Originally posted by CardiacCoug
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Guns
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by All-American View PostThousand dollar tax on each abortion. That's the solution. (It will save more lives, too.)That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens
http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoonerCoug View PostThousand-dollar tax on each bullet. That's the solution. Make bullets a luxury. And no one would mind spending 1000 dollars on a bullet if they are really defending their lives. In fact, the government could give a tax break if someone actually has to expend bullets while using their gun in self-defense."If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
"I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
"Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Uncle Ted View PostWhile you are at it you might as well advocate bringing back prohibition, the "noble experiment" that was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption and to solve social problems in America. As you may know, prohibition was a huge failure and simply made the problems it was attempting to solve worse. Your huge tax on bullets would most likely just create a new black market for criminals to exploit and more open killing fields (aka. "gun free zones") where only the criminals have guns. Of course, the government could try to control this bullet black market. In that case, I suspect your idea would work about as well as the war on drugs with similar costs to fight.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoonerCoug View PostThousand-dollar tax on each bullet. That's the solution. Make bullets a luxury. And no one would mind spending 1000 dollars on a bullet if they are really defending their lives. In fact, the government could give a tax break if someone actually has to expend bullets while using their gun in self-defense.
Comment
-
As if Republicans didn't already have enough self-inflicted wounds being on the wrong side of every other social issue, now this.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...?smid=pl-shareWhen a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
--Jonathan Swift
Comment
-
Comparisons with Western Europe's low murder by gunfire rate are skewed because we are a multi-cultural post-colonial Empire nation."Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied
Comment
-
Originally posted by wuapinmon View PostComparisons with Western Europe's low murder by gunfire rate are skewed because we are a multi-cultural post-colonial Empire nation.
Also, your comment that multi-culturalism leads to more domestic violence is offensive.
What a moranic comment.When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
--Jonathan Swift
Comment
-
Originally posted by SeattleUte View PostWestern European countries are multi-cultural. They are very culturally diverse. What a moranic comment.
Your definition of multi-cultural and mine do not match up; don't get personally insulting.
[YOUTUBE]bVOPRCnc8r4[/YOUTUBE]"Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoonerCoug View PostWrong. Gun ownership correlates with successful suicide--not to mention accidents. You're right that it doesn't correlate with murder rate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jacob View PostSo I was not wrong, but right. You and I agree. I said "And the evidence doesn't seem to support the idea that taking them away makes us safer." Successful suicide rates have no effect on my, your, our safety.
The psychological and societal effects of mass shootings also shouldn't be disregarded, even if they don't have a big effect on the murder rate nationally.That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens
http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug
Comment
-
I feel like I'm up in the air on this issue. I'm not anxious to take anyones guns. But I also think that the utility of weapons that can unload a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time (so basically anything that is not a double barrel shotgun or bolt action and holds just a few rounds) is very, very low. And most of the justifications for them would apply equally to saren gas. I wonder where the middle ground is.
I think I'm also ready to say that while, again, I would never want to see all guns outlawed. I don't think the rationale behind the second amendment much exists in 2012.
Comment
-
Originally posted by UtahDan View PostI feel like I'm up in the air on this issue. I'm not anxious to take anyones guns. But I also think that the utility of weapons that can unload a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time (so basically anything that is not a double barrel shotgun or bolt action and holds just a few rounds) is very, very low. And most of the justifications for them would apply equally to saren gas. I wonder where the middle ground is.
I think I'm also ready to say that while, again, I would never want to see all guns outlawed. I don't think the rationale behind the second amendment much exists in 2012.Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
-General George S. Patton
I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
-DOCTOR Wuap
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View PostWhy does the utility matter? Either banning them will increase our collective security or it won't. I am less than convinced it will, and IMO the burden of proof is on those who want the government to further regulate/control these things to prove that such action will lead to the intended benefit. Not to sit here and argue about the utility of the damn things. The issue, to at least me, boils down to whether or not somebody can convince me that a somewhat free society giving up a freedom, and admittedly not a freedom I am particularly inclined to exercise, will provide me the security promised and is worth that loss. It reminds me of the same mentality that led to the Patriot Act.
Almost all mass killings have happend insitting duckgun free zones. Gun free zones have been a spectacular failure in reducing gun violence. It's time to re-look at that, rather than depriving us of our liberties.
And for UD, a well-armed populace is the ultimate check on government tyranny. I'd say the 2A is more appropriate than ever.Last edited by venkman; 12-18-2012, 12:28 PM."Remember to double tap"
Comment
-
The British have no gun rights. They are not allowed to carry knives either.
They still have a lot of people getting shot and stabbed though.
For years now, they have considered legislation to ban long kitchen knives due to all the stabbings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
They probably need to consider banning forks and rocks too.Last edited by Devildog; 12-18-2012, 12:34 PM."We should remember that one man is much the same as another, and that he is best who is trained in the severest school."
-Thucydides
"Study strategy over the years and achieve the spirit of the warrior. Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men."-Miyamoto Musashi
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Comment
Comment