Democratic Congressman Says He Will Introduce Bill To Ban “Crosshairs” Maps http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/de...e-will-introduce-bill-to-ban-crosshairs-maps/ Your prohibitionist, statist reasoning will always be wrong. Always. God Bless the Second Amendment.
Thank you for alerting me to that. I hadn't seen it before. It's absolutely ridiculous that he thinks anything like that would actually pass. I'm willing to bet he never even introduces it. I hope not.
If you aren't from the US and do not live in the US, how exactly are you qualified to know what the problems are and what the reasonable solutions would be?
God Bless your right to carry semi-automatic weapons. Seriously? This is why the world thinks American conservatives are idiots.
It is simple... they want to take away our Constitutional rights and limit my freedoms because someone else, a small minority of the total population can't act responsible? That is not fair. Leave my guns alone and stay out of my buisness and stop trying to legislate and regulate EVERYTHING. Instead of worrying about guns, why not worry about education and preaching personal responsibility.
This is crazy, here is a chart of murder amounts per country in 2010: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders Rank Countries Amount # 1 India: 37,170 # 2 Russia: 28,904 # 3 Colombia: 26,539 # 4 South Africa: 21,553 # 5 United States: 16,204 # 6 Mexico: 13,144 # 7 Venezuela: 8,022 # 8 Philippines: 6,553 # 9 Thailand: 5,140 # 10 Ukraine: 4,418 and here is the murder rate by country by firearms: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms Rank Countries Amount # 1 South Africa: 31,918 # 2 Colombia: 21,898 # 3 Thailand: 20,032 # 4 United States: 9,369 # 5 Philippines: 7,708 # 6 Mexico: 2,606 # 7 Slovakia: 2,356 # 8 El Salvador: 1,441 # 9 Zimbabwe: 598 # 10 Peru: 442 65k murders in Russia and India and almost none by firearms? That seems crazy to me.
I bet the congresswoman is not feeling free right about now. You happy about that? FYI, it's a fact that complete freedom is bad. You are not allowed to snort cocaine, be a serial killer or park wherever the heck you please. There are always limits, and there always need to be limits. What we're discussing is whether or not buying guns easily should be limited or completely free. But I guess it's normal for people like you to sensationalize these discussions. It's also incredibly boring/cliche of you to resort to personal attacks rather than stick to the discussion at hand. Any rise in drug use is bad. I don't see how that's relevant here.
This is a message board, and I am putting my opinion forth as an outsider. An external point of view. A less likely to be biased point of view. Someone who has experienced life in countries full of guns and in countries devoid of guns. Someone who has routinely visited the developed world and the underdeveloped world. But more importantly, it's the year 2011, and the utility of actually being in a country to understand the problem is marginal at best. I can see from your posting history that you don't bother with much outside of sports and American politics - and I assume your post above is an extension of that mentality. FWIW, I don't share your view that everyone in this discussion needs to be "qualified" (what does that even mean?) or that they have to be in or from the US. There are tons of Americans who have hardly lived in the US, and there are many people in the US who are living a rich enough lifestyle to never have to face this problem. I think your question is a microcosm of the problem. With all due respect (I don't know your complete opinion on the matter), I feel that there are some who are worried that if this matter is compared to a global standards, it weakens their argument significantly. Maybe they feel an America-only 'line' fares better for them. The problem is obvious to everyone though, and there appear to be tons of statistics, opinions, research studies to back it up. I can read. I'm commenting here out of concern for the well-being of people who IMO are dying unnecessarily. If that's not good enough for you, then please ignore my posts.
you sure the second chart is for 2010 as well? chart of murder amounts per country in 2010: Rank Countries Amount # 9 Thailand: 5,140 and here is the murder rate by country by firearms: Rank Countries Amount # 3 Thailand: 20,032
Russia and India are not on the firearms list at all, so it's likely that they just don't have the figures for those countries.
Yeah... it's not like we've ever had a a thread on here consisting of a bunch of Americans talking about and trying to come up with solutions to some other country's problems.
YO YO YO YO......Everybody just chill OUT, ok? Pelosi's got this under control, and she knows what's best for America.
What a relief. I thought I had posted in this thread last night but now I see I came to my senses and cancelled it.
Strict Gun Control Will Seem Like War on Drugs by Jeffrey A. Miron January 14, 2011 The atrocity committed last weekend in Tucson, Arizona, by alleged perpetrator Jared Loughner has predictably generated calls for new gun-control laws in the U.S. Some want bans on the extended-capacity ammunition clips that allowed Loughner to fire more than 30 shots from his Glock semi-automatic pistol without reloading. Others want improved background screening to prevent mentally unstable individuals from purchasing guns. Would these or other laws prevent incidents like the Arizona shooting? Probably not. And such laws, along with existing gun controls, not only harm responsible gun owners but may even increase violence. Comparisons between states and countries — as well as social-science research — provide no consistent support for the claim that gun controls lower violence. Gun-control laws fall into two main categories. Most in the U.S. are in and of themselves mild: They permit legal gun ownership for most people in most instances, while imposing modest costs on legitimate gun owners. Examples include criminal-background checks, waiting periods to purchase a gun, minimum purchase ages, and the like. These kinds of laws, however, are unlikely to deter someone like Loughner, who appears to have contemplated and planned his attack for a long time. The reason is simple: These laws are readily circumvented. Loopholes for Lunatics Consider, for example, a ban on extended-capacity ammunition clips. If these had been unavailable, Loughner could still have carried out his attack with a 10-bullet clip, and he might have aimed more carefully knowing he had less ammunition. Loughner could have brought several guns, allowing him to continue firing without interruption. Loughner could have purchased extended-ammo clips that were sold before a ban took effect (especially since the prospect of bans stimulates sales in advance of implementation). Or he could have bought a black- market clip, perhaps just by placing a classified advertisement. Similar difficulties confront the use of background checks designed to prevent the mentally unstable from buying guns. The U.S. already has such a system, but it wouldn't have stopped Loughner from buying a gun because it only applies when a court has decreed a person to be mentally unfit, which hadn't occurred in Loughner's case. Even a broader definition of mentally unfit probably wouldn't deter someone determined to commit violence. No matter how broad the definition, this approach does nothing to close the multiple avenues whereby anyone with sufficient cash can purchase a gun and ammunition. Reduced Harm Gun controls like those being proposed may, on occasion, prevent horrific events like the Tucson shooting or at least reduce their harm, but in all likelihood only rarely. Avoiding a few such incidents is surely better than avoiding none, so these controls would make sense if they had no negatives of their own. But gun controls, even mild ones, do have adverse consequences. At a minimum, these laws impose costs on people who own and use guns without harming others, whether for hunting, collecting, target practice, self-defense, or just peace of mind. The inconvenience imposed by bans on extended-ammunition clips or waiting periods to buy a gun might seem trivial compared with the deaths and injuries that occur when someone like Loughner goes on a rampage. And if the only negative from these controls were such inconveniences, society might reasonably accept that cost, assuming these controls prevent some acts of violence. Strict Limits But mild controls don't always stay mild; more often, they evolve into strict limits on guns, bordering on outright prohibition. And this isn't just slippery-slope speculation; a century ago most countries had few gun controls, yet today many have virtual bans on private ownership. Some of these countries (the U.K. and Japan) have low violence rates that might seem to justify strict controls, yet others experience substantial or extreme violence (Brazil and Mexico). More broadly, comparisons between states and countries --as well as social-science research — provide no consistent support for the claim that gun controls lower violence. Strict controls and prohibition, moreover, don't eliminate guns any more than drug prohibition stops drug trafficking and use. Prohibition might deter some potential gun owners, but mainly those who would own and use guns responsibly. Folly of Prohibition Thus the classic slogan — when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns — isn't only a word play; it is a fundamental insight into the folly of gun prohibition. Such an approach means the bad guys are well-armed while law-abiding citizens are not. Even if strict controls or prohibition had prevented Loughner from obtaining a gun, he might have still carried out a violent attack. Timothy McVeigh's 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people, illustrates perfectly that a determined lunatic has multiple ways to inflict harm. Beyond being ineffective, gun prohibition might even increase violence by creating a large black market in guns. So if gun laws follow the path of drug laws, we can expect more violence under gun prohibition than in a society with limited or no controls. The sad reality is that every society has a few people whose mental instabilities cause serious harm to others. This is tragic, but it doesn't justify ineffective and possibly counter- productive attempts to prevent such harm. link
