Mayor Bloomberg Says Cops should Go On Strike

Submitted by: Cajun247 5 years ago in

He says they should do so until Americans give up their guns. And you thought his soda ban was ridiculous.
There are 139 comments:
Male 7,378
I don`t know. I`d vote for a pro gun control candidate so long as his other views were in line with mine. I don`t like the fact that crazy people can buy assault weapons. I think most people would agree with that sentiment. What the solution is I don`t know.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: Out of curiosity, do you propose we do this at the state or federal level? While some people might suggest that the difference is negligible and merely semantic, some of us considerate this the greatest of issues.

Suppose half the people are for stricter gun laws and half are not. Certainly these differences will be represented in an area-specific pattern. No matter which course is taken then, half the people lose (if done federally).

My point is this - if the folks in Texas want guns, let them; if the folks in California don`t want them, then let that state ban them.

In this way, there is the opportunity for most people to find an area that shares similar beliefs as they. Those states that have the best system will excel, and others will eventually copy.

I guess what I`m saying is that, although I`m opposed to gun laws, I would be fine if they were implemented by the individual states.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]he did not have `fully automatic weapons`.[/quote] ----------
No but your right to own industrial fertilizer was infringed and you didn`t seem to mind that. Look I`m not saying I know what the answer is but limits on gun ownership much like those applied during the Brady bill years should be re-considered. It would have changed the outcome of the Gabrielle Giffords attack and it may have put a kink in the Aurora attack.
0
Reply
Male 725
There is no debate. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
madest-"A man with anything less than fully automatic weapons will not do the damage of an Aurora style crime"




p.s. he did not have `fully automatic weapons`. The fact that you do not know the difference demonstrates your ignorance and invalidates pretty much anything you have to say on the matter.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
patchgrabber-"why can`t I collect tanks,"

You can..



All you need is millions of dollars and big garage.

patchgrabber-"the person had gotten someone else with a clean record to buy it for him."

Which is, of course, illegal. Put a stop to it, but without trampling on my rights. BTW..`gun-type bomb` =/= `gun`.

Thanks for the clarification, though.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: Perhaps you could take the pin out of that rifle then? Or maybe an exemption for antique guns?

BTW I know you could replace the pin.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: "nonsense"

Just because you say it is nonsense does not make it so. Funny thing here is that I used the word - likely - which instantly made it an opinion. Therefore, your rebuttal (see quotes above), as just as nonsensical and subjective as mine.

and...

"A man with anything less than fully automatic weapons will not do the damage of an Aurora style crime"

First, he didn`t have a fully-automatic. He had a semi-auto - this alone discredits you. Also, I point you to this: Fertilizer > Full Auto?

Now, while it`s fun to pick out people and claim they are "dumb", "mentally disabled", and "retarded", I fear that your over-confidence betrays your ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]we`ve already established that other types of violence will likely increase if we forcibly reduce gun availability.[/quote]
Touche.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
What you can`t seem to grasp is Mexican stats would not reflect on America. There. I said it out loud and in plain English and I think I made it pretty darn clear but you`re gonna ride that nonsense brain wave anyway huh?
Lets take Mexican food stats and apply that on America and maybe now I`m making sense to that left over thought nerve that`s withering in your brain.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Says the man who can`t tell full auto apart from semi LOL! You wanted stats I told you what to look at.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
McGovern You ever hear the phrase: You are beyond dumb? They weren`t lying. We`re not Mexico. I doubt you`ve done any travelling outside the continental US that involves a plane but you could drive to Mexico. They have pretty amazing stats when it comes to toilets too but I don`t know how you would apply it to the USA.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]"A man with anything less than fully automatic weapons will not do the damage of an Aurora style crime"[/quote]

People who want to dictate laws for things they know nothing about....... Look up Bolt action, Pump Action, semi auto and full auto.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@madest

You wanted stats Mexico has strict gun control it is also way more violent because the Mexican mafia dosen`t abide to laws. It disarmed the citizens and gave the mafia control so much so citizens are now even buying illegal firearms to defend themselves. Madest when he`s out of arguments he goes for personal attacks.....
0
Reply
Male 7,378
You know I hate double posting but I can`t ignore our mentally disabled commenter McGovern who seems to think what goes wrong in the 3rd world will go wrong in the first word. Lets think about your dumb question because clearly you didn`t. Why would I as an American consider Mexico`s gun problem? I don`t live in Mexico. I went to Tijuana once when I was 19 to get drunk and see the donkey show. I could care about Mexico but I don`t. In the future you might ask me, why are stupid hyperbolic questions posed by retarded people?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"A man with anything less than fully automatic weapons will not do the damage of an Aurora style crime"

That guy didn`t have automatic weapons Madest. It wasn`t his guns that made his crime so severe.

It was his intent.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]we`ve already established that other types of violence will likely increase if we forcibly reduce gun availability.[/quote] ---------
nonsense. A man with anything less than fully automatic weapons will not do the damage of an Aurora style crime which is, lets face it, the reason for this discussion. Mayor Bloomberg is a loon but they love him in NYC. His approach has the same problem the NRA has; "My way or the highway". A civilized society can come together with meaningful limits on gun ownership. It doesn`t need to be an all or nothing approach. Compromise based on fact is key. Knee jerk sloppiness will only make things worse. Shame on Mayor Bloomberg who I suspect is just covering his own ass for unconstitutionally stopping and frisking anybody he wants.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patchgrabber

Some rich people do collect and own tanks.

So according to you the M1 Garand is an assualt rifle...

LOL a WW2 collectable banned! This is why anti gun nazis should have no part in gun laws it`s like putting a dropout in charge of the board of education!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@madest

these facts and statisict you speak of you posted none. Tell me hows Mexico doing with its strict gun control?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "the number of bombings in the US is paltry compared to any other kind of violence".

Ah but the reverse nit-pick - we`ve already established that other types of violence will likely increase if we forcibly reduce gun availability. }-)
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: I should apologize for remembering incorrectly, in the doc the guy did do a criminal record check, however the person had gotten someone else with a clean record to buy it for him.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Cajun: 2nd amendment says guns, so a little boy could fit into this category, ambiguous wording and all. Don`t tread on my freedom to own nuclear weapons.

@Humanaction: My tank example was hyperbole, I didn`t actually check. And I`ll nitpick your bomb example by saying that the number of bombings in the US is paltry compared to any other kind of violence.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I actually agree with most of that - restricting gun availiability would most likely decrease gun-related crime (though I have my doubts about the net effect on violence overall).

I apologize ahead of time, by I feel compelled to nit-pick a few things:

You Can Totally Collect Tanks

I think nukes are cost and supply-inhibited. I guess I don`t know the legality of that one.

"hard to have innocent bystander deaths or mass killings with knives" - Much easier with Fertilizer

In all seriousness though, the argument all becomes moot because of this: a huge percentage of Americans like shooting stuff. On top of that, we are willing to accept the 3.4/100k dea
0
Reply
Male 10,855
In any case I`m sure the 2nd amendment was referring strictly to small arms.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@patchgrabber

Well lets see small arms vs something that costs MILLION$ a day to maintain. Not to mention the bad scorn and stigma you`ll get from your neighbors. Lots of incentives NOT to purchase such items.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Cajun: For the same reason I would want an AR-15?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] then why can`t I collect tanks, nuclear missles[/quote]

Why would you want to?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
cont`d
There`s no reason to own one of those, because if I`m a "collector" then why can`t I collect tanks, nuclear missles etc. as well? If your argument is that restricting guns won`t decrease overall violence then I agree, but as I`ve said in previous threads, hard to have innocent bystander deaths or mass killings with knives.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]By restricting the statistics to firearm-related crime, you`ve committed the fallacy of a single cause. In reality, when restricting guns, the most likely outcome will be a rise in other violent crimes to compensate[/quote]
I see your point, and I would probably agree that there would be other forms of violent crime to compensate, however if your goal is to decrease gun crime then it`s more clear. I had never said that by eliminating gun crime you eliminate violent crime in general. I wasn`t debating the inherent levels of violence in a culture, just that if your goal is to reduce gun violence that letting people who shouldn`t have guns i.e. mentally unstable, criminal etc. obtain them easily is the wrong thing to do. I`ll agree that culture plays a big part in American gun love, but I also think there should be more limitations such as adding assault rifles (semi-auto included) to lists of guns banned from public ownership.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Those silly motivation posters you post McGovern can be easily countered by facts and statistics but why would anyone waste their time on someone so empty headed?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 10,855
I think me and HumanAction gave the same conclusion.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Actually, you`re logic has been rather thoroughly assailed. Your clear implication - yes, you`ve implied something here by arguing - is that tighter gun control laws will decrease gun-related crimes - well duh.

An analogy is this: if I outlaw motorcycles, motorcycle accidents will fall - obviously. However, we can be fairly certain that pedestrian, and other transportation-related accidents will consequently rise.

By restricting the statistics to firearm-related crime, you`ve committed the fallacy of a single cause. In reality, when restricting guns, the most likely outcome will be a rise in other violent crimes to compensate.

My logic suggests simply that there are infinitely more variables to homicide and violent crime rates than the single cause of gun availability.

This claim is supported in the evidence I have already submitted.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]If using RELEVANT statistics is foolish then i guess I`m guilty. If trying to lump all violent crime into a debate about gun crime is logical then i guess you beat me there.[/quote]

That`s our objection, you may lose some form crime which may be replaced by another. In essence a zero-sum result. If your solely focused on gun crime over other forms of crime where a victim could really benefit from being armed, then it`s a very myopic perspective.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: the man in the doc was selling at a gun show, but he still called it a private sale.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
But maybe you are right, maybe it`s a culture thing, in which case it would seem your country is doomed to large amounts of gun violence with no end in sight.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
patchgrabber-""It`s a private sale, no check needed.""

Which is accurate.

I don`t need a background check or a license to sell one of my guns to anyone I meet outside of a gun show.

Why should I need on AT a gun show if I`m not a seller (by seller, I mean a licensed dealer who purchased a booth at the show to sell guns). If I`m there to buy guns, and someone likes the gun I`m carrying and offers me a butt-load of money for it, there`s no law that says I can`t sell it. Nor any law that says I need to perform a background check.

Again, the `gun show loophole` does not exist.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
If using RELEVANT statistics is foolish then i guess I`m guilty. If trying to lump all violent crime into a debate about gun crime is logical then i guess you beat me there. My logic is unassailable. I`ve never said tighter gun laws would fix your problem, because I`m not convinced it can be fixed. I do, however, believe that tighter gun laws would help.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patchgrabber

Take a look at Mexicos gun laws and crime rate.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]And yet he did walk out with one.[/quote]

I didn`t see that in the video.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "Don`t throw around the word `prove,` it makes you look silly."

I wish I could start a poll on this thread to see, who of the two of us, looks more foolish in this discussion. After re-reading both of our arguments, I believe that you are indeed the more foolish.

Also, please review my previous comment, as I think it aptly illustrates the logical faults you`ve made thus far.

As always, looking forward to your reply.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]If he didn`t walk out with a gun no sell was made.[/quote]
And yet he did walk out with one.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]you therefore imply that lax gun laws in the US are responsible for this. [/quote]
No, that`s you putting words in my mouth. I said I "could" make that argument, and I said it in the context of proving YOUR faulty logic. Also, my chart shows the US has almost 6X the amount of GUN homicides per capita as Canada, not 3X.

[quote]Now, I`ve provided statistics that show that violent crime rates in Canada are approximately 3x that of US; can I now imply that strict gun laws in Canada are responsible for this?[/quote]
No, again your reasoning is faulty. You`re applying gun laws to knife violence etc. which is incorrect.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]as the person asked the seller if he required a criminal record check and that was the response.[/quote]

If he didn`t walk out with a gun no sell was made.
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 14,331
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: OK, let`s looks at this from a different perspective then. We can both agree that gun laws in the US are more lax than in Canada, yes?

Now, you`ve provided statistics that show that homicide rates in the US are approximately 3x that of Canada; you therefore imply that lax gun laws in the US are responsible for this.

Let`s use the same logic in the following section, and see if you can notice the fault in your logic. Ready? Here goes:

Now, I`ve provided statistics that show that violent crime rates in Canada are approximately 3x that of US; can I now imply that strict gun laws in Canada are responsible for this?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
The number one killer in the US, Canada and the UK is Cardiovascular disease. When will you be banning fat people. You`re going down a slippery slope I refuse to partake in more bans.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]My argument regarding Iowa and Wyoming, PROVES that gun availability is not the cause of homicide rates.[/quote]
Not really, you`re assuming that gun laws are the ONLY factor regulating gun violence in this instance. You also haven`t "PROVEN" that tighter gun laws don`t affect gun crime. I could make the argument with my chart that tighter gun laws PROVE less gun crime. Don`t throw around the word "prove," it makes you look silly.

[quote]Of course the US will have higher gun-related deaths that Canada.[/quote]
Well since my chart is per 100,000 people, then it`s a better representation of your "violent crime" stats.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]No, no, no. Now YOU`RE cherry-picking[/quote]
How exactly am I cherry-picking when he`s trying to compare assault, vehicle theft, sexual assault etc. to a debate about GUN violence? The debate isn`t about which country has more violent crime per capita, it`s about gun violence.

[quote]Anecdotal evidence at best, and I suspect the quote was taken out of context.[/quote]
Well anecdotal it may be, the quote wasn`t out of context, as the person asked the seller if he required a criminal record check and that was the response.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "No, it doesn`t, because you`ve just reframed the argument when you made it `violent crime.`"

Well it could be argued that you are cherry picking statistics regarding violent crimes to suit your argument as well. Of course the US will have higher gun-related deaths that Canada. That does NOT prove that lax gun laws affect homicide rates.

My argument regarding Iowa and Wyoming, PROVES that gun availability is not the cause of homicide rates. If they were, these "shall issue" states MUST have relatively higher homicide rates. Your argument merely PROVES that there is a postivie correlation between gun saturation and homicide rates. Your argument does NOT PROVE causality.

It is much easier to PROVE that no causality exists than to PROVE that one does.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]No, but they require that after being discharged you return the rifle so they can remove the fully automatic function.[/quote]

Which they could reinstall at a later date.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]That is a grab-bag term for all crime violent in nature and this is a gun crime debate.[/quote]

No, no, no. Now YOU`RE cherry-picking.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I`ve seen documentaries where they film the loophole in action. The seller`s response? "It`s a private sale, no check needed."[/quote]

Anecdotal evidence at best, and I suspect the quote was taken out of context.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Here`s a more accurate comparison:

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Homicide Survey; Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Australian Institute of Criminology; and England & Wales Home Office.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Does this satisfy your need for global stats vs my alleged "cherry picking"?[/quote]
No, it doesn`t, because you`ve just reframed the argument when you made it "violent crime." That is a grab-bag term for all crime violent in nature and this is a gun crime debate. Stick to the topic.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: I`m not debating your 2nd Amendment, it`s an integral part of your country. Problem is, as societies evolve, the interpretation and implications need to be re-assessed to ensure that people`s right to guns doesn`t infringe your right to (while acting legally) not be shot by guns.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: It`s just how statistics work... Not so much cherry-picking, just showing that gun laws are not the cause, merely an inconsequential factor. Therefore, changing them will be ineffectual.

Consider this, TOTAL violent crime rates in Canada - 1,282/100k Statistics Canada - Government

Now, violent crime rate in the US are only 403.6/100k (3x less). FBI Statistics

Both stats are for 2010. Does this satisfy your need for global stats vs my alleged "cherry picking"?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
"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"- 2nd Amendment

It was the second right our founders chose to make for a reason.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Iowa and Wyoming (and others) have lower homicide rates that Canada[/quote]
So now we`re cherry-picking certain areas and comparing them to a whole country? You know, Nunavut has lower gun crime than the US too.

[quote]This is further evidence that, again, culture is the culprit and that it acts independently of gun laws.[/quote]
So what you`re saying, then, is that your culture is that of gun violence and there`s nothing to be done?

@MeGrendel: You`re just in denial. I`ve seen documentaries where they film the loophole in action. The seller`s response? "It`s a private sale, no check needed."
0
Reply
Male 8,423
patchgrabber-"the same gun show loopholes your nation does"

The gun show loophole is a myth. It does not exist.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Again, I disagree. For example, Iowa and Wyoming (and others) have lower homicide rates that Canada, and both are "shall issue" states.

This is further evidence that, again, culture is the culprit and that it acts independently of gun laws.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]From a logical standpoint, your statement actually provides support for my argument: gun laws are not the issue, area-specific culture is.[/quote]
But gun laws are the issue. Those two countries have specific regulations regarding owning and carrying guns, and they don`t have the same gun show loopholes your nation does, as they require written contracts between buyer and seller with ID required and seller has to establish reasonable certainty that the buyer has a weapon acquisition permit (which only allows for 3 guns, btw) and a clean criminal record. So gun control laws are a part of the solution.

I also didn`t "state" that gun crime would go down with proper training, I said it was "likely." Unfortunately for your country you have neither adequate gun control laws or requirements for proper training and discipline.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: "Switzerland and Israel require military service of everyone, and I`ve already said that if that were true of your country you`d likely have lower levels of gun crime, or at least I`d feel more comfortable knowing that each person who has a gun has been taught the discipline of military training."

From a logical standpoint, your statement actually provides support for my argument: gun laws are not the issue, area-specific culture is. You state that, regardless of gun laws, proper training would lessen violent crime rates. This is NOT what you would expect if gun ownership laws were the issue - you would expect to see no change. Instead, you anticipate a reduction, which points to culture and education being the true issue at hand.

Also - this is a states rights issue; just saying. Any state that hates guns is able to impose stricter gun laws (though not ban).
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]The actual ORIGINS would be more closer to Og, Thak & Kreb.[/quote]
That`s just your speculation. Greek city-states originated democracy, before that it was monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship etc. The Og example is meritocracy at best.

@Humanaction: Switzerland and Israel require military service of everyone, and I`ve already said that if that were true of your country you`d likely have lower levels of gun crime, or at least I`d feel more comfortable knowing that each person who has a gun has been taught the discipline of military training.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
ROFL what a jackass!! Ya that`s working out so well for Mexico.....
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: To quote theCato Institute (typically recognized as unbiased):

"...the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel `have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.` A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime."
0
Reply
Male 8,423
patchgrabber-"whereas democracy is a political philosophy and idea...

which did not originate with Greeks (specifically, Athens). Athens was actully the first RECORDED time the term was used. The concept predates that.

The actual ORIGINS would be more closer to Og, Thak & Kreb.

patchgrabber-" you assume everyone in the military will turn on the government?"

No, I know that a majority of soldiers WOULD defect if the government was dumb enough to try to send the army against the populace.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]More than 2/3rds of the active military would go AWOL and join the citizens and probably more than 2/3rds of all gun owners would fight if the US government pulled a Syria.[/quote]
Speculation. I`m going by other cases to form the hypothesis that they wouldn`t.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: <i>"Conservatives throughout history have been against progress."</i>

First off, I consider myself a libertarian conservative - so take it as you will. However, if government had NEVER made illegal laws to begin with, not a single one of those problems would have ever occurred.

Why can`t gays marry in some areas? The government illegally says they can`t. Why did women need to fight for "equal" rights? Because the government denied them. Civil rights? Same thing - government was to blame.

Your sense of "progress" is to hand the responsibility of making otherwise simple decisions to the government; this is the same government that has not been able to prove its capability to be responsible.

Just because YOU think it`s "progress" doesn`t automatically make it so. In fact, I argue that we make progress by moving away from governmental intervention - especially regarding social issues. Most co
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"So you assume everyone in the military will turn on the government?"

More than 2/3rds of the active military would go AWOL and join the citizens and probably more than 2/3rds of all gun owners would fight if the US government pulled a Syria.

It would be over pretty quick, with regime change.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Conservatives throughout history have been against progress."

So says Abraham Lincoln.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]And Sir Isaac Newton invented the conept [sic] of `Gravity`. Does that mean it didn`t exist before an apple fell on his head?[/quote]
Come on, gravity is a quality of everything that exists, whereas democracy is a political philosophy and idea. An idea is not the same as a physical principle, yours is a false analogy but nice try.

[quote]what pitifully remains of the largest standing army in the world will cower from 200 million privately-owned firearms and fully armed former members of said army[/quote]
So you assume everyone in the military will turn on the government? Because that`s obviously what`s happened in every civil war ever. Your arguments are like a milking stool with one leg.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
patchgrabber-"Actually, the Greeks invented the concept. Learn you some history."

And Sir Isaac Newton invented the conept of `Gravity`. Does that mean it didn`t exist before an apple fell on his head? Learn some sense.

patchgrabber-"I`m sure the largest standing army in the world will cower from your .45 AJ."

Actually, if the army ever attempted to turn on it`s people, it would be like `what pitifully remains of the largest standing army in the world will cower from 200 million privately-owned firearms and fully armed former members of said army `.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Yet the Swiss HAVEN`T banned assault rifles[/quote]

No, but they require that after being discharged you return the rifle so they can remove the fully automatic function. If everyone in your country had to do military service I`d feel much more secure about them having guns.

[quote]As to your "stats" homicide rates have been going down because of industrialization[/quote]

ORLY? I suppose you have evidence to back that up? All the stats in that article are from Stats Canada, and they say nothing of "industrialization" because industrialization happened long before the `80s.

[quote]most gun distributors in the US do NOT want to sell guns to a mentally unstable person[/quote]
Can you say the same about people at gun shows? Oh, wait they don`t check anything.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]But maybe the real reason the Swiss have low gun crime and high gun ownership is because they are trained properly, they don`t let every dipsh*t in their country have a gun unless they`re trained to respect it and the power it brings.[/quote]

Yet the Swiss HAVEN`T banned assault rifles, and interestingly enough most gun distributors in the US do NOT want to sell guns to a mentally unstable person. As to your "stats" homicide rates have been going down because of industrialization, and currently suicide rates in Canada are on par with the United States, which is NOT an apples and oranges comparison.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Conservatives throughout history have been against progress. From the American revolution to the end of slavery, women`s rights, civil rights, gay rights, the end of prohibition even. They hold us back and in return contribute nothing to progress. They hate the government and taxes and they let it be known on the government invented internet. The federal government through our taxes provides so many things we take for granted that they think they can live without them. To state unequivocally that tyrants would (or could) confiscate all guns shows a lack of intelligence that only a non-conservative can see.
Seems members of the NRA are more sensible than the NRA itself.
0
Reply
Male 39,547

Is anyone surprised?
This is from the man who bans Big Gulps and Happy Meal toys {not the meal, just the toy}.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Funny thing FoolsPrussia in the years of 2000-2003 Switzerland had lower homicide rates than Canada and they have little to no gun control laws.[/quote]

Apples and oranges buddy. Swiss don`t have an army, they have citizen militia...which bears a striking resemblance to the actual wording of your 2nd amendment which originally meant that citizen militias were the ones who were supposed to have guns. It took a SCOTUS ruling to say that individual citizens are extended that privilege.

But maybe the real reason the Swiss have low gun crime and high gun ownership is because they are trained properly, they don`t let every dipsh*t in their country have a gun unless they`re trained to respect it and the power it brings. They also require permits for public carrying of guns, and those are only given to private citizens that work in areas like security. Your country should adopt a similar policy.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
"There is no reason for a civilian to have a 100 round magazine, but there is for the military. Make it military purchase only, and make the illegal sale of them a harsher crime."
Agreed.

@5cats: How about you look at some real stats for firearms crime, you`d see that since stricter gun control laws were put in place those numbers have dropped. Fact vs. YOUR wildest dreams.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Democracy has been around since Og, Thak & Kreb picked up their clubs and voted to see if they would upstream or downstream to hunt the Woolly Mammoth. [/quote]
Actually, the Greeks invented the concept. Learn you some history.

[quote]hey patchgrabber canada has fairly strict gun laws how come all our criminals have guns?[/quote]
They don`t where I live. But I could just as easily make the argument that something like 80% of our population is near the US border and that`s why. Just sayin`.

[quote]If we ever rise up and overthrow our government if it gets out of control, which we are constitutionally bound to do, and why we have the right to bear arms in the first place.[/quote]
I`m sure the largest standing army in the world will cower from your .45 AJ.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
Right.. lets make it so ONLY police have guns. Wait, are we`re talking about police here in the U.S.? Maybe not such a good idea. They can`t handle that responsibility responsibly.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
thelonious-"Emotions and politics should govern our quality of life."

Who`s Emotions? This guy`s?



Who`s politics? This guy`s?

0
Reply
Male 2,737
God I hope so. I can finally use my shotgun.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Good point paperduck.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
mayor telling cops to go on strike? should be grounds for removal from office.
0
Reply
Female 1,236
Yeah. He`s dumb.
0
Reply
Male 7
as Billy explained I didnt know that a stay at home mom able to get paid $7613 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage NuttyRich.com
0
Reply
Male 3,310
"Anyone who still lives in this fascist piss-river deserves exactly what they are getting, especially, but not limited to, the fapping retards who voted for this little sawed-off Nazi prick."

I`m going to have to run that through the senile deciphering filter and respond once it has the code uncoagulated. It seems to be gagging on this so it might be a while.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Anyone who still lives in this fascist piss-river deserves exactly what they are getting, especially, but not limited to, the fapping retards who voted for this little sawed-off Nazi prick.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Emotions and politics should govern our quality of life. They are the most trusted byproducts of actually having a life. amirite?
0
Reply
Male 39,547

Makes sense. If we outlaw the guns criminals wont have them anymore.

Here`s how you make it happen:
Cross your arms, elbows up as shoulder height.
Now BLINK!


0
Reply
Male 10,338
Other than the fact that they look different and are more accurate (if you know how to use them) of course.

Also, Uzis, Mack 10s. Sorry for useless apostrophes.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Couldn`t we meet half way and make it a lot harder to get an assault riffle?"

What is an assault rifle? (Not gonna bring up the spelling tee hee)

If you mean Uzi`s or Mack 10`s and the like, you already can`t get those. (they are also sub machine guns)

If you mean AR-15s and AK-47s, Why not? They are no different from a 9mm pistol, or a revolver. One pull, one shot.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@markust123: Absolutely - but let the states do it; don`t let the federal government do it. That`s my only point in this whole thing.
0
Reply
Male 4,849
Couldn`t we meet half way and make it a lot harder to get an assault riffle? And make background checks a little more strict or at least something that happens? Why does it always have to be all or nothing with the two sides of this issue?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@FoolsPrussia: The sense is that they are American citizens. One of the tenets of governing a free people is that a government should never declare groups.

Once a governmental body declares a group, then they declare that they hold the interests of that group seperately from the interests of all of their constituents.

For example, many "Equal Pay" laws enforce the rights of women, or minorities to not be discriminated against. This inadvertently puts men, and majorities at a disadvantage. Therefore, the laws SHOULD state that no citizen shall be discriminated against for <insert_reasons>.

That being said, I feel that the terrorist watch list, when applied to citizens, is Consitutionally unjust. If they have committed a crime, then arrest them; otherwise, we shall not limit their liberties.

I look forward to replies, as I am curious what some opinions are of my suggested tenet for governing a free people.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Prussia:

If you are on the no fly list, you won`t be approved for a weapon.

So, a suspected terrorist would go find a black market weapon, which would be there regardless if guns were banned or not.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
FoolsPrussia-"suspected terrorists are still allowed to buy weapons"

And by `suspected terrorists` you mean anyone on the no-fly list, which lists such hardened terrorist based on such information as American`s Credit Report and contains a serious amount of false positives, you would be allowing Law Abiding Citizens to be deprived of their 2nd amendment rights.

Yeah, we`d stop such terrorists included on the no-fly list such as:
-Kids less than five years olf,
-A United States Marine
-an ACLU attorney
-a retired Lieutenant colonel and surgeion
-United States Senators
-United States Representatives
-Canadian Journalists.
-Princeton Professor
-Actors
-Pop Singers
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Here`s an example of the problem we have with gun-control. We have to take our shoes and belts off at the airport, but suspected terrorists are still allowed to buy weapons because the NRA and Republicans think it would violate the 2nd amendment.

Link

Where is the sense in that?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
I think we`ve missed the point - independent of gun laws, an areas culture is responsible for murder rates.

@FoolsPrussia: Idaho and Wyoming are both "shall issue" states regarding concealed carry. Respectively, their homicide rates are 1.3/100k and 1.4/100k (2010); both are lower than Canada`s - 1.62/100k (2010). Again, area-specific culture is the villain here.

That being said, it is the right of the states to determine gun laws, and this serves a very important function. @patchgrabber: The idea is simply checks and balances between states and the federal government. If the fed gets out of control, states can exercise their most fundamental right - secession (Lincoln damaged this considerably). In this case, it is necessary to have an armed population.

Of course one must ask, what door do we open if we allow the increase of gun control? What happens when they discover that vehicular deaths occur at a rate of 2.3x that of guns?

0
Reply
Male 1,471
@EmagehtmaI: We have a Godwin
0
Reply
Male 8,423
madest-"Limiting the weapons you can own to single shot mechanisms that only fire projectiles and hold a limited amount of ammo would not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights."

And for those of us that can turn a `single-shot mechanism` into a select-fire automatic?

Or for those of us that can manufacture our own magazines?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that guns are `magical` and can only be manufactured in government mandated `magic gun factories`.

Guns are simple. They are very simple mechanisms.

If, by some miracle, you were able to gather up all guns in a single day, by that night the backyard shops would be in full production, and literally thousands would be back in the hands of law abiding citizens.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Actually not a half bad idea..
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Limiting the weapons you can own to single shot mechanisms that only fire projectiles and hold a limited amount of ammo would not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. The problem isn`t gun ownership it`s crazy people with automatic weapons that do crazy crap like Aurora or Columbine (holy poo maybe it`s Colorado afterall).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The British fought WWII with guns made out of freakin PIPES. Out of all the places there would be a gun ban are prisons.
SURPRISE:

Check out ^THIS fully functional shotgun.
0
Reply
Male 40,300
[quote]Better gun control certainly won`t eradicate the James Holmes-type criminals, but it might be able to reduce the severity.[/quote]
No, @FoolsPrussia, it will NOT prevent anything and it would NOT "reduce the severity" of any such attacks.

Canada`s (now reversed) Long Rifle Registry:
Cost: Billions!
Crimes prevented: zero
Crimes solved: zero
Citizens arrested for "paperwork violations": hundreds

Plain and simple FACT vs your wildest dreams.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
madest-"We should invite a conversation on the merits vs the reality of gun ownership."

Of course, anti-bun people tend to create their own `reality`.

A more usefull conversation would be the reality of law-abiding gun ownership vs. the anti-gun lies and bullpoo.

Hey, The Obama Admin`s gun give-away has resulted in more deaths than my guns.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"There is no justifiable need for assault weapons, fully automatic weapons or magazines that hold 3 times the ammo."

Agreed, but not in the way you want.

Instead of outlawing them, give incentives to the companies that make them to just stop making them available to the general public.

There is no reason for a civilian to have a 100 round magazine, but there is for the military. Make it military purchase only, and make the illegal sale of them a harsher crime.
0
Reply
Male 187
Fewer guns does not necessarily mean less crime. It only means that the mugger can be absolutely certain that the victim is unarmed. The UK has rather strict gun control laws, and they`ve recently seen a sharp rise in (you guessed it) knife crimes(10% in the last year, the sharpest rise in a decade).

Also, know who was a big proponent of gun control? Hitler.

Finally, it`s the second amendment for a reason. The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that after freedom of speech/religion/the press, the most important right a person can have is the right to defend himself - ESPECIALLY from a government that gets off a little bit too much on telling it`s people what to do.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
madest-" the NRA is the opposite side of the coin."

It`s not the NRA that the politicians are afraid of, it`s the PEOPLE. THEY are the ones who support the Second Amendment, and want the ability to defend themselves.

madest-"justifiable need for assault weapons"

An `assault` weapon is just a hunting weapons with decorative features. (No, a bayonet mount on a rifle will not increase its rate of fire, but it will turn it into an `assault` riflle).

madest-"fully automatic weapons or"

A non-issue. Fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated, hellaciously expensive and require mandatory registration. Since 1934, exactly TWO registered automatic weapons have been used in crimes.

madest-"magazines that hold 3 times the ammo"

Yes, let`s let the criminals use Hi-capacity mags, but limit the lawful to a portion of that. (That being said, I don`t own any hi-capacity mags.)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
More gun control laws = More crime.

That fact has been proven over and over again.

Maybe Mayor Bloomberg`s security detail should go on strike until he gets the message and reverses his bonehead ideas.
0
Reply
Male 494
Would you rather walk around at night in New York or Austin Texas? nuf said.
0
Reply
Female 320
Patchgrabber,



"Oh, this again. Tell me in what possible circumstance will any of you EVER shoot a member of your own government and get away with it. That argument is so laughable it`s sad. "

http://www.cchrint.org /tag/detroit-mom/

**Cliffnotes version**

-Homeschooling Mom of disabled kid needs to put daughter in public school, gets daughter vaccinations.
-Daughter has reaction to vaccinations and is put on an experimental drug for treatment.
-Daughter has bad side effects and Mom takes her off them.
-CPS sends the cops to her home to take her child, and the cops show up and force their way into the home without letting her know they have a warrant. Mom starts shooting. Legally. Cops send helos, drating TANKS, sharpshooters, and swat teams until they finally take the daughter away. Mom gets off with no charges and is suing the city (and will probably
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]We should invite a conversation on the merits vs the reality of gun ownership.[/quote]

Unfortunately the former side tends to be charged with emotion every time we have it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Funny thing FoolsPrussia in the years of 2000-2003 Switzerland had lower homicide rates than Canada and they have little to no gun control laws.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Mayor Bloomberg will never do away with guns or the 2nd amendment. If cops went on strike I think NY would be a much nicer place than it is. That being said the NRA is the opposite side of the coin. They have politicians terrified to even broach the subject. There is no justifiable need for assault weapons, fully automatic weapons or magazines that hold 3 times the ammo. We should invite a conversation on the merits vs the reality of gun ownership.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@greenbasterd: Read my post just below yours and you`ll see I addressed your main point already.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
the high population city`s in Canada are just warming up to gang activity. 10 years ago you heard very little about gangs in Canada except for the major ones like HA and the likes.. i could name 5 gangs in Vancouver alone now. the higher our population gets the worst this kind of behavior is..

everybody out in the country owns guns.. but there not going around shooting each other are they? so lets take these farmers guns away because they don`t need them right?

btw i think you would be surprised how many Canadians actually legally own guns
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Also, I wouldn`t really say that Canada has "fairly strict" gun laws. They might be stricter than the USA, but a large population of Canadians own guns. The difference between the USA and Canada is really in the ability to carry concealed weapons. Both countries have a bit of a "gun culture," I would say.

It`s a more nuanced issue than both sides would have you believe. Better gun control certainly won`t eradicate the James Holmes-type criminals, but it might be able to reduce the severity. I think we should reinstate the assault weapons ban and make background checks standard. That`s what I would call "sensible gun control," since we all know the USA will never ban guns.

And for the record, I despise guns. It may be my Consitutional "right," but I think gun ownership only adds to the epidemic of gun-related deaths.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@MeGrendel

I think you`d be surprised how Liberalism in America has been radically redefined after the country was founded. Your latter caveman scenario is more accurately an allegory of Socialism.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@patchgrabber

A situation like the one you described happened in Athens, TN 66 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`canada has fairly strict gun laws how come all our criminals have guns?`

Gun crime is far worse in the USA when compared with Canada. These stats are slightly old now, but I`m having trouble finding statistics that are more recent. Perhaps someone can find them for me.

LINK
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Oh, this again. Tell me in what possible circumstance will any of you EVER shoot a member of your own government and get away with it."

If we ever rise up and overthrow our government if it gets out of control, which we are constitutionally bound to do, and why we have the right to bear arms in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
patchgrabber-`And apparently you`re ignorant that they also invented democracy, too."

"Invented"? Really?

Democracy has been around since Og, Thak & Kreb picked up their clubs and voted to see if they would upstream or downstream to hunt the Woolly Mammoth.

Liberalism has been around since Og, Thak & Kreb returned from a successful hunt and Pierre whined and cried and sobbed that, even though he was too lazy and too scared to join them in the hunt, that he should get `his fair share` of mammoth meat, too. (And then he insulted them for their complete disregard of the Mammoth`s rights and feelings).
0
Reply
Male 2,376
criminals will always have guns. nuff said.. hey patchgrabber canada has fairly strict gun laws how come all our criminals have guns?
by taking a law abiding citizens guns away is this going to do anything to stop criminals from getting guns? no its not. it makes them more powerful!!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Europe, the birthplace of fascism and communism, would not understand this, apparently.[/quote]
And apparently you`re ignorant that they also invented democracy, too.

[quote]It`s not just about being able to defend yourself, it`s about preventing a government from becoming oppressive.[/quote]
Oh, this again. Tell me in what possible circumstance will any of you EVER shoot a member of your own government and get away with it. That argument is so laughable it`s sad.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"If a country is goverened right and doesnt leave the masses to do whatever they like"

Oh you mean Tyranny.

Coulda saved a couple of keystrokes there bud.
0
Reply
Male 8,423
Just a soon as he tell his bodyguards to divest themselves of their guns. After all, he should set an example...I mean, theres` no NEED for a gun, right?

This is also the idiot that doesn`t trust you enough to decide what size drink to buy and how much salt to put on your food so it must be regulated.

Of course he `Doesn`t understand`. There`s very little that he understands.

tedgp-"All the excuses of "freedom and liberty"....

...is not anything you need to concern yourself with, as they are concepts you`d never understand or be allowed to exercise.

0
Reply
Male 2,578
"and doesn`t leave the masses to do whatever they like"

That`s a strange thing to say.

If you ban guns in America, and then take them away from cops, they will be overrun. They will become the bitches of drug warlords who have guns. We are not some tiny island like the UK that can easily regulate the flow of guns.

And you fundamentally don`t understand the liberty argument. It`s not just about being able to defend yourself, it`s about preventing a government from becoming oppressive. Europe, the birthplace of fascism and communism, would not understand this, apparently.

Basically, a completely unarmed population can be compelled by an armed state to do even the most heinous act.
0
Reply
Male 163
*facepalm* Are you serious?
0
Reply
Male 286
Yes because the people who will turn in their guns are the ones who shoot police......What an idiot haha. Glad i dont live in that city.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
someone been drinking some police state kool aid.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I don`t always agree with tedgp. But when I do, it`s about guns.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
If a country is goverened right and doesnt leave the masses to do whatever they like, then theres no real need for police to have guns.

All the excuses of "freedom and liberty" is just stupid bullpoo used by those who get their rocks off killing things.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
so is his thinking that with the cops on strike there will be hell on the streets because of all the criminals with guns?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Link: Mayor Bloomberg Says Cops should Go On Strike [Rate Link] - He says they should do so until Americans give up their guns. And you thought his soda ban was ridiculous.
0
Reply