(Feb 18, 2018, 03:45 PM)George Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 16, 2018, 08:08 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]
There's plans to limit the sale of acids as we take action when we see a problem.
Well yeah, knife crime is higher in the UK as we don't have guns. But far more people are killed per year by firearms in the US than knifes in the UK.
Has the US never had a bombing take place?
A lot more people survived when a car mounted a busy pavement then did when a guy opened fire at a school with a machine gun, no?
Just wanna correct you on the last part.
TL;DR machine guns are unlawful to possess unless you're a government/law enforcement officer or a gun dealer/manufacturer with a class 3 license and are able to acquire these weapons for sale to law enforcement/government. The only way to acquire a machine gun as a private citizen is if you find one that was made prior to 1986, which makes them unrealistically expensive to purchase. It also means filling out a 12-page application, submitting fingerprints, and sending photos to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(I live in California, the most restrictive state in the Union for owning a gun in and where machine guns are banned period, and that's more paperwork than I've ever had to fill out for any of my guns.)
Grew up in a house full of guns, some of which were loaded and I could easily access, never shot anyone.
Slept with weapons for years of my life during my time in the military, I never shot anyone who didn't have it coming.
Have guns in my house right now that I still haven't used to shoot anyone.
Moral of the story.
Don't give guns to weak pussies who think guns make them strong hard dicks.
Guns are tools.
Like any tool, don't give them to untrained people.
Else you get terrible result.
(Feb 19, 2018, 02:55 AM)Jokhah Wrote: [ -> ]Don't give guns to weak pussies who think guns make them strong hard dicks.
but it's their constitutional right to have it the same as it is yours..
(Feb 18, 2018, 07:37 PM)Toxic Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 18, 2018, 03:45 PM)George Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 16, 2018, 08:08 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-
-snip-
TL;DR machine guns are unlawful to possess unless you're a government/law enforcement officer or a gun dealer/manufacturer with a class 3 license and are able to acquire these weapons for sale to law enforcement/government. The only way to acquire a machine gun as a private citizen is if you find one that was made prior to 1986, which makes them unrealistically expensive to purchase. It also means filling out a 12-page application, submitting fingerprints, and sending photos to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(I live in California, the most restrictive state in the Union for owning a gun in and where machine guns are banned period, and that's more paperwork than I've ever had to fill out for any of my guns.)
"They're unlawful to possess except mostly not." ftfy
Also, unrealistically is subjective and not entirely correct. About a year, maybe two, ago you could pick up an M50 Reising for around $4000. Which isn't too bad if you take into account that some people spend that on a dinky little AR-15. I haven't seen many Reisings for a while now though. That being said, being a 2A advocate and firearms enthusiast living a generally frugal lifestyle, I have no qualms about spending a little over $8,000 on a Mac-11 (or Mac-10, 11s seem to be a little harder to come by now) in the near future.
Also, if filling out 12 pieces of paper is so daunting I'd hate to see how you did in school. Or how you do going to the dentist.
I think we should just have common sense gun laws. We need more checks if you want to buy a gun, all the nitty gritty will need to be solved obviously, but I'm all about guns - we just need to make sure the wrong people don't get them.
Media only take atention to things like this , just for reason , they want audience , if they ignore it and pass peacefull things maybe that wont happen so often , kids like to watch tv and see "damm the other guy killed 5 guys , let me be better and kill more" all that news take influence on kids
Actual talk not shitposting now.
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population roughly 325,059,091. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors.
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
Legal age to buy a handgun is 21. But for an AR-15? 18. I dont know why nothings happened to fix anything. But congress better fix that shit
(Feb 19, 2018, 08:22 PM)ajit pai the master jedi Wrote: [ -> ]Legal age to buy a handgun is 21. But for an AR-15? 18. I dont know why nothings happened to fix anything. But congress better fix that shit
easier to conceal a handgun than an AR I guess
(Feb 19, 2018, 06:30 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
I actually live out in the wild west of Detroit (well, not technically but my area code is still 313 and southwest Detroit is only about 4 miles away) and gun laws actually aren't that bad. Michigan is actually rather pro-gun. Right now we're looking to abolish the need for conceal carry permits entirely as well as letting certain allowed individuals to carry in schools. Though, right now, in order to get your CPL you need to pass a handgun course as well as meeting several other "are u a criminal" requirements (
https://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-12...--,00.html for a full list.)
You see, the problem is that you're bringing up "strict gun laws" in those cities when you're missing the larger picture.
(Feb 19, 2018, 08:22 PM)ajit pai the master jedi Wrote: [ -> ]Legal age to buy a handgun is 21. But for an AR-15? 18. I dont know why nothings happened to fix anything. But congress better fix that shit
Actually those are just the ages to buy from an FFL. A decent handful of states allow you to purchase rifles under 18 and handguns at 18 from private sellers. I actually bought my first handgun when I was 18.
I still don't understand the whole pistol bit being 21, should be 18 imo. I mean at 18 you are allowed to do anything, I don't see why you have to wait 3 more years to buy a handgun.
I would rather see it a training requirement at 18 imo
(Feb 19, 2018, 09:22 PM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't understand the whole pistol bit being 21, should be 18 imo. I mean at 18 you are allowed to do anything, I don't see why you have to wait 3 more years to buy a handgun.
...Apart from drink Alcohol