|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If a weapon has a bayonet lug, then chances are it is a military weapon.
I don't believe the Bushmaster .223 has a bayonet lug, but if it did, it wasn't essential to the function of the weapon as a semi-automatic rifle in .223 caliber. Pshht, they even make bayonets for handguns:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That prevents the effective use of the gun for home defense. You shouldn't have to fumble around with a safe while someone's breaking into your house.
So you could have an exception for one personal defense gun. That could work, but then, the perpetrator would just go for that gun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, I did not think of this negative aspect...However, an individual could remove a handgun at night to ensure the it is more accessible in case of break-in, locking it back up when there is not a risk to members of the family in the household... Shiiit... I have enough trouble remembering to plug in my cellphone every night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The registration is the first and biggest hurdle. In what way? I ask because I live in Illinois and our gun laws are all fucked up so I don't really know about the rest of the country that much. But, I registered my gun when I bought it... I think. I mean, it got "transfered" to me in some paperwork I signed. For the lurkers who don't know how that works, it goes like this: My Glock has a unique number on it. If it was found, then the police would call up Glock and give them the number. Glock would say, 'we sold that gun to Bob's US Gun Distributor. Then the police would call Bob and he'd go: "We sold that to Joe's Gun Store near St. Louis." Then they'd call Joe and they do: "We sold that gun to Catholic Scientist back in '09". Then they'd call me and ask me if I knew where my gun was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Anyway, carry on with this dispassionate discussion about various weaponry in a thread begun in reaction to a mass murder. Lookin' good! Message 96 Starting this thread looked bad in the first place.
Sorry I came across as being a jerk, but you seem to be missing the irony. You were asked why you don't have full-auto, and you didn't respond with comments about the serious responsibility involved but that you can't afford it and you'd "prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place." You followed that with, "Unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous," and your blas attitude combined with the thought of a device that could wreck your house while not being destructive was just too ironic to pass by without comment. I'm still missing the irony... He asked why I wouldn't go for a full-auto for killing people. Then he asked why grenades shouldn't be at WalMart. I don't think full-autos should be at WalMart either. You're trying awefully hard to make me look stupid. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
...you've forgotten that you're talking about extremely dangerous weapons designed specifically to kill a many people quickly. That's just not true.
You're left arguing trivia and can't see how utterly crazy it all is. Well I think your irrational fear of guns is crazy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ah, okay, thanks. Yeah, that would be a bit of a hurdle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There was this one too:
They didn't fire back or anything. They high-tailed it as soon as there was resistance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
And what would have happened if the assailant had not had a gun available in the first place? Maybe he'd have used a homemade bomb. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But let's test the prediction. In nations where guns are less available, does the number of bomb-based attacks increase after firearms legislation is passed? That doesn't have anything to do with what this particular individual might have done.
You've speculated, but the real world already has examples. What do those examples show us? Oh, I dunno... the odds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It’s a Fact Here’s why: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census). 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.(Source: Center for Disease Control). 80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source:Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26). 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on the State of High Schools). 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992). These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are: 5 times more likely to commit suicide32 times more likely to run away 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders 14 times more likely to commit rape 9 times more likely to drop out of high school 20 times more likely to end up in prison Children from fatherless homes are*: Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*: 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders4.6 times more likely to commit suicide 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers 24.3 times more likely to run away 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions 10.8 times more likely to commit rape 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes 6.3 times more likely to be in state operated institutions Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce. That looks just like this webpage: Some Statistics on Fatherlessnes But you didn't put it in quotes or attribute it, and you placed it next to your own words. That makes it look like you're trying to pass off as your own, something that somebody else wrote. We come to this site to talk to each other, not to have coptypasta thrown at us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Huh?
I was just trying to say to put that shit in quotes and supply the website you copied it from. We're here to discuss with other people, not to throw cut-n-pastes around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And I was just saying that these facts and Stats dont need a rreference unless someone questions their validity. Not if you typed them yourself... but if you copy and paste them into the text box then you need to put quotes on it and include your source. That's according to the rules that you agreed to when you signed up:
quote: That settles it. No need to continue this off topic stuff here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: http://www.law.harvard.edu/...ol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf I gotta go do some work in the lab and will be away from my desk for the rest of the day. I didn't get a chance to read this yet, but I wanted to throw it in here for future reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I'll need some time to look at that article, but from just the snippet you posted, I'd argue that gun control is not intended to reduce suicide or criminal violence, but is intended to reduce deaths due to gunfire, or most broadly, to reduce the murder rate. Why single out deaths due to gunfire as something that should be specifically desired over deaths due to other means? If deaths due to gunfire is reduced but deaths due to other means rises, and therefore the total number of deaths remains the same, then there was no benefit to exchanging the cause of death from one type to another. Too, reducing the deaths due to gunfire in exchange for an increase in violent crime isn't worth it either. Would you really exchange one violent criminal's life for more violent crimes against law abiding citizens? Regarding the murder rate, there's no correlation between the amount of guns a country has and its murder rate. Table 1 on page 4 of the pdf I linked to shows that lack of correlation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024