[Jura-Glenlivet]

Get a goat.

[Rushy]

Assault rifles or weapons whatever, semantics is the best you can do? It’s a big gun nobody needs, especially against the massed hordes of homicidal goats, not when you can use rocks.

They're basic legal terms on what is and isn't banned. For example, in Europe assault rifles are banned as well, but assault weapons are not. Those "big, scary guns" are readily available in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. Which also means they're available in any Schengen area.

In any case, the most common rifle in America, the AR-15, is .223, which is a pretty standard size for a hunting rifle. Many hunters use .308, which I would prefer. Neither of which is a "big, scary gun." Regardless, you can look back in this thread and see where I pointed out gun ownership and shootings aren't correlated. You don't get more people shooting each other just because they happen to own guns, no matter how much you or anyone else would like to say to the contrary.

throwing rocks?

Well... fuck, that makes everyone who stood around pussies.  They have no business being outdoors, armed with a gun or not, if the goat was removable by throwing the most basic weapon humans have ever used: A rock.

Like I said; It's a fucking goat.

No, no, it was a mountain goat. The fucking goats are a common breed in the Middle East, though.

[Lord Dave]

Assault rifles or weapons whatever, semantics is the best you can do? It’s a big gun nobody needs, especially against the massed hordes of homicidal goats, not when you can use rocks.

They're basic legal terms on what is and isn't banned. For example, in Europe assault rifles are banned as well, but assault weapons are not. Those "big, scary guns" are readily available in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. Which also means they're available in any Schengen area.

In any case, the most common rifle in America, the AR-15, is .223, which is a pretty standard size for a hunting rifle. Many hunters use .308, which I would prefer. Neither of which is a "big, scary gun." Regardless, you can look back in this thread and see where I pointed out gun ownership and shootings aren't correlated. You don't get more people shooting each other just because they happen to own guns, no matter how much you or anyone else would like to say to the contrary.

Uhh...
Norway no.  They are not readily available.  Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get.  It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license."  It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?"  If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure.  Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.

Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting.  There is no correlation.  Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings.  All it does is allow more guns.

[Rushy]

Uhh...
Norway no.  They are not readily available.  Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get.  It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license."  It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?"  If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure.  Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.

Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting.  There is no correlation.  Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings.  All it does is allow more guns.

I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."

[Lord Dave]

Uhh...
Norway no.  They are not readily available.  Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get.  It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license."  It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?"  If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure.  Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.

Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting.  There is no correlation.  Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings.  All it does is allow more guns.

I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."

That's fair but here its mostly hunting rifles.  Anything beyond a shotgun or long rifle is rare.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Uhh...
Norway no.  They are not readily available.  Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get.  It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license."  It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?"  If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure.  Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.

Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting.  There is no correlation.  Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings.  All it does is allow more guns.

I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."

Here it's mostly farmers with shotguns and 22's no handguns, definitely no quasi-military stuff, you're not allowed to carry it unless it is on land where you have the owners permission. All licensed.
Handguns were banned after the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres in the 80's & 90's, but to be honest there weren't a lot around.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Uhh...
Norway no.  They are not readily available.  Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get.  It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license."  It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?"  If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure.  Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.

Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting.  There is no correlation.  Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings.  All it does is allow more guns.

I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."

Here it's mostly farmers with shotguns and 22's no handguns, definitely no quasi-military stuff, you're not allowed to carry it unless it is on land where you have the owners permission. All licensed.
Handguns were banned after the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres in the 80's & 90's, but to be honest there weren't a lot around.

Fun fact, nearly all of the people that own AR-15s and AK47s in America don't ever shoot anyone with them. A lot of the owners could be said to be farmers, or people who live in rural areas.

Let's no longer sugar coat it. There is a healthy fear of the Government here in America. It has never been shown to be a fair, honest, and reputable institution other than to quell some kind of major unrest.

Domestic surveillance and curtailing personal liberty are two examples of things you can do to an unarmed populace at a much more brazen rate and thoroughness, an example would be Australia.

We don't want AKs and ARs to go hunting with, or even so much for protection from burglars. We want it as a safeguard against threats both foreign and domestic. America was built on overthrowing an oppressive, non representative government, if you can recall, it's not beyond the realm of possibility it will happen again.

[Lord Dave]

Uhh...
Norway no.  They are not readily available.  Not at all.
First off, you need a license which is very hard to get.  It's not a "oh well, you're a decent guy, here's a gun license."  It's "Ok, can you prove you need this gun to live?"  If you hunt or live on the mountain, sure.  Otherwise, no, you can't have a gun.

Secondly, you are correct: More guns does not equal more shooting.  There is no correlation.  Just like more guns does not equal LESS shootings.  All it does is allow more guns.

I was simply going off the gun ownership rate for those countries (each one sits at about 30 per 100 residents). Even if each person owns two or three guns, that's still a fair amount of the population legally armed, which lead me to say "readily available."

Here it's mostly farmers with shotguns and 22's no handguns, definitely no quasi-military stuff, you're not allowed to carry it unless it is on land where you have the owners permission. All licensed.
Handguns were banned after the Hungerford & Dunblane massacres in the 80's & 90's, but to be honest there weren't a lot around.

Fun fact, nearly all of the people that own AR-15s and AK47s in America don't ever shoot anyone with them. A lot of the owners could be said to be farmers, or people who live in rural areas.

Let's no longer sugar coat it. There is a healthy fear of the Government here in America. It has never been shown to be a fair, honest, and reputable institution other than to quell some kind of major unrest.

Domestic surveillance and curtailing personal liberty are two examples of things you can do to an unarmed populace at a much more brazen rate and thoroughness, an example would be Australia.

We don't want AKs and ARs to go hunting with, or even so much for protection from burglars. We want it as a safeguard against threats both foreign and domestic. America was built on overthrowing an oppressive, non representative government, if you can recall, it's not beyond the realm of possibility it will happen again.

Oppressive is a stretch.
Also, America was built on ripping land away from others then oppressing them.  So America is very much what you claim its government is.  So they have the government of the people.