Gun thugs recognize no nation, no boundaries; they say laws are for the weak, for those who expect the police to protect them.
So how does that make them a thug for recognizing that law enforcement is not really capable of defending your life? If they, law enforcement, were then rapes, aggravated assaults, and homicide wouldn't exist if law enforcement was capable of doing those things. It just makes a person naive to think law enforcement is really that effective when you need them the most. There are real estate agents, especially women, who carry firearms, illegally, on them while showing houses, does it make them a gun thug for violating a states conceal carry laws?
I don't think so.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Echo what oldman13 said. I'd add no reason for anyone outside the military and police to have semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines.
Question - if no one in the civilian world is going to have these weapons then why should the police?
On a personal note:
This is not going to accomplish much of anything. The ones Canada sold only had five rounds. The guns used were from the USA and not only that he was never licensed to even own the ones that were legal in Canada to begin with. Does anyone really honestly think that banning these will really amount to much of anything in Canada?
This guy drove around for over 12 hours shooting at people. The primary reason for why he killed so many people was because he had 12 hours and he was impersonating law enforcement. Does anyone here really honestly think this could not be done with a muzzle loader if you had 12 hours and looked like law enforcement?
It worked in the US until Bush II let it expire I’m 2004. There were fewer mass shootings between 1994 and 2004 than before or after.
Chip Star - The assault weapon ban of 1994-2004 still allowed semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.
These were what was banned:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
In other other words if you had an AR-15 with detachable magazines and a grenade launcher but none of the other attachments it was legal. You tell me how important bayonet mounts, pistol grip, flash higher/threaded barrel, pistol grip or a telescoping stock is to commit a mass shooting.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
First off, the so called 'Iranian backed militias' are NOT 'from Iran', they are IRAQIS, who mobilized themselves in response to the IRAQI government calling on the IRAQI population to support the IRAQI military that the blitz attacks of the (formerly US supported) DAESH (can't remember if that was while they were being branded as the 'Free Syrian Army' or the 'prodemocracy Syrian rebels') was being handcuffed by.
They never claimed the militias were from Iran, just that they are primarily backed in terms of funding, armament, training, hierarchy in leadership to Iran. They are Iranian proxies whose loyalty is to the Iranian government. Also the Militias were Iran's idea that they presented to Iraq and offered to train, supply and provide leadership to.
Second of all, there units of the IRAQI GOVERNMENT ARMY don't need any encouragement by the Iranian trainers and military advisors (not political advisors, military officers who were trained in the doctrines and tactics of a military composed of both professional soldiers and volunteer militias) to conclude that the US military forces occupying their country in direct defiance of the will of the democratically elected Iraqi government are a danger to the Iraqi population, and the state of Iraq itself, the MURDER of their commanding officer alongside the MURDER of the man who grew up fighting off an Iraqi invasion of his country then turned around and did everything in his power to create a strong, independent IRAQ by turning its military into something strong enough to fight DAESH to a standstill without any American support did that.
Iran's objectives have always been to make the Iraqi government subservient to them. The idea that Iran would respect Iraqi independence is laughable. If the Iraqi government was to call for the disarmament and disbandment of these Militias you think Iran would be OK with that? It is like saying Iran's goal with Hezbollah is to secure Lebanese independence from both Iran and Israel. The goal is control Lebanon via Hezbollah.
Also Iranian forces were not able to free Iraq from Daesh. There is a reason why they didn't start to make any meaningful progress until after the US got involved with Air Support.
You are also blatantly ignoring the fact that these militias routinely slaughtered innocent sunnies while fighting Daesh.
A 2014 MOIS document lamented that, partly because Suleimani broadcasted his role as commander of many of the Iraqi Shia militias fighting ISIS, Iraqi Sunnis blamed the Iranian government for the persecution that many were suffering at the hands of these same forces. The document discussed a recent assault by Iran-backed forces against ISIS fighters in the Sunni farming community of Jurf al-Sakhar. The attack had included a number of Shia militia groups, including a notorious outfit known as Asaib ahl al-Haq. The militias succeeded in routing the Islamic State, but their victory soon gave way to a generalized slaughter of locals, transforming the sweetness of Iran’s triumph into “bitterness,” in the words of one case officer.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Given that the PM is totally dependent on the US for even becoming the PM, let alone being PM tomorrow, what he said should tell you how unpopular the American presence in Iraq is.
RichardPearce - Could you be anymore ignorant about Iraq? Iran is who calls the shots, not the USA. This has been well documented and known. Heck even the New York Times did a story about this not to long ago, the article is called the Iran Iraq Spy Cables about a month and half ago.
They also did another story about 10 days ago titled: Iraq in Worst Political Crisis in Years as Death Toll Mounts From Protests
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Several studies have shown that the presence of a gun in a house vastly increases the rate of domestic violence.
Laguna - Can you provide links to those studies that show having a gun increases the odds you will become a domestic abuser. I'm aware of studies that show having a gun increases how lethal the violence is but not aware of any study that says if you own a gun it increases the rate of violence from that person.
As long as gun culture is deemed more important than people's lives, the slaughter will continue.
Toasted Heretic - That is basically a requirement for anything to be legal, because as soon as you say one person is an acceptable cost for xyz to be legal you are basically saying that xyz is more important than people's lives.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Noliving, the Bush adminstration was warned not just by the Taliban but by the outgoing Clinton administration and the FBI repeatedly about an OBL attack, even stating that planes would be involved. This was all well before 9-11-01. The Bush people did nothing, why, they only cared about starting a war with Iraq for the oil there. So 9-11 did happen due to complete failure by the Bush people leading to two wars and hundreds of thousands dead. The ME is still screwed up due to the Bush failed wars.
So what? How does any of that justify the Taliban not handing over Bin Laden? They knew themselves he was planning on attacking the USA. That alone should have been enough to arrest him and AQ before 9/11 and hold him and try him in their own courts for violating their own laws if they weren't comfortable with USA court system before 9/11.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This is a lie and show once again how right wing groups make up their own facts to serve their flawed story lines The fact it that after and even before 9-11 the Taliban offered OBL to the USA asking that he receive a trial
So in other words from your own source the Taliban knew Bin Laden was going to attack the USA before 9/11 but still refused to hand him over.
According to the BBC, the Taliban later even warned the U.S. that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil. Former Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil said his warnings, issued because of concerns that the U.S. would react by waging war against Afghanistan, had been ignored.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
If Beijing oversteps, the people will simply flee, and Beijing will be left with a pile of rocks. And they know this
Yeah because it is not like mainland China doesn't have anyone to move to Hong Kong.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The only possible way I can see this happening is if the suitcase is one he doesn't normally travel, via airline flights, with. Earlier this year I almost traveled with a six inch blade in the bag I was planning on using as a carry on simply because it isn't a bag I ever traveled with.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
The Japanese people are not going to go the way of the Dodo. Think that through - all Japanese people would have to stop having sex for that to happen. Japanese people are humans too. That's just not going to happen.
Strangerland - Actually a population can go extinct even if it is having sex. In order for the population to survive each woman would have to have on average 2.1 kids. Anything less than that will cause the population shrink.
For example lets say you have a population of 16 people forming 8 couples and each couple only has 1 child. The next generation will only be 8 people, those 8 people form 4 couples, each couple only has one child, that makes the next generation only 4 people, which forms 2 couples and each couple has one child which leaves you with two kids and those two kids become a couple and only have one kid which results in the end of a population of one person.
As long as Japanese use birth control while having sex and only have one child per woman you will see the population begin to shrink to the point it will eventually go extinct.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
You guys have been equating morality with the law forever.
No I haven't, as that is not something I think.
Yes you have, I don't have the patience nor the time to go through years of your post history to get the comment(s) stating civilians should be prohibited from owning firearms.
Of course, they'll be criminals working against the better interests of society. Why are you so soft on crime?
Because I believe in general that when tens of millions of people own or use a product for the purpose of recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying from said product that it is acceptable. Further to the point I don't think it is unacceptable to acknowledge that human life is a necessary cost to be able to enjoy the pleasures of life. If the only acceptable cost to be able to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero then we are all going to live very boring lives.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Make them illegal. Many people will voluntarily surrender them.
2020hindsight - The amount of cognitive dissonance in this quote is just astounding. Making possession of something illegal means you are forcing people to surrender or face the penalty of law, it doesn't matter if you give them a grace period to surrender or not because you are still going to penalize them if they don't surrender it by the end of the grace period if they haven't surrendered. The only time handing in guns would be voluntary is if there is no law on the books making possession illegal. To suggest anything else is a lie.
I have been arguing with Strangerland on this issue since at least 2012 and he has in the past stated that all firearm ownership should be made illegal.
If you still want to argue the point then consider this thought: President Trump gives Muslims in the USA five years to convert to Christianity or face jail. Would you say Muslims converting during those five years was voluntary? I sure as hell wouldn't.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
The overwhelming majority of Americans are not doing drugs nor using prostitutes. Seems it works pretty well.
You are the only one who claims the drug war has been a success.
Um, ok. let's see below:
If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns.
I didn't say anything about taking people's guns.
So making something illegal is not saying you are going to take it away? Yeah I can't say that I agree with that.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
The overwhelmingly large number of Americans are law-abiding. If you change the law to make their guns illegal, the law-abiding Americans will turn in their guns. Then you leave an open amnesty for five years, while arresting and imprisoning those caught with firearms. The more people holding illegal firearms see others being arrested for it, the more will turn them in.
Strangerland - Didn't work for drugs or prostitution in the USA, why would it work for guns in the USA? Already we are seeing mass civil disobedience/non-compliance with turning in magazine above a certain capacity in New Jersey, Colorado, California and Connecticut. Same with Assault Weapon Bans. No one is handing them in those states where they are prohibited from ownership.
We are already seeing a push in county sheriffs refusing to enforce such laws as well.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Why a civilian would need a semi-automatic weapon continues to baffle. If someone is a hunter and needs to rapid-fire multiple rounds to kill whatever animal being hunted, it suggests they're a poor marksman and should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind to hunt.
The need is their versatility, they are effective for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. Boar hunting is a need for these weapons in the USA for example, they are an invasive species and if you don't have have a semi-automatic you will most likely not be able to effective in eradicating them.
Plus need is not a requirement in order to own and use products for non-malicious reasons. I mean unless you are claiming that wants should be prohibited and the only things people should be allowed to own or use are needs then I just don't see the point of the question of "Why do you need XYZ?"
Finally I personally believe that the amount of people, tens of millions, in the USA who own firearms either for hunting, target shooting, or just on principle self defense, outweigh the 100k people who are killed or injured by guns in the USA. That extends beyond firearms as well. I personally believe that whenever you have tens of millions of people who own a product, purchase a service, etc for non-malicious reasons that it outweighs, 100k people being harmed by it.
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
Based off of what I'm reading in the comments I'm just glad their North American subsidiary PurePoint Financial doesn't have these problems.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Oh, yes! It's obviously working well in the US. (roll eyes) In the last 50 years since 1968 when they started to keep records, more people have been killed in domestic gun violence then were killed in all of the wars the US participated in over the last century.
@Disillusioned - That is not unique to firearms in the USA, Alcohol for example kills an estimated 80-90k per year. In one decade Alcohol will kill more people than all the Americans killed in wars since the founding of the country.
Heck accidental falls kill around 33k people each year in the USA, more people have died in the past 50 years from accidental falls in the USA than Americans have been killed in war since the country was founded.
Over 47k+ die each year from unintentional/accidental poisoning in the USA.
Cars have killed more people in the USA since 1968 than all the Americans killed in all of the wars since the founding of the country.
STDs routinely kill 30k+ in the USA each year, in fact HIV will kill more people in the USA than all homicides by all weapon types in the USA.
The USA is a nation of 2-3 million deaths annually each year when you tally up all individual causes of death. Firearms at most make up 1.5% of all deaths in the USA each year.
At present, there are around 35,000 people killed every year in the US through gun violence, 60% of which are suicides, 10% accidental (mostly children) and the other 30% are gun related crime. I think Japan would change drastically for the worse if gun ownership restrictions were lifted.
I disagree that Japan would change drastically worse if gun ownership restrictions were lifted. There is a reason that violent crimes using weapon types that are just as accessible in Japan as they are in the USA are at lower levels: Knives, Fists and Feat, Poisons, Arson, etc.
If it was honestly primarily due to gun control laws then why do we not see all other weapon types per capita rates not at similar levels if not greater than the the USA? I mean the per capita homicide rate using the weapon type Hands/Feet is basically the same if not higher in the USA than the entire homicide rate of Japan when all weapon types are combined.
Personally, I see no reason why anybody needs to own a gun.
So what? Unless you are claiming that wants should be prohibited and the only things people should be allowed to own or experience in life are needs then there really is no point to the statement of "****I see no reason why anybody needs to own XYZ"
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Then why would it be needed over life imprisonment ?
Because you have no intention of reforming the person and or letting them out of jail ever again.
That's the way to honor them ? Not having a ceremony in their memory ? Naming a building in their honor ? Passing a law ? Planting a tree, light a candle, or show any sign of love towards them ?
Yes that is the way to honor them. If ceremonies in their memory, having a building named after you, planting a tree, and having a candle light vigial was all that was needed then why not just have the perp plant a tree and let them go.....
Passing what law? It is already illegal what they did. do you mean to say stiffen the penalties? Well in that case I would refer you to your argument that stiffening the penalties won't bring them back, make you forget, ease your pain, etc...
What if their killer is never found or killed himself ? Are the victims dishonored for eternity ?
In the first case yes, in the second case possibly.
No, because first : I'm not a monster. Second : I'm against the death penalty, not long prison sentences. And third : I also think that 5 years for a murder is a joke.
First if you believe what you think but are too afraid to express those thoughts directly to the victim/victim's family it just means you are cowardly monster; but longer prison sentences won't bring back their loved one, it won't ease their pain, it won't make them forget, or process, or understand, etc..
Right it is a joke to you because you think it is slap to the memory of the person who died.
But, if a killer is not executed, he may one day express regret and ask for forgiveness, which may be more significant to the family of the victim than anything else.
They already do that during court when they say their sorry for the crime to the family after they have been committed. Has a tendency to come off as insincere, especially later when it is prompted right before their execution.
And seeing your arguments, I'm curious to know what you think of families of victim who don't want the death penalty for the killer ? Are they dishonoring the victim or something ?
Depends upon the circumstance, if we are talking an accident or manslaughter no, but if you are talking along the lines of something that happened to Dr William Petit's family I would say yes.
Yes they are. That's why justice is supposed to be blind. To give a just sentence, no matter the emotion behind.
No they are not. See the key word there is no matter the emotion behind it. If the emotion behind it and the "Just Sentence" line up guess what you had? Revenge and Justice, you can have both at the same time.
Is it? I don't believe any western systems are build on the principle of an eye for an eye. Where are you getting that from?
@Strangerland - Yes, if I did 5,000 dollars in property damage you would want $5,000, and chances are you would not be opposed to punitive damages on top of it. If so that is eye for an eye.
If I was to murder someone in cold blood would you be opposed to a life sentence? In a way isn't a life sentence basically saying your life has been forfeit? You make them suffer for the rest of their life rotting in a jail with no freedom.....It is almost like you want them to suffer.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
For the millionth time : american cars don't sell because american cars suck !!! Why would europeans buy the cars with the lowest performances ? If you want to sell, more cars in Europe, work on that first.
Actually Ford was the second best selling and GM was the fifth best selling brand in Europe up until last year when they sold Opel. Toyota was the 10th best selling, Honda was 20th and Nissan was 13th. American brand sell better than you think.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It cost more than imprisonment, it doesn't reduce crime,
That is only because of the guranteed appeals. It doesn't have to reduce crime. Most punishments are handed down to deter the offender not to deter society. With death penalties there really is no point in detering the perp.
As for the family of the victim, this is harsh, but executing someone will not bring their loved one back, nor will it ease their pain, or make them forget, or process, or understand, etc...
Do you honestly think the victim's family doesn't know that that executing someone or sentencing someone to life without parole doesn't bring their loved ones back? Of course they know that, the whole point of these punishments is to honor what the victims suffered and to honor what they are worth.
Perfect example of this is Nicola Furlong, murdered in Japan by Richard Hinds. Japanese court hands down 5 year sentence, the victims family claims that Nicola life was worth more than that. Are you going to be the first one in line to tell her family that a longer prison sentence won't bring her back, nor ease their pain, or make them forget, or process, or understand, etc...?
I doubt you have balls to repeat the samething to Dr William Petit, if you don't know about what he had to suffer through you might want to check. Quite frankly you could take the above quote and apply it to any judicial punishment.
And if it is revenge they seek, well, revenge is not justice.
Revenge and Justice are not mutually exclusive.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
It won't bring the poor victim back.
@Toasted - So what? Where does it say it has to bring the victim back? Life sentences also don't bring back victims, does that mean we shouldn't do life sentences or other very long prison terms because they don't bring back the victim?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Somehow, I suspect that the days of the last surviving Apartheid regime occupying a part of Syria are drawing to a close. Maybe even the days of it occupying part of Lebanon, and using Lebanese air space to commit acts of war, too. And somehow, protecting the sovereignty of democracies from the Israeli regime will be deemed 'agression' and 'unacceptable' by the usual suspects.
@RichardPearce - Lets say war breaks out and Iran wins and conquers Israel. What would happen to the citizens of Israel? Do you think a mass execution would take place? Do you think the Israelis believe that a mass execution would take place if they were to lose the war?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Help was going by the book and waiting for appropriate backup to arrive.
@maybeperhapsyes - I'm not so sure about that, ever since columbine it has been common knowledge and training among law enforcement that you don't wait for backup. You immediately engage the attacker as soon as you arrive on the scene.
The father should be suing the NRA and gun manufacturers but Bush introduced law to prevent that from happening.
@zichi - For what? For selling legal products? Unless you have any evidence that the seller of the firearm knew the buyer was prohibited you don't really have a case. Gun manufacturers don't directly sell to customers.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
So unarmed protesters with stones...and one of the worlds best equipped armies with live fire snipers, air support and satellites means Hamas are human rights abusers?
Well it is obvious that they are not mutually exclusive.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The article fails to correctly identify the caravan as an annual event that has been occurring since 2010. Eight years without any conservative outrage.
This is Mexico's right as a soveirgn state.
@Tommy Jones - It is Mexico's right as a sovereign state, but at the same time you can't possible expect the USA, or any nation for that matter, to just accept the fact that their neighbor is purposely allowing migrants to travel through their country so that they can illegally cross the border with their neighbor.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Let's take just the families of those killed in the recent Las Vegas shooting. You're saying the families of the 58 dead were irrational to hold funerals? They should ignore the deaths? Because the chance of dying at an open-air concert at the hands of a gun-totin mass murderer is (in your mind) slightly less than the chance of dying in some other, totally avoidable, way? They should just shrug their shoulders and move on?
@Cleo - No one is irrational to hold a funeral for someone who has recently died, I took your statement of "irrational funeral" as a euphemism to mean irrational fear. Which I stand by and the answer to your question is yes, if they can tolerate the other causes of death that have a higher risk of causing injury and or death, then yes they should tolerate this death. If they can't they need to come up with practical reasons for why a person killed by a gun is worth more or is more important than people who die from other causes of death to such an extent that they want resources to be diverted to the point where that diversion of resources gets more people killed then the amount of lives saved by going after gun deaths.
I'm a diehard dog lover, no one in their right mind would call me 'irrationally afraid' of dogs, yet I would not walk up to a strange dog and attempt to pet it without the owner's permission. It might be a biter.
@Cleo - That is not the same as never approaching a strange dog. If you were to say you would never ever approach a strange dog under any circumstances that would be an irrational fear.
The chance of being shot and killed in America is way, way higher than the possibility of being attacked and killed by a pet dog.
@Cleo - Relatively yes but then again the odds of being shot and killed in the USA on an annual basis is one hundredth of one percent. Either you believe a one hundredth of one percent chance of being killed in general is too high to own a product for recreation and or enjoy a hobby or you don't. I would argue that those who claim a one hundredth of one percent chance of being killed by something that 32-50% of the adult population owns is too high of a risk are being irrational.
They are shooting guns. Guns are made to kill. They are practicing to kill. Proved.
@Strangerland - Nope you haven't proved it. Again all you are doing is lazy conflation and being small minded. You are conflating that if a product is designed to do X that everyone who owns and uses that product must mean that the motive behind the ownership and usage is always X. Again products have multiple uses outside of what they were originally designed for, guns are no exception. Denying that is just small mindedness on your part.
Are you claiming that Japanese tourists who go to gun ranges in Hawaii or in Las Vegas are there so they can practice killing? If you are then I don't agree with that.
The difference being that the products and activities I engage in have some benefit to society, and their primary goal is not anti-societal. Guns provide no benefit to society, and their primary goal is anti-societal.
@Strangerland - Facts say other wise, civilian ownership of firearms provides jobs in manufacturing, retail, and gun ranges. They generate tax revenue for the government and at the same time provide a relatively safe hobby for people to enjoy and they provide opportunities for people to socialize, especially at gun ranges.
Target shooting also offers a sport that people with physical disabilities can directly compete against people that don't have such disabilities. There are not exactly a lot of sports that allow people with disabilities to directly compete against those that don't have disabilities.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Need to make a correction, it should be the below:
@Strangerland - Of course it is grandstanding, in order for it to be not be grandstanding you have to be claiming that you don't own any products or engage in any activities that either directly or indirectly increase other people's risk, much less your own, from injury or death.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Good for you, and good for those people.
Guns need to be banned. Period.
@Strangerland - Yes it is good for me and good for those people. Otherwise everything that people do for fun would be banned. No guns don't need to be banned, heck even the UK, Australia and Japan agree that guns don't need to be banned.
Good for them. That doesn't change the fact that they are practicing killing
@Strangerland - Prove it.
Again all your doing is just being lazy by conflating that if a hobby improves the proficiency of someone to be able to murder or assault someone that it means the motive behind why they enjoy that hobby is because they want to maliciously murder or assault people.
Nope. Just pointing out an argument you don't like to hear, because there is no argument against it, as shown by your lack of an argument against it.
@Strangerland - Of course it is grandstanding, in order for it to be not be grandstanding you have to be claiming that you don't own any products or engage in any activities that either directly or indirectly don't increase other people's risk, much less your own, from injury or death. Which we both know isn't true, and not only do we know it isn't true we also both know that you don't consciously make sure that every single decision or action that you take every single day isn't minimizing the risk to yourself or other people from injury or death to its absolute fullest.
Correction, hundreds of millions of people pretend that they are using guns as something other than tools for murder.
@Strangerland - Statistics prove your conjecture to be false.
A lie is a mistruth spoken with intent to deceive. I'm simply pointing out the truth. You don't like it.
@Strangerland - No you are not pointing out any truths, what you are doing is speaking in conjecture that is based off of lazy conflation and small mindedness.
Sorry, but all your arguments fail, because there is one point that they cannot counter:
Guns are made to kill. Guns kill. Guns are anti-societal and have no place in a modern society (which is why they are still allowed in the US).
@Strangerland - I don't have to change the fact that guns were originally designed to kill nor do I have to refute that. All I have to do is show that there are other non-killing uses for firearms and that people use them for those other non-killing uses. I can show you right now hundreds of millions of people around the world use firearms and don't murder nor assault anyone on an annual basis. I can show you right now that literally over 99.9% of gun owners in the USA don't kill or assault anyone on an annual basis.
Then adding the danger of being shot by a criminal/looney/someone in a bad mood/someone afraid of strangers is surely irrational.
@Cleo - How much is the added danger? is one hundredth of one percent? Is it one percent? I would say if it is like 1% increase annually I would say it is irrational. If the only acceptable increase in risk for people to own anything is zero then we are all going to live very boring lives.
Would you argue that each year tens of thousands of families in the US hold irrational funerals?
@Cleo - Absolutely YES! Just like I would argue those that are afraid to get into cars because of the fear of being injured or killed by a car is irrational or those that refuse to get on Airplanes are being irrational. Heck I would say that those that refuse to engage in casual sex because they are afraid of getting HIV even though they have condoms are irrational as well. I would say that those who refuse to drink Alcohol solely because they are afraid of the two hundredths of one percent increase in risk of being killed because of their or someone else's intoxication is irrational.
If the aim is sincerely target shooting, they could use BB guns or paint guns or even water pistols. It's the thrill of shooting real bullets that they get off on, that makes them want lethal weapons.
@Cleo - Yes it is the thrill of using the real thing that they get off on, nothing wrong with wanting to use the real thing for recreational target shooting.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I'm not claiming that. Only that guns should be prohibited as they are killing machines, that the general public has no need to own.
@Strangerland - I can't say that I believe you. I have debated so many times with people who basically claim that you don't need xyz therefore you shouldn't be allowed to own or use xyz. Well unless that person is claiming that all wants should be prohibited and people should only be allowed to own needs then there is really no point to the whole "well you don't need xyz" statement.
Wrong. They are all practicing killing.
Prove it. Literally over 99.9% of gun owners in the USA don't murder anyone on an annual basis in the USA. Prove through peer review studies that show that even a simple majority of gun owners when they target shoot the motive is because they want to kill people. Are you claiming that all of the Japanese tourists when they go to a gun range their motive is because they want to kill people? How about tourists from other countries like Australia are they going to american gun ranges so they can practice killing?
Two hundredths of a percent more than should be able to.
So grandstanding is your argument.
Seeing as guns are tools for murder, any conversion rate above zero is anti-societal.
To you they are but to hundreds of millions of people around the world they are not just tools for murder.
They are practicing murder.
Sorry they are not, once again you are just being lazy. You are conflating that if someone enjoys a hobby and because that hobby could also increase someone's ability/proficiency to murder or assault someone that the motive behind why the enjoy the hobby is because they want to hurt someone maliciously.
Again are you claiming that all people, or just a simple majority of those who practice martial arts are people who want to beat other people up? Are you claiming that those enjoy the sport of fencing are really just people who want to go around and stab other people maliciously? Are you claiming that people who enjoy archery are really just people who want to shoot other people with arrows maliciously? If the answer is no to the above then why should gun owners be any different?
Sorry to point out to the whole world that you are wrong, right here in public, but you can try to pretend guns are something other than killing machines all you want, the rest of us aren't stupid enough to fall for that though.
Unless you have a peer review study that shows that a simple majority of gun owners own firearms so that one day they can maliciously murder someone then you are just simply lying about the motivations behind why the vast majority of gun owners own firearms.
Do you disagree with the following statistic:
Over 99% of gun owners in the USA don't kill anyone much less themselves on an annual basis.
Is the above statement a statistical fact or a lie?
0 ( +2 / -2 )