Or they should go the Phillip Zimmerman route with PGP and print a few hundred copies of a book with the plans inside which anyone could type to reproduce the source code/model files... then dare the government to ban either the physical book or the free copies that are being given away online.

It still amazes me that Americans think guns are OK.

Yeah, damn that evil second amendment that no one can seem to do away with

Bottom line is, More guns = more dead Americans

Oh what a simplistic view of the world you have, if it was just about guns... why then does a hard to get gun place like Detroit or Chicago have such high shooting and murder rates... while a easy to get a gun place like Plano, TX has such a low murder rate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

WHEN the US starts thinking their people and their children lives have value, then perhaps they will finally take the steps to protect them by removing guns

Yes, we don't think lives have value... which is precisely why we do not use guns to protect people, nor have certain people (lets call them police, military and body guards) carrying guns to protect others.

"Such a group"? That is, a group that wants people to be shot to promote their prejudices?

I'm aware of only one group in this case who was seeking to shoot people to promote their prejudices... so that must not be what I meant.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, here, let me break it down for you a little more:

You too appear to be keen on feeing your own "hate-filled little mind" with your oh so profound "Fuck all of them."

Want more?

You are quick to label Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads and clearly trying to demonstrate that you are in fact above the fray and superior to them... yet your very tone an attitude puts you in the same gutter as those you appear to despite.

In the old days one might say "pot, meet kettle"... however your invocation of two different groups needs something else.

Was that clear enough?

Since we have freedom of movement within the US, local regulations don't really mean much.

Only to law abiding citizens who happen reveal they do have a firearm with them when traveling out of state:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...
http://www.gunnews.com/new-jer...

It's not like you have to go through a checkpoint on your way into Detroit where they'll take your guns away. The only meaningful comparisons are between the nation as a whole compared to other nations - and the numbers are pretty damn clear when you do that.

*face palm*

1. Except that in a good chunk of Europe, there are no border checkpoints.

2. So just because we have this wonderful freedom of movement sans checkpoints... low crime areas (regardless of firearm ownership) also benefit from the freedom of movement of blame from higher crime areas where more often than not, legally acquiring a firearm is difficult? I think not.

The amount of gun violence in this country is nothing short of catastrophic. You're less likely to get shot in a goddamn war zone.

Care to cite your baseless & clearly emotionally driven claim?

Remember that even in a warzone, the flying lead is not equally distributed so not all in the area have an equal change of getting shot. Take a virtual warzone like Chicago (a weekend with only a dozen shootings is a rarity) where there are clearly understood lines as to where your likelihood of getting shot is significantly greater on one side of the line than the other.

I'm sorry to see/hear that you really don't care about cumulative statistics and don't try to understand what areas may be affecting the total. I'll give you one... did you know that with the exception of the 2011 Tucson shooting, every single mass shooting in this country in which 3 or more people were killed occurred in a place where the shooter was not permitted to carry a weapon? That's a rather puzzling fact, isn't it? It's unlikely that a gun free zone suddenly causes people within to go shooting, but just maybe those areas where people are not generally able to defend themselves happen to attack those looking for unarmed victims. Ever consider that?

Nice attempt at diversion, alas I'm all too used to your kind.

Know what most 'gun deaths' stats like yours have in common? They include suicide, which is a bit of a misnomer when trying to prevent 'gun violence' and including those who harmed no one but themselves... or do we also include those who use pills or sharp objects in the statics for 'sleeping pills violence' & 'knife violence'?

Know what happens when you subtract suicides where a gun was used from broader 'gun death' statics... you know, when looking at crime? You end up with quite a few less gun deaths. Don't believe me? Go back to GP's Wikipedia links, here in the US we have a gun related suicide rate that is nearly 70% of all gun related deaths.

I'd ask you to stay on topic... but you are an AC so hardly worth the effort.

Atheists don't believe in ANY shared mythos in general. They tend to be independent thinkers. Nice try equating drones with independent thinkers though.

You don't think that qualifies as a shared mythos? The idea that they tend to be 'independent thinkers'?

As an example, in my experience most people who call themselves an 'independent' politically are actually quite easy to peg as to where they actually sit on the political spectrum, they only believe themselves 'independent'.

I keep seeing that singular case being held up as some sort of counter-proof... always lacking though is a sense of proportionality and scale.

Lemme guess, if a single Amish individual happened to stab a few people, you'd hold it up as proof that even the Amish can be violent and deadly and that blame should not be just focused on Muslims?

Your point though is largely baseless as you are talking theory, not actual reality.

No they don't, though that has long been a bigger beef for Protestants than Catholics.

Nice of you though to attempt to dictate how others should interpret their faith.

And any other hunter who sees evidence of such a thing will be quick to call the game warden, happily.

Both sides here are perfect and utter shitheads. Both sides wanted this fight, which benefits nobody except feeding their own hate-filled little minds.

And with such an eloquent reply, you are clearly a member of such a group.

Less weapons, less deaths.

Really? Or do you want to ignore the fact of the low murder rate in easy to legally get a gun Plano, Texas (.4 per 100,000) and the highest murder rate in the hard to legally get a gun city of Detroit (54.6 per 100,000)? The numbers are striking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

I'm afraid such crimes are not uniformly distributed across the country as your stats attempt to portray, and if you exclude a few notable locations which disproportionally have rather high numbers, the national average begins to drop quickly.

Be more explicit... your righted infringe on my rights so your rights must be denied.

Up here in Seattle we have both... and come tomorrow I don't think it will be the football fans who will be engaging in their annual riot.

Except that every study seems to show that actual voter fraud is minimal

I always hear that claim made, yet every so called 'study' I examine has gaping holes in it's methods as more often then not there is simply not enough data to make an accurate measure as to what level of fraud exists because of the lack of ID requirements.

If I show up to your polling place and claim to be a recently deceased person, someone I know to be on vacation, or not likely to vote... unless the election worker actually knows the person I am pretending to be... I'm almost certainly going to be able to cast a vote illegally and the chances of being caught are slim, ditto for me ever showing up on the radar of someone investigating fraud.

Let me fix that for you:

Voter ID laws are (taken at face value) an attempt to reduce a unknown number of people from voting illegitimately while keeping a larger number of people from voting legitimately.

Somehow one needs a photo ID to fly on a plane, buy a six-pack of beer or open a bank account in most places... but only with regards to voting is it suddenly a horrible thing, even when free IDs are usually available.

To go back to my earlier example, a person doing so would only be casting a single extra vote which on it's own isn't much, however it's not too hard to imagine an individual or group being a little more dedicated and spending the morning of election day doing this over and over again.

How many fraudulent votes would they need? Lets look at some recent close races which come to mind:

in Florida in 2000 George Bush beat Al Gore with a margin of 537 votes out of 5,962,657 cast (0.00901%).
In South Dakota in 2002 Tim Johnson beat John Thune by a margin of 524 votes out of 33,4438 cast (.001567%).
In Washington in 2004 Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by a margin of 133 votes out of 2,810,058 cast (0.00473%).
In Minnesota in 2008 Al Franken beat Norm Colman by a margin of 312 votes out of 2,887,646 cast (0.0108%).

We are talking margins not only within the range of error (accidental over votes, identifying marks, etc), but very possibly within the margin of fraud, something the current system makes very difficult to detect.

Most of us don't wait to put locks on or home doors until after we are burgled, we do so because we recognize a potential threat and prefer to take some actions to reduce the risk, why not here as well?