Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 150. (Read 450482 times)

I suspect you wanted to explain that guns can supplant cold weapons, but as you seem too lazy to read above, that was not my claim to say that guns are weaker on close ranged combat... So you're just arguing for my point of view... Which was clearly not your intent.

Thank you for making my point.   

Your point being?

My stupidity hasn't matched yours by a long shot (pun intended). Haven't you ever heard of close-range guns?

Well maybe it's not true and we have a wrong vision of it. When you watch Bowling for Columbine it's really amazing to see that opening a bank account can lead to receiving a gun xD
And the fact that ammunitions are sold at the hairdresser.... It's incredible!

Dude, your stupidity reaches the sky well done.
I was talking about the fact that "at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun". Not about the bear...

Now you are trying to tell us that people don't get killed by bears, because most bears haven't had enough training? It's more like bears don't usually have enough incentive. If bears aren't baby bears, they instinctively have all the training that they need.

Yeah but it requires incredible training, so it doesn't concern the vast majority of people ^^

Obviously you know nothing of gun purchase procedures in the USA.

Just saying.

The States don't really have any choice in the matter. Any person who knows a little basic law can run all over State law regarding guns... if he wants.

Consider Waco. The only reason that there are not a lot of Koresh-type churches is, there are not a lot of people interested in doing that kind of thing. However, if the State or Federal want to do another Waco thing, there are going to be a lot of people up in arms all over.

Federal was trying to make an example of Waco. What it did was anger the people. The only reason that the people don't do anything about it is, they haven't been pushed quite far enough yet. Next time. State gun laws won't stop the people, and SHOULDN'T stop the people.

^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

No mentally-sound, law-abiding person would say that.

The states that let people buy guns from stores like you'd be buying bread require a permit and courses to be taken, like when you get a driver's license?
Of course, we should all get guns and shoot everybody that comes our way.
Your teeth are not straight, I don't like it - BAM - you're dead.

Military training is that at close quarters, an edged weapon is equal to a gun, reason is reaction times.  Reminds me of the three Afgan soldiers, each with AK47, who holed up in a cave for the night, even though it smelled a bit funny.  Then the bear came in.

Next.  Three dead soldiers.

If must register, not rights... privileges.   

South Carolina Lawmaker Introduces Bill Requiring Journalists To Register To Exercise Their 1st Amendment Rights, Same As For Gun Owners To Exercise Their 2nd Amendment Rights



A South Carolina lawmaker cited coverage of guns when he introduced a bill Tuesday that would require journalists in the state to register with the government before reporting news.

According to the summary of the bill, dubbed “South Carolina Responsible Journalism Law,” it would require journalists and media organizations to register and pay fees to the Secretary of State. There would also be fines and criminal penalties for violating the law.

Somewhat ironically, the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Mike Pitts, said he introduced the bill because of the elusive media’s attack on Constitutional rights.

“I filed this legislation as an experiment to make a point about the media and how they only care about the constitution when it comes their portion of the 1st Amendment,” he wrote on social media.

“The only portion they care about is freedom of the press. They constantly attack people who follow their Christain (sic) beliefs and attempt to portray them as bigots, and they certainly do not like the fact that normal everyday Americans gather to petition the government and air grievances,” he continued. “Look no further than how they have demonized the Tea Party. Furthermore, they love to trample on our 2nd Amendment rights to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’. If they had their way, there would be no 2nd Amendment.”[…]

Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, told the Associated Press that he’d lobby hard against the measure, which he said he found bizarre.

“Any registration of journalists would be unconstitutional — unless you lived in Cuba or North Korea,” Rogers said.


http://www.guns.com/2016/01/20/due-to-coverage-of-guns-bill-introduced-to-register-journalists/

Of course that's why I was talking only about violent crimes. It's not because there is gun control that there will be no thief anymore. But the idea is that they don't use guns. So it's much less dangerous (believe it or not a knife is less dangerous than an mp5) so there is a lower homicide rate.

Crime rates, taking all crimes into account, is more a question of social and economic situation. And on this point I'd say we're slightly better but frankly speaking it's just an impression. I think we have more or less the same economic state.

 This website shows crime in France to be about 10% less than that in the USA.

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

That's a very, very slight difference compared say to (US or France) versus South Africa.

However, suppose you look at homicide rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

Here the USA is perhaps average (5/100,000) but France is on the low side (1/100,000).

country - total - homicides - suicides
USA 10.64    3.55  6.70
France 2.83    0.21 2.16

It looks to me like the criminal in France is more likely to attack with a meat cleaver than a gun.  But the person intended to commit suicide finds it easier to use a gun than a meat cleaver.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Believe it or not ^^

I studied in the north of Marseille for three years, so in the "dangerous district". Nothing ever happened there.
Yeah there are gangs in Marseille, but they don't do much most of the time. It's just that as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ever happen in other cities (talking about fights with guns here, not saying it's only peace and love), the fact that a gang fights another one once or twice a year is a big news for us xD

Anyway, there is still around 50 murders by firearms in France every year, so of course it has to happen somewhere. And most of them happen in few districts of Paris and North zone of Marseille. But I lived there for three years and nothing happen 99% of the times. Just that when something happens it's more likely to be there.

Really?  I've heard of the Gangs of Marseilles from all the way over here.

I don't believe you.  This website shows crime in France to be about 10% less than that in the USA. 

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

That's a very, very slight difference compared say to (US or France) versus South Africa.

And now you have terrorist bombings in Paris.  You have Charlie Hebro.  You have large numbers of violent, if not terrorist, Muslim immigrants.

You're more or less right, never went hunting and I live in a city. Already went to a range and use a few firearms as a hobby, didn't find that really fun though, especially considering the price xD
Already got lost in a "non safe area" but fact is that... There is no really such things here in France. Cause even in unsafe areas, well the "bad guys" have no guns so police feels safe enough to patrol regularly here too.. So you don't really feel safe but you also no that you're still rather safe and that nothing will happen statistically.

Title of the thread is "what is your opinion of gun control?". So I come here and (as I love explaining my point of view) I give my opinion which is "gun freedom leads to a more violent society than gun control".

I still find strange that licensed persons walk with a charged weapon. I mean in Europe you can also have a weapon if you want (though it's incredibly much more complicated), but the principle is that you can't have it ready to fire on public. You must have it dismounted.
The question of having the right to own a license is not really the debate, the question is more how can you get that license. What are the requirements to own a weapon in USA? From what I saw, it's just "not being a total crazy dude" ^^