now is because of ease of access--using your reasoning, we might as well abolish all laws because there'll always be criminals who break them.

#46 Edited by plageus900 (781 posts) -
@Makhaidos said:

@deeliman said:

@plageus900 said:

@Makhaidos: Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Again, your reasoning. In this case, we shouldn't own knives or sharp objects because they're even easier to get a hold of and kill than a gun is. I have to load a magazine, put it in the gun, put a round in the chamber and pull the trigger to fire it. With a knife I can pick it up and slice away.

This is the kind of reasoning that our nanny government has. We can't take care of ourselves, so they need to do it for us.

@deeliman: It is a stupid comparison, that's why I used it, because it's as stupid as the comment I responded to. At any rate, this argument is going nowhere. No goofball politician, lobbyist or anyone here with no concept of the real world is going to stop me from owning them.

Nobody's interested in stopping you from owning firearms.

I don't know; I doubt plageus900 would pass a psychological evaluation to own a firearm legally.

At what point during this conversation did you come to this conclusion? Do you know me? Allow me to enlighten you.

I've passed several background checks through the state and have been finger printed and carry a concealed permit.

I've passed background checks through the FBI to acquire and maintain a Secret Security Clearance for the DoD and have been deemed fit to use and operate firearms.

Homicide is a crime, so all of them are criminals. One reason why criminals have guns now is because of ease of access--using your reasoning, we might as well abolish all laws because there'll always be criminals who break them.

Justifiable Homicide is not a crime, I didn't know if you were lumping the two together or not. Criminals don't walk into a gun store and just buy a gun. They get through illegal arms sales, etc. In order to purchase a handgun, you have to submit paperwork that consists of checking your background.

Are you trolling or are you really from the third dimension?

#47 Edited by Makhaidos (1413 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@deeliman said:

@plageus900 said:

@Makhaidos: Your car isn't small enough to be held in one or two hands and isn't designed specifically for the purpose of killing; t is inaccessible without a key and can't be carelessly left anywhere around children or other people, and if you get pissed or lose your mind, you're gonna have a much harder time killing someone else (or yourself) with it than with a gun.

Again, your reasoning. In this case, we shouldn't own knives or sharp objects because they're even easier to get a hold of and kill than a gun is. I have to load a magazine, put it in the gun, put a round in the chamber and pull the trigger to fire it. With a knife I can pick it up and slice away.

This is the kind of reasoning that our nanny government has. We can't take care of ourselves, so they need to do it for us.

@deeliman: It is a stupid comparison, that's why I used it, because it's as stupid as the comment I responded to. At any rate, this argument is going nowhere. No goofball politician, lobbyist or anyone here with no concept of the real world is going to stop me from owning them.

Nobody's interested in stopping you from owning firearms.

I don't know; I doubt plageus900 would pass a psychological evaluation to own a firearm legally.

At what point during this conversation did you come to this conclusion?

Are you trolling or are you really from the third dimension?

The point where you came out of nowhere and started hurling insults and confederate veteran conspiracies.

Um. Both?