Strict gun control in france.

[I_am_not_mafia]

 I don't give a shit about their business interests.  We legislate against business interests all the time.  It would hardly be something new and radical.

Government is influenced by lobbying from industry. The more money the industry has the more influence they can exert on government. Often leading to legislation being stopped or replaced with self legislation which is less effective.

Are you so naive as to not know this?

 Everytime someone pops up the NRA bit I wonder why they feel that they can establish the guilt of firearm manufacturers by acquaintance.

Because as that link I posted shows the firearm manufacturers provide most of the funding for the NRA to lobby on their behalf.

 The people who make guns insist at every turn that we secure them and operate them safely...

Oh well that's OK then. Of course self legislation always works and absolutely everybody is responsible all the time. Just reading the copious gun threads on forums shows that to be a fantasy. People carry guns. Guns go off. Accidents happen. People use them for self defence. Mass shootings happen regularly. But that's OK because gun manufacturers tell you to use them safely.

You are also being inconsistent. On the one hand you complain about your rights being taken away and then try to convince people that you are pro-gun and pro-gun control. Which is it? How can you be pro gun control and be satisfied that your rights are not being taken to some degree?

and some of that probably has to do with them also manufacturing the trigger locks, bolt guards, muzzle assemblies, hammer keys, safety mechanisms................  If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'd love to take you on a tour of the Winchester arms plant, not but 10 minutes from me.  I want you to see the people who -actually- make guns.  I'd like to see you levy your suspicians against a guy named Joe who works in a factory producing a quality product....who prides himself on the safety of that product.  It's easy...when they're a nameless faceless monolith painted as some sort of Bond villain.  It's much more difficult to maintain these comments you've made when faced with the reality behind any of them.  

Argument from emotion that does not address the points that I made. Maybe you should have used the word 'shill' a few more times as an ad homimen, that would have helped.

I doubt that you'll be able to even begin to back that up.  But so what if we did start more threads on guns.....we're obsessed with our rights.  No ones squawking about taking my car away, no ones squawking about castrating me, no one has suggested that my electronics should be illegal.

Yes but not all the gun threads are about gun controls. Many of them are just for gun enthusiasts. No one has explained why Americans are so obsessed about shooting small projectiles at high velocity into inanimate targets. There are no threads about archery, spear chucking or shot putting. Not even any threads about hunting. At least then the gun would just be a tool and can aid in putting food on the table.

I don't see many threads about the fact that there are laws saying how you should drive, or which recreational drugs you shouldn't take, or the fact that the NSA are spying on you etc.

I don't own a handgun, and I don't think anyone needs a gun for anything - as I've already said.  Yes....whenever someone suggests that guns should be made illegal, someone is suggesting that my rights should be infringed.  Someone is also suggesting that the government should legislate against yours truly despite the fact that I am not nor will ever be a part of our gun problem.  That's a bit of an issue for me.

So you really are moaning that your rights to play with guns are being infringed. Amazing. And instead you would prefer to continue living in a society which is more dangerous due to the presence of guns and the obsession the American public has with them.

So what you are arguing is that you are prepared to live in a society where violence can be more easily and effectively carried out so that you can enjoy playing with your guns?

I won't trade freedom for a sense of false security, no.  

So yes, you would prefer to live in a society where violence can and is more easily carried out by other people resulting in more fatalities and injuries so you can play with your guns.

I am not going to judge you for being selfish, we're all wired differently and have different cultural values. I'm just pointing out that it is a selfish act to think that your right to play with guns is more important than other people's survival.

There is no causal relationship between stricter gun laws and a reduction in crime.  Criminals don't need guns to be effective, and laws banning or restricting guns don't stop them from acquiring them in the first place.

The crime may still take place but what would you prefer to face, a nervous mugger with or without a gun?

Criminals acquire guns for a reason. They don't carry them around as ornamentation. If guns were not useful in carrying out crime then they wouldn't use them. I don't see any criminals threatening shop staff with handbags for example. And by saying that restricting guns don't stop them acquiring them in the first place you are admitting that criminals seek them out. But that's OK, as long as you can play with your guns.

Yes, we do have a gun problem, and that gun problem is not gun ownership, or the existence of guns.  Our gun problem has to do with the existence of shills like yourself who block and prevent any and all effective gun control on the one hand...while wasting our time and resources pursuing ineffective gun control on the other.  They do this, not..I think, out of malice....but because their ideas of our gun problem and effective solutions are based upon fantasy, fed to them by actors with a vested interest....which seemed to be important to you at the beginning of this post.

You'll have to explain the mechanics of that one in more detail. As it stands, it just looks like cognitive dissonance to me.

Are you saying that the only gun problem in America are people who want to stop others from owning guns? And that the mass shootings, and violent crime is not a problem?

[The Grand Nudger]

Government is influenced by lobbying from industry. The more money the industry has the more influence they can exert on government. Often leading to legislation being stopped or replaced with self legislation which is less effective.

Are you so naive as to not know this?

Hi, shill.  OFC I know that..I rail against it endlessly, but you must have missed that.  Maybe I should randomly insert the word gun into my posts criticizing the corporate buyout of America to get your attention?

Because as that link I posted shows the firearm manufacturers provide most of the funding for the NRA to lobby on their behalf.

-and if our legislators were doing their jobs, that money would be wasted every time their interests don't align with the interests of we the people.  

Oh well that's OK then. Of course self legislation always works and absolutely everybody is responsible all the time. Just reading the copious gun threads on forums shows that to be a fantasy. People carry guns. Guns go off. Accidents happen. People use them for self defence. Mass shootings happen regularly. But that's OK because gun manufacturers tell you to use them safely.

Self legislation, in the context of guns, has been working better than our imposed legislation..yeah.  The gun manufacturers themselves seem to be more interested in gun safety than we are as a society.  People do carry guns, and?  No..they don't just "go off".  "Accident" is the word people use to avoid criminal charges.  People do use them for self defense..you have a problem with people defending themselves?  Mass shootings -don't- happen regularly...and yes.,...gun manufacturers do tell you to use your gun safely.

You are also being inconsistent. On the one hand you complain about your rights being taken away and then try to convince people that you are pro-gun and pro-gun control. Which is it? How can you be pro gun control and be satisfied that your rights are not being taken to some degree?

Because gun control does not necessarily infringe upon my rights, simpleton.  

Argument from emotion that does not address the points that I made. Maybe you should have used the word 'shill' a few more times as an ad homimen, that would have helped.

Okay, shill..because every time you try to make an argument it turns out to be scripted nonsense.  

Yes but not all the gun threads are about gun controls. Many of them are just for gun enthusiasts. No one has explained why Americans are so obsessed about shooting small projectiles at high velocity into inanimate targets. There are no threads about archery, spear chucking or shot putting. Not even any threads about hunting. At least then the gun would just be a tool and can aid in putting food on the table.

I've loved archery for as long as I've loved shooting.....and I make awesome atlatls (which are inexplicable illegal in many states..with regards to hunting).  Are you interested in that conversation?  

I don't see many threads about the fact that there are laws saying how you should drive, or which recreational drugs you shouldn't take, or the fact that the NSA are spying on you etc.

Shouldn't there be laws regarding how a person drives?  We have plenty of "war on drugs threads" - it's a big issue, and you need only enter "NSA" into your search tab at the top right of these boards.  

So you really are moaning that your rights to play with guns are being infringed. Amazing. And instead you would prefer to continue living in a society which is more dangerous due to the presence of guns and the obsession the American public has with them.

Yeah...I'm "moaning" about my rights being infringed..and as a citizen of a country founded upon the idea of rights that's just amaaaayzing.....  We are not more dangerous due to the presence of guns, shill. Neither the presence nor the absence of guns shows a causal relationship with a reduction or increase in crime..violent or otherwise. If you disagree...take that up with the CDC, FBI, and ATF.

So yes, you would prefer to live in a society where violence can and is more easily carried out by other people resulting in more fatalities and injuries so you can play with your guns.

I am not going to judge you for being selfish, we're all wired differently and have different cultural values. I'm just pointing out that it is a selfish act to think that your right to play with guns is more important than other people's survival.

Then go to some place where they value false security over freedom?  My playing with guns doesn't impact anyone's survival, shill.

The crime may still take place but what would you prefer to face, a nervous mugger with or without a gun?

Criminals acquire guns for a reason. They don't carry them around as ornamentation. If guns were not useful in carrying out crime then they wouldn't use them. I don't see any criminals threatening shop staff with handbags for example. And by saying that restricting guns don't stop them acquiring them in the first place you are admitting that criminals seek them out. But that's OK, as long as you can play with your guns.

Actually, alot of criminals do carry guns for ornamentation, but that's besides the point, lol.  OFC criminals seek out guns, we make it awfully easy for them, they just go out and buy them at a reduced price.....so why not?  

You'll have to explain the mechanics of that one in more detail. As it stands, it just looks like cognitive dissonance to me.

Are you saying that the only gun problem in America are people who want to stop others from owning guns? And that the mass shootings, and violent crime is not a problem?

I explain the mechanics of that in every post, every time I correct you, every time I explain the factual reality behind our gun problem juxtaposed against the script you're very clearly following, the script you followed, case in point...with this comment. I -just- told you, explicitly, what I see as the gun problem in the US..and that's about the only thing you didn't deign to respond to...even though you fucking quoted me....because it doesn't allow you room to continue your anti-gun masturbation. It doesn't allow you the opportunity to discredit a pro-gun advocate as "part of the problem", rather than address the points made.

Shill, lol.  
(I probably could have worked it in a few more times but I hope that you're satisfied)

[I_am_not_mafia]

Government is influenced by lobbying from industry. The more money the industry has the more influence they can exert on government. Often leading to legislation being stopped or replaced with self legislation which is less effective.

Are you so naive as to not know this?

Hi, shill.  OFC I know that..I rail against it endlessly, but you must have missed that.  Maybe I should randomly insert the word gun into my posts criticizing the corporate buyout of America to get your attention?

Where exactly have you railed against it endlessly? Certainly not in this thread. I am sorry if I am not intimately involved with everything that you have posted on this forum and others.

But continue with those ad homs. It really convinces people that you aren't struggling here.

Because as that link I posted shows the firearm manufacturers provide most of the funding for the NRA to lobby on their behalf.

-and if our legislators were doing their jobs, that money would be wasted every time their interests don't align with the interests of we the people.  

And if the world was perfect ... The fact is that like it or not legislators are influenced by lobbyists. If they weren't then industries would not continue spending large amounts of money doing it as otherwise, to use your own words, they would be wasting their money. Bribery happens all over the world. This does not change the fact that your hard earned money is going off to an industry that lobbies government and which makes the crime in your society more violent. But to use your own words, you don't give a shit about that.

Oh well that's OK then. Of course self legislation always works and absolutely everybody is responsible all the time. Just reading the copious gun threads on forums shows that to be a fantasy. People carry guns. Guns go off. Accidents happen. People use them for self defence. Mass shootings happen regularly. But that's OK because gun manufacturers tell you to use them safely.

Self legislation, in the context of guns, has been working better than our imposed legislation..yeah.  The gun manufacturers themselves seem to be more interested in gun safety than we are as a society.  People do carry guns, and?  No..they don't just "go off".  "Accident" is the word people use to avoid criminal charges.  People do use them for self defense..you have a problem with people defending themselves?  Mass shootings -don't- happen regularly...and yes.,...gun manufacturers do tell you to use your gun safely.

Mass shootings don't happen regularly? Relative to what? Third world countries? They certainly do compared to other first world countries.

Why do people feel the need to carry guns in America? Do they also carry war hammers? Swords? Full plate armour? Home-made explosives?

You are also being inconsistent. On the one hand you complain about your rights being taken away and then try to convince people that you are pro-gun and pro-gun control. Which is it? How can you be pro gun control and be satisfied that your rights are not being taken to some degree?

Because gun control does not necessarily infringe upon my rights, simpleton.  

Now you're just trying to insult. Frustrating isn't it when you can't argue your case. For example, explaining how previously you bemoaned the fact that "we have a problem with the possibility of an erosion of our rights". If guns are controlled, that means that you do not have the right to buy. Or to use in certain situations. So by definition your rights have been constrained. In the same way that I'm not allowed to get into my car and reverse against the flow of traffic on a motorway.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-39038-po...pid1115804

But being a simpleton compared to you, I would appreciate you explaining to me how gun control can avoid infringing your rights in any way.

Argument from emotion that does not address the points that I made. Maybe you should have used the word 'shill' a few more times as an ad homimen, that would have helped.

Okay, shill..because every time you try to make an argument it turns out to be scripted nonsense.  

From what? Where? Cognitive dissonance again. If it was scripted nonsense then you'd be able to counter my points. But you can't.

I've loved archery for as long as I've loved shooting.....and I make awesome atlatls (which are inexplicable illegal in many states..with regards to hunting).  Are you interested in that conversation?  

Actually yes. It would make a change from yet another gun thread. I've considered taking up archery myself and buying a bow. I've also wanted to learn how to use a whips and to use throwing knives. Not for any practical reasons but for the fun and satisfaction in mastering a physical skill. I've also been an enthusiastic martial artist in the past. But my society does not have a problem with people using bows, throwing knives and whips for criminal purposes and there is not a massive industry that lobbies government. And if there was, I'd give it up. For example the same reason that I am trying to get the company in charge of my pension to divest from industries that profit from arms trading and fossil fuels.

Yeah...I'm "moaning" about my rights being infringed..and as a citizen of a country founded upon the idea of rights that's just amaaaayzing.....  We are not more dangerous due to the presence of guns, shill.  Neither the presence nor the absence of guns shows a causal relationship with a reduction or increase in crime..violent or otherwise.  If you disagree...take that up with the CDC, FBI, and ATF.

And as pointed out before, which you refuse to acknowledge, guns make crime more violent. If guns were useless then why would criminals use them?

Why are you deliberately ignoring this point? One person on a rampage can harm and kill more people than say with armed with only a knife. A knife is limited by its range. Someone can mug a victim more effectively using a gun than a knife. Why is that? Because they don't need to get so close in order to mug them. Why would a mugger use a gun and not the threat of throwing a brick? Because the gun can lead to death or dismemberment. The gun makes the crime more violent.

So yes, you would prefer to live in a society where violence can and is more easily carried out by other people resulting in more fatalities and injuries so you can play with your guns.

I am not going to judge you for being selfish, we're all wired differently and have different cultural values. I'm just pointing out that it is a selfish act to think that your right to play with guns is more important than other people's survival.

Then go to some place where they value false security over freedom?  My playing with guns doesn't impact anyone's survival, shill.

You mean where I previously lived and wish to return? I'm British. I've always lived in a country with strict gun laws. I prefer not having to worry about other people carrying guns. The idea of carrying a gun with me is on a par with wearing a hazmat suit to a dinner party, strapping a landmine to my back or driving to the office everyday in a fully armed Abrams tank. i.e. totally unnecessary and ridiculous.

I don't know how I can be a shill when the issues doesn't personally affect me and I have no vested interest in it. Sorry, you'll have to find some other way to maintain your cognitive dissonance.


85 shots: US cops use more ammo per man than Germans per year
List of killings by law enforcement officers in Germany

Or are these stats just scripted nonsense?

[The Grand Nudger]

Where exactly have you railed against it endlessly? Certainly not in this thread. I am sorry if I am not intimately involved with everything that you have posted on this forum and others.

But continue with those ad homs. It really convinces people that you aren't struggling here.

Oh shock and surprise, your comments arose from a place of ignorance.  

Whenever the tune is "corporate cocksuckers" I sing the chorus. It's an opportunity I relish, and rarely miss. I took it in this very thread, in response to your comments..as I;m taking it now......and you quoted me as having done so...now didn't you.........?

And if the world was perfect ... The fact is that like it or not legislators are influenced by lobbyists. If they weren't then industries would not continue spending large amounts of money doing it as otherwise, to use your own words, they would be wasting their money. Bribery happens all over the world. This does not change the fact that your hard earned money is going off to an industry that lobbies government and which makes the crime in your society more violent. But to use your own words, you don't give a shit about that.

I think that the bar for perfection is a bit higher than asking someone to do their job, and asking someone to do their job is in no way asking them for perfection.  As I;ve already commented upon..in this very thread, there are US states with comparable rates of gun crime and gun related murders as nations which have banned or severely restricted firearms. So it;s obviously possible to do so, and it obviously doesn't take perfection..or prohibitionism.

Mass shootings don't happen regularly? Relative to what? Third world countries? They certainly do compared to other first world countries.

Why do people feel the need to carry guns in America? Do they also carry war hammers? Swords? Full plate armour? Home-made explosives?

Sure don't....mass shootings are an infinitesimally small fraction of shootings...but they're sensational, so we notice and remember them.  You'd have to ask "people"....you might find that "people" don't feel that need at all, just part of the script.  

Now you're just trying to insult. Frustrating isn't it when you can't argue your case. For example, explaining how previously you bemoaned the fact that "we have a problem with the possibility of an erosion of our rights". If guns are controlled, that means that you do not have the right to buy. Or to use in certain situations. So by definition your rights have been constrained. In the same way that I'm not allowed to get into my car and reverse against the flow of traffic on a motorway.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-39038-po...pid1115804

But being a simpleton compared to you, I would appreciate you explaining to me how gun control can avoid infringing your rights in any way.

Background checks are gun control..they are not un-constitutional.  Barring felons from firearms is gun control, it is not un-constitutional.  Requiring safe storage of firearms is gun control, it is not unconstitutional.  Preventing minors from buying pistols is gun control, it is not unconstitutional.  

I could go on, and on, and on.  

From what? Where? Cognitive dissonance again. If it was scripted nonsense then you'd be able to counter my points. But you can't.

.....?  Okay, because, apparently, knocking down every misconception you have about gun control, our gun problem, and gun ownership like I was playing whack-a-mole at chucky cheese -isn't- countering your "points"?  

Actually yes. It would make a change from yet another gun thread. I've considered taking up archery myself and buying a bow. I've also wanted to learn how to use a whips and to use throwing knives. Not for any practical reasons but for the fun and satisfaction in mastering a physical skill. I've also been an enthusiastic martial artist in the past. But my society does not have a problem with people using bows, throwing knives and whips for criminal purposes and there is not a massive industry that lobbies government. And if there was, I'd give it up. For example the same reason that I am trying to get the company in charge of my pension to divest from industries that profit from arms trading and fossil fuels.

Excellent, make the thread, it would be awesome.  

And as pointed out before, which you refuse to acknowledge, guns make crime more violent. If guns were useless then why would criminals use them?

Why are you deliberately ignoring this point? One person on a rampage can harm and kill more people than say with armed with only a knife. A knife is limited by its range. Someone can mug a victim more effectively using a gun than a knife. Why is that? Because they don't need to get so close in order to mug them. Why would a mugger use a gun and not the threat of throwing a brick? Because the gun can lead to death or dismemberment. The gun makes the crime more violent.

-and as pointed out before, the fact is...that guns -do not- make crime more violent, or make for more violent crimes.  What else can be said?  

You mean where I previously lived and wish to return? I'm British. I've always lived in a country with strict gun laws. I prefer not having to worry about other people carrying guns. The idea of carrying a gun with me is on a par with wearing a hazmat suit to a dinner party, strapping a landmine to my back or driving to the office everyday in a fully armed Abrams tank. i.e. totally unnecessary and ridiculous.

I don't know how I can be a shill when the issues doesn't personally affect me and I have no vested interest in it. Sorry, you'll have to find some other way to maintain your cognitive dissonance.

I don't worry about other people carrying guns.  I'm more likely, as an american, to shoot myself than to be shot - by a wide margin....within a tiny statistic to begin with.  I don't carry my guns around either..it seems pointless and unsafe.  They come out, plink targets and game, then go back in.  Just like you park your car when you aren;t driving it..rather than hopping out as it rolls past your house and hoping for the best........

[I_am_not_mafia]

-and as pointed out before, the fact is...that guns -do not- make crime more violent, or make for more violent crimes.  What else can be said?  

Stating it as fact is not the same as actually convincing someone.

A gun will cause more destruction, more quickly and easily than another weapon. Therefore it means crimes are more violent. Even the threat of a gun makes the crime more distressing. What would you prefer to face off against? An unarmed man or one armed with a gun pointed at your face?

Would you prefer the back of your leg to be hit with a baseball bat or a gun? The latter is more likely to lead to losing the leg. If a criminal uses a gun instead of a baseball bat then the crime is more violent as a result.

Why do criminals use guns at all if they are not effective at helping them commit crime? You have never answered this because it destroys your argument.

This is your sticking point upon which all your cognitive dissonance is built upon.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could just go back through the thread..to see any of the times I've explained the source for that fact, couldn't you?  Or should I have to repeat myself endlessly...because that;s been working so well on you thusfar....

If you want to get academic, a bomb will cause more destruction - regardless of the level of skill of the user - and it's even easier, and cheaper, to get a can of gasoline than it is to get a gun.  It's a moot point though, since using bombs or guns in the commission of a crime is already illegal, and no one argues that it shouldn't be, or that there shouldn;t be safeguards in place to prevent either, insomuch as we can.  

Baseball bat or a gun..I'll take the gun.  Stitches are easy, extensive compound fractures aren't.  Guns make alot more noise too....someone could beat me to death with a baseball bat in the vicinity of hundreds of people without anyone noticing...but it's a ridiculous question in the first place...as I'd rather not be hit with a bat, or shot.  For reference, I've experienced both, so this is coming from a position of -some- knowledge.

No one argued that guns are ineffective, certainly not myself...so why are you asking the question?

What point, again.....am I sticking on?  You'd have to have a point to stick on to begin with, which you don't, and haven't..and this is what I've been trying to explain to you. If you want, like I do, to address our gun problem; the first step is to acquire an accurate picture of what that problem is. Otherwise you're tilting at windmills.

Mass shootings? Not our gun problem.
Stolen guns? Not our gun problem.
The existence of guns? Not our gun problem.
Gun ownership? Not our gun problem.

[I_am_not_mafia]

But being a simpleton compared to you, I would appreciate you explaining to me how gun control can avoid infringing your rights in any way.

Background checks are gun control..they are not un-constitutional.  Barring felons from firearms is gun control, it is not un-constitutional.  Requiring safe storage of firearms is gun control, it is not unconstitutional.  Preventing minors from buying pistols is gun control, it is not unconstitutional.  

I could go on, and on, and on.  

I live in a country without a constitution yet I still have rights. There is nothing in the constitution about not driving down the motorway backwards for example. Yet you do not have the right to do that. The law has removed that right. So yes you could go on and on and on, but you'd go on and on and on in avoiding the point.

Laws and controls remove your freedom. But we need this to a certain degree in order to protect everyone in society.

Barring felons from owning fire arms is infringing upon their rights. Requiring safe storage of fire arms means that you do not have the right to store it in your laundry basket if you so desire. Preventing minors from buying pistols is infringing upon their rights.

So if you are pro- gun control then you are pro removal of certain rights.

[I_am_not_mafia]

No one argued that guns are ineffective, certainly not myself...so why are you asking the question?

Because guns can make crimes more violent. It is ludicrous to saythat they do not. Violent criminals use guns for a reason. A gun is more effective and easier if you want to cause violence or threaten it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm afraid that there is no room for disagreement on this, with me, about what does and does not infringe upon our rights.  We do not consider any of the things I mentioned to be unconstitutional..and that, for us, is the metric by which we measure infringement.  All of those safeguards I mentioned can and do exist simultaneously with my right to own a firearm. None of them have prevented me from owning a firearm - or even inconvenienced me in the pursuit thereof. None of our rights extend into absurdity, that's just not how we conceive of them.  A felon no longer -has- the right to a firearm...so there's no infringing upon it, understand?   I don't have a problem with removing or limiting the rights of those who misuse them in order to hurt people - and neither does our constitution. I have a problem with removing or limiting the rights of people, because someone -else- is willing to hurt people. Particularly when there is no need to do so, and no shortage of other means available and in evidence capable of achieving our stated ends. Understand?

Guns don't make crime more violent, nor do they make for more violent crime, unless your metric for "more violent" is -was a gun involved?-...rendering the discussion futile from the outset.

[CapnAwesome]

Then what use are gun laws?

I'm guessing it has to do with lower per-capita murder rates, as spelt out above. You might want to read that post.

While you're at it, you might want to read, and perhaps answer if you're not too tired, my first post in this thread.

Finally, let me just say that your putative argument falls afoul of the guideline of let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Simply because a law doesn't eliminate all acts it outlaws doesn't mean that law should be stricken.

I'd suggest that you start thinking without allowing your agenda (obvious as it is) to be your mental filter (again, obvious).

The statistic above wasn't a per captia murder rate. Why do people think that gun murders are the same as per capita murder stats. Oh yeah, because they are purposefully and manipulatively presented that way. Also this whole site has people who let their agenda be their mental filler. I'm not even particularly pro-gun, I don't own guns I would never give money to the NRA. I'm sick of the anti-gun people on here constantly using propaganda rather than examining actual causes of violence and the effect guns have on them. I've brought it up several times and several threads and nobody has ever replied: The UK passed it's gun laws in 1964. They didn't have a noticable effect on the murder rate. The UK has always had a lower murder rate than the US.