Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[alexava 6,973]

Japantiger, i can relate to that. I hope i have not come off as an a**hole to the sportsmen who have no ill intents(which is most of us). But the fringe folks who feel the need to protect themselves with a high capacity weapon. And dont consider the havok that these things can inflict in the wrong hands. And the wrong hands might be one of our very own family or freinds or a misguided youth. Im not sure why this thing has bothered me like it has. I have never been for a gun ban and still not. But we have to look into some adjustments and ask what can we do without being too drastic.

[homersapien 11,428]

So I take it you do support laws against drunk driving and having government "conservators" taking them off the road?

I am no more in favor of drunk drivers than I am in mass murderers. The difference between you and I is that I do not wish for good law-abiding citizens (non drunk drivers) to have their right to buy alcohol taken away (or for the sake of argument, their right to drive taken away) just to prevent drunk driving accidents.

For some reason that you have yet to explain, that is precisely what you plan to accomplish in your assault weapons crusade. The whole "baby out with the bathwater" solution. Just ban this or ban that and no more bad things will ever happen. It doesn't take a military strategist to come up with a way to kill a large amount of people with or without an assault rifle.

You attempt to discredit honest comparisons to real-life events that take MORE lives and present more dangers than kooks with guns. When the comparison doesn't support your argument, you resort to saying the person is less intelligent.

Actually I didn't ask if you opposed drunk drivers. I was pointing out the inconsistency of your rhetoric that characterized certain laws as establishing the government as a "conservator" of your safety while supporting similar laws as being reasonable. In other words, I took for granted that you supported prosecution of the responsible person after-the-fact.

Perhaps the analogy would have better been expressed as follows: Do you support laws that prevent open containers of alcohol in the vehicle? How about laws that prevent kids from purchasing and consuming alcohol?

And I am sorry if I characterized this sort of obfuscation as less-than-intelligent. Maybe you are quite intelligent, in which case it was merely insulting.

[3rdgen 2]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Im not sure why this thing has bothered me like it has.

The media has successfully carried out its mission. It's like these commercials with the hurt animals asking for donations. Or the Jerry Lewis telethon showing you all of the handicapped children. St Jude's commercials with the sad suffering cancer kids. The visuals constantly on your tv, computer, newspaper with every "expert" in their studio blaming everything on this boogeyman thing called a gun that will sneak into your house at night and steal your children.

It is their goal to sensationalize this, scare you, and gain support for their little gun free utopia they think they can create.

It was a horrible act. It should bother you. It bothers me. I just place the blame where it belongs. Unlike the media furthering an ulterior motive:finally putting a dent in that darned second amendment.

[leglessdan 1,934]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

Interesting

[homersapien 11,428]

Nope, it's an argument someone who enjoys facts would make.

Human beings are very good at overestimating their chances of danger in rare circumstances, but very POOR at accurately estimating the chances of danger in everyday scenarios.

We are not not arguing about the relative merits of wearing seat belts (for example) vs. limiting the proliferation of assault weapons. This is a debate focused on the latter issue.

The fact that wearing your seal belt (for example) will have a statistically more significant impact on your safety than stricter regulations on combat weapons is quite irrelevant in the context of this thread.

Understand?

[Ouchyfish 67]

Actually I didn't ask if you opposed drunk drivers.

No, but you assumed as you tried to debunk my comparison.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of your rhetoric that characterized certain laws as establishing the government as a "conservator" of your safety while supporting similar laws as being reasonable. In other words, I took for granted that you supported prosecution of the responsible person after-the-fact.

Perhaps the analogy would have better been expressed as follows: Do you support laws that prevent open containers of alcohol in the vehicle? How about laws that prevent kids from purchasing and consuming alcohol?

The hole in your argument is that every drunk driver is dangerous while every assault weapon owner is NOT.

You are mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to confuse the comparison. I explained the alcohol argument. If it still doesn't make sense to you, it isn't my fault. Nor is it from any lack of intelligence on my part. You simply want to blindly blame the weapon and not the wielder.

[homersapien 11,428]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

Yeah you are.

You just don't think of it as the "cool" factor. Any red-blooded man who participates or wants to participates in most any sport does so in part for the "cool" factor. Especially if there is some danger involved. I speak from experience. Indulging your fantasy is fun ("cool"), especially if you get good at it.

So be honest with yourself. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to have. But it does take time to develop.

This is ridiculous. You really believe that you know why other people choose to do things better than they do?

I played sports because I loved competition and hated to lose. It had nothing to do with the "cool factor." If you do things for the cool factor, it seems you don't really do things because you enjoy them, but rather so other people might think you are cool.

I think I have perhaps confused the issue with my use of "cool". I meant it literally - as a mental rush of enjoyment or a thrill, as in feeling "wow, that was really cool" after turning a hot lap on a sport bike (for example).

I didn't mean it as simply trying to impress others.

Sorry for the confusion.

You're speaking of adrenaline.

I think this whole conversation has gotten convoluted. The rifle used (AR-15) is not a military weapon, combat weapon, nor is it an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle most use for hunting. There are a lot of rifles like it that just don't hold as many rounds in the cartridge. As far as I'm concerned, what the weapon looks like has little to do with the issue, but is causing most of the hysteria. It's the capabilities of weapons that may need tweaking. With that said, to make this rifle just like any other used for hunting, take away the capability to hold 20 rounds in the clip. That's it.

The AR-15 was not designed as a hunting weapon. It is derived on a combat purposed design. And the .223 is a poor cartridge for deer.

It is the combat oriented design features that make it an example of guns that should require more control or restrictions. Simply outlawing high capacity magazines while continuing to proliferate the availability of these guns would be useless in addressing the problem (for obvious reasons).

I don't hunt deer, but I live in TX and know many people who use AR .223s for that purpose. They have box freezers full of deer meat, so it seems to work just fine.

Why are you so caught up on the appearance or the design. Those two factors have nothing to do with lethality. Have you ever shot one? What are these combat oriented design features that you are talking about and how do they make the weapon more lethal? I have fired one many times. It looks like an M4, it shoots like a hunting rifle. You can't ban one gun over another because it looks scarier.

First, I didn't say you couldn't kill a deer with a .223. I said it is a poor choice for a deer cartridge compared to other options.

Secondly, I have described what I consider to qualify as a combat-oriented weapon several times on this thread. I don't feel obligated to keep repeating myself for people who haven't bothered to read my previous comments. Go back and pull up one of my descriptions and challenge me if you wish.

[homersapien 11,428]

I understand that this is a hot topic, so I'm not trying to push any buttons or put my beliefs on others... just stating my opinion, some of which may have already been expressed by others. I only read a little of the first few pages and the last page.

The problem I have is that this guy (and the movie theater shooter) was able to gun down a large number of people in a very short amount of time with semi automatic weapons. Rather it's a ban completely on Assault Rifles or rather it's a ban on the amount of Ammo they can hold in clips I'm not really sure. I imagine there are people closer to the issue that know what is fair or unfair if we take into consideration the 'practical' uses of a semi automatic rifle in a civilians hand.

PERSONALLY - I see no practical use whatsoever, but then again I don't own a gun.

The disturbing part is these kids that shot up the school and the movie theater don't appear on the surface to have alot of training at the shooting range, but I could be totally wrong about that. My gut tells me that they were able to easily spray bullets with little skill involved.

I don't EVER want to have to take my chances against ANYONE with a gun, but if I have to choose, I'd rather take my chances against something was a little harder to use skillfully. People are missing the point on a few things. Those of us that want stricter gun control don't expect evil to be wiped away from the face of the earth forever, but it isn't a bad thing if this country is able set up laws that eliminate a degree of probability that someone can walk into a public place and easily spray 500 bullets in any general direction in the span of 2 minutes.

At the end of the day, we all have a personal responsibility to be good citizens.

That is a very reasonable post.

[homersapien 11,428]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

[homersapien 11,428]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

[homersapien 11,428]

Actually I didn't ask if you opposed drunk drivers.

No, but you assumed as you tried to debunk my comparison.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of your rhetoric that characterized certain laws as establishing the government as a "conservator" of your safety while supporting similar laws as being reasonable. In other words, I took for granted that you supported prosecution of the responsible person after-the-fact.

Perhaps the analogy would have better been expressed as follows: Do you support laws that prevent open containers of alcohol in the vehicle? How about laws that prevent kids from purchasing and consuming alcohol?

The hole in your argument is that every drunk driver is dangerous while every assault weapon owner is NOT.

You are mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to confuse the comparison. I explained the alcohol argument. If it still doesn't make sense to you, it isn't my fault. Nor is it from any lack of intelligence on my part. You simply want to blindly blame the weapon and not the wielder.

Actually, I thought I made it pretty clear from my first post that I blame a lot of things, including our "gun culture". You are either not reading or have an incredibly limited ability to absorb what you are reading. Just curious, how old are you?

[homersapien 11,428]

Actually I didn't ask if you opposed drunk drivers.

No, but you assumed as you tried to debunk my comparison.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of your rhetoric that characterized certain laws as establishing the government as a "conservator" of your safety while supporting similar laws as being reasonable. In other words, I took for granted that you supported prosecution of the responsible person after-the-fact.

Perhaps the analogy would have better been expressed as follows: Do you support laws that prevent open containers of alcohol in the vehicle? How about laws that prevent kids from purchasing and consuming alcohol?

The hole in your argument is that every drunk driver is dangerous while every assault weapon owner is NOT.

You are mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to confuse the comparison. I explained the alcohol argument. If it still doesn't make sense to you, it isn't my fault. Nor is it from any lack of intelligence on my part. You simply want to blindly blame the weapon and not the wielder.

You bring up drunk driving in a thread discussing gun control and then accuse me of "mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to confuse the comparison"?

That's rich.

[alexava 6,973]

I dont think the media has an agenda to turn me into an anti gun crusader. They certainly didnt sensationalize the situation. They reported what happened. And it did happen. I dont think the laws that will be proposed, will affect very many people at all percentage wise. But so many people who will not even be affected at all are the ones i hear preaching about the 2nd amendment the most. That is who has the agenda. That is why i asked the question earlier, who of you against new regs even owns a high capacity assault rifle.

[3rdgen 2]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Not particularly sure why you assume training would make a difference other than the users are actual trained marksmen. Military training doesn't eliminate the crazy or the criminal especially since all males in the country are involved. It is the ultimate proliferation of these weapons you detest within a society except that these are full auto/3 round burst capable. Unlike the weapon used by this killer.

[alexava 6,973]

I dont know anything about Switzerland exvept they have a kick ass socialized health care. But i would hope and assume that men who have shown signs of mental illness would be excluded from this arming.

[homersapien 11,428]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Not particularly sure why you assume training would make a difference other than the users are actual trained marksmen. Military training doesn't eliminate the crazy or the criminal especially since all males in the country are involved. It is the ultimate proliferation of these weapons you detest within a society except that these are full auto/3 round burst capable. Unlike the weapon used by this killer.

Last I heard, the military was real hesitant about enlisting crazy people. I wouldn't expect many crazy people get sent home from the military on reserve status with combat weapons.

But maybe things are different in Switzerland.

And I fail to see how restricting possession of these weapons to qualified military trainees is the "ultimate proliferation" compared to your local Walmart selling them to pretty much anybody with the money.

[3rdgen 2]

I dont think the media has an agenda to turn me into an anti gun crusader. They certainly didnt sensationalize the situation. They reported what happened. And it did happen. I dont think the laws that will be proposed, will affect very many people at all percentage wise. But so many people who will not even be affected at all are the ones i hear preaching about the 2nd amendment the most. That is who has the agenda. That is why i asked the question earlier, who of you against new regs even owns a high capacity assault rifle.

I'll stipulate both sides have an agenda. One side realizes bad things happen and the best one can hope for is that those things don't happen to you or your loved ones. But that if and when it does someone is there who is prepared to stop it with limited damage. The other believes the elimination of a style of weapon can limit the scope of these events and that a new set of laws can change the human heart. One side would abridge the freedoms of others because they can't see the purpose of someone having a certain weapon. The other doesn't care whether someone exercises their rights or not. But they want that option available to them. Not much common ground between the two sides as I see it. But I have made clear my opinion as to which side is correct. Especially since we have tried the remedy of the opposing side for 10 years during which the archetype for these mass shootings occurred. That being the columbine attack in which 2 9 mm semiautos and 2 shotguns one pump the other an overunder were used. All of which weren't illegal under the old assault weapons ban or under the new Feinstein proposal.

[3rdgen 2]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Not particularly sure why you assume training would make a difference other than the users are actual trained marksmen. Military training doesn't eliminate the crazy or the criminal especially since all males in the country are involved. It is the ultimate proliferation of these weapons you detest within a society except that these are full auto/3 round burst capable. Unlike the weapon used by this killer.

Last I heard, the military was real hesitant about enlisting crazy people. I wouldn't expect many crazy people get sent home from the military on reserve status with combat weapons.

But maybe things are different in Switzerland.

And I fail to see how restricting possession of these weapons to qualified military trainees is the "ultimate proliferation" compared to your local Walmart selling them to pretty much anybody with the money.

Your argument the entire time has been it is the gun, what it looks like, or its magazine capacity that is the problem not the fact the guy was messed up. Last I heard mental illness can present after 18 years of age and sometimes rather suddenly. Last I heard people with military training are still people and are capable of snapping like the soldier that killed all those civilians in afghanistan. Or Charles Whitman the former marine who sniped people from the tower at the university of texas in 1963. If you know a Walmart selling selective fire weapons please give the address as I am sure there is a reward for that with the ATF. It is the ultimate proliferation because unlike the USA where you have to purchase a semiautomatic military styled rifle thus limiting these weapons to people. The Swiss are issued and trained in the use of a rifle that is actually capable of full auto fire. They have access to these weapons during domestic disputes, when they are drunk/ high on drugs, and any number of other situations that could lead to violence without a high murder rate. You either still don't understand the difference between selective fire military issued weapons and semiautomatic military styled weapons or you ignore it to be obtuse.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Actually I didn't ask if you opposed drunk drivers.

No, but you assumed as you tried to debunk my comparison.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of your rhetoric that characterized certain laws as establishing the government as a "conservator" of your safety while supporting similar laws as being reasonable. In other words, I took for granted that you supported prosecution of the responsible person after-the-fact.

Perhaps the analogy would have better been expressed as follows: Do you support laws that prevent open containers of alcohol in the vehicle? How about laws that prevent kids from purchasing and consuming alcohol?

The hole in your argument is that every drunk driver is dangerous while every assault weapon owner is NOT.

You are mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to confuse the comparison. I explained the alcohol argument. If it still doesn't make sense to you, it isn't my fault. Nor is it from any lack of intelligence on my part. You simply want to blindly blame the weapon and not the wielder.

You bring up drunk driving in a thread discussing gun control and then accuse me of "mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to confuse the comparison"?

That's rich.

Nice dodge.

[3rdgen 2]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Then you obviously don't know the US code. It defines the milita as all males between the ages of 17-45. It also includes females enlisted in the national guard. However, all males between 17-45 are included in the milita irregardless of whether they are a member of the national guard or not.

[Ouchyfish 67]

You are either not reading or have an incredibly limited ability to absorb what you are reading. Just curious, how old are you?

I'm sorry. I had a hard time weeding through your truckload of childish "gotchas" and silliness while I was trying to take part in a mature discussion. You are really not one to mock someones ability (or lack thereof) to absorb what they're reading. You have made it a point several times in this thread to dodge honest presentations and reply with trite quips and poorly veiled insults. Your refusal to acknowledge anyone's points reminds me of a game I play with my children where they go nuts telling me where my glasses are while I pretend to be unaware that they still are on top of my head.

I honestly cannot see wasting any more time on your nonsense.

[3rdgen 2]

I dont know anything about Switzerland exvept they have a kick ass socialized health care. But i would hope and assume that men who have shown signs of mental illness would be excluded from this arming.

As they are excluded from ownership here. If that was the issue this thread would be only about 3 posts. The guy killed his mother and stole her guns. He didnt legally purchase them. But for the Anti gun side it has not been this guy's mental state that is the problem. It has consistently been the gun, what it looks like, or it's magazine capacity. Even though 99.9 percent of the people that own these guns never break the law with them. That is why the comparison to switzerland is valid. Besides do you not think the same situation exists where the parents have a disturbed kid with the access to these guns?

[alexava 6,973]

not sure what your point is, but i got off track a little talking about switzerland and didnt make a point either......

[Weegle777 78]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.