Gun Control

[One Brow]

I recall them actively trying to intimidate people.

You mean, by carrying a weapon around? You're saying it's more intimidating to carry a baseball bat than a gun?

[Stoked]

What I recall is that they were reported to be perceived as threatening, an entirely different thing from actively threatening people. As for the badges, many people take going around armed as a sign of hate.

I'm not particularly upset about the guy in JC Penney's. I'm in giggles over your attempt to say he's less threatening that a couple of guys that don't even have guns.

I am in "giggles" over many of your stances. To be honest I am glad that I do not see the world thru your eyes.

[Stoked]

You mean, by carrying a weapon around? You're saying it's more intimidating to carry a baseball bat than a gun?

From what I remember they were verbally warning people who to vote for and other such comments. Plus publicly displaying their allegiance to a hate group.

No different than a KKK member being at a polling place in MS with a noose.

[One Brow]

The problem with that scenario is that there is a much more plentiful, cheaper and more effecient weapon. The handgun.

I do like how you tried to turn that around though.

Thank you.

Knives are even cheaper and more plentiful than guns. They seem to be the criminal weapon of choice in counties where the populace is mostly unarmed.

[Gameface]

So, criminals in England and Germany don't care about guns? Because both countries went from a period where gun controls were more lax to one where they were less lax. It's almost as if criminals only care about using whatever is handy to get an edge, which in a country where knives are legal and plentiful, while guns are scarce and therefore expensive, means a knife for most of them.

There have been several comments about England passing some sort of assault weapons ban. I hope most people understand that England basically outlawed private ownership of firearms and confiscated and destroyed the majority of privately owned firearms.

Let's not pretend like we're going to get results like England and Australia unless we're willing to take the measures they took, which absolutely includes confiscation.

[Stoked]

Thank you.

Knives are even cheaper and more plentiful than guns. They seem to be the criminal weapon of choice in counties where the populace is mostly unarmed.

So you are willing to let a ew bad apples determine how the rest of us should live and what we should be allowed to do?

No thank you.

[Stoked]

There have been several comments about England passing some sort of assault weapons ban. I hope most people understand that England basically outlawed private ownership of firearms and confiscated and destroyed the majority of privately owned firearms.

Let's not pretend like we're going to get results like England and the UK unless we're willing to take the measures they took, which absolutely includes confiscation.

That right there is a game changer. People, gun owners and their supporters, will never go for it.

[One Brow]

No different than a KKK member being at a polling place in MS with a noose.

Because the cultural context of a baseball bat in Philadelphia is just like that of a noose in Mississippi. I certainly remember all those people strung up with baseball bats as a public warning, the burning of stadiums where white people watched games and of piles of caps on white people's lawns, the complete lack of any serious attempt to arrest the culprits, etc. What a great analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bla...imidation_case

Perhaps you have a different source, but this one says that slurs were shouted, not threats. Also, it was a billy club, something much smaller.

It's interesting how who is threatening changes based on the observer, isn't it?

[One Brow]

Let's not pretend like we're going to get results like England and Australia unless we're willing to take the measures they took, which absolutely includes confiscation.

I agree, we will not achieve results like England. However, I think we can improve, even if not that much, by using more moderate regulations.

[One Brow]

So you are willing to let a ew bad apples determine how the rest of us should live and what we should be allowed to do?

Yes, I'm willing to deprive you of your right to own a flame-thrower, based on how a handful of people will use it.

I mean, I have not once mentioned in this thread that Americans could or should be deprived of guns entirely, so you could not have meant that.

[Stoked]

Because the cultural context of a baseball bat in Philadelphia is just like that of a noose in Mississippi. I certainly remember all those people strung up with baseball bats as a public warning, the burning of stadiums where white people watched games and of piles of caps on white people's lawns, the complete lack of any serious attempt to arrest the culprits, etc. What a great analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bla...imidation_case

Perhaps you have a different source, but this one says that slurs were shouted, not threats. Also, it was a billy club, something much smaller.

It's interesting how who is threatening changes based on their actions, isn't it?

Fixed

[Stoked]

Yes, I'm willing to deprive you of your right to own a flame-thrower, based on how a handful of people will use it.

I mean, I have not once mentioned in this thread that Americans could or should be deprived of guns entirely, so you could not have meant that.

Then it is a good thing that it is not up to you.

[Gameface]

I agree, we will not achieve results like England. However, I think we can improve, even if not that much, by using more moderate regulations.

Well, if a little bit of regulation is good then a little more would be even better, right?

Thus the reason why the "gun-nuts" aren't willing to give up an inch without a fight.

[Scat]

Yes, I'm willing to deprive you of your right to own a flame-thrower, based on how a handful of people will use it.

I mean, I have not once mentioned in this thread that Americans could or should be deprived of guns entirely, so you could not have meant that.

FWIW, flamethrowers are not federally regulated. Some states restrict ownership, but in general, they are not illegal.

In fact, there is almost nothing that one cannot possess provided the proper paperwork and licensing is observed. You can own a tank, automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank riffles & even small rocket propelled missiles. Granted, the paperwork and fees associated with owning such items is onerous, but, they can be had.

[BabyPeterzz]

FWIW, flamethrowers are not federally regulated. Some states restrict ownership, but in general, they are not illegal.

In fact, there is almost nothing that one cannot possess provided the proper paperwork and licensing is observed. You can own a tank, automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank riffles & even small rocket propelled missiles. Granted, the paperwork and fees associated with owning such items is onerous, but, they can be had.

So are you saying we don't see more crimes committed with these weapons because *gasp* they are legal yet highly regulated? You don't say......