106 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Sakari, on 31 December 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

Where is Alaska in all of this?.....They have the loosest gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

[DieChecker]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

Switzerland has around 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes.   So huge private militias loaded with assault rifles are good for gun crime rates.

So having a private militia with assault rifles everywhere is okay so long as it's regulated by the police afterwards, and thank heavens for that, as the same people not committing gun crimes with their assault rifles for all those years won't be trustworthy later in life since older age causes lower trustworthiness.

I think the difference between Switzerland and the US is that everyone is forced to do military service in Switzerland and thus is trained and knows their responibililties.

[Sakari]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

Thank you....

Wow, Alaska is way down the list.....And as said, they have the loosest gun laws in the Nation.

So much for less guns = less homocides.

[questionmark]

Sakari, on 31 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Thank you....

Wow, Alaska is way down the list.....And as said, they have the loosest gun laws in the Nation.

So much for less guns = less homocides.

Only one small problem with your logic, looser gun laws not equal to more guns. While Alaska has many more hunting guns per person then California you will find many less handguns.

[DieChecker]

Sakari, on 31 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Thank you....

Wow, Alaska is way down the list.....And as said, they have the loosest gun laws in the Nation.

So much for less guns = less homocides.

Guns don't kill people.... Urban areas kill people.

[Maizer]

Sakari, on 31 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Thank you....

Wow, Alaska is way down the list.....And as said, they have the loosest gun laws in the Nation.

So much for less guns = less homocides.

I don't even know what to say about this reasoning.

[Sakari]

Maizer, on 31 December 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

I don't even know what to say about this reasoning.

That the numbers speak for themselves?

Facts speak for themselves?



It is not reasoning, it is fact.

[ninjadude]

DieChecker, on 31 December 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

You dispute that citizens with handguns can challenge a military? What about Libya... Syria... Afghanistan??

Not "a" military. The US military. Those places are not the US where we spend more on the military than nearly all countries on earth combined. Certainly in backward 3rd world countries, citizens with handguns can challenge a military.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

  Stop letting government determine for you who should have a gun and who can't.

because people completely (or even marginally) unhinged should be able to have a gun? I don't think so. In fact, being unhinged is not very far from normal so that potentially means a lot of people that should NOT have guns.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 31 December 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

because people completely (or even marginally) unhinged should be able to have a gun? I don't think so. In fact, being unhinged is not very far from normal so that potentially means a lot of people that should NOT have guns.

Who determines what "even marginally unhinged" means?  You?   Don't flatter yourself.   When the government proves itself the least bit capable of treating mental illness with parity to physical illness your argument will just begin to make some sense.   When the government proves itself the least bit responsible for the use of its own guns, your bottomless vessel of trust will just begin to be deserved.

[Yamato]

questionmark, on 31 December 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Only one small problem with your logic, looser gun laws not equal to more guns. While Alaska has many more hunting guns per person then California you will find many less handguns.

So now only handguns are the problem and people should have the right to bear more "hunting" guns.    Got it.

While you're making claims like this as if you have the state-to-state data on handguns, provide a link.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Who determines what "even marginally unhinged" means?  You?   Don't flatter yourself.   When the government proves itself the least bit capable of treating mental illness with parity to physical illness your argument will just begin to make some sense.   When the government proves itself the least bit responsible for the use of its own guns, your bottomless vessel of trust will just begin to be deserved.

who said anything about government treatment? One aspect of gun control would be all purchasers checked against a no-guns list - maintained by government but reported by health professionals.

[questionmark]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

So now only handguns are the problem and people should have the right to bear more "hunting" guns. Got it.

While you're making claims like this as if you have the state-to-state data on handguns, provide a link.

Twist a lot?

But I am not surprised.

And here you have the data on background checks performed by state, as I said Alaska has less handguns:



In fact, in California ten times as many handguns were purchased than in Alaska.

[Sakari]

questionmark, on 31 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

In fact, in California ten times as many handguns were purchased than in Alaska.

Questionmark,


Population of California - 37,691,912

Population of Alaska - 722,718


You can not use " total numbers "........How could you not know this?

That is why originally, the numbers given were " per capita "....





That should be extremelly embarrassing for you, and I was very happy to point it out....

Edited by Sakari, 31 December 2012 - 10:50 PM.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 31 December 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

I think the difference between Switzerland and the US is that everyone is forced to do military service in Switzerland and thus is trained and knows their responibililties.

So the government forcing people to do something makes everything okay?   Is it the lack of training that's really at issue here now?    What is the real basis for correctness here anyway?