Shooting of the Day
- Started
- Last post
- 2,785 Responses
- nb0
Also, why don't we allow guns on airplanes? Surely people would be much safer with these wonderful safety-devices concealed in their carry-on luggage. Think of all the lives we would save!!!
Idiots.
- zaq0
“A Harvard School of Public Health study finds ‘the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit... that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns... (and) that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes.’ The Harvard study also found, quote: ‘... there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.”
- Tell that to all of the guns nuts, they still will not believe you!utopian
- better yet tell that to people who successfully defended a home invasion.yurimon
- i am sure equally there cases with complications. so dont get your panties in a bunchyurimon
- lololol home invasion!. It's a break in ffs, not a war. This pseudo-military terminology is part of the problem.hans_glib
- @yurimon "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."nb
- That's the definition on wikipedia. Seek help.nb
- PonyBoy0
Are you kidding??
- calculator0
Yurimon - so glad I don't live in your world. So glad I don't live in your neighbourhood.
- You mean the US? Dont worry police state will catch up on everyone eventually.yurimon
- The world in your head. Your neighbourhood - the US.calculator
- @yurimon: Classic paranoid delusional thinking. Seek help, bro.nb
- you really are paranoid. most people who are, fail to see it. please, go take a long look in the mirror. or go get help..CanHasQBN
- yurimon0
- http://www.cchrint.o…yurimon
- How many do you think they would have killed with a knife?Morning_star
- the gun legislation goal isnt going to stop crime.antagonlsta
- qoob0
The funny thing is, I'm guessing everyone here, including yurimon and other people on the far right, supports some level of gun control by the government.
Not being able to carry a gun on a plane is a limitation of peoples' rights. Not being able to carry into a school is a limitation on rights. Not being able to own military weapons is a limitation.
So you've already accepted some limitations in the name of security. The question is what is the most best balance of rights and gun laws to protect rights but also keep people safe.
- the problem is when the military firearm cross into the civilian world.antagonlsta
- I guess military doesnt commit atrocities with weapons so its ok..yurimon
- Why does the Right so earnestly fund the military then? You'd never even CONSIDER cutting the military budget.CanHasQBN
- " military doesnt commit atrocities with weapons"
hahaha okmoldero - *the problem is when ANY firearms cross into the civilian world.see_thru
- antagonlsta0
@hereswhatidid
i presented this argument yesterday.
how do you regulate an estimated 189,000,000* semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, rifles and specialized/homemade firearms? (that the government has already deemed legal). Putting a ban on semi-automatics would create millions upon millions of criminals overnight. A moratorium would still need to happen for what could be debatably a lengthy amount of time.also you really can't use fire action (mechanic) as the identifying indicator. rate of fire on semi autos are built on a technology that's over 130 years old. The technology has effectively been implemented on all firearms that require a "one pull, one round" action. (which is the definition of semi-automatic)
to add, local law departments, state enforcement and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms itself have admittedly testified before Congress and the Senate that defining "assault rifle" would be difficult in any legislation drafted in which would need to draw clear distinction between semi automatic sport / and semi automatic assault / pera-military.
simply, the definition of "assault" is hard to define in the gun marketplace. is a semi automatic shotgun an assault firearm? They are very commonly used in sport. (even Olympic Winter Biathlon sport would be in violation)
Like i mentioned there should be a refinement on our gun laws. national registries don't do jack in preventing gun violence, and restrictions on concealment only stop law abiding citizens. Our laws don't stop 40% of gun sales under the trade show prevision. Forty percent!!
now, most of the conversation i read here falls under the "Ban *all* Guns" approach. I do not believe that is realistic approach to solve this problem and it is hard to take seriously when that mindset simply don't address that the guns are already out there and the law protect the ownership. a stalemate on this issue only perpetuates the gun laws already in effect. (and we need to ratify them).
(sorry for the wall of text)
- even though you go grilled yesterday, I found myself agreeing with you.....kirshar12
- got, sorry......kirshar12
- i did? ..antagonlsta
- I never said assault rifles. Ban any weapon capable of firing more than one shot without a manual ejection and reload.hereswhatidid
- And the "guns are already out there" argument is false. Block all future permits and do buy backs. Eventually they'll all be gone.hereswhatidid
- gone.hereswhatidid
- you still dont address the issue of 200+ million semi autos out there.antagonlsta
- Eventually they will go away when you can't buy them and they aren't being mass produced.hereswhatidid
- Please read what I actually wrote before leaping to a conclusion.hereswhatidid
- utopian0
- well thought out point utop.antagonlsta
- "i will SHOOT OFF MY BALLS if someone doesn't challenge me to Guitar Hero!!!"locustsloth
- Russell Brand?whhipp
- I knew you were gay. lolyurimon
- HAHA whippmoldero
- kirshar120
To me, a good baseline to start from in this debate would be to only legalize single-shot firearms, and proceed from there. By doing this, you not only satisfy the 2nd Amendment crowd (maybe not as well as they would like, but whatever), but it decreases the chances of a "legal" firearm being used very effectively in a mass killing.......
I only throw this out there because, like I said before, I don't agree with a blanket ban, but something does need to change. And I realize where I'm posting, so before I get the usual knee-jerk reactions, try to focus on the part where I said "a good baseline to start a debate" and not "I believe this should be law without any discussion"........
- kirshar120
^ And yeah, i realize that illegal guns will still be out there, but to use that excuse as a catch-all rebuttal to shutter any debate about banning is a bit lazy. Energy is better spent figuring out ways to make them "not out there" quite so much.......or at all......
- GeorgesII0
can't an outside country like china help the US get rid of their weapons,
maybe bring help bring some well needed democracy and order
- GeorgesII0
or even flying some drones to counter the insurgency of the armed militia?
- you suggest we use military force on american citizens? ..antagonlsta
- such a antagonista, I'm suggesting you should be liberated because apparently you can't govern yourselfGeorgesII
- Obama does.whhipp
- says a guy not living in america. ..antagonlsta
- albums0
Man attempts to open fire on crowd at movie theater, armed off-duty sergeant drops him
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/…- MAYAN 14 Cinema? Just trying to help his corporate overlords' prophecy to come true.bulletfactory
- yeah, thats a trained sergeant. not a civilian... even if he didn't have his uniform on.CanHasQBN
- CALLES0
ooh boy
