BL4CK OPS V3TRN Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 This forum just gets better , next time I play MW2 the AK47 is coming out . Great read D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 This forum just gets better , next time I play MW2 the AK47 is coming out . Great read D It's hard to argue with a weapon that Clint Eastwood has endorsed on film. https://youtu.be/oIv_RrgCfWs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Holy sheeeet D man! You're like a walking talking book of the gun! I wasn't expecting chapter and verse on the subject, but thanks for the info's matey, and the LOL's. Style and effort very much appreciated Hmmm.. "Calibre of bullet": I meant the quality of character or the level of its ability. I have no interest in weights, width of arse or the length of its neck - honest! loool j/k Thanks for the kind comments too. The pictures fail miserably at showing the finer detail, but you get the general idea. Both were inherited, so have a lot of sentimental value. I like to think they're being looked after for the next-gen Dirty Pup to enjoy. Teach him to respect a gun now, and hopefully there'll be one less idiot stood behind one later. Barrett 50 cal LOL Quality not quantity eh fuzzy. Thanks big guy, I likes ur stlyle.. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzy clam Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Dillinger why the hell don't you go back to working in the field of custom firearms.With all that knowledge and passion for it,you couldn't possibly go wrong. It's always fun as well as informative reading your iron posts @ Dirty Dog yeah I like shooting the 50 every chance I get,just destroys anything in it's path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Fuzzy - You know what the difference is between a custom gunsmith and a large pizza? A large pizza can still feed a family of four. Thanks guys! It's been a passion, literally, my whole life so I have amassed some knowledge here and there along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzy clam Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yeah I know it can be a rough go,but I've just always lived my life by the do what you love logic. There's that expression,I'd rather do nothing and be happy,than to do something I don't love. I know it's not realistic in today's society but I still believe in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt-Greco Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are you for or against Gun Control? And why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcl Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are you for or against Gun Control? And why? Against. Man has a fundamental right to life. And man must be allowed to defend that right, and those rights that flow from it. From "The Virtue of Selfishness": "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yeah I know it can be a rough go,but I've just always lived my life by the do what you love logic. There's that expression,I'd rather do nothing and be happy,than to do something I don't love. I know it's not realistic in today's society but I still believe in it. I don't dislike what I do, to be perfectly honest. Yes, I would be "happier" working and talking guns all day. But the truth is, I know enough to be really dangerous about that world and it would take me another 10 years to get proficient, and another few to get back to the kind of wages I can earn doing what I do now. Besides, I have to have a retirement gig and spending a few hours a day tinkering on guns in my garage as a "part time-paying hobby" suits me. Are you for or against Gun Control? And why? I guess I would need you to define Gun Control, but I won't dodge the meat of what you are getting at. I don't personally believe that JUST ANYONE who can fog a mirror should own a gun, or a safe full of guns for that matter. In that aspect, I don't disagree with the concept. I do personally believe that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear in what the Founding Fathers wanted for my country I happen to have had both security and high level security clearances, both for the DoD and for private sector jobs working for same, in my professional career. I have been subject to just about EVERY background check that probably doesn't include launching something or knowing where a nuke sits. I have had the FBI interview my surviving family members prior to getting a clearance. Like, I'm all checked out THOROUGHLY kind of thing. As such, I don't believe there should be any RESTRICTIONS as to the type of firearm that I SHOULD be able to purchase/own/keep. **CAVEAT** Assuming I can afford it, purchase it through proper channels/correctly, pay all associated fees and any other legal, cover your ass horseshit that is deemed necessary WITHIN REASON. Waiting 12 months for a simple approval of a Suppressor or SBR Tax Stamp is ridiculous for the amount of government I pay for currently. That, to me, would be in keeping with the thought of what a "well regulated militia" would be. A group of civilians with access to the same equipment that might be used against them. Now, before someone with too much energy to just argue about shit comes along and says "But what about a fighter jet or a mobile missile system that could take out a whole town?!" *sigh* Here is a fact, and until you can prove it wrong, leave the hypothetical bullshit out in the yard. NO, as in Zero/Nyet/None/Bubkiss, accounts of a LEGALLY OWNED & OBTAINED Class 3 (which is a fully automatic firearm like a true sub machine gun I.E. Uzi, MP-7, etc) can be shown being used in a crime by the legal owner. I have yet to see a story where a LEGALLY OBTAINED class III weapon was stolen and used in a crime, but that is another whole discussion that wraps back into "not just anyone" but I digress. No legal owners using dangerous hardware to further advance their personal agenda. None. People that go through these kinds of background checks, dialogues and responsibilities aren't out looking to make their money robbing a bank or sticking up a jewelry store. They have already made their money. As to the subject of how this country or that country have "much lower" crime rates and they have 100% gun bans? I am going to warn you, do your research, because I have done mine and I can argue this topic with logic and clarity that will embarrass the notion of a gun-free and crime free Utopia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcl Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I happen to have had both security and high level security clearances, both for the DoD and for private sector jobs working for same, in my professional career. I have been subject to just about EVERY background check that probably doesn't include launching something or knowing where a nuke sits. I have had the FBI interview my surviving family members prior to getting a clearance. Amen. I've been through the same, and I chuckle every time someone gets nervous about legal gun owners in the US. At least in my state, we have to go through a PICS and NICS database check just to purchase, and provide character references to the local authorities for a CCW. For a Utah non-resident, you have to submit fingerprints and even more information, to both local and federal authorities. Top that off with all the background checks I've been through for clearances, and I'm so clean I squeak. Yet someone thinks guns are bad and should be banned or heavily restricted because bad people might do bad things? Please. Bad people aren't going to obey the law to begin with, and no amount of legislation will remove the guns already available on the street, nor the ability to fashion new firearms in a relatively cheap CNC machine. Not to mention the ludicrousness of what constitutes a "firearm" in certain categories (really? ONLY the lower of an AR-15? That's the only controlled component? IT'S QUITE POSSIBLY THE EASIEST ONE TO MAKE!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Plus 100 on your post in general. Yet someone thinks guns are bad and should be banned or heavily restricted because bad people might do bad things? Please. Bad people aren't going to obey the law to begin with, and no amount of legislation will remove the guns already available on the street, nor the ability to fashion new firearms in a relatively cheap CNC machine. Not to mention the ludicrousness of what constitutes a "firearm" in certain categories (really? ONLY the lower of an AR-15? That's the only controlled component? IT'S QUITE POSSIBLY THE EASIEST ONE TO MAKE!). Gun laws, and gun legislation, have always been about emotion. If you just look at the facts and the stats, it's impossible to reach the conclusion that 1) a society COULD be completely disarmed and 2) it would be better for it. As for the lower? Well, certain things are better left unsaid in a public forum. But I can GUARANTEE you, you don't need an endmill, a CNC machine or even the ability to work aluminum or metal to fabricate a complete and working lower, not just the housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 i dont believe in gun control but i also dont believe the 2nd amendments purpose can be fulfilled, at least in the manner in which it was written for... im curious Dillinger with your background and prior clearances if you believe it still is? i mean as you say, they have jets and grenades and all sorts of more lethal weaponry to use against the citizens. of course if it all really came down to it, i think it would be more waged on a keyboard than down the barrel of a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I disagree with Dillinger. There is NO way a large pizza can feed a family of four. At least, not in my house. I hope this thread is allowed to continue, and a few Europeans chime in with their thoughts. I find it interesting listening to (educated) Americans discuss the Gun. Personally, I'm for 'Gun control', depending on the definition. Don't have time atm, but will waffle later. Is it true, the U.S. Supreme Court is yet to define exactly what the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzy clam Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 It's all a catch 22.I believe I have the right to defend my self,family and property against all threats foreign and domestic. Putting it bluntly someone breaks into my home and I catch them ( actually happened 3 years ago ) they're getting beat or shot. So i'm for the rights to defend and protect what is mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I disagree with Dillinger. There is NO way a large pizza can feed a family of four. At least, not in my house. I hope this thread is allowed to continue, and a few Europeans chime in with their thoughts. I find it interesting listening to (educated) Americans discuss the Gun. Personally, I'm for 'Gun control', depending on the definition. Don't have time atm, but will waffle later. Is it true, the U.S. Supreme Court is yet to define exactly what the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is? LOL - Might take an EXTRA large for the dog family, but you get the gist. I too hope the thread is allowed to continue and we can discuss rationally. So often members of the US "pro gun community" will immediately go nuclear and start screaming, which helps no one. Is it true the Supreme Cory is yet to define exactly what the true meaning of the 2nd is/means? Yes and no is the best way I can answer that, because I haven't read any of the most recent decisions. "Technically" speaking the Supreme court is a higher court (Federal in the US), and it has the ability to impose laws on the State (lower courts), but the states still retain the rights to push back. I think a lot of it ties to how much BS are you will to take from the Feds to get that Federal Money for social programs for your voters. Example: Marijuana is illegal in the US. Unless you have a medical card for some states, or live in Colorado or Washington State (my state), where weed is legal to be used in the open provided you aren't a jackass about it and are of legal age. At any point a Federal Agent COULD hypothetically arrest you for partaking while in Colorado/Washington, but then it would be a legal battle between State's right vs. Federal Authority (See TEXAS, on pretty much any issue of State vs. Feds) As for Supreme court rulings: 2007/2008 was Heller versus the District of Columbia. DC is the home of the White House, House of Reps and Senate. Gun ownership is/was EXTREMELY difficult bordering on the impossible thanks to a quick bill/law that was passed in 1975 called the Federal Control Regulations Act. A guy named James Heller took the District to court, and then to the Supreme Court and won a 5-4 decision stating it was ILLEGAL for the District to PREVENT a law abiding, responsible, taxpaying, yada, yada, yada, person from owning a gun IN LINE with the 2nd Amendment. in 2010 a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a dude named McDonald in a case against Chicago, Illinois (our President's hometown, notorious for violence and INFAMOUS for it being IMPOSSIBLE for a normal person to legally own a firearm within the city). The lawsuit was in place PRIOR to Heller's decision, which is crucial because the counter argument is if Heller had gone the other way, McDonald would have lost this case. He didn't and the supreme court ruled again in a two pronged hit to the anti-gun movement. 1) The 2nd Amendment (gun ownership) was protected from STATE LEVEL RESTRICTION because of the 14th Amendment (equal rights to ALL under Federal Authority - in response slavery way back in the day), so the Supreme court ruling said States can't stop you from owning a firearm considered "legal" by Federal Authorities (handgun, shotgun, some long guns). 2) It them remanded the decision BACK to the state level court and made them iron out the discrepancies in the word "the", and everything else, effectively COSTING Chicago and Illinois a ton of money to clean up a mess they made by overstepping. Essentially, as the make up of the Supreme court (Republican vs. Democrat - our two primary voting bodies) changes about once a decade or so (when someone dies) we have a Federal judgement that says the right to keep and bear arms IS protected under the 2nd Amendment. At least as of today. As with everything politics, stay tuned, I am sure this too will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Thanks for the reply D. Informed as ever . The lack of 'Europinions' are conspicuous by their absence. I skimmed the rulings, not ashamed to say I gave up pretty quick. WAY above my pay grade - (and reading comprehension) LOL Nonetheless when the highest federal court in the land struggles, Billy-Bob, Chuck and rest of the local jambolitia gots no hope The obvious question to ask, is the 2nd Amendment outdated for 21st Century America? It could be argued a document about the needs of a young society doesn't necessarily reflect the needs of that society two hundred years later. Many good things in life are said to be based on lies, or redundant olde language; Religion, English/American history, my marriage (allegedly ), to name but a few. As said I'm for gun control. In what form is tougher to answer. Education is usually a good place to start. Begin with the idiots who leave loaded weapons for teens and toddlers to play with in their bedroom cupboards. Find a way to instil a respect for life into our kids, something I'm sure we can agree is sorely lacking wherever we care to look. Bottom line is too many people are killed by guns, and something is needed to change that fact. Perhaps the 'something' will be radical, and decided for the people not by the people. Repeal the 2nd? j/k Who knows. Maybe it all boils down to money in the end. People just being people, be it dangerous, mentally unstable, greedy, all people whatever if denied firearms there's a good chance the bottom line of the gun industry will go down, and like anything else, who really cares about a solution when BIG money's involved. Anyway, I'm from a country with some of the worlds most restrictive firearms legislation that has done a pretty good job of ensuring only the Police and bad guys have them So WTF do I know?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Putting it bluntly someone breaks into my home and I catch them ( actually happened 3 years ago ) they're getting beat or shot. So i'm for the rights to defend and protect what is mine. 100% agree fuzzy. Furthermore, anyone stupid enough to break into your place is obviously a waste of valuable oxygen and deserves to have their supply regulated from a bottle by trained medical personnel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcl Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Thanks for the reply D. Informed as ever . The lack of 'Europinions' are conspicuous by their absence. I skimmed the rulings, not ashamed to say I gave up pretty quick. WAY above my pay grade - (and reading comprehension) LOL Nonetheless when the highest federal court in the land struggles, Billy-Bob, Chuck and rest of the local jambolitia gots no hope The obvious question to ask, is the 2nd Amendment outdated for 21st Century America? It could be argued a document about the needs of a young society doesn't necessarily reflect the needs of that society two hundred years later. Many good things in life are said to be based on lies, or redundant olde language; Religion, English/American history, my marriage (allegedly ), to name but a few. As said I'm for gun control. In what form is tougher to answer. Education is usually a good place to start. Begin with the idiots who leave loaded weapons for teens and toddlers to play with in their bedroom cupboards. Find a way to instil a respect for life into our kids, something I'm sure we can agree is sorely lacking wherever we care to look. Bottom line is too many people are killed by guns, and something is needed to change that fact. Perhaps the 'something' will be radical, and decided for the people not by the people. Repeal the 2nd? j/k Who knows. Maybe it all boils down to money in the end. People just being people, be it dangerous, mentally unstable, greedy, all people whatever if denied firearms there's a good chance the bottom line of the gun industry will go down, and like anything else, who really cares about a solution when BIG money's involved. Anyway, I'm from a country with some of the worlds most restrictive firearms legislation that has done a pretty good job of ensuring only the Police and bad guys have them So WTF do I know?! I'm firmly of the belief that the problem isn't guns. It's people. And unless and until we wake up and recognize this, nothing will change. Here in the US, we have "This is a gun-free zone" signs posted in various areas: schools, movie theaters, etc. I'll let you do your own research on where most of the mass shootings in the US occur. And in almost every case, the shooter was not in legal posession of the firearm(s) used. Yet rather than examining and addressing the systemic failures, a vocal minority of Americans clamor for even stricter gun controls. We also have various jurisdictions where guns are completely outlawed: Chicago, IL. New York City, NY. Washington, DC. And others. We also have states where owning a firearm is extremely difficult: California. Maryland. Just to name two. Again, I'll let you do your own research regarding the incidence of gun violence in these supposed gun-free jurisdictions vs. other areas. Then, we have countries like Mexico. Guns are outlawed. Gun violence continues unabated. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness. Here in the US, we used to have mental institutions everywhere. People would get treated and/or removed from society for conditions that made them a danger to themselves or others. Now, instead, we simply medicate them (I'll again ask that you research whether or not those involved in mass shootings in the US have been on some form of prescription pharamaceuticals, and let you draw your own conclusions) and leave them free in society to do as they please. We've socialized and made acceptable mental illness. We prescribe so many psychoactive drugs in this country our water supply is quite literally polluted with them (again, Google is your friend here). We have a pill for just about everything, because as a nation we've decided that treating symptoms is more important than addressing the cause. You see it time and again in how this society reacts to problems. Addressing the cause is hard. Addressing the symptoms is easy. So we take the easy way out. Put bluntly, the people who are going to commit violence are doing to do so without regard to law. And they're going to do so with whatever they have at hand, whether it's a gun, a knife, a vehicle, a rock, a rope, a hammer, a chemical, or their bare hands. See the spate of mass stabbings (yes, stabbings) in China, another area where guns are illegal. Whenever someone commits an act of violence, we tend to focus the blame on the perpetrator, except when guns are involved. As soon as gun-related violence occurs, we ignore the perpetrator and instead focus on the implement used, which is just flat-out wrong-headed. We also seem, somewhere along the line, to have forgotten that there is, indeed, evil in the world, and that evil can manifest in an individual. Instead, we have this idea today that everyone is good, just misguided; that everyone, no matter how evil, can be saved. If evil were a gangrenous limb, we'd be too busy talking to it and taking it to therapy and giving it SSRI's and worrying about not oppressing it or discriminating against it to realize that if we don't cut it off, we die. Some people are just evil. And they're going to commit evil acts regardless of the laws, or availability of any particular implement. Anyway, someone else can borrow the soapbox now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 look at the latest one, guy is fucking supremacist crazy, dad gives him a gun. roommate freaks out on what kid says, takes gun from him [but says nothing to authorities]. kid gets gun back and shoots a bunch of people because he sees them as "animals" when in fact HE is the one acting like an animal. SMH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcl Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 look at the latest one, guy is fucking supremacist crazy, dad gives him a gun. roommate freaks out on what kid says, takes gun from him [but says nothing to authorities]. kid gets gun back and shoots a bunch of people because he sees them as "animals" when in fact HE is the one acting like an animal. SMH. He also happened to be on Suboxone. A prescription drug for opiate dependence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The recent sentiments pretty much touch on all the emotional, hot-button issues. "Too many people are being killed by *most recent gun used in said crime" The thing is, we never get quantification of those other items. Heart disease kills WAY more people each year in the US than are killed by all firearms. That is a comparison of 1 in 4 deaths OF ALL PEOPLE by heart disease, versus about 10.6 deaths per hundred THOUSAND for all firearms deaths. Put on that scale how can you possibly think that "guns" are the real problem? Now, factor in social-economic pressures, compounded by stupid government hand-outs like "The New Deal" - leading to welfare and that whole societal shift towards getting something for nothing? Then I like to just sit back and envision the attempt at "voluntary gun confiscation". Just let this scene play out for a minute in your mind's eye. Hundreds of trucks, the size of dump trucks, just wandering down streets with troops aboard and big bullhorns telling people to march right down to the curb and throw all your firearms in the back. Street after street, just hundreds and thousands of sheeple giving up their weapons. Convoys and convoys of trucks, just loaded to the gills with every piece of hardware imaginable. And then what? You going to drive them all to some super secret government facility, that is as big as ten Texas stadiums, where they will all be melted down into paperclips? Do you know how many guns we are talking about here? That incinerator would need to be as powerful as a small sun, be working round the clock, and it would still YEARS to melt everything down. And NO ONE is going to go looking for the trucks to do a little post confiscation shopping? Because in a land of no guns, the man with three or four of them is going to be making a hell of a lot of laws. Just sayin. Then you have people like me. People with their own tools, their own know how, spare parts for days, and a collection of inherited weapons that were battle field pick ups and guns handed down from when they could be sold mail order from Sears & Roebuck and any hardware store. There is no registry for heirlooms, family hand downs and spare parts. The very concept that any one people could disarm a larger, more diverse populace in one swift stroke is absurd. Which is where the nibbling of the legislative edges starts and where we find ourselves today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procreate Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 psh, i get shit for owning a pitbull with idiots thinking she [the breed] is dangerous. i looked up the stats and you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by a dog. still it doesnt stop countries like the UK from banning them and even many US states, despite it having no benefit, in fact dog bites have gone up in those areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 That's the funny thing about statistics (and I work for a $100mil USD company that makes it's money analyzing nothing but survey responses and developing stats and metrics). If you look at them on the surface, and don't dive any deeper, your image is clear and the case is easy to make. Until you take that next step backwards and look back. Example: Chicago, Detroit, D.C., The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico all have very strong guns laws or gun limitations to private ownership. They SHOULD BE the safest places to live and work. And if you look at one stat like "legally owned gun homicides" you will be right. Very few. Then take a look at ALL VIOLENT CRIME. This includes muggings and robberies and rape and assault and personal maiming. Places with strict gun laws have MUCH higher degrees of violent crimes, without having the stigma of being a violent place to live. It's insane to me that someone could look at the overall crime statistics and think that banning an inanimate object is going to make it a personal Shangri la, but that is what the media would have you believe. Now take a look at Switzerland for 2014. They have the FOURTH highest gun count, per capita at 45.7 guns per 100 residents), and yet they are 103rd on the list of 131 SAFEST (1 being the worst and 131 being the safest) places to live/work based on reported crime for 2014. Facts. They are a bitch to argue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 @mcl. Your post had me following link after link after link on Google. I actually ended up on a pretty good porn site at one point . The simple notion of 'gun control' and, 'what it should be', soon becomes anything but when one cares to dig a little deeper. I do understand the main focus of your post, really, I do. And I appreciate the information you supplied. I can't help but feel laying blame on 'people' is just far too easy. Everything wrong with the planet can be blamed on people if you care to make an argument for it. My understanding of Gun Free Zones are they exist around schools, and places of high crime, or an area where drugs are a serious problem. Gun Free Zones are used as a deterrent. If caught with a firearm in a GFZ, you're either very stupid, very dangerous, or both. Either way you're going to feel the force of the law with sentences being doubled or tripled, and no leniency to be expected for a first offence. The deterrent essentially becomes a tool for authorities to remove you from society for a longer period of time. No doubt mass shootings grab at international headlines, especially when children are involved. From what I've read, mass shootings in GFZ's contribute only a tiny percentage to the overall numbers of gun related deaths in America. I would agree, if a lunatic in the midst of psychotic break is determined to go on a murderous rampage, no law or amount of signage is going to prevent it. But, just because people won't abide by a law it isn't necessarily an argument not have a law. Do you believe gun free zones are a failure, or should be abolished? I was aware of the water pollution issues you mentioned, but not the extent, or scale of the issue. We had something similar in the UK, concerning the amount of Estrogen women were adding to the water supply when taking certain birth control pills. A defence I use often whenever the size of my man-boobs are called into question. The spate of stabbings in China, where guns are illegal is interesting, and I take your wider point. More pertinent to the discussion is something of this nature It suggests the homicide rate is some 6 times lower in China; where guns are illegal. Mental health issues and gun ownership does appear to be a serious problem. Best I can figure, at least 38 States include some sort of Mental Health check as part of background checks. The problem appears to be the failure, for whatever reason, of those individual States to share information with one and other. An example of apathy, or constitutional restriction to gun control, I know not. @ Dillinger, I'm pleased we can agree using the argument - a gun is an inanimate object blah blah blah - is both preposterous, and an exercise in futility. A gun safely stowed in a lock box has little chance of causing harm - yep, agreed. Guns don't kill people! Mmmmkay, but they sure as hell contribute to the number of gun related deaths in the world. And, what's with the heart disease stats? Maybe you should start a thread petitioning the U.S. Government for a 'cutlery control bill'? The use of spoons is obviously making some people fat, and skewing those heart disease factoids?! . LOL.. I guess anyone can trawl the net, and pick a stat to support a particular point of view. It's not difficult, It's easy. Like this one for example Which names each of the 12043 (or more) people who have died as a result of gun violence in the U.S. for the single year following the Newtown tragedy. Many of which you'll notice are women and children. I really don't know if stat grabbing, or a link-fest helps or hinders a discussion. So, with that in mind, I agree with you, buddy. Facts. They are bitch to argue with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dog Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 psh, i get shit for owning a pitbull with idiots thinking she [the breed] is dangerous. i looked up the stats and you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by a dog. still it doesnt stop countries like the UK from banning them and even many US states, despite it having no benefit, in fact dog bites have gone up in those areas.Thank you for your post. It is always nice to hear from someone with a clear and concise point. I assume you know what it was? Keep up the good fight. Regards, Dogs. (Dangerous ones, dirty ones, and cute little fluffy ones you can't help pickup and cuddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.