Shooting in Conn. School
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
4thHorseman
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 91 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']
Think about this. More people die in car accidents every year than from firearms. Maybe we should have Uncle Sam drive us from now on.[/quote]
The problem I have with comparing death rates between guns and anyfhing else are:
1. Guns were created for the sole purpose of killing things. The other things were not. It would be easier to compare guns to swords than knives for that very reason.
2. Cars are easy to bring into the equation, but they tend to forget restrictions that are put on cars. You know, like needing a license to drive. Permits arent required to purchase guns. But I think its safe to say that the death toll would be higher if anyone could drive without a license, would it be farfetched to think that even a restriction as small as that could help?
Think about this. More people die in car accidents every year than from firearms. Maybe we should have Uncle Sam drive us from now on.[/quote]
The problem I have with comparing death rates between guns and anyfhing else are:
1. Guns were created for the sole purpose of killing things. The other things were not. It would be easier to compare guns to swords than knives for that very reason.
2. Cars are easy to bring into the equation, but they tend to forget restrictions that are put on cars. You know, like needing a license to drive. Permits arent required to purchase guns. But I think its safe to say that the death toll would be higher if anyone could drive without a license, would it be farfetched to think that even a restriction as small as that could help?
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
Here is a list of people who died on Gun Appreciation Day. http://gawker.com/5977431/heres-a-list-of-people-injured-or-killed-by-guns-on-gun-appreciation-day
And we need a cooling off period. Who knows how many people died just today and tonight just from guns. Let's ignore the facts anyway and blame cars, which have only one purpose to defend us from other cars and the gubment with their tanks.
And we need a cooling off period. Who knows how many people died just today and tonight just from guns. Let's ignore the facts anyway and blame cars, which have only one purpose to defend us from other cars and the gubment with their tanks.
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Here is a list of people who died on Gun Appreciation Day. http://gawker.com/5977431/heres-a-list-of-people-injured-or-killed-by-guns-on-gun-appreciation-day
And we need a cooling off period. Who knows how many people died just today and tonight just from guns. Let's ignore the facts anyway and blame cars, which have only one purpose to defend us from other cars and the gubment with their tanks.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the type of emotional wreck that we shouldn't be allowing write our legislation.
You didn't even read the list as it isn't a list of people who died.
Also 4thhorseman, you don't need a license to drive a car, just as you don't need a license to shoot a gun.
You guys are making it more tough for people to get a gun, so that the people who commit the crimes will have to ask before they take the individuals gun without permission? its laughable
If you are trying to tell me that there is a flood of law abiding citizens who are going out and legally buying guns, and then committing crimes with them, I would like to see the proof.
Show me some form of statistic that says gun crime was committed by gun owner.
Wrong gun. Wrong people. Which it doesn't matter to the left, because they will inevitably move closer and closer to banning all guns. Can you really tell me you can say the left will be ok with pistols once psychos start using them to shoot up schools? No they won't. They will not stop at that. You guys point to England so much, just look at the history of gun restrictions! They said the same thing "we don't want to take away guns, just the 'dangerous ones
' "
And we need a cooling off period. Who knows how many people died just today and tonight just from guns. Let's ignore the facts anyway and blame cars, which have only one purpose to defend us from other cars and the gubment with their tanks.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the type of emotional wreck that we shouldn't be allowing write our legislation.
You didn't even read the list as it isn't a list of people who died.
Also 4thhorseman, you don't need a license to drive a car, just as you don't need a license to shoot a gun.
You guys are making it more tough for people to get a gun, so that the people who commit the crimes will have to ask before they take the individuals gun without permission? its laughable
If you are trying to tell me that there is a flood of law abiding citizens who are going out and legally buying guns, and then committing crimes with them, I would like to see the proof.
Show me some form of statistic that says gun crime was committed by gun owner.
Wrong gun. Wrong people. Which it doesn't matter to the left, because they will inevitably move closer and closer to banning all guns. Can you really tell me you can say the left will be ok with pistols once psychos start using them to shoot up schools? No they won't. They will not stop at that. You guys point to England so much, just look at the history of gun restrictions! They said the same thing "we don't want to take away guns, just the 'dangerous ones
' "
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
One side of a coin is that this is "emotional" and therefore would be irrationally driving policy.
The other side is that this is evidence of a typical day in the United States - people die *every day* from gunfire, both accidentally and intentionally. Dozens more are shot but do not die each day. Examining gun control legislation so as to reduce the frequency of these incidents is therefore expected of a civilized society. It's not "emotional," it's "data."
To claim that looking at the fact that guns kill people every day is an "emotional wreck" says more about the unwillingness of one side of the issue to examine evidence - and it is quite clearly not the gun control advocates.
The other side is that this is evidence of a typical day in the United States - people die *every day* from gunfire, both accidentally and intentionally. Dozens more are shot but do not die each day. Examining gun control legislation so as to reduce the frequency of these incidents is therefore expected of a civilized society. It's not "emotional," it's "data."
To claim that looking at the fact that guns kill people every day is an "emotional wreck" says more about the unwillingness of one side of the issue to examine evidence - and it is quite clearly not the gun control advocates.
[quote name='mykevermin']One side of a coin is that this is "emotional" and therefore would be irrationally driving policy.
The other side is that this is evidence of a typical day in the United States - people die *every day* from gunfire, both accidentally and intentionally. Dozens more are shot but do not die each day. Examining gun control legislation so as to reduce the frequency of these incidents is therefore expected of a civilized society. It's not "emotional," it's "data."
To claim that looking at the fact that guns kill people every day is an "emotional wreck" says more about the unwillingness of one side of the issue to examine evidence - and it is quite clearly not the gun control advocates.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact that this isn't the purpose or reason behind the "gun outrage" right now. They want to ban particular guns that account for less than 10% of the "gun" problem, and they are doing it because they are paranoid someone is going to shoot up their school. Either that, or the politicians behind it are using a tragedy to push a political agenda.
You can honestly tell me this isn't emotional? Get real.
Edit: I re-read your post, and see you may agree it could be emotional. However I don't think there is another side to it. Current officials are using these tragedies to push policy.
The other side is that this is evidence of a typical day in the United States - people die *every day* from gunfire, both accidentally and intentionally. Dozens more are shot but do not die each day. Examining gun control legislation so as to reduce the frequency of these incidents is therefore expected of a civilized society. It's not "emotional," it's "data."
To claim that looking at the fact that guns kill people every day is an "emotional wreck" says more about the unwillingness of one side of the issue to examine evidence - and it is quite clearly not the gun control advocates.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact that this isn't the purpose or reason behind the "gun outrage" right now. They want to ban particular guns that account for less than 10% of the "gun" problem, and they are doing it because they are paranoid someone is going to shoot up their school. Either that, or the politicians behind it are using a tragedy to push a political agenda.
You can honestly tell me this isn't emotional? Get real.
Edit: I re-read your post, and see you may agree it could be emotional. However I don't think there is another side to it. Current officials are using these tragedies to push policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to love the argument Knoell is trying to make. The thing is though, if there was serious talk about banning handguns rather than assault weapons, he'd be in here bitching about that as well, so there really is no point for him to make.
That said, the false equivalency is getting a little out of control. In what world is a person being shot the same as a person being hit by a car? Damn.
That said, the false equivalency is getting a little out of control. In what world is a person being shot the same as a person being hit by a car? Damn.
[quote name='Clak']I have to love the argument Knoell is trying to make. The thing is though, if there was serious talk about banning handguns rather than assault weapons, he'd be in here bitching about that as well, so there really is no point for him to make.
That said, the false equivalency is getting a little out of control. In what world is a person being shot the same as a person being hit by a car? Damn.[/QUOTE]
The same world in which most gun shot victim situations were really accidents, or self inflicted NOT murders.
Also the same world in which there are more deaths from automobile accidents where alcohal is involved than murders with guns.
So more people get into a car intoxicated and kill someone, totally within their control, than people murdering people with guns.
But regardless, you are right, the comparison is irrelavent, I am only stooping to your level of understanding here. I do not think we should ban pistols, cars, or the mean looking guns.
As for the pistols comment, you got that exactly right! Once you ban auto rifles, you have a solid case against pistols too. "We aren't trying to take away your guns, no, not at all, just the mean looking ones that aren't causing all the deaths.....and the ones causing all the deaths....."
Edit: Why don't we ever compare the violent crime rate in the US to other countries, when bringing up other countries banning guns and not having gun murders? Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof. Much, MUCH higher than the US. Canada's too. Why?
That said, the false equivalency is getting a little out of control. In what world is a person being shot the same as a person being hit by a car? Damn.[/QUOTE]
The same world in which most gun shot victim situations were really accidents, or self inflicted NOT murders.
Also the same world in which there are more deaths from automobile accidents where alcohal is involved than murders with guns.
So more people get into a car intoxicated and kill someone, totally within their control, than people murdering people with guns.
But regardless, you are right, the comparison is irrelavent, I am only stooping to your level of understanding here. I do not think we should ban pistols, cars, or the mean looking guns.
As for the pistols comment, you got that exactly right! Once you ban auto rifles, you have a solid case against pistols too. "We aren't trying to take away your guns, no, not at all, just the mean looking ones that aren't causing all the deaths.....and the ones causing all the deaths....."
Edit: Why don't we ever compare the violent crime rate in the US to other countries, when bringing up other countries banning guns and not having gun murders? Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof. Much, MUCH higher than the US. Canada's too. Why?
Last edited by a moderator:
Finger_Shocker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
the only way to stop a kid with a gun is to arm good kids with gun
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Edit: Why don't we ever compare the violent crime rate in the US to other countries, when bringing up other countries banning guns and not having gun murders? Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof. Much, MUCH higher than the US. Canada's too. Why?[/QUOTE]
From The Guardian:
From the website of the government of Scotland, which unfortunately does not have stats for a lot of their violent crimes:
I've only given a cursory look at some statistics from North Ireland, but it seems that their crime rate hasn't changed much over the last several years. I know there was a major uptick in violent crime in the Republic of Ireland in 2008, but it has since fallen. Unfortunately, it looks like it'll take a bit more than the almost-zero effort I put in to the others, so
it.
And just for fun, from that same Guardian article...
From The Guardian:
From the website of the government of Scotland, which unfortunately does not have stats for a lot of their violent crimes:
I've only given a cursory look at some statistics from North Ireland, but it seems that their crime rate hasn't changed much over the last several years. I know there was a major uptick in violent crime in the Republic of Ireland in 2008, but it has since fallen. Unfortunately, it looks like it'll take a bit more than the almost-zero effort I put in to the others, so
it.And just for fun, from that same Guardian article...
ID2006
CAGiversary!
With regard to assault weapons, some complaints are about its nebulous meaning in national discussion.
I remember hearing multiple times that they're hardly different from hunting rifles, because both support high-capacity, semi-automatic features.
Here's an article that talks a bit about what I mean.
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130119/CITYANDREGION/130119076/1010
But one of the primary differences by those who argued for a clearer definition was of specific features, such as a pistol grip. The argument in this instance was that they allowed for rapid-fire shooting capable of covering a large area.
Another problem is the focus on aesthetic differences in guns, rather than the differences in utility. A weapons ban can be essentially circumvented by manufacturers if it focuses more on the appearance (similarity to military style weapons) rather than the features.
The original assault weapons ban required two or more "military-style features", which meant you could get away with having one and still be left with an unnecessarily powerful weapon.
As for statistical analysis before, during, and after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, I'm finding it difficult to locate a reliable source that doesn't seem mired in confirmation bias or a failure to account sufficiently for the many small but influential factors.
I remember hearing multiple times that they're hardly different from hunting rifles, because both support high-capacity, semi-automatic features.
Here's an article that talks a bit about what I mean.
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130119/CITYANDREGION/130119076/1010
But one of the primary differences by those who argued for a clearer definition was of specific features, such as a pistol grip. The argument in this instance was that they allowed for rapid-fire shooting capable of covering a large area.
Another problem is the focus on aesthetic differences in guns, rather than the differences in utility. A weapons ban can be essentially circumvented by manufacturers if it focuses more on the appearance (similarity to military style weapons) rather than the features.
The original assault weapons ban required two or more "military-style features", which meant you could get away with having one and still be left with an unnecessarily powerful weapon.
As for statistical analysis before, during, and after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, I'm finding it difficult to locate a reliable source that doesn't seem mired in confirmation bias or a failure to account sufficiently for the many small but influential factors.
I have a quick question.
If Chicago is a gun free zone why are there so many gun related crimes in Chicago?
And given the fact that their are so many gun related crimes in Chicago despite being a gun free zone shouldn't it have an extraordinary high prosecution rate for gun related crimes?
Also doesn't 109 shootings in the first day two weeks of 2013 seem a little high? Well it's just slightly above the average of last year.... but that's not a surprise because gun crimes have continued to climb the last two years...
But the good news is this new legislation will make those problems go away right.....
If Chicago is a gun free zone why are there so many gun related crimes in Chicago?
And given the fact that their are so many gun related crimes in Chicago despite being a gun free zone shouldn't it have an extraordinary high prosecution rate for gun related crimes?
Also doesn't 109 shootings in the first day two weeks of 2013 seem a little high? Well it's just slightly above the average of last year.... but that's not a surprise because gun crimes have continued to climb the last two years...
But the good news is this new legislation will make those problems go away right.....
ID2006
CAGiversary!
[quote name='GBAstar']I have a quick question.
If Chicago is a gun free zone why are there so many gun related crimes in Chicago?
And given the fact that their are so many gun related crimes in Chicago despite being a gun free zone shouldn't it have an extraordinary high prosecution rate for gun related crimes?
Also doesn't 109 shootings in the first day two weeks of 2013 seem a little high? Well it's just slightly above the average of last year.... but that's not a surprise because gun crimes have continued to climb the last two years...
But the good news is this new legislation will make those problems go away right.....[/QUOTE]
One of the reasons for Chicago's statically high gun violence is due to interstate trafficking. People bring in guns from outside Chicago and they get used inside Chicago. That's why so many are arguing for national regulation — because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
If Chicago is a gun free zone why are there so many gun related crimes in Chicago?
And given the fact that their are so many gun related crimes in Chicago despite being a gun free zone shouldn't it have an extraordinary high prosecution rate for gun related crimes?
Also doesn't 109 shootings in the first day two weeks of 2013 seem a little high? Well it's just slightly above the average of last year.... but that's not a surprise because gun crimes have continued to climb the last two years...
But the good news is this new legislation will make those problems go away right.....[/QUOTE]
One of the reasons for Chicago's statically high gun violence is due to interstate trafficking. People bring in guns from outside Chicago and they get used inside Chicago. That's why so many are arguing for national regulation — because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
Where did those guns come from? From legal sellers of course.
Finger_Shocker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
More Gun Appreciation news:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-nm-teen-gunman-kills-inside-home-18264796
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-nm-teen-gunman-kills-inside-home-18264796
I had a random thought pop in my head this morning related to the whole gun violence thing and I cant decide if I like it or I think its idiotic.
What if we had police officers come to a school once a year and teach a gun safety course to children? I took one of these when I was like 14 and it made a world of difference in learning to respect guns. A course like this could also teach kids to help prevent shootings by recognizing signs of a shooter. Yes many schools already teach kids that skill, but I think if it was accompanied by a police officer teaching them about overall gun safety it would make them feel less like their school is at risk and they would be more likely to actually follow given advice.
Again not sure if this is a stupid idea. I could see it making guns more acceptable in society which I really hate! I could also see it meaning 30 years from now we have a higher % of adults that understand and respect guns(vs today where most people have very little). Maybe if 30 years from now we as a society had a true respect for firearms then we could if not eliminate them, finally start passing sensible laws.
What if we had police officers come to a school once a year and teach a gun safety course to children? I took one of these when I was like 14 and it made a world of difference in learning to respect guns. A course like this could also teach kids to help prevent shootings by recognizing signs of a shooter. Yes many schools already teach kids that skill, but I think if it was accompanied by a police officer teaching them about overall gun safety it would make them feel less like their school is at risk and they would be more likely to actually follow given advice.
Again not sure if this is a stupid idea. I could see it making guns more acceptable in society which I really hate! I could also see it meaning 30 years from now we have a higher % of adults that understand and respect guns(vs today where most people have very little). Maybe if 30 years from now we as a society had a true respect for firearms then we could if not eliminate them, finally start passing sensible laws.
Eliminate them? That kinda goes against the statement made multiple times of "We don't want to ban all firearms, that's why we can't have an adult conversation!!!111".
Aside from that, it's not a horrible idea, but I'd counter with "Did the lectures about not smoking, drinking or doing drugs stop you or your classmates from smoking, drinking or doing drugs?"
I'm just not sure something like that would take very well.
Aside from that, it's not a horrible idea, but I'd counter with "Did the lectures about not smoking, drinking or doing drugs stop you or your classmates from smoking, drinking or doing drugs?"
I'm just not sure something like that would take very well.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
MSI Magus, that is a good idea regarding police officers teaching gun safety in our schools. Curbing gun violence is a very complicated topic, and just having idiots keep ramming the same old arguments down our throats is just not helping. A better educated citizenry who knows about firearms and their risks would go a long way, especially when the crux of the argument for banning army-grade weapons involves that X gun is NOT a assault weapon because of a weak Y. Heck, it might even decrease the need to own a gun.
Of course, the NRA would block and whine about it, and the politicians who are in their pocket are going to say it's a waste of money.
Of course, the NRA would block and whine about it, and the politicians who are in their pocket are going to say it's a waste of money.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='GBAstar']`If Chicago is a gun free zone[/QUOTE]
It's not. Don't say that it is, and don't believe people who say that it is.
It's not. Don't say that it is, and don't believe people who say that it is.
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not. Don't say that it is, and don't believe people who say that it is.[/QUOTE]
Oh so we get touchy when that is brought up (it effectively was a no carry city until December of 2012) but we can incorrectly throw around "Assault Rifle" or "Assault type rifle" all day.
Oh so we get touchy when that is brought up (it effectively was a no carry city until December of 2012) but we can incorrectly throw around "Assault Rifle" or "Assault type rifle" all day.
@Bob - The anti drug stuff stopped my wife flat cold and to this day she is still not willing to do any herself and against legalization of everything but pot(which she only changed on in the last 3 years). These type of in school programs dont reach all kids, but they do reach some. Teaching kids about firearms may not overnight change anything and I dont think it will drastically shift us away from school shootings. But an educated populace is always a good thing in my mind.
@detectiveconan - Thanks!
@detectiveconan - Thanks!
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
I don't think a full course on gun safety would be worth it imo, that isn't what schools are for, but I do think an assembly (or two) every year on gun safety would help. I can also almost guarantee that the NRA or local vets would provide their services for free.
[quote name='perdition(troy']I don't think a full course on gun safety would be worth it imo, that isn't what schools are for, but I do think an assembly (or two) every year on gun safety would help. I can also almost guarantee that the NRA or local vets would provide their services for free.[/QUOTE]
An assembly could work if the schools age range was small enough. I think a program would work better if what the kids were taught was based on their age range. Kids in 1st grade probably should not be hearing how to handle a firearm at all and instead be told to contact an adult. Meanwhile older kids whose parents may now right or wrongly be letting them use firearms certainly could use a speech on handling safety.
I also dont think id want the NRA or most other groups handling this. I think you would have to keep it as police or active service men for a crap ton of reasons.
An assembly could work if the schools age range was small enough. I think a program would work better if what the kids were taught was based on their age range. Kids in 1st grade probably should not be hearing how to handle a firearm at all and instead be told to contact an adult. Meanwhile older kids whose parents may now right or wrongly be letting them use firearms certainly could use a speech on handling safety.
I also dont think id want the NRA or most other groups handling this. I think you would have to keep it as police or active service men for a crap ton of reasons.
[quote name='MSI Magus']An assembly could work if the schools age range was small enough. I think a program would work better if what the kids were taught was based on their age range. Kids in 1st grade probably should not be hearing how to handle a firearm at all and instead be told to contact an adult. Meanwhile older kids whose parents may now right or wrongly be letting them use firearms certainly could use a speech on handling safety.
I also dont think id want the NRA or most other groups handling this. I think you would have to keep it as police or active service men for a crap ton of reasons.[/QUOTE]
When I was in elementary school (2nd or 3rd grade) my entire grade (small school.... 100 kids maybe in the entire grade) was called to the gymnasium. We had the afternoon off from classes to watch a magic show but prior to the performance the local fire department came down and gave us an hour or so lecture on fire safety....
they could do something similar with guns. In the end though it isn't going to stop a demented person from killing but it certainly could teach young kids to respect/not play with guns.
I also dont think id want the NRA or most other groups handling this. I think you would have to keep it as police or active service men for a crap ton of reasons.[/QUOTE]
When I was in elementary school (2nd or 3rd grade) my entire grade (small school.... 100 kids maybe in the entire grade) was called to the gymnasium. We had the afternoon off from classes to watch a magic show but prior to the performance the local fire department came down and gave us an hour or so lecture on fire safety....
they could do something similar with guns. In the end though it isn't going to stop a demented person from killing but it certainly could teach young kids to respect/not play with guns.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='GBAstar']Oh so we get touchy when that is brought up (it effectively was a no carry city until December of 2012) but we can incorrectly throw around "Assault Rifle" or "Assault type rifle" all day.[/QUOTE]
"We" who? Don't accuse me of saying something I did not to try to gain some sense of false parity. You used a phrase to describe something that is demonstrably and legally untrue; I called you on it, and now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth as a defense mechanism.
Act like an adult.
"We" who? Don't accuse me of saying something I did not to try to gain some sense of false parity. You used a phrase to describe something that is demonstrably and legally untrue; I called you on it, and now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth as a defense mechanism.
Act like an adult.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']that isn't what schools are for[/quote]
Eh, toss it in with home economics (a course I think should legit be brought back and have an ample degree of civics folded into it)
I wouldn't want the NRA anywhere near this course. Far, far, far too political an organization; their astonishing irrationality as an org would too easily permeate their instruction. I wouldn't want my local dope dealer leading a lecture on using drugs in moderation, you know.
Eh, toss it in with home economics (a course I think should legit be brought back and have an ample degree of civics folded into it)
I wouldn't want the NRA anywhere near this course. Far, far, far too political an organization; their astonishing irrationality as an org would too easily permeate their instruction. I wouldn't want my local dope dealer leading a lecture on using drugs in moderation, you know.
[quote name='mykevermin']"We" who? Don't accuse me of saying something I did not to try to gain some sense of false parity. You used a phrase to describe something that is demonstrably and legally untrue; I called you on it, and now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth as a defense mechanism.
Act like an adult.[/QUOTE]
When did Chicago stop being a no carry city? And explain to me why exactly it isn't okay to call a no carry city a gun free zone? I thought by all accounts they were interchangeable? There certainly are many website that think they are.
Act like an adult.[/QUOTE]
When did Chicago stop being a no carry city? And explain to me why exactly it isn't okay to call a no carry city a gun free zone? I thought by all accounts they were interchangeable? There certainly are many website that think they are.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
Kids that use firearms at a young age, notably those that are in hunting family's or live on a farm tend to be the most responsible with guns. Some gun safety education at school is a must.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
The reason those kids are so responsible is because they go through hunters safety courses.
Myke, what I meant by the NRA is that I assumed they would be covering the bills in the same way they offered to pay for teachers to take gun courses. Not actually run the assembly, more of just footing the bill for whatever local PD or vet group would run it. I wouldn't want to take officers off the street (on already straining local budgets) to do it if I didn't have to.
Myke, what I meant by the NRA is that I assumed they would be covering the bills in the same way they offered to pay for teachers to take gun courses. Not actually run the assembly, more of just footing the bill for whatever local PD or vet group would run it. I wouldn't want to take officers off the street (on already straining local budgets) to do it if I didn't have to.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MSI Magus']I had a random thought pop in my head this morning related to the whole gun violence thing and I cant decide if I like it or I think its idiotic.
What if we had police officers come to a school once a year and teach a gun safety course to children? I took one of these when I was like 14 and it made a world of difference in learning to respect guns. A course like this could also teach kids to help prevent shootings by recognizing signs of a shooter. Yes many schools already teach kids that skill, but I think if it was accompanied by a police officer teaching them about overall gun safety it would make them feel less like their school is at risk and they would be more likely to actually follow given advice.
Again not sure if this is a stupid idea. I could see it making guns more acceptable in society which I really hate! I could also see it meaning 30 years from now we have a higher % of adults that understand and respect guns(vs today where most people have very little). Maybe if 30 years from now we as a society had a true respect for firearms then we could if not eliminate them, finally start passing sensible laws.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='detectiveconan16']MSI Magus, that is a good idea regarding police officers teaching gun safety in our schools. Curbing gun violence is a very complicated topic, and just having idiots keep ramming the same old arguments down our throats is just not helping. A better educated citizenry who knows about firearms and their risks would go a long way, especially when the crux of the argument for banning army-grade weapons involves that X gun is NOT a assault weapon because of a weak Y. Heck, it might even decrease the need to own a gun.
Of course, the NRA would block and whine about it, and the politicians who are in their pocket are going to say it's a waste of money.[/QUOTE]
Of course this could always happen. But really it is not a bad idea for anyone to be more informed about anything really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=am-Qdx6vky0
Sorry but I cannot get it to embed for some reason. Anyway, it is an old video but kind of funny except for the whole shooting yourself part.
What if we had police officers come to a school once a year and teach a gun safety course to children? I took one of these when I was like 14 and it made a world of difference in learning to respect guns. A course like this could also teach kids to help prevent shootings by recognizing signs of a shooter. Yes many schools already teach kids that skill, but I think if it was accompanied by a police officer teaching them about overall gun safety it would make them feel less like their school is at risk and they would be more likely to actually follow given advice.
Again not sure if this is a stupid idea. I could see it making guns more acceptable in society which I really hate! I could also see it meaning 30 years from now we have a higher % of adults that understand and respect guns(vs today where most people have very little). Maybe if 30 years from now we as a society had a true respect for firearms then we could if not eliminate them, finally start passing sensible laws.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='detectiveconan16']MSI Magus, that is a good idea regarding police officers teaching gun safety in our schools. Curbing gun violence is a very complicated topic, and just having idiots keep ramming the same old arguments down our throats is just not helping. A better educated citizenry who knows about firearms and their risks would go a long way, especially when the crux of the argument for banning army-grade weapons involves that X gun is NOT a assault weapon because of a weak Y. Heck, it might even decrease the need to own a gun.
Of course, the NRA would block and whine about it, and the politicians who are in their pocket are going to say it's a waste of money.[/QUOTE]
Of course this could always happen.
But really it is not a bad idea for anyone to be more informed about anything really.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=am-Qdx6vky0
Sorry but I cannot get it to embed for some reason. Anyway, it is an old video but kind of funny except for the whole shooting yourself part.
The Crotch, you have to put a bit more effort in to get a response to what you post. You list a bunch of random graphs, that I don't even think you looked at.
It is true that the FBI and England calculate their statistics differently which accounts for some of the vastly greater number of violent crimes in England compared to the US despite their gun ban. England includes everything done to someone, while the US includes murder, robbery, rape, and assault. However estimated with the FBI's method of calculation, shows that England is still nearly twice that of the US.
http://www.fox19.com/story/20608260...s-comparison-of-us-and-uk-violent-crime-rates
Again, I will ask why aren't you (any of you) going after pistols? Is it because you don't want to get rid of guns? Gun violence won't significantly drop in the US with the banning of assault rifles so what is your next move when God forbid some other psycho shoots up another school with a couple pistols? Will you go after pistols then? Will you try to ban guns altogether then? Or will you try a more slow and subtle approach like england did?
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html
It is true that the FBI and England calculate their statistics differently which accounts for some of the vastly greater number of violent crimes in England compared to the US despite their gun ban. England includes everything done to someone, while the US includes murder, robbery, rape, and assault. However estimated with the FBI's method of calculation, shows that England is still nearly twice that of the US.
http://www.fox19.com/story/20608260...s-comparison-of-us-and-uk-violent-crime-rates
Again, I will ask why aren't you (any of you) going after pistols? Is it because you don't want to get rid of guns? Gun violence won't significantly drop in the US with the banning of assault rifles so what is your next move when God forbid some other psycho shoots up another school with a couple pistols? Will you go after pistols then? Will you try to ban guns altogether then? Or will you try a more slow and subtle approach like england did?
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
1: Did you just blame me for not putting enough effort into finding evidence to support your argument?
2: Ahaha. Your source is literally the estimate of a blogger. Like, I checked the blog out, and it doesn't actually seem terrible, but what the? And why did you link me to a poorly-delivered video instead of the actual source?
3: Overall trends, not just "which is bigger". I didn't post those charts to say, "look, the English number is smaller than the American number". If I wanted to do that, I would have said something like, "the American homicide rate is four times that of the United Kingdom's", which I'll admit is just one crime rather than "violent crime" in general, but then, I'm not an internet blog, so I'm not qualified to make best-guesses at those kinds of numbers.
The point of those charts was that the numbers trend downward regardless of "the criminals will just ignore the gun laws" or "then people will just commit the same crimes without guns" rhetoric. The point of it was that your statement, "Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof." was bullshit. Violent crime in the UK peaked in 1995, their gun laws came in 1997 (when the rate was still high but down from 1995), and has dropped steadily ever since. American violent crime has also dropped over the same time period - as has American gun ownership, though there has seen an uptick since Obama took office.
Now despite all that, I actually agree that the emphasis some place on rifles is weird and misguided. So is the emphasis on preventing Newtown-style massacres over single homicides and self-inflicted/accidental incidences, though that's a lot more understandable. So is the fetishization of guns in y'all's culture and history (and, related to that, the fetishization of historical figures).
It feels like I should have one sentence to wrap this all up, but I can't think of anything.
2: Ahaha. Your source is literally the estimate of a blogger. Like, I checked the blog out, and it doesn't actually seem terrible, but what the
? And why did you link me to a poorly-delivered video instead of the actual source?3: Overall trends, not just "which is bigger". I didn't post those charts to say, "look, the English number is smaller than the American number". If I wanted to do that, I would have said something like, "the American homicide rate is four times that of the United Kingdom's", which I'll admit is just one crime rather than "violent crime" in general, but then, I'm not an internet blog, so I'm not qualified to make best-guesses at those kinds of numbers.
The point of those charts was that the numbers trend downward regardless of "the criminals will just ignore the gun laws" or "then people will just commit the same crimes without guns" rhetoric. The point of it was that your statement, "Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof." was bullshit. Violent crime in the UK peaked in 1995, their gun laws came in 1997 (when the rate was still high but down from 1995), and has dropped steadily ever since. American violent crime has also dropped over the same time period - as has American gun ownership, though there has seen an uptick since Obama took office.
Now despite all that, I actually agree that the emphasis some place on rifles is weird and misguided. So is the emphasis on preventing Newtown-style massacres over single homicides and self-inflicted/accidental incidences, though that's a lot more understandable. So is the fetishization of guns in y'all's culture and history (and, related to that, the fetishization of historical figures).
It feels like I should have one sentence to wrap this all up, but I can't think of anything.
[quote name='The Crotch']1: Did you just blame me for not putting enough effort into finding evidence to support your argument?
2: Ahaha. Your source is literally the estimate of a blogger. Like, I checked the blog out, and it doesn't actually seem terrible, but what the? And why did you link me to a poorly-delivered video instead of the actual source?
3: Overall trends, not just "which is bigger". I didn't post those charts to say, "look, the English number is smaller than the American number". If I wanted to do that, I would have said something like, "the American homicide rate is four times that of the United Kingdom's", which I'll admit is just one crime rather than "violent crime" in general, but then, I'm not an internet blog, so I'm not qualified to make best-guesses at those kinds of numbers.
The point of those charts was that the numbers trend downward regardless of "the criminals will just ignore the gun laws" or "then people will just commit the same crimes without guns" rhetoric. The point of it was that your statement, "Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof." was bullshit. Violent crime in the UK peaked in 1995, their gun laws came in 1997 (when the rate was still high but down from 1995), and has dropped steadily ever since. American violent crime has also dropped over the same time period - as has American gun ownership, though there has seen an uptick since Obama took office.
Now despite all that, I actually agree that the emphasis some place on rifles is weird and misguided. So is the emphasis on preventing Newtown-style massacres over single homicides and self-inflicted/accidental incidences, though that's a lot more understandable. So is the fetishization of guns in y'all's culture and history (and, related to that, the fetishization of historical figures).
It feels like I should have one sentence to wrap this all up, but I can't think of anything.[/QUOTE]
1. This isn't MY argument, it is in response to the argument that "britain banned guns and only has 39 gun deaths!!!1!!111!".
2. There is no source that has broken down the data compatible with the FBI's way of counting violent crimes. Estimates do not show that Britain has less violent crime per capita, most show that it has quite a bit more.
3. You are not posting overall trends, you posted one trend that occurred completely after Britian had already banned guns. If you had put any effort into it, you would have compared American crime rates to Britain crime rates and seen that they are both declining despite one banning guns and the other unbanning assault weapons. (which you say now).
Here is a real trend for you:
I also never stated that Britain's violent crime was through the roof compared to it's past, I was pointing towards how high it was compared to the rest of the world.
The sentence to wrap it all up should be that before gobbling up all this 39 gun death in england bull shit from the media, you (not you in particular) should look at the real trends. At best the England gun ban, had 0 effect on the homicide rate, at worst well it may have had a negative effect.
2: Ahaha. Your source is literally the estimate of a blogger. Like, I checked the blog out, and it doesn't actually seem terrible, but what the
? And why did you link me to a poorly-delivered video instead of the actual source?3: Overall trends, not just "which is bigger". I didn't post those charts to say, "look, the English number is smaller than the American number". If I wanted to do that, I would have said something like, "the American homicide rate is four times that of the United Kingdom's", which I'll admit is just one crime rather than "violent crime" in general, but then, I'm not an internet blog, so I'm not qualified to make best-guesses at those kinds of numbers.
The point of those charts was that the numbers trend downward regardless of "the criminals will just ignore the gun laws" or "then people will just commit the same crimes without guns" rhetoric. The point of it was that your statement, "Britain banned guns, and their violent crime is through the roof." was bullshit. Violent crime in the UK peaked in 1995, their gun laws came in 1997 (when the rate was still high but down from 1995), and has dropped steadily ever since. American violent crime has also dropped over the same time period - as has American gun ownership, though there has seen an uptick since Obama took office.
Now despite all that, I actually agree that the emphasis some place on rifles is weird and misguided. So is the emphasis on preventing Newtown-style massacres over single homicides and self-inflicted/accidental incidences, though that's a lot more understandable. So is the fetishization of guns in y'all's culture and history (and, related to that, the fetishization of historical figures).
It feels like I should have one sentence to wrap this all up, but I can't think of anything.[/QUOTE]
1. This isn't MY argument, it is in response to the argument that "britain banned guns and only has 39 gun deaths!!!1!!111!".
2. There is no source that has broken down the data compatible with the FBI's way of counting violent crimes. Estimates do not show that Britain has less violent crime per capita, most show that it has quite a bit more.
3. You are not posting overall trends, you posted one trend that occurred completely after Britian had already banned guns. If you had put any effort into it, you would have compared American crime rates to Britain crime rates and seen that they are both declining despite one banning guns and the other unbanning assault weapons. (which you say now).
Here is a real trend for you:
I also never stated that Britain's violent crime was through the roof compared to it's past, I was pointing towards how high it was compared to the rest of the world.
The sentence to wrap it all up should be that before gobbling up all this 39 gun death in england bull shit from the media, you (not you in particular) should look at the real trends. At best the England gun ban, had 0 effect on the homicide rate, at worst well it may have had a negative effect.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']1. This isn't MY argument, it is in response to the argument that "britain banned guns and only has 39 gun deaths!!!1!!111!".[/QUOTE]Don't do that. Jesus, man. No.
[quote name='Knoell'] 2. There is no source that has broken down the data compatible with the FBI's way of counting violent crimes. Estimates do not show that Britain has less violent crime per capita, most show that it has quite a bit more.[/QUOTE]There is no source, so maybe bringing it up as a "response" might not be the best idea. Especially when the closest thing to a source - the one that you, ultimately, used in the very first place - later posted this update:
Generally speaking, putting up one chart with homicides/million people and another pure homicides isn't really a good way to compare trends. Especially when I can barely read the second one, butwhatever. The first chart is legitimately good. It shows that the homicide rate in England and Wales has followed the same basic trend of pretty much every other developed nation in the last few decades. Now, that link shows a somewhat different curve for the UK (which you can't discern at all when they're all together; you can see the nations separated here), putting the highest rates of "assault death" in the late 70s and, to a lesser extent, the early 90s, before the '97 law. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the discrepancy, but my assumption is that it is because the graph you posted is for only part of the country, whereas OECD covers the entirety of the United Kingdom. I guess. And for what it's worth, overall violent crime, which might be lower or higher or the same as it is in the US, matches up pretty well with the OECD data.
In conclusion! This England comparison is muddy and bad and you're making me feel muddy and bad and you should feel muddy and bad about that. If you think you've drawn a solid conclusion out of the whole mess, you should make sure you weren't holding it in your hand before you jumped into the bog in the first place.
[quote name='Knoell'] 2. There is no source that has broken down the data compatible with the FBI's way of counting violent crimes. Estimates do not show that Britain has less violent crime per capita, most show that it has quite a bit more.[/QUOTE]There is no source, so maybe bringing it up as a "response" might not be the best idea. Especially when the closest thing to a source - the one that you, ultimately, used in the very first place - later posted this update:
[quote name='Knoell']Snip[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking, putting up one chart with homicides/million people and another pure homicides isn't really a good way to compare trends. Especially when I can barely read the second one, but
whatever. The first chart is legitimately good. It shows that the homicide rate in England and Wales has followed the same basic trend of pretty much every other developed nation in the last few decades. Now, that link shows a somewhat different curve for the UK (which you can't discern at all when they're all together; you can see the nations separated here), putting the highest rates of "assault death" in the late 70s and, to a lesser extent, the early 90s, before the '97 law. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the discrepancy, but my assumption is that it is because the graph you posted is for only part of the country, whereas OECD covers the entirety of the United Kingdom. I guess. And for what it's worth, overall violent crime, which might be lower or higher or the same as it is in the US, matches up pretty well with the OECD data.In conclusion! This England comparison is muddy and bad and you're making me feel muddy and bad and you should feel muddy and bad about that. If you think you've drawn a solid conclusion out of the whole mess, you should make sure you weren't holding it in your hand before you jumped into the bog in the first place.
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
I can't even imagine a UK street gang. I'm sure they meet with rival gangs and enjoy tea and crumpets together. We got kids shooting each other in Chicago for looking at them wrong and your talking about England's crime rate with a 92% white demographic?
[quote name='The Crotch'] Your evidence doesnt mean anything, while mine does[/QUOTE]
That pretty much sums it up. The charts weren't meant to compare to each other, but to show the trend for each country in the last 50 years. They both show the same dips in homicides despite having drastic differences in gun control policy.
Your one link doesn't work for me btw.
[quote name='cfootball1']I can't even imagine a UK street gang. I'm sure they meet with rival gangs and enjoy tea and crumpets together. We got kids shooting each other in Chicago for looking at them wrong and your talking about England's crime rate with a 92% white demographic?[/QUOTE]
I will be nice here.
Yes, England has always had a historically low crime rate compared to the United States. The significance though is that England has banned the possession of firearms. Proponents of gun control (ie Piers Morgan) use England as their lead example of how much less violent England compared to the US since they banned guns. Violent crime rate has dropped very little in respect to the gun control legislation, and homicides have stayed the same, and have even gone up in certain years.
So we have England's gun control having no effect, except in the method of how people get killed.
We have D.C. having the lowest murder rate in 50 years despite the Supreme court throwing out the gun ban 5 years ago
We have Chicago simply bringing in guns from somewhere else, because criminals do not obey the law.
We have the assault weapons ban that expired a while back, and the crime rate didn't increase.
On the other hand, we see prime examples of entire populations slaughtered once the population is disarmed.
We have statistics that show surveys where a large number of people protect themselves with guns.
I wonder how many more innocent people would be dead had they not had a gun to protect them?
We have a constitutional right to have them. It doesn't matter that YOU don't see the need for them.
Believe it or not, the police react, they do not predict. They try their best, and they are very good at taking control of situations, but they simply can't know where they will be needed at all times. Leaving everyone's safety to them is unfair, and unrealistic.
So where in history are we seeing gun control as working?
That pretty much sums it up. The charts weren't meant to compare to each other, but to show the trend for each country in the last 50 years. They both show the same dips in homicides despite having drastic differences in gun control policy.
Your one link doesn't work for me btw.
[quote name='cfootball1']I can't even imagine a UK street gang. I'm sure they meet with rival gangs and enjoy tea and crumpets together. We got kids shooting each other in Chicago for looking at them wrong and your talking about England's crime rate with a 92% white demographic?[/QUOTE]
I will be nice here.
Yes, England has always had a historically low crime rate compared to the United States. The significance though is that England has banned the possession of firearms. Proponents of gun control (ie Piers Morgan) use England as their lead example of how much less violent England compared to the US since they banned guns. Violent crime rate has dropped very little in respect to the gun control legislation, and homicides have stayed the same, and have even gone up in certain years.
So we have England's gun control having no effect, except in the method of how people get killed.
We have D.C. having the lowest murder rate in 50 years despite the Supreme court throwing out the gun ban 5 years ago
We have Chicago simply bringing in guns from somewhere else, because criminals do not obey the law.
We have the assault weapons ban that expired a while back, and the crime rate didn't increase.
On the other hand, we see prime examples of entire populations slaughtered once the population is disarmed.
We have statistics that show surveys where a large number of people protect themselves with guns.
I wonder how many more innocent people would be dead had they not had a gun to protect them?
We have a constitutional right to have them. It doesn't matter that YOU don't see the need for them.
Believe it or not, the police react, they do not predict. They try their best, and they are very good at taking control of situations, but they simply can't know where they will be needed at all times. Leaving everyone's safety to them is unfair, and unrealistic.
So where in history are we seeing gun control as working?
Last edited by a moderator:
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
Hey I'm on your side I'm just saying you simply cannot even bring the UK into the discussion. Completely different in every way. Piers Morgan doesnt know what a Chicago street gang is and what they do.
Finger_Shocker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
You know if gun owners were just shooting other gun owners, it can be seen as karma ..
But when gun owners or havers begin pointing and using guns on unarmed or non-gun owners there is a problem that needs to be fixed
And we need to change the laws, CCW holding should be made illegal.. If you have a license to carry a weapon , you need to have it in FULL view at all times if you are carrying.. People have the right to know who is walking around with a loaded weapon, and to stay clear if they so choose.. Considering we have cases like these:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=concealed+weapon+accidentally+goes&oq=concealed+weapon+accidentally+goes&gs_l=hp.3...2893.12073.0.12264.36.27.1.8.9.0.273.3595.9j13j5.27.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.iPhcYJ1ysMY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dmQ&fp=3e58ffd4bb6095f6&biw=1366&bih=653
There are only one group of people who hide and conceal their weapons, they are always criminals.
But when gun owners or havers begin pointing and using guns on unarmed or non-gun owners there is a problem that needs to be fixed
And we need to change the laws, CCW holding should be made illegal.. If you have a license to carry a weapon , you need to have it in FULL view at all times if you are carrying.. People have the right to know who is walking around with a loaded weapon, and to stay clear if they so choose.. Considering we have cases like these:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=concealed+weapon+accidentally+goes&oq=concealed+weapon+accidentally+goes&gs_l=hp.3...2893.12073.0.12264.36.27.1.8.9.0.273.3595.9j13j5.27.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.iPhcYJ1ysMY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41248874,d.dmQ&fp=3e58ffd4bb6095f6&biw=1366&bih=653
There are only one group of people who hide and conceal their weapons, they are always criminals.
[quote name='MSI Magus']I had a random thought pop in my head this morning related to the whole gun violence thing and I cant decide if I like it or I think its idiotic.
What if we had police officers come to a school once a year and teach a gun safety course to children? I took one of these when I was like 14 and it made a world of difference in learning to respect guns. A course like this could also teach kids to help prevent shootings by recognizing signs of a shooter. Yes many schools already teach kids that skill, but I think if it was accompanied by a police officer teaching them about overall gun safety it would make them feel less like their school is at risk and they would be more likely to actually follow given advice.
Again not sure if this is a stupid idea. I could see it making guns more acceptable in society which I really hate! I could also see it meaning 30 years from now we have a higher % of adults that understand and respect guns(vs today where most people have very little). Maybe if 30 years from now we as a society had a true respect for firearms then we could if not eliminate them, finally start passing sensible laws.[/QUOTE]
We need more of this!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0
What if we had police officers come to a school once a year and teach a gun safety course to children? I took one of these when I was like 14 and it made a world of difference in learning to respect guns. A course like this could also teach kids to help prevent shootings by recognizing signs of a shooter. Yes many schools already teach kids that skill, but I think if it was accompanied by a police officer teaching them about overall gun safety it would make them feel less like their school is at risk and they would be more likely to actually follow given advice.
Again not sure if this is a stupid idea. I could see it making guns more acceptable in society which I really hate! I could also see it meaning 30 years from now we have a higher % of adults that understand and respect guns(vs today where most people have very little). Maybe if 30 years from now we as a society had a true respect for firearms then we could if not eliminate them, finally start passing sensible laws.[/QUOTE]
We need more of this!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
^ Ahh! That was what I was trying to embed in my post. Why the hell could I not get it to embed.
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']You know if gun owners were just shooting other gun owners, it can be seen as karma ..
But when gun owners or havers begin pointing and using guns on unarmed or non-gun owners there is a problem that needs to be fixed
[/QUOTE]
So wait, you are saying people who own guns deserve to be shot? It's karma? As if legallly owning a gun is doing something wrong?
Wow.
But when gun owners or havers begin pointing and using guns on unarmed or non-gun owners there is a problem that needs to be fixed
[/QUOTE]
So wait, you are saying people who own guns deserve to be shot? It's karma? As if legallly owning a gun is doing something wrong?
Wow.
[quote name='UncleBob']The obvious solution then, would be to make it a law that everyone has to own a firearm.
Then, when the gun owners are shooting other gun owners, it's karma.
When the gun owners are shooting non-owners, then they're just shooting criminals.
[/QUOTE]
:lol:
For some reason I think more than half of the opposition against guns are people like this. People who simply don't understand why you would need a gun, and they themselves don't desire a gun in the least.
And they will never understand why that means nothing.
Then, when the gun owners are shooting other gun owners, it's karma.
When the gun owners are shooting non-owners, then they're just shooting criminals.
[/QUOTE]:lol:
For some reason I think more than half of the opposition against guns are people like this. People who simply don't understand why you would need a gun, and they themselves don't desire a gun in the least.
And they will never understand why that means nothing.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
On mobile can't delete
Finger_Shocker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Hey guys you think the NRA will be issuing a statement on this?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-investigate-las-vegas-cop-killed-family/story?id=18287084
So who is going to stop when it is "good" guy with a gun?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-investigate-las-vegas-cop-killed-family/story?id=18287084
So who is going to stop when it is "good" guy with a gun?
cfootball1
CAGiversary!
Do we disarm police officers now? The military?
4thHorseman
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 91 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']:lol:
For some reason I think more than half of the opposition against guns are people like this. People who simply don't understand why you would need a gun, and they themselves don't desire a gun in the least.
And they will never understand why that means nothing.[/QUOTE]
Dont understand why you need a gun? You mean to fight the tyrannical dystopian government that doesnt exist? Because that tends to be the excuse that goes hand in hand with the second amendment argument...
For some reason I think more than half of the opposition against guns are people like this. People who simply don't understand why you would need a gun, and they themselves don't desire a gun in the least.
And they will never understand why that means nothing.[/QUOTE]
Dont understand why you need a gun? You mean to fight the tyrannical dystopian government that doesnt exist? Because that tends to be the excuse that goes hand in hand with the second amendment argument...
bread's done