one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
So the next time a crazy terrorist or a wack job comes into a school and mows down a bunch of children , make sure you wag your finger at them telling them they are not behaving gun responsible, don't they remember the safety training they took.
oh boy...smh
Don't go outside fink, the sky might fall
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Because they have very strict gun control. Something like 14 inspections or renewals per year.eeeeeggggggsactly!
It's about balance and responsibility.
no bans
just control
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Isn't that how it works in a perfect world?
Very good. You have shown how complicated an issue this is clearer than I have seen on this forum to date. Thank you for not oversimplify the solution.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Is a set population safer or more perilously dangerous where there is the proliferation of personal gun ownership and distribution of guns and add in the sales of semiautomatic guns as well ?
My short answer is it depends on the population.
Switzerland is what? #4 on the per capita ownership?
But where are they on gun deaths per capita? Pretty low?? (also deaths are generally suicide and "crimes of passion")
In this one case it would seem responsible gun ownership has a bigger impact than just gun ownership
just saying... I don't think two world cultures will be exactly the same.
responsible gun ownership should be a priority and probably more attainable goal/initiative than an outright ban at this point
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
However states like California with very strict gun laws have very high murder/homicides by guns. The theory at first blush seems plausible however it is just that a theory. The numbers say otherwise.
Chicago and New York are also good examples. You just as easily acquire this RPG everyone has been talking about as get a gun in the city limits of New York legally.
Outside of highly sensationalized and emotional mass shootings most of the death by gun is going on in the inner cities where gun restrictions are highest.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
All this reminds me of the demonizing of pot and the fear mongering propaganda of days past. People still swear "its a gateway drug!!!!" You'll get refer madness!!! It's a bandwagon that is blown out of proportion. You smoke pot you'll lose your mind! Pick up a gun somewhere a mass shooting takes place. And "ban" is just the simplest solution to more complex problems people can come up with.
Back when columbine happened I remember people on the news debating the impact of the entertainment industry... they watched The Matrix!! They played Doom!!! They listened to Marilyn Manson!!!.. all these "things" were taking heat for what these kids did. Whatever the big agenda is lets scream about that now!
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
I have no position to hold
I have a gun... its not going anywhere, I am just letting you guys talk and having a laugh.
I'm pro gun for me and no one else. It ends there, all this political crap? whatever. Everyone else can figure that out on their own. I think loop holes should be closed, and more regulation is good. All these opinions do nothing to change anything. Only actions change the world.
I have no position so I am not debating anything and i know that is driving you guys nuts. But if someone says something crazy I have to point it out. That's all. Don't get mad
State your facts, don't mind me if I question them.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Please stop it! You guys honestly watch too many movies!!! :) Your comments are more deadly than guns because they are killing me! This is getting silly. I bet you also think:
hand guns or shot guns are pretty useless against full automatics or semi-automatics guns designed mostly for military use.
If you had any military training or knowledge you would know that full auto is not used for shooting people but for creating suppressing fire. Probably the deadliest thing you could have is sniper rifle and be sitting far away from everything. Talk to someone who has been in real wartime fire fights, they are not using full auto to shoot someone accurately.
But this is silly. The reality is most deaths from gun violence come from the old handgun. I think you can still get those in Canada no??
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
- Laws don't work, so we shouldn't bother with them
- People die from other things, so we shouldn't bother
- Guns make us safer, ignore the numbers
Now we're talkin!
I honestly don't get why that's such a bad thing to some.
Because they have traded being JW for SJW (social justice warrior) and obama and the news has told them that its bad and the cause of all our ills. They must pledge allegiance to the SJW mob!
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Most deadly cause of unnecessary death in the universe! And its in this gun!
According to this chart I randomly pulled up on the internet being a fat @$$ is far deadlier than owning a gun!
