Opinions on the new world order

First of all i would like to address the fienstien obama admins about calling them assault rifles there not assault rifles an assault rifle is an automatic rifle meaning it continues to shoot with one pull of the trigger these guns are just like any hunting rifle they just look like assault rifles and they have high cap magazines andalso i agree we dont need guns but as long as criminals have guns i believe the people should also. And what i heard about the uk was that violent crime has gotten worse i was just stating what the FBI statistics wrote about america and increased gun ownership by law abiding citizens has decreased violent crime. But i see i have opened a can of worms on this one -note to self dont talk about politics- lol

I think assault rifles fit in (are anything) below bolt action sniper rifles and heavy machine gun, and above submachine guns and pistols. I dont think cyclic rates or trigger mechanisms matter as much as barrel length, as there are fully automatic pistols which are not assault rifles. The argument then would be if your hunting you can use a bolt action long rifle, and for personal security a pistol, meaning no need for assault rifles.

I think even if guns never ever existed people would still use whatever weapon they could get a hold of. Swords, lances, bows. So its not the type of weapon that needs to be controlled, its the people who own them. However even over here in the UK where gun license's are strict we still have gun crime and we have had a few people go off the walls and gone on a killing spree. There is no obvious answer other than educate to educate people better or help them achieve a better view on life so that they may cherish it and those of others around them.

Ok does that mean we need to turn them all into jedi :woohoo:

I personally wouldn't call being "shot" a violent crime, it's quick, simple and easy to do, to me a violent crime really messes you up such as a knife attack or a beating...with a lack of "guns" there's a lack of violent crime, a knife would is more fatal than a gun shot wound...based on logic.

I don't think a 100-200 grain weight bullet travelling at over 2000 feet a second is going to be less lethal than a knife wound. Based on physics.

A knife can be tipped with poison, it's silent & easier to conceal...

Handguns are also very easy to conceal.

People will always figure out new ways to kill each other.

Getting rid of guns will not stop atrocities. If someone wanted to kill a whole bunch of innocent people, they would just load a whole bunch of explosives into a car and drive it into a building.

as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I am not advocating disarmament. Guns just make it easier, and have since they were invented. Please reference diamond's excellent 'guns, germs and steel' for a more in depth look. An example would be spaniard conquest of the new world or the 'taming' of the wild west.

We have too many guns.

Ooh… Andy, that’s just mean!

Why would you want to inject someone with air? Well, I know why, but it just seems a bit harsh. It appears that we will always be on the lookout for new and exciting ways to kill each other.

I wonder what would happen if we were to bend all our creative efforts to something like conservation.

I live in New York State USA. Our Governor has made a new gun law that is quite controversial. He is of course will be run for President of the US so his motivations are obvious. Batteling with the NRA is like free political advertising for him. I'm suggesting you question the: motives, experiences and subject knowledge of the folks that are most vocal on gun control.

Having said that: background checks for crooks and nut cases and tracking private gun sales are good things. Limiting the size of gun clips would not change my life either.

Bad people are bad people, we will always have them. Random violence is random. Can't change that either.

I refuse to believe that changes in gun law, as oin comparable first world nations, would not have.beneficial results. We lead the world in. Gun deaths. Ask yourself why? And why other countries gun deathj rates are so very much lower per capita than ours.

This isn't malevolent. Its math. Its logic. More guns equals more people shot. And my own motives, experiwences and knowledge with weapons is above reproach.

Desolous wrote: More guns equals more people shot.

I think that's a gross oversimplification.

Whats overly simple about it? Take books for example, fewer books means fewer bible thumpers because there would be fewer bibles to thump.

Desolous wrote: . And my own motives, experiwences and knowledge with weapons is above reproach.

I wasn't directing my statment at you. Sorry if you took it that way. I think you would agree there a lot of ignorant people vocal about guns.

More guns equals more people shot.

Guns in the wrong peoples hands is the problem.

Andy Spalding wrote: Whats overly simple about it? Take books for example, fewer books means fewer bible thumpers because there would be fewer bibles to thump.

It also means lower literacy rates and less dissemination of knowledge, leading to a more ignorant populace. Simplicity is amazingly understaffed to handle the societal needs of walking tubes with holes at each end most of the time.

quote]
. Simplicity is amazingly understaffed to handle the societal needs of walking tubes with holes at each end most of the time.[/quote]

I don't understand what you're trying to say?

We should also limit plastic light sabers too. BECAUSE...

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Brenna wrote: I believe the expression is "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

I’ve always said that, “guns don’t kill people, Dads with pretty daughters kill people!”

Hahahhahaha :woohoo:

Andy Spalding wrote: Whats overly simple about it? Take books for example, fewer books means fewer bible thumpers because there would be fewer bibles to thump.

I found that to be amusing!

There seems to be two basic lines of thought. Have guns and defend yourself from bad people doing bad things to you, and don’t have guns and protect people from other people with guns. Interestingly enough, both positions seem to be decisions based out of fear. Fear of one thing or another. And that’s really what guns come down to on their most basic level. Fear. Why does an Army have guns? Fear of being defeated. Why do hunters have guns? Fear of not getting the game. Why does a civilian have a gun? Fear for personal protection. It may very well be an oversimplification, but that’s what I see… fear, fear, fear!

Do I own firearms? Yup! Do I have a fear of any of those things previously mentioned? Nope! Why do I own a firearm? I like long distance marksmanship.

Like with anything, you can legalize it or make it illegal, people will still do it and do bad things with it. That doesn’t mean you should give up though. But rather than say you should or shouldn’t have a thing, why don’t we educate others? Why not work to improve the “morals” of the society so that we don’t have to worry about someone doing something mean, stupid or spiteful?

I think that it would be a better world if people were afforded the freedom of choice, and they chose not to.

Rickie The Grey wrote:

steamboat28 wrote: Simplicity is amazingly understaffed to handle the societal needs of walking tubes with holes at each end most of the time.

I don't understand what you're trying to say?

I'm trying to say that "simple" doesn't usually work well with people, because people aren't really simple.