Paper Guns

Pages: 123456
That's another problem with the US: the media.

The media stopped reporting actual news a couple of decades ago. Now they pander to sensationalism and partisan politics. Are a result, the US population is incredibly ignorant of current events.

Not to mention the numerous poisonous opinion columns that make stuff up, then present it while posing as a legitimate news organization.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@Disch
Less guns would mean less death -- not less violent crime.

Guns will never be banned in the US. But gun control is not about keeping people from owning guns. It is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

A national handgun registry would make it harder for criminals to find guns. There would still be violent crime --because the US is violent.

And the present talk about Assault weapons is total bull. There is not even a decent way to define an assault weapon. And there is no way to ban semi-automatic weapons. The US population would not tolerate it.

But they would tolerate regestering their handguns because like you said most people who have guns have no intention of committing crimes.

When we stop straw purchases in the US we be limiting only the number of illegal weapons on the street. Everyone else will still have there handguns.

And registering rifles is not necessary because they are not concealable--so they are not really useful for armed robbery.
at one time that kid was probably four


Nope, he was born at age 7 :p

@devon: Why go through all the trouble of making a paper gun (one shot only) instead of using poison darts or a hidden blade (Assassin's Creed reference...)?
your not gonna fit a blowpipe up your bum and you have to get close with a hidden blade.

and i mean rolled up paper literally, I think i saw it on a bad film, shooter maybe...either way this old cia guy talks about something i looked up afterwards, paper simple rolled with a bullet pushed in the middle of it.

ever heard of a zip gun?
Last edited on
cire wrote:
Did I say you did?
Hamsterman wrote:
Yes, I'm pretty sure you did. I can't come up with another reason why you'd have said
cire wrote:
Every freedom/privilege has its price.
Hamsterman wrote:

Note, my reply to that was a joke. What I read was along the lines "it's true that having more guns correlates with having more murder, but I consider it a necessary evil to protect our freedom", which makes no sense if you understood that I wasn't threatening that freedom. Do you have another interpretation?


I can see where you might make that assumption.

"Every freedom/privilege has its price" was in response to "I wonder, if you are aware of the difference between murder rates in US and in other countries of similar wealth." It was not in response to "I wonder if you are aware of the difference between murder rates in the U.S. and countries with similarly permissive gun control laws."

So naturally I assume your intimation was that the U.S should abolish the right to bear arms as opposed to, for instance, accepting the responsibility to prove your need to own a firearm. That seems to me to be an abridgement of freedom. It is also an acknowledgement that the price for particular freedoms is different in different cultures.

If you weren't suggesting stronger gun control, what were you suggesting?


Was your point that 3 extra murders per 100000 people per year is not much as compared to benefit of owning a gun?

In the opinion of many Americans it is an acceptable cost. My own opinion isn't entirely settled.
Last edited on
Do the math buddy. Only 80 people out of 100 are over 18. Of that 80 only 40 are male. So that is an average of two guns for every male in the US.


Clearly your napkin math is more accurate than articles published by news organizations that cite sources. I bow to your superior intellect.
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@cire

I've worked with news people--do you think those morons even know what what the difference is between expected error and reliability?

And in my opinion, if they don't give you an expected error and reliability it is a worthless statistic.

Find a real statistic where they give us the sample size, expected error, and reliability. You can't find one because they are all bullshit newspaper statistics created by someone who found algerbra 101 challenging.

Does that statistic make sense to you--do you really think there are that many guns in the US. Where do you live? I find it hard to believe you live in the US.
Last edited on
some people like to hide shitloads of guns around the house, and then you got them buying guns every 5 or 6 years, they might have two kinds of hunting rifle, and something for clay pigions and something to defend the house, that could be deemed 'normal' so i think two guns for every american sounds bout right.

interestingly i heard canadians have more guns per head, the original statistic doesn't cover that, micheal moores usually well researched am looking into where ive gone wrong now.
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
yes, devon the average hunter owns more than two rifles. And the average collector owns more than two. Still hunting is a dying sport, and every tenth US citizen isn't a gun collector.

Trust me most americans cannot clear and load a weapon.
micheal moores usually well researched am looking into where ive gone wrong now.


If you are basing any of your opinion/knowledge on anything from Michael Moore, you instantly lose all credibility with me.

He's not really a bald-faced liar... but he is extremely biased and one sided.

He's like the Left's version of Rush Limbaugh.
Last edited on
I think in america if you are totally unbiased and impartial when investigating anything controversial in the field of capitalism and social injustice your gonna come across left wing and biased.

And you don't choose to ignore someones information because of who they are especially if they're not liars, you don't take anyone's word without question for stuff either that's what irrational people do.

I think michael moors been demonized by us media, hes made plenty of powerful enemies, scew his reputation and he becomes a pariah.

Its shallow not to listen to what someones saying at all cos of who they are.

Im sure he is a twat tho'
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Find a real statistic where they give us the sample size, expected error, and reliability. You can't find one because they are all bullshit newspaper statistics created by someone who found algerbra 101 challenging.


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

There everything you need to know, sources are at the bottom. The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people.


But with that I will bow out of this conversation.

Also whoever said that criminals just go into a gun shop to buy a weapon before they start to do crime that is almost never true. Do you think someone that is going to commit a crime wants their name registered to the gun that committed the crime? That is basically asking to be arrested.
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@zereo
I thought you might be interested in where your source got their information and who they are:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about-us/mission.html

I found this interesting (in their mission statement):
The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people. The future success of efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons depends in large part on the development of accurate information concerning the global flow of these weapons and on reliable analyses of the causes and consequences of their proliferation.


And I can't find sample size, or reliability and I would not be surprize if this is the ultimate source for every time I've seen 88.8.
Last edited on
devonrevenge wrote:
I think in america if you are totally unbiased and impartial when investigating anything controversial in the field of capitalism and social injustice your gonna come across left wing and biased.


I agree to a point -- just because the far Right is so far gone (and so popular) that many actual facts seem to lean a little more than slightly to the Left.


But Michael Moore is another story. He clearly has an agenda and spins facts to support his viewpoint. Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean they're unbiased. You can't let your opinion blind you to that.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of Jon Stewart and I agree with 98% of the stuff he says. But I wouldn't even consider for an instant that he's unbiased. He obviously puts a liberal spin on everything. He even has admitted to it on several occasions (which is another reason I really like him).
Last edited on
Why is this so off topic? I just wanted to share something cool with you guys. This happened to almost all of my lounge posts... Anyway, off topic of gun control and the paper guns...

If you really want to stop lethal weapons you should stop people from owning a musket.

If you get shot by one of these in your shoulder, your arm is gone, and if in your torso, your stomach is tore open, and you would be able to see your lunch. I mean, with not to much innovation, you could make a repeating rifled musket, which is more accurate with a decent rate of fire.

If you seen someone get hit by a musket ball and a modern day rifle round, believe me, you would rather get hit by the rifle round.

=======================
ANYWAY

The gun is basically Elmer's Glue with a few springs and only about 10 percent of it is actually not paper. And yes, it shoots a real round, but for the test he shoots blanks.
chwsks wrote:
I've worked with news people--do you think those morons even know what what the difference is between expected error and reliability?


I have more faith in their ability than yours. At any rate, it isn't the precise ratio that matters, and yes, the small arms survey freely admits to educated estimation (which is what one expects from a survey,) and in my book, that beats out your more than questionable napkin math.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about-us/highlights/highlight-research-note-9-estimating-civilian-owned-firearms.html

Does that statistic make sense to you--do you really think there are that many guns in the US. Where do you live? I find it hard to believe you live in the US.


I live in Illinois. And I own a gun. My girlfriend owns a gun. My father owns several guns. Most of my relatives own one or more guns. Many of them have been handed down through generations. It's a pretty common thing in not-so-urban areas.

Last edited on
@Fredbill30, my bad. I didn't expect the thread to go this much off track, but I guess internet is like that.

@cire,
If you weren't suggesting stronger gun control, what were you suggesting?
I'm not from US, I don't know how much gun control you really have, all I know is that you have awful statistics and an even worse image. My suggestion was that the problem is a cultural one and thus the OP should be discouraged.
Yeah the paper gun thing is very cool, Its amazing what people think of, but bring up guns and your going to get a debate at the moment.

@disch, of course, will look up jon stewart, would be nice to find an impartial voice both left and right could listen to, just right is pretty crazy these days, how far they gonna go?
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
@cire
they more than fully admit it this what they say:
The Research Note explains that while these figures are not accurate or complete,


And their mission statement states that they are definitly not unbias. They have good reason to inflate there numbers. Normally midwest rural types are suspicious of UN numbers. You definitly do not fit the stereotype. Being a both pro-gun and also taking UN numbers at face value even when the source of the information states "figures are not accurate or complete".

Not only does it not give the expected error, reliability, nor sample size, it doesn't even explain the method that they used to select the sample.
Last edited on
Why do they think the UN is after their guns?? XD
How did it get so bad??
Why are so many people THAT crazy?
Pages: 123456