Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't know who those people are. Maybe Vickers.

Tell me, were they involved in a firefight in their houses? Or were they in combat?

Because the level of irresponsibility that goes into firing an AR-15 in one's home is staggering. And that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that I'm pro-gun, and anti-moron-with-an-overcompensation-device. Assuming a backyard Rambo like yourself can even hit your target, the bullet will go clean through, through a wall or two, and potentially into your neighbour's kid.

But, y'know, just in case the Commies kick in your door, it's always better to have an AR-15, right?

Again, I don't understand the focus on the ARs. Can you find me one single post I've made in this thread - or any other - where I haven't been talking about the asinine stupidity of pistol mag capacity limits? Because, as I'm sure you know, they're blanket cap limits. They don't just apply to the AR-15, they apply to everything. Including pistols. Which is what I've been talking about for however many posts this has been now. Let me know if you need me to repeat that a few more times before it sinks in.

Also, you're overestimating the .223's penetration capability, especially when using frangible ammo. But that's beside the point. I think we established you're one of the legion who has strong opinions on this issue despite not having done even a basic level of research.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's insidiously clever to claim to be pro-gun while parroting uneducated anti-gun talking points about how no one would ever possibly need more than ten rounds and the like.

There's nothing insidious about it: I'm very pro-gun. However, above that I am very anti-morons-with-guns. I just want to have mental illness screened out, mandatory safety training, and laws requiring secure storage first.

And then you can have your guns.

Why? Because I'm far more afraid of the overcompensating d-bag next door with no idea how to handle firearms than I am of the mythical boogeyman that you speak of. I suspect that this is a cultural thing, as the levels of crime in Canada are considerably lower than they are in the US, and as such I have more to fear from someone else's incompetence than I do of their malice.

My problems with massive magazine size is that it will lead to more people spraying the general direction of a presumed attacker, and thus cause far more stray bullets.

I believe it was you who in another thread specifically said that criminals attack those who do not fight back. So it only follows that if you are attacked by 3 men, and you shoot one of them, the other two will run away. After all, that's your own logic, is it not? So why the facade about masking your gun fetish as saying that you need more than ten rounds in case you have to fend off multiple attacks, where each attacker will require 3-4 shots? Obviously your own logic (when it's convenient for you) should dictate that 3-4 rounds for hit the target and 3-4 rounds to down your attacker, should leave you with 2-4 rounds in the magazine whilst the others run away from your successful defense. After all, criminals do not want to get into a fight, isn't that what you said?

But this isn't your line of thinking. Your line of thinking is "yippee-ki-yay motherfether, I'm John McLane".

If someone wants a gun of any sort badly enough, then they're going to get their hands on one. I have few doubts about that. However, I have problems with the idea that a dangerous ballistic tool is considered the God-given right of any imbecile with foolish misconceptions of manhood.


And it seems that FMJ .223 has some pretty good penetration.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/493154_Simple_Penetration_Tests.html
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?

The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?

There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.

The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.

 sebster wrote:


There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.

Damn. So you are saying I can't trust the Discovery Channel to provide me with verified facts anymore? My life is a lie.

You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.

You know, I was really apprehensive when I first watched that movie. Now I want a remake. With Sean Connery taking up his role.

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?

The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?

There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.

The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.

I think he knew it was hyperbole about the dogs, but I really like his comment about the news services and think he was bang on.

Relapse wrote:



I think he knew it was hyperbole about the dogs, but I really like his comment about the news services and think he was bang on.

Actually, no, I was going off some zoologist being interviewed by Discovery, saying how dogs kills thousands worldwide every year. Maybe some other parts compensate, but from research I'm doing right now, Sebster is quite correct. Adding up Canadian and US fatalities, since 1982, there's been 233 fatalities from pitbulls, which is the most lethal breed by far.

What about people tripping over Chihuahuas?

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?

The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?

There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.

The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.

That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?

 Cheesecat wrote:

That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?

I think it's an accidentally great movie with some terribad scenes.

Mind-altering substances are a must, tho.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And so? You still believe that media attention is predicated by a rational will to protect the people?

The shark example is a great one. Thousands die every year killed by house dogs, about a dozen by sharks. Which one is the bigger center of attention... ?

There's less than 20 deaths to dogs every year in the US... not thousands.

The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!

You know we just don't get enough incoherent sci-fi weirdness anymore.

That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?

I'll qualify my reccomendation to watch it by saying that seeing Sean Connery in his costume may never be unseen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to make this thread run the full gamit, anyone here got a picture of Sean?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Damn. So you are saying I can't trust the Discovery Channel to provide me with verified facts anymore? My life is a lie.

Thinking about it some more, the figure I gave was for the US. Multiply that out for the world and you'd get up to 600 a year. And then you figure dog attacks are going to be more common and more fatal in plenty of places, so maybe a thousand would be reasonable worldwide. I might have spoken too soon.

You know, I was really apprehensive when I first watched that movie. Now I want a remake. With Sean Connery taking up his role.

Zardoz is what Zardoz is. I don't think you could ever replicate it. It just perfectly captures a kind of 70s thinking that just doesn't exist anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I think he knew it was hyperbole about the dogs, but I really like his comment about the news services and think he was bang on.

I agree that the news runs on the emotion of single stories, and does very little to put those instances into context. Definitely agree.

It's why this whole stupid debate has focussed on 'assault weapons' and fear about school getting shot up, when those are, statistically, really minor events. Meanwhile there's thousands killed every year with handguns, and no-one is talking about that. Because the news focusses on the scary anecdote.

It's great midnight movie stuff, along with "A Boy and His Dog".

The call to put armed teachers in schools just makes me hang my head. I'd homeschool my kids before sending them into an area that neccesitates that many armed guards with questionable skills and judgement.

 Cheesecat wrote:
That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?

Parts of it are utterly hilarious (the floating head spewing guns, Connery in a nappy, the trippy bass music playing when he gets aroused by the leading girl), and lots of it is really boring - there's a lot of sci-fi concepts just dumped on the audience with basically no art.

Just watch it. It's an experience from a time when film making just didn't work like it does today.

Logan's Run, Roller Ball, and Zardoz, that's the ticket, baby.

 sebster wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
That reminds me I've been wanting to see Zardoz for awhile as a so bad it's good movie would you recommend it or is it a so bad it's bad movie?

Parts of it are utterly hilarious (the floating head spewing guns, Connery in a nappy, the trippy bass music playing when he gets aroused by the leading girl), and lots of it is really boring - there's a lot of sci-fi concepts just dumped on the audience with basically no art.

Just watch it. It's an experience from a time when film making just didn't work like it does today.

OK, thanks I'll give it a try.

 sebster wrote:
We've actually got someone in a gun thread talking about outdrawing an armed intruder pointing a gun at him, and he seems quite indifferent to the basic reality that that kind of things is unbelievably, ridiculously rare. I mean, that's where the gun debate pretty much ends up every time, doesn't it... sooner or later the pro-gun folk are just talking about their gun wielding, bad guy shooting fantasies.

Draw from surrender, three on 7 yard target in under a second and a half. You put work into it, you can get good at anything, sebster. But by all means, continue to deny the possibility as though I can't reference tons of proof.

There's really no sensible debate to be had.

Not when you're convinced you know what you're talking about despite no experience or research, no, there isn't.

Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.

Here's the thing, sebster. You have people who've actually been in fights involving firearms on this very forum, telling you that your wild assumptions about what is and is not possible are flat-out wrong. Some of us are speaking from experience, whereas I'm obliged to assume you're speaking from...I don't know. Political agenda? Who knows. What saddens me about the whole thing is that a lot of the stuff you're claiming to be outlandish isn't even considered all that uncommon among people who actually know what they're talking about. The education gap when it comes to general firearms knowledge and use is massive. We have guys like you, who learned everything they 'know' about guns from television and movies, and then we have people who can either speak to real-world application from experience, or else from the study of experience, and the conclusions drawn by those two groups are so wildly divergent that neither can believe the other is serious.

I don't know what to do about that. You don't want to actually learn, so teaching wouldn't help. You'll dismiss easily-verified claims as "fantasy," while continuing to promote this weird, willfully ignorant view that just doesn't jive with reality, and unfortunately it's going to work on people who don't know any better than you do, which is way too many.

It's troubling.

Relapse wrote:

Just to make this thread run the full gamit, anyone here got a picture of Sean?

No, that is not necessary. Please. . . .

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
We've actually got someone in a gun thread talking about outdrawing an armed intruder pointing a gun at him, and he seems quite indifferent to the basic reality that that kind of things is unbelievably, ridiculously rare. I mean, that's where the gun debate pretty much ends up every time, doesn't it... sooner or later the pro-gun folk are just talking about their gun wielding, bad guy shooting fantasies.

Draw from surrender, three on 7 yard target in under a second and a half. You put work into it, you can get good at anything, sebster. But by all means, continue to deny the possibility as though I can't reference tons of proof.

There's really no sensible debate to be had.

Not when you're convinced you know what you're talking about despite no experience or research, no, there isn't.

Just a lot of years of slowly getting the pro-gun, I can outdraw an armed intruder in my house people to realise how ridiculous they are, and one by one get them to stop throwing their crazy into the debate.

Here's the thing, sebster. You have people who've actually been in fights involving firearms on this very forum, telling you that your wild assumptions about what is and is not possible are flat-out wrong. Some of us are speaking from experience, whereas I'm obliged to assume you're speaking from...I don't know. Political agenda? Who knows. What saddens me about the whole thing is that a lot of the stuff you're claiming to be outlandish isn't even considered all that uncommon among people who actually know what they're talking about. The education gap when it comes to general firearms knowledge and use is massive. We have guys like you, who learned everything they 'know' about guns from television and movies, and then we have people who can either speak to real-world application from experience, or else from the study of experience, and the conclusions drawn by those two groups are so wildly divergent that neither can believe the other is serious.

I don't know what to do about that. You don't want to actually learn, so teaching wouldn't help. You'll dismiss easily-verified claims as "fantasy," while continuing to promote this weird, willfully ignorant view that just doesn't jive with reality, and unfortunately it's going to work on people who don't know any better than you do, which is way too many.

It's troubling.

Oh, the irony.

May I ask, Seaward, what your reaction to the data illustrated by the graph would be?

 azazel the cat wrote:
There's nothing insidious about it: I'm very pro-gun. However, above that I am very anti-morons-with-guns. I just want to have mental illness screened out, mandatory safety training, and laws requiring secure storage first.

You also, as you're about to prove, want mag capacity bans, and given your earlier rants about AR-15s, you probably want "assault weapon" bans, too.

Why? Because I'm far more afraid of the overcompensating d-bag next door with no idea how to handle firearms than I am of the mythical boogeyman that you speak of. I suspect that this is a cultural thing, as the levels of crime in Canada are considerably lower than they are in the US, and as such I have more to fear from someone else's incompetence than I do of their malice.

You guys are more than welcome to put whatever laws in place up in Canada you want. I'm going to go ahead and continue arguing against writing legislation based off of what works for a country with fewer people than California and far fewer guns, criminals, and gun-wielding criminals.

My problems with massive magazine size is that it will lead to more people spraying the general direction of a presumed attacker, and thus cause far more stray bullets.

This claim gets made a lot, but I've never seen any evidence to actually back it up, aside from pretty much officer-involved shooting that takes place with members of the NYPD.

I believe it was you who in another thread specifically said that criminals attack those who do not fight back.

No, it wasn't.

So it only follows that if you are attacked by 3 men, and you shoot one of them, the other two will run away.

Not necessarily.

After all, that's your own logic, is it not?

No. But I suppose you're welcome to continue putting someone else's words in my mouth if it makes your argument easier.

So why the facade about masking your gun fetish as saying that you need more than ten rounds in case you have to fend off multiple attacks, where each attacker will require 3-4 shots?

Exactly how many times do I need to tell you, and provide examples from countless incidents to back it up, that you cannot guarantee an aggressor's going to go down with X number of shots? It just doesn't work that way, dude.

But this isn't your line of thinking. Your line of thinking is "yippee-ki-yay motherfether, I'm John McLane".

You use this sort of tripe often enough that I'm starting to think it's projection. Running half a box of ammo through your new gun and declaring yourself to be competent while relying on "stopping power" smacks of someone who has quite simply not bothered to get good training or do even a modicum of research on terminal ballistics. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that guns don't work in real life like they do in the movies, but I'm hoping it'll sink in one of these days.

If someone wants a gun of any sort badly enough, then they're going to get their hands on one. I have few doubts about that. However, I have problems with the idea that a dangerous ballistic tool is considered the God-given right of any imbecile with foolish misconceptions of manhood.

Again, if this is about you associating guns with "manhood," then I fully agree, you're exactly the sort of person I don't want owning one. However, there's not really a good way to test for that sort of attitude, so in America, at least, folks with your sort of attitude will continue to be allowed to buy one.

Funny how the argument is always "im defending myself from criminals" when that argument is repeatedly proven to be flawed.

Fact is an armed society is more dangerous, because of the mixture of easily obtainable firearms and loopholes that circumvent even America's laughable 'controls', allowing any redneck access to deadly force.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
May I ask, Seaward, what your reaction to the data illustrated by the graph would be?

I don't have much of a reaction to it. We have more gun homicides than most, that's not exactly new information. I think it's remarkably foolish to ignore all other factors - such as the fact that we have considerably more gang and inner-city violence than our 'competitors,' a drug war that's responsible for a hell of a lot of the gun violence, etc. - and draw the conclusion that it's just the guns, or that we still wouldn't have a higher homicide rate without them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarsNZ wrote:
Funny how the argument is always "im defending myself from criminals" when that argument is repeatedly proven to be flawed.

Fact is an armed society is more dangerous, because of the mixture of easily obtainable firearms and loopholes that circumvent even America's laughable 'controls', allowing any redneck access to deadly force.

That argument's repeatedly proven to be the case in this country, actually. Defensive gun use is fairly common.

As far as deadly force goes...you've got access to it right now. I'm not sure what you're driving at.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

I can see how some bars could hinder escape from a burning building, but I don't think they need to. They are also not the only way to secure a house. Personally I would rather be safe in a secure building with the criminals outside, and waiting for the police to turn up. Than have the criminals inside and have to shoot it out with them myself in my underwear.

One good kick on most doors and then they are in your house.

If the door can be opened with one good kick then it is clearly not a secure property and not what I am talking about. For the equivalent price of a handgun + ammo, I could build a door so tough, it would be easier to come through the wall.

So anyone can pull a gun on you at any time? That's the scariest thing I've ever heard!

Here's the essential problem. You think whether or not there is a law matters to whether the BG is going to have a gun?

It does matter. In the US apparently you can be stopped by the police, show them your gun, then 10 mins later walk into a school and go on a killing spree. In the UK anyone identified as having a gun (or any weapon, including replicas) would be arrested, and could face up to life in prison. If they aren't shot on site by armed police first. Most people here, including criminals are smart enough not to be caught carrying a firearm.

I'm not really used to everyday people I meet in the street, or in shops or on trains having absolute power over life and death. How are you supposed to have argument or a fight with someone with the constant threat of being shot looming all the time?

Here's a novel idea: don't have a fight.

I could just as easily say "don't shoot people". But apparently sometimes it is necessary to stand your ground. I don't see anything positive about an environment where any kind of confrontation can quickly escalate into a situation where you either get shot, or are forced to shoot someone. I'm much happier to confront people cutting lines and being jerks here where the worst that's likely to happen is a scuffle.

 Seaward wrote:
Draw from surrender, three on 7 yard target in under a second and a half. You put work into it, you can get good at anything, sebster. But by all means, continue to deny the possibility as though I can't reference tons of proof.

You missed the point. A person most certainly can be that skilled with a firearm. The issue is with the staggering improbability of the individual ever being presented with a situation in which he'd have to draw and put rounds into an armed assailant.

Not when you're convinced you know what you're talking about despite no experience or research, no, there isn't.

No seriously, we know the rates of guns ownership in developed countries, and we know the rates of homicide, suidice and accidental death by firearms in those countries. We can put them on a graph and see how they correlate really, really strongly.

You can even look at the fething graph I posted.

But you won't. You'll just post gibberish about drawing down on evil doers. Because you're at the end of a losing cause against reality. You're the last, worst and craziest line of defence against the basic realities of the issue.

Here's the thing, sebster. You have people who've actually been in fights involving firearms on this very forum, telling you that your wild assumptions about what is and is not possible are flat-out wrong.

Oh, okay, so as soon as I get in a firefight all the numbers and stats will just go away. I'll enter a netherworld of ur-reality where the the US doesn't have 10,000 firearm deaths a year. Good to know.

Some of us are speaking from experience, whereas I'm obliged to assume you're speaking from...I don't know. Political agenda?

I'm coming from the reality of the issue. A reality that has been captured and made clear by statistical studies.

We have guys like you, who learned everything they 'know' about guns from television and movies, and then we have people who can either speak to real-world application from experience, or else from the study of experience, and the conclusions drawn by those two groups are so wildly divergent that neither can believe the other is serious.

I could be an ex-spec ops guy, or I could be a corn farmer from the wilds of the Swan River delta who doesn't even know which end of the gun to point forward, and it wouldn't matter two gaks to the plain and simple reality of guns and gun homicide.

You can make up all kinds of nattering stupidity to pretend the reality is something other than what it really is, but the numbers will be there anyway, making you completely and utterly wrong.

And you don't even stop to think for one second that holding beliefs that are completely at odds with the basic realities of the numbers might be a problem. Being a bad ass who's ready to shoot down the guy you really just might come into his house and stand there pointing a gun at you is way to important to let something like reality get in the way.

But it isn't troubling. It's pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I don't have much of a reaction to it. We have more gun homicides than most, that's not exactly new information. I think it's remarkably foolish to ignore all other factors - such as the fact that we have considerably more gang and inner-city violence than our 'competitors,' a drug war that's responsible for a hell of a lot of the gun violence, etc. - and draw the conclusion that it's just the guns, or that we still wouldn't have a higher homicide rate without them.

feth me. You don't read and you don't look at graphs.

The graph doesn't just show the US having more gun deaths, it also shows other developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths. Are you gonna claim Switzerland has gang and inner city violence that also happens to produces its higher gun death rate? What about Canada?

And when you line all the countries up, you get a thing in stats they call correlation. And that correlation produces strong positive relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths. Even removing the US as an outlier, you can see that more gun ownership leads to more gun deaths.

Now, its likely that very few of the statisticians that produced these results were ever in gun fights, so you might dismiss their work. But the reality of it remains as it is.

So what does all that boil down to sebster? What do you think the US should do? Institute strict gun control similar to Australia's or the UK's?

The probability of having to defend yourself with a gun is statistically pretty low in the US. So should people lose the ability to do so simply because the probability is low.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I seriously want to know what you think the US should do. Is the very idea of someone wanting to have the ability to defend themselves with a firearm pathetic to you?

I think part of what sebster would do is try to have a honest, open discussion about guns. As it is, if you even broach the subject you are immediately branded an enemy of the Second Amendment and part of 'tyranny' by one side and that becomes the entire debate.

 sebster wrote:
You missed the point. A person most certainly can be that skilled with a firearm. The issue is with the staggering improbability of the individual ever being presented with a situation in which he'd have to draw and put rounds into an armed assailant.

Either we have such a terribly high violent crime rate in this country that we need to do something about it, or else the probability of ever needing to defend yourself - and therefore the violent crime rate - is staggeringly low. You cannot have it both ways when you realize your argument doesn't make any sense.

But you won't. You'll just post gibberish about drawing down on evil doers. Because you're at the end of a losing cause against reality. You're the last, worst and craziest line of defence against the basic realities of the issue.

I'd be worried, but my 'cause' is actually gaining ground, according to polls. More people than ever before support the right to own handguns in this country, sebster. That's post-Sandy Hook. It went up, not down.

Oh, okay, so as soon as I get in a firefight all the numbers and stats will just go away. I'll enter a netherworld of ur-reality where the the US doesn't have 10,000 firearm deaths a year. Good to know.

That's not what we were discussing when you decided to hop on in without reading.

I'm coming from the reality of the issue. A reality that has been captured and made clear by statistical studies.

And as far as those statistical studies go concerning "stopping power" and thus the rationale behind mag capacity bans - what the Canuck and I were arguing about - the data's in my favor.

feth me. You don't read and you don't look at graphs.

I do, actually, I just happen to know more than you. It's a common theme to our little contretemps.

The Swiss have a lot of guns, yeah. What you're missing is that they have so many guns because most of them are state-issued due to their weird militia rules and no longer in the "owner's" home. You're trying to make the claim that Switzerland has more gun homicides due to more uncontrolled guns, but - oops - that may just not be the case, unless you can tell me how many guns are actually in private ownership in Switzerland. And I doubt you can.

This is the problem with taking a position before bothering to learn anything at all about it.

Now, its likely that very few of the statisticians that produced these results were ever in gun fights, so you might dismiss their work. But the reality of it remains as it is.

I don't require that my statisticians be in gunfights to comment on statistics.

I would like them to have done a bare basic amount of research before calling the idea of being able to draw a gun quickly absurd, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think part of what sebster would do is try to have a honest, open discussion about guns. As it is, if you even broach the subject you are immediately branded an enemy of the Second Amendment and part of 'tyranny' by one side and that becomes the entire debate.

Put up some open, honest solutions designed to reduce firearm crime and you'd probably get it.

I've been reading the back and forth here and believe that I have found something that can bring both sides together in agreement.

http://www.google.com/search?q=sean+connery+zardoz&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Il4PUfzDDMbOiwLj14CACg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=660#biv=i|1;d|JRz7ioKc4VW8XM:

Relapse wrote:
I've been reading the back and forth here and believe that I have found something that can bring both sides together in agreement.

http://www.google.com/search?q=sean+connery+zardoz&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Il4PUfzDDMbOiwLj14CACg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=660#biv=i|1;d|JRz7ioKc4VW8XM:

Lol

That gives me an idea for a new form of society. One where we can sway the population into being moderate by twinning all extreme liberal ideas with with an equal an opposite conservative idea.

For example you can carry a gun... but only if you wear really gay bondage pants, and lipstick.

Or you can smoke pot... But only if you attend mass every morning and Jesus camp.

 Hordini wrote:
So what does all that boil down to sebster? What do you think the US should do? Institute strict gun control similar to Australia's or the UK's?

If I was made King of America for day, and able to pass a law as I pleased regardless of the political realities like popular opinion, and power of lobbyist and the constitution? Well then I'd drop all this assault weapon silliness, because the story from the numbers is that long arms simply are not the killers - handguns are. I'd then look to put extensive controls on handguns, and yeah, they wouldn't be loved by everyone.

I wouldn't just stop at police checks, the issue just isn't with crazies with records getting their hands on guns. The issue is with guns bought legally, and then moved into the black market, some stolen and many onsold deliberately and reported stolen. Now, I'm not an expert and so I couldn't tell you the best ways to ensure that the person who bought a gun actually keeps it on his person at all times, and there's been very little discussion on what might be, as the gun control debate gets caught up on so many other non-issues and bad ideas (assault weapon ban, armed guards in schools), but I'd think that a requirement to present and re-register guns every few years, or explain what happened to the firearm might work.

The probability of having to defend yourself with a gun is statistically pretty low in the US. So should people lose the ability to do so simply because the probability is low.

No, but the low probability should be more sensibly balanced against the death toll caused by the large number of guns in the country.

Is the very idea of someone wanting to have the ability to defend themselves with a firearm pathetic to you?

Not at all. Nor is the idea of owning a firearm. Hell, when the money frees up* I'd like to invest in a musket, I had a blast years ago when some mates joined the blackpowder club and I went shooting with them.

What is pathetic is denying the numbers that show the situation pretty clearly, of choosing a different reality because this one doesn't suit a preferred political opinion.


*Well, not only the money, but also the firearm regulations. As much as our crackdown on firearms was a good thing and definitely saved lives, it produced some really obnoxious pointless regulation that should, hopefullly, eventually be pulled back. Like having to deregister a firearm and re-register it if you're moving house (effectively paying twice for the rego on the gun). Which, given that's something I'll likely do in the next year or so, is not something I want to do.

 sebster wrote:
No, but the low probability should be more sensibly balanced against the death toll caused by the large number of guns in the country.

So your contention is those homicides would not have occurred if firearms weren't available?