Different scale, here also, when we had a "mob type" shooting with semi-automatic rifles shooting at a car. Was the highlight of the year, the shooter even left the guns behind, they didn't care. But that's what you get when you have 0.7 guns per capita and required permit & registration for even non-lethal guns.
Just hoping mass shootings won't be mainstream in the near future in US, that would suck.
Except for the actuallity that high-population urban areas have dramatically increased crime rates compared to the rural/suburban areas.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...group_2011.xls
National Violent Crime Rate: 392/100,000.
Violent Crime Rate in cities with 250,000+ residents: 754/100,000.
Assault Weapons make up less than 1% of the total crimes involving guns. This thread is just filled with foreigners who most likely have no right or limited rights to own a firearm as it is and are promoting their country's laws. Are they truly effective? UK is an island nation so there are no direct borders at all and doesn't deal with the immense of amount Cartel/Gang activity that the US suffers. Why does the UK have a 100%+ crimes per person than the USA if they've banned firearms outright? If banning firearms was so effective why does UK suffer far more crimes compared to the USA when the USA allows you to own under a Class III license any Automatic weapon grandfathered?
The answer is that gun control doesn't work and you only end up with criminals & the Government with the firearms. If they're not using firearms they're using knives, bottles or any other form of tool to hurt and/or kill someone which enables gangs to have a stronger advantage because they have numbers.
So let's arm ourself and prepare for war in a democracy. Seems about right, except the there will be no country or citizens left. How about gun control and measures to stop on illegal weapons? So you dissarm both parties, intead of failing for one of them so then having to buff the other. If you can't follow that logic and understand that I hope you will not alive the day the "law abiding citizens" will outgun the police task force, and when to use the same idealogy that "anti-tyranny" guys use, maybe a leader will want to rule this "mitilia" and raise them up above the law.
Sounds about right, civil war incoming. That's how tyranny can be introduced to the US not via politics and with legal means, they will be one to be overthrown.
ps: And in that case none will succeed.
Kmart used to sell guns, they stopped since their sales were never strong anyway and it became not worth the trouble for FFL's and such. Sears had, years earlier stopped for the same reason, though Kmart's was predicated on a lawsuit.
A guy bought a shotgun, went home and killed his (girlfriend or wife), while drunk. The problem with the lawsuit was that Kmart's staff was irresponsible in their sale. When questioning the sales clerk, they asked "Did you think he was too drunk to buy a gun?"
Her response "no, but he was too drunk to fill out the form, so I had to do it for him."
(That's going from memory, so if anyone wants to correct it, so be it.)
First off it's illegal for her to fill out the form for the guy, but just the idea that someone is so drunk they can't fill it out and you still sold them a gun? Very irresponsible. It's like Lanza's mother trying to have her son committed, but not securing her weapons from him, it's just unconscionable.
That made little sense to me.So let's arm ourself and prepare for war in a democracy. Seems about right, except the there will be no country or citizens left.
There is already gun control as it stands against felons, certain licenses for different types of firearms are already in place(which is I dislike outright) and State/Local laws determine whether or not selling weapons without a license is illegal.How about gun control and measures to stop on illegal weapons?
How exactly do you disarm "Criminals" if they're still willing to acquire weapons illegally? Chicago is a great example of a city that bans nearly everything yet, thirty people or more die every month in that city from murder by firearms.So you dissarm both parties, intead of failing for one of them so then having to buff the other.
Some people in the USA already do outgun the police force... I know of some people who own +100 firearms by themselves. Am I afraid? Of course not. A gun is a tool... The person behind it is what makes it a tool or defense or murder.If you can't follow that logic and understand that I hope you will not alive the day the "law abiding citizens" will outgun the police task force,
Okay... so there is a possibility of a "militia" rising above and overthrowing the elected Government. If the people were that willing to join that cause they must have had plenty of justification to overthrow the Government if the military/state/local forces were unable to contain the uprising.and when to use the same idealogy that "anti-tyranny" guys use, maybe a leader will want to rule this "mitilia" and raise them up above the law.
No one wants to die but, the fact remains that being disarmed/helpless throughout history have proven to be the downfall of a great many of people. Waiting 2-10mins for the Police to arrive at your doorstep as a person is trying to break your door down isn't a great option at all. What if you're not able to call the Police? Just let the guy rape you for a few days, allow him to slit your throat and proceed to dump you in the river? Just because you decide to disarm yourself for the "greater good"? Pitiful.Sounds about right, civil war incoming.
Okay... so your irrational fear of a populace uprising that plans to create a tyrannical government in the USA stems from the fact that people have access to firearms? Umm... I have a RATIONAL fear of a Government abusing its own power and becoming tyrannical. We've only see governments turn on their people for the past +6,000yrs so being prepared for isn't a form of irrationality. That's suggesting that putting on your seat belt when you go to drive is a form of lunacy because you're afraid you're going to hurt in a car accident. Well guess what!? Getting in car accidents happens quite often just as Governments turn on their own people and exterminate their "enemies" without blinking an eye.That's how tyranny can be introduced to the US not via politics and with legal means, they will be one to be overthrown.
Very few gun manufacturers sell direct to the dealer, nearly all major manufacturers sell to a distributor who then sells to the dealer. In addition, it IS illegal to sell to an intoxicated person in the majority of states, and I'd think that would be something easy to "insert" into the laws of the other jurisdictions, which seems a good idea regardless of the liability argument.
Editing in
Years ago, Nathaniel Brazill took his grandfathers gun (Raven 25) from the coffee can his grandfather stored it in. He shot a teacher that had prevented him from talking to a girl. The manufacturer had, years earlier, sold the gun to a distributor (Valor). The manufacturer had long since burned down and was no longer around. Valor sold it to a dealer, who sold it to a person, at some point someone pawned it, the pawnshop sold it (as a dealer, with all attendant paperwork) to someone and it changed hands a few more times before ending up with the grandfather.
Now, liability law in Florida is that if something is awarded across multiple people, and only one of them can pay, that guy has to pay the total, basically. So, Some jury decided Valor was 5% liable, most of the liability being on the Brazill family, who of course had no money. So they required Valor to pay the total of millions. It was later overturned.
Last edited by Svifnymr; 2013-02-03 at 05:51 PM.
Every country does but, it doesn't refute the fact that a country that doesn't have severe gang/cartel activity nor does it allow its populace to own/carry firearms has double or more crimes per person than the USA.The UK tracks crimes differently than the US.
I'm sure the 90 pound woman who is up against a 200+ pound man would say otherwise.As far as using knives instead of guns, I'm all for that.
I carry a knife on me at all times because it has other uses beyond that of protection. Firearms are meant for protection and they're the greatest equalizer.I'm all for everyone having knives on them.
A feather weight person vs. a heavy weight is going to end terribly for the feather weight if they're not trained in hand to hand combat. Then you add in numbers in favor of the aggressor and the victim is sure to be wounded or dead.That way if anyone wanted to kill me, they'd have to come up to me or have a throwing knife.
Like I said before, someone defending themselves is less likely to have extra loaded magazines compared to someone that is preparing to commit a mass shooting. The regular criminal would of course just be using a gun as a threat in most cases and not need extras.
So you're restricting the capability of millions of normal users because of 1-2 mass shootings a year, ignoring the fact that mass shootings occurred during the AWB of 94-04 anyway. So what is the purpose of the law?
More criminals have been released due to the protection vs illegal search and seizure than crimes have been aided by more than 10 rounds. How many criminals were allowed to walk free because of the fifth's protections against self-incrimination? How many witnesses have been removed and the criminal couldn't "face his accuser"?
Not that they haven't come out with some restrictions on those rights, the rulings on Eminent Domain are just stupid, IMO, but it's the "we need to do something to help the victims!" line that just rings false to me.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Bullshit it's the "greatest equalizer". How does your gun prevent a hidden bomb under somebody's coat from exploding when you don't even know he has one?
It's only the "greatest equalizer" if you live in a society who's surrounded by guns...
The reason gun violence is big in the USA is because those people use them to give them a vastly powerful advantage. Give everybody a gun and guess what? They will look for the NEXT powerful advantage over guns. They don't magically just don't say "Guess I stop being evil and give-up". They make bombs, they steal your guns, they get a sniper rifle, they poison water supplies, they drive vehicles into buildings and people...
Your guns don't equal out shit... they just give you a false sense of security while increasing the risk of it getting stolen and falling into illegal hands.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime
The reason the UK has more assault crimes than the US is that the UK classifies some crimes as assault that the US doesn't.
Don't underestimate a little woman. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. That big 200 man makes for a bigger target than the woman does.I'm sure the 90 pound woman who is up against a 200+ pound man would say otherwise.
I do to, and I agree with firearms being better protection. I just like the idea of everyone having knives instead of guns. I wouldn't force anyone to do that, it just sounds better to me.I carry a knife on me at all times because it has other uses beyond that of protection. Firearms are meant for protection and they're the greatest equalizer.
You are right about that. But like I said with guns, if your not trained to use a knife, don't be surprised if you lose even while using one.A feather weight person vs. a heavy weight is going to end terribly for the feather weight if they're not trained in hand to hand combat. Then you add in numbers in favor of the aggressor and the victim is sure to be wounded or dead.