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.

Anyone who buys a codex other than Ork Codex should go on the FBI watch list.

Clearly, we need to investigate MicroSoft

In fairness...
IE was really bad...

IE caused me to want to murder someone.

If you are talking about car deaths vs gun deaths, you also have to take into account how they are used and how often.

If I were to drive to and from work I would be using a car for about an hour a day, going through 1 small town and one small city on busy public roads with thousands of other drivers.

The chance for a fatal accident on any given day is pretty small but because I would be driving for an hour every day the odds of me having a fatal accident at some point in the future are, if not high, at least high enough not to be sniffed at.

Multiply that out by how many people use cars and how often, add in different conditions, perhaps using cars when tired, hung over or otherwise impaired, and you get into a situation where cars have the potential to kill a lot of people.

However, the vast majority of car deaths are the result of accidents. Their primary purpose is as a means of transport. If you removed all cars from the world tomorrow the Western world would shudder to a halt as millions of people would be left stranded, unable to get to work, to the shops, to hospitals, schools, etc...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

However, the vast majority of car deaths are the result of accidents.

You just put an idea in my head. Execution by car. Sponsored by Bush Beer and GM.

Let me contemplate on this...

Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.

Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.

Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.

And automobiles still make up 1/3rd the numbers that guns do. So the ratio between guns per death, and auto's per death is hugely differant.

 kronk wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

However, the vast majority of car deaths are the result of accidents.

You just put an idea in my head. Execution by car. Sponsored by Bush Beer and GM.

Let me contemplate on this...

Wait I thought that was NASCAR. It could be a good intermission event.

According to wikipedia's sources, the US has 88 guns per 100 people. And 79.7 cars per 100 people.

Roughly comparable numbers.


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

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

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.

Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.

Sure. And more miners get dust in their lungs than pilots.

Because one thing happens bears no relationship to the other. "Because X does Y, Z should be allowed!"

As I have said in several threads now, gun control shouldn't be about taking guns away entirely (and certainly would not work in the USA given how many are in circulation), it should be about regulating the sale and use of guns and ensuring that users are adequately trained in how to use, maintain and store their weapons, and people who are not able to meet this level of training are not able to buy weapons. Same as if someone fails or has not taken their driving test they are not allowed to drive on their own (in the UK at least, I am not sure how it works in the US).

It is all about reducing the risks posed by guns and their owners in the same way that airbags, crumple zones, roll bars and seatbelts have been introduced to make cars safer.

 Grey Templar wrote:
According to wikipedia's sources, the US has 88 guns per 100 people. And 79.7 cars per 100 people.

Roughly comparable numbers.


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

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

Numbers are sketchy on it. There is no firm source. I've seen numbers ranging from 62 million registerd vehicles to 240 million, and a good chunk of those are government owned. We don't calculate government owned fire arms into the total of guns out there.

For reference about gun ownership if anyone is interested.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Still, the numbers show that more people get killed by car accidents than by guns, if we strip out suicides which are an unrelated issue.

Add in Injuries and it will become even more telling.

Sure. And more miners get dust in their lungs than pilots.

Because one thing happens bears no relationship to the other. "Because X does Y, Z should be allowed!"

As I have said in several threads now, gun control shouldn't be about taking guns away entirely (and certainly would not work in the USA given how many are in circulation), it should be about regulating the sale and use of guns and ensuring that users are adequately trained in how to use, maintain and store their weapons, and people who are not able to meet this level of training are not able to buy weapons. Same as if someone fails or has not taken their driving test they are not allowed to drive on their own (in the UK at least, I am not sure how it works in the US).

It is all about reducing the risks posed by guns and their owners in the same way that airbags, crumple zones, roll bars and seatbelts have been introduced to make cars safer.

But that's not the argument they want you to make, so they will simply act as though you've said that guns should be banned.

 Grey Templar wrote:
According to wikipedia's sources, the US has 88 guns per 100 people. And 79.7 cars per 100 people.

Roughly comparable numbers.


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

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

That is an interesting statistic.

How hard is it to hav ethe ability to fire a gun in America compared to getting a car?

Fire a gun or own a car?

 Easy E wrote:
That is an interesting statistic.

How hard is it to hav ethe ability to fire a gun in America compared to getting a car?

Well, the total cost of ownership for a firearm is actually much lower than that of an automobile, the "entry" price for firearms is also much less than a "good" automobile (as in, not a complete beater car from the lemon lot that we take our high school kids to for their first car)


Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less... HOWEVER, let me say that we as a country are focused in the wrong direction when it comes to firearms. I feel that we should be looking to the mental health apparatus in the country, and Obamacare, and the mess that both are in and causing. As again, more laws do nothing but take tools away from otherwise law abiding citizens.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less...

Really?

Perhaps a "gun honesty box" where guns and ammo is just left on the counter and you are trusted to put the right amount of money in the box for whatever you take without anyone have to even interact with you?

How about getting rid of all those gun serial numbers?

Do away with all that pesky business of not being able to carry and use guns in some places? At last you will be able to shoot tin cans in the mall using your .45 or use the aisle in the aeroplane for some longer range target shooting!

Hyperbole but seriously... less gun control? To what end? Why? When you can buy guns and ammo in the supermarket already...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less...

Really?

Perhaps a "gun honesty box" where guns and ammo is just left on the counter and you are trusted to put the right amount of money in the box for whatever you take without anyone have to even interact with you?

How about getting rid of all those gun serial numbers?

Do away with all that pesky business of not being able to carry and use guns in some places? At last you will be able to shoot tin cans in the mall using your .45 or use the aisle in the aeroplane for some longer range target shooting!

Hyperbole but seriously... less gun control? To what end? Why? When you can buy guns and ammo in the supermarket already...

Yes... less gun controls...

If we have any controls... it should mitigate idiots.. but, even then that's impossible.

So, because the bad guys are going to have guns regardless to whichever laws are in placed... I'd rather have the option to arm myself than to cower in fear somewhere.

I thought the Boston Bombers would be exhibit A in this discourse.

Indeed, Gun Control that only effects law abiding citizens is completely pointless and actually makes the situation worse.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, I do not believe that we need more gun control, really we need less...

Really?

Perhaps a "gun honesty box" where guns and ammo is just left on the counter and you are trusted to put the right amount of money in the box for whatever you take without anyone have to even interact with you?

How about getting rid of all those gun serial numbers?

Do away with all that pesky business of not being able to carry and use guns in some places? At last you will be able to shoot tin cans in the mall using your .45 or use the aisle in the aeroplane for some longer range target shooting!

Hyperbole but seriously... less gun control? To what end? Why? When you can buy guns and ammo in the supermarket already...

He's "probably" talking about bans that do little to nothing to actually curb problems with guns. Things like what the AWB would have entailed. Pointless restrictions that only law abiding citizens would follow, defeating the whole point of the law.

Think about it this way, let's say we limit handgun mags to 10 rounds. Great, I can only carry a 10 round mag at any time while I conceal carry a firearm. Any larger is a felony and I get serious jailtime. Gangbangers on the corner don't give a feth. If they could afford drum mags for their pistols and hide them on their person they'd carry them. If I'm legally conceal carrying, I'm put at a serious disadvantage to a criminal, by a law that was supposed to protect me. He probably won't have those crazy 50 round drum mags, but he'll probably have a 17-22rd mag. THAT is the kind of gun control that people are trying to fight. Laws that hurt honest citizens while at the same time doing nothing to stop criminals.

The registry thing for example may sound like it goes into tin foil hat territory, but it has historical basis, and many countries have used it as a way to confiscate guns later. You always hear about Nazi Germany, but Canada used it's gun registry to confiscate firearms all the way up until 2011, and there was no compensation or say from the gun owners themselves. People say the idea is "ridiculous", but all it takes is one random bill to go through, and suddenly thousands of Americans are forced to turn in a gun that was perfectly legal the day before, simply because a politician changed his mind. To put it in perspective, think of it like if we had a car registry, and occasionally cars were banned for not meeting emissions standards or because they were "dangerous". They look up every person who owns a 1992 chevy Tahoe, send them a letter and say "hey, you know that car you own that was completely legal yesterday? That's now illegal. If you don't turn it in by the end of the week, you will be heavily fined and possibly have jailtime. Oh yeah, and we can't pay you for it, sorry, hope you can find a cheap car by the end of the week." Here's an example of one such confiscation that happened in Canada with the Ami Jager AP80, a 22LR lookalike of an AK47. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/take-a-lesson-from-canada-gun-registries-are-later-used-to-confiscate-guns/

That's why we keep butting heads with you guys. We're not against laws that help cut down on violence, keep them out of criminal or mentally ill hands, or keep people safe. We're against laws that claim to be doing that, but aren't. When congress brings up laws that would actually work, and not screw us over in some way or sneak something in, we'd be a lot more receptive. People were confused why we wanted the bills with the "90%" approval rate shot down, and that was because info was being kept that could be used to form a registry (and even if they outlawed it, the info is there. You really think the CIA, FBI, and ATF wouldn't have a field day digging through that from time to time?) Had they walked in and said "this is a bill for background checks at gunshows. There is nothing else there, it works exactly the same as the one you go through at a gun store, and nothing is tacked on." I think a lot of the people who opposed the "90%" bill would have supported it.

Yep... I recently saw that W. Virginia fairly recently (in the last couple years) passed a law stating that bars and taverns (establishments whose primary purpose is the sale and consumption of alcohol) were completely legal to be carrying in, I guess that in most other places you cannot have guns where you drink? (honestly dont know, I dont go to bars... maybe a BWW or something with fam, but not real bars) Anyhow, after this "ban" was lifted, WV saw barfights and "drunk and disorderly" conduct type situations all but disappear.

Personally, I'd be all for an NICS table at the entrance to every gun show in the country, as in, you cant get to the table floor to even SEE a gun unless you put pencil to paper and get the quick background check (it really aint that hard), if it keeps the loonies from going crazy about some mentally ill, or criminal type person buying a gun at a show. I do not believe that you can realistically legislate the private sale of weapons the way they were implying they could. Sure, you can have a law in place that says if you are selling a firearm to another private individual, it first has to go to an FFL, and that individual who bought from you can pick it up from them.... However, I know of a ton of people who "sell" to another individual that if asked whether they sent it through the proper legal channels, theyd probably say "it was a gift for doing X work for me awhile back" (even though the receiving party could then just say, no the money I paid him wasnt for the firearm, i owed him from a few months back with the wife and i were short on our rent, etc.)

I am wholly against limiting magazine sizes, ammo type, etc. I get a good giggle at all the media hype over "assault weapons" because that term didn't even exist until around the 80s when people first tried getting rid of them. Most anti-gun, and even some pro-gun people don't realize that under the first couple drafts of the "current" AWB, muzzle-loading rifles fell under the "assault weapon" category, because many of them are period pieces and are historically accurate. That means that they had an "assault weapon" sight, could fire their entire load of ammunition in a single trigger squeeze, could affix a bayonet to the front, etc. About the only thing that most of them didnt have was the composite stock or pistol grips.

 Easy E wrote:
That is an interesting statistic.

How hard is it to hav ethe ability to fire a gun in America compared to getting a car?

Guns are less expensive.

You need to go through the exact same amount of licensing and training to own either.

Well yeah, no training or licensing is needed to own a car, but you do need a license to drive it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well yeah, no training or licensing is needed to own a car, but you do need a license to drive it.

in most states it takes around the same amount of effort to get a CCW as it does a driver's license... Yes you need one to drive, but also if it comes up, you need the CCW to be legally carrying in most places.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
That is an interesting statistic.

How hard is it to hav ethe ability to fire a gun in America compared to getting a car?

Guns are less expensive.

You need to go through the exact same amount of licensing and training to own either.

Incorrect. I need no licensing to buy a car.

Now, I'm thinking of buying a gun. I have never bought one and never had an interest before.

What steps do I need to take to legally own a gun?

I'm thinking some sort of long arm so I can get use to shooting a bit. Nothing extravagant. Obviously, I don't plan on CCW.

 Easy E wrote:
Now, I'm thinking of buying a gun. I have never bought one and never had an interest before.

What steps do I need to take to legally own a gun?

I'm thinking some sort of long arm so I can get use to shooting a bit. Nothing extravagant. Obviously, I don't plan on CCW.

If you're serious, I'd suggest a .22 rifle. Cheap, easy to acquire, and ammunition is still findable. Their accurate, don't have to worry about making yourself go deaf. Only real problem with them is their not the best weapon for home/personal defence given the small caliber.

Most states there isn't much requirement to legally acquire one. As long as your not a felon, or one of the other few instances that would stop you from purchasing one the process is you go into a store, point at what you want, fill out some forms, wait a few minutes while the FBI clears you, and then you hand the guy money.

Some states like Illinois have a 24 hour waiting period, others may be longer. Some places may have further requirements. Certain counties here in Illinois make you jump through flaming hoops to get even a .22. Check your State Police webpage, most of them have all of the legal requirements by the state to get a fire arm.

Pistols are also more likely to have a waiting period or background check than a rifle or shotgun, and some places have an age requirement for pistols.

So, a .22 sounds good, especially since I am not use to shooting at all. Once I'm use to it and have some knowledge/skill I can move up if I like it.

Thanks guys.