namelesstavern.net

Evermore wrote:What i was referring to was the ease of creating an explosive from household chemicals. hell a trip to the speed shop and another to the plant store and you can make a very high powered explosive.

Yes, but that doesn't explain the obsessive nature of owning collecting and ultimately using firearms. If your country was obsessed with using explosives, then steps should probably be taken to protect people, but these violent crimes aren't always solely to do with hurting people. They seem to often be about the use of firearms.

Nah, I acknowledge that this is indeed a terrible tradegy however the whole "sitting in my car and breaking down" bullshit made me want to puke.

There is much worse shit going on in the world (hell, THIS country for that matter) than a few mall shoppers getting wasted and this is what the little pussy cries about.

Who gives two fucks WHERE they were or how close they were in proximity.

You can all play the big cavalier route and have a morality contest, the fact doesn't change. The boo-hoo parade is misspent on this bullshit news.

the only "tradegy" here was that you were the one who took the first bullet

Zanchief wrote:

Evermore wrote:What i was referring to was the ease of creating an explosive from household chemicals. hell a trip to the speed shop and another to the plant store and you can make a very high powered explosive.

Yes, but that doesn't explain the obsessive nature of owning collecting and ultimately using firearms. If your country was obsessed with using explosives, then steps should probably be taken to protect people, but these violent crimes aren't always solely to do with hurting people. They seem to often be about the use of firearms.

Tell this to people like timothy mcveigh

Outlaw firearms and only criminals will have them. More legislation is not the answer. Chief you do not have alot of exposure to guns do you?

Evermore wrote:Tell this to people like timothy mcveigh

Compare the number of death by malicious explosives to the number of deaths by malicious firearm use.

I'd guess it would be something 10,000:1 but I could be wrong.

Evermore wrote:Outlaw firearms and only criminals will have them. More legislation is not the answer. Chief you do not have a lot of exposure to guns do you?

This is, of course, an NRA myth that isn't true at all. Nice that you believe it without any evidence to support it.

Is there really any need for assault rifles? Letting non "criminals" have them isn't going to prevent any crimes, and they clearly don't serve any functional use. The only reason people need them so much is because of an obsessive nature that has been bred into your culture.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

There were roughly 30,000 firearm deaths in America in 2004.

It's a fact a family man with guns is more likely to accidently shoot his family then ever require his gun for defense.

ts common sense. You didnt learn anything from history apparently. Outlaw the guns, you only will jack up the price. Here you can buy an illegal firearm on streetcorners.

Chief you want to focus on the guns like that's whats causing the problems. It has nothing to do with an obsessive nature. I personally own a shit load of guns. I dont commit any crimes with my guns and i am exremely obsessive about how they are handled.

lyion and there were 45,000 motorvehical ( sp) deaths too. Should we outlaw cars?

Evermore wrote:ts common sense. You didnt learn anything from history apparently. Outlaw the guns, you only will jack up the price. Here you can buy an illegal firearm on streetcorners.

I'm not so sure this WoW addicted nerdlinger that shot-up the mall would have the resources buy an illegal firearm in order to stick it to society. It's more likely he'd just quenche his emo-rage with a bottle of pills.

Evermore wrote:Chief you want to focus on the guns like that's whats causing the problems. It has nothing to do with an obsessive nature. I personally own a shit load of guns. I dont commit any crimes with my guns and i am exremely obsessive about how they are handled.

I'm not entirely talking about treating the problem by removing the guns (although I think it's a good step), I'm talking about treating the problem by stopping the obsessive behavior. Reduce the number of assault rifles and such and you reduce the need to have these sickening gun shows where people parade tools of death as if they're action figures.

Evermore wrote:lyion and there were 45,000 motorvehical ( sp) deaths too. Should we outlaw cars?

We should be trying to make them safer.

Zanchief wrote:

Evermore wrote:lyion and there were 45,000 motorvehical ( sp) deaths too. Should we outlaw cars?

We should be trying to make them safer.

and now you come to the real root of the problem

The NRA's basic stance is that they are protecting people by fighting for your right to bare arms. They think that if people have weapons people will be safer. I don't possibly see how that's true, and statistics tend to agree with me, but why don't they push non-lethal weapons?

If this is solely an issue of protection why don't we see taser-shows, where people from all over the country sit down and talk about how much they love pepper-spray? It's the destructive nature of firearms that's enticing to people.

Remove the emotional attachment and people can actually start doing an effective job of protecting themselves instead of worrying about the interpretation of a constitutional amendment.

Evermore wrote:lyion and there were 45,000 motorvehical ( sp) deaths too. Should we outlaw cars?

Cars serve a valid purpose.

What again is the reason for all those gun deaths? Cannon shots to work?

Zanchief wrote:The NRA's basic stance is that they are protecting people by fighting for your right to bare arms. They think that if people have weapons people will be safer. I don't possibly see how that's true, and statistics tend to agree with me, but why don't they push non-lethal weapons?

If this is solely an issue of protection why don't we see taser-shows, where people from all over the country sit down and talk about how much they love pepper-spray? It's the destructive nature of firearms that's enticing to people.

Remove the emotional attachment and people can actually start doing an effective job of protecting themselves instead of worrying about the interpretation of a constitutional amendment.

i see you have never been to a gun show.

you also dont have your facts straight again

this is just from texas:

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html


Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.

Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.

Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [see Figure I], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.

and


Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. [See Figure II.]

Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.


"When criminals suspect that the costs of committing a crime will be too high, they are less likely to commit it."

read this

I think there's a HUGE difference between the right to have a hunting a rifle, or a personal handgun, and the ability to own a fucking machine gun

So Evermore, you would feel safer if every single person over the age of 18 had a gun. You think the country would be a safer place?

Deterrence hardly seems like a legitimate argument since the statistics vary in such a small degree how can you solely equate that to hand gun laws? Add to that the number if accidental deaths from "responsible" citizens and it hardly seems valid.

Again, what's wrong with non-lethal means of self-defense? Just because you don't get a boner from a taser doesn't mean it isn't a practical means of self-defense.

Tikker wrote:I think there's a HUGE difference between the right to have a hunting a rifle, or a personal handgun, and the ability to own a fucking machine gun

Machine guns ARE illegal.

Martrae wrote:

Tikker wrote:I think there's a HUGE difference between the right to have a hunting a rifle, or a personal handgun, and the ability to own a fucking machine gun

Machine guns ARE illegal.

Why? Responsible people don't use machine guns to kill people. Why not hand them out to anyone who takes a class? No possible harm could come by arming everyone with machine guns, hell why dont' you sell tanks at the local car dealership? You never know, people owning tanks might lower crime by 0.02%.

I didn't make the law....I'm just reporting it.

Martrae wrote:I didn't make the law....I'm just reporting it.

Sack up and join the argument, lady.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

Hippies be warned. You look stupid enough already.

Zanchief wrote:So Evermore, you would feel safer if everyone single person over the age of 18 had a gun. You think the country would be a safer place?

Deterrence hardly seems like a legitimate argument since the statistics vary in such a small degree how can you solely equate that to hand gun laws? Add to that the number if accidental deaths from "responsible" citizens and it hardly seems valid.

Again, what's wrong with non-lethal means of self-defense? Just because you don't get a boner from a taser doesn't mean it isn't a practical means of self-defense.

chief why do you insist on going to extremes? where did i state that i would feel safer if everyone over 18 has a gun? those facts are in response to one of your statements. You are being stupid now. There is nothing wrong with non-lethal self-defence. never said there was. unfort it isnt a truely viable option at the moment is it? no.


And this:

Deterrence hardly seems like a legitimate argument since the statistics vary in such a small degree how can you solely equate that to hand gun laws? Add to that the number if accidental deaths from "responsible" citizens and it hardly seems valid.

is a weak. the "small degree" you are referring to is a base statistic. spread that over the whole population and then tell me this.

Harrison wrote:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

Hippies be warned. You look stupid enough already.

its blocked here what is it?

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives."

"no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…"

-William Ruger 1989

Martrae wrote:

Tikker wrote:I think there's a HUGE difference between the right to have a hunting a rifle, or a personal handgun, and the ability to own a fucking machine gun

Machine guns ARE illegal.

in most circumstances. but you can legally own machine guns in the US.