NationStates Jolt Archive

BUTLER, Mo. -- A local car dealer is holding a controversial promotion involving guns.



Max Motors in Butler is offering anyone who buys a car the choice of $250 in gas or a free semi-automatic handgun.



"Like I say, it's a choice -- protection or gas," said Walter Moore with Max Motors.
Moore said he came up with the gas or guns promotion.


"We got high gas prices, theft, carjackings, innocent people getting hurt," Moore told KMBC's Chris Nagus.


So far, the handgun is a more popular choice.


"Right now were running 80 percent toward the gun," Moore said.


"Love guns, we all need to have guns," said Jerry Hertzog, who was buying a new truck. "Guns or gas or fuel, I'll take the gun anytime."


But the idea isn't popular with everyone. One viewer told KMBC that he believes the promotion is dangerous.
"I don't understand what's the bad idea. Telling people they have a right to protect themselves," Moore said.


Moore said most of his customers already own weapons.


"I get in a vehicle to bid a trade, there are guns in the seats, guns in the back windows. Everybody has a gun -- there's no backlash," Moore said.


Moore said the dealership will hand the customer a certificate to get the gun, but you must pass a background check.


The local police chief said he is OK with the promotion as long as the weapons aren't handed out at the dealership.

Talk about a deal!

http://forums.streetfire.net/showthread.php?t=28929&page=1&pp=10

good deal. almost as good as the rifle i got for opening up a bank account.

I wonder if you can go back for the free gas if you get the certificate for a free gun but don't pass the background checks...

Just out of curiosity... if you were to go an buy that gun, how much would that cost you? Approximately?

Just out of curiosity... if you were to go an buy that gun, how much would that cost you? Approximately?

250. It is a coupon for 250 dollars on a the gun. you can even buy a more expensive model and use the coupon to take 250 dollars off the gun.

Excellent! I <3 gun nuts.

250. It is a coupon for 250 dollars on a the gun. you can even buy a more expensive model and use the coupon to take 250 dollars off the gun.

Ah.




Right.



So, you could save money on something you'd have to buy anyway, or you could spend it on the gun.



Hm.




No. Sorry. I'll never understand that mindset...

What kind of cheeseball gun can you get for a lousy $250.00? A .22?

I'd have wanted a nice Kimber .45 ACP M1911A1 model.. which I believe is about $1200

I read about this the other day. I wanted to go buy a car - and thus get a gun - so I could run the guy over then shoot myself to be free of having to live in a country with such simple-minded, backwards ass morons.

I read about this the other day. I wanted to go buy a car - and thus get a gun - so I could run the guy over then shoot myself to be free of having to live in a country with such simple-minded, backwards ass morons.

So your intellectually superior method of handling such moral outrage is to murder a man and commit suicide.

Pot, meet Kettle, I suspect you'll be great friends.

So your intellectually superior method of handling such moral outrage is to murder a man and commit suicide.
I think some one didn't learn about hyperbole in middle school.

I think some one didn't learn about hyperbole in middle school.

I did.

But why are we all backward ass morons?

That promotion is telling people they have a right to defend themselves, which they do. Its a basic human right protected by the American constitution, and its not like they're handing them out like candy. The customers in question must pass a background check, and the dealership can't hand them out anyway. As for me, I'd take the gas, cause I can get a better gun on my own and I won't turn down free gas.

Also, its been proven several times that fewer restrictions on guns is equivalent to less crime, as seen by Switzerland, the town of Kennessaw, Georgia, and the state of Vermont, to name a few.

When the UK banned handguns, their violent crime rate went up. Same with Australia and Canada.

I may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I take past examples into account, and the examples have all proven that outlawing firearms makes sure only outlaws have firearms.

I did.

But why are we all backward ass morons?

That promotion is telling people they have a right to defend themselves, which they do. Its a basic human right protected by the American constitution, and its not like they're handing them out like candy. The customers in question must pass a background check, and the dealership can't hand them out anyway. As for me, I'd take the gas, cause I can get a better gun on my own and I won't turn down free gas.

Also, its been proven several times that fewer restrictions on guns is equivalent to less crime, as seen by Switzerland, the town of Kennessaw, Georgia, and the state of Vermont, to name a few.

There has been no correlation found between gun control and violence. None. Zip. Zilch. Aucune. Nein. Nada.

For every study finding more gun control = more violence, there is a study finding more gun control = less violence. Fact is, you can't study gun control in a vacuum. There are many socio-economic factors that affect crime rate.



When the UK banned handguns, their violent crime rate went up. Same with Australia and Canada.

Handgun aren't banned in Canada. I should know, i live there. Source please...

I may not be a Nobel Prize winner, but I take past examples into account, and the examples have all proven that outlawing firearms makes sure only outlaws have firearms.

I'm not a teacher of social studies but I find your conclusion lacking, even based on your flimsy evidence and research.

billiant! just bloody billiant!.

more red necks, in sports cars, carrying guns!

the world is safe at last.......FOR GODS SAKE, ITS LIKE LIVING IN SOMARLIA, ONLY WITH BETTER CARS AND DENTISTS!

I am in the market for a new car/handgun. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

This offer doesn't impress me. If that dealer offered a free recoilless rifle build into your new car with purchase, I would be more interested. Let's face it: it's time for the next level of road rage!

I am in the market for a new car/handgun. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

Because that would be violent.

At least it's efficient violence.

You know since my birthday yesterday I got this new awesome power... PREDICTION.

I predict in a not so far future:

"USA records most fatalities since WWII"

Many people in the past few months have been reported shoot, the police is completely clueless where the guns could have come but an anonymous tip reports car dealerships...

Totally epic...

Also, since will you get safer by having MORE guns?!
Guns kill since ppl press the gun's triger thus shooting ppl, severly hurting or killing them.
So more guns = more shots = more kills = less people in the USA = Every1 is happy!!

You know what, nevermind what I said, u keep buying those cars.... *mysecretplantokillusaisonestepclosertheprecious....* lol jk

Because that would be violent.

HURRRRRRR, VIOLENCE TO THE EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME!!!!!!111!1!1

*ahem*

Ah.

Right.

So, you could save money on something you'd have to buy anyway, or you could spend it on the gun.

Hm.

No. Sorry. I'll never understand that mindset...

250 dollars worth of fire arm is currently more stable then 250 dollars of gasoline.

very likely 250 dollars of gasoline today will be worth 300 or 350 dollars soon. meaning the longer you wait the less gasoline you can get. also you cant get the gas right away since you start with the vehicle full.

the gun however is instant gratification and any wait only affects what you can buy in accordance with inflation.

There has been no correlation found between gun control and violence. None. Zip. Zilch. Aucune. Nein. Nada.

For every study finding more gun control = more violence, there is a study finding more gun control = less violence. Fact is, you can't study gun control in a vacuum. There are many socio-economic factors that affect crime rate.





Handgun aren't banned in Canada. I should know, i live there. Source please...



I'm not a teacher of social studies but I find your conclusion lacking, even based on your flimsy evidence and research.

What are Canada's restrictions on firearms then? (that's a serious question, I'm not trying to be an ass). I honestly haven't looked much at Canada's firearms laws recently and would like to apologize for making such a brash assumption.

Kennesaw, Georgia mandated that all homeowners own and maintain a firearm. That was 26 years ago. They have yet to have had a fatal shooting since that city ordnance was passed. Their violent crime rate dropped by about 50%
http://www.murphical.net/2007/04/20/25-years-murder-free-in-gun-town-usacrime-rate-plummeted-after-law-required-firearms%20-for-residents/

Washington DC, on the other hand, has the worst gun control laws in America, and has a crime rate of about 8.7 thousand per 100,000 people.

Switzerland has no laws regarding firearms restriction, other than the one mandating that all males of fighting fitness(up through their forties, I believe) own a military, selective-fire weapon. They have very little violent crime, and most of it is caused by tourists.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Again, Vermont also enjoys a low crime rate with a high level of firearm freedom and ownership. I'm not talking about studies here, I'm talking about realistic facts.

I read about this the other day. I wanted to go buy a car - and thus get a gun - so I could run the guy over then shoot myself to be free of having to live in a country with such simple-minded, backwards ass morons.

From what I can tell, this guy is pretty frickin' brilliant. He's doing something that is sufficiently controversial, that he'll gain wonderful, near-free media attention for his business, and he'll reel in suckers with the deal who are only going to buy a car from him to "support" his perceived political point of view!

The customers who opt for the gun over the gas, though, are mildly retarded.

Ah.
Right.
So, you could save money on something you'd have to buy anyway, or you could spend it on the gun.
Hm.
No. Sorry. I'll never understand that mindset...

Lord knows, I hear yah' sister.

$250 in gas would likely get me through early August, I'd jump on it.

billiant! just bloody billiant!.

more red necks, in sports cars, carrying guns!

the world is safe at last.......FOR GODS SAKE, ITS LIKE LIVING IN SOMARLIA, ONLY WITH BETTER CARS AND DENTISTS!

Would you rather mug an armed Redneck or an anti-gun Liberal? Of course, not every gun owner is a Redneck just as not every anti-gun person is Liberal...way to generalize about pro-gun people though. And they call US hypocrits!

What are Canada's restrictions on firearms then? (that's a serious question, I'm not trying to be an ass). I honestly haven't looked much at Canada's firearms laws recently and would like to apologize for making such a brash assumption.

Kennesaw, Georgia mandated that all homeowners own and maintain a firearm. That was 26 years ago. They have yet to have had a fatal shooting since that city ordnance was passed. Their violent crime rate dropped by about 50%
http://www.murphical.net/2007/04/20/25-years-murder-free-in-gun-town-usacrime-rate-plummeted-after-law-required-firearms%20-for-residents/

Washington DC, on the other hand, has the worst gun control laws in America, and has a crime rate of about 8.7 thousand per 100,000 people.

Switzerland has no laws regarding firearms restriction, other than the one mandating that all males of fighting fitness(up through their forties, I believe) own a military, selective-fire weapon. They have very little violent crime, and most of it is caused by tourists.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Again, Vermont also enjoys a low crime rate with a high level of firearm freedom and ownership. I'm not talking about studies here, I'm talking about realistic facts.

Excellent work! Of course, there are those out there who don't care about the truth. I think of them as angry Leftists hitting their heads against the wall of truth and reason. :headbang:

Ah.
Right.
So, you could save money on something you'd have to buy anyway, or you could spend it on the gun.
Hm.
No. Sorry. I'll never understand that mindset...
Neither do I. Would you rather get something that'll last you a month at best, or a gun that'll last you a few decades if not your lifetime. Never understand why people choose the gas.

Would you rather mug an armed Redneck or an anti-gun Liberal? Of course, not every gun owner is a Redneck just as not every anti-gun person is Liberal...way to generalize about pro-gun people though. And they call US hypocrits!

Good holy God, I'm so sick and tired of anti-gun people in the US being called Liberal. The root of liberal is Liber, meaning Free. Being pro-firearm rights is Liberal.

Good holy God, I'm so sick and tired of anti-gun people in the US being called Liberal. The root of liberal is Liber, meaning Free. Being pro-firearm rights is Liberal.

The Neoliberals have really ****ed up the common usage of the word.

From what I can tell, this guy is pretty frickin' brilliant. He's doing something that is sufficiently controversial, that he'll gain wonderful, near-free media attention for his business, and he'll reel in suckers with the deal who are only going to buy a car from him to "support" his perceived political point of view!

The customers who opt for the gun over the gas, though, are mildly retarded.
Perceived? The mascot for his car dealership is an armed cowboy..
Also, calling them mildly retarded is an insult to the mildly retarded.

I think I'd take the gas over the gun. Even though I don't drive, if I hoard enough gas, eventually it will become expensive enough that I can sell it for a tidy proffit. Although, having a new gun makes it easier to rob a gas station... mmm... choices...

In any case, this is just a huge attention grab. It's $250 free dollars in any case. That guns are involved just gives it bucket loads of free publicity. No one would care if it were $250 on gas vs $250 on groceries, or jelly beans or charity.

As well, I agree that crime rate has less to do with gun control laws and more to do with demographics of the region. I mean... America gives guns out like candy, apparently, and it still has crime. Crooks are still gonna have guns, no matter how many law abiding citizens you arm.

Honestly, I don't think "GUNS FOR ALL" or "GUNS FOR NONE" or "GUNS FOR A FEW WHO CAN PROVE THEY ARE SANE" work at all the way they are intended. I think all three are just patches over a much larger social problem.

BUTLER, Mo. -- A local car dealer is holding a controversial promotion involving guns.



Max Motors in Butler is offering anyone who buys a car the choice of $250 in gas or a free semi-automatic handgun.

Who would take the gas? The hand gun can get you a lot more gas that $250 worth.

And why the hell do you need a gun? Overcompensation?

Also, its been proven several times that fewer restrictions on guns is equivalent to less crime, as seen by Switzerland, the town of Kennessaw, Georgia, and the state of Vermont, to name a few.

Ahem fewer restrictions?
Gun politics in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_gun_laws)
Carrying guns

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (weapon carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.


Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit
There are three conditions:


fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit

To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon buying permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record can request such a permit. The sale of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability), unless the buyer has a special collector's license.

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions. The participants in such a transaction are also required to write down a contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit or from countries on the ban list must ask for a special permit.

After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit. Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.

Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.

These rules will be changed — presumably in 2008 — because Switzerland will be joining the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

Unlawful possession of guns will be punished;
Gun trade among individuals will require a valid buying permit (under today's law, persons with a criminal record can trade guns);
Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number;
Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law;

Pretty much the same as the rest of Europe with the only difference that
The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.

Anyway:
Swiss gun law (http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html)

What are Canada's restrictions on firearms then? (that's a serious question, I'm not trying to be an ass). I honestly haven't looked much at Canada's firearms laws recently and would like to apologize for making such a brash assumption.

Kennesaw, Georgia mandated that all homeowners own and maintain a firearm. That was 26 years ago. They have yet to have had a fatal shooting since that city ordnance was passed. Their violent crime rate dropped by about 50%
http://www.murphical.net/2007/04/20/25-years-murder-free-in-gun-town-usacrime-rate-plummeted-after-law-required-firearms%20-for-residents/

Washington DC, on the other hand, has the worst gun control laws in America, and has a crime rate of about 8.7 thousand per 100,000 people.

Switzerland has no laws regarding firearms restriction, other than the one mandating that all males of fighting fitness(up through their forties, I believe) own a military, selective-fire weapon. They have very little violent crime, and most of it is caused by tourists.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Again, Vermont also enjoys a low crime rate with a high level of firearm freedom and ownership. I'm not talking about studies here, I'm talking about realistic facts.

For the record, guns are not banned in the UK, we just have restricted ownership and usage.

The first two pieces of evidence are flawed. The first in that it is a small town, it is extremely likely that when word got around the criminals targeted the next town along etc etc. You're not actually removing crime, you're just shifting it down the road. And it is a very small town, what works there doesn't necessarily translate to a larger scale.

Washington often gets brought up, and the reason is it simply doesn't get enforced. It is pointless banning guns if someone can just hop over the state border, buy a gun legally, and then transport it back over a state line with no checks. Then you do have a case of only criminals have guns. What they'd need to do to make it work properly is to firm up the border and actually police it properly. Laws don't work if you just tell people about them, they need to be backed up with action.

As for Sweden, Vermont, etc. We can trade stats forever about some countries having varying gun laws and differing crime rates and as someone else said we wouldn't get anywhere because there's no way to view things like that in isolation and no accurate way to get rid of the complicating factors. It's pointless at the end of the day.

What are Canada's restrictions on firearms then? (that's a serious question, I'm not trying to be an ass). I honestly haven't looked much at Canada's firearms laws recently and would like to apologize for making such a brash assumption.

Kennesaw, Georgia mandated that all homeowners own and maintain a firearm. That was 26 years ago. They have yet to have had a fatal shooting since that city ordnance was passed. Their violent crime rate dropped by about 50%
http://www.murphical.net/2007/04/20/25-years-murder-free-in-gun-town-usacrime-rate-plummeted-after-law-required-firearms%20-for-residents/

Washington DC, on the other hand, has the worst gun control laws in America, and has a crime rate of about 8.7 thousand per 100,000 people.

Switzerland has no laws regarding firearms restriction, other than the one mandating that all males of fighting fitness(up through their forties, I believe) own a military, selective-fire weapon. They have very little violent crime, and most of it is caused by tourists.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Again, Vermont also enjoys a low crime rate with a high level of firearm freedom and ownership. I'm not talking about studies here, I'm talking about realistic facts.

Your taking a grand total of what 3 samples with WILDLY varying history, economics, population mix, legal history, population density, crime reporting history, as well as a hundred differing potential impactors of violent crime and calling that "realistic facts" and expecting us to believe that it proves anything?

I would take a look at the studies they at least have more potential for accuracy in reflecting reality then this

What are Canada's restrictions on firearms then? (that's a serious question, I'm not trying to be an ass). I honestly haven't looked much at Canada's firearms laws recently and would like to apologize for making such a brash assumption.

Gun politics in Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada)

I'll also post the
Gun politics in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany)
for comparison with the swiss one.

Notice that:
In comparison, the German Weapons Law is one of the tightest in Europe.
In Germany the possession of any firearm with a fire energy exceeding 7.5 Joule requires a valid firearms ownership license for any particular weapon. The current Federal Weapons Act adopts a two-tiered approach to firarms licensing.

A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need a separate ownership license for every single firearm they own. It entitles the owner to purchase a firearm and handle it on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the proscribed container. Firearms ownership licenses are valid three years or less, and the owner must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker.) Blanket ownership licenses are sometimes issued to arms dealers

A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:

age of consent (18 years old) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG) (Necessity is automatically assumed present for Hunters and owners of a carry permits (Waffenschein)).
Persons who are

convicted felons
have a record of mental disorder or
are deemed unreliable (which includes people with drug or alcohol addiction histories and known violent or aggressive persons)
are barred from obtaining a firearms ownership license.

A Firearms carry permit entitles the owner to publicly carry a legally owned weapon, loaded in a concealed or non-concealed manner. A mandatory legal and safety class and shooting proficency tests are required to obtain such a permit. Carry permits are usually only issued to persons with a particular need for carrying a firearm. This includes licensed hunters, law-enforcement officers, security personnel and persons living under a raised threat-level like celebrities and politicians.

The weapons law does not apply to military use of weapons within the german army.

And why the hell do you need a gun? Overcompensation?
They have their uses on the farm here but those are Rifles/Shotguns for the most part

Never really thought of owning one to keep on me. No need

Switzerland has no laws regarding firearms restriction, other than the one mandating that all males of fighting fitness(up through their forties, I believe) own a military, selective-fire weapon. They have very little violent crime, and most of it is caused by tourists.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

The article you are quoting is flawed by the fact that in 2001 Swiss citizen Friedrich Leibacher entered a regional Swiss parliament building and used an assault rifle to kill 14 people before killing himself.

And by the fact that a team of nine historians appointed by the Swiss parliament, headed by Switzerland's Francois Bergier, issued a 956-page report on Swiss refugee policy during World War II on December 10, 1999. The report concluded that Switzerland had "declined to help people in mortal danger" and that "by creating additional barriers for them to overcome, Swiss officials helped the Nazi regime achieve its goals, whether intentionally or not."
Bergier Report on Swiss Refugee Policy (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Bergier.html)

Oh god.

As much as I want to believe that Missouri is not a southern and conservative state... :(

At least I live in the liberal bastion of Missouri. :p

billiant! just bloody billiant!.

more red necks, in sports cars, carrying guns!

the world is safe at last.......FOR GODS SAKE, ITS LIKE LIVING IN SOMARLIA, ONLY WITH BETTER CARS AND DENTISTS!

When was the last time you heard of a redneck doing a drive by?

And why the hell do you need a gun? Overcompensation?

Hunting is the number one reason. Which I use to until I got so busy. I also collect guns like people collect other items. As for a personal weapon of protection I use a .45. Why? So no idiot breaks in my home with my family in it and gets away with it.

Taint nothin free. :rolleyes: You gonna pay for that "free gun" in the price of the car. So, the only question is do I take the gun or offer less money for the car? Depends on how bad I want the gun.

Taint nothin free. :rolleyes: You gonna pay for that "free gun" in the price of the car. So, the only question is do I take the gun or offer less money for the car? Depends on how bad I want the gun.

What the heck is it with the gun obsession of you people anyway? I can see the argument for self defense and all that, but according to the article, most of those who chose the gun already have one at least. How many do you need? Seriously.

What the heck is it with the gun obsession of you people anyway? I can see the argument for self defense and all that, but according to the article, most of those who chose the gun already have one at least. How many do you need? Seriously.

Some of us enjoy shooting, and a variety of guns means a variety of mildly differing experiences. A .22 will shoot differently than a .45, and a 5.56x45mm differently than a 7.62x39mm.

About gun confiscation in England, I have seen the news videos of handgun confiscation once they were banned. But mayhap I'm wrong, I don't live there.

I am pleased to see that Canada repealed their long gun registration.

Also, if you want examples for my case:
Washington DC
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
The rest of California
Australia
All those areas have heavily restricted firearms, and all have rather high crime rates.

About Switzerland: they have some laws I don't agree with, some I do(shouldn't be allowed to trade if your a felon, but they'll get them anyway).

Prime example from D.C.:
The D.C. snipers of the early 2000s used a Bushmaster AR15, a weapon banned under the D.C. assault weapons ban because it looks scary(honestly, a bayonet lug, flash hider, and pistol grip do not in anyway affect a weapon's downrange effect. The flash hider only hides the flash from the operator, to preserve night vision; to everyone else, it lights up the operator's location.)

That didn't stop them from acquiring it OR using it.

Even aside from crime rates, as a human being I should have an innate right to defend myself, correct? And with that right should come all the proper tools to defend myself with, something equal to or greater than what might be used against me. This, however, is not an advocation for unrestricted automatic firearms trading; I've found that a semi-automatic handgun is more than sufficient for self-defense, even in the face of automatic weapons, for the primary reason that most criminals are untrained and won't be able to properly handle their weapon. If they are, then I just ought to able to handle mine better ;)

It is not the police's job to defend me, as ruled by many Supreme Court cases.

In Pearl, Mississippi, the assistant principal of a school carried a weapon on his person, to his job, every day until the passing of the 1995 Gun Free School Zones Act. Once that was passed, he started locking his weapon in his car and parking a quarter mile away from his place of work(the school). A school shooter entered the school one day, and opened fire. This assistant principal sprinted to his vehicle, sprinted back, subdued the gunman, and held him hostage until the authorities showed up. Unfortunately, he had to sprint a half mile and get into a locked vehicle, and during that time, two students died and seven were wounded.


The reason you rarely hear about guns used in defense is because the media largely chooses not to report those stories.

And yes, the use of Liberal and Conservative are completely frikked up in today's America.

And why the hell do you need a gun? Overcompensation?

The bullets go farther and more accurately when fired from a firearm, versus thrown by hand (I can accurately hit a paper target at 100-200 yards with my rifle, whereas I may only get a wildly inaccurate dozen yards when I throw it as hard as I can).

And its nice to see the hoplophobes trotting out the same classic personal attacks. :rolleyes:

The bullets go farther and more accurately when fired from a firearm, versus thrown by hand (I can accurately hit a paper target at 100-200 yards with my rifle, whereas I may only get a wildly inaccurate dozen yards when I throw it as hard as I can).

And its nice to see the bourgeois hoplophobes trotting out the same classic personal attacks. :rolleyes:

Fixed ;)

$250 USD can buy a well equipped Ruger 10/22, or maybe a Mark III .22 pistol.

A good 1911-type .45 will run at least $700.

Here's an interesting option, but I don't know the price. (http://www.taurususa.com/video/taurus-theJudge-video.cfm)

*edit* A Mossberg 500 can be found for under $300, and it's possibly the ideal home defense firearm

*cue threadjacking of 9mm vs. .45 vs. 12 ga. vs. .410 vs. innumerable other possibilities*

250 dollars worth of fire arm is currently more stable then 250 dollars of gasoline.

very likely 250 dollars of gasoline today will be worth 300 or 350 dollars soon. meaning the longer you wait the less gasoline you can get. also you cant get the gas right away since you start with the vehicle full.

the gun however is instant gratification and any wait only affects what you can buy in accordance with inflation.

So, in essence the petrol would incrase in value, while the gun would lose value?

Sorry, I still don't understand why people would pick the gun...

Neither do I. Would you rather get something that'll last you a month at best, or a gun that'll last you a few decades if not your lifetime. Never understand why people choose the gas.

Yes, totally. You know, I never understood why people insist on buying food and groceries, instead of buying diamonds.
I mean, food is perishable, and it will last only for a very short while, while a diamond will last you forever....

Yes, totally. You know, I never understood why people insist on buying food and groceries, instead of buying diamonds.
I mean, food is perishable, and it will last only for a very short while, while a diamond will last you forever....

Exactly right. My car prefers to run on petrol than bullets too. I can also count myself lucky that I've never been in a situation where I have needed a gun.

Exactly right. My car prefers to run on petrol than bullets too. I can also count myself lucky that I've never been in a situation where I have needed a gun.

You know, it's funny... after spending so much time on this forum, I've got the same feeling slowly creeping up on me, being lucky for not needing a gun. But the thing is, before I ever came here, not needing a gun was a perfectly normal state of mind, there was no feeling of being exceptionally lucky about it.

You know, it's funny... after spending so much time on this forum, I've got the same feeling slowly creeping up on me, being lucky for not needing a gun. But the thing is, before I ever came here, not needing a gun was a perfectly normal state of mind, there was no feeling of being exceptionally lucky about it.

My views exactly. I feel crime in the UK is rising but not to the extent of feeling the need to arm myself. I also know that there are areas where people should not go after dark, but have never felt the need to visit them.
I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that we don't feel the need to own semi-automatic weapons for 'home security'...........yet;)

So, in essence the petrol would incrase in value, while the gun would lose value?

Sorry, I still don't understand why people would pick the gun...

the gun will also increase in value. Even then not really it is the dollars that are losing value.

The petrol will increase in value by a lot, but since it is pretty unlikely most people will be able to buy the petrol at once. it would be a week after you got the car before the free fill up the dealership gives you runs out.
The card is set in a cash amount. It doesn't matter if it 3 months down the road when you use the gift card, what would have been 250 dollars in petrol if you had bought ti all then is now 300 dollars worth, you only get 250 at the time of purchase.

the gun will also increase in value. Even then not really it is the dollars that are losing value.

The petrol will increase in value by a lot, but since it is pretty unlikely most people will be able to buy the petrol at once. it would be a week after you got the car before the free fill up the dealership gives you runs out.
The card is set in a cash amount. It doesn't matter if it 3 months down the road when you use the gift card, what would have been 250 dollars in petrol if you had bought ti all then is now 300 dollars worth, you only get 250 at the time of purchase.

The US has never heard of these things, then?

http://www.heizoel24.de/shop/images/kanister20.jpg

Yes, totally. You know, I never understood why people insist on buying food and groceries, instead of buying diamonds.
I mean, food is perishable, and it will last only for a very short while, while a diamond will last you forever....

Soooo much De Beers ;)

When the UK banned handguns, their violent crime rate went up. Same with Australia and Canada.

Really? Because I read (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html) that the gun crime rate drop didn't change. It's just been dropping at about the same rate as it's always been.

The US has never heard of these things, then?

http://www.heizoel24.de/shop/images/kanister20.jpg

few people buy more then 1 2.5 gallon container and thats to fill the mower up with. only time i saw them used for vehicles by civilians was when i was stationed in Djibouti Africa.

not to mention the cost of buying those would detract from the value of the petrol.

few people buy more then 1 2.5 gallon container and thats to fill the mower up with. only time i saw them used for vehicles by civilians was when i was stationed in Djibouti Africa.

not to mention the cost of buying those would detract from the value of the petrol.

Around 3.99 Euros, yes... How much petrol would you loose for 3.99?

Yes, totally. You know, I never understood why people insist on buying food and groceries, instead of buying diamonds.
I mean, food is perishable, and it will last only for a very short while, while a diamond will last you forever....
That's incomparable. Without food and water you would die. Without $250 of gas you still have enough to get to the next gas station. So it's "Security" OR "A little tank of gas that'll last you two weeks at best". Hmmmmm....

The US has never heard of these things, then?

http://www.heizoel24.de/shop/images/kanister20.jpg

You do realize that gas goes bad after a while, right? You'd need to add some sort of fuel stabilizer to make sure the fuel doesn't deteriorate. Couple the price of the jerry can and fuel stabilizer, and you won't save anything by buying all the gas at once.

That's incomparable. Without food and water you would die. Without $250 of gas you still have enough to get to the next gas station. So it's "Security" OR "A little tank of gas that'll last you two weeks at best". Hmmmmm....

One could argue that you could just as well get food and water for free... buying it is really a modern-day luxury, just like being able to drive around in a car.

You do realize that gas goes bad after a while, right? You'd need to add some sort of fuel stabilizer to make sure the fuel doesn't deteriorate. Couple the price of the jerry can and fuel stabilizer, and you won't save anything by buying all the gas at once.

How long do you think it would take you to use up $250 of petrol?

In our car, it would last about 5 weeks, at maximum. Does petrol go off that fast?

Taint nothin free. :rolleyes: You gonna pay for that "free gun" in the price of the car. So, the only question is do I take the gun or offer less money for the car? Depends on how bad I want the gun.
Depends how much the guns cost around there :D

One could argue that you could just as well get food and water for free... buying it is really a modern-day luxury, just like being able to drive around in a car.
Yes, yes, because getting food and water is once again comparable to gasoline or getting a car :rolleyes:. As we also all know you have to beg to get gas if you get the gun.

Yes, yes, because getting food and water is once again comparable to gasoline or getting a car :rolleyes:. As we also all know you have to beg to get gas if you get the gun.

Well, let's put it this way : Petrol is something almost everybody needs almost daily.
Personally, I don't know anyone who ever needed to use a gun.

How long do you think it would take you to use up $250 of petrol?

In our car, it would last about 5 weeks, at maximum. Does petrol go off that fast?
Normal commuter needs a full tank every week.
start with free full tank from the dealership.
1 week. Free
week 2 30 dollars
week 3 61 dollars
week 4 93 dollars
week 5 126 dollars
week 6 157 dollars
week 7 188 dollars
Week 8 219 dollars
week 9 250 dollars

So I would say more like 9 or 10 weeks at states prices. given this is for my four cylinder. My H1 it would last 2 weeks but i don't really commute in that accept on Fridays or pick up a chick for a date.
Prices can shift a lot during the summer travel season and this is when the deal happens to be.

And its nice to see the hoplophobes trotting out the same classic personal attacks. :rolleyes:
I think the fact people were choosing a gun over several free tanks of gas makes the "hoplophobe" argument for them.

Well I suppose the people who choose the gun can always go rob a gas station rather than pay for fuel again. A bit like "give a man a fish..."

Well, let's put it this way : Petrol is something almost everybody needs almost daily.
Personally, I don't know anyone who ever needed to use a gun.
Why would you need gas if you bought a car? You already have a gun, what more could you want?

Sorry I took so long in responding, but I had to sleep and stuff.
The gun laws for Canada has been posted, but here's the short version: you need a permit to own a gun. They are mostly used to hunt and you don't see many people having one in their house "just in case".

Interesting fact: Canada has more gun per capita than the states. We do love our guns over here.

Some of us enjoy shooting, and a variety of guns means a variety of mildly differing experiences. A .22 will shoot differently than a .45, and a 5.56x45mm differently than a 7.62x39mm.
Sure but I don't feel the need to buy a car to get my next firearm. Shit, for that price I could get, what, 10-15 good guns, right?

About gun confiscation in England, I have seen the news videos of handgun confiscation once they were banned. But mayhap I'm wrong, I don't live there.
You'll find that everywhere the police catch you with a banned thing on you, they'll confiscate it.


I am pleased to see that Canada repealed their long gun registration.
The idea was good, the implementation was a clusterfuck that cost us a shitload of money. That's why it was abolished, not because we didn't believe in the idea.

Also, if you want examples for my case:
Washington DC
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
The rest of California
Australia
All those areas have heavily restricted firearms, and all have rather high crime rates.
All those area are also heavilly populated area, all have high cost of living, all have good medical care, all have slums and rich district.
I would venture to say that gun laws are not the reason for high crime rates in these area. I would also venture that studies would show that tougher gun law didn't make a significant impact in the crime rate.
But I do know that I'm thankful that these restriction are there as a tourist 'cause I feel much safer knowing that almost everyone I meet doesn't have a gun.

So to repeat my previous point:
There is no correlation between gun laws and crime rate.


About Switzerland: they have some laws I don't agree with, some I do(shouldn't be allowed to trade if your a felon, but they'll get them anyway).

Prime example from D.C.:
The D.C. snipers of the early 2000s used a Bushmaster AR15, a weapon banned under the D.C. assault weapons ban because it looks scary(honestly, a bayonet lug, flash hider, and pistol grip do not in anyway affect a weapon's downrange effect. The flash hider only hides the flash from the operator, to preserve night vision; to everyone else, it lights up the operator's location.)

That didn't stop them from acquiring it OR using it.
The states are a clusterfuck when it comes to gun law. There should be a federal gun law that covers everywhere. With the differences between states, you get SNAFU like you just reported.

It is not the police's job to defend me, as ruled by many Supreme Court cases.

In Pearl, Mississippi, the assistant principal of a school carried a weapon on his person, to his job, every day until the passing of the 1995 Gun Free School Zones Act. Once that was passed, he started locking his weapon in his car and parking a quarter mile away from his place of work(the school). A school shooter entered the school one day, and opened fire. This assistant principal sprinted to his vehicle, sprinted back, subdued the gunman, and held him hostage until the authorities showed up. Unfortunately, he had to sprint a half mile and get into a locked vehicle, and during that time, two students died and seven were wounded.
What kind of twisted country allow it's teen to have guns? The school principal shouldn't have to run for a gun, the teen should never had one in the first place.

Let me ask you this: how many school shooting did you hear about in the UK in the last, say, ten years. And how many in the USA. I'm tempted to look at this and conclude that gun control works. Let's completely ignore the differences in mentality, education or any socio-economic factors, shall we?



And yes, the use of Liberal and Conservative are completely frikked up in today's America.
That, I agree with.

What kind of twisted country allow it's teen to have guns? The school principal shouldn't have to run for a gun, the teen should never had one in the first place.
But.. but.. if everyone has guns, there will be no more gun crime!

But.. but.. if everyone has guns, there will be no more gun crime!

You're right, I forgot. Which begs the question: who's the asshole who refuse to get his gun to stop this tragedy? :D

But.. but.. if everyone has guns, there will be no more gun crime!

Less gun crime in the US, but not "no more".

65% less, over time, for the US. Your country may vary.

Less gun crime in the US, but not "no more".

65% less, over time, for the US. Your country may vary.

From when to when?

Less gun crime in the US, but not "no more".

65% less, over time, for the US. Your country may vary.
Based on non-existent evidence.

Based on non-existent evidence.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

From 1993 to 2001 the rate of firearm violence fell 63%

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

Now at 48 states... At 2001 it was 34 states. In 1993 it was 3 states.

So we've had more concealed carry, and firearm violence fell...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt



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

Now at 48 states... At 2001 it was 34 states. In 1993 it was 3 states.

So we've had more concealed carry, and firearm violence fell...

And every other factors didn't so much as move a iota between this time period. The economy was the same throughout those years and employment was likewise the same.

No correlation has been found between gun law and violence.

I'll repeat it again:
No correlation has been found between gun laws and violence.

And a third time to get it in people's head:
No correlation has been found between gun laws and violence.

And every other factors didn't so much as move a iota between this time period. The economy was the same throughout those years and employment was likewise the same.

No correlation has been found between gun law and violence.

I'll repeat it again:
No correlation has been found between gun laws and violence.

And a third time to get it in people's head:
No correlation has been found between gun laws and violence.

Obviously, the dire warnings of Sarah Brady that we would all be laying dead in the streets in steaming heaps of gibs if we passed concealed carry laws everywhere didn't come true...

Obviously, the dire warnings of Sarah Brady that we would all be laying dead in the streets in steaming heaps of gibs if we passed concealed carry laws everywhere didn't come true...

1. I din't talk about Sarah Brady, whoever that is.

2. I din't say that conceal-carry was bad.

3. There wasn't even any kind of reference to conceal-carry in the thread before you brought it up.

so, in conclusion, stop building strawmen to sort-of knock down and please argue the points made.

Who would take the gas? The hand gun can get you a lot more gas that $250 worth.
You, sir, have a criminal mindset.

Very awesome. I'd be able to get that nice .22 rifle I want. Oh wait, I live in NYC. :(

Personally I would go with a double-barrelled shotgun or a plasma rifle, but that's probably because I've played too much Doom.

Also, if you want examples for my case:
Washington DC
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
The rest of California
Australia
All those areas have heavily restricted firearms, and all have rather high crime rates.


Im in Australia.
If we have rather high crime rates i would be very suprised. In my recollection we have had 1 shooting shree in 1996 - when most of the gun laws came in, and another in 2003? when an international student shot two people at my uni.
There has been some other stuff involving organised crime gangs shooting each other - appox 15 or so incidents since 2000.

Every time someone gets shot here it seems like a major deal - front page of all papers etc.
This is to the point that this is the number 2 story on the police media page. No-one was hurt and the criminal has left but the police are still investigating... From what i recall when I was in the US this would not happen there because it is too common. (on a personal note, the US is the only country in the world i have not felt safe walking down the street at dusk, this was in Santa Monica, which i was under the impression was tourist area though so...)
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=4
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Shots fired in Meadow Heights
Police are investigating an incident where several shots were fired into the front of a residential home in Meadow Heights on Sunday morning.
Read More

I think the fact people were choosing a gun over several free tanks of gas makes the "hoplophobe" argument for them.

No, it really doesn't. People may want a firearm, or a different caliber firearm for many different reasons. This promotion is an excuse for those people to justify getting one. And I don't think Andaras was just talking about this promotion, but firearm ownership in general.