[QUOTE=Prismatex;16132976]You're missing my point.
My main point was that a 5-day waiting period can cut down on suicides, which are more prevalent than rage killings like the type you're describing.
Read those links above.[/QUOTE]
[quote]
Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states
were not significantly different, except for firearm suicides among persons aged 55
years or older [/quote]
Only people aged 55 and older had a significant decrease in suicides from the bill in the 3rd link.
The second is a single case.
The first requires a subscription.
[QUOTE=Cheezy;16133016]How come most people in europe and canada manage themselves without a gun in every home?[/QUOTE]
bet they shit unicorns too dont they?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;16133006]The first one didn't require a subscription for me.
The third one, another thing from another medical journal, didn't need a subscription either.
And who said it wasn't the government's job to pass laws to protect its citizens?[/QUOTE]
It's not the government's job to protect citizens from themselves. It's to protect them from each other and give them the means to protect themselves from each other.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;16133075]bet they shit unicorns too dont they?[/QUOTE]
I guess we're just better than you. ;)
[QUOTE=GamerKiwi;16133094]It's not the government's job to protect citizens from themselves. It's to protect them from each other and give them the means to protect themselves from each other.[/QUOTE]
So preventing suicides isn't the government's job?
[QUOTE=Cheezy;16133099]I guess we're just better than you. ;)[/QUOTE]
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
Now if you don't mind I'm sure most people would like to get back to the topic at hand without people bawing about suicide and whatever it is you're doing.
Well, our trusty Bean-O has been AWOL for two days, so that may prove to be a bit of an issue.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;16133108]So preventing suicides isn't the government's job?[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what he said.
Yet you could argue that it's a matter of public health.
As far as Civilian Weapons my personal favorite is the Winchester Model 70.
[QUOTE=Scoutrecon;16133172]As far as Civilian Weapons my personal favorite is the Winchester Model 70.[/QUOTE]
I love that rifle. It is among my favorite bolt guns. Hell. It is my favorite bolt gun. But my heart still lies with the M14.
[QUOTE=Cheezy;16133016]How come most people in europe and canada manage themselves without a gun in every home?[/QUOTE]
Because we get shanked instead. Oh wait, that's just England. Most European countries have little to no problem getting a gun. Take, for example, the Swiss. SG550 handed free to every male at 20. Of course, there's a mandatory sentence in the Army, but who's ever heard of the Swiss doing something in war?
The Swiss stay neutral in war.
They have a national militia in which every adult male is a member.
[QUOTE=lintz;16133835]Because we get shanked instead. Oh wait, that's just England. Most European countries have little to no problem getting a gun. Take, for example, the Swiss. SG550 handed free to every male at 20. Of course, there's a mandatory sentence in the Army, but who's ever heard of the Swiss doing something in war?[/QUOTE]
Where I live roughly 10% have registered hunting rifles and criminals have illegal guns, yet very few people are killed.
It's when you add a second armed person into the conflict that things could get ugly.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;16132219]
My cousin bought a .45 one morning, went out to a field that afternoon, and killed himself.
His parents were considering calling someone to help him with what they thought were mental issues - if he had had to wait 5 days before getting that gun, they would have had a chance to get him help.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he didn't want help?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;16133163]Yet you could argue that it's a matter of public health.[/QUOTE]
You can argue many things, but it doesn't make them true.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;16132408]Would gun owners/buyers mind a mandatory 5-day waiting period?
There is evidence that it would save lives, and states with waiting periods have experienced fewer gun-related suicides.[/QUOTE]
No.
It would piss me off to no end. There's no reason why the government has to treat me like a damned child.
If I pass a background check, do the paper work, and pay for it, there's not a damned reason you can come up with that should prevent me from bringing it home right then and there.
[editline]05:30AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Prismatex;16132762]He said people were buying guns because of imminent danger.
Why are you buying a gun instead of calling the cops?[/QUOTE]
Well considering I was about an inch away from becoming a cop I think I can answer this one for you.
Police like for responsible citizens to be armed. They do. It makes their lives easier.
Consider this, you live more than 15 minutes from the nearest police department, in a small town. You've told the police about gang related violence against your property and they say they'll send a patrol out that way every now and then. That's maybe a couple minutes a day you'll be safe.
Where as if you have a gun in your hands, you can prevent the situation from ever becoming bad in the 1st place.
You're responsible for your own safety, police are just there to enforce the law as well as humanly possible. And since they're not omnipresent, they're not able to be everywhere at once.
[editline]05:33AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cheezy;16133016]How come most people in europe and canada manage themselves without a gun in every home?[/QUOTE]
Canada has tons of guns, what the fuck are you talking about?
You can buy a sawed off shotgun without extra paper work up there, or a brand new TAR21.
You Americans need your guns to shoot Robbers with guns. In Australia, where they ban anything bigger than a water pistol, guns are found only on outback properties, and the secret hidden guns of households are air-rifles. BB guns.
Makes it trickier for Mad Max the lunatic to get his hands on one, so he'll have to deal with a knife instead.
And we all get along just fine, pretty sure our rate of crime is lower, in fact.
Guns are only needed when everyone has one.
[QUOTE=Exalion;16135117]You Americans need your guns to shoot Robbers with guns. In Australia, where they ban anything bigger than a water pistol, guns are found only on outback properties, and the secret hidden guns of households are air-rifles. BB guns.
Makes it trickier for Mad Max the lunatic to get his hands on one, so he'll have to deal with a knife instead.
And we all get along just fine, pretty sure our rate of crime is lower, in fact.
Guns are only needed when everyone has one.[/QUOTE]
Us Americans get guns because it's our guaranteed right as a citizen.
It's as simple as that.
[QUOTE=Exalion;16135117]You Americans need your guns to shoot Robbers with guns. In Australia, where they ban anything bigger than a water pistol, guns are found only on outback properties, and the secret hidden guns of households are air-rifles. BB guns.
Makes it trickier for Mad Max the lunatic to get his hands on one, so he'll have to deal with a knife instead.
And we all get along just fine, pretty sure our rate of crime is lower, in fact.
Guns are only needed when everyone has one.[/QUOTE]
Hey, you know what else is "banned"
pirating
so i guess that means that nobody pirates and everybody buys music and g oh wait
your logic is flawed
[QUOTE=GunFox;16132904]The police cannot put a protective detail on you 24/7. Police RESPOND to calls. They rarely are able to prevent action.[/QUOTE]
Yes, usually.
I don't know about the US, so I wont comment on that.
But in the UK, if your life is in immediate danger usually a phone will be given to you, this hotline will get a response to you quicker than the usual system.
If its really serious, an officer will stay at your home at all times. Or you can willingly go into protective custody. In cases of high profile murder or gangland violence, you can go onto a witness protection programme, new identify, new life, new location. - Don't even get me started on that, there's a recent event which really put a shame to that system.
This in the land where being able to defend yourself is legally so sketchy you can get away with anything, or get sent down for anything. Its a huge grey area, its probably dependent on the judge and juries moods. There are high profile cases on both sides of the argument. I.E Tony Martin.
[QUOTE=Exalion;16135117]You Americans need your guns to shoot Robbers with guns. In Australia, where they ban anything bigger than a water pistol, [b]guns are found only on outback properties[/b], and the secret hidden guns of households are air-rifles. BB guns.
Makes it trickier for Mad Max the lunatic to get his hands on one, so he'll have to deal with a knife instead.
And we all get along just fine, pretty sure our rate of crime is lower, in fact.
Guns are only needed when everyone has one.[/QUOTE]
Not true, [b]most[/b] guns are found on rural properties, but quite a few are in cities.
Nearly every handgun in Australia are found in the city's as you need to go to a gun club at least 6 times a year to keep your handgun
[QUOTE=DrMortician;16134178]No.
It would piss me off to no end. There's no reason why the government has to treat me like a damned child.
If I pass a background check, do the paper work, and pay for it, there's not a damned reason you can come up with that should prevent me from bringing it home right then and there.
[editline]05:30AM[/editline]
Well considering I was about an inch away from becoming a cop I think I can answer this one for you.
Police like for responsible citizens to be armed. They do. It makes their lives easier.
Consider this, you live more than 15 minutes from the nearest police department, in a small town. You've told the police about gang related violence against your property and they say they'll send a patrol out that way every now and then. That's maybe a couple minutes a day you'll be safe.
Where as if you have a gun in your hands, you can prevent the situation from ever becoming bad in the 1st place.
You're responsible for your own safety, police are just there to enforce the law as well as humanly possible. And since they're not omnipresent, they're not able to be everywhere at once.
[editline]05:33AM[/editline]
Canada has tons of guns, what the fuck are you talking about?
You can buy a sawed off shotgun without extra paper work up there, or a brand new TAR21.[/QUOTE]
And still they manage not to kill eachother.
Unless your a policeman, soldier or vet you just can't have a hand gun in the UK.
[QUOTE=Darkhorse01;16135632]Unless your a policeman, soldier or vet you just can't have a hand gun in the UK.[/QUOTE]
But you can have a shotgun, and that's what's fucked up.
You can have a rifle.
A semi automatic one too.
[QUOTE=Exalion;16135117]You Americans need your guns to shoot Robbers with guns. In Australia, where they ban anything bigger than a water pistol, guns are found only on outback properties, and the secret hidden guns of households are air-rifles. BB guns.
Makes it trickier for Mad Max the lunatic to get his hands on one, so he'll have to deal with a knife instead.
And we all get along just fine, pretty sure our rate of crime is lower, in fact.
Guns are only needed when everyone has one.[/QUOTE]
Oh but you're forgetting that your country's population is a fraction of the US population. It should also be noted that 80% of all crimes committed with firearms in the US are gang related.
Made myself a new sig.
[img]http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/49917/gunstuff/ARGlockSig.jpg[/img]
have any of you guys bitching about gun rights ever actually got involved in a situation where you had to face down a robber or whatever
don't be so insecure
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
