Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Buying an iPad In a Parking Lot is a Bad Idea
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're welcome. And thanks for pointing that out. It feels good to finally catch the grammar Nazi, doesn't it? Unfortunately you'll have to wait a bit longer because it's not incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunction. I paid attention in English class. And I've paid attention while reading.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction and ending a sentence with a preposition are just things that teachers tell you as fact so that you'll avoid doing it to excess and sounding stupid. But it's not incorrect in English.
It's similar to the 3.5 essay in elementary school. No one uses that structure outside of elementary school, but it provides a framework for kids who are starting out with essays.
But, today, it's considered perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with a conjunction in informal writing! And you can start a sentence with "or" as well. Or you can begin a sentence with "but" when appropriate. And you can find many examples in major works of literature, including the Bible.
Nice response! I wouldn't use it in a thesis, but if you're writing a novel it's not a problem.
As a fellow grammarian, you'll appreciate this site:
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
This page lists this issue as well as many others teachers held dear:
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
The site is great and it's an excellent resource to point people to.
And the evidence agrees. In every major city in the United States—Chicago is a big example—where carry rights have been denied, there is a higher instance of crime—and in many cases a higher instance of violent crime.
It's actually not even just the case in the US. England, Ireland, and Australia are also great examples.
I often have a loaded gun around me and people have pissed me off. And you know what happened? I cared less about them angering me than I did before I owned a gun.
If you don't want to kill someone, you're not going to do it. If you're going to put a bullet into someone for a reason other than self-defense, you should just save yourself some time and shoot yourself—unless you like the prospect of rotting in jail.
Let me get this straight. You believe that law-abiding citizens who have had extensive background checks to get carry permits are going to break the law by shooting someone out of anger and you believe that criminals—who already cannot legally carry a firearm—will comply with the laws if they are made more stringent against guns?
Who's illogical?
Nice clue, a fricking silver Chrysler 300. To quote Chief Wiggums from The Simpsons, "This is Wiggum, reporting a 318! Waking a police officer!"
The victims had to think they were buying stolen property so I feel nothing for them other than they got what they deserved.
I concur, all facts related to the case that don't endanger anyone should be divulged as it will help narrow down the dozens of Chrysler 300's out there.
South Carolina should change its state motto.
South Carolina, giving Florida a run for its money.
No, actually the evidence doesn't agree. The statistics cited in these cases doesn't take in account differences in income, age, urbanization, etc.
Here's a stat for you. Minneapolis = 29 deaths by guns so far. Windsor, Ontario (Metro) - with far far stronger gun control laws. 0 gun deaths.
Looking at national stats, US gun deaths *rate* an order of magnitude higher than any other developed nation with strict gun control laws.
Another stat. In Washington state, 88% of gun deaths were caused by a Spouses, other family members, friends of the victim. The shooter was not a criminal, until they pulled the trigger during a domestic dispute or by negligence. Only 12% of those killed were shot in act of committing a crime.
Until you do. Until you get mad enough that you lose control for just a split second.
Well the stats actually indicate that most gun deaths are committed by law-abiding citizens. Law abiding until they pulled the trigger, that is.
Or to put it a different way. If you keep a gun to shoot a criminal... you are seven times more likely to shoot someone you love or like before you ever shoot the criminal.
The Washington state stats come from their public health unit, and are similar to the national stats.
Allow me to retort. Your stats don't take into account differences in population, which is a far easier, and more important point to worry about than income, age, or urbanization.
So let's use actual numbers, sources, and common sense. Shall we?
According to the Small Arms Survey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
America has 88.8 guns per 100 people. Canada has 30.8.
The Windsor metro area has 323K people. That's 99,484 guns. The Minneapolis metro area has roughly 3 million people. That's 2,664,000 guns. So, let's even them out based on population. Minneapolis has had one death for every 91,862 guns. That's just under the total amount of guns that can be reasoned to belong in Windsor, assuming that they are average as far as gun ownership. If they are indeed stricter than the rest of Canado, then they have less. So basically it's a wash.
Of course gun deaths are highest in the country where the most guns are. That's obvious. However, the amount of overall crime is less.
According to the International Crime Victims Survey:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg
We're 7th on the list of cities with violent crime because of NYC. Without NYC, we're not even on the list.
More of that is explained here:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
The amount of guns has never been higher than it is now, and anti-gun laws have been on the decline, and guess what? violent crime has too. http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/fbi-report-violent-crime-down.php
Chicago and D.C. both topped the list for crime at one point, and they both had very strict gun control laws. Out of the ten most dangerous cities in America, two are in California.
Why don't we just look at how well the anti-drug laws have worked. Pick a corner and talk to someone.
Oh and that Washington state claim must also be BS because it doesn't take into account suicides. I don't know how your public health unit data can vary so wildly from both the Department of Health and Washington Cease Fire. Both are groups interested in gun control.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/emstrauma/injury/pubs/icpg/DOH530090Firear.pdf
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
This data comes from a network of specific communities in Washington State that the DoH works with. In these areas in 2006 Firearm deaths were 522.
392 were suicides (75%)
121 were homicides (23%)
9 were unintentional (2%)
So no, 88% were not injuries to friends or family.
The anti-gun website Washington Cease Fire (based out of Washington State) is close to my numbers (2004) using the CDC's data:
Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities
I could go on and address your other claims, but they're probably BS too. For one thing that Brady Campaign number (which obviously fails in this Washington data) about being 7 times more likely to be shoot friends or family is based on a random telephone survey conducted in 1996. In other words, it's BS. Find data from an unbiased source, or even a source biased against your argument (as I have done above) that agrees.
Keep in mind that you need to filter out suicides. You need to filter out homicides. I saw a stat about how likely a woman was to be murdered by someone they know, and obviously that's not accidental and so it doesn't count.
And if you want bonus points, filter out how many are people who were legally allowed to own and carry a weapon.
If you want to try to reason anything in this, beat these arguments and we'll talk:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209#FABLE IV:
This is also a good article on the subject:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...concealed-carry-permit-holders-brady-campaign
Hell, this one even comes from the University of Chicago:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405
It notes that only .001% of people issued a CCW permit in my state have had their permits revoked (not necessarily gun crimes either). That's 165 out of 1.36 million. It also notes that 40% of criminals have said that the thought of someone being armed prevented them from attempting their crime.
Until you get some better facts, I guess we're done here. I could write novels on this, but I don't want to.
I keep a gun to shoot for fun and to protect myself. There is no way that I am going to shoot someone I know. I am not an idiot. I am not firing at people randomly in the dark. And gun safety is my highest priority. Anyone with a CCW has proven it. We're not just people that randomly decide to pick up a toy and not learn anything about it. I've shot my guns. I've shot other people's guns. I realize that death comes out the end of the barrel.
The biggest problem I have is that you would rather deny me my constitutional right because you think I am not trustworthy. My country believes in innocence until proven guilty. You would have it be the other way around.
What BS. Please don't ascribe your traits and fears to me. That's the problem with anti-gun, Brady Campaign people. Just because you think you could be so angry as to shoot someone, doesn't mean that I will. When you have the power to end someone's life with one trigger pull, you actually think about what that means. You realize that arguments and anger are petty and fleeting and that no argument or amount of anger is worth losing your life rotting in prison or taking another's life over it.
Trust me, there aren't many more things that anyone could do to piss me off. I've seen it all. I will never shoot anyone unless my life, or someone else's life is in danger, or I witness a forcible felony (rape, kidnapping, etc.) taking place and I have the means to safely stop it. And that might not even include discharging my weapon.
Until you actually own and carry a gun, you will just not get it. People who own guns respect them. We don't think that they're toys, or something to use in an argument to make someone submit. We keep them for safety and possibly sport. We don't just bring them home and keep them because they look cool. I know that's what your side thinks. But the truth and the evidence shows that people who are legally allowed to carry guns are safe, law-abiding citizens unlike the picture you're trying to paint. We understand the responsibility of owning a gun, and you don't if you don't own one. And the simple fact is that if you're living in America, 88.8% of the people around you have guns. It appears that you live in Canada. 30.8% of the people around you have guns. Have you ever been shot? Most people just go about their day without even knowing it. And though you'd rather me give up my guns, I'd gladly assist you if you needed it.
So just because your made up data says that I'm seven times more likely to shoot someone I love or whatever doesn't mean that I'm trigger happy or incapable of self-control simply because I have a gun. I've never lost control of myself. I've never even so much as punched someone out of anger. I even take most bugs outside instead of just killing them. So please stop with your, "until you do," BS because that's all it is, BS.
Last edited:
@ zync: Preach on brother zync! I agree 100% and appreciate your facts and citations. This reminds me of environmentalists who want to ban hunting without knowing anything about hunting. It appalls them people go in the woods and assassinate animals (to eat) but don't realize those same hunters are some of the most ardent, devoted, active environmentalists out there. Same thing goes with gun owners who turn out to mostly be very careful and responsible.
Your post reminds me of my college days where I'd stomp someone into the ground with facts and figures...good work.
Your post reminds me of my college days where I'd stomp someone into the ground with facts and figures...good work.
Thanks for saying that. I appreciate it after all of that work. I've been doing it since college too.
What you said is equally important. Hunters are intensely concerned about the environment. And that's another thing that people get wrong.
I found another study done by independent researchers before Wisconsin got CCW. http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf
It notes that crime has dropped but it cannot be attributed easily to gun ownership. However, it does debunk all of the fears surrounding individuals being armed. It also notes that while crime hasn't changed drastically, it is most likely because criminals don't stop what they're doing, so they always find a victim. With greater amounts of carrying, it may show a decrease.
In any case, I simply wanted to point out that people with CCW permits are not violent individuals. No one should be afraid of a legal gun owner. They are law abiding by definition, and continue to be so even in situations where their gun is necessary. The above study cites a case in which a person used a gun in a defensive manner to stop an armed robbery, saving the lives of 8 people, and did not kill the robber, even as the other victims pleaded him to do so.
The above study also notes that many law enforcement individuals who had previously been against CCW said that they were wrong. I'm sure the same thing happened in Wisconsin after this study occurred.
The problem is, and always has been, criminals with concealed guns. And there's no way to stop that without ruining personal liberty for everyone (unlawful search and seizure). The best solution is licensed concealed carry. However, I would assert that open carry should be legal for everyone without permit. It works for Vermont and their concealed carry age is 18 instead of 21 like most places.
But I like to listen to the Constitution, and believe in what our founders wrote. And that's a part of our culture and heritage as Americans and I wouldn't expect any other country to get that. Australia did for a bit, but they allowed the anti-gun groups to spout half-truths and they lost their rights.
Anyway, I'm going to go back to writing quick, pithy comments instead of tomes.
Sorry for derailing this thread, I just couldn't let people smear the reputation of those that exercise their right to bear arms. We're not crazy people like you want to believe.
Lmfao...are you kidding me? If I picked up a piece of painted would I would just know...jesus. Crappy security photo though....
You need to take into account income, age, and urbanization. Otherwise any comparison is useless. Yes, of course Canada has fewer guns per person. That's the whole point. More guns, more people shot and killed.
Sorry, my bad. I meant to compare metro Windsor with Minneapolis proper, not metro. Which puts the populations at par. I'm not pulling this comparison out of thin air, Minneapolis has recently been making the comparison. The demographics of the two communities is very similar. Minneapolis has lots of guns, Windsor doesn't. Minneapolis has lots of homicides by guns. Windsor doesn't. There are some who believe those two things are linked.
"Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US"[Wikipedia - with link back to primarily source]
So, in fact violent crimes is higher in the country with more guns, and theft from cars... that rarely need a gun ... is higher in a country with fewer guns.
Guess what.... violent crime is down in all developed nations, because the population is aging. Older populations don't commit as many crimes. That's the demographic factor you need to take into account.
Violent crimes happen most often in urban areas, and less in rural areas. So you need to compare control laws across similar densities, and not rural to urban densities.
I ignored the suicides because we are debating crimes.
I couldn't find my handy King County WA infographic, but I found a better source since this encompasses 3 counties in 3 states, including King County WA.
"The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them. Homicides by a stranger accounted for only 15 cases (3.6 percent). The identity of the offender could not be established in 73 cases (17.4 percent). The remaining cases involved other offenders or police acting in the line of duty.
Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds. A knife or some other sharp instrument was used to kill 111 victims (26.4 percent). The remaining victims were either bludgeoned (11.7 percent), strangled (6.4 percent), or killed by other means (5.7 percent)." [link]
Murdered women don't count?? Would you like to clarify that? I don't think you meant that to sound as ugly as it does.
My facts seem to holding up fine. Even the studies you cited show that in developed countries with strict gun control laws, people are very very very much safer than in developed countries without strict control laws.
I agree. We can't use stats to predict what an individual will do. But the stats show that in a big enough sample, most people killed by a firearm are killed by someone they know.
I've provided links to my data
I am not accusing you of anything, nor do I think you would ever use your gun inappropriately. I am saying that in the wider US population, guns make people less safe, not more.
Same here
I've had the same thing happening to me 10years ago in San Francisco. We were on vacation there and this black guy and a black girl, they looked like homeless people, came up to us with this FedEx box and were like hey do you want to buy a new laptop i just stole it off of this fedex truck and we were like hmmm.. how much, they started with 300 bucks and we luckily pushed them down to 100bucks and went to our hotel with the box, sure enough there was on laptop, it was just a magazine in there that was made to look like a laptop.
oh well, i hope they spent that money well.
I've had the same thing happening to me 10years ago in San Francisco. We were on vacation there and this black guy and a black girl, they looked like homeless people, came up to us with this FedEx box and were like hey do you want to buy a new laptop i just stole it off of this fedex truck and we were like hmmm.. how much, they started with 300 bucks and we luckily pushed them down to 100bucks and went to our hotel with the box, sure enough there was on laptop, it was just a magazine in there that was made to look like a laptop.
oh well, i hope they spent that money well.
There's a very important distinction here that you and anti-gun people ignore. More guns in the hands of criminals will always equal more people shot and killed. More of the population is law-abiding than not. Thus more guns does not equal more gun deaths.
Let us frame this debate a little better. I am talking about gun ownership amongst law-abiding citizens, like CCW permit holders. Of course more guns held by criminals will lead to more gun crime.
The problem with comparing other nations to the US is that, unlike the US, in most other places all the guns are held by criminals.
With those things understood, let us continue.
I knew you meant to compare Windsor Metro to just Minneapolis. The problem with that is that it leaves out a lot. It's an unfair comparison. Did your source specifically state that all were killed in the city proper? Metro populations are fluid. For example, Tampa has about 330K residents, but it swells to 3-4 million during the day. There's no way to know with current studies whether someone shot in Tampa was shot by someone from Tampa.
As far as I'm concerned, crime is crime. This cannot be directly attributed to the amount of guns. Other factors may play a role as in the likelihood of a victim to have a gun on them. Look at what you copied that I wrote. London, Tallinn, Reykjavik, Belfast, and Dublin, all beat out New York in that study and New York also has strict gun control. A city in the USA with a decent gun population isn't even on the list of 26 cities.
Cite a source. Yes, it's down all over, but my source was a US specific study. Neither of us have studies that take into account demographics. It hasn't entered the gun control debate as a whole and it hasn't really mattered to either side. The only way, and not a very good way, would be to compare birth rate. Some rates are down and some are up depending upon age group. Overall it looks to be down since 1990, but by how much and did crime drop proportionately? I doubt it. Feel free to look.
I will fall back on that Wisconsin study (WPRI) I posted as it's more comprehensive than what we have done in this argument. Gun ownership has seemingly had no effect on crime. I will concede that.
But it conceded that if everyone who could get a CCW permit would, we might end up with less crime. The problem is that the CCW population is so little, criminals always have another target. Criminals have often stated in studies that knowing or suspecting that someone had a gun stopped them 40% of the time (WPRI study). That study was made before Florida set the standard for shall-issue concealed carry permits.
There are plenty of areas more urbanized than those two cities. Why not elsewhere then? Or shall we again look at NYC, where there are strict gun controls (against law abiding citizens).
You didn't ignore suicides. Your numbers did as those numbers often do. You used an infographic? I used an anti-gun source based out of WA to provide my numbers. One would suspect a partisan group to have the most fudged numbers.
"The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them."
Let's go back to what you stated. "You are seven times more likely to shoot someone you love or like before you ever shoot the criminal." I've heard many variations of that, and they're all BS. And your stated statistics proves it. Your stats are for homicides. They aren't for accidental shootings, or manslaughter. If someone is going to murder you, would you still consider them someone you love or like? And if someone is going to murder you with a gun, would you feel no fear if all they had access to was a knife?
Let's look further at your stats.
"Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds."
So that 76.7% is actually only 38.2% of people shot by someone they knew with a gun. You have to actually calculate the data. Less than half of the victims who knew their killer were shot by a gun.
Your source's link didn't load, but it doesn't matter. It's flawed because it doesn't prove what you originally asserted, which was that you'd be more likely to shoot someone you love or like than a criminal—i.e. that it would be an accident. This doesn't even come close to proving that fake statistic.
Homicides by a stranger are always rare. Why? Because you usually don't piss someone off that much on a chance encounter.
Saying you're 7 times more likely to be shot by someone you know is like saying, people on Facebook with 1000s of friends are 7 times more likely to be killed by someone they know on Facebook. Well, duh.
Don't be cheeky. Murdered women don't count because we're debating being killed by someone you know accidentally, as most people who claim that try to state and as you tried to claim previously. Knowing someone who's purposely murdering you with a gun doesn't count because they aren't killing you because they have a gun, they're killing you because they want you dead. Again most people know their killers.
Yes, your facts seem fine like glass shards seem to be diamonds. They are flawed upon inspection.
The studies I cited did not show that. Perhaps Washington Cease Fire did, but I cited them only for homicide numbers so that I could show how even the opposite side's numbers agreed with me.
Anyway, that ICVS study that I cited shows NYC (a strict gun control city) as the only American city on a list of the top 26 in the 10 crimes they studied. The WPRI study shows no net affect on crime by the small amount of CCW holders, which is the only legal way to carry in most places in the United States.
There is no way we're getting guns out of the hands of criminals without compromising the 4th Amendment so to say that we would be better off without guns is ridiculous and impossible. The only people complying with such a law would be legal gun owners. That would make those of us who do believe in the 2nd amendment less safe because criminals will keep their guns.
There are many instances where defensive gun use was important. (WPRI) Even the lowest estimate of 64K incidents is worth something. (WPRI) Anti-gun people always say that "even if it just saves one life it's worth it." Well, if .0016% of those cases work out, that's 1 life.
Again, most people killed are killed by someone they know. Period. As your facts even stated. But let's not act like it's an accident.
You didn't provide links to sources before. And you did act like I'd not only shoot someone for pleasure but that it would end up being someone I know—and yet be an accident.
I am saying that more guns in the hands of criminals makes people less safe, not more. More guns in the hands of law-abiding people will eventually bring crime rates down because of two things:
Criminals report that guns deter them from committing crimes against gun owners and CCW permit holders only account for .2% of crimes of ANY type. Or better put, only .2% of permit holders, out of the millions issued, have lost their permit due to ANY sort of crime (WPRI).
The simple fact is that there's no way to find out if a criminal has a gun without the 4th Amendment. If someone is legally found with a weapon without the ability to legally carry it, they are arrested and the weapon is confiscated. Any legislation that removes firearms only applies to people who legally own and carry them. Criminals don't follow the law. That's the definition. So nothing changes for the criminals and people who were previously law-abiding would then be criminals under new legislation.
The other fact is that CCW permit holders are, on the whole, 99.8% proven to be law-abiding people. That is indisputable. So why do anti-gun groups want to take guns away from those people? Perhaps now you can understand why people like me get so angry at anyone who wants to take away our guns. It's not simply because we just like guns. It's because we like our guns, they keep us safe (us being CCW people, perhaps not the populace at large), and we have proven ourselves to be more trustworthy than prophylactics.
So by enacting anti-gun legislation (especially stupid things like mag restrictions) you are only bolstering the criminals. And, more than that, you're taking away protection from a group of people that have proven themselves to be extremely trustworthy.
It's like telling a chef that he can't cut vegetables with a knife because he might stab someone. It's utterly ridiculous. There's probably less certainty that the chef won't stab someone than there is that a CCW holder won't commit a crime.
If you want to dispute this fine. But start first with this last section. Otherwise you're wasting your time because we're arguing about different things.
Also, sorry for the delay. I didn't get a notification.
Last edited:
Accidents, guns that get stolen and find the way on the black market, mistakes,...
More guns free avaible and legaly in the hands of citizens will always have the effect of more "gun violence" its basic statistics .
Thats not true, plenty of countries with high gun ownership (legal or not)
But shouldnt the comparison be with ****ries that have less guns?
If it has no effect on crime, but it does have an effect on mortality rates (as I said accidents and such) why would you defend it?
Do you honestly think criminals would stop?
And everyone armed is asking for a very high number of accidents.
Guns doesnt make any society safer. The reason behind the idea in the USA (militia against an oppresive regime) is also dated, not simple gun is going to stop a modern army.
Its clear it has little advantages but a whole slew of disadvantages.
tldr; Guns don't kill people retards/meany faces/psychopaths/anything inbetween kill people with any tools they can get including guns. /Thread
None of these things are true of CCW permit holders. That's why they rarely (.2%) have had permits revoked.
This is simply not the case as the majority of citizens are law abiding. As for CCW, they are overwhelmingly law-abiding to the tune of 99.8%.
Almost all countries that have a population that carries firearms carry them illegally.
I don't see why. Look at what happened in London the other day. They went nuts over finding 5 guns that they were tipped off about. 1 was a flare gun, 2 were flintlock pistols, and only one was a modern (WWI modern) revolver. It took 35 police officers hours to handle it. And they had to call in a special unit because they didn't know how to clear them so that they'd be safe. How many people could have been robbed or injured while they dealt with that non-issue?
Let's get something straight. Though I believe that everyone should be armed, that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that guns should never be taken from CCW permit holders as they have proven themselves trustworthy and law abiding.
CCW permits don't have an affect on mortality rates. Only .01% of those granted a CCW permit have committed a gun-related crime (which doesn't automatically mean homicide).
Additionally, over 60K instances of defensive gun use occur each year. So while the criminals can find another mark—which keeps crime the same—permit holders have a better chance of not being victims.
So it's obviously easy to defend. How can you say that I shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon when I belong to a group that is 99.8% crime-free and 99.99% gun crime-free?
No. I think they would BE stopped. Even if you had a gun would you choose a mark who you believe has a gun or move on to someone who's unarmed? I know I wouldn't and I'm a good shot.
This has been claimed by many law enforcement agencies before shall-issue permits were allowed in their states. Almost all of them have reneged on their original statements, and those that didn't still said that they had basically no problems with permit holders.
Why? Safety is a required aspect of CCW permits and people who go through the trouble of getting permits understand the responsibility of being safe with a weapon whether it's loaded or not.
They absolutely make anyone who is forced into a situation in which a gun is required safer than they would be without a gun.
That idea is an important aspect of this country. It is NOT dated. People against guns have attempted to legislate it away.
Also, I don't know if you realize it, but soldiers in this country swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. They must follow orders, however if their order violates a law of the United States, they are charged to disobey that order. So it should never come to this.
And no, a simple gun isn't going to stop a modern army. We should be allowed to use anything the military has with proper training. There should be no restrictions as I've already proven myself to be law-abiding.
It's clear that it only has advantages. CCW permit holders are not criminals and they have the ability to defend themselves. Criminals will always have guns. We should too.
tsdn; (too short, didn't notice if you're wondering) That could be considered opinion, even thought it's based on facts—hence the long arguments actually using facts.
Despite that compelling wall of text I've learned that off topic really don't matter. Especially when we are talking about guns on an Apple forum.
lol, that changes everything, if that's the case then she got a pretty good deal after all
That's fine. I didn't intend to let it get that big. But there you have it.
I'm done. Unless someone has data about CCW permit holders being untrustworthy, I'm ignoring it.
As for the topic, anyone taken by this scam deserves it. That's what you get for basically buying something without seeing it and expecting it to be hot merchandise.
So according to you there are virtually no accidents (at home or outside) and they have guns lost or stolen? Got any proof of that?
If I am not mistaken one of the requirments is not have a criminal record, of course you get mostly law abiding citizens.
That wast what I was talking about. A kid finding the gun and shooting someone by accident is just as much "gun violence". A stolen gun, overreacting,...
You dont seem to know a lot outside the USA. Plenty (almost all) countries have legal ways of owing or even carrying firearms.
And that dosnt change the fact that there are plenty of countries wich do have quit some guns but not the level of gun violence the USA has.
You dont see why? To compare of course. The reason stated is that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will LOWER crime . yet the USA has higher crime (and certainly gun violence) then most (if not all) western comparable countries .
But they serve no purpose, on the contrary even plenty of accidents and such actually cost lives.
You are untrained and unacustomed to such situations, even the police themselves have trouble with such situations.
This is more likely to happen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/eduardo-sencion-ihop-shooting_n_951431.html
There isnt a high level of gun carriers so simply we dont know.
But again even law enforcment has issues with this, to untrained civilian would do betetr?
Most people never face such situations and most people would respond badly in such a situation.
So actually say that some armed civilians would be able to stop the USA army?
Funny you yourself stated that amendment is pointless. But as I said I agree it is pointless.
So you are advocating RPG's and heavy machinegun in the hands of civilians (and a couple of weeks later ) criminals? What a great idea, that will lower crime: heavy warweapons .
What advantages does it have?
I don't know why I get sucked into this crap. I apologize for further lengthy posts.
K995, I've already posted all of the facts. If you failed to read them, it isn't my problem. You ignore half of what is said. You fail to look at any sources or provide any for your opinions. I shouldn't bother, but I will help you out, because I believe strongly in this issue.
I have proof for absolutely everything I've stated. If you'd read, you'd know.
I noted above that in Washington state, accidental shootings are 2% of all firearm deaths by anyone. So it's rather uncommon. CCW permit holders are taught about gun safety so I would imagine it's even less common among that group.
This says that stolen guns account for only 10-15% of gun crime. Criminals surveyed revealed that only 5% had stolen it. In other words it's not very likely.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
I don't see what your point is. My point is that it doesn't matter what CCW permit holders have, they're not going to use it in a crime or allow it to be used in a crime, whether it's a taser, gun, RPG, or even a nuclear bomb.
The rest of it is covered by the fact that CCW permit holders are 99.99% law-abiding with respect to gun crime. Overreacting doesn't happen. Criminals usually obtain guns by other methods than theft. And only 2% of gun deaths are accidental. None of this proves what I have said wrong. In fact, if you think that criminals get guns so easily that actually makes my argument stronger. If criminals have easy access to guns, why shouldn't law-abiding citizens—who have proven themselves to be law-abiding—legally be allowed to obtain firearms?
And you don't seem to know a lot about the USA, which is what this debate is about.
As an American, it would stand to reason that I know more about America than elsewhere. However I am aware that other countries allow carry. What they don't allow is carry like we have. Other countries restrict what you're allowed to carry or they make it difficult to obtain a permit to do so. It is far more stringent than it is here.
As for crime being higher in the US than in other countries reference this chart that I posted previously:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg
Other countries have less gun violence not because there are less guns held by criminals, but because victims don't have a gun. Thus the criminals don't need one to commit their crimes. Knifings are common in the UK, and they have extremely stringent knife laws too.
Again, reference the ICVS chart above. That is a FALLACY. And also note that the only US city on the list is one of the most stringent when it comes to gun control.
All of this is merely conjecture and BS. Over 64K occurrences of defensive gun use occur each year. If it goes badly often you should be able to find it. I'm sure the police would disagree with such laws if it ended badly so often. But they're overwhelmingly for it, once they see that it works. Check the WPRI study. It even has quotes.
We wouldn't have to stop the Army. For one thing, many soldiers have expressed that they wouldn't fire on our citizens—their brethren. For another, we didn't defeat all of Britain in the Revolution. You just have to cause enough damage that continuing isn't worth it.
Uh, no I didn't. WTF are you talking about? We weren't even talking about any amendment. The idea that we should rise up against an unjust government is not an amendment. If you are from this country, you clearly do not have an understanding of it.
Explain to me how you plan to take an RPG from me. I don't see how you think that guns simply filter from CCW permit holders to criminals. Right…the answer is, they don't.
Are you serious? Read what you quoted.
When you have a real argument, real facts, or something that I have not already addressed get back to me.
Actually, don't. Regardless of everything else, I'll submit if you can give me one good reason that CCW carry should not be allowed given that 99.8% of CCW permit owners are not involved in ANY crime whatsoever. Gun theft is not acceptable, since 95% of criminals' guns are obtained through purchase or theft from a dealer, not a private citizen. And neither is accidental shootings because they account for 2% of gun deaths by all citizens, not simply CCW permit holders.
So that's it. Why shouldn't CCW permit holders have guns? It can't be theft, accidental shootings, or crimes committed because those have proven to be false concerns.
K995, I've already posted all of the facts. If you failed to read them, it isn't my problem. You ignore half of what is said. You fail to look at any sources or provide any for your opinions. I shouldn't bother, but I will help you out, because I believe strongly in this issue.
I have proof for absolutely everything I've stated. If you'd read, you'd know.
I noted above that in Washington state, accidental shootings are 2% of all firearm deaths by anyone. So it's rather uncommon. CCW permit holders are taught about gun safety so I would imagine it's even less common among that group.
This says that stolen guns account for only 10-15% of gun crime. Criminals surveyed revealed that only 5% had stolen it. In other words it's not very likely.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
I don't see what your point is. My point is that it doesn't matter what CCW permit holders have, they're not going to use it in a crime or allow it to be used in a crime, whether it's a taser, gun, RPG, or even a nuclear bomb.
The rest of it is covered by the fact that CCW permit holders are 99.99% law-abiding with respect to gun crime. Overreacting doesn't happen. Criminals usually obtain guns by other methods than theft. And only 2% of gun deaths are accidental. None of this proves what I have said wrong. In fact, if you think that criminals get guns so easily that actually makes my argument stronger. If criminals have easy access to guns, why shouldn't law-abiding citizens—who have proven themselves to be law-abiding—legally be allowed to obtain firearms?
And you don't seem to know a lot about the USA, which is what this debate is about.
As an American, it would stand to reason that I know more about America than elsewhere. However I am aware that other countries allow carry. What they don't allow is carry like we have. Other countries restrict what you're allowed to carry or they make it difficult to obtain a permit to do so. It is far more stringent than it is here.
As for crime being higher in the US than in other countries reference this chart that I posted previously:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg
Other countries have less gun violence not because there are less guns held by criminals, but because victims don't have a gun. Thus the criminals don't need one to commit their crimes. Knifings are common in the UK, and they have extremely stringent knife laws too.
Again, reference the ICVS chart above. That is a FALLACY. And also note that the only US city on the list is one of the most stringent when it comes to gun control.
All of this is merely conjecture and BS. Over 64K occurrences of defensive gun use occur each year. If it goes badly often you should be able to find it. I'm sure the police would disagree with such laws if it ended badly so often. But they're overwhelmingly for it, once they see that it works. Check the WPRI study. It even has quotes.
We wouldn't have to stop the Army. For one thing, many soldiers have expressed that they wouldn't fire on our citizens—their brethren. For another, we didn't defeat all of Britain in the Revolution. You just have to cause enough damage that continuing isn't worth it.
Uh, no I didn't. WTF are you talking about? We weren't even talking about any amendment. The idea that we should rise up against an unjust government is not an amendment. If you are from this country, you clearly do not have an understanding of it.
Explain to me how you plan to take an RPG from me. I don't see how you think that guns simply filter from CCW permit holders to criminals. Right…the answer is, they don't.
Are you serious? Read what you quoted.
When you have a real argument, real facts, or something that I have not already addressed get back to me.
Actually, don't. Regardless of everything else, I'll submit if you can give me one good reason that CCW carry should not be allowed given that 99.8% of CCW permit owners are not involved in ANY crime whatsoever. Gun theft is not acceptable, since 95% of criminals' guns are obtained through purchase or theft from a dealer, not a private citizen. And neither is accidental shootings because they account for 2% of gun deaths by all citizens, not simply CCW permit holders.
So that's it. Why shouldn't CCW permit holders have guns? It can't be theft, accidental shootings, or crimes committed because those have proven to be false concerns.
Last edited:
In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Ignoring suicide and legal intervention or undetermined thats more like 5% .
Its also a lot higher in the USA :
"What do we know about kids and gun accidents and suicides?
When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4]."
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm
Funny you didnt really read your own source. First it states 25% are stolen guns "This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years."
Second he also adds "Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf"
It also says "The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. "
Its clear the easier it is the purchase guns legaly , the easier criminals have acces.
Yet the more people have these the eaiser it is for criminals to get there hands on, nulcear armed criminals ...
Add to that the accidents, increased usage in suicides,...
Again this isnt about the people getting permits for carying concealed weapons .
So? The question is gun crime in general .
LOL sure so you defend the high gun crime statistics of the USA saying "others countries have less guns and thus lower gun crime" isnt that the point I was making? More guns means more gun crimes. The easier it is to legaly purchase guns the easier it is for criminals to obtain weapons and also the more likely they will carry them.
You claim this will be offset by people being able tod efend themselves yet every statistics shows otherwise.
As for the USA not having such a high crime rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Usa is among the highest, even though it has the highest level of legal gun ownership of western nations.
Even in your chart the USA is higher then average, that with often several times higher gun ownership.
Source?
Foreign occupation against own gouvernement you dont agree with. Not quit comparable.
And again if soldiers would never go along with such a gouvernement you dont need firearms.
The right to bear arms:
"Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" You do know what an
Amendment is?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You yourself states this will not happen and so this Amendment (yes thats what it is) is pointless . Perhaps you arent american?
Steal it, rob the store, have someone buy it legaly , just as is the case now.
Your own sources shows these are the mean sources for criminals to get weapons. Or are you going to carry that RPG, sam , M60 and flame throweralways with you? It will magicly apear on you?
To defend yourself? Again what? How many times do you think your life well be in danger and you need a gun?
Again this isnt just about CCW and you numbers are waaaay off. Most gns are purchased legaly and find there hands to criminals. the smugled in black market is only a small part, after all why should they bother wich so many firearms avaible ?
BS legaly purchased guns are a problem, accidents by firearms are a problem, suicides by firearms are a problem and all for what? So you feel a bit safer?
Here we go again. I see you dodged, rather poorly, my final question. No matter how many facts I throw out, or dispute, you'll never change your mind. But that's OK, you do what you want, and I'll do what I want. I hope that you never have the need for a gun in your lifetime.
I'm going to be the bigger man. After this, we're done here. If you had put a dent in my argument, I'd continue. But you haven't even come close. Numbers you used, and evidence you tried to use against me didn't even hold up.
Can you do math? That's 2 percent.
Either way it's 2 percent.
642/30,896 = .02078
642/(30896-360) = .02102
642/(30896-360-220) = .02118
All of those are roughly 2 percent. So no, it's not like 5%. Not even close.
5% of 30,896 = 1544.8 which is not 642.
Kids are included in your original stat, so it's irrelevant. Also, the dates of those studies predate most states passing shall-issue laws for CCW permits.
Actually, I read all of it. I'm not an idiot. Those were numbers for guns stolen from FFLs, which are commonly dealers, and not private citizens with CCW permits, as I stated. It is you who again did not read. Private citizens (CCW permit holders and non-permit holders) account for 5%.
None of the other sources of guns mention anyone with a CCW. A person with a CCW permit caught doing that would have their CCW permit revoked. Since only .02% of people have had their permit revoked, we can assume that they're not the group doing straw purchases.
Add to that the 2% of accidents. Who cares about suicides? You don't need a gun to kill yourself. Suicides are irrelevant.
Also, I believe that if you want to kill yourself, you should be allowed to. It's supposed to be a free country.
The question is whether or not increased gun ownership would decrease crime in America. Even still, crime is lower in America, as I have previously shown with the ICVS study.
No, that's not the point we're arguing about. It is, however, the point I've posited in this debate. But we are arguing about crime in general. What difference does it make that there are more stabbings in London and Dublin than shootings? They're both murder.
No statistics that anyone has yet shown, have stood up to my scrutiny.
These don't either. Did you look at them?
Among the highest? What are you smoking? Your wikipedia link shows North America at 12. The original source combines the Americas, so that one doesn't count. But I'll do you a favor. If you had read the original source you'd notice that these numbers are war-related so they don't count. It's talking about armed conflict.
Your other link has the US listed as #8, and guess what country is two places ahead? The United Kingdom. Yes, one of the most stringently gun controlled nations, with hefty knife control laws to boot.
So yes, while we are among the highest—as 1st world nations tend to be—we are not THE highest as one would suspect.
Let's go back to the chart I originally cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
The US has more guns than any of the countries above them on the list. This doesn't help your case. I can't find numbers for Dominica (probably because they're so low) which is the top of the list, but we have 4 times the rate of guns that New Zealand has and they're number two. We have about 2.5 times the rate as Finland, they're #3. #4 & #5 don't make the list. We have 14.3 times as many as the UK at #6. Monserrat doesn't make the list either.
In fact, if you add up the rates of all of the other countries that have MORE crime than we do, you still fall short by the rate of 28.8 guns per 1000 people. Combined they have only 68% of the guns that we do.
So your argument is BS. And I've used your own numbers to prove it.
Uh no, it's not. Only NYC even made the list, and it has some of the most stringent gun control in the States, which may be why even it made the list.
And the UK tops the list. We rank #1 in guns, they rank #88 in the world. Northern Ireland is also in there and they have a fourth of the guns per 1000 people that we do.
The WPRI study I've mentioned a hundred times before with this number. I didn't think I needed to again. That was the lowest estimate found. Others are as high as 250K.
Yes, it is different, but the task is the same. Make it a costly war, which it would be since you'd be firing on the people that pay you.
Most soldiers wouldn't, but that doesn't mean all wouldn't.
As an American, I most certainly know what and Amendment is, and I know that text without having to look it up, thanks. I am well acquainted with the Bill of Rights.
And please don't personally attack me with this BS, "Perhaps you arent american [sic]." I could just as easily say that perhaps you don't speak English with the amount of errors in that simple sentence.
You never mentioned the amendment, only the idea behind it. Here is what you said:
"The reason behind the idea in the USA (militia against an oppresive regime) is also dated, not simple gun is going to stop a modern army."
You mentioned the "idea in the USA." Considering that you said idea, I was thinking that you were talking about what occurred during the framing of the Constitution, not the specific text of the 2nd Amendment.
I misconstrued what you said because there are two things at play here: the actual text of the amendment and the ideas—which is the word you used—behind the founding of this country.
Simply saying that you'd steal it is much simpler than the actual act of doing so and getting away with it and your life. I could just as easily say that I'd shoot you on site. Arguing like that is akin to school children saying that they're invincible in a game of cops and robbers.
Rob the store, steal an RPG and then try to come and take mine. We'll see who wins. That's the point. Without a gun you can just come in and take what I have without penalty. That's why people say that to be unarmed means you are a subject. You have no choice but to submit, which is antithetical to the ideas that founded this country.
It only takes one time. I only have one life. Do you think that everyone knows they're going to be murdered before they are? Or that the police magically appear the instant you're in trouble?
It's not just about CCW permits, but that is the crux of it. If, overwhelmingly, the people who want guns the most have proven themselves to be trustworthy, why should the not be allowed the protection afforded to them by a gun?
I see you have no recourse but to attack the argument, but the numbers are sound and dead on. I've used the WPRI study, numbers I found for theft, numbers I found for accidents, and numbers you incorrectly thought proved your case for accidents. Suicides by jumping exist, should we make all buildings one story hight? Suicide by knives exist, should we cut up vegetables with scissors? Accidental suicides by autoerotic-asphyxiation exist. Should we mandate that all masturbation must be supervised? What type of nanny state do you want to live in? Pick your poison.
Pot is highly illegal, but it's possible to get it, and it's EASY to do so despite all the regulations.
So your argument is basically…what? If guns aren't available criminals won't get them so easily? Who cares how easy it is? The issue is if it's possible. And it always will be possible as long as we have steel, lead, and gunpowder, and the knowledge of how to put it all together.
So we should just give up our guns, even though there's relatively little chance that we'll use them in any crime? WHY? We should just let criminals have guns, and legislate away our ability to have a fighting chance? That argument is stupid.
I'm going to be the bigger man. After this, we're done here. If you had put a dent in my argument, I'd continue. But you haven't even come close. Numbers you used, and evidence you tried to use against me didn't even hold up.
Can you do math? That's 2 percent.
Either way it's 2 percent.
642/30,896 = .02078
642/(30896-360) = .02102
642/(30896-360-220) = .02118
All of those are roughly 2 percent. So no, it's not like 5%. Not even close.
5% of 30,896 = 1544.8 which is not 642.
Kids are included in your original stat, so it's irrelevant. Also, the dates of those studies predate most states passing shall-issue laws for CCW permits.
Actually, I read all of it. I'm not an idiot. Those were numbers for guns stolen from FFLs, which are commonly dealers, and not private citizens with CCW permits, as I stated. It is you who again did not read. Private citizens (CCW permit holders and non-permit holders) account for 5%.
None of the other sources of guns mention anyone with a CCW. A person with a CCW permit caught doing that would have their CCW permit revoked. Since only .02% of people have had their permit revoked, we can assume that they're not the group doing straw purchases.
Add to that the 2% of accidents. Who cares about suicides? You don't need a gun to kill yourself. Suicides are irrelevant.
Also, I believe that if you want to kill yourself, you should be allowed to. It's supposed to be a free country.
The question is whether or not increased gun ownership would decrease crime in America. Even still, crime is lower in America, as I have previously shown with the ICVS study.
No, that's not the point we're arguing about. It is, however, the point I've posited in this debate. But we are arguing about crime in general. What difference does it make that there are more stabbings in London and Dublin than shootings? They're both murder.
No statistics that anyone has yet shown, have stood up to my scrutiny.
These don't either. Did you look at them?
Among the highest? What are you smoking? Your wikipedia link shows North America at 12. The original source combines the Americas, so that one doesn't count. But I'll do you a favor. If you had read the original source you'd notice that these numbers are war-related so they don't count. It's talking about armed conflict.
Your other link has the US listed as #8, and guess what country is two places ahead? The United Kingdom. Yes, one of the most stringently gun controlled nations, with hefty knife control laws to boot.
So yes, while we are among the highest—as 1st world nations tend to be—we are not THE highest as one would suspect.
Let's go back to the chart I originally cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
The US has more guns than any of the countries above them on the list. This doesn't help your case. I can't find numbers for Dominica (probably because they're so low) which is the top of the list, but we have 4 times the rate of guns that New Zealand has and they're number two. We have about 2.5 times the rate as Finland, they're #3. #4 & #5 don't make the list. We have 14.3 times as many as the UK at #6. Monserrat doesn't make the list either.
In fact, if you add up the rates of all of the other countries that have MORE crime than we do, you still fall short by the rate of 28.8 guns per 1000 people. Combined they have only 68% of the guns that we do.
So your argument is BS. And I've used your own numbers to prove it.
Uh no, it's not. Only NYC even made the list, and it has some of the most stringent gun control in the States, which may be why even it made the list.
And the UK tops the list. We rank #1 in guns, they rank #88 in the world. Northern Ireland is also in there and they have a fourth of the guns per 1000 people that we do.
The WPRI study I've mentioned a hundred times before with this number. I didn't think I needed to again. That was the lowest estimate found. Others are as high as 250K.
Yes, it is different, but the task is the same. Make it a costly war, which it would be since you'd be firing on the people that pay you.
Most soldiers wouldn't, but that doesn't mean all wouldn't.
As an American, I most certainly know what and Amendment is, and I know that text without having to look it up, thanks. I am well acquainted with the Bill of Rights.
And please don't personally attack me with this BS, "Perhaps you arent american [sic]." I could just as easily say that perhaps you don't speak English with the amount of errors in that simple sentence.
You never mentioned the amendment, only the idea behind it. Here is what you said:
"The reason behind the idea in the USA (militia against an oppresive regime) is also dated, not simple gun is going to stop a modern army."
You mentioned the "idea in the USA." Considering that you said idea, I was thinking that you were talking about what occurred during the framing of the Constitution, not the specific text of the 2nd Amendment.
I misconstrued what you said because there are two things at play here: the actual text of the amendment and the ideas—which is the word you used—behind the founding of this country.
Simply saying that you'd steal it is much simpler than the actual act of doing so and getting away with it and your life. I could just as easily say that I'd shoot you on site. Arguing like that is akin to school children saying that they're invincible in a game of cops and robbers.
Rob the store, steal an RPG and then try to come and take mine. We'll see who wins. That's the point. Without a gun you can just come in and take what I have without penalty. That's why people say that to be unarmed means you are a subject. You have no choice but to submit, which is antithetical to the ideas that founded this country.
It only takes one time. I only have one life. Do you think that everyone knows they're going to be murdered before they are? Or that the police magically appear the instant you're in trouble?
It's not just about CCW permits, but that is the crux of it. If, overwhelmingly, the people who want guns the most have proven themselves to be trustworthy, why should the not be allowed the protection afforded to them by a gun?
I see you have no recourse but to attack the argument, but the numbers are sound and dead on. I've used the WPRI study, numbers I found for theft, numbers I found for accidents, and numbers you incorrectly thought proved your case for accidents. Suicides by jumping exist, should we make all buildings one story hight? Suicide by knives exist, should we cut up vegetables with scissors? Accidental suicides by autoerotic-asphyxiation exist. Should we mandate that all masturbation must be supervised? What type of nanny state do you want to live in? Pick your poison.
Pot is highly illegal, but it's possible to get it, and it's EASY to do so despite all the regulations.
So your argument is basically…what? If guns aren't available criminals won't get them so easily? Who cares how easy it is? The issue is if it's possible. And it always will be possible as long as we have steel, lead, and gunpowder, and the knowledge of how to put it all together.
So we should just give up our guns, even though there's relatively little chance that we'll use them in any crime? WHY? We should just let criminals have guns, and legislate away our ability to have a fighting chance? That argument is stupid.
Last edited: