Got a new toy

Limits are put on assault weaponry where I am so that you can't have more than five rounds in the clip, regardless of overall size, and only really fire it at a shooting range.

And you can't hunt with them I don't think.

Which effectively makes them less useful than a hunting rifle.

I find it hilarious that you Americans have been living a lie since the founding of your silly country:

I'm not so sure the right to bare arms was a lie since the founding of our 'silly' country. I would have to say that a lot of the weaponry that exists today is beyond the scope of imagination for some of our colonial forefathers. So, when the 2nd Amendment was proposed, it made sense at the time. I believe that with so many insane weapon types and ammunition types, the amendment is clearly dated. Hence, why our government has the proposed amendment process in which 3/4 of the states (38 of 50 States) must agree to ratification. Specifically designed to help our silly old Bill of Rights remain applicable in the 21st century. Is it perfect? No. But at least its somewhat flexible and we aren't maintaining some archaic processes in which we are legally obligated to stone someone to death for being a prostitute.

what is 'silly' is when you start comparing 5 round clips, vs. 10 round clips, vs. assault rifles vs. handguns. Whether or not it should be illegal to carry 5 rounds or 100 rounds seems to me, like a lazy way of addressing the real issue. Which in most cases is mass killings, mostly 'successful' through the use of things like CS Gas, Pipe Bombs and other very illegal weapons. Just like true terrorism, they can really only be prevented by understanding the root cause and intervening before hand. Most mass killings in the US either show a definite sign of prior mental illness, or it was determined to be 'unclear' whether or not they were mentally ill afterwards.

But, some believe you can't argue the numbers. Factually, countries with tighter gun laws and 5 round magazines (and 1 gun per 5 people might i add) show a smaller number of mass shootings than say, the united states over the last 10 years. (per capita?) While the data is informative, I don't see it as stone cold evidence that our country will be a safer place by tightening gun laws. I see it as a statistic that inherently gets used to promote someone else's agenda.

For example. Looking at this map of gun related injuries by state: (you don't really have to look, ill be summarizing below)

http://cdn.thedailyb...9887.cached.jpg

One might think in a very gun restrictive place like DC, gun crime would be the lowest. When in fact, while it invokes several gun laws, it is not at all the lowest in number of gun injuries. On the flip side, you have states like Maine, that have the most restrictive policies and do show lower signs of gun injuries. So what is the major factor in gun violence if not restrictive policies?

The only consistency i see, is that states with a high population density have higher rates of gun related injuries. Which brings be back in full circle. The issue with gun violence is predominantly contributed to higher populated inner city areas and should be addressed IN THOSE AREAS. These are places where criminals thrive and although taking guns away would probably lower victims of gun violence, you would likely see an increase of violence and injury inflicted by other means.

So... with all that in mind. At this point, I would prefer to keep gun regulations light in my state, but I can see why you would want to advocate policies that are more restrictive in other states. Just realize that every action has a reaction and thus can yield unexpected results.

#61 Champion of Cyrodiil

#62 Affray

#63 SpleenBeGone

#64 Champion of Cyrodiil

#65 Champion of Cyrodiil

#66 SpleenBeGone

#67 SpleenBeGone

#68 Champion of Cyrodiil

Got a new toy

Sign In