Carters Country? And a Kimber is about the only thing that will out shoot this hunk of junk. But I would still give you a run for your money. that's a sweet sweet pistol there sir. But I ain't skurd.
Again you are arguing that cars are more dangerous than guns to counter an argument regarding the need for more regulation on guns. That is your point not mine. If you that is your point then do you recognize the purpose for guns than not? Except you are still not avoiding the questions regarding what cars and what guns are designed for? You are completely ignoring the base intents of those technologies which is critical to understanding why we treat them differently. You actually can't build any car you want and drive it since many types of fuel you would use to run it would be highly controlled, for that matter even storing gasoline is highly regulated in most municipalities. Further why DL's are more recognized that CHL's actual gun ownership but you can still fire a gun without a license and you don't have to register guns unlike cars which are registered both through VIN and license plates. Anyway that is a digression from my earlier point which is that we highly regulate the usage and design of cars. Even with your DIY example try building and driving a rocket car on your own property and see what the local authorities think of that. The point is if you are going to argue against further regulations of guns by pointing out that cars cause more fatalities that is true but context is important. Cars are designed for a different purpose than guns and also cars are very highly regulated. My own position is that both cars and guns should be regulated since both are inherently dangerous. Both are to a certain extent and I would support greater regulation of both. Your point seems to be muddled since it is not clear if you are saying that guns shouldn't be more regulated since cars aren't, or that cars cause more fatalities than guns so guns shouldn't be more regulated. The first isn't true and the second ignores the different purpose of each technology.
The UK thing is a bit of red herring. It don't think the UK ban in order to stop/reduce all crime in the British Isles (though that may have been promised) but rather as a response to two pretty horiffic incidents where 2 deranged folks with legally obtained weapons murdered dozens of people. I don't know how many of those types of massacres have occurred since, but I don't think that stopping Guy Ritchie movie type organized gangsters like Russians and Rastas with illegally obtained weapons was the objective or is the proper metric there.
Should a DVD player be registered as well while we are at it? you can strip it down and make more than 1 weapon.
No it isn't. I am arguing against the logic of the intent of the creater matters at all. Someone else brought up cars vs guns. Read harder. also write harder. It is HARD to understand your jumbled questions. The intent of the creation doesn't matter at all LOL. That isn't why we regulate them differently. Only a moron would. We regulate them differently because they are dangerous in different ways. What are you technically talking about? Specifically name a car I couldn't build because of fuel choice. Only need to register a car if I drive on public roads. In different ways which are much more lax compared to firearms. LOL, yeah I think the reason is you read stuff I didn't write. I saw a dumb argument about intent of creator and shot it down. I don't justify gun ownership by comparing it to car usage because like I said in a previous post, driving regulations are a MAJOR failure. If you want to continue now that we have cleared that up, please have the courtesy of proof reading your questions.
I hope teenagers have more access to cars than assault rifles? Sample size? More teens have been killed by cars in the US than nuclear weapons.
Depends on what you mean by access I think as a 18 year old can buy either. Car is much more expensive but much more sought after by any teen. My only point was to point out the intent of the designer logic looks right past outcomes and capability.
Not sure about an Assault Rifle, but for a rifle, all you have to be is 18. I believe pistols and automatic rifles you have to be 21. But more teens do have access to assault rifles than they do cars. The difference is that most of them know more about gun safety than they do vehicle safety since most people been around guns all their lives. the teens involved with gun violence normally come from inner city, and never been involved with guns before getting one.
I had a friend who got decapitated by a homeless man on Thursday. If only he had a gun on him he would probably be alive.
So you want more regulations for guns? I never understand why the car anology is used.... Because you are arguing for more regulations when you bring up cars.
Sounds like the victim helped the homeless man a lot, what a way to pay back your benefactor. Do not believe gun would have helped the victim in this case.
He probably missed and fell down for 4 minutes before getting up and slowly finishing him off. I can invent variables too.
