Wii have a shooting.

Seule wrote:

Dude. Here, the speed limit's pretty much never below 60 or 70mph unless you're in a town. Slow country is slo[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Net result - reduction in crime and death rates.

Again, this has never happened. Every time strict gun control laws have been enacted, the net result is pretty much all other forms of violent crime explode. Gun-related violence -justified and criminal- may go down, but it is never proportionate.

Garry wrote:

Little considers for the life violent human being and games video. All the half-alert person is client of the increasing recklessness for the sanctit of the life human being. In many cases, you it sees more interest for the protection of the animals of what for the life human being. Thirty and nine million abortions and lights that sentence for the murder is indicative of the consideration of reduction for the life human being. It does not have equally no doubt that the violent games video that many of our young play regularly have the potential to influence adversely. One of favourite games is used for the Armed Forces to teach the slaughter, me understand. The dis sensibilitys of games and abilities of the slaughter of the configuration. Thousands repeadedly multiplied of daily game of young these games - pointing, going off, and giving to attention its victims it dies! Our mental thought and occupations determine what we are and as we live. Of course, all these young do not actual for are its fancy. However, when all the components negative, it is congregated, horrible murder is the result.

Garry wrote:

Little considers for the life violent human being and games video. All the half-alert person is client of the increasing recklessness for the sanctit of the life human being. In many cases, you it sees more interest for the protection of the animals of what for the life human being. Thirty and nine million abortions and lights that sentence for the murder is indicative of the consideration of reduction for the life human being. It does not have equally no doubt that the violent games video that many of our young play regularly have the potential to influence adversely. One of favourite games is used for the Armed Forces to teach the slaughter, me understand. The dis sensibilitys of games and abilities of the slaughter of the configuration. Thousands repeadedly multiplied of daily game of young these games - pointing, going off, and giving to attention its victims it dies! Our mental thought and occupations determine what we are and as we live. Of course, all these young do not actual for are its fancy. However, when all the components negative, it is congregated, horrible murder is the result.

grmblfjx wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

Lapin wrote:

65mph

No, 70

Hoo boy. That changes everything.


You see, our neighbouring countries have max speed limits between 75 and 80 mph, and that iiiiis fuuuuckiiiiiiing slooooooow. I'm actually a defensive driver; I rarely speed by more than 5mph, I stick in the slow lane, I don't feel comfortable driving at speeds over 90. But man, I hate having to drive in another country. How do they ever get anywhere?

Penguin wrote:

Anon wrote:

I don't know about you, but where I live, what would happen is that fewer people would die, simply because killing people with guns is a lot easier than with other things, including many other kinds of weapons. As for the young and physically strong, yes it would become easier for them, but it would become harder for everyone else.

This is a misconception that isn't supported by modern statistics or history. For one thing, your typical violent criminal is not an elderly man or a little girl. It's a teens-to-twenties male. Overwhelmingly so. So you're just strengthening the average criminal without doing anything to benefit the law-abiding citizen.

I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but if you're trying to respond to the comment about falling death rates, it doesn't matter which demographic the majority of criminals are in. As for if it's supported by history, well given that guns never simply disappeared from anywhere (and this is what I'm talking about, not the introduction of gun control laws, the idea that suddenly, no one has guns), the only historical evidence you're likely to find is the list of weapons that guns rendered obsolete.

Quote :

Quote :

Net result - reduction in crime and death rates.

Again, this has never happened. Every time strict gun control laws have been enacted, the net result is pretty much all other forms of violent crime explode. Gun-related violence -justified and criminal- may go down, but it is never proportionate. And that's if the gun control is at least somewhat successful in limiting supplies to criminals. If it's not, as in the case of Chicago and Washington DC,

Actually, this is pretty interesting. If you look at crime figures across the US, no real correlation between violent crime and gun control laws can be found. Whether or not the same can be said about death rates from violent crime is a different question. Edit: I found this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] According to that article, you are much more likely to be killed in violent crimes involving guns, so when you claim that having lots of guns around makes you safer, I'd have to say no.

Quote :

Quote :

If the depopulation of the police thing would actually happen in your area, then I hate to think what kind of neighbourhood you must live in.

That was based on a hypothetical "all guns go poof" scenario. Basically, in order to have any sort of successful law enforcement at all, your cops would basically have to be young men. Technology is a wonderful thing, you know. Evens the playing field.

No. Sorry, but no. I can't even begin to list all of the flawed assumptions behind this argument. Nor would I want to live in any area where they aren't flawed assumptions.

Quote :

Quote :

If guns make you safer, what it means is that you live in such a dangerous environment already that things can't really get much worse.

Not at all, unless you view guns as inherently dangerous in and of themselves. They're not. And if you know how to use one safely, then yes, you're safer than you'd be without one, even if you're in a relatively safe neighborhood.

Not where I am. Where I am all that would happen is that I, or anyone else with access to that gun, would represent a greater threat. Also, if I started using guns against the local crooks, the odds of them getting guns would be greatly increased, thus negating any additional safety provided by having one myself.

ETA: Maybe I should explain something about  where I live. The average law abiding citizen won't have guns. Nor will the average criminal. For that matter, neither will most policemen. If all guns disappeared in a puff of smoke, the biggest effect that this would have, for most people here, is to deprive some of the more dangerous criminal gangs of their weapon of choice.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

And you live in some tiny ass country you could practically walk across.

grmblfjx wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

And you live in some tiny ass country you could practically walk across.

Nonono. Germany is about the size of Montana (with 80 times as many people ). You mean Belgium, which is slightly bigger than Vermont. Or maybe Andorra, which is about half the size of L.A. Or maybe even Monaco, which is a whopping 0.76 mi²?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

The way it was explained to me was that Germany was only a bit bigger than Kentucky and Tennessee put together.

So, from Bowling Green to Atlanta would probably be all the way across Germany. And THAT takes four hours minimum if you speed the entire way, don't hit traffic in Nashville OR Chattanooga, and speed the ENTIRE fucking way.