Reply With QuoteHow about powered armor? It doesn't come with any weapons, but has mounting attachments for plasma rifles. Should it be banned?
I'm for controlling artillery over .50 cal. and plasma rifles. Let's play Hardball!
How about powered armor? It doesn't come with any weapons, but has mounting attachments for plasma rifles. Should it be banned?
No, I want to stay on-topic here. Powered armor and personal force fields should be discussed in their own threads. :)
I think anyone should be able to own any gun they want
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
as long as I'm the one who owns all the ammo.
My uncle makes his own ammo in his basement for his Enfields and Whitworth.
See, that's plainly dangerous and subversive behaviour and is exactly the kind of thing that would be banned under my ammunition-monopoly plan.Originally Posted by XPav
So will Kalle-land regulate all tools that could possibly be used in the manufacture of bullets?
Regulate, what a nice word, sounds so much friendler than "ban", I think I'll use that in the final draft of my plan. Now, where was I. Oh yes, tools will be "regulated". As will, of course all materiel from which you can make ammunition.
I didn't know they had American Liberals in Sweeden. You seem to know the jargon and euphemisms well:
"...replace 'BAN' with 'REGULATE'...mmmmm, yeah, they'll buy that] one.....now replace 'firearm' with 'assault weapons'........"
I'm sorry I misread the title of this thread. I read it as:
The Gun-Control free - For All, Thread.
When it's really:
The Gun-control-Free-For-All Thread.
Kalle-land: where all ammo has been gently touched. :)
With some 20,000+ Federal and state gun control laws on the books, I think we have enough.
Ah, must remember to put in "gently touched" into the final draft as well.
I'm for gun control and my brother-in-law is a fanatical member of the NRA. I planned a logical trap for him and argued portable atomic bombs should not be outlawed. I said that I needed a portable atomic bomb to protect myself in case there were any terrorists that had atomic bombs. My stupid thought was that he would argue against me and then I could turn his own argument back on him replacing machine guns for atomic bomb. It was a stupid thought because he got all excited and said that I was absolutely correct.
I have a hard time believing this number.
Edit:
Ah-ha! It's an old Reagan quote, and it's wrong.
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/...s/gunbook4.pdf
Amusingly, the response to this by John Lott (!) of all people was to cite a BATF report which no one can seem to get their hands on:
http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscella...0030203-04.htm
I suppose if you figure every other city in the US has a gun law (there's 35,000 cities), you can get the 20000 figure, but that seems to be a rather ridiculous way to get the number.
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/citiesm.html
Interesting stuff, thanks, I hadn't seen that press release. I'll reserve final judgement until the book, the data and methodology has been peer-reviewed.
It seems to be somewhat limited, anyway, because they very narrowly defined their focus and deliberately excluded any local laws. For example, the press release notes that they don't include local laws that prohibit carrying firearms in public spaces, specifically because "Inclusion of such laws would certainly inflate national estimates of the number of gun laws."
Well... yeah. The theory is that 40 states supposedly pre-empt local laws, but we'll have to buy the book to check that out. Again, the NRA is demonized, described as "very successful" in getting this done.
[[/i]I have a hard time believing this number.
Edit:
Ah-ha! It's an old Reagan quote, and it's wrong.
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/...s/gunbook4.pdf
Amusingly, the response to this by John Lott (!) of all people was to cite a BATF report which no one can seem to get their hands on:
http://www.2ndamendment.com/Miscella...0030203-04.htm
I suppose if you figure every other city in the US has a gun law (there's 35,000 cities), you can get the 20000 figure, but that seems to be a rather ridiculous way to get the number.
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/citiesm.html
Yeah. Either way, though, the statement "we already have 20,000 gun laws" is supposed to give the listener shock that we have so many laws; my god, what are they up to? When you explain 99% of them are duplicate local jurisdiction laws the shock kind of fades.
If nothing else, I think most municipalities have some law about when/where you can discharge a firearm, and I don't think those are affected by state pre-emption. If you consider those ordinances to be gun laws -- and the hunters who have to be concerned with such things certainly do -- then I'm sure there are well over 20,000 laws on the books.
I don't think the "20,000 gun laws" quote is just designed to shock. I think it's primarily used as a counter-argument to those who argue that guns are uniquely unregulated. Popular arguments-by-analogy from the gun control crowd are that guns are less regulated than toys or less regulated than cars. Both assertions are false, and neither speaks to the problem of how best to ensure rights while protecting public safety. Neither does the "20,000 gun laws" quote. I think we can all agree that there are lots of laws about when, where, and how guns may be fired, carried, purchased or manufactured. The question is, are they the right laws, or do some need to be added or removed?
Think I've got it:
"There's 20,000 gun laws!"
"Yeah, but 99% of them are duplicate local laws. How many apply to me, living in NYC"?
"Oh. 320."
It's a two orders of magnitude difference there.
Well, what if you then tell the NYC resident that the sum of those 320 laws means that only celebrities and politicians can own guns? Surely there must be a qualitative aspect to every quantitative argument, and 320 still sounds like a shitload of specifications to an alleged right.
How many laws do you think there are related to free speech? You could probably generate a comparable number by adding up all the parade/protest ordinances in localities.
I'm not arguing that there's too many or too little, I just think the 20000 number is wildly misleading.
Serendipitously, this showed up in my mailbox today. I thought it was good for a smile:
According to the US Dept. of Health & Human Services
a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Then think about this:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes, eighty million).
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, then, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous than gunowners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.
Alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
(As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers, for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.)
And the accidental death statistic for doctors comes from?
And the number of murders committed by doctors is?
Yeah, I know it's a joke, but I've seen this constant abuse of statistics by the pro-gun crowd to justify keeping America awash in guns. Not that the anti-gun crowd are any better. Looking for objective statistics about guns is just about impossible with both sides beating their agenda down everyone's throats.
Actually, 15% of the public doesn't have health insurance, so they probably don't have a doctor.
If your aim is on par with your ability to stay on topic, maybe I do have to rethink my position on gun control. :D
The initial topic was government controls on power armor and nukes, right?
15% with no heath insurance. But if any of them were in an accident, they could go to any emergency room in the country and get medical attention. And they could always pay for their own doctors visits.
I spend over $10,000 a year on health insurance and have often wondered if the $150 doctor visit every few months or so wouldn't be a cheaper alternative. My $3000 surgery this year still leaves me $7000 in the hole which I could have used for other investments.
Yeah, but that $10,000 premium will cover a million dollar operation.
As to the "emergency room" red herring that gets so much play, you know you pay for that with your tax dollars, right? And you can only get immediate treatment for something; you can't very well get free chemotherapy that way.
Ok, so give me some stats on how may people die from untreated cancer resulting from lack of health insurance.................I'm waiting..............
And, yes, I pay for the free treatment others receive who can't or refuse to pay for, through my insurance premiums.
Some people also choose not to have health insurance. That was my point.
http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_upda...ealthcare.html
"The lack of health insurance in America leads to delayed diagnoses, life-threatening complications and, ultimately, 18,000 premature deaths each year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Institute of Medicine. In the first comprehensive study of the medical consequences of going without insurance, researchers commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found that "being uninsured for even a year appears to diminish a person's general health."
that's great Jason, more people die from the Flu every year. And there's really nothing a doctor can do for you except tell you to drink fluids, take asprin, and rest. You're going to have to find more dead people to get me interested in saving the world from the evil lack of health insurance.
Posting Permissions