So being a virgin (male) at 22 & 2.5 years of college = fail

[zzm9980]

Anyway I personally will not live in the US for this reason alone (not to mention my communist tendencies, right Jr8 ?)

Best not even visit then. 'Murika! is so looney with guns ravaging locals may try to shoot your jet down while it's landing.

[rajagainstthemachine]

@JR8 those are just 3 instances you listed, but I'm sure the ratio of shootouts America vs rest of the world is much higher.

Well since you're sure, it must be true. Let's turn this into a "bash the US" thread shall we?

Looney People get their rocks off in different ways based on culture. If this guy was one of your countrymen, him and a bunch of his buddies would have driven around and just raped all of the girls they could find. And then have a fair chance of getting away with it.

LOL! This isn't about USA bashing, regarding my countrymen's views on women, the less said the better.

what I was rather alluding to was that a high percentage of shootouts involve university campuses or uni students, coupled with campus rapes, it makes one think that there is something wrong with the university policy.
In India too a problem of this nature exists, only there are no shootouts, but you have instances of junior abuse by seniors often perpetrated in a cruel way.

[x9200]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

IMHO it would need to be coupled with some other data to give a reliable image.

This may be likely closer but still by a single factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

Things like likelihood that the murder will stay unsoved must have a significant impact on the rate.

Besides, I think Raj was probably referring to public indiscriminate shooting or mass killings rather than any murder.

well, as per my first post, to me it seems blindingly obvious the ease of access to guns in US is a key factor contributing to the high murder rates there, which includes mass killings too. Sure the stats don't prove anything but neither does plucking random examples of Norway, Switzerland, Israel.

It is rather obvious also for me but the data you quoted did not support it (my entire point). I.e. India 3.5 vs US 4.8, same magnitude, while in India (AFAIK) there is no "free" access to the guns granted.

[Beeroclock]

Anyway I personally will not live in the US for this reason alone (not to mention my communist tendencies, right Jr8 ?)

Best not even visit then. 'Murika! is so looney with guns ravaging locals may try to shoot your jet down while it's landing.

ZZM, sorry I don't intend to US bash either, it's a great country in nearly all respects, but the gun thing, afraid I just don't get it.

[JR8]

Anyway I personally will not live in the US for this reason alone (not to mention my communist tendencies, right Jr8 ?)

Best not even visit then. 'Murika! is so looney with guns ravaging locals may try to shoot your jet down while it's landing.

ZZM, sorry I don't intend to US bash either, it's a great country in nearly all respects, but the gun thing, afraid I just don't get it.

Well BoC, you know what the 'Murkans are like about commies [*]. McCarthyist witch-hunts, The Doomsday Clock foretelling World War 3 and so on. Even the KKK is about 3 times the size[*1] of the USCP which shows you how far the latter is regarded as off the Nutjob Index

It seems curious to suggest that you wouldn't wish to live in a country because it's too free. Communists preach 'power to the people', but that is a theoretical ideal that has never come about. What any country that has gone down that road has ended up with is is the precise opposite, power to the oppressors, over the people. Ideals vs reality.

Refusing to live there on that basis seems pretty bizarre to me, as believe it or not you don't see people 'out and about' with weapons. It would be entirely possible to live there and be oblivious to the presence of guns; rather like in the UK, though of course the UK has many less legally owned guns (as of recently, and 'for our own good' naturally). If you 'don't get the gun-thing', perhaps you might consider further the Constitutional 'Right to bear arms' within a historical context, i.e. how and why it came about.



p.s. @ ZZM


* http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26126325
The curious survival of the US Communist Party

*1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_klux_klan

[x9200]

Why nuclear and biological weapons are banned in US to be possessed by the members of public? No personal freedom violation in this case?

[PNGMK]

Why nuclear and biological weapons are banned in US to be possessed by the members of public? No personal freedom violation in this case?

More specific to guns; no automatic weapons without FFL and no guns > 0.50 calibre without FFL. Both are accepted by NRA so why not ban semiautomatics guns as Australia did? There were no semiautos when the bil of rights was drafted.

[JR8]

Why nuclear and biological weapons are banned in US to be possessed by the members of public? No personal freedom violation in this case?

More specific to guns; no automatic weapons without FFL and no guns > 0.50 calibre without FFL. Both are accepted by NRA so why not ban semiautomatics guns as Australia did? There were no semiautos when the bil of rights was drafted. [my bold]

That's incorrect.

------------------
Early rapid-firing weapons
The first known ancestor of multi-shot weapons was created by James Puckle, a London lawyer, who patented what he called "The Puckle Gun" on May 15, 1718. It was a design for a 1 in. (25.4 mm) caliber, flintlock revolver cannon able to fire 9 rounds before reloading, intended for use on ships.[5] According to Puckle, it was able to fire round bullets at Christians and square bullets at Turks.[5] While ahead of its time, foreshadowing the designs of revolvers, it was not adopted or produced.

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
------------------


@ X9. Well, there's little cause duck or deer-hunting, or simply plinking at a target, with a nuclear missile. It'd be rather unsporting dontchathink?

[x9200]

@ X9. Well, there's little cause duck or deer-hunting, or simply plinking at a target, with a nuclear missile. It'd be rather unsporting dontchathink?

I just would like to have it. I am not going to use it anywhere to kill anything/anybody, just put it in my backyard and observe the neighbors getting jealous green. In my LR I would like to have a bullet-proof glass frame filled with hundreds of vials contain small-pox and other nice pathogens. That would be so exciting, I bet much more than killing a deer or some hares. I am a responsible citizen with no criminal record so I don't understand why some comi-bastards violate my freedom.

Really, it's only about the number of the fatalities. Few million is not acceptable but few thousand is ok?

[BedokAmerican]

Believe it or not, most Americans aren't gun nuts or racists. There are some, including a few politicians, who are gun nuts and they make tons of noise and it makes it appear they have more of a corral than they really do because they get attention. The Nat'l Rifle Assoc. contributes to political campaigns and endorses candidates, and for those in specific parts of the country, that carries weight for some voters. Although, many voters are inclined to vote for the opposite candidate because they think the NRA is too extreme.

Most people don't care if law abiding citizens have guns for things like hunting, target shooting, or even self protection. It's the fact that lunatics are able to buy weapons and ammunition with no questions asked. Yes, some crazy person could still get their hands on a weapon and do a shooting spree if laws were tighter, but why make it easy for them to do so?

The gun nuts are against background checks, registration and waiting periods (although these laws vary from state to state). Seriously, if someone is a law-abiding citizen, nobody is after their gun, not the government or anybody else. Quit being paranoid and having an everybody-wants-me ego.

The problem is that the gun nuts are looking at things in "black and white" and things make more sense when looked at in "shades of gray." If people are concerned about a lunatic having a gun, suddenly their gun is in danger of being confiscated. Not the case.

This often becomes an issue during election years. I've had people tell me they won't vote for a candidate because of their antigun stance. I've asked them how often they've had a gun. They'll say something like "30 years." I'll then say, "Ok, you got your gun when Reagan was president, and had it during Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Republican and Democratic administrations. Has anyone ever tried to take your gun?" They'll say "no" and I'll ask them why they still think someone is after their gun and they never have an answer.

[x9200]

I don't think it has anything to do with the Americans. It's predominantly accessibility/opportunity factor.

[sundaymorningstaple]

This often becomes an issue during election years. I've had people tell me they won't vote for a candidate because of their antigun stance. I've asked them how often they've had a gun. They'll say something like "30 years." I'll then say, "Ok, you got your gun when Reagan was president, and had it during Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Republican and Democratic administrations. Has anyone ever tried to take your gun?" They'll say "no" and I'll ask them why they still think someone is after their gun and they never have an answer.

I've owned guns since 1960. Has anyone ever tried to take my gun? If they even breathed the thought they wouldn't have gotten my vote, regardless of the party, and I reckon that's why all of us still have 'em. Gun nuts aren't nuts. I've only ever shot one person. I'm not nuts.

[PNGMK]

Why nuclear and biological weapons are banned in US to be possessed by the members of public? No personal freedom violation in this case?

More specific to guns; no automatic weapons without FFL and no guns > 0.50 calibre without FFL. Both are accepted by NRA so why not ban semiautomatics guns as Australia did? There were no semiautos when the bil of rights was drafted. [my bold]

That's incorrect.

------------------
Early rapid-firing weapons
The first known ancestor of multi-shot weapons was created by James Puckle, a London lawyer, who patented what he called "The Puckle Gun" on May 15, 1718. It was a design for a 1 in. (25.4 mm) caliber, flintlock revolver cannon able to fire 9 rounds before reloading, intended for use on ships.[5] According to Puckle, it was able to fire round bullets at Christians and square bullets at Turks.[5] While ahead of its time, foreshadowing the designs of revolvers, it was not adopted or produced.

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
------------------


@ X9. Well, there's little cause duck or deer-hunting, or simply plinking at a target, with a nuclear missile. It'd be rather unsporting dontchathink?

OK you can have any gun you like up to that model year only

[rajagainstthemachine]

This often becomes an issue during election years. I've had people tell me they won't vote for a candidate because of their antigun stance. I've asked them how often they've had a gun. They'll say something like "30 years." I'll then say, "Ok, you got your gun when Reagan was president, and had it during Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Republican and Democratic administrations. Has anyone ever tried to take your gun?" They'll say "no" and I'll ask them why they still think someone is after their gun and they never have an answer.

I've owned guns since 1960. I've only ever shot one person. I'm not nuts.

was it your own foot? *runs*

[PNGMK]

This often becomes an issue during election years. I've had people tell me they won't vote for a candidate because of their antigun stance. I've asked them how often they've had a gun. They'll say something like "30 years." I'll then say, "Ok, you got your gun when Reagan was president, and had it during Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Republican and Democratic administrations. Has anyone ever tried to take your gun?" They'll say "no" and I'll ask them why they still think someone is after their gun and they never have an answer.

I've owned guns since 1960. I've only ever shot one person. I'm not nuts.

was it your own foot? *runs*

He's a veteran you idiot.