[J-Man]

Knives are pretty easy to use tbh

Yeah but hitting insta kill spots is hard.  A knife is easy enough to stab with but unless you hit a vital spot like hear or neck or an artery, they'll probably life for a good hour and recover with medical treatment.


Guns do way more damage.

So do cars.

In some states, its easier to get a gun then drive a car.

Please prove that. Do some states bar you from car ownership if you have a misdemeanor domestic charge?

Vermont is the safest state in the country. Least violence of any. Because you just might be screwing with a pew pew in da pocket.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont
How to get a gun in Vermont:
Walk to gun shop.
Buy gun.
No background checks.  No licenses.  Nothing.


How to get a car in Vermont
https://www.dmv.org/vt-vermont/car-registration.php


You need a drivers license and proof of insurance to start.  Plus the annual inspections, license plates, etc...

[Lord Dave]

If a cop is so scared of dying he'll shoot first, then he's the problem.
I'm sorry but if you become a cop, you should never put your life over someone else's unless they are an active threat. 


Its better to mourn a cop, then a harmless citizen.  At least the cop died to preserve life.  The citizen?  Pointless death.


And here's a question: what happens if you ever snap?  Lets say you just go crazy one day and wanna kill people.  How do we stop you?

The law will stand behind you in your use of deadly force against another if you are a cop or an individual if you perceive a threat of major bodily harm or death.

No one needs to wait for a gun to be drawn on them to perceive this threat and shoot first. Here's a drill, try it from the comfort of your computer. Point your finger at the monitor and say "bang" and see if you can not get shot even with a loaded weapon cocked pointed at the bad guy.

If the officer got a call of armed liquor store robbery where the cashier was shot and this dude matches the identity and vehicle description. OR you as an individual are at a park eating lunch and a couple drunk biker types are at the picnic table next to you having their way with a young female biker momma and this dude says to you, "quit looking at my bit.. like that fu...r, I'm gonna kill you"

Bang or no Bang?

Why demons are slain......

I am well aware of the risks, dangers, an other issues.  And I'm not talking about a legitimate "I'm gonna kill you" threat cause that's a threat.  I'm talking about "guy gets pulled over for traffic stop, slowly reaches for wallet cause the officer said so, gets shot."  Police are taught to shoot to save themselves.  I say they shouldn't.  They should prefer to be shot and die then to potentially shoot an innocent.

I realize it's unpopular but in my mind, if you're not willing to die so someone has the benefit of perceived innocence, then you're not a cop I want protecting me.

And, of course, non-lethal would be great but we all know they have limits.

If I were a cop, I would be dead now.  If we adopted my thinking, we'd have no cops because people would be too afraid to die.

Thus, in America, police need to assume everyone will kill them and make sure they die first.  It's the price we pay for a heavily armed population.

Which is one of the MANY reasons I got the fuck out of there.  I'm now in a country where guns for cops are kept in the trunk of their car because the public is not very well armed, criminals are not well armed, and police are generally not in any need to shoot first.

[J-Man]

This is just so tragic, what kind of a person shoots a five year old child.
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs  rampage.

QUOTE:
A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.

Outside...
So he left said church (ie. Finished murdering) before anyone showed up.


And what took him out?
Not a gun but crashing his car.


Sssooo....not really.  Any unarmed citizen can chase an armed one with a car.

The hero neighbor who shot the nutjob twice, came out of his house and exchanged fire with the evil one with his own AR-15. Stephen Willeford the neighbor hero was an NRA instructor and in his 50's, a great shot. Placed one in the torso and one in the leg. The bad guy had a vest on, which probably only stopped handgun rounds (soft armor) and not level lll plate or ceramic. The bad guy during the chase called his daddy to say he probably wouldn't make it, most likely due to a lung or heart trauma. Blew his head off and rolled his vehicle.

Thank you Mr. Willeford for being a brave AR-15 owner instructor.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/

[Lord Dave]

This is just so tragic, what kind of a person shoots a five year old child.
And in this case, the gun laws may have prevented an even worse atrocity by cutting short this nutjobs  rampage.

QUOTE:
A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.

Outside...
So he left said church (ie. Finished murdering) before anyone showed up.


And what took him out?
Not a gun but crashing his car.


Sssooo....not really.  Any unarmed citizen can chase an armed one with a car.

The hero neighbor who shot the nutjob twice, came out of his house and exchanged fire with the evil one with his own AR-15. Stephen Willeford the neighbor hero was an NRA instructor and in his 50's, a great shot. Placed one in the torso and one in the leg. The bad guy had a vest on, which probably only stopped handgun rounds (soft armor) and not level lll plate or ceramic. The bad guy during the chase called his daddy to say he probably wouldn't make it, most likely due to a lung or heart trauma. Blew his head off and rolled his vehicle.

Thank you Mr. Willeford for being a brave AR-15 owner instructor.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/hero-stopped-texas-gunman-couldnt-stopped-without-ar-15/

Yes.  Very brave. 

And yes, after I wrote that post it's revealed he had 2 additional gun shot wounds.  So yes, he was likely fatally shot.  So congrats.  He managed to stop (probably) additional mass shootings. 

[Rama Set]

Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.

Which guns are you talking about? Because in some cases you may be right, in some you are definitely wrong. One thing is for sure, all guns were designed to damage people/places/things. Many of them are designed to kill large numbers of humans, like the machine gun. It’s irresponsible to pretend that they won’t be used inappropriately a non-zero amount of time.

Machine guns were designed for covering fire, not necessarily for mowing down large groups of people.

Citation? In WW1, the period when machine guns were most relevant, they were set up in areas to inflict maximum casualties.

Sure, they were sorta used that way when trench warfare was popular, but modern combat doesn't allow for that.

Nuclear bombs sorta blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki too 

And really, the purpose of an inanimate object is irrelevant to the topic when comparing deaths. For sake of argument, lets assume that guns are designed for killing, that still means more people die accidentally from vehicles than purposely by firearms.

But cars are more prevalent band also serve a much wider purpose than causing damage. Obviously there is a benefit that outweighs the harm.

Also, you're equating warfare with crime. I stated that no firearm was designed for mass shootings and murder and here you are saying that they were used for mowing people down in war time.

The opposite is true. I took are to stay away from your “murder” argument because I think it is true. But to say that guns are not designed to kill is patent BE.

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at it's intended target. They may be made to be more suitable for self defense, hunting, target practicing, or combat conditions, but none were designed for mass shootings and murder.

Yeah, that’s why they created the complimentary ammunition like hollow points, because there was no thought about to best kill another human. Only in America I tell you.

Even cars, which are absolutely not designed to hurt, kill or maim, are legislated to protect people against their misuse, or reckless use to some degree.

It's the same with firearms. You think it's legal to go on a killing spree, shoot up the neighbor's house, fire indiscriminately into the air, or brandish a firearm in a threatening manner? Firearms have the most regulations aside from the tax code.

Citation please?

And some of the these controls make a fuck ton of sense in the gun arena, like ensuring that people get licenses so they know what they are doing, prohibit people who are not sound of mind and body from using them. Really basic stuff.

It's not common sense if there's no statistics to back it up. States like Illinois and New York have stringent training requirements in order to carry and they don't seem to have a dramatic effect on negligent discharges compared to states like Vermont which you don't even need a permit to carry.

Look outside your country for evidence.

Since your constitution loves guns and war, people have a right to arm themselves so you would have to make this process with very few barriers to entry, but your society proves time and again that it is not healthy or mature enough to handle the responsibility of guns.

If we didn't have guns, You would be saying the same thing about our knifing and clubbing rates.

Stick to what I actually say.

In fact, in the UK, knife attacks are on the rise.

As has been previously pointed out, the scale of violence perpetrated by firearms could not be carried out with clubs and knives. Guns you have but to point and click from a long distance and you can kill reliably. Knives and clubs you need to be much closer and probably need a higher level of training to kill as reliably as a gun does.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Guns aren't designed for mass shootings or murders.

Which guns are you talking about? Because in some cases you may be right, in some you are definitely wrong. One thing is for sure, all guns were designed to damage people/places/things. Many of them are designed to kill large numbers of humans, like the machine gun. It’s irresponsible to pretend that they won’t be used inappropriately a non-zero amount of time.

Machine guns were designed for covering fire, not necessarily for mowing down large groups of people.

Citation? In WW1, the period when machine guns were most relevant, they were set up in areas to inflict maximum casualties.

Yeah, when the other side was brave enough to go over the top. As for evidence that they were mostly used for suppressive fire:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

Among artillery and mortars (which theoretically should inflict more carnage), machine guns were most used to keep the enemy's heads down. As I said before, modern warfare doesn't allow for shooting masses of people even if machine guns were originally designed that way. Now it's almost always used as suppressive fire.

Sure, they were sorta used that way when trench warfare was popular, but modern combat doesn't allow for that.

Nuclear bombs sorta blew Hiroshima and Nagasaki too 

And really, the purpose of an inanimate object is irrelevant to the topic when comparing deaths. For sake of argument, lets assume that guns are designed for killing, that still means more people die accidentally from vehicles than purposely by firearms.

But cars are more prevalent band also serve a much wider purpose than causing damage. Obviously there is a benefit that outweighs the harm.

For every victim of a car accident, there's at least three times that many who used firearms to defend their lives every year. And there are modern societies even within the US where you can do well without a car.

Also, you're equating warfare with crime. I stated that no firearm was designed for mass shootings and murder and here you are saying that they were used for mowing people down in war time.

The opposite is true. I took are to stay away from your “murder” argument because I think it is true. But to say that guns are not designed to kill is patent BE.

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles at it's intended target. They may be made to be more suitable for self defense, hunting, target practicing, or combat conditions, but none were designed for mass shootings and murder.

Yeah, that’s why they created the complimentary ammunition like hollow points, because there was no thought about to best kill another human. Only in America I tell you.

Hollow points were designed to (1) stop within the initial target and not pass on through to hit something unintended and (2) have a greater chance of stopping the assailant. It doesn't necessarily means it needs to kill the assailant.

Even cars, which are absolutely not designed to hurt, kill or maim, are legislated to protect people against their misuse, or reckless use to some degree.

It's the same with firearms. You think it's legal to go on a killing spree, shoot up the neighbor's house, fire indiscriminately into the air, or brandish a firearm in a threatening manner? Firearms have the most regulations aside from the tax code.

Citation please?

While I couldn't find out how many car regulations or even traffic laws are there (which would be relevant to the topic), I did found out that there is roughly 20,000 gun regulations in the US.

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_laws_are_there

http://www.gunlaws.com/faq.htm

So unless you can find the number of traffic laws out there, at least you can admit that 20,000 is a lot.

And some of the these controls make a fuck ton of sense in the gun arena, like ensuring that people get licenses so they know what they are doing, prohibit people who are not sound of mind and body from using them. Really basic stuff.

It's not common sense if there's no statistics to back it up. States like Illinois and New York have stringent training requirements in order to carry and they don't seem to have a dramatic effect on negligent discharges compared to states like Vermont which you don't even need a permit to carry.

Look outside your country for evidence.

Such as?

Since your constitution loves guns and war, people have a right to arm themselves so you would have to make this process with very few barriers to entry, but your society proves time and again that it is not healthy or mature enough to handle the responsibility of guns.

If we didn't have guns, You would be saying the same thing about our knifing and clubbing rates.

Stick to what I actually say.

In fact, in the UK, knife attacks are on the rise.

As has been previously pointed out, the scale of violence perpetrated by firearms could not be carried out with clubs and knives. Guns you have but to point and click from a long distance and you can kill reliably. Knives and clubs you need to be much closer and probably need a higher level of training to kill as reliably as a gun does.

A person managed to kill 8 people in Japan with a knife. All it takes is the right settings.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.

Two points.

1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.

2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?

[Lord Dave]

To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.

Two points.

1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.

2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?

Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms.  The US does.  And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment.  So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns.  Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares.  And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.

BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.

So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas. 

[Luke 22:35-38]

To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.

Wow! Way to misrepresent my argument. Where have I stated such? I've stated that guns aren't necessarily designed for killing and I've stated that people use firearms for self defense all the time. Also I like to point out that statistically Finland has more mass shootings than we do.

Two points.

1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.

Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat.

2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?

I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.

[Luke 22:35-38]

To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.

Two points.

1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.

2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?

Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms.  The US does.  And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment.  So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns.  Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares.  And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.

BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.

So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas.

Who called for the ban in California? Republicans or Democrats? If anything it shows that gun control is rooted in racism than anything else. As for the Muslim thing, as long as they're law abiding and not calling for the death of infidels, they have every right to keep and bear arms.

[J-Man]

We need our guns. In 1970, .gov troops fired M1 Garands loaded with 30-06 rounds with 150 grain spitzer bullets capable of speeds of 2900 fps. Weapon holds 10 rounds. In just 13 seconds, 67 rounds killed or injured 13 unarmed Kent State students, all of which were in good standing with the college. Today a surplus M1 Garand will set you back $1,000 used in fair condition. Most these students were mowed down at a distance of 100 yards.

In contrast a surplus Russian made Mosin Nagant made from the turn of century 1900, firing a 7.62 x54r round same 150 grain 2900+ would have set you back about $79 just a few years ago. Weapon holds 5 rounds. The vodka drinking farm people were given these weapons to defend the home land, such as our constitution requires a militia and right to bear arms. These vodka drinkers farmers should and could have practiced to be semi prolific at a shot some 400 yards. Steel ammo will penetrate most body armor today from these babies and like the 30-06 it's a devastating round.

Fast forward to the Bundy Ranch Standoff where both sides had AR-15's. The constitution works and most the players have beaten the Feds in court over this ordeal. Jurys have said .Gov stand down.

Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.

I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any? 

[Rama Set]

Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.

I totally support the 2nd amendment even if I disagree with the philosophical underpinnings.  It's your constitution and it there is popular support for it and so it should be respected as a self-determining nation/  But the Trump administration rolled back restrictions on mentally ill bearing arms, which seems like a step in the wrong direction.

I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?

Yeah, there was this guy in Las Vegas...

[Lord Dave]

To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about papercut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.

Two points.

1
After a couple of gun massacres in the 1980’s/90’s the UK banned assault rifles, handguns and tightened controls massively on gun ownership, it is estimated that 200,000 guns were removed from circulation. The reaction of the public? Bloody good show!
I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can.

2
I have in my time, for various reasons, been stopped by the police 12-20 times whilst driving. It’s an inconvenience, and the police are usually knobheads, yet not once have I been worried that I may die in the following encounter, the police themselves were not worried that they might die either, I wonder if these two points could be linked in anyway?

Oh they very muchly are linked.
The difference is that the UK does not have a right to bear arms.  The US does.  And to be patriotic, you MUST be ok with the 2nd amendment.  So it's illegal for the government to take all the guns.  Thus, gun makers have a nearly unblocked field to which they can sell their wares.  And Americans, being Americans, know that you can't be American unless guns are allowed.

BUT when some black people carried loaded guns in California one time, suddenly loaded guns were banned.

So maybe that's what they need to do: A bunch of muslims need to march as pro-gun with assault rifles and stuff in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas.

Who called for the ban in California? Republicans or Democrats? If anything it shows that gun control is rooted in racism than anything else. As for the Muslim thing, as long as they're law abiding and not calling for the death of infidels, they have every right to keep and bear arms.

Repubs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act




Yeah but I bet you'd be worried if they marched down your street, guns held high, saying "Freedom to fight.  Freedom to kill.  Freedom to use our guns as we will!  Allah Akbar!"

[honk]

We need our guns. In 1970, .gov troops fired M1 Garands loaded with 30-06 rounds with 150 grain spitzer bullets capable of speeds of 2900 fps. Weapon holds 10 rounds. In just 13 seconds, 67 rounds killed or injured 13 unarmed Kent State students, all of which were in good standing with the college. Today a surplus M1 Garand will set you back $1,000 used in fair condition. Most these students were mowed down at a distance of 100 yards.

In contrast a surplus Russian made Mosin Nagant made from the turn of century 1900, firing a 7.62 x54r round same 150 grain 2900+ would have set you back about $79 just a few years ago. Weapon holds 5 rounds. The vodka drinking farm people were given these weapons to defend the home land, such as our constitution requires a militia and right to bear arms. These vodka drinkers farmers should and could have practiced to be semi prolific at a shot some 400 yards. Steel ammo will penetrate most body armor today from these babies and like the 30-06 it's a devastating round.

Fast forward to the Bundy Ranch Standoff where both sides had AR-15's. The constitution works and most the players have beaten the Feds in court over this ordeal. Jurys have said .Gov stand down.

Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.

I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?

I'm puzzled as to what you're arguing here. If the protesters at Kent State had been armed, it's a near-certainty that even more of them would have been killed. And if the Bundy protesters hadn't been armed, there never would have been any real fear of the government killing them to begin with. They would have been arrested quickly and quietly, and they would have had their day in court just like they are now. It's because of changing times that one protest ended with bloodshed and the other peacefully in court, not because one was armed and the other wasn't.

[Lord Dave]

I'm with Honk, I don't understand your point.


Give someome a gun and  killing becomes an easy option.


The government killed protesters. 
The government killed armed criminals.
Armed criminals kill the government.
Armed protesters beat other protesters.




Humans kill other humans.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

To read Luke’s arguments that things aren’t so bad, that guns are designed for entertainment and the countless deaths are an unfortunate by-product of all the fun America has, and anyway what about paper-cut fatalities in Finland, is to see the growing disconnect between what US citizens think the world is bound to be like, and how it actually is for the rest of the civilised world.

Wow! Way to misrepresent my argument. Where have I stated such?

Here we go!

I've stated that guns aren't necessarily designed for killing.

Of all the rammel I have heard in defence of guns, this takes the biscuit.

Also I like to point out that statistically Finland has more mass shootings than we do.

More rubbish. You may have missed the point I made sometime back, so here it is again;
American guns on your soil have killed more of you, since 1968, than US fatalities in all the wars since your inception, think about that.

I was considering getting a handgun at the time as a gun club had just opened near me and shit who doesn’t want a gun? However, the Dunblane killing’s where a nut with handguns killed a bunch of children and teachers at a primary school, and the subsequent debate changed that. I couldn’t square me just wanting to have a gun with the increased possibility that that freedom would likely lead to more children cowering in cupboards while someone hunted them down and executed them. Apparently, Americans can

Had someone at that school was armed they could've stopped the threat. .

Well that has worked out well for you hasn’t it? You have more guns than people in your country but still it happens.

I'm not worried about dying at a traffic stop because I know how to act. In fact, because of my job, I'm in contact with law enforcement almost every week.

You kind of underline my point there, we don’t have to worry, we don’t have to know how to act.
 
A particularly volatile work colleague got caught taking a short cut, wrong way down a one-way street by a police car coming the other way, he jumped out of the car and started to pelt the two officers with a bag of revels he was eating, whilst suggesting loudly that their parents had unnatural liaisons with farm animals (another co-worker was thankfully with him), he got a fine and points on his license, not gunned down.
 
I don’t know what the solution is to your woes, you have too many firearms in circulation, you have a retarded love for the things that defies explanation, you are paranoid about each other and your government, and the gun makers have convinced you that without them you would become slaves, so you buy more, and collectively bury your heads in the mounting pile of bodies and pretend nothing is wrong. L. Dave was right to get out.

[Dither]

Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,

Less guns = Less death

Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.

[J-Man]

We need our guns. In 1970, .gov troops fired M1 Garands loaded with 30-06 rounds with 150 grain spitzer bullets capable of speeds of 2900 fps. Weapon holds 10 rounds. In just 13 seconds, 67 rounds killed or injured 13 unarmed Kent State students, all of which were in good standing with the college. Today a surplus M1 Garand will set you back $1,000 used in fair condition. Most these students were mowed down at a distance of 100 yards.

In contrast a surplus Russian made Mosin Nagant made from the turn of century 1900, firing a 7.62 x54r round same 150 grain 2900+ would have set you back about $79 just a few years ago. Weapon holds 5 rounds. The vodka drinking farm people were given these weapons to defend the home land, such as our constitution requires a militia and right to bear arms. These vodka drinkers farmers should and could have practiced to be semi prolific at a shot some 400 yards. Steel ammo will penetrate most body armor today from these babies and like the 30-06 it's a devastating round.

Fast forward to the Bundy Ranch Standoff where both sides had AR-15's. The constitution works and most the players have beaten the Feds in court over this ordeal. Jurys have said .Gov stand down.

Thank you but I'll keep my weapons and carry in as many places it's legal.

I'm all for taking weapons out of the hands of mental cases or felons, know any?

I'm puzzled as to what you're arguing here. If the protesters at Kent State had been armed, it's a near-certainty that even more of them would have been killed. And if the Bundy protesters hadn't been armed, there never would have been any real fear of the government killing them to begin with. They would have been arrested quickly and quietly, and they would have had their day in court just like they are now. It's because of changing times that one protest ended with bloodshed and the other peacefully in court, not because one was armed and the other wasn't.

It's called Freedom and a rifle is a great equalizer in seeing I shall always be free. For $79 you too could have solidified your alienable rights to this Freedom. No herding you into cattle cars or marching you into a killing field.

I disagree with your conclusions, if in fact the students were armed there would have been negotiations just as all powers today with nukes are treated differently than non nuclear countries. The Bundy folks were armed and owned the fight till the bitter end.

The numbers are all skewed, some of us own enough weapons to arm ourselves many times over and than some.

If the cost of FREEDOM is some must die, I choose Freedom. It's like faith in Jesus Christ, once you truly own it, ya ain't giving it back, under any circumstance.

[Lord Dave]

Does this mean that all countries with gun control are not free?


What about those who are not free but have great pro-gun laws?


Does that mean Mexicans are more free than Canadians?

[J-Man]

Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,

Less guns = Less death

Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.

I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?

Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.