everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?
Whoever made that left out quite a few faces. Accidentally, I'm sure...
Originally Posted by d@v3
Pelosi...Obama...Biden... (the list goes on )
Actually I was thinking of almost every politician, leading and in opposition, from most of the countries in Europe, and a few other highly developed nations outside Europe. They forgot those faces. You know, the majority of them, that don't belong to brutal dictators.
And I trust I don't need to point out that the premise is just an ad hominem anyway. Hopefully it was only intended to be a humourous wink among those against tighter gun regulations, not a credible argument. That would suggest either grave stupidity, or grave manipulation of the stupid.
If someone wants to get a gun, they WILL get a gun. All they have to do is go out on the street and find an illegal firearms dealer. It's not hard at all. The law is irrelevant to criminals! Restricting firearm ownership ONLY hinders law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and others from the lawless.
No, in the UK it successfully hinders a great number of violent and potentially violent criminals from using guns. That's the point that a lot of you seem to be missing. In the UK the only people who need guns to protect themselves from guns are those involved in trafficking gangs - the only kinds of criminals at all likely to have them - and law enforcement officers trying to stop those involved in trafficking gangs. For everyone else, the chances of ever being shot or threatened with a gun are neglible, including in areas with the highest rates of armed robbery (e.g. with knives) and violent crime. The chances would not be neglible if guns were not as difficult for everybody else to get hold of as they are.
If I were living in the US I'd probably be in favour of only slightly tighter gun control than you already have, if it is indeed true that there it can never be made so difficult for dangerous people to get hold of them, and I'm much more often on the left side of issues. But in the UK gun control that lax would be disastrous, as it would create a threat that truly - this is the part some don't seem able to believe - doesn't currently exist.
I dont believe that war is politics carried on by other means, its the irretrievable break down of politics, likewise I only believe that political power blooming from a barrel of a gun is a truism at certain times and places. There are a lot of varieties of power and deferrence, reducing it all to might isnt exactly true. Equally all power is accompanied by a series of mitigating factors or forces, many of them unacknowledged.
I know those sorts of arguments are popular with gun lobbys but they are pretty nonsensical, all the real revolutions date from a time before even standing armies, that's why Marx was able to quip that the French peasant wanted Liberty, Equality, Fraternity but got infrantry, cavalry, artillary.