Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[The Grand Nudger]

I picked this one out from a few pages back.  Is there some need for semi-automatic rifles?  Yes.  Coyotes, Cougars, Wild Dogs, Wild Hogs, Bears, and any male of any species of large game in N. America during breeding season.  Any situation where you want to -know- you can get more than one or two rounds off.

Miss (target charges)
-bolt-
Dud
-bolt-
Hit (still charging)
-bolt-
Jam
-action-
-bolt-
Dead or dying

Most people don't use them for that, though.  Most people use them for target practice.  The most common semi-automatic firearm on the market is the one with which the largest portion of americans are familar.  The .22lr/centerfire.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I've seen you oversimplify situations before, misrepresenting my words or just taking potshots [...]

You've done the same to me before. You'll find "sympathy" in the dictionary, between "shit" and "syphilis".

I don't think so by the way you worded your position, but that was only once. That was regrettable, and I am sorry for that misunderstanding. I don't recall that having happened more than once, and I have since found you to be honest and concise, not repetitively balls-forward and ignorant like this Aegon dude has been.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

If your're going to challenge my argument, you can at least present a decent counter-argument - just throwing shit is for pre-pubescent children and people like EP.

Nah, if it's all the same to you, I'll just stick the poo-flinging.

The point is that muscle cars serve only the unique requirements of those who have no regard for safe, civil use of public highways, and they generally enjoy endangering and terrorizing those who they should be sharing our roads with as equals. This. makes. that. type. of. vehicle. a. weapon. on. public. highways. Therefore, at very least they should not be legally registered for highway use.

No offense, but that's a thoroughly idiotic point.  I'm not going to tell you why it is, you'll have to work it out yourself.

How many people who own assault rifles (many which are non-repeating, but those who make our laws took no time to learn anything about guns before they wiped their dicks on the dotted line) actually carry them loaded on public highways, or loaded in any public places? I doubt those who do obey our laws anyway, and there are other reasons why they should not be at large.

I neither know nor care how many people own a specific type of a specific weapon.

Therefore, I do see a problem, but it's a practical one, not a logical one - fixed it for you.

You 'fixed' something that wasn't broken.  Well done.

However, the practical problem of confiscating weapons is no less a practical one, and liable to stir up more violence and death than it's worth. It simply isn't worth triggering our next civil war over.

Think it through:  If confiscating the guns is done properly, there won't BE a civil war.  

Can't disagree with you there in the case of urban gun owners, but not every American lives in your world, and that does not make them either anti-social nor violent. However, this equation holds true with muscle car drivers everywhere on this earth.

It sounds as though you have about as much experience with owners of muscle cars as I have with firearms.

Yours in poo-flinging camaraderie,

Boru

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxdnKQX3SqI

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The point is that muscle cars serve only the unique requirements of those who have no regard for safe, civil use of public highways, and they generally enjoy endangering and terrorizing those who they should be sharing our roads with as equals. This. makes. that. type. of. vehicle. a. weapon. on. public. highways. Therefore, at very least they should not be legally registered for highway use.

No offense, but that's a thoroughly idiotic point.  I'm not going to tell you why it is, you'll have to work it out yourself.

Fine, but just in case it requires clarification, I'll tell you why it's true: You don't take a muscle car on a public highway because you have the highest regard for traffic safety laws. You do that when you've got a wild hair up your ass, and the public highway is what you use to get your thrills. Slower and safer cars won't do it, but they are more than equally suitable for any practical transportation needs. While you're on that highway, you invade the space of other drivers with your aggressive maneuvers as they yield in terror while you pass at shocking speed, because that is what your lightning-quick acceleration is for when in traffic. Every day I have to deal with drivers who relish this power of intimidation, and it is plain to see their disregard for the safety of other people on the road! If you would deny any of the above, then maybe you're one of those assholes.

By the above, the muscle car is a breed which has no unique purpose for anything other than irresponsible thrill-seeking when used on public roads, and the causation of terror. Therefore, when used on public highways, Its. A. Weapon! More so than a shotgun is, which also has the unique use of putting avian food on one's table. A simple .22 is not practical for that.

How many people who own assault rifles (many which are non-repeating, but those who make our laws took no time to learn anything about guns before they wiped their dicks on the dotted line) actually carry them loaded on public highways, or loaded in any public places? I doubt those who do obey our laws anyway, and there are other reasons why they should not be at large.

I neither know nor care how many people own a specific type of a specific weapon.

Therefore, I do see a problem, but it's a practical one, not a logical one - fixed it for you.

You 'fixed' something that wasn't broken.  Well done.

However, the practical problem of confiscating weapons is no less a practical one, and liable to stir up more violence and death than it's worth. It simply isn't worth triggering our next civil war over.

Think it through:  If confiscating the guns is done properly, there won't BE a civil war.  

No offense, but how arrogant and simple are you to think this can be done without starting a war against an enemy which probably won't be much better organized than the Oregon morons, but numerous enough to cause death by at least the thousands? Americans are not Brits, they will resist, therefore they need to be dealt with delicately. They have the relative geographic factors on their side against any government which is dumb enough to go to their houses in the attempt to confiscate anything, they believe they are right because any such a policy violates their core values as Americans, and they are very determined to keep what they have.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I don't mean to take sides or anything but i do hope there is some statistical data that muscle cars kills more people than guns..?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't mean to take sides or anything but i do hope there is some statistical data that muscle cars kills more people than guns..?

It doesn't matter. Neither are going away any time soon.

[Minimalist]

Another asshole with a gun. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/po...story.html

Son wounds father when house alarm sounds

The second time the alarm rang, signaling an outside door was open, the 48-year-old man "stuck his arm around the corner and fired one round," the police report states. The bullet struck the man's 80-year-old father, who had stepped out the back door to urinate because his wife was in the bathroom, the report states.

Ah, 'Murrica!

[Gawdzilla]

Hey, it's Chicago.

[Minimalist]

Fair point because if the Chicago PD sees you pissing on the street 10 of them will blow you away.

[CapnAwesome]

I reject the notion that gun control worked well in Britiain. The murder rate didn't go down after the various gun control measures there. So by what standard did it work well? Britain has a lower murder rate then the US, but then it has a similarly lower murder rate before it had gun control as well. Britain has always had a lower murder rate then the US, regardless of it's gun control laws. I haven't seen any evidence that Britain's gun laws lowered the murder rate there. If it isn't causing less murders, what's the point?

If you can point to some figures which I could reference, I'd be very happy - frankly I've had to take the word of the anti-gunners here, who make the claim that violence is down where the guns are banned, and nobody else seems to have offered a denial, even though there are numerous gun owners on this site.

Yeah, easy. The main firearms act in England was in 1968, and the second important one was in 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_p...ed_Kingdom



Here is a chart with the UK homicide rate, you see a small but steady increase post 68, which was probably mostly due to a younger population and similarly 1988 homicide continues to rise. You don't see a real drop until recent years, when the homicide rate has dropped significantly in most developed countries and dramatically in the US despite the abundance of guns. What you don't see is any correlation between gun control and a drop in the murder rate. I'd love to see that evidence, but it's never presented. If banning guns really reduced murder, we'd see that evidence clear as day and every anti-gun person would be able to point to it. Instead the claim is just made that gun laws work without having to be backed up by evidence for some reason.

https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rat...abolished/