Should every person carry a gun?

[xenigo]

I mean everyone. Every psycho woman, every hot-headed dude. Every punk mother fucker who wants to start a fight with everyone. Every poor person who has a beef with the world. Every intoxicated person. Every body-builder who's on his 6th week of deca-durabolin. Every woman who just had a fight with her ex. Every dude who just broke up with his wife. Every man who just received a summons to appear in court for alimony and child support. Every person who just lost their job. Everyone who has a short temper and thinks "I'm going to fucking kill you" is the answer to everything.

Let's give them Glock 40's. Picture them all in a movie theater.

Now James Holmes walks through the door...



Opponents to gun control say a situation like Aurora CO wouldn't happen if we all had guns. There's just too many idiots in this world. We don't need to give everyone point-and-click ability to end our lives. Would you like to put your life in the hands of the people listed above? Would you trust them?

I certainly don't...

[Dirty F]

Yes, every person in America should own a gun. That would be just awesome. Preferably an uzi or something.

[SuckOnThis]

Yes, and flamethrowers and rocket launchers. We'll all be much safer, if you don't believe me just ask Limbaugh.

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by xenigo

Opponents to gun control say a situation like Aurora CO wouldn't happen if we all had guns.

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

[lucas131]

people will start falling down dead near you on the streets then

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

'Freedom is just another word for shooting up 70 people with a hundred round clip" - NRA

[lucas131]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

fuck yeah blood bath, then it will migrate to the streets, everyone will start solving his problems, wow what a party! go usa go! and rip everyone there ...

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

[SuckOnThis]

Mass shootings are good for business. No wonder the NRA does everything they can to keep em going.


Aurora theater shooting: Gun sales up since tragedy
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21...denverpost.com



Gun Stocks Outperform Market Following Aurora Shooting
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11635...cm_ven=GOOGLEN



After the Massacre: Guns Win, Theaters Lose
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...ose.aspx#page1

[Matyko]

No civilians should carry guns. But that is just an opinion of a common hippie, so..

[xenigo]

If we're all going to carry weapons, and everyone should be required to put their fate into the hands of the extremely stupid and extremely unpredictable general public... I think we should all be required to carry these:



That way we can all be safe.

[Lykos]

Originally Posted by Matyko

No civilians should carry guns. But that is just an opinion of a common hippie, so..

I totally agree with you !

[The Heron]

I'm going to start sporking people to death and see how long it takes for someone to want to ban sporks. Or maybe everyone should carry sporks to protect themselves.

Idiots, life is dangerous no matter what tools are available.

[brassmonkey]

should everyone be forced to eat red meat? thats a killer as well just slower

[sperbonzo]

Perhaps we might try using actual facts rather then silly rhetoric. This was written by a man who was a researcher at University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park. Perhaps if you guys are interesting in finding out something about the subject, rather than just posturing, you could read it.





This is only a suggestion...



.

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Perhaps we might try using actual facts rather then silly rhetoric. This was written by a man who was a researcher at University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park. Perhaps if you guys are interesting in finding out something about the subject, rather than just posturing, you could read it.





This is only a suggestion...



.

Funny how basically any country where less people have guns (%) than the US there is less crime than the US.
But hey, let's all read that book to find out the facts

[buzzard]

You want to force everyone to carry a gun to make a point that you want everyone to not have a gun. Sounds like you don't want to be the only one without a gun.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Funny how basically any country where less people have guns (%) than the US there is less crime than the US.
But hey, let's all read that book to find out the facts

Like I said, facts might be better than silly rhetoric.




.

[Jensen]

USA - 311 million - 88 guns per 100 - 12000 people killed

Japan - 127 million - 0.6 guns per 100 - 11 people killed

If you want to own a gun in Japan you have to pass a written test held only once a month, pass a test at a shootingrange, visit the hospital to pass a mental and drugtest. After that, the police will do a checkup and approve/deny. Handguns are strictly banned so we are talking about hunting rifles and airguns only. Police will inspect the weapon once a year and you have to repeat the tests every 3 years.

(numbers are picked up from a newspaper and I haven't checked so flame away)

[Best-In-BC]

Everyone should own one, not carry one

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Like I said, facts might be better than silly rhetoric.




.

OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

There you go.

Seems when people have less guns, that less people die.

Crazy!!!111oneoneone

[halfpint]

Look at South Africa where so many people carry guns both criminals and non criminals. The death rate from fire arms has soared and so has the crime rate, Does carrying a gun make you more safe ? nope it dosent at all, If you are shot in the back like one of my friends did over his car you have no chance and he is also a police officer who is now in a wheelchair sitting behind a desk. In South Africa more and more guns are being stolen from break- ins even if they are kept in gun cabanits bolted to the wall.

Think just because you carry a gun and know how to use it you are safe...think agian and no im not anti gun iv just seen a lot of gun violence from living in South Africa even my dad purchased a gun in the end but it still did not stop us from being burgled 5 times.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201205170280.html

http://www.gca.org.za/Resources/Rese...S/Default.aspx

[crazyvipa]

Originally Posted by Jensen

USA - 311 million - 88 guns per 100 - 12000 people killed

Japan - 127 million - 0.6 guns per 100 - 11 people killed

If you want to own a gun in Japan you have to pass a written test held only once a month, pass a test at a shootingrange, visit the hospital to pass a mental and drugtest. After that, the police will do a checkup and approve/deny. Handguns are strictly banned so we are talking about hunting rifles and airguns only. Police will inspect the weapon once a year and you have to repeat the tests every 3 years.

(numbers are picked up from a newspaper and I haven't checked so flame away)

Japan:
Punishable by death
USA:
Self Defense or Jail time


USA 2nd Amendment


Side note, why the sudden surge in gun talk here? If you are scared of guns, stay in your little huts. If you want to live life, get out there and stop crying about governments.

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

There you go.

Seems when people have less guns, that less people die.

Crazy!!!111oneoneone

He doesn't care. His pro gun book says exactly what he wants to hear. People like him are very sad really.

[Freaky_Akula]

Every person has the right to own one.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Yes, every person in America should own a gun. That would be just awesome. Preferably an uzi or something.

Uzi's are a little heavy but can be altered to compliment your wardrobe, good choice Franck!







.

[bronco67]

I don't think the answer is to keep people from having guns, but there could definitely be a lot less of them. They should be a rare, tough thing to get a hold of and olnly be attainable by the most scrutinized, screened people. It should be fucking difficult to get a gun, and they should be in any Wal-Marts.

Just a question, but weren't illegal guns at one time legal? Where does an "illegal" gun come from anyway?

By the way, I grew up with guns and I've at one time or another owned every firearm that the Aurora shooter used.

[Tom_PM]

In South Korea the cops don't even carry guns and crime is super low.

In a amateur "sting" interview I saw, a man was seen entering a crowded coffee shop, dropping his bag on a vacant table then walking away to get his coffee and food.

After eating and drinking coffee, the amateur videographer followed him and asked him why he didn't think his bag would be stolen in such a crowded place and why did you leave it there in the first place.. The man replied "there are so many people around that I knew nobody would steal it because they would be witnessed". He said that he left his bag on the table to reserve the table since it was so crowded.


Point being that it's ALL a matter of perspective.

Would you as a person in lets just say New York City, USA walk into a crowded coffee shop and drop your bag on a table then walk away and go place your order? Or would your reaction be EXACTLY the opposite; that so many people meant MORE of a chance of theft? Be honest. Thats perspective and prejudice working.

[u-Bob]

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Given that most arguments used in this thread are of a utilitarian nature, I'll take the time to explain the deontological position.

Gandhi, as a lawyer, understood the concept of selfownership. This is the idea that every human being owns his own body. To have a property right in something means that you have the exclusive authority to determine how that resource is used. That means you have the right to use that resource and it also means you have the right to determine who else can or cannot use it. To have a property right means you have the right to enforce that property right. If that weren't the case, the law of the jungle where the strong can force their will on the weak would apply.

Example: a woman can refuse to have sex with a man because she owns her own body. She has the exclusive authority to determine how that resource, in this case her body, is used. If the man tries to rape her, she has the right to defend herself. She has the right to use violence to defend herself.

Gandhi understood that denying people the right to bear arms or in other words denying people the right to use their own property to enforce their property rights was essentially the same as denying people had the right to selfownership.

The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.

[NewNick]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Yes, every person in America should own a gun. That would be just awesome. Preferably an uzi or something.

And a Tank.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by xenigo

I mean everyone. Every psycho woman, every hot-headed dude. Every punk mother fucker who wants to start a fight with everyone. Every poor person who has a beef with the world. Every intoxicated person. Every body-builder who's on his 6th week of deca-durabolin. Every woman who just had a fight with her ex. Every dude who just broke up with his wife. Every man who just received a summons to appear in court for alimony and child support. Every person who just lost their job. Everyone who has a short temper and thinks "I'm going to fucking kill you" is the answer to everything.

Let's give them Glock 40's. Picture them all in a movie theater.

Now James Holmes walks through the door...



Opponents to gun control say a situation like Aurora CO wouldn't happen if we all had guns. There's just too many idiots in this world. We don't need to give everyone point-and-click ability to end our lives. Would you like to put your life in the hands of the people listed above? Would you trust them?

I certainly don't...

you are most welcome distort and manipulate the facts as you see fit however gun viloence will esculate if guns are banned as they have in every other instance in every other country. btw the range on Co turn that frut cake down when he wanted to come down and practice... I say we just ban batman, movies theaters and apratments

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Jensen

USA - 311 million - 88 guns per 100 - 12000 people killed

Japan - 127 million - 0.6 guns per 100 - 11 people killed

If you want to own a gun in Japan you have to pass a written test held only once a month, pass a test at a shootingrange, visit the hospital to pass a mental and drugtest. After that, the police will do a checkup and approve/deny. Handguns are strictly banned so we are talking about hunting rifles and airguns only. Police will inspect the weapon once a year and you have to repeat the tests every 3 years.

(numbers are picked up from a newspaper and I haven't checked so flame away)

in japan people fear the police, not in the usa

[crazyvipa]

Originally Posted by bronco67

I don't think the answer is to keep people from having guns, but there could definitely be a lot less of them. They should be a rare, tough thing to get a hold of and olnly be attainable by the most scrutinized, screened people. It should be fucking difficult to get a gun, and they should be in any Wal-Marts.

Just a question, but weren't illegal guns at one time legal? Where does an "illegal" gun come from anyway?

By the way, I grew up with guns and I've at one time or another owned every firearm that the Aurora shooter used.

Guns were never illegal in the US. You can, in all reality, own just about every gun possible. There is a post-1986 ban on full-auto weapons, which states that any gun manufactured after 1986 that has the capability of being fully automatic will not be obtainable by the general public (civilians). However, you can apply for a class III license along with a dealer's permit. You also have a yearly tax on the weapon(s)... so basically, any full auto owned by an american just means they have a shit-ton of extra money. I looked into owning the Chicago Typewriter -- and ran into a brick wall. The gun itself is 20k for "good" condition while the yearly tax is ~2k. The 45acp is $20/50 box... 100 round drum mag... ~20 seconds on full auto... do the math. Might as well go buy a new car.

----

I always find it funny when people say guns should be more difficult to purchase from a store. All you are successfully accomplishing is preventing the HONEST people from owning a firearm. The dishonest people get them through other means.... theft, black market, etc.


"Gun bans disarm victims, putting them at the mercy of murderers or terrorists who think nothing of breaking the gun laws." - Michael Badnarik

[arock10]

I disagree, god gave us 2 hands so we should all be equipped with two guns each

[arock10]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60

Originally Posted by u-Bob:
Originally Posted by u-Bob:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."~Gandhi
Given that most arguments used in this thread are of a utilitarian nature, I'll take the time to explain the deontological position.

Gandhi, as a lawyer, understood the concept of selfownership. This is the idea that every human being owns his own body. To have a property right in something means that you have the exclusive authority to determine how that resource is used. That means you have the right to use that resource and it also means you have the right to determine who else can or cannot use it. To have a property right means you have the right to enforce that property right. If that weren't the case, the law of the jungle where the strong can force their will on the weak would apply.

Example: a woman can refuse to have sex with a man because she owns her own body. She has the exclusive authority to determine how that resource, in this case her body, is used. If the man tries to rape her, she has the right to defend herself. She has the right to use violence to defend herself.

Gandhi understood that denying people the right to bear arms or in other words denying people the right to use their own property to enforce their property rights was essentially the same as denying people had the right to selfownership.
The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.


The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.

Bring back slavery, I want more private property

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by crazyvipa

I always find it funny when people say guns should be more difficult to purchase from a store. All you are successfully accomplishing is preventing the HONEST people from owning a firearm. The dishonest people get them through other means.... theft, black market, etc.

I always find it strange when people argue that making something harder to do will not prevent something from happening anyway. As if that was the point. Because that's never been and never will be the point of making it harder to do.

Why tell your child not to play with fire? Fire can burn the child anyway.

Why lock your door at night when you go to sleep? If someone wants to get in, they'll just break down the door or come in a window.

Why wait at a cross walk for the light to turn green before crossing? A garbage truck can still plaster a person all over it's grill even when they're as careful as they possibly can be.

The answer is that these are deterents. There are millions of them that we all do and see every day of our lives. That's why I find it strange that in gun discussions it comes up like it's a good point or something when it's completely lame. A total misfire, pun intended.

[Rochard]

How would it have played out if one fourth of the two hundred people in that theatre was armed....

A man walks in and tosses in two smoke bombs and starts firing. A fifty-five year old insurance salesman in the 25th row pulls out his firearm and starts shooting at what he think might be a shooter. He misses, instead hitting a thirteen year old boy. The father of this boy is also armed, and suddenly he's being fired at from two directions - one shooter who just came in through the emergency exit and another man somewhere behind him... But it's smoky and two hundred people are screaming, and six other people just pulled out firearms and started shooting.

Now you have the original shooter and eight other people with hand guns shooting at each other, none of properly trained in tactical situations, and no one is sure who the original shooter is or why anyone else is shooting.

Adding more guns to the situation only adds to the confusion and adds to the number of people with firearms and only adds to the amount of bullets flying - and only adds to the amount of people dead.

Anyone who thinks adding more firearms to the situation is the solution is on crack.

[Tom_PM]

Where do guns on the black market come from anyway? I'm guessing from the same gun manufacturers as "legal" guns. And I'd bet top dollar that 99.9% of them were at one time legally sold. Yet somehow it never gets argued that making guns harder to get legally would slow down the black market over time. Weird. Are all the guns coming from mexico or something? Army surplus? Overturned shippping trucks on highways? Maybe there's enough guns out there already to never need to make another new one. That can't be right.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

How would it have played out if one fourth of the two hundred people in that theatre was armed....

A man walks in and tosses in two smoke bombs and starts firing. A fifty-five year old insurance salesman in the 25th row pulls out his firearm and starts shooting at what he think might be a shooter. He misses, instead hitting a thirteen year old boy. The father of this boy is also armed, and suddenly he's being fired at from two directions - one shooter who just came in through the emergency exit and another man somewhere behind him... But it's smoky and two hundred people are screaming, and six other people just pulled out firearms and started shooting.

Now you have the original shooter and eight other people with hand guns shooting at each other, none of properly trained in tactical situations, and no one is sure who the original shooter is or why anyone else is shooting.

Adding more guns to the situation only adds to the confusion and adds to the number of people with firearms and only adds to the amount of bullets flying - and only adds to the amount of people dead.

Anyone who thinks adding more firearms to the situation is the solution is on crack.

Except for the fact that this kind of thing HAS occured, where armed civilians responded, and in fact, law abiding armed citizens have actually stopped the crime, WITHOUT the scenario you are describing. Again, with the silly rhetoric, rather than facts.



.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by arock10

Bring back slavery, I want more private property

If you are against slavery, you automatically accept the idea that every human being owns his own body.

The entire concept of slavery is that you deny the fact that people own their own body.

Those who favor slavery want to deny that every human being is an individual with individual rights. Those who favor slavery want to treat their fellow men as tools, as something they can use and abuse.

So, with all due respect, your comment makes no sense.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Except for the fact that this kind of thing HAS occured, where armed civilians responded, and in fact, law abiding armed citizens have actually stopped the crime, WITHOUT the scenario you are describing. Again, with the silly rhetoric, rather than facts.



.

So it's not a fact that you are 43 times more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to injure or kill an intruder? Because that's what I've heard was a fact. I'll have to look it up later.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

So it's not a fact that you are 43 times more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to injure or kill an intruder? Because that's what I've heard was a fact. I'll have to look it up later.

You are also more likely to die if you are driving car X and are in an accident than when you are driving the much bigger car Y and are in an accident.

Does that mean that the government should ban all cars X and only allow people to buy the more expensive car Y?

[crazyvipa]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Where do guns on the black market come from anyway? I'm guessing from the same gun manufacturers as "legal" guns. And I'd bet top dollar that 99.9% of them were at one time legally sold. Yet somehow it never gets argued that making guns harder to get legally would slow down the black market over time. Weird. Are all the guns coming from mexico or something? Army surplus? Overturned shippping trucks on highways? Maybe there's enough guns out there already to never need to make another new one. That can't be right.

Guns come from all across the world. Specifically places that don't regulate like the USA does. Come on now, hopefully you just don't know better. There are enough weapons to supply the entire USA with about 1-2 weapons per person. Take the AK-47 for example. There is just an AMAZING surplus of AK-47's available. Some army/military and some for civilian use.

Take a quick look at these numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry.. the USA is a top contender, but guns come from across the entire world. Regulating USA won't slow any of the black market down.

In 2007 they estimated around 870 million firearms.. and that is 2007. (this was a quick google search so I could give real numbers) Guns lifespan, in the responsible owners hand, can last generations. I still have a few weapons from WWI that my family has passed down. They still fire. Ammo hard time come by, but they fire just as well.


Sorry to tell you, but deterring people from buying over the counter weapons only affects the legit firearm owners. Believe it or not, USA does have pretty good deterrents already in place. Ex; Firearm Dealers call in every single sale, recording SSN, and serial number. If the Fed's respond with a "RED - NO GO" response -- the sherif and police could be called. You are not able to purchase with any type of felony on your record.

"Bad guys" get their stock from the black market or even theft. The theft part, is where I must completely agree. If a weapon is used in a murder and was stolen, that sucks because it could have been prevented by not allowing someone to buy without a proper safe installed.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

You are also more likely to die if you are driving car X and are in an accident than when you are driving the much bigger car Y and are in an accident.

Does that mean that the government should ban all cars X and only allow people to buy the more expensive car Y?

Ah, but you may not realise that the more closely relevant car accident statistic is that you are more likely to die or be injured in a car accident within 2 miles of your own home. Did you know that? It's because people feel more comfortable and relax their vigilance when they approach their familiar streets. I learned that in junior high school on a field trip to the police station. It's also true you're more likely to be injured.. period.. in your own home for the same reasons (and because you spend a lot of time there). It's just more of those factual things for good or ill.

And NO, naturally it has nothing to do with any banning or prentative measures at all. And saying it happens more doesn't mean a complete ban would prevent it ever happening as I covered in another post. I know it's tempting to always frame it as everything or nothing, but I'm totally in the middle on guns. I am not for bans. I am for regulation and on SOME things I'd be OK with a ban.

For example, ammo clips of greater than 10 rounds. BAN completely and I'd support it 100%.

Assault rifles? Ban completely and I'd be 100% for it.

Strict tracking of ammo and banning them from family stores like mega marts? I'd be completely 100% fine with that too. Maybe even taxing ammo is a good idea, and if someone buys 1000 rounds in one purchase, make them wait. I'd be ok with that.

[Si]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60



The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.

Originally Posted by NewNick

And a Tank.

I was going to say go buy an Apache, Nuke, Torpedo, SAM, and then report back please.

Surely you need all these things? The government can't always be trusted, and they can't protect you at all times right?

[michael.kickass]

NO they shouldn't.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by crazyvipa

Guns come from all across the world. Specifically places that don't regulate like the USA does. Come on now, hopefully you just don't know better. There are enough weapons to supply the entire USA with about 1-2 weapons per person. Take the AK-47 for example. There is just an AMAZING surplus of AK-47's available. Some army/military and some for civilian use.

Take a quick look at these numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry.. the USA is a top contender, but guns come from across the entire world. Regulating USA won't slow any of the black market down.

In 2007 they estimated around 870 million firearms.. and that is 2007. (this was a quick google search so I could give real numbers) Guns lifespan, in the responsible owners hand, can last generations. I still have a few weapons from WWI that my family has passed down. They still fire. Ammo hard time come by, but they fire just as well.


Sorry to tell you, but deterring people from buying over the counter weapons only affects the legit firearm owners. Believe it or not, USA does have pretty good deterrents already in place. Ex; Firearm Dealers call in every single sale, recording SSN, and serial number. If the Fed's respond with a "RED - NO GO" response -- the sherif and police could be called. You are not able to purchase with any type of felony on your record.

"Bad guys" get their stock from the black market or even theft. The theft part, is where I must completely agree. If a weapon is used in a murder and was stolen, that sucks because it could have been prevented by not allowing someone to buy without a proper safe installed.

Maybe we should institute a moritorium on gun manufature then in the US until all these giant piles of weapons are depleted. Anyone up for some letters to congress?

The Colorado guy bought everything "legit". Sure, maybe if he hadn't done it someone with an illegal black market AK47 would have done the same thing. I just doubt it.

[Si]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

You are also more likely to die if you are driving car X and are in an accident than when you are driving the much bigger car Y and are in an accident.

Does that mean that the government should ban all cars X and only allow people to buy the more expensive car Y?

Car industry is making cars safer.
Food companies are making food healthier.
Electronics companies are making electronics more efficient.

Arms industry is making more guns.

[Slappin Fish]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Except for the fact that this kind of thing HAS occured, where armed civilians responded, and in fact, law abiding armed citizens have actually stopped the crime, WITHOUT the scenario you are describing. Again, with the silly rhetoric, rather than facts.



.

When you are shown facts you blank them out completely or go missing. Damian's post...

on the subject of going missing, where is that epassporte replacement of yours that was supposed to be ready "within 48 hours"? you disappeared after that one, only to sheepishly resurface weeks later.

[crazyvipa]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Maybe we should institute a moritorium on gun manufature then in the US until all these giant piles of weapons are depleted. Anyone up for some letters to congress?

The Colorado guy bought everything "legit". Sure, maybe if he hadn't done it someone with an illegal black market AK47 would have done the same thing. I just doubt it.

I agree, but has one downfall. They would "take their business elsewhere." For example, there is a gun manufacture that makes USA Based guns, labeled as USA... but when the factory gets over worked, the manufacturing is pushed to their secondary factories in the Philippines. Let's face it, arms manufactures are in it to make money. If money isn't to be had in the USA, they will just move to another country.

They tried to raise ammo, but those businesses who did would go OUT of business. People who fire many rounds, tend to press their own ammo. At the current moment, a (decent) .223 round is about 0.30 per shot. To press your own using reload-able brass is ~0.33/shot. Currently the reason to reload your own ammo is to ensure quality (hopefully) and create better accuracy. If they raise the price on ammo, it will be to save money also. An entire setup should only cost ~200-500$ and you'll have a complete setup to make your own ammo.