See post 631.
Meanwhile back in FPS Russia…
^ 
Rest in piece my friend…
Alex Jones is an asshole, so is Piers. BOTH sides have been puking bullshit statistics and overreacting. I hope the “sides” can settle soon, my nation is already insanely divided on the back of the most heated election I’ve witnessed. My gun friends won’t like me saying this but I do think the checks to sell ammo would be most effective. Ammo needs replenished, guns do not. If you want people to drive cars less would you confiscate their cars or just restrict gas sales?
What does trading experience have to do with this issue? I’m not following that comment.
PS, I may be asking you to help smuggle me into Canada…not really kidding. 
---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------
Yup, “Assault” rifles aren’t used in the high percentage of gun crime. Handguns are, yet all we hear about are “Bushmaster” and “high caliber Assault rifles”. I find this rather odd.
---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------
THIS! Enforce the laws in place and stop allowing plea downs for illegal firearm violations. If they REALLY wanted to make an impact on gun crime they would be going after the CRIMINALS that are caught using guns.
It’s not odd. They know they can’t stop “those” crimes so they don’t even try. Some politicians think focusing on “assault” rifles will help them get endorsements and get their name in the paper. Period.
Hell, the “War on drugs” is winning for the same reason. It’s too big for someone to try and fix. So, make the top three illegal and legalize the rest.
The “war on drugs” is winning? How would you define winning? Am I to assume you also believe the “war on poverty” is being won as well?
Stricter penalties mean nothing to shitbags knowing they are going to off themselves anyway.
Well that’s just not true.
I’d go on a mass shooting spree if only I had that bayonet or a pistol grip, said no one ever
…
Inter dashing
“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:agreed compensation, reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception.
Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger; a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
a 19-year old gang banger; and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between
a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal
force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with
a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as
a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
I was in my office and a female co worker came over and said something about banning assault rifles. I asked her to define it and she said the military guns. WRONG. I jumped and asked her whether she would like me to shoot at her with one of those or with a shotgun in close proximity. She had no clue.
^ Why where you working in the Kitchen…?
Ya man, what were you doing working in the kitchen or laundry room?
lol @ kitchen comments.
with regard to some of the latter arguments on the prior page about criminals still getting guns.
in the Newton, Aurora, Columbine, V-tech and overseas in the Oslo massacre… in all of these cases the shooters got the guns before they were criminals. They didn’t become criminals or notable in any way that could have raised actionable flags until they committed the crimes and they need the guns to commit those crimes.
increased gun control could have had an impact on the availability and quantity of guns available to these people. At any rate, the ‘criminals will still get guns’ argument is not totally applicable.
LZ i completely agree with your inner city argument but no one cares about the inner city anyways. We’re talking about solutions to protect rich white people here, everything else is irrelevant.
Speaking of long gun registration and Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/15/pol-gun-registry.html
this follows a similar logic as some of the good arguments on here opposed to the obamacare thing.
in theory the gun registry is awesome, however, in practice they’ve blown billions on getting it done. basically someone who has control of the purse strings is huffing money off to people/companies getting nothing in return; similar to how some of you suggested that obamacare doesnt do anything to reduce the inflated cost of the services and pharma products included in it. So even though it’s a good idea; in practice it’s a shit show.
You just described big government.
In other news 12,000 woman die a year from binge drinking.
She’s going to HR and you’re gonna be fired now…great. 