[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32413789]Lol but I love Illinois' Castle Doctrine. You can shoot anyone in your house if you SUSPECT that get are going to commit ANY FELONY.[/QUOTE]Lol that's awesome.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Siminov;32413841]A lot of states have that doctrine.[/QUOTE]Like which?
[QUOTE=Ridge;32407631]That report has already been proven wrong. It was nowhere near that high, and that was only a percentage of weapon serial numbers that Mexico provided to the ATF, which is said to be less than 36% of weapons they have actually confiscated.
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html[/url]
And who knows how many of those were due to the ATF Gunwalker program.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
Closing the BATFE would be a start.[/QUOTE]
I acknowledged that that figure was likely an overestimate.
US supply is a very important and likely the most important supply of weapons for Mexican cartels not the 'small percentage' you were claiming.
[quote=The illicit firearms trade in North America]There are literally dozens of media accounts of firearms flows from the USA into Mexico in recent years. See, for example, Grillo (2007); Caldwell (2008); Verini (2008); Billeaud (2009); Robbins (2009).[/quote]
[quote=The illicit firearms trade in North America]97 cases under investigation between 1996 and 2003 involved more than 30,000 firearms, with the average number of firearms per case (excluding two very large cases) being 124 (Pierce and Braga, 2008).[/quote]
[quote=The illicit firearms trade in North America]The current importance of US sources reflects the basic economic facts of the situation: suitable guns are easily obtained on the open market in the United States and can be smuggled to Mexico at fairly low cost using routes and connections that have been well established for other sorts of contraband.[/quote]
To what extent cartels would be effected by a slowing of this supply is the real question since they do have plenty of other options.
[url=http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/265.abstract]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=faze;32414314]
Like which?[/QUOTE]
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
DC area too I *think*
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)[/url]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32416373]Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
DC area too I *think*
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)[/url][/QUOTE]Well they are wrong in their laws.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32416373]Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
DC area too I *think*
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)[/url][/QUOTE]
Also Florida and Ohio from what I remember.
[QUOTE=faze;32416387]Well they are wrong in their laws.[/QUOTE]
Why, is there something bad about defending your house?
[QUOTE=Siminov;32416481]Also Florida and Ohio from what I remember.
Why, is there something bad about defending your house?[/QUOTE]No, if you read my posts, I am very paranoid and strongly believe in owning guns. We were discussing automatic weapon bans.
Ah, my mistake.
I was replying to:
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;32413789]Lol but I love Illinois' Castle Doctrine. You can shoot anyone in your house if you SUSPECT that get are going to commit ANY FELONY.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=flyschy;32415121]I acknowledged that that figure was likely an overestimate.
US supply is a very important and likely the most important supply of weapons for Mexican cartels not the 'small percentage' you were claiming.
[/QUOTE]
[img]http://media.stratfor.com/files/mmf/e/0/e0bfe1b7321eea34045f17ac73feb84593116b85.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth]Source[/url]
Of 30,000 firearms seized, only 7,200 were submitted to the BATFE to trace. The BATFE was only able to trace 4,000 of those submitted. Eighty seven percent of the firearms which were submitted to the BATFE that the BATFE was able to trace the origins of were traced back to the United States. That's 87% of 13% of all the firearms seized.
The way the media spun it made it sound as if 90% of firearms found in the hands of Mexican drug cartels when in reality it's not even close. If you want to find out who the cartel's largest supplier of firearms is, look to the Mexican government.
[QUOTE=faze;32416387]Well they are wrong in their laws.[/QUOTE]
point is, it's more common than you think.
Sure Cali's is the most draconian, but AW bans are in a lot of other states too.
[QUOTE=faze;32416564]No, if you read my posts, I am very paranoid and strongly believe in owning guns. We were discussing automatic weapon bans.[/QUOTE]
look
talking about how paranoid you are and how many guns you keep loaded around your house [b]in no way helps pro-gun argumentation.[/b]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32419564]look
talking about how paranoid you are and how many guns you keep loaded around your house [b]in no way helps pro-gun argumentation.[/b][/QUOTE]
yes, saying you're paranoid and thus you own guns makes people make the connection between gun-owners and paranoid.
that's one logical step from gun-owner and dangerous, according to some people.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32419619]yes, saying you're paranoid and thus you own guns makes people make the connection between gun-owners and paranoid.
that's one logical step from gun-owner and dangerous, according to some people.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
The negative stereotype of the American gun-owner is the paranoid racist loon who wants to violently overthrow the government. This mental image is one of the more important weapons of the anti-gun organizations.
If you're going to talk about gun ownership and try to cast yourself in a positive light, for god's sake don't talk about how many spare magazines you keep on your bedside table and how ready you are to kill someone. Jesus fucking christ.
If you want to cast gun ownership in a positive light, you should focus on how self-defense is a human right, how gun control is unconstitutional, how recreation, sport, and hunting are completely legitimate uses for a firearm, and how crime statistics never favor gun control legislation. Don't focus on the details of your personal armory or which bullets explode people the best, because that not only sounds unprofessional but it's also very disconcerting to those who are already anti-gun.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32419672]Exactly.
The negative stereotype of the American gun-owner is the paranoid racist loon who wants to violently overthrow the government. This mental image is one of the more important weapons of the anti-gun organizations.
If you're going to talk about gun ownership and try to cast yourself in a positive light, for god's sake don't talk about how many spare magazines you keep on your bedside table and how ready you are to kill someone. Jesus fucking christ.[/QUOTE]
The best method to go about this is to talk about how the precautions (aka owning a gun) are justified. Cite crime statistics, etc.
[QUOTE=aydin690;32386614]Why do citizens need guns in the first place? For some reason, americans (and only americans) think guns protect people.[/QUOTE]
Why do idiots like you think we don't?
We have the right to defend our selves. Criminals and invaders have guns, they don't give a shit, we have the right to defend our selves.
Also in places like wyoming and colorado (mostly the western part of America, where I live) we have a lot of dangerous wildlife, it's an extreme biome and having the ability to defend our selves from wildlife is very nice, also ranchers need guns for shooting sick animals and protecting sheep from predators.
It's more humane to shoot a sick cow because it doesn't suffer.
Guns arn't just an object that criminals and texan loons have for the sake of killing people, most gun owners are responsable people, usualy hunters or target shooters. Guns are also better than knifes, you know how most guns in britian are illegal? Knife crime went up, it's a LOT harder to match a knife wound to a knife than a bullet due to ballistics and the fact that each gun's rifiling is different, guns can be matched 100% to the bullet, knives are near impossible to match.
Plus criminals are CRIMINALS, they don't care if they break the law to get a gun, they are already planning to break the law anyway, not to mention that automatic weapons that are actually legal require a class 3 license and anyone who owns one is pretty much picked to the bone for ANY law infraction in their past and is investigated first in the event of crimes with similar weapons. Honestly I can't say much but my uncle works with the government, he goes through people's records to determine if they can even get the licenses for supressors, automatic weapons or things like a 50.cal anti-material rifle and such, which to get you pretty much have to be a fucking perfect person.
[QUOTE=The one that is;32419758]Why do idiots like you think we don't?[/quote]
MASTER DEBATE PROTIP:
Calling people idiots not only makes you look angry and immature, it also guarantees that the person you're arguing with will never be able to see your side of the conflict, as they will be put on the defensive. Don't do it.
I'm for guns and a certain amount of gun control.
Just make sure the guy knows how to use the gun and isn't a crazy motherfucker before you hand that shit over.
Sure a lot of people don't really [I]need[/I] guns but they don't really need sunglasses or a new comfy couch either. I see guns as sort of a luxury.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32419843]MASTER DEBATE PROTIP:
Calling people idiots not only makes you look angry and immature, it also guarantees that the person you're arguing with will never be able to see your side of the conflict, as they will be put on the defensive. Don't do it.[/QUOTE]
Often if I'm arguing and I get insulted, I just take it as I won because they're out of intelligent responses, and thus resort to insults to try and make me seem less credible by attempting to portray me as retarded without explaining why, in hopes that people will start to share their viewpoints against me, despite there being no real counterargument.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32419843]MASTER DEBATE PROTIP:
Calling people idiots not only makes you look angry and immature, it also guarantees that the person you're arguing with will never be able to see your side of the conflict, as they will be put on the defensive. Don't do it.[/QUOTE]
Don't honestly care, to be honest. I am angry that people think that every fucking person that owns a gun is some sort of crazy gun toting texan or a criminal.
And I did give a reason to explain why he's an idiot, my entire argument proved him to be stupid.
[QUOTE=The one that is;32419899]Don't honestly care, to be honest. I am angry that people think that every fucking person that owns a gun is some sort of crazy gun toting texan or a criminal.[/QUOTE]
[b]You are enforcing that stereotype by getting angry on the internet.[/b] You, and people like you damage the credibility of gun ownership. If you're not going to post something articulate, polite, and logical, you should not post in a debate thread.
I think guns, of all types, should be legal. However, each person will have to go through a psych test, and if they are a felon, all firearms must be removed from the premises.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;32419975]I think guns, of all types, should be legal. However, each person will have to go through a psych test, and if they are a felon, all firearms must be removed from the premises.[/QUOTE]
no, explosive weapons should not
grenade launchers should not.
etc. etc.
only purpose of those weapons is to KILL large groups of people. Hence they have no application in any civilian use.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32420303]no, explosive weapons should not
grenade launchers should not.
etc. etc.
only purpose of those weapons is to KILL large groups of people. Hence they have no application in any civilian use.[/QUOTE]
Explosive weapons are owned by collectors, museums, and machine shops for demonstrations and events. I sincerely doubt that a registered destructive device has [i]ever[/i] been used in a crime.
Grenade launchers are used for flare launching, as well as pest control with gas payloads. Even if they WERE illegal, it's extremely simple to build a grenade launcher yourself. No law restricting them would ever be effective.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6_vufc1ns[/media]
Sometimes they're owned and operated by rich hobbyists because, frankly, they are fucking awesome. No such piece of well-machined world history should be lost because lawmakers want to appease the scared masses.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32420369]Explosive weapons are owned by collectors, museums, and machine shops for demonstrations and events. I sincerely doubt that a registered destructive device has [i]ever[/i] been used in a crime.
Grenade launchers are used for flare launching, as well as pest control with gas payloads. Even if they WERE illegal, it's extremely simple to build a grenade launcher yourself. No law restricting them would ever be effective.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6_vufc1ns[/media]
Sometimes they're owned and operated by rich hobbyists because, frankly, they are fucking awesome. No such piece of well-machined world history should be lost because lawmakers want to appease the scared masses.[/QUOTE]
not saying they should be banned, just licensed, registered, and restricted.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32420607]not saying they should be banned, just licensed, registered, and restricted.[/QUOTE]
When you say that something should not be legal, the implication is that it should be [i]il[/i]legal. You mentioned that these devices have no civilian use - so? When you make any kind of law restricting access to something in any way, the objective should be to reduce crime while protecting people's rights and well-being to the fullest extent. But destructive devices are not used in crime of any type. The only reason a person would have to restrict them is if that person is afraid of them.
The same goes for so-called "assault weapons." Assault weapons, as gun-control proponents define them, are used in less than 1% of gun-related crime in the United States. Yet they are always the first weapons to be targeted by gun-control legislation. This isn't a logical ban supported by statistics and reason - this is a fear-induced kneejerk reaction.
Laws should not ever be founded on paranoia - especially when they restrict people's civil liberties.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32420664]When you say that something should not be legal, the implication is that it should be illegal. You mentioned that these devices have no civilian use - so? When you make any kind of law restricting access to something in any way, the objective should be to reduce crime while protecting people's rights and well-being to the fullest extent. But destructive devices are not used in crime of any type. The only reason a person would have to restrict them is if that person is afraid of them.
The same goes for so-called "assault weapons." Assault weapons, as gun-control proponents define them, are used in less than 1% of gun-related crime in the United States. Yet they are always the first weapons to be targeted by gun-control legislation. This isn't a logical ban supported by statistics and reason - this is a fear-induced kneejerk reaction.[/QUOTE]
As to your first part, terrorism, but that's a small section of crime and IEDs are incredibly easy to make if you can't get any proper equipment, literally they can be made of products found under the sink on occasion, so restrictions there would do nothing.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32420699]As to your first part, terrorism, but that's a small section of crime and IEDs are incredibly easy to make if you can't get any proper equipment, literally they can be made of products found under the sink on occasion, so restrictions there would do nothing.[/QUOTE]
Using a destructive device that's been tax stamped, registered, and inspected by your local sheriff is not exactly a winner terrorist strategy.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32420664]When you say that something should not be legal, the implication is that it should be [i]il[/i]legal. You mentioned that these devices have no civilian use - so? When you make any kind of law restricting access to something in any way, the objective should be to reduce crime while protecting people's rights and well-being to the fullest extent. But destructive devices are not used in crime of any type. The only reason a person would have to restrict them is if that person is afraid of them.
The same goes for so-called "assault weapons." Assault weapons, as gun-control proponents define them, are used in less than 1% of gun-related crime in the United States. Yet they are always the first weapons to be targeted by gun-control legislation. This isn't a logical ban supported by statistics and reason - this is a fear-induced kneejerk reaction.
Laws should not ever be founded on paranoia - especially when they restrict people's civil liberties.[/QUOTE]
eh, I really don't think any sort of gun restriction would have an effect on criminal access to guns and gun crime, tbvh.
one only needs to look at the crime statistics for brazil to realise that.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;32420736]Using a destructive device that's been tax stamped, registered, and inspected by your local sheriff is not exactly a winner terrorist strategy.[/QUOTE]
Registration won't stop crime, if someone has a registered weapon of any kind and he wants to commit a crime, because he has it available, he'll use it. If a terrorist has or can easily get a legal explosive device, the fact that it's registered won't stop him from using it in a terrorist act, because the whole point of terrorism is to garner media attention in any possible way that will make people afraid, and if people are afraid everyone with a grenade launcher is going to blow up a school, then the terrorist did his job.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32420821]eh, I really don't think any sort of gun restriction would have an effect on criminal access to guns and gun crime, tbvh.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;32420607]not saying they should be banned, just licensed, registered, and restricted.[/QUOTE]
restriction as in banning types of weapons, sorry if I did not make that clear
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
