General Music Chat

...guns are 100% illegal in that country.

where in the world did you get that notion? private ownership of guns is quite legal there. mexico does have strict laws and regs about carrying concealed weapons...a lot of good that does.

but let's face it, laws only work when they're enforced.

...guns are 100% illegal in that country.

where in the world did you get that notion? private ownership of guns is quite legal there. mexico does have strict laws and regs about carrying concealed weapons...a lot of good that does.

but let's face it, laws only work when they're enforced.

WRONG it is illegal for a citizen to own a gun of ANY kind in Mexico! Yes lots of folks have them if caught they are in BIG trouble you have to pay the police off BIG time for that!

...guns are 100% illegal in that country.

where in the world did you get that notion? private ownership of guns is quite legal there. mexico does have strict laws and regs about carrying concealed weapons...a lot of good that does.

but let's face it, laws only work when they're enforced.

WRONG it is illegal for a citizen to own a gun of ANY kind in Mexico! Yes lots of folks have them if caught they are in BIG trouble you have to pay the police off BIG time for that!

Jeff, I believe that Mexican civilians can own a certain caliber of hunting rifles and they are only allowed to carry them on designated property (i.e rural families). But there is a significantly increasing trend of black market weapons being bought up by families, who are in fear of cartels/Federal soldiers and their enforcers.

Criminals in all countries don't care about gun laws.

ALL of you are joking, right.

Our country went after Gibson for wood that they previously owned. We really should focus on credible problems with an understanding of what is REAL.

Any one with criminal intent can buy any sort of weapons that... they have the cash for.

STOP THAT.

If Dimebag Darrell had his Concealed Carry License (and of course, his Firearm), he would probably still be Alive and Jammin'. He was a Good Guy Without A Gun.

Dimebag Darrell sucked ass.
He is way overrated.
I'd rather listen to Kerry King or Dave Mustaine any day.

Whether or not you like his artistry, he did take a bullet to save someone else. That makes him a good guy. To speak of him badly shows your ignorance.

Yes, and according to his testimony he had to hold his fire and wait for morons to get out of his way before he could end the attack.

whereas someone w poorer judgement might not have waited. then what? more dead.

cracks me up how all you john wayne types think that everyone (including yourselves) will always exercise good judgement when reaching for your concealed weapon to protect yourself and others. (instead of the more likely scenario of shitting yourself, or worse...taking out some innocent bystanders)

That's why we practice! Support Your Local Gun Range!

...guns are 100% illegal in that country.

where in the world did you get that notion? private ownership of guns is quite legal there. mexico does have strict laws and regs about carrying concealed weapons...a lot of good that does.

but let's face it, laws only work when they're enforced.

WRONG it is illegal for a citizen to own a gun of ANY kind in Mexico! Yes lots of folks have them if caught they are in BIG trouble you have to pay the police off BIG time for that!

Not true. you can own a gun but it can't leave your house

It takes a outsider to become a insider to tell the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI

If Dimebag Darrell had his Concealed Carry License (and of course, his Firearm), he would probably still be Alive and Jammin'. He was a Good Guy Without A Gun.

Dimebag Darrell sucked ass.
He is way overrated.
I'd rather listen to Kerry King or Dave Mustaine any day.

Whether or not you like his artistry, he did take a bullet to save someone else. That makes him a good guy. To speak of him badly shows your ignorance.

He may have been a saint.
But,he still sucked.
JIMHO.

But, you probably wouldn't like me or my music anyway.

laws only work when they're enforced.

And there is the missing piece of the puzzle. If you are going to ban guns, you gotta be ready to enforce the ban. If only criminals have guns, then they will eventually commit crimes (by the pro-gun mentality), eventually get caught, and the guns will be confiscated and criminals persecuted. Problem solved, eventually.

There's just no way to change the simple math- a society without guns will have less mass shootings AND overall gun deaths than a society with guns. All the straw man arguments and misdirected facts in the world doesn't change it. The eventuality of it is undeniable.

Even if gun crime goes up in the short term, the simple fact is that the sooner you ban guns, the sooner we will start to see the death rates fall. A stronger enforcement out of the gate would most certainly be a benefit.

How do people not understand this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Zo4hbGJjVI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZo4hbGJjVI

Ok, I watched the video. There's some simple and very important points that get completely ignored.

First, the guy blames "society" for the problem, completely avoiding the fact that higher capacity clips allow shooters to kill larger groups of people faster.

Then he goes on to boast that DC and Chicago both have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have the highest murder rates. And using those facts, it would suggest that he's right. But again, there's a total failure to mention that it's a simple matter of geography and not that gun control equals more gun violence..

Look at australia and england. In both places, they have what we could agree are strict gun laws. Both different, yet far more restrictive than the USA- The fact is that those laws cover the entire country, not just one city. It's pretty damn hard to smuggle a gun, much less many guns, into a country with strict gun laws. Can we agree on that?

In the USA, you can go to any gun show and walk out with an arsenal, no matter who you are. You can then drive those guns, completely unabated, right into the heart of DC and distribute them relatively cheap. So where's the real "control" there? There isn't any. Had I been the mayor of either city, I would not have even bothered to attempt to control guns, as it's geographically impossible so long as they are easily available as soon as you cross the city limits.

Both of those flaws stick out like a elephant in a tutu, yet the pro-gun advocates refuse to acknowledge ANY facts that do not support their points of view. It's dishonest and disgusting. I've yet to see ANY facts that show more guns benefits a civilized society.

Every talking point the pro-gun lobby made so far has ignored the big picture, or uses deception and ignorance to sell it's position.

I'm all for rational and honest discussion, but I'm just not seeing either from that side of the fence.

laws only work when they're enforced.

And there is the missing piece of the puzzle. If you are going to ban guns, you gotta be ready to enforce the ban. If only criminals have guns, then they will eventually commit crimes (by the pro-gun mentality), eventually get caught, and the guns will be confiscated and criminals persecuted. Problem solved, eventually.

There's just no way to change the simple math- a society without guns will have less mass shootings AND overall gun deaths than a society with guns. All the straw man arguments and misdirected facts in the world doesn't change it. The eventuality of it is undeniable.

Even if gun crime goes up in the short term, the simple fact is that the sooner you ban guns, the sooner we will start to see the death rates fall. A stronger enforcement out of the gate would most certainly be a benefit.

How do people not understand this?

We should also ban drugs.



Oh wait....that only made it an underground industry that proliferates violent crime. Do you understand that?

Prohibition didn't work either.

The day after Newtown CT, a man with a gun in San Antonio got angry and chased some school-kids into a building and was likely going to kill all of them, but a nearby woman with gun put 4 in him before he hit the ground. That kind of scenario goes unreported on the major media every day.

And recently a friend of mine (who just retired as a Senior Admiral from the Pentagon) told me that as many as 3 million violent crimes per year are avoided or stopped by a gun owner.

Why isn't that included in the record when we talk about gun control? Answer: because it doesn't help the narrative of the fascists.



.