Strict gun control in france.

[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?