So are you saying that if the numbers involved are small then the problem is not really important?

So the number of people killed in the US with so called assault rifles is just as small . . .

Might want to cover up, your bias is showing.

. . and not even accurate.

The moniker Pink slim and all the blather about the process of getting more meat off of bones has been dramatized by the outrage crowd.

Yup, Mercola wouldn't know a fact if it got up and explained itself.

Blah blah blah, stupid movie, and stupid people who care too much about what it MEANS . . .

Its a stupid movie, just like a ton of stupid movies, it has no meaning, its meant to make money.

If the movie makes you think, that is perfectly ok, just keep thinking.

What makes you so special?

What makes you immune to influence?

What makes you so special that you can pass judgement on 300 million gun owners and represent there thought process based on the reactions of a couple of people in a single movie theater?

Honestly . . . your post shows me how inconsiderate you are, and a lack of consideration tends to lead to false judgements, which leads to doing stupid things, and stupid is as stupid does.

Might want to look in a mirror bud.

I agree. All such organizations need to show how the causal effects of there enforcing these laws has any impact on crime.

The problem, they cant.

They cannot justify there own existence with anything coming close to an objective study.

The ATF locks up people who put a hand grip on a rifle, or shorten a barrel. Not a small amount of time either, 10 years mandatory.

The law is out of hand, we need to repeal NFA, do away with the ATF, and stick to enforcing real crime, like when people actually do something harmful to another vs just own something and harm no one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkl0gSOu3QMDo you NEED an assault rifle? Do you need a pistol capable of firing 10 or more rounds without reload?

Hmm, I guess that depends where you find yourself.

Did you look at this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/14/state-by-state-gun-report/1834361/ More states are working on the mental health side than guns.

Good news IMHO.

This is not true btw, but lets assume it is for a minute.


So we have two ends of a spectrum.


Europe, and the US.

One has as many guns as citizens, and the other we are going to say has virtually no guns.


These numbers are a few years old, but it doesn't matter, they have not changed that much since.

I know math is not many peoples strong suit, and even less so of those that put forth articles like the one in the OP, but lets take a second and ask a few questions.

What is the ratio of guns, to murder in these countries.

If we say Europe has virtually 0 guns, and the US has 330 million guns, then we should be able to create a ratio of these two numbers and the murders should follow suit and be close to the same ratio . .

Now I am too charitable to compare 0 to 311 million, create a ratio and pretend that is accurate, so instead I actually looked up some research on how many guns are in the hands of civilians in the UK.



Karp, Aaron.2007.‘Completing the Count: Civilian firearms: Annexes online.’ Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,27 August. (Q6493)Full Citation






(US) 311m citizens \ 200m guns
(UK) 56m citizens \ 4m guns

Ratio of Murder:
5 per 100K / 1.4 per 100K

If the number of guns made a difference in the number of murders then the UK should have 36 million guns, not 4 million.

The US should have a murder rate of 22.2 per 100 thousand.

This is a difference of a power of 4. The correlation is off, and not by a small amount.


What this shows you is that gun ownership is not the problem. That far more people have guns than use them irresponsible.

So we gun owners . . . the ones who have not been negligent with our firearms and allowed children access, should have our rights restricted because some do?

But so long as the 330 million people in the US dont have more negligent accidents involving children than the president does, then its ok.

Do you EVER take a moment to say out loud what you think, and then wonder what the flip side sounds like?

100% hyperbole 0 facts.

If a person's actions have not harmed someone, then those actions do not deserve harm.

So if we apply this to your rape scenario then we must conclude that no matter how scantily clad, no matter how sexualized the behavior, that a person does not deserve unsolicited violence, aggression, or force.

Now lets apply that to assault weapons. A person who owns an assault weapon who has done nothing to harm anyone else should not be harmed by the government for merely possessing that item.

This is true for every single topic we have talked about here on these forums. Why? Because it is fundamental.

Those amongst us who want the government to force people to do things, what you can were, what you can drink, what you can smoke, what you can own, what you can enjoy OUGHT to understand the relationships between rights, responsibility, and law.

The relationships ARE the same among all of these topics. What is not the same is how everyone treats them.

Willow has 0 respect for gun owners.
Many Christians have 0 respect for people who wear "slutty" clothing.
Some have 0 respect for a person based on their skin color or sexual preferences.
It is easy to disregard the rights of others when you disrespect them for something they do, wear, own etc regardless of any actual harm caused by them.

Its a mistake, you assume too much.

I understand that you want to narrowly define what a gun can do, or how it can be used to minimize its importance, but that does nothing to address my points.

My points are about banning or restricting property rights based on the potential for harm, not actual harm that has been done by an actual individual.

That is preemptive violence, just as rape is preemptive violence. Unsolicited and not in response to aggression or violence.

What does that even mean? You are clearly still, in the game, not on the sidelines?

Just taking your own logic to its natural conclusions and applying it consistently to the idea of potential harm, rights, and law.

So you are saying that because men have the ability to rape, that all men should be locked up?


Until anything that can do harm is locked away?

So it is not possible for a third option? That guns are both not the answer, and not the cause of the problem?

Wow, who knew proving things was soo easy, and here I let science make me think it was hard work that required testable premises with conclusions that follow from them with no contradiction showing nearly perfect correlation and no inconsistencies. Man science is tough, they even want me to preemptively address any possible criticism that could arise against my theory.

Pew!

I dont think so. Preemptive force is the problem amongst both topics, and they are intimately connected.


Is it ok to get what you want through preemptive force? Either yes, or no. If it is not ok to rape, which is the act of forced sex, then it is not ok to disarm someone who has harmed no one with that weapon. That person may just be the women defending herself from the preemptive violence of rape and the possibility of death.



You assume much to get to this from just the fact that a gun is owned and being carried.

You are failing to ask questions, you believe you have all the anwsers already. Its a shame.

What would it take to disarm America? Preemptive force regardless of any crimes committed by the individuals involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

have some more hypocrisy!



Naw, presidents children are more important than citizens.
Naw, you cant mention children when it comes to moving forward your argument, but we can!

Anti-Gunners want their cake and eat it, and sell it to someone else to buy more cake all at the same time.

So long as the standard of evidence is high, I agree with removing weapons from a person who threatens preemptive violence against others.

Actually this is a problem here in the US, both our standards of evidence are often inconsistent, we also often disregard serious threats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feWQjph-bBM

Really gets started about 8 minutes in.

VERY interesting.