Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
andalusian said:
Apples to oranges. Australia went from 20 guns per 100 people to 14.5, the US currently has more than 120 guns per 100 people.

All we need to see is the Dog's firearm homicide rates to know that even if we cut ours by half we would make a huge gain.

When we get to 20 guns per 100 people as Australia had before their gun ban - we can talk.
Click to expand...
Firearm homicide rates just mean there are firearms in the equation. It doesn't mean people are killing because of firearms, or that they would stop killing without them.

So reducing our number of guns to 20 per 100 people would be removing 340 million guns. At 1 gun per minute, every minute of every day would take 684 years.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Firearm homicide rates just mean there are firearms in the equation. It doesn't mean people are killing because of firearms, or that they would stop killing without them.

So reducing our number of guns to 20 per 100 people would be removing 340 million guns. At 1 gun per minute, every minute of every day would take 684 years.
Click to expand...
That's not how disarmament works.....New Zealand, Australia and Costa Rica did it in a short period of time...Costa Rica in the 80s disbanded their army and put the money into education and cultural arts.....you can ping pong your obvious need for a weapon to feel ok all day but the more I read about it here, the less willing you seem to consider the option that people would be better off without guns across the board. You don't have to agree with that or vote for it but you can't completely keep discounting the possibility of major change concerning an a heavily armed population....you and I completely disagree about gun control here because you basically argue in absolutes about futility of taking on that issue but you're wrong about many of those absolutes. in my view. guns in this country is pretty much a non count noun however if the penalty is stiff enough people will adapt.....500 fines sure stopped a lot of folks from littering...not all but a lot of them...we have antiquated laws about the militias in the 1700s that don't apply to today's circumstances and for once and for all......you cannot have a public building with only one access or escape door.....that's against every building code ever written for fire and natural disaster safety.....we have more tornados and fires than mass killings. It's a good thing when Katrina hit New Orleans people had multiple escape routes from buildings
You might start a neighborhood watch group in your community...they have them all over the country
 
Phatguysrule said:
Firearm homicide rates just mean there are firearms in the equation. It doesn't mean people are killing because of firearms, or that they would stop killing without them.

So reducing our number of guns to 20 per 100 people would be removing 340 million guns. At 1 gun per minute, every minute of every day would take 684 years.
Click to expand...

The average human has 100,000 hairs. If a barber were to cut 1 hair per minute, every minute of the day, it would take 69 1/2 days to get a haircut.

The US has 329.5 million people. If a person were to count 1 person per minute, every minute of the day, it would take 626 years to complete the census.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The average human has 100,000 hairs. If a barber were to cut 1 hair per minute, every minute of the day, it would take 69 1/2 days to get a haircut.
Click to expand...

Oops, I made a mistake. That's head hairs, I didn't include body hair. The way my nose and ears seem to be growing hair now the barber would be cutting for infinity.
 
If a gravedigger digs 1 foot of dirt per hour it will take them 126 hours to dig the graves for the 19 children and 2 teachers killed Tuesday.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The average human has 100,000 hairs. If a barber were to cut 1 hair per minute, every minute of the day, it would take 69 1/2 days to get a haircut.

The US has 329.5 million people. If a person were to count 1 person per minute, every minute of the day, it would take 626 years to complete the census.
Click to expand...
So you think we can round guns up at a greater rate than 1 per minute?

How would you advise we do that?
 
Phatguysrule said:
So you think we can round guns up at a greater rate than 1 per minute?

How would you advise we do that?
Click to expand...
It's not an easter egg hunt....my father's gun closet in his home had 6 rifles, 3 handguns and all his ammo in one location....most people will have their weapons cache in one place...I don't know where you get one gun per minute from...cops on the news confiscate entire arsenals in one raid with many, many guns and lots of ammo...they always show the collections on the news after a raid.
You raid a biker gang's clubhouse you'll probably find more than one gun per minute...etc......Australia offered money for people to turn them in and had a flood of them carried into town for the money. The Nazi's didn't take long disarming minorities either...not only guns but their art, gold, all their possessions.
 
riverman said:
That's not how disarmament works.....New Zealand, Australia and Costa Rica did it in a short period of time...Costa Rica in the 80s disbanded their army and put the money into education and cultural arts.....you can ping pong your obvious need for a weapon to feel ok all day but the more I read about it here, the less willing you seem to consider the option that people would be better off without guns across the board. You don't have to agree with that or vote for it but you can't completely keep discounting the possibility of major change concerning an a heavily armed population....you and I completely disagree about gun control here because you basically argue in absolutes about futility of taking on that issue but you're wrong about many of those absolutes. in my view. guns in this country is pretty much a non count noun however if the penalty is stiff enough people will adapt.....500 fines sure stopped a lot of folks from littering...not all but a lot of them...we have antiquated laws about the militias in the 1700s that don't apply to today's circumstances and for once and for all......you cannot have a public building with only one access or escape door.....that's against every building code ever written for fire and natural disaster safety.....we have more tornados and fires than mass killings. It's a good thing when Katrina hit New Orleans people had multiple escape routes from buildings
You might start a neighborhood watch group in your community...they have them all over the country
Click to expand...
You're arguing against points that I've never made.

I've never suggested 1 escape route, in fact I've said that multiple are critical.

If you think we're going to be getting rid of our military in our lifetimes you're going to be disappointed.

I have actually PROPOSED gun control in this very thread, yet you've just claimed I'm arguing in absolutes against it...

I don't know how we would get to no guns, and I've not seen any suggestions as to how we could get there in our lifetime.

We can't even get universal background checks and the Supreme Court will likely be restricting states rights to enforce gun control further within the year.

I completely agree that if we could get rid of guns we'd have fewer gun deaths. But again, Russia has a similar number of guns per person as the UK, yet 4x our murder rates.

And our demographic diversity and gini coefficient is a lot closer to that of Russia than it is to the UK or Australia.
 
Phatguysrule said:
You're arguing against points that I've never made.

I've never suggested 1 escape route, in fact I've said that multiple are critical.

If you think we're going to be getting rid of our military in our lifetimes you're going to be disappointed.

I have actually PROPOSED gun control in this very thread, yet you've just claimed I'm arguing in absolutes against it...

I don't know how we would get to no guns, and I've not seen any suggestions as to how we could get there in our lifetime.

We can't even get universal background checks and the Supreme Court will likely be restricting states rights to enforce gun control further within the year.

I completely agree that if we could get rid of guns we'd have fewer gun deaths. But again, Russia has a similar number of guns per person as the UK, yet 4x our murder rates.

And our demographic diversity and gini coefficient is a lot closer to that of Russia than it is to the UK or Australia.
Click to expand...
If I mistook your take on doors, my bad.....Russia has the second largest international crime ring on the planet next to China......and probably the largest rate of alcoholics on the planet...not a good combo but I'm glad you can see a country with no guns...the president of Costa Rica won a Nobel Peace prize for his efforts in the 80s...the deal is...look towards countries that have successfully accomplished this and open yourself to the concept that it's absolutely possible....it's demonstrable just like countries who practice neutrality. Doesn't mean you don't have the best police force, national guard and military on earth in the US to not have gun ownership in the private sector. To see the value in this it needs to be put under the microscope of modern crime and weaponry and it's causes and effects. I've said many times I don't think it'll pass into law in this country but I'm going to lobby for it all the years I have remaining...I have grandchildren who I would like to inherit a civil society and a safe one
 
Phatguysrule said:
So you think we can round guns up at a greater rate than 1 per minute?

How would you advise we do that?
Click to expand...

A person can still be against cancer even if they don't have any idea at all how to cure it.

The vast vast majority of Americans want gun control and to reduce some guns in the country. To say that they can't have that unless each individual thinks of a way to make that happen is a bit goofy.

But sure, I'll give it a try.

Why not some sort of reasonable compromise? Why not try a ban on AR-15 type weapons and set a national cap on guns at 200,000 million. Put incentives on the gun manufacturers and sellers to get people to trade in or sell back their unwanted or unused guns? No new gun sales until we get 140 million turned in and destroyed? Then a straight 1 for 1 every year after that. 1 gun destroyed for every 1 sold?

Try something like that for 10 years and then see where we're at.

Depending on what happens we slowly increase or decrease the gun cap.
 
Last edited:
xtwpmfE.png
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Why not some sort of reasonable compromise? Why not try a ban on AR-15 type weapons and set a national cap on guns at 200,000 million. Put incentives on the gun manufacturers and sellers to get people to trade in or sell back their unwanted or unused guns? No new gun sales until we get 140 million turned in and destroyed? Then a straight 1 for 1 every year after that. 1 gun destroyed for every 1 sold?
Click to expand...

I would say it would be much easier to put a cap on ammunition. There is no need for anyone that needs a gun for "protection" to have more than 50 rounds. You want to buy more, show proof you used them in a licensed gun range where they were counted. Make it a federal offense to stop crooked range operators from signing on "use" that did not happen - and a big part of the problem is solved.

I am sure there would be an outrage from people that go hunting, but that would be easily solved as well with hunting licenses. There are obvious, low hanging solutions that can be applied that would not solve everything, but certainly would help reduce the problems we have.
 
andalusian said:
I would say it would be much easier to put a cap on ammunition. There is no need for anyone that needs a gun for "protection" to have more than 50 rounds. You want to buy more, show proof you used them in a licensed gun range where they were counted. Make it a federal offense to stop crooked range operators from signing on "use" that did not happen - and a big part of the problem is solved.

I am sure there would be an outrage from people that go hunting, but that would be easily solved as well with hunting licenses. There are obvious, low hanging solutions that can be applied that would not solve everything, but certainly would help reduce the problems we have.
Click to expand...

I think we could look into that too.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I think we could look into that too.
Click to expand...
that's the first place I'd start...I think that would have the biggest impact initially ..another would be to have designated hunting areas where you can check out a hunting rifle and it's regulated like Safari in Africa....I think people who live in agriculturally zoned areas should be allowed to keep manually chambered rifle and shotgun around for predators or to protect livestock from predators...get them out of the cities, schools, institutions where large groups of people congregate
 
andalusian said:
I would say it would be much easier to put a cap on ammunition. There is no need for anyone that needs a gun for "protection" to have more than 50 rounds. You want to buy more, show proof you used them in a licensed gun range where they were counted. Make it a federal offense to stop crooked range operators from signing on "use" that did not happen - and a big part of the problem is solved.

I am sure there would be an outrage from people that go hunting, but that would be easily solved as well with hunting licenses. There are obvious, low hanging solutions that can be applied that would not solve everything, but certainly would help reduce the problems we have.
Click to expand...

But Phats' argument is that we have too many guns to do any sort of gun control. So, let's bring down those numbers. Lets see what things look like with 200 million guns instead of 340 million. Americans bought 19.5 million guns last year. How about we limit that to 10 million?
 
Senator Ron Johnson blamed the shooting on .... drumroll ... critical race theory.
 


One the worst insults I have seen following the death of 19 schoolchildren in Uvalde. Disgusting and grotesque. He praises guns and then calls out the victims names at the fucking NRA convention. He can't even pronounce their fucking names. And that fucking bell. Grotesque.

Also he's not the president.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
But Phats' argument is that we have too many guns to do any sort of gun control. So, let's bring down those numbers. Lets see what things look like with 200 million guns instead of 340 million. Americans bought 19.5 million guns last year. How about we limit that to 10 million?
Click to expand...

I think his argument actually has some merit - it will take a while to reduce the number of fire-arms the US has, we have been collecting them for hundreds of years. That's why the ammunition angle makes a lot of sense. Guns are a lot less deadly when they do not have ammunition.
 
According to your link New Zealand had committed $130 million by that articles date to their gun buyback. It's estimated they have roughly 1.5 million guns .

Here in the US that would be 400 million guns, or an initial investment of $34.4 billion.

However, they had only received 15k guns at a cost of $20 million...

So, $1333 per gun? Whoa boy.. $533.2 billion...

Obama was nearly laughed out of office for trying to budget $300 million for gun control.... Even the cheaper side ($34 billion) of this proposal is 100x more than the US has even joked about spending on gun control.

And that got them 15k guns in 6 weeks. Or 2.5k per week... That's 130k per year.

It would take them over 12 years, assuming they can keep up that pace... Which they obviously can't... I'd be surprised if they got 10% of that the following year...

And Australia's buyback program didn't seem to have the cost numbers, but they apparently collected 1 million guns in a year, but it didn't change the trajectory of their intentional homicide rates for at least a decade and that's if you can even say the trajectory changed at all due to that policy... Hell most of that could be attributed to getting off of leaded fuel..

Oh, and after all of that

But Radio New Zealand reported on Monday that the reform “has had no impact on a rise in gun crime and violence”, pointing to police statistics that show charges reached a new peak in 2020. Nearly 2,400 people were charged with 4,542 firearms-related offences, nearly double that of a decade earlier, while 1,862 firearms were seized under the Search and Surveillance Act, compared with 860 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/new-zealand-ardern-flags-further-gun-control-reforms-after-firearms-charges-peak

Sorry, just read that real quick between practices, but there is no chance the US is going to spend the kind of money that it would take, when the result would be removing the rights of citizens, while killing a booming industry. Only to watch there be no change in violent crime or murder rates. Which will get anybody who supported it thrown out in the next election and the policy reversed.

You honestly think we're going to keep that up for 10 years? Not a chance... That's political suicide.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top