Red1966
Well-Known Member
The man you've been fawning over rejoices in the death of children. So you might understand my lack of respect for you.
Another shooting in a Maryland Mall
- Thread starter canndo
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
That is kind of a silly statement. "if you outlaw pot, only outlaws will have pot", What makes a criminal is a law. Now ask those who properly own guns now if they would give up their fireams. Most will not, in essence, nothing will change except that there will be plenty more outlaws. The presumption that law abiding citizens will give up their weapons if told to do so is a nonsensical one. In short, the laws that don't keep criminals from getting weapons will not induce others to give up thers.
canndo
Well-Known Member
This is also a silly gun nut argument. no, guns don't often klll people on their own, but people are far more capable of killing far more people with a firearm than those who don't have them. guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill far more than people with knives, bats, bricks or even bombs. Some of these bumper sticker comments are mindless.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
re·joice
riˈjois/
verb
verb: rejoice; 3rd person present: rejoices; past tense: rejoiced; past participle: rejoiced; gerund or present participle: rejoicing
1.
feel or show great joy or delight.
mock
mäk/
verb
verb: mock; 3rd person present: mocks; past tense: mocked; past participle: mocked; gerund or present participle: mocking
1.
tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Bullshit. taking away the "right" to own a gun in this country will make no difference. Those that have them will continue to have them, criminals or not. Because a law is not 100 percent effective s no reason to get rid of the law. It is illegal to kill people in this country, there is a law against it. How many times has that law actually had an effect? But we still have that law on the books. Laws rarely deter people from crime, they only punish after the fact.
theexpress
Well-Known Member
Red1966
Well-Known Member
In Sweden, every male over the age of 18 is required to accept, keep, and maintain a fully automatic assault rifle in their home. The murder rate in Sweden is near zero.
canndo
Well-Known Member
REally? so America has the worst parents in the world? pychotropic drugs? you are blaming drugs on a web site that is involved in drugs? How do you accidentaly "parent" your son or daughter to go out and shoot someone in order to solve your problems?
canndo
Well-Known Member
That doesn't seem to be the case in other countries does it Desert Dude? How do you adjust this "shit happens" attitude when the shit doesn't happen nearly as freqently in other coutries.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
The gun license is obtained from the Police, and one must be in good standing and at least 18 years old, but exceptions regarding age can be made. To apply one must either be a member in an approved shooting club for at least six months or pass a hunting examination (jägarexamen). The former is mostly used to legally acquire pistols for sport shooting and the latter for hunting rifles and shotguns. A gun registered for sport-shooting may not be used in hunting. You are allowed to hunt without passing a hunting exam if you are chaperoned by someone that has passed the exam. The minimum age for taking an hunting exam is 15 years. A person under 18 years may not own a firearm him- or herself, unless an exception have been made. A person with a gun license may legally under supervision lend his or her gun to a person at least 15 years and older.A person may be granted license to own up to six hunting rifles, ten pistols or a mix of eight rifles and pistols. Owning more firearms than this requires a valid reason. Firearms must be stored in an approved gun safe.
Owning firearms is viewed as more of a privilege than a right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Sweden
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Whether the deaths were intentional or not makes no difference. They're still dead. His point was cars kill more people than guns. If the number of dead is a reason to outlaw guns, then the same reasoning should be applied to other causes of death.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I posted the evident increase simply in school shootings from the 1900's till now - this is yet another myth. There are more shootings, just because the media plays upon them doesn't mean that statistics of shootings themselves, compiled by oh, say, the FBI hasn't increased. Yet another myth - are you saying there have been mass shootings about every few weeks since the start of this country? and how do you reconcile that with the fact that it doesn't happen in other countries.
Are those in othe countries more sane? are they more gentle? do they play fewer video games? do they drink less? are they less angry? is the "parenting" better?
Which is it?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
intentionality makes a huge difference.
that's the difference between first or second degree murder and criminally negligent homicide.
if some crazy right wing nut shoots his family to death with a semi automatic gun with a high capacity magazine, it is charged much differently then if that same crazy right wing nut leaves his cigarette burning on the couch before work and comes home to discover his whole family dead.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Either or - the slippery slope, any regulation is confiscation. Riiiiight. More foolishness.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Justice?????
canndo
Well-Known Member
Bullshit.
Show me a person who has managed to kill 12 people with a knife or a bat before he was subdued. If what you say is true, then why do we arm our military? After all, they can kill with bats and bricks, can't they?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
That's racist!!!Kind a nice for this section, no? I like it when there is a real exchange of opinions and not just the tiresome evaluation of each other's personal merits ...
Red1966
Well-Known Member
God damn it, you beat me to it!that's racist, and you have blue eyes and i'm right and you're wrong.. better??
pSi007
Active Member
yup.. A person should be an intelligent and psychologically sound person who is capable of human compassion, in order to have a firearm outside of the home - I think.
Similar threads
