This is the problem, Mikey. WE all don't believe that. You and others may believe in having some limited use of firearms, but the trends are pretty clear that the goal for the global elites is to remove firearms from the general populace.

So, you think private individuals should be able to purchase nuclear weapons?

---

The rate of gun ownership is the number of households that own at least one gun divided by the total number of households. Not complicated.  It's around 20% in the US and around 10% in Norway or Finland.

If you understood statistics, you might realize it's somewhat more complicated than you appreciate.  US households are 20 percent larger than those in Finland and 10 percent larger than Norway.  Why should the size of the household become a factor potentially skewing the results?  A true scientific study seeks to eliminate variables. 
Even more significantly, under your formula, a second (or more) household member owning a gun doesn't affect the "rate of ownership".   Wouldn't a better definition of "gun ownership" be the percentage of adults who actually own a gun?

I understand statistics as well as anyone who does math for a living.  
Yes, it may be more informative to look at adults who own guns divided by total adults.
No, the result would be about the same.  
The US has a significantly higher rate of gun ownership than any country in Europe, regardless of how you define it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is no contradiction.
These people believe that the police and military should have weapons that private citizens are not allowed to have.
We all believe that, generally, except FSG of course, we just disagree on the details.

There is a fairly obvious contradiction.  You can’t logically be against AR-15s being available for purchase at home then also be for handing out billions to Ukraine knowing they’ll be using it to hand out AR-15s or their equivalent or more likely something several steps up from that to the general population.  Unless, that is, you are a leftist ideologue where the ends always justify the means.

We have no reason to believe Ukraine is going to "hand out" these weapons.   Soldiers and militia will be enlisted, then trained, and then they will check the weapons in and out of the armory as ordered.  Exactly the way our army and national guard would do it.

---

This is the problem, Mikey. WE all don't believe that. You and others may believe in having some limited use of firearms, but the trends are pretty clear that the goal for the global elites is to remove firearms from the general populace.

And that is the biggest problem with the government. You give them an inch and then they are taking guns away from everyone.

I think the libertarian stance on making most things legal is crazy but I prefer that to the corrupt government taking rights away.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

So should everyone be allowed to buy an UZI?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is a fairly obvious contradiction.  You can’t logically be against AR-15s being available for purchase at home then also be for handing out billions to Ukraine knowing they’ll be using it to hand out AR-15s or their equivalent or more likely something several steps up from that to the general population.  Unless, that is, you are a leftist ideologue where the ends always justify the means.

We have no reason to believe Ukraine is going to "hand out" these weapons.   Soldiers and militia will be enlisted, then trained, and then they will check the weapons in and out of the armory as ordered.  Exactly the way our army and national guard would do it.

---

And that is the biggest problem with the government. You give them an inch and then they are taking guns away from everyone.

I think the libertarian stance on making most things legal is crazy but I prefer that to the corrupt government taking rights away.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

So should everyone be allowed to buy an UZI?

Who do you trust more? At least with everything being legal you could buy one if you wanted.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

We have no reason to believe Ukraine is going to "hand out" these weapons.   Soldiers and militia will be enlisted, then trained, and then they will check the weapons in and out of the armory as ordered.  Exactly the way our army and national guard would do it.

---

So should everyone be allowed to buy an UZI?

Who do you trust more? At least with everything being legal you could buy one if you wanted.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Today, in the US, it is very hard to buy an UZI.  You need a special license.  Should we change that?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is a fairly obvious contradiction.  You can’t logically be against AR-15s being available for purchase at home then also be for handing out billions to Ukraine knowing they’ll be using it to hand out AR-15s or their equivalent or more likely something several steps up from that to the general population.  Unless, that is, you are a leftist ideologue where the ends always justify the means.

We have no reason to believe Ukraine is going to "hand out" these weapons.   Soldiers and militia will be enlisted, then trained, and then they will check the weapons in and out of the armory as ordered.  Exactly the way our army and national guard would do it.

---

Mike, the reporting even from the furthest left of media outlets contradicts you.  Skip to 2:07 to hear it plainly.

---

Your argument again is flawed. What is happening is no different to pretty much every Western country on the planet, but no other country comes close to the number of mass shootings and school shootings that happen in the US.

The reason for mass shootings is the availability of guns.  If you let the same people get angry and wave their arms in the air no one dies.

If you can't see this, then it's not that you can't see it, you just don't want to.

Are you intentionally avoiding my question? I asked about mass murders in Europe to show that this type of tragedy doesn't go away just because you take away the guns. If you take Europe as a whole (which compares similarly to the US demographically), you see there are many different tragedies spread across their countries, and most of them are stabbings, vehicular slaughter, and, in rarer cases, bombs. I know you want to find a solution but taking away guns from the civilian population will result in more overall deaths. Just like taking policing out of the inner city did. Knee jerk reactions are not the way to manage a country. We keep putting Band-Aids on our problems.  

Those tragedies (bombings, vehicular slaughter, knife attacks) are terrorist attacks.  There have been 11 such attacks over the last decade.  I am not sure what parallel you are trying to draw between terrorism and mass shootings.

On a pound for pound basis, there have been twelve mass rampages in Europe in the last 10 years, with firearms used in ten of those.  In the US, there have been nine mass shooting just THIS YEAR.

The problem is staring you in the face, but you want to skirt around the issue.  You want to blame mental health as if it's only a problem in the US?  Mental health issues exist in Europe too.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

We have no reason to believe Ukraine is going to "hand out" these weapons.   Soldiers and militia will be enlisted, then trained, and then they will check the weapons in and out of the armory as ordered.  Exactly the way our army and national guard would do it.

---

Mike, the reporting even from the furthest left of media outlets contradicts you.  Skip to 2:07 to hear it plainly.

You're right.  There's no moral difference between the situations in Kherson and Uvalde.  Silly me.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Either option is the same. Knife or gun still takes a person to kill. Neither a knife or gun will kill without a person intending to use it. How many are killed doesnt change that fact. Is a kitchen knife going to jump out of its drawer and kill you when you walk into the kitchen? The responsibility for death with any type of weapon is held by the person using the (insert weapon).

Killing 19 people is 19 times worse than killing one person.  Do you disagree?

 I didnt realize there was a worse killing. Any killing sucks. One is too many. The point of my post is that the tool used for the killing is not to blame, the blame goes to the person who used the knife, gun, golf club. baseball bat, rock, scissors, et.al. If the gun or killing tool was to blame, you should arrest said tool, put it on trial and give it the death penalty.

---

Killing 19 people is 19 times worse than killing one person.  Do you disagree?

 I didnt realize there was a worse killing. Any killing sucks. One is too many. The point of my post is that the tool used for the killing is not to blame, the blame goes to the person who used the knife, gun, golf club. baseball bat, rock, scissors, et.al. If the gun or killing tool was to blame, you should arrest said tool, put it on trial and give it the death penalty.

You don't believe that at all. Even 21 killings isn't enough for you to even think about giving up something, anything.  How many killings will it take?

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

 I didnt realize there was a worse killing. Any killing sucks. One is too many. The point of my post is that the tool used for the killing is not to blame, the blame goes to the person who used the knife, gun, golf club. baseball bat, rock, scissors, et.al. If the gun or killing tool was to blame, you should arrest said tool, put it on trial and give it the death penalty.

You don't believe that at all. Even 21 killings isn't enough for you to even think about giving up something, anything.  How many killings will it take?

Why the hell should give up the very thing that can protect me, and my family from psychotic killers? If it'a a Us or them situation, who the hell do you think is going to go down first, I give you a hint, I'll do everything in my power so it's Not Me!

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

You don't believe that at all. Even 21 killings isn't enough for you to even think about giving up something, anything.  How many killings will it take?

Why the hell should give up the very thing that can protect me, and my family from psychotic killers? If it'a a Us or them situation, who the hell do you think is going to go down first, I give you a hint, I'll do everything in my power so it's Not Me!

What a load of horse [BLEEP].  If you were that concerned about your family, you'd have them wear a crash helmet when you drive as you have a higher chance of being involved in a car crash than being threatened by a psychotic killers.

Just tell the truth, you love guns.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

Why the hell should give up the very thing that can protect me, and my family from psychotic killers? If it'a a Us or them situation, who the hell do you think is going to go down first, I give you a hint, I'll do everything in my power so it's Not Me!

What a load of horse [BLEEP].  If you were that concerned about your family, you'd have them wear a crash helmet when you drive as you have a higher chance of being involved in a car crash than being threatened by a psychotic killers.

Just tell the truth, you love guns.

I'm going to say this once, and only once..... I'm not giving up my Constitutional right to bear arms to you, or anyone else...... If you don't like guns, the solution is simple, DON'T OWN ONE! But I'm not just going to sit here and let you tell me that I can't own as many firearms as I desire.......Guns are just a very useful tool, not only can you use them for personal protection against any and all threats but...... Mine also put food on the table and in my freezer, just like my fishing rods do. And one more thing, if you and your liberal friends come near me and try to disarm me, well...... you better bring your guns because...... You'll only get mine from MY COLD DEAD HANDS! But watch out, the barrels may be a tad bit on the warm side so wear gloves......

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

What a load of horse [BLEEP].  If you were that concerned about your family, you'd have them wear a crash helmet when you drive as you have a higher chance of being involved in a car crash than being threatened by a psychotic killers.

Just tell the truth, you love guns.

I'm going to say this once, and only once..... I'm not giving up my Constitutional right to bear arms to you, or anyone else...... If you don't like guns, the solution is simple, DON'T BUY ONE! But I'm not just going to sit here and let you tell me that I can't own as many firearms as I desire.......Guns are just a very useful tool, not only can you use them for personal protection against any and all threats but...... Mine also put food on the table and in my freezer, just like my fishing rods do. And one more thing, if you and your liberal friends come near me and try to disarm me, well...... you better bring your guns because...... You'll only get mine from MY COLD DEAD HANDS! But watch out, the barrels may b a tad bit on the warm side so wear gloves......

Settle down Rambo.  Just because you have a Constitutional right to bear arms, the Government can control what type of arms you can bear.  If you need a semi-auto rifle to put food on your table, then you're a terrible shot.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

This is the problem, Mikey. WE all don't believe that. You and others may believe in having some limited use of firearms, but the trends are pretty clear that the goal for the global elites is to remove firearms from the general populace.

So, you think private individuals should be able to purchase nuclear weapons?

You are so dense sometimes. I have already had this argument with FSG. In this thread. I have stated where I think the line should be drawn. Citizens should be armed with the same or equivalent of standard military issue. Heavier armament should be permitted. While I am ok with having the debate of where to draw the line, you again missed my core point, which was that there is a push to disarm citizens by the powers that be. That is their goal. Everything else is just getting us there.

---

Are you intentionally avoiding my question? I asked about mass murders in Europe to show that this type of tragedy doesn't go away just because you take away the guns. If you take Europe as a whole (which compares similarly to the US demographically), you see there are many different tragedies spread across their countries, and most of them are stabbings, vehicular slaughter, and, in rarer cases, bombs. I know you want to find a solution but taking away guns from the civilian population will result in more overall deaths. Just like taking policing out of the inner city did. Knee jerk reactions are not the way to manage a country. We keep putting Band-Aids on our problems.  

Those tragedies (bombings, vehicular slaughter, knife attacks) are terrorist attacks.  There have been 11 such attacks over the last decade.  I am not sure what parallel you are trying to draw between terrorism and mass shootings.

On a pound for pound basis, there have been twelve mass rampages in Europe in the last 10 years, with firearms used in ten of those.  In the US, there have been nine mass shooting just THIS YEAR.

The problem is staring you in the face, but you want to skirt around the issue.  You want to blame mental health as if it's only a problem in the US?  Mental health issues exist in Europe too.

I did this math in a thread on this forum about 4 or 5 years ago. At the time, the results were similar for the previous 10 years, with America slightly edging out Europe. I need to get into the details (which I don't feel like doing), but I imagine that the numbers haven't diverged dramatically once you start looking at the details. You find broken people everywhere.

---

I'm going to say this once, and only once..... I'm not giving up my Constitutional right to bear arms to you, or anyone else...... If you don't like guns, the solution is simple, DON'T BUY ONE! But I'm not just going to sit here and let you tell me that I can't own as many firearms as I desire.......Guns are just a very useful tool, not only can you use them for personal protection against any and all threats but...... Mine also put food on the table and in my freezer, just like my fishing rods do. And one more thing, if you and your liberal friends come near me and try to disarm me, well...... you better bring your guns because...... You'll only get mine from MY COLD DEAD HANDS! But watch out, the barrels may b a tad bit on the warm side so wear gloves......

Settle down Rambo.  Just because you have a Constitutional right to bear arms, the Government can control what type of arms you can bear.  If you need a semi-auto rifle to put food on your table, then you're a terrible shot.

WOW! Just WOW! Just because I'm willing to stand up for, and fight for, my constitutional rights, and to be able to protect myself and my family makes me Rambo? So tell me, what does it feel like being a sheep that can be led to the slaughter at the whim of the goverment since you want us all disarmed? Disarming the populace was the 1st thing people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao did when they took power, and we all know what happened then (If you ever even picked up a history book, you'd know) I'm of the opinion that it's none of the Government business of how many firearms I own,or what type they are. When the 2nd amendment was written, all firearms were military grade so that we, the citizens wer on equal footing with them. To me, if the Government ever tells me that I don't need a firearm, well, I'll need a firearm.

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

So, you think private individuals should be able to purchase nuclear weapons?

You are so dense sometimes. I have already had this argument with FSG. In this thread. I have stated where I think the line should be drawn. Citizens should be armed with the same or equivalent of standard military issue. Heavier armament should be permitted. While I am ok with having the debate of where to draw the line, you again missed my core point, which was that there is a push to disarm citizens by the powers that be. That is their goal. Everything else is just getting us there.

Go back and read post #196.  You're the one being dense. You're like that insecure girlfriend who, no matter what the boyfriend says, interprets it to mean something she disagrees with. Nuclear weapons are not "standard issue" yet, the military has them.  And private individuals should not have them.  We agree that the military should have things that the public does not have.

And I'm not missing your "core point."  I just don't want to argue it. But you do, so here goes. I disagree that there is any politically viable push to totally disarm ordinary citizens.  It goes back to why I care so much about free and fair elections and avoiding strongman dictators.  The only type of leader who could even contemplate disarming the US public would be a strongman dictator operating outside of limited government and outside of checks and balances.  If we preserve these things, an armed citizenry is also preserved.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not if you just keep allowing this type of erosion. Where's the line? Not your line. Their line.

---

Also, I'm not going to go back and read another #post. Quote that [BLEEP] and make your point so I don't have to waste my time learning how you are misapplying something else. The point of my follow up to 196 was not to debate the line of the weaponry. It was to acknowledge that I thought the average person is open to debate, but that the TRENDS and ACTIONS of the political elite suggest the eventually removal of gun ownership. Look what's happening in Canada as a response to an American school shooting. Once you understand that there is a global policy driving the narrative, you will understand what the end game looks like. Oh, that's right... you don't believe there's any type of collusion between global elites.

---

Where does it end and what's next? First, they take your big scary high powered 22LR lolol.. Then what? I guess they go after the next weapon that some mentally ill person got a hold of? Yeah, blame the gun, not the shooter lololol

Stupid people..

---

Settle down Rambo.  Just because you have a Constitutional right to bear arms, the Government can control what type of arms you can bear.  If you need a semi-auto rifle to put food on your table, then you're a terrible shot.

WOW! Just WOW! Just because I'm willing to stand up for, and fight for, my constitutional rights, and to be able to protect myself and my family makes me Rambo? So tell me, what does it feel like being a sheep that can be led to the slaughter at the whim of the goverment since you want us all disarmed? Disarming the populace was the 1st thing people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao did when they took power, and we all know what happened then (If you ever even picked up a history book, you'd know) I'm of the opinion that it's none of the Government business of how many firearms I own,or what type they are. When the 2nd amendment was written, all firearms were military grade so that we, the citizens wer on equal footing with them. To me, if the Government ever tells me that I don't need a firearm, well, I'll need a firearm.

That's a myth.  Three myths, actually.
Hitler inherited a government where many people legally owned guns but a license was required.  The only change he implemented was to forbid that any new licenses be offered to Jews or Communists.  This was part of his overall push to deny them of citizenship.  All other Germans kept their right to own guns, though. Licenses were easily obtained.
Stalin did confiscate a lot of guns, but not as a prelude to anything.  His military took guns away from the Kulaks as part of his broader campaign to collectivize their land and turn them into proletarians.  But this was done as part of a military campaign, not a legal effort.  Similar to how we disarmed many natives in an effort to take their ancestral lands and force them to assimilate.  In all three cases, Hitler with the Jews, Stalin with the Kulaks, the US army with the Indians, it was done after they were already being oppressed by their government, after they were already denied their privileges of citizenship.  None of these cases involved taking guns from ordinary people.  Only the repressed class.  
As for Mao, he made no real effort to restrict or confiscate guns at all for the first 8 years he was in power.  Yet he managed to starve and murder millions of his people in that time.  
None of these stories are any kind of parable about any gun restriction that is currently being proposed in the US.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Where does it end and what's next? First, they take your big scary high powered 22LR lolol.. Then what? I guess they go after the next weapon that some mentally ill person got a hold of? Yeah, blame the gun, not the shooter lololol

Stupid people..

This hyperbole is not helpful.
The Uvalde shooter used 5.56x45 rounds.  
These have 10 times the power of a 22LR.
Personally I think you should need a license to hunt deer or something like that before you can buy such powerful ammo. If you want to try it at the shooting range that's fine but if you want to take it off property you should need a license.  But no one else is talking about that.
And certainly no one is talking about taking away a squirrel hunting rifle like the 22LR.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.