gun population I said, not human population... There are an estimated 270-310 mil guns in circulation...obviously some people own more than 1...my ex father in law had about 30 and delighted in showing them to me with a glint in his eye.
stop trolling :D
Wait, what? Are you blaming the guns for the accidents. :lol:
Wait, what? Are you blaming the guns for the accidents. :lol:
No..where did you get that idea?...a few people (you included) alluded to the fact you're more at risk of being shot if you own a gun...THAT is blaming the guns ;).
If you are a responsible gun owner it's not an issue ;)
The number of gun accidents versus the number of guns in circulation is miniscule...obviously that also reflects on the humans that own them...
Thanks for making my point though...guns are not the problem here ;)
Wait, what? Are you blaming the guns for the accidents. :lol:
No..where did you get that idea?...a few people (you included) alluded to the fact your more at risk of being shot if you own a gun...THAT is blaming the guns ;).
If you are a responsible gun owner it's not an issue ;)
The number of gun accidents versus the number of guns in circulation is miniscule...obviously that also reflects on the humans that own them...
Guns in circulation isn't the number your looking for its the number of people operating them. Of course 30 guns locked away arnt going to hurt people.
Guns in circulation isn't the number your looking for its the number of people operating them. Of course 30 guns locked away arnt going to hurt people.
Wasn't the argument regarding the risk of accidental death by gun?...obviously the number of guns would increase that risk would it not?...so yes, the number of guns is important...if only 2 were in circulation there wouldn't be 600 "accidents"...
If you own 30 guns doesn't the risk increase over if you only owned 1?
But lets go with your argument...600 accidental deaths out of tens of millions of gun owners...still a miniscule % ;)
Wasn't the argument regarding the risk of accidental death by gun?...obviously the number of guns would increase that risk would it not?...so yes, the number of guns is important...if only 2 were in circulation there wouldn't be 600 "accidents"...
If you own 30 guns doesn't the risk increase over if you only owned 1?
But lets go with your argument...600 accidental deaths out of tens of millions of gun owners...still a miniscule % ;)
Still almost two a day, if they got headline news every day. Would it still be rare?
Still almost two a day, if they got headline news every day. Would it still be rare?
Yep, being in the daily mail doesn't change the fact it's rare...actual news being a rarity itself in that rag. :lol:
BTW regarding the 30 gun thing.
Guns (you may not be aware of) need regular maintenance...cleaning/oiling even if they are not used...so they don't stay "locked up in a cupboard"...they have to be taken out and cleaned etc. You are thereby increasing the risk of an accident vs only owning/cleaning 1 gun. So again, the number of guns is an important factor.
Yep, being in the daily mail doesn't change the fact it's rare...actual news being a rarity itself in that rag. :lol:
BTW regarding the 30 gun thing.
Guns (you may not be aware of) need regular maintenance...cleaning/oiling even if they are not used...so they don't stay "locked up"...they have to be taken out and cleaned etc. You are thereby increasing the risk of an accident vs only owning/cleaning 1 gun. So again, the number of guns is an important factor.
Well sometimes, in a rifle for example you have to check the bolt is functional..that works best if you stick a bullet in it.
But risk comes from human error..(which humans often do)...re: you left a bullet it in it last time you used it...
Home defense guns obviously need to be loaded at all times too (except when cleaning ;) ).
Risk is increased the number of times you have to take your gun out of the cupboard for a variety of reasons, not just leaving a bullet in it, basic logic if you believe gun ownership comes with additional risk.
My wife and I own 3 rifles. They are only ever used for target practice, either at a range or on my father-in-laws land. Don't do it very often though. Of course accidents can happen with guns, people need to be trained how to use and store them safely. I don't think a kid that young should have been using an uzi though, that's crazy. The amount of accidents is minuscule compared to how many guns are in this country though. If you think about it accidents can happen with guns just as they can happen with using a chainsaw or walking up and down a flight of stairs. I do wish there was a better way of keeping them out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental problems.
I am not a gun nut or anything. I get annoyed when Americans think it would be the end of the world if they were not able to own a gun. There are so many countries in the world where it is difficult to own a gun legally and they are doing just as well, if not better than the US in so many ways.
Though the fact people make their own ammo (my ex father in law did) kind of limits it's effectiveness, unless they licensed/outlawed that too.
Well obviously anything can be be achieved if someone really wants to. You could make a flintlock pistol and your own gunpowder etc if you were really desperate :)
Gun control isn't something that's ever going to be practical in a country like the US where there are already millions of guns and lots of ammo in circulation. Clearly you can't just stop manufacturing handgun ammo etc because the police need it, and they can't disarm while there are still guns and ammo in the hands of criminals.
Yeah, fair enough. I'm sure I read there's one European country where every man above 21 has to own a gun by law, and that country has one of the lowest gun death rates (so I guess I should take back what I said about more guns always = more deaths). Can't remember where is was, some Scandinavian country I think.
I think it's Switzerland which has a very large standing army and is fiercely independent and democratic. Private ownership of guns is very common as (I think) much of the citizenry is expected to form a militia if the country is invaded. Gun violence is also very low although I'm not sure if it's the lowest in Europe.
Unfortunately this does suggest there could be some kind of 'American gene' which makes them all gun crazy maniacs though, which not a reasonable argument(?!)
America is probably the most multi-racial country on the planet so I very much doubt it. I think the problem is cultural and deep-rooted. A lot of it has to do with the United States' troubled history (it's a revolutionary country, it nearly collapsed in the mid 19th century during a civil war, a lot of it was built through frontier towns in very dangerous environments where being armed really was essential) which created cultural norms which have never gone away. There's also the issue of race and class (South Africa is another country with high gun crime and homicide rates and a middle and upper class who feel the need to arm themselves and live in gated communities) and the suspicion and antagonisation that comes out of it - we've seen a recent example of that with the police shootings in the US where, unsurprisingly, assumptions of who was in the wrong and who was in the right fell along race and class lines. Funny that.
If you think about it accidents can happen with guns just as they can happen with using a chainsaw or walking up and down a flight of stairs. I do wish there was a better way of keeping them out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental problems.
Yes, its the same as a accident with chainsaw, because people clean running chainsaws. And if you fall down the stairs its the same as killing someone (e.g. your wife) with a headshot.
By the way, every burglar who break into your home, will be then in posession of three nice guns without a serial number leading the criminal police to him. Thats very nice from you...
The best way to keeping mentaly ill and criminals from firearms is to disallow their posession to everyone.
By the way: Poor girl, idiotic parents, and stupid instructor... thats USAnistan!
Yes, its the same as a accident with chainsaw, because people clean running chainsaws. And if you fall down the stairs its the same as killing someone (e.g. your wife) with a headshot.
By the way, every burglar who break into your home, will be then in posession of three nice guns without a serial number leading the criminal police to him. Thats very nice from you...
The best way to keeping mentaly ill and criminals from firearms is to disallow their posession to everyone.
By the way: Poor girl, idiotic parents, and stupid instructor... thats USAnistan!
It is quite common for a chainsaw to kick back from the wood and hit the body by the way. I'm not talking about somebody cleaning a running chainsaw! :roll: And I was talking about "accidents" not intentional killing. Obviously having a gun makes it much easier to do that. I am not on either side of the argument anyway, as it is an argument that cannot be won. If you take the guns away from everybody, criminals will still be able to get them and ordinary people are not able to defend themselves with a gun. If you let everbody have them people can have them for self defense but there are more accidents and it easier for the wrong people to get them.
...and there's the DHSS to fall back on if I can't work...
This shows that you haven't been a benefit [strike]scrounger[/strike] claimant for quite a while. :) They haven't been the DHSS for years now; they split quite a while back into the DoH (or the "D'oh!" as GPs pronounced it) and the DSS, and those have both renamed to the DH and the DWP (whom I sometimes call the Department of ******s and Pricks) respectively.
I never make misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs — oh, sod it.
DSS to DWP wasn't just a rename. The Jobcentre and Unemployment Benefit Office had formerly merged, and this organisation was merged with DSS to become DWP. Previously, the dole office and DSS were not linked. I was a ****** for 19 years.
Not really, with 300 million in circulation disallowing firearms wouldn't help at all as the mentally ill/criminals don't tend to care about the law.
As mentioned prohibition was a great example of that failed logic.
And every burglar can get your own ("clean") weapon, selling it to mentally ill. And there are nice uses for legal weapons: killing wife, kids, some judges, executer etc.
...and ordinary people are not able to defend themselves with a gun. If you let everbody have them people can have them for self defense but there are more accidents and it easier for the wrong people to get them.
Fine, but pointing a weapon at someone who has firearms himself will cause big troubles: he has the right do defend himself. The faster amd more experienced will win. And guess who will it be.
Not carrying weapons can extend your life span.
Fine, but pointing a weapon at someone who has firearms himself will cause big troubles: he has the right do defend himself. The faster amd more experienced will win. And guess who will it be.
Not carrying weapons can extend your life span.
We seem to have touched a nerve here with you. I used to think more like you until I lived here and now can see both sides of the argument. Which, as I mentioned before is an argument that cannot be won by either side. Not something I really want to argue over anyway.
Comments
Hollow-points don't tend to ;)
And btw, you need to have training/pass a class/have a license to conceal carry.
Wait, what? Are you blaming the guns for the accidents. :lol:
No..where did you get that idea?...a few people (you included) alluded to the fact you're more at risk of being shot if you own a gun...THAT is blaming the guns ;).
If you are a responsible gun owner it's not an issue ;)
The number of gun accidents versus the number of guns in circulation is miniscule...obviously that also reflects on the humans that own them...
Thanks for making my point though...guns are not the problem here ;)
(too many winking emotes I think)
Firearms officers dont get onto the scene until its too late...
Guns in circulation isn't the number your looking for its the number of people operating them. Of course 30 guns locked away arnt going to hurt people.
Wasn't the argument regarding the risk of accidental death by gun?...obviously the number of guns would increase that risk would it not?...so yes, the number of guns is important...if only 2 were in circulation there wouldn't be 600 "accidents"...
If you own 30 guns doesn't the risk increase over if you only owned 1?
But lets go with your argument...600 accidental deaths out of tens of millions of gun owners...still a miniscule % ;)
Still almost two a day, if they got headline news every day. Would it still be rare?
Yep, being in the daily mail doesn't change the fact it's rare...actual news being a rarity itself in that rag. :lol:
BTW regarding the 30 gun thing.
Guns (you may not be aware of) need regular maintenance...cleaning/oiling even if they are not used...so they don't stay "locked up in a cupboard"...they have to be taken out and cleaned etc. You are thereby increasing the risk of an accident vs only owning/cleaning 1 gun. So again, the number of guns is an important factor.
You need to load guns to clean them?
You shouldn't own guns. :-D
You shouldn't own guns. :-D
Well sometimes, in a rifle for example you have to check the bolt is functional..that works best if you stick a bullet in it.
But risk comes from human error..(which humans often do)...re: you left a bullet it in it last time you used it...
Home defense guns obviously need to be loaded at all times too (except when cleaning ;) ).
Risk is increased the number of times you have to take your gun out of the cupboard for a variety of reasons, not just leaving a bullet in it, basic logic if you believe gun ownership comes with additional risk.
The best way to stop people using them to shoot each other is to keep anyone from getting their hands on ammunition ;)
The best way to stop people using them to shoot each other is to keep anyone from getting their hands on ammunition ;)
They've been talking about serializing ammo for a while over here now. The gun nuts are dead set against it...I see no problem with it myself.
Though the fact people make their own ammo (my ex father in law did) kind of limits it's effectiveness, unless they licensed/outlawed that too.
And every European should have the holes in their salt shaker limited to 3...oh wait, they already do :lol:
I am not a gun nut or anything. I get annoyed when Americans think it would be the end of the world if they were not able to own a gun. There are so many countries in the world where it is difficult to own a gun legally and they are doing just as well, if not better than the US in so many ways.
Well obviously anything can be be achieved if someone really wants to. You could make a flintlock pistol and your own gunpowder etc if you were really desperate :)
Gun control isn't something that's ever going to be practical in a country like the US where there are already millions of guns and lots of ammo in circulation. Clearly you can't just stop manufacturing handgun ammo etc because the police need it, and they can't disarm while there are still guns and ammo in the hands of criminals.
Alternatively
I think it's Switzerland which has a very large standing army and is fiercely independent and democratic. Private ownership of guns is very common as (I think) much of the citizenry is expected to form a militia if the country is invaded. Gun violence is also very low although I'm not sure if it's the lowest in Europe.
America is probably the most multi-racial country on the planet so I very much doubt it. I think the problem is cultural and deep-rooted. A lot of it has to do with the United States' troubled history (it's a revolutionary country, it nearly collapsed in the mid 19th century during a civil war, a lot of it was built through frontier towns in very dangerous environments where being armed really was essential) which created cultural norms which have never gone away. There's also the issue of race and class (South Africa is another country with high gun crime and homicide rates and a middle and upper class who feel the need to arm themselves and live in gated communities) and the suspicion and antagonisation that comes out of it - we've seen a recent example of that with the police shootings in the US where, unsurprisingly, assumptions of who was in the wrong and who was in the right fell along race and class lines. Funny that.
By the way, every burglar who break into your home, will be then in posession of three nice guns without a serial number leading the criminal police to him. Thats very nice from you...
The best way to keeping mentaly ill and criminals from firearms is to disallow their posession to everyone.
By the way: Poor girl, idiotic parents, and stupid instructor... thats USAnistan!
Not really, with 300 million in circulation disallowing firearms wouldn't help at all as the mentally ill/criminals don't tend to care about the law.
As mentioned prohibition was a great example of that failed logic.
It is quite common for a chainsaw to kick back from the wood and hit the body by the way. I'm not talking about somebody cleaning a running chainsaw! :roll: And I was talking about "accidents" not intentional killing. Obviously having a gun makes it much easier to do that. I am not on either side of the argument anyway, as it is an argument that cannot be won. If you take the guns away from everybody, criminals will still be able to get them and ordinary people are not able to defend themselves with a gun. If you let everbody have them people can have them for self defense but there are more accidents and it easier for the wrong people to get them.
What if you were attacked by panserbjorne? :p :D
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.This shows that you haven't been a benefit [strike]scrounger[/strike] claimant for quite a while. :) They haven't been the DHSS for years now; they split quite a while back into the DoH (or the "D'oh!" as GPs pronounced it) and the DSS, and those have both renamed to the DH and the DWP (whom I sometimes call the Department of ******s and Pricks) respectively.
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.Not carrying weapons can extend your life span.
We seem to have touched a nerve here with you. I used to think more like you until I lived here and now can see both sides of the argument. Which, as I mentioned before is an argument that cannot be won by either side. Not something I really want to argue over anyway.