Kennesaw has a population of 30,000, located 26 miles from a large urban city with extensive gang problems, known as Atlanta, yet, still no gun related crimes in 25 years. Interesting. You can make up excuses and ignore facts all day, but they are right in front of your face.
I'm very familiar with the location of Kennesaw. I've been there. No where near the bad part of ATL. Would you feel better if I said "Kennesaw, college town within reasonable driving distance from a major city, doesn't have much crime. Shocking."
Challenge accepted. When, where, and how much is the bet? 50 yard bullseye with a JA-9, LULZ. PS Spoiler
Tanks are owned by private citizens all over the world. The only thing on an Abrams by parts that is restricted are the guns which would be classified as a machine gun for the .50 and a destructive device for the cannon. They would require a 200 dollar tax stamp each. As a whole, military equipment like this is restricted in sale because they don't want their tech going to anyone they don't approve, or things like armor ratings and weaknesses to be well known. You can school me on the legalities but they demil everything, otherwise I think you would see a bunch more privately owned stuff. F-16's with ejection seat intact would be an incredible billionaires toy.
I'm not talking about ATL not having much crime. Parts of ATL are incredibly dangerous, despite higher gun ownership amongst Georgians. I'm talking about Kennesaw.
<object width="640" height="382" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="videojugplayer"><param name="movie" value="http://www.videojug.com/player?id=b7ac30a5-8987-48fe-e353-ff0008ca0c84"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.videojug.com/player?id=b7ac30a5-8987-48fe-e353-ff0008ca0c84" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="382" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object>
I would also like to know the answer to my question about if cars are designed to kill people since he Bandwagoner thinks that issue is drivel. If it is does that mean that he truly believes that cars and guns are the same.
I think it is shocking. A town of 30,000, 20+ miles from a city with the second highest crime rate index in the country, has not had any gun related crime in 25 years. Twenty-Five Years. Im willing to bet if you made guns illegal in any city in the country, pick one, there would still be gun related crimes. I base this off Now granted that does include all parts of England, but in a place where guns are illegal, wouldnt it be reasonable to think that the people who commit crimes (break laws) would own guns (despite breaking the law). Im somewhere in the middle, 100 round drums are not needed. However, most guns, assault rifles included, do not need to be made taken out of the equation.
Then that means that you actually do believe that the purpose of cars and guns are then same then since you are countering an argument regarding the danger of guns and there fore the need to regulate them more by pointing out the danger of cars. That completely ignores that there is a different purpose for cars and guns but also that cars are already very heavily regulated because there is a recognized inherent danger to them.
The interesting thing about England is that when they banned guns, the murder rate immediately went up significantly. So, yes, if you ban guns, gun murders will go down drastically. But when you are murdered, do you take solace in the fact that you were done with a knife instead of a gun? Is there any actual difference in the method of murder? The other funny thing is that there is a big "knife control" movement in England now that there are no more guns. Presumably if they ban all but the butter knives, there will be a new "gardening implement control" movement or something. Oh and England also had lower gun crime rates than Texas when guns weren't illegal.
WTF? I'm being trolled right? State nonsensical arguments, watch the confusion and laugh? If not: Guns and cars are not the same at all. Their dangers are totally different as shown by accidental vs intentional deaths. Guns rarely kill the person operating them unless it was intentional. They are an extremely safe mechanical device. I didn't bring up the argument, I just pointed at the argument of justification for regulation based on the intent of the creator. It isn't relevant. Major's dumb argument about me being scared of them being regulated the same is horrible. I can build any car I want at my house in any configuration legally. All new standards and laws apply only to new cars sold, and modifying them is only illegal if driven on public roads. I can build a custom made or even a kit car and have almost no restrictions on it. All states recognize DL's unlike CHL's.
I don't think anyone's naive enough to believe we're going to wipe out murder. The ease at which you can kill with a gun, the number of people you can kill at one time, and the innocent people that get caught up in shootings is more the issue to me.
The only legit argument is being shot is more likely to kill you. But again, when a roided (legal there) soccer hooligan decides to thrash you, it isn't much comfort. It is also shot down by looking at the murder rate then comparing to other violent crimes. The US is a violent country, guns or no guns. Not to mention feeling safe or deterring attacks by showing a gun
