Search results

Well, I'm glad to see you're at least philosophically consistent, which is a rare thing these days. Good on you for that. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Except that the real lesson to remember here is that people's rights and freedoms are violated by a criminalizing system...

And such an example brings us back to the very same question, which is : can we mitigate those risks with mandatory licensing and training? Statistics show that it doesn't work. And statistics are base on actual documented events, not hypotheticals. Look for example at the one group that...

Another point is that with today's technology that allows one to build a gun at home without ever needing to purchase a single regulated part, the licensing/training argument becomes even less relevant. Guns are becoming as easy to come by as knives and forks. The sooner people understand that...

But you see, you don't need licensing nor training to buy, own or possess a car...and I'm sure you're not outraged by that. You need a license and training to use cars on public roads. Which is a different motive and serves a different purpose entirely. Today I can go buy the most dangerous car...

Edit. Rangebob covered it beautifully.

Its already on the web. You can currently renew you license online, check the status of an application, initiate firearm transfers.... So yeah, its not any tighter than what my proposed system would be. Furthermore, if information security is the only concern, I'm sure competent folks such as...

absolutely correct. And thats precisely the benefit. The system does. It would simply make automatic elligibility changes according to a predetermined list of offenses and criterias. I never said I wanted more security than what we have now. It does provide the same level of it, which even...

Those risks exist for ANY system in place. Including the current one, or any other porpositions anyone could come up with. Therefore, it cannot be used to claim one is better than the other, since the risks for both are equivalent.

Ah, that explains a lot. We rely on a "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Thats part of the foundation of a free society. If you wish to be treated the other way around and have to prove your innocence, and that the default be that you are guilty of being a potential danger, then thats...

Seems like Rangebob beat me to it, and in more details. Cheers.

No more expensive than the current system the judicial system is independant from government. It is a system that doesn't criminlaize mere ownership or possession. It is a system in which you do not need government approval. It is simpler because there is no licensing scheme, therefore no...

LOLOLOL and he's back for more, now in the form of a oneliner!! Feel better yet?

LOL here you go with the belittlement attempt again, trying to talk in the name of everyone..lol....does that make you feel better and make up for the embarassment? Are you trying to hurt my feelings? LOL You could have at least come up with something more original than your first one...but I...

Lol what i said the original hypotheses was is almost word for word what the OP wrote. Talk about not reading...when my statement is more accurate than yours... 6th strike....and counting...

You're right, and I actually hold the same opinion about certain people. But I know better than to suggest that this opinion alone is relevant when discussing wether or not measures should be implemented, or are effective. Thanks, I've clicked on the two links. No data is provided. In fact...

Wth all due respect, your opinion of two unknown people is anecdotal at best and isn't relevant when determining if legislation is needed. Again, statistics and facts do not support that mandatory training is beneficial in any way, nor improves public safety at all. In fact, data fully support...

The original hypotheses was that " we could all agree that only trained individuals should be in possession of a gun". Although training and education is always good, not a single piece of statistical data can factually support the idea that it should be mandatory. All it does is make people...

Dont waste your time rangebob...Foxer evidently doesnt care about stats....even if you show him a graph that shows the decline of gun accidents over the course of 60 years without mandatory training..and that this decline rate went unimproved with the implementation of mandatory training...

Lol again TLDR (i can only withstand reading so much nonsense in one go), but i'll still address this. Rates for stats are always expressed in percentages or in number/100,000. They are never a standalone figure. Rates are never just a division of number A by number B... because then theres no...

Lol no i mean really, what level and combination of ignorant and stubvorn are you?? My percentage has always been 0.0018%. you read that and though "im going to verify this"..and in the process forgot to multiply by 100...which got you to jump on your high horse and claim there was a mistake...