First NY and now CO

[mar1t1me]

You say this about everything you dont agree with, yet when this same argument is used against something you do agree with (Say AGW) you cry foul..............


This is one argument that shows more firearms/people with a means to defend them selves form predators is valid correlation=causation argument. Our violent crime is much much lower than that of your favorite Gun stat country of the UK, Like nearly 4 TIMES LOWER.......

This is shown by the current FBI crime stats and the current UK stats, current CDC studies and several other places of reputable information

Incorrect. You need to look at the British Crime Survey:

Surprising Crime Figures

• Around half of all violent crimes result in no injury whatsoever (according to both police figures and BCS).
• 71% of mugging (robbery and snatch theft) incidents result in no injury.
• The number of violent incidents has fallen by 36% since 1995.
• Property crime (burglary, theft, etc) has fallen 46% since 1995.
• The average household is burgled only once every 50 years.


You are dealing with a country that considers a motorist accidentally hitting a cyclist as a violent crime. Far from what I, and most other Americans would consider a violent crime....you know....like the ones you're supposed to be so afraid of that you spend lots of money on weapons you are incredibly unlikely to ever need. And which are, in fact, more likely to be the accidental cause of a personal injury to yourself or someone you care about than to offer actual defense against someone intent on doing you harm.....

[mrsleeve]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

[mar1t1me]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

From your link:

A Home Office spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. “



Which is exactly my point, thanks.


To further elucidate:The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”


Different definitions and methodology entirely.

[iamsam]

Well we can say goodbye to some Colorado jobs: http://kdvr.com/2013/02/13/colorado-...gun-magazines/

[CorvallisBMW]

This is one argument that shows more firearms/people with a means to defend them selves form predators is valid correlation=causation argument. Our violent crime is much much lower than that of your favorite Gun stat country of the UK, Like nearly 4 TIMES LOWER.......

This is shown by the current FBI crime stats and the current UK stats, current CDC studies and several other places of reputable information

Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

[mar1t1me]

Well we can say goodbye to some Colorado jobs: http://kdvr.com/2013/02/13/colorado-...gun-magazines/

Magpul is laughing all the way to the bank. One gun forum mentioned that Magpul sold 40,000 of those things in less than one week. At what is likely around $5 profit on each one, given a little knowledge of how simple these things are, and the cost of materials and labor, that's $200,000 right there.

I actually don't think we need more laws banning certain types of weapons, but there ought to be ludicrously draconian laws for the misuse of one.

I don't really care if you have a bunch of guns, but if you're fucking around and end up shooting someone "by accident", then you pay with your life. How about that?

[frankenbeemer]

I don't really care if you have a bunch of guns, but if you're fucking around and end up shooting someone "by accident", then you pay with your life. How about that?

What if the victim recovers?

[Bimmerman325i]

Whelp, my vote is decided despite how much I despise the republican party platform.

This shit is NOT OK.

[mar1t1me]

What if the victim recovers?

I was assuming death, however, if the shooter (or his/her "shooter's liability insurance") is willing to pay the full extent of the medical bills, including rehabilitation, or in the case of diminished physical or mental function, a significant settlement, that would be an option. And yes, I realize crooks won't be carrying liability insurance. It's sad to be shot by a crook, but worse for both the shooter and the one shot to be generally law-abiding people. Fucks up things for all involved, and it is clear that a number of gun owners lack a measure of common sense in their own personal "gun control". And sadly, it's not only adults who pay the price for overt stupidity.

Given the choice, however, I'd just as soon not get shot, so I want the person out playing with, or casually carrying his guns to have a really big incentive to avoid, at all costs, hitting an unintended living target.

[BraveUlysses]

I don't really care if you have a bunch of guns, but if you're fucking around and end up shooting someone "by accident", then you pay with your life. How about that?

And by advocating this position, you would also advocate the same punishment for any type of accident, right?

[iamsam]

Magpul is laughing all the way to the bank. One gun forum mentioned that Magpul sold 40,000 of those things in less than one week. At what is likely around $5 profit on each one, given a little knowledge of how simple these things are, and the cost of materials and labor, that's $200,000 right there.

I actually don't think we need more laws banning certain types of weapons, but there ought to be ludicrously draconian laws for the misuse of one.

I don't really care if you have a bunch of guns, but if you're fucking around and end up shooting someone "by accident", then you pay with your life. How about that?

True, Magpul, as well as every firearms/parts manufacturer in the states has made a huge amount of money off of the sudden spike in sales, but what has that got to do with my post you replied to?

All I was saying, is "say goodbye to Colorado jobs", which still holds very true if Magpul pulls up its roots and ditches Colorado. Huge profit or no profit, goodbye Colorado jobs...

To respond to your other (unrelated) comments, if someone "accidentally" shoots one of my family, I would certainly be fighting the urge to kill them myself. But then does another member of their family come chase me down?

Also, if I personally were to accidentally kill someone, would I really deserve death under the current law? Many many people accidentally kill other people through the misuse of motor vehicles, are they put to death?

As far as draconian repercussions for the misuse of a weapon, how about a distinction between intentional misuse (like a school shooting), and accidental (like accidental discharge while cleaning or something)? For intentional misuse, I would not be opposed to Medieval style torture with the benefit of modern technology, for accidental, something more like insurance/gun confiscation/etc.

[iamsam]

I was assuming death, however, if the shooter (or his/her "shooter's liability insurance") is willing to pay the full extent of the medical bills, including rehabilitation, or in the case of diminished physical or mental function, a significant settlement, that would be an option. And yes, I realize crooks won't be carrying liability insurance. It's sad to be shot by a crook, but worse for both the shooter and the one shot to be generally law-abiding people. Fucks up things for all involved, and it is clear that a number of gun owners lack a measure of common sense in their own personal "gun control". And sadly, it's not only adults who pay the price for overt stupidity.

Given the choice, however, I'd just as soon not get shot, so I want the person out playing with, or casually carrying his guns to have a really big incentive to avoid, at all costs, hitting an unintended living target.

Question: How is it worse for you to be shot by a law abiding citizen than a crook? You are still shot...

Also, if I carry a gun, laws or no laws, it is extremely within my best interest not to shoot anyone, especially accidentally, and I am not sure how any measure of legislation can make that more dire.

[mrsleeve]

I really like how people are trying to tie conditional provisions to participation in a RIGHT like rights are some kind of Privdlge granted to us from the govt or state....

Such things will get slapped down by the courts

[frankenbeemer]

And by advocating this position, you would also advocate the same punishment for any type of accident, right?

Unless he's hoplophobic.

[Ratbastage]

And add Ohio to the list.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_SB_18

Its coming and coming fast. It appears the strategy is the use of freshmen reps within states to introduce and push these measured backed by biden and bloomberg.

This way the dc fat cats are safe from the backlash and we do not see a cleansing of them in the midterms.

Looks like they found their lambs and a way to use them.

I'm tiring of his shit really. I'm almost to the point of telling them to go ahead and nullify the COTUS which in turn, nullifies them (.gov) and lets get the anarchy on and finish this.

Notice there is no exemption for something like a Marlin 60?

The only exemptions are for .gov employees.

Again, making two levels of rights.

Sooner or later people are going to see this and understand it for what it is.

edit: And Washington state is having bad bill after bad bill being tossed out.

Looks like theyare taking the throw enough shit something will stick approach.