If you voted for Obama or you're a Muslim, you better not try to learn gun safety in Texas

[SilentCom]

What the hell do you expect people to believe? The media demonizes Muslims and Arabs alike and atheists aren't portrayed any better. These three groups are essentially considered the enemy by some people, fully due to their inaccurate portrayal by the media and politicians alike. People are fucking confused and mislead because of this broken and unjust system.

In regards to the "No Obama voters" thing, just look at the upcoming 2012 USA presidential election, specifically the political ads, or just go to a Tea Party rally. The people are being lied to by their own candidates. Instead of presenting their arguments in a proper manner they'd rather just use scare tactics and bullshit everyone into voting for them. If supporting democracy means supporting a system that perpetuates and allows such injustices to occur then I'd rather not support democracy.

How can anyone allow people so disingenuous to run for presidency? Candidates should never use scare tactics in order to win popular support and if they do they should be thrown in the fucking gutter.

Atheists aren't being demonized, it's the opposite. At least here in washington state, where secularism and materialists seem to rule. I can't bring up God or Jesus without someone blaming me for causing all the wars and ignorance in the entire history of the earth. Which is a bit incongruous if you ask me.

As for the rest of what you said, it sounds like par for the course as far as politics are concerned.

I understand, I'm from Washington state as well. Frankly it really has less to do with belief and more to do with people being intolerant of different beliefs. This goes both ways.

 

[Lionsfan]

Before I start my response: I totally dig your profile pic. Long before the inherent racial prejudices of human cultures, Tyrannosaurs in F14s were very well-known for their indiscriminate hatred of Chasmosaurs.

Anyway, I both agree and disagree with your sentiments. People are pretty quick to cast a disparaging eye on America as if it's the only place that endured enormous civil rights issues, but it's not as if Europe didn't (and doesn't) suffer from the same hideous widespread ethnocentrism and xenophobic backlash against minorities. Hell, read Color Me English by Caryl Phillips. He quite ably outlines the enormous problems with racial prejudice in Europe, whose xenophobia is actually more exacerbated by the notion that each nation, by its own definition, has a "right" ethnicity and all others are therefore "foreign."

That said, this is by no means a "non-issue." It's not just a man flouting the conventional wisdom on what's socially acceptable and what isn't. Nor is this a rare, isolated instance of racism that can be casually ignored. This man is not only defying some fairly strongly outlined laws, (Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and, to a lesser extent, 1991) but he is in many way representative of an uncomfortable trend amongst Western nations: a preternatural disdain for Islamic people. Much in the way that it is appalling that so many people lump all of America in with one particularly loud fringe element, this man is making an aggressive stand against the rights of all citizens of our nation. Nevermind the underlying racism of this action (after all, someone who is quick to simply condemn all people who don't share his views likely does not speak from a position of colorblindness), there have been many recent events that tie in with this one down south. From Hotels insisting that Spanish never be spoken amongst their staff to Arizona giving free reign for cops to simply pull someone over on suspicion of Brownness, the undercurrent of nationalistic hatred has become a lot more pronounced and public in the south.

And whether or not this is a "non-issue" for most of us (being that most of the people here are probably not from Texas and more than a few of said people are neither liberal nor muslim), that doesn't make it a non issue for the people who endure this kind of behavior. Whether or not they want the service that is being provided, the notion that it's being disallowed on the basis of political affiliation or religion (and, possibly, skin color) is a stinging slap in the face, especially considering how this person is flaunting his actions.

I guess maybe I should have clarified. When I said non-issue what I meant was in a week only some people will remember this here, by December only a few will remember.

I totally agree with everything you posted, it's just I don't like when people on The Escapist do the same stuff we criticize.

Racism is still a problem in the world, and more so in the Southwest States of the US, but it just irks me when people group every American together, or every Texan together. I guess that's just my problem though, I mean those laws passed in the States so obviously the general sentiment is inherently racist. It's just a shitty world we live in, and the assholes always get the most press/attention

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

I guess I can't take that magnificent gun class...I voted for Obama. :<

 

[Ironic Pirate]

"Ha ha, Americans are bigots that make generalizations and don't understand other cultures, ha ha ha."

Uhm, i didnt say that.

I never said you did. Your post was amusingly hypocritical, so I wrote something sarcastic in a similar vein.

"Ahh, america. Too many Bigoted, uneducated, moronic people who dont understand that it is they are saying."

Is what you actually said, with 3 of the four things being obvious hypocrisy and a fourth up to debate.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Isn't that kind of thing against the law? I thought you couldn't discriminate based on religion or political views

No, He has a Constitutional right under the First Amendment. He can be an A**hole all he wants.

You also, technically can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. The "anti-discrimination" and "Hate Crime" laws are all unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. Anyone, in the United States, should be able to believe and say anything they want without fear that the Government will come and arrest you (within reason, you cannot yell fire in a crowed theater).

Is the A**hole wrong, YES. He is only hurting his business. I would not do business with him and you should not do business with him.

Edit: Wow, I did not realize that this thread was over 300 posts. I bet someone already pointed this out (5 times over).

 

[mrdude2010]

Hm. Funny how the violent crime rate dropped consistently once the Brady Bill went into effect.

Most of the illegally obtained guns used in crime were stolen/illegally purchased from people who bought them legally. It's pretty hard to smuggle an american-made gun into a country it's already in. Obviously systematic gang violence using smuggled weapons that aren't legal in most western countries is an exception.

Anyway, the 2nd amendment actually is kind of ambiguous. When they wrote "bear arms," what arms did they mean? They obviously didn't specify, but does that give everyone the constitutional right to own a bazooka? It also mentions a "well-regulated militia." Now, that's even more ambiguous. How do you define "well-regulated?" Do you mean like the colonial militias in Great Britain, the occasional hoplite training sessions in Greece, or does everyone automatically belong to "the militia?" (I mean the amendment itself is pretty ambiguously worded, the various interpretations of it based on an ancient court ruling are pretty clear.)

I personally think guns need to be regulated in some way, but a complete ban is something different. The other option is to go the route of several other countries, and require everyone to undergo military training, then issue them a powerful rifle. When everyone has one, it's a lot less safe to break into someone's house, so basically as long as everyone has one or no one does, it helps the crime rate. But to be honest, if you're going to half ass it, you might as well regulate certain types of weapons. There will never be a need for any person to own an automatic weapon, since hunting with one is impractical and inefficient, target practice with one is even sillier (Have you ever tried holding an automatic weapon steadily on a target? Even in short bursts it's probably not as a effective as a semi-automatic weapon at any appreciable range), and using an automatic weapon for home defense is just going a little over the top, to be honest. No one will ever need heavy ordinance. Handguns are even less practical, as they're basically useless at any range of over 40 yards, they're easy to conceal (and thus easier to commit crimes with), they're cheap and easy to obtain, and capable of killing a lot of people quickly. When something has no practical use aside from killing people, is it really something you want to have as a widespread aspect of your society? Things like hunting rifles and shotguns, even semi-automatic ones, have clear purposes for both sport and hunting, and as long as you pass the mental health/criminal background check, you should be able to own one in pretty much any caliber allowed under the geneva convention.

Also, going back to the accidents, that's exactly the point. If guns are easy to obtain (a la no gun control laws), lazy and irresponsible people will have easy access to them, and thus accidents will happen frequently. You are more likely (statistically, probably not you personally, from your attitude) to accidentally hurt your own family member than a burglar. You can't regulate gun ownership based on arbitrary determinations of someone's responsibility/laziness, so you really can't keep stupid lazy irresponsible people from owning guns. What you can do is keep them from owning guns most likely to cause those accidents.

Exactly where is the article/document stating that crimes rates dropped in direct correlation to the Brady Bill? Exactly when does restricting peoples' access to something help the matter? Remember prohibition? USA banned alcohol and organized crime exploded. And as I have previously stated, criminals obtain guns through illegal means. If this Bill worked so well then why is there still an issue of "gun control" and wasnt solved with the Brady Bill?

Um, no. The 2nd Amendment isnt ambiguous at all. Youre either clawing at desperate attempts to prove your pathetic point or just to dull in the brain to understand. I do sincerely hope its just a sad attempt to get me angry and you really arent that ignorant. Here is a specific portion of the video I linked, if you cannot even understand the 2nd amendment then dont bother posting anymore. You shouldnt be trying to argue points if you cant even comprehend what it is youre arguing.


Honestly, reading your large paragraph makes me think youre just a troll. You just restated everything you said and paraphrased me. You didnt even contribute one real idea as to HOW guns can be regulated to ensure accidents dont happen. Sure, idiots can pass background checks so long as theyve been law-abiding idiots.

But you wanna know what I think should be done? You cant own a gun unless you provide proof of receiving instruction on proper cleaning/maintenance of firearms and additional instruction on the use (shooting). But hey, Im crazy. Im actually concerned with gun safety, but people like you only stereotype gun users by thinking that everyone wants to go hunting with automatics. And thinking that you know a thing or two about which firearms should be rightfully restricted (despite not even understanding the 2nd amendment itself).

I actually know the constitution pretty well, having taken a few polisci courses in my time, and understanding the constitution being kind of important to most of those classes. The exact wording of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why would the bit about a well regulated militia even be in there unless it was part of the rest of the statement? It could easily imply that not being part of a well regulated militia, or one clearly not being necessary (we have the national guard for that now, you know) could mean the second part of the sentence doesn't apply. It says "keep and bear arms," and it specifies no limits. Does that mean that someone could open a bomb making shop in their garage? The differences in technology and the affordability of said technology couldn't be anticipated by the framers, so they left most of it intentionally vague for future congresses and supreme courts to clarify as time passes. Like I said, the amendment itself is ambiguous, but the interpretations of it have not. You're the one deliberately oversimplifying it to try to support your point.

also, crime rate drop: http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCrimeRateTrend2.gif- Brady Bill went from about 1994-2004, notice how the violent crime rate levels off there? That and Britain has a very low gun crime rate, especially compared to the U.S., and they have a handgun ban in place.

You didn't mention it, I mentioned it because I figured it was relevant to the topic to describe what I meant by "regulating guns."

Using one example such as prohibition, which was repealed, isn't a good way to make your case. Nearly everyone in the United States drank. Nearly everyone went to some church or another, where they had to partake in the holy sacrament, which involves wine. It was such a bad idea to ban something so already widespread throughout the country that of course an illegal market was going to build around it. If you tried to ban the purchasing of cigarettes because secondhand smoke is dangerous, the crime rate would shoot up too.

I'm concerned with gun safety too. I grew up on a farm, hunted, plenty of my dad's friends were in the armed forces, etc. I've fired many different types of guns. I always knew that guns could be dangerous, and that they're not nearly as dangerous if you're intelligent about using them. I know that it would be nice if you force everyone to take a gun safety course, but even passing that course will not prevent accidents. Some states already have laws like that, and accidents still happen. Even if you pass the course, it doesn't guarantee that you will always follow it, and even one break with the safety guidelines can be fatal. I mean, look at driving school: people are constantly told not to drink and drive or text and drive, and then shown gruesome videos of the consequences, and they still do it, and accidents still happen.

And seriously, how different is regulating who can purchase a weapon more of an "infringement" (if you take you're oversimplified version) than regulating which weapons people can purchase? With all the crime there already is, if any criminal could readily get access to an automatic weapon, it would get worse. Obviously, some will still make their way into the states, but it will be much more difficult to smuggle one in. If someone has the drop on you, nearly every gun is useless anyway, unless you're Jessie James.

 

[Flizzick]

Oh people, why you so stupid?

Seriously though, reading the article felt like listening to good ol' Sarah Palin.

What a joke

 

[RaNDM G]

What do you expect? It's Texas. It might as well be considered it's own country.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I wish I could say I was surprised by the amount of Texas-bashing (and America-bashing) in this thread, but I'm not.

Disgusting. I'm really starting to get sick of this community.

It's a little surprising, because most other threads (NOT about religion) are full of sensible, civilized people. I don't know about you, but as a Texan who grew up in Texas and who's mother's entire side of the family is from Texas along with having many Texan friends, this kind of stupid bullshit pushes buttons I thought I'd dismantled years ago.

It's pure hypocrisy! Make a thread about how a Muslim extremist blew up a bus and even imply that all Muslims must be terrorists because of this and you'll be inundated with posts calling you an ignorant something-or-other (before you get banned, of course). But one guy in Texas is a racist asshole and suddenly all Texans are racist assholes? Are you familiar with the robot phrase "DOES NOT COMPUTE"?

It's depressing, sickening, infuriating, and mind-boggling. Anyone who thinks this way should be ashamed.

 

[Wushu Panda]

I actually know the constitution pretty well, having taken a few polisci courses in my time, and understanding the constitution being kind of important to most of those classes. The exact wording of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why would the bit about a well regulated militia even be in there unless it was part of the rest of the statement? It could easily imply that not being part of a well regulated militia, or one clearly not being necessary (we have the national guard for that now, you know) could mean the second part of the sentence doesn't apply. It says "keep and bear arms," and it specifies no limits. Does that mean that someone could open a bomb making shop in their garage? The differences in technology and the affordability of said technology couldn't be anticipated by the framers, so they left most of it intentionally vague for future congresses and supreme courts to clarify as time passes. Like I said, the amendment itself is ambiguous, but the interpretations of it have not. You're the one deliberately oversimplifying it to try to support your point.

also, crime rate drop: http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCrimeRateTrend2.gif- Brady Bill went from about 1994-2004, notice how the violent crime rate levels off there? That and Britain has a very low gun crime rate, especially compared to the U.S., and they have a handgun ban in place.

You didn't mention it, I mentioned it because I figured it was relevant to the topic to describe what I meant by "regulating guns."

Using one example such as prohibition, which was repealed, isn't a good way to make your case. Nearly everyone in the United States drank. Nearly everyone went to some church or another, where they had to partake in the holy sacrament, which involves wine. It was such a bad idea to ban something so already widespread throughout the country that of course an illegal market was going to build around it. If you tried to ban the purchasing of cigarettes because secondhand smoke is dangerous, the crime rate would shoot up too.


And seriously, how different is regulating who can purchase a weapon more of an "infringement" (if you take you're oversimplified version) than regulating which weapons people can purchase? With all the crime there already is, if any criminal could readily get access to an automatic weapon, it would get worse. Obviously, some will still make their way into the states, but it will be much more difficult to smuggle one in. If someone has the drop on you, nearly every gun is useless anyway, unless you're Jessie James.

Actually I do not notice, the link you posted leads me to a "page not found".

Using one example, as in a country a fraction of the USA's size and population isnt a very good way to make your case either. That is a very different country, still using a monarchy/parliament as its governing forces. In fact Britain is pretty much the ENTIRE FUCKING REASON we even have a 2nd Amendment in the first place. Britain doesnt have the spance of ethnicity the USA does and it doesnt have the crowded population problems the USA does. Britain is an island while USA is half a continent. To equally compare crime statistics to the USA you will need another country that has similar population make-up and size.

I'm concerned with gun safety too. I grew up on a farm, hunted, plenty of my dad's friends were in the armed forces, etc. I've fired many different types of guns. I always knew that guns could be dangerous, and that they're not nearly as dangerous if you're intelligent about using them. I know that it would be nice if you force everyone to take a gun safety course, but even passing that course will not prevent accidents. Some states already have laws like that, and accidents still happen. Even if you pass the course, it doesn't guarantee that you will always follow it, and even one break with the safety guidelines can be fatal. I mean, look at driving school: people are constantly told not to drink and drive or text and drive, and then shown gruesome videos of the consequences, and they still do it, and accidents still happen.

[sarcasm]OH REALLY NOW? You mean to tell me passing laws does not guarantee people will follow them? That despite attempts to CONTROL GUN accidents that people will actually BREAK THE LAW!! You dont suppose that creating laws to restrict people from owning guns would be broken too right?[/sarcasm]

Exactly my main point Ive been trying to stress. It doesnt matter what laws you try to pass with gun control, people break them. Make all the laws you want saying people cannot have this or that, but if they want it, it is accessible. They break laws and they will get w/e it is they want one way or another. All gun control does is keep law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

This video is from a news report done on the myth of gun control. How murder rates shot UP once guns were restricted and banned. How people were able to save their lives just from brandishing a gun.

 

[mrdude2010]

I actually know the constitution pretty well, having taken a few polisci courses in my time, and understanding the constitution being kind of important to most of those classes. The exact wording of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why would the bit about a well regulated militia even be in there unless it was part of the rest of the statement? It could easily imply that not being part of a well regulated militia, or one clearly not being necessary (we have the national guard for that now, you know) could mean the second part of the sentence doesn't apply. It says "keep and bear arms," and it specifies no limits. Does that mean that someone could open a bomb making shop in their garage? The differences in technology and the affordability of said technology couldn't be anticipated by the framers, so they left most of it intentionally vague for future congresses and supreme courts to clarify as time passes. Like I said, the amendment itself is ambiguous, but the interpretations of it have not. You're the one deliberately oversimplifying it to try to support your point.

also, crime rate drop: http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCrimeRateTrend2.gif- Brady Bill went from about 1994-2004, notice how the violent crime rate levels off there? That and Britain has a very low gun crime rate, especially compared to the U.S., and they have a handgun ban in place.

You didn't mention it, I mentioned it because I figured it was relevant to the topic to describe what I meant by "regulating guns."

Using one example such as prohibition, which was repealed, isn't a good way to make your case. Nearly everyone in the United States drank. Nearly everyone went to some church or another, where they had to partake in the holy sacrament, which involves wine. It was such a bad idea to ban something so already widespread throughout the country that of course an illegal market was going to build around it. If you tried to ban the purchasing of cigarettes because secondhand smoke is dangerous, the crime rate would shoot up too.


And seriously, how different is regulating who can purchase a weapon more of an "infringement" (if you take you're oversimplified version) than regulating which weapons people can purchase? With all the crime there already is, if any criminal could readily get access to an automatic weapon, it would get worse. Obviously, some will still make their way into the states, but it will be much more difficult to smuggle one in. If someone has the drop on you, nearly every gun is useless anyway, unless you're Jessie James.

Actually I do not notice, the link you posted leads me to a "page not found".

Using one example, as in a country a fraction of the USA's size and population isnt a very good way to make your case either. That is a very different country, still using a monarchy/parliament as its governing forces. In fact Britain is pretty much the ENTIRE FUCKING REASON we even have a 2nd Amendment in the first place. Britain doesnt have the spance of ethnicity the USA does and it doesnt have the crowded population problems the USA does. Britain is an island while USA is half a continent. To equally compare crime statistics to the USA you will need another country that has similar population make-up and size.

I'm concerned with gun safety too. I grew up on a farm, hunted, plenty of my dad's friends were in the armed forces, etc. I've fired many different types of guns. I always knew that guns could be dangerous, and that they're not nearly as dangerous if you're intelligent about using them. I know that it would be nice if you force everyone to take a gun safety course, but even passing that course will not prevent accidents. Some states already have laws like that, and accidents still happen. Even if you pass the course, it doesn't guarantee that you will always follow it, and even one break with the safety guidelines can be fatal. I mean, look at driving school: people are constantly told not to drink and drive or text and drive, and then shown gruesome videos of the consequences, and they still do it, and accidents still happen.

[sarcasm]OH REALLY NOW? You mean to tell me passing laws does not guarantee people will follow them? That despite attempts to CONTROL GUN accidents that people will actually BREAK THE LAW!! You dont suppose that creating laws to restrict people from owning guns would be broken too right?[/sarcasm]

Exactly my main point Ive been trying to stress. It doesnt matter what laws you try to pass with gun control, people break them. Make all the laws you want saying people cannot have this or that, but if they want it, it is accessible. They break laws and they will get w/e it is they want one way or another. All gun control does is keep law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

This video is from a news report done on the myth of gun control. How murder rates shot UP once guns were restricted and banned. How people were able to save their lives just from brandishing a gun.

Shit, you're right, here should be the link... it worked when I posted it... http://stubbornfacts.us/domestic_policy/crime/crime_rate_down_bad_graphs_and_misleading_headlines_up... the description accompanying the graph is a hysterical reaction to a left leaning article by NPR that overexaggerates the positive trend in criminal activity (upward trend, if you're not a scientist) after the bill ends in 2004 between 2005-2006ish, but nobody is disputing the graph's accuracy in terms of the lowering of the crime rate due to the Brady bill 1994-2004.

Yes Britain is the reason we have the second amendment, but their government is also primarily based on parliament and the prime minister rather than the monarchy. Regardless, I was talking about the rate, not the total number. Rate involves per population, whereas the number doesn't include population in its calculations. It's like the difference between real and per capita GDP.

My point with my final paragraph was, there's no way to reasonably restrict who can carry a gun, the better way is to restrict gun ownership to guns that are harder to have accidents with. Especially since your own proposal was to require everyone to show they had received training and instruction in firearm safety, and as you pointed out in your own response, not everyone follows the guidelines of firearm safety, even if they have taken a course.

Guns may be accessible no matter what. I'm in favor of legalizing certain drugs because they don't impact society negatively as a whole and will be accessible anyway, but making guns that do nothing but kill people more difficult for common criminals to obtain will not hurt things. No matter what, diehard criminals will find a way to obtain illegal weapons, and within the distances of your house, a shotgun or rifle that is used properly will be more efficient in defending your house than an automatic weapon illegally smuggled in to attack it will be, and your average alleyway mugger does not have the resources or connections to purchase a highly illegal weapon from a sketched out supplier. Currently, guns are extremely legal, so it's not difficult to obtain one illegally. The right price and opportunity allow a lot of crimes to happen.

Like I said, if either everyone or no one has a gun, crime will be lowered. Since America is ostensibly a free country, a decent chunk of the population will choose not to have guns. Therefore, the best way to reduce gun crime is to heavily crack down on illegal weapons (maybe with some kind of registry or something?) and restrict the production of weapons that are easy to use to commit illegal activities. If you see someone walking toward a bank with a large, automatic rifle, would you not notify the police? If that same person is carrying a revolver or small submachine gun, they may go unnoticed.

If this doesn't make sense, tell me where i'm being silly and i'll correct it next time i'm on... I'm kinda messed up right now.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

I wish I could say I was surprised by the amount of Texas-bashing (and America-bashing) in this thread, but I'm not.

Disgusting. I'm really starting to get sick of this community.

Why? The majority of people on the Escapist are leftists.

I thought it was obvious. No other group can label entire groups of people 'racist bigots' with a straight face while not seeing the hypocrisy or irony in said statement. Liberalism is an infantile mental disorder.

That being said - the people in this thread who think that this is against the law need to pick up a book. In America we actually let people decide who they want to interact with on their own personal time. Discrimination is perfectly legal unless it involves public housing(and even then, that's a law that needs to be fixed).

Also Islam isn't a race.

 

[Vuljatar]

Why? The majority of people on the Escapist are leftists.

It's no excuse/explanation for them being assholes. I know plenty of "leftists" who are also decent human beings, but not on here. If anyone spoke of any non-white or non-American group the way these scumbags insult Texas and Texans, they'd be branded racist/bigoted.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Why? The majority of people on the Escapist are leftists.

It's no excuse/explanation for them being assholes. I know plenty of "leftists" who are also decent human beings, but not on here. If anyone spoke of any non-white or non-American group the way these scumbags insult Texas and Texans, they'd be branded racist/bigoted.

Yes it is. That's how these people behave. In their minds they're still decent people, because they literally cannot see how their statements are in anyway ironic or hypocritical. For the same reasons they would label you a 'racist bigot'(which means whatever they want it to mean) for saying the same thing about a group of people who fall under the 'protected class' in their minds. They would also be unable to see the hypocrisy in doing this, even if they've said literally the same exact thing(except about another group) mere minutes ago.

Like I said, it's a mental disorder.

 

[Wushu Panda]

Shit, you're right, here should be the link... it worked when I posted it... http://stubbornfacts.us/domestic_policy/crime/crime_rate_down_bad_graphs_and_misleading_headlines_up... the description accompanying the graph is a hysterical reaction to a left leaning article by NPR that overexaggerates the positive trend in criminal activity (upward trend, if you're not a scientist) after the bill ends in 2004 between 2005-2006ish, but nobody is disputing the graph's accuracy in terms of the lowering of the crime rate due to the Brady bill 1994-2004.

Yes Britain is the reason we have the second amendment, but their government is also primarily based on parliament and the prime minister rather than the monarchy. Regardless, I was talking about the rate, not the total number. Rate involves per population, whereas the number doesn't include population in its calculations. It's like the difference between real and per capita GDP.

My point with my final paragraph was, there's no way to reasonably restrict who can carry a gun, the better way is to restrict gun ownership to guns that are harder to have accidents with. Especially since your own proposal was to require everyone to show they had received training and instruction in firearm safety, and as you pointed out in your own response, not everyone follows the guidelines of firearm safety, even if they have taken a course.

Guns may be accessible no matter what. I'm in favor of legalizing certain drugs because they don't impact society negatively as a whole and will be accessible anyway, but making guns that do nothing but kill people more difficult for common criminals to obtain will not hurt things. No matter what, diehard criminals will find a way to obtain illegal weapons, and within the distances of your house, a shotgun or rifle that is used properly will be more efficient in defending your house than an automatic weapon illegally smuggled in to attack it will be, and your average alleyway mugger does not have the resources or connections to purchase a highly illegal weapon from a sketched out supplier. Currently, guns are extremely legal, so it's not difficult to obtain one illegally. The right price and opportunity allow a lot of crimes to happen.

Like I said, if either everyone or no one has a gun, crime will be lowered. Since America is ostensibly a free country, a decent chunk of the population will choose not to have guns. Therefore, the best way to reduce gun crime is to heavily crack down on illegal weapons (maybe with some kind of registry or something?) and restrict the production of weapons that are easy to use to commit illegal activities. If you see someone walking toward a bank with a large, automatic rifle, would you not notify the police? If that same person is carrying a revolver or small submachine gun, they may go unnoticed.

If this doesn't make sense, tell me where i'm being silly and i'll correct it next time i'm on... I'm kinda messed up right now.

You seem to be making about as much sense as you did before, not much. And that link STILL does not work. "Page Not Found". But At least we could agree on legalizing certain drugs, even if it seem we will never see eye to eye on gun control.

You seem to be stating everything I have been talking about...again. "there's no way to reasonably restrict who can carry a gun" "criminals will find a way to obtain illegal weapons". Criminals will always find a way to carry w/e gun they want.

Again with the automatics? I have not once said anything about how the common person should have full rights to own automatics. I would never go hunting with one, nor would anyone I know who goes hunting as often as they can every year.

How exactly do we crack down on illegal weapons? A registry? Doy you expect criminals to walk into buildings and register their guns? NO, THATS BECAUSE THEYRE ILLEGAL WEAPONS!! I might chalk it up to you apparently being messed up but honestly you havent made much sense yet. You have terrible ideas and only contradict everything you say. "there's no way to reasonably restrict who can carry a gun" and "the best way to reduce gun crime is to heavily crack down on illegal weapons (maybe with some kind of registry or something?)"

Im not responding to anything else you might have to say. This is going no where and you have not contributed of anything worth reading in the past few posts.