Quote:
Post some proof that restrictions on higher capacity mags reduce homicide. Take your time. I'll check back. ps: You can't claim the high ground for "better background checks". The NRA beat you to that idea by a country mile. So did pretty well all of us. So, stop twisting and let's get down to brass tacks. Begin with the high capacity magazines, if you can. |
From American Rifleman 1990
Quote:
No babies were harmed in the research of this article. |
Rocky7, your patience and persistance is to be admired, and I know I have much less of both.
In this day and age, after having SEEN the elected leader of the government in power at the time, declare a ban on handguns as an election promise, and after having witnessed the continuous erosion of our freedom with no perceivable effect, I am amazed, astounded, speechless, among many more things, that anyone remotely linked to the Canadian firearms community would be in favour of yet MORE restrictions. Where exactly has compromising gotten us so far? Where will we stop? When a 5 or 10 round limit isn't good enough, do we try 4/9, then 3/8, 2/7, 1/6? As long as there are guns in civilian hands, and as long as there are shootings (thus graves to dance on), the antis will not be happy until each and every single last firearm is gone. Some of us are onlookers, disgusted at the man turning up the heat. Some of us are the frogs, contently frolicking in the seemingly ever-so-slightly warmer water... |
Quote:
"With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home." http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials...tml?cid=970614 |
Quote:
Your quote mentions army ammunition. It does not say anything about non-army ammunition? |
Quote:
|
I love that the anti-gun control side keeps pointing to the swiss model as some sort of proof that more guns = less crime. Does the anti gun control side fail to see that the Americans have more guns and more crime than swiss? How can that be if more guns = less crime. Americans have more guns than the swiss and the highest gun ownership rates in the world; as such they should have the lowest crime rates in the world. But thats not the case whats going on here are the ANTI's lying to us.
And ya im now calling those in favour of less gun control anti's |
Quote:
Care to modify your statement? |
Quote:
Oh well, at least we still have our dancing! :sHa_shakeshout: |
Quote:
Am i wrong thats the theory right? |
How as the influx of guns to Mexico impacted its law abiding citizens?
Must be safer now? |
Quote:
When only one side has them, it tends to skew the results (for good or bad). Don't you agree? |
Quote:
"Not only did LaPierre push back on restrictions to high-capacity magazines and assault rifles, but he forcibly rejected universal background checks. For the record, polls find roughly 9 in 10 Americans support universal background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/nra-b...ground-checks/ If you don't like the facts of the story because it's from MSN just go to the NRA website and check their position on this! |
Quote:
|
if ever i go insane i'm going to carry out my assault with a big stick or a rubber chicken just to save everyone else the headache.
|
Quote:
What part about my statement about Jamaica are you disagreeing with? Or are you? |
Quote:
Kind of weird (or not) that the supposed relative scarcity, seems to have an inverse effect of what I suppose was intended. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Im really confused becuase the Anti- gun control side keeps saying with more guns we have less murders, rapes, assaults and robberies. It seem's the Antis think more guns = less overall crime. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Let's review 5.2% UI = 4.2 murders/100 000. And Jamaica on the flip: 20% = 58 murders/100 000. Numbers sound accurate? So by this, are you telling me that if Edmonton's UI rate jumped by 15% we should expect to see nearly 600 people murdered in one year. Or the murder rate go up by 12 times. Hmm. Increase by 90% for every percent over 5 unemployed.... Not to mention, Edmonton has a fair number of guns.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My opinion...Most of the crap spewed by the Anti's' the msm and politicians, is just that, crap. The good majority of it is based on emotion, ignorance of firearms themselves, personal agenda and on the politicians behalf, a desire to 'quell' the masses(shut them up). Better, more in depth background checks? I would be in favor of that. I don't think it would really help in most cases, but in some it could. Banning 'high capacity' magazines? Complete horse **** that would achieve absolutely nothing. How many people could this guy kill in a crowded theater with a legal 'low capacity' magazine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ 18 rounds in six seconds. Granted, not many people can shoot like this, but half that speed wouldn't be an issue for a **** load of people. If Joe Blow can pop off 9 rounds in six seconds, how many people could he kill in the 2 to 5 minutes it would take for the police to respond? OK then, lets ban ALL semi auto's! It'll never happen, but lets pretend. I'll kick in my neighbors door while he's out grocery shopping and steal his pump action .12 gauge along with a couple of boxes of 00 buckshot. Next stop...a crowded movie theater. Do you have any type of understanding of the slaughter and mayhem a person could unleash in that simple scenario? In close quarters(a dark movie theater)you'd kill as many, or MORE people with that simple shotgun than you could with that scarey black bushmaster even with a high capacity mag. OK, another fantasy...there are no more guns! All gone! Get on Google and tell me how long it takes to figure out how to make a simple...pipe bomb for example? 6 or 8 of those with short fuses...crowded theater...you get the picture. You CAN'T control the weapon....only the crazy bastard behind it, and even that would be a failure in most cases. Humans kill each other...all over the world, for thousands of years. The atrocities never change, only the weapons we use to commit them. Off my soapbox. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You explain why you feel it is smarter to not restrict high capacity mags. When has it saved lives versus killed kids outside of military operations? Common sense is all you needamd if need be go back through your 1000 threads on the same topic to find the reference to mass shooters have gun jams. I am very pleased that you agree with background checks. That is a huge loophole the NRA was fighting against. No checks at gun shows private sales etc. |
Quote:
I am unfamiliar with Switzerland, but I am a bit MORE familiar with the US. It's been established that firearms laws vary from locale to locale within the United States. It's been established that areas with strict gun control show larger percentages of firearm related violence, and those with less control (perhaps no bans on ownership or CCW), smaller percentages. It's like someone from somewhere else asking "so, how's the weather in Canada, today?". |
Quote:
If we start passing laws because we're each "using our noggin" we'll end up twisted beyond all recognition. Quote:
1. You answer questions with questions. That is immature. It's something kids do when they realize they've said something ridiculous. 2. Your comments lead me to believe that your mind is closed. You never show any attempt to understand your opponent's argument. Rather, you look for facile "victory" based on grammar wherever you can scratch it up. If so, reason will not work with you. It's like me trying to teach a hog to speak German. It wastes my time and annoys the hog. 3. This one is really, really important: I have the freedom to whatever I want, as often as I want, wherever I want and with whomever I want as long as I'm paying for it and it's not harming anyone else or restricting their similar freedoms. I do not have to justify that to you or to anyone else. Those God-given freedoms come with being a human person. I also have certain intrinsic human rights. These don't come from government or you, either. They are mine and I am beholden to no man for them. Two of the most fundamental are my right to defend my life and my family - and have the means to do so - and my right to speak. None of that can be taken away and those would do so are my enemy. It does not matter to me one iota whether you try to take those away in one gulp or if you attempt to nibble them away, thinking I won't notice or that I won't put up a fuss if you only bite off a little. That would be a mistake. You have those same rights but if you won't exercise them, that's your business. Don't make the same assumption about me. Those who believe I need to justify to them any of my freedom or basic rights are, IMO, trying to play the role of my God. The position is filled. Even if it weren't, I will not take that bit. Period. That's a bit rough because it's a summary. But I think you get the drift? Now.......where's your facts? |
Quote:
It is very telling. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.