The 2nd Amendment, Under Assault!
 

Actually it's not from what I understand. Even though that has not stopped people believing that the Democrats are going to go ape-shit on gun rights:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32988155/ns/us_news-life/


I bring this up because I do support a person's right to own a weapon, but this:

seems......excessive. Is there currently an attack on gun rights, or are crazy gun owners just getting even crazier? (although in the midst of the zombie apocalypse I will know who's house to try to find)

Like it said, there's always an upswing in ammo sales when a Democrat's elected, but apparently it's been worse since Obama took office. So, yeah, paranoia.

Anachronisms
 

Canada seems to be working quite fine without many guns, and we keep a lot of our doors unlocked, bikes unlocked on the street, ect.
Honestly.

What exactly DOES it obviously mean?

You don't need a gun to rob a house or steal a bike. Leaving things open to passive theft is stupid regardless of who has guns.

.22's seem to be popular, which is really annoying for target shooting.

Is it wrong of me to say that my faith in humanity has taken another small dive with this? I mean, even the cops thread didn't do that, but the NRA and gun nuts are just, ugh. Like, seriously, they already halved the waiting period and ditched the psychological exams from what I understand, both of which were, in my opinion, sane and necessary procedures for the safety of the people who would come in contact with said buyers. If any tinfoil-hat hobo who finds a wallet can buy a gun and have it in, what is it, 17 days now or something? Seriously, that's just not right.

9 billion bullets. And people aren't even shooting them anymore. That just reeks of tinfoil hats.

On the other hand, the UK's violent crime rate has only increased since banning guns, to the point that they've long since passed by the US and most other places, too. Australia, on the other hand seems to have not changed at all after adding restrictions.

While Sweden has gun laws that are only slightly more strict than the US's (for pistols, less strict for rifles), and yet their violent crime rates are so law as to not even appear on most international lists.

I couldn't find any that went past 62 on a (admittedly very) quick google search.


Guess what I'm trying to say here is what KP said in one of the last gun threads we had--there's no factual information on whether gun control causes more crime or less crime or has no effect whatsoever, as the studies are all over the place depending on where you're taking them. Given that, it's probably best NOT to have gun control laws, as that if there's no clear advantage to extra regulation it's better to just not have regulation. Saves money, and you have a more free electorate.

It's not so much the being able to get a gun as it is the culture of actually feeling such a great need to own one.

Preturbed, it means this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw

But actually no, I kid, I kid. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to give the people of the United States the ability to protect themselves if/when a government became too dictatorish and opressive. This was, however, during a time when communication and travel were very much limited in comparison to what we have today, and I just cannot envision America becoming like North Korea anytime in the near future. I do not think that the 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete in substance, but that it could use updating to better fit with how our society has evolved.

Also: Blues is right, 9 billion bullets is something like 30 million bullets sold in the U.S. per person in the U.S. per year. And that is not counting the people who load their own bullets at home. Who is firing off a ridiculous number of bullets to bring the number up that high?

Also Also: From an environmental/economic standpoint could the materials for that number of bullets not have been put to a somewhat more productive use?