"Guns dont kill people....... people kill people"

"If guns are outlawed........only outlaws will have guns"

" I need guns because........my daddy secret touched me when I was 7"


What a bunch of fucking idiots.

We have a special task force working on new concepts and are open to suggestions.
How about:
When you only kill one they call you a murderer.
But when you kill thousands you are considered a Conqueror.
Don't lower your expectations.

Or

Pratice your killzone.

lawmakers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Guns dont kill people....... people kill
> people"
>
> "If guns are outlawed........only outlaws will
> have guns"
>
> " I need guns because........my daddy secret
> touched me when I was 7"
>
>
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.

Whazza matter? They didn't kiss Obama's ass did they? LOL!

There's a lot of fucked up things the liberals are trying to rain down in this gun debate but as a lifelong gun owner of 32 years of age, I will submit the following...

I've never seen or been out in the woods with another hunter with an automatic assault rifle. Never. And yet, these are the weapons of choice in most NOT ALL of these mass-shootings. I'd wholeheartedly support a ban on assault rifles and a limit to magazine sizes on semi-automatics but, you're not just taking ALL the guns out of the hands of private citizens.

The problem is...if the gun community gives ground and permits an assault rifle ban, the liberals won't stop there. They won't stop until ALL the guns are off the streets and that's just not the country that we live in...sorry.

Five Federal Gun-Mexican Drug Cartels Celebrate US Gun Control with you.....

lawmakers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Guns dont kill people....... people kill
> people"
>
> "If guns are outlawed........only outlaws will
> have guns"
>
> " I need guns because........my daddy secret
> touched me when I was 7"
>
>
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.

"Save the Whales"

"Think of the Children"

"Ban all Guns and Spare us the Violence"

You and your liberals are a bunch of fucking idiots too!

You start off a post with three defective, anti-gun war cries and can't even defend your disgust for those statements beyond an invective?

Did you know that "Dihydrogen Monoxide" (DHMO) is toxic? It is because it can cause serious skin burns as well as it being found inside cancerous tumors. What do we do then as a society? Ban DHMO?

Johnny Gunner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a lot of fucked up things the liberals are
> trying to rain down in this gun debate but as a
> lifelong gun owner of 32 years of age, I will
> submit the following...
>
> I've never seen or been out in the woods with
> another hunter with an automatic assault rifle.
> Never. And yet, these are the weapons of choice in
> most NOT ALL of these mass-shootings. I'd
> wholeheartedly support a ban on assault rifles and
> a limit to magazine sizes on semi-automatics but,
> you're not just taking ALL the guns out of the
> hands of private citizens.
>
> The problem is...if the gun community gives ground
> and permits an assault rifle ban, the liberals
> won't stop there. They won't stop until ALL the
> guns are off the streets and that's just not the
> country that we live in...sorry.


AR-15s were only used in 3.5% of all murders, mass or otherwise.

The second amendment was not written for hunters.

"Did you know that "Dihydrogen Monoxide" (DHMO) is toxic? It is because it can cause serious skin burns as well as it being found inside cancerous tumors. What do we do then as a society? Ban DHMO?"

OK, that's something else that needs to go. "[fill in the blank] kills people. So what do we do, ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.

You gun nuts really lack creativity.

lawmakers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Guns dont kill people....... people kill
> people"
>
> "If guns are outlawed........only outlaws will
> have guns"
>
> " I need guns because........my daddy secret
> touched me when I was 7"
>
>
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.


This is where the libs start to melt down. They know that they cannot offer a solution to the problem that will work so they attack the slogans and make personal attacks. But notice that this moron offers no solution to the problem.

Here we go again... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, that's something else that needs to go. "[fill
> in the blank] kills people. So what do we do,
> ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.

Could you please explain why you think this is the "stupidest argument yet"? Do you have any explanation for it or are you just talking out your ass because you have one?

Again, you're making brash statements and not willing to discuss your reasons.

.
Attachments:

I guess this is some new material at least.
Attachments:

lawmakers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Guns dont kill people....... people kill
> people"
>
> "If guns are outlawed........only outlaws will
> have guns"
>
> " I need guns because........my daddy secret
> touched me when I was 7"
>
>
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.

No. 2 is true. The criminals will find a way to get guns. I heard of an English police officer that warned about it.

You forgot one:

Cars kill [insert number] of people per year. Should we ban cars, too?

Look Deeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Gunner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's a lot of fucked up things the liberals
> are
> > trying to rain down in this gun debate but as a
> > lifelong gun owner of 32 years of age, I will
> > submit the following...
> >
> > I've never seen or been out in the woods with
> > another hunter with an automatic assault rifle.
> > Never. And yet, these are the weapons of choice
> in
> > most NOT ALL of these mass-shootings. I'd
> > wholeheartedly support a ban on assault rifles
> and
> > a limit to magazine sizes on semi-automatics
> but,
> > you're not just taking ALL the guns out of the
> > hands of private citizens.
> >
> > The problem is...if the gun community gives
> ground
> > and permits an assault rifle ban, the liberals
> > won't stop there. They won't stop until ALL the
> > guns are off the streets and that's just not
> the
> > country that we live in...sorry.
>
>
> AR-15s were only used in 3.5% of all murders, mass
> or otherwise.

Do you have a citation on that statistic?

JoeBob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > OK, that's something else that needs to go.
> "[fill
> > in the blank] kills people. So what do we do,
> > ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.
>
> Could you please explain why you think this is the
> "stupidest argument yet"? Do you have any
> explanation for it or are you just talking out
> your ass because you have one?
>
> Again, you're making brash statements and not
> willing to discuss your reasons.

Thank you for your polite inquiry. But if you can't figure this out for yourself, there is no point in me trying to explain it to you. I thought about trying, but there's really just no point.

Johnny Gunner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look Deeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnny Gunner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There's a lot of fucked up things the
> liberals
> > are
> > > trying to rain down in this gun debate but as
> a
> > > lifelong gun owner of 32 years of age, I will
> > > submit the following...
> > >
> > > I've never seen or been out in the woods with
> > > another hunter with an automatic assault
> rifle.
> > > Never. And yet, these are the weapons of
> choice
> > in
> > > most NOT ALL of these mass-shootings. I'd
> > > wholeheartedly support a ban on assault
> rifles
> > and
> > > a limit to magazine sizes on semi-automatics
> > but,
> > > you're not just taking ALL the guns out of
> the
> > > hands of private citizens.
> > >
> > > The problem is...if the gun community gives
> > ground
> > > and permits an assault rifle ban, the
> liberals
> > > won't stop there. They won't stop until ALL
> the
> > > guns are off the streets and that's just not
> > the
> > > country that we live in...sorry.
> >
> >
> > AR-15s were only used in 3.5% of all murders,
> mass
> > or otherwise.
>
> Do you have a citation on that statistic?


Of course, but I misquoted. 3.5% of murders were commited with a rifle, some of which were AR-15s.

http://www.shwat.com/ArticleIndex/tabid/85/EntryId/76/-Gun-Control-Why-We-Care-About-Magazine-Capacity-Semi-Auto-Actions-and-More.aspx

Here ia an excertp:

AR-15 and Other Semi-Automatic Rifles

Let’s look at the numbers. Are the AR-15 or other semi-auto rifles as dangerous and the source of as many murders as some in the media and politics would lead us to believe? The facts are that AR-15 rifles simply aren’t used to commit murder very often. For that matter, rifles in general are not commonly used in this context.

According to the FBI, there were 58,604 murders in the US over the five-year period covering 2005 through 2009. Of those, 2,064 were committed with rifles. That’s only 3.5% of murders. And not all of those rifles were AR-15s.

Compare that to the 9,280 murders committed using knives or bladed objects (4 ½ times the use of rifles) and the 4,291 murders committed using “hands, fists, feet, etc” (2 times the use of rifles). So, are we supposed to ban all knives, bladed objects, hands, fists, feet, and other unnamed body parts?

Clearly not, but then there is no logical way to say that the AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifles are more dangerous than blades, hands or feet. This remains true even if you argue that the gun is the real problem, not the person. It’s simple logic and simple math.

Be careful when you open that link, there is a extremely ugly picture you might not want your kids of family to see.

Here we go again... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeBob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here we go again... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > OK, that's something else that needs to go.
> > "[fill
> > > in the blank] kills people. So what do we do,
> > > ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.
> >
> > Could you please explain why you think this is
> the
> > "stupidest argument yet"? Do you have any
> > explanation for it or are you just talking out
> > your ass because you have one?
> >
> > Again, you're making brash statements and not
> > willing to discuss your reasons.
>
> Thank you for your polite inquiry. But if you
> can't figure this out for yourself, there is no
> point in me trying to explain it to you. I thought
> about trying, but there's really just no point.

Who am I to figure you out? That's why I am asking you to explain the reasoning behind your statements.

Thinking about trying and actually doing it are two different things. If you put the effort to make your view known, then at least I can then try to understand. Unlike most gun nuts that I know, I am a reasonable person.

JoeBob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JoeBob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Here we go again... Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > OK, that's something else that needs to go.
> > > "[fill
> > > > in the blank] kills people. So what do we
> do,
> > > > ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.
> > >
> > > Could you please explain why you think this
> is
> > the
> > > "stupidest argument yet"? Do you have any
> > > explanation for it or are you just talking
> out
> > > your ass because you have one?
> > >
> > > Again, you're making brash statements and not
> > > willing to discuss your reasons.
> >
> > Thank you for your polite inquiry. But if you
> > can't figure this out for yourself, there is no
> > point in me trying to explain it to you. I
> thought
> > about trying, but there's really just no point.
>
> Who am I to figure you out? That's why I am
> asking you to explain the reasoning behind your
> statements.
>
> Thinking about trying and actually doing it are
> two different things. If you put the effort to
> make your view known, then at least I can then try
> to understand. Unlike most gun nuts that I know,
> I am a reasonable person.


You are asking him to defend the indefensible. He is just babbling feel-good jibberish.

Look Deeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are asking him to defend the indefensible. He
> is just babbling feel-good jibberish.

At least I am giving him the chance to defend. The Second Amendment isn't the only thing that I hold dear to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2013 06:07PM by JoeBob.

JoeBob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look Deeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You are asking him to defend the indefensible.
> He
> > is just babbling feel-good jibberish.
>
> At least I am giving him the chance to defend.
> The Second Amendment isn't the only thing that I
> hold dear to me.


then go join a militia and masturbate over your guns with them

Johnny Gunner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a lot of fucked up things the liberals are
> trying to rain down in this gun debate but as a
> lifelong gun owner of 32 years of age, I will
> submit the following...
>
> I've never seen or been out in the woods with
> another hunter with an automatic assault rifle.
> Never. And yet, these are the weapons of choice in
> most NOT ALL of these mass-shootings. I'd
> wholeheartedly support a ban on assault rifles and
> a limit to magazine sizes on semi-automatics but,
> you're not just taking ALL the guns out of the
> hands of private citizens.
>
> The problem is...if the gun community gives ground
> and permits an assault rifle ban, the liberals
> won't stop there. They won't stop until ALL the
> guns are off the streets and that's just not the
> country that we live in...sorry.


Clearly youre full of BS. AUTOMATIC Rifles havent been used since the LA bank robbery in the 90s. Nice try though

Here we go again... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Did you know that "Dihydrogen Monoxide" (DHMO) is
> toxic? It is because it can cause serious skin
> burns as well as it being found inside cancerous
> tumors. What do we do then as a society? Ban
> DHMO?"
>
> OK, that's something else that needs to go. "[fill
> in the blank] kills people. So what do we do,
> ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.
>
> You gun nuts really lack creativity.

Wow, you completely missed the boat. Dihydrogen monoxide is the same thing as water.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2013 12:00AM by Young Curmudgeon.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Did you know that "Dihydrogen Monoxide" (DHMO)
> is
> > toxic? It is because it can cause serious skin
> > burns as well as it being found inside
> cancerous
> > tumors. What do we do then as a society? Ban
> > DHMO?"
> >
> > OK, that's something else that needs to go.
> "[fill
> > in the blank] kills people. So what do we do,
> > ban[whatever]?" Stupidest argument yet.
> >
> > You gun nuts really lack creativity.
>
> Wow, you completely missed the boat. Dihydrogen
> monoxide is the same thing as water.

Yep, he missed the boat.

I find it funny that the anti-gunners like to cry "Guns kill people! Ban all guns". It's like his argument is gold, but anything else that fits that style of argument is a lack of creativity on a pro-2A's part.

Bottom line: he likes how he thinks, but hates it when we fire back with the same words. Again, he is framing the issue in order to win his bigger argument.

only gunnuts say, or choose to hear, "Guns kill people! Ban all guns" when consistently shown their failed logic

their only defense is to try to dumb-down the conversation to a 4th grade level

70% of the country understands even the most basic logic, but it continues to escape gunnuts from the nra down to posters on ffu

y6WpJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> only gunnuts say, or choose to hear, "Guns kill
> people! Ban all guns" when consistently shown
> their failed logic
>
> their only defense is to try to dumb-down the
> conversation to a 4th grade level
>
> 70% of the country understands even the most basic
> logic, but it continues to escape gunnuts from the
> nra down to posters on ffu

STFU and go back to your momma, boy. Don't say anything when adults are talking. You don't have the slightest clue on what you're talking about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2013 02:34AM by JoeBob.

y6WpJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> only gunnuts say, or choose to hear, "Guns kill
> people! Ban all guns" when consistently shown
> their failed logic
>
> their only defense is to try to dumb-down the
> conversation to a 4th grade level
>
> 70% of the country understands even the most basic
> logic, but it continues to escape gunnuts from the
> nra down to posters on ffu


Yea such a convincing argument you made there. The argument being at a 4th grade level would be far to kind for the anti gun people.

You cant pick and choose amendments.

Ive yet to hear 1 good reason why a rifle should be banned other than they kill people.

CDC and DOJ concluded that the previous ban had no effect on crime yet that doesnt seem to matter.

If saving kids was the goal abortion is a far greater killer of kids.

Handguns kill more people than rifles why arent you going after those?

A ban that grandfathers old ones in leaves them everywhere.

What this is really about is more control over the citizenry. First its the assault weapons ban then slowly the rest get phased over time and then no more 2nd amendment. Go ask russia and germany how disarming of the public worked out.

no youre not Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go ask russia and germany how
> disarming of the public worked out.

germany is the richest country in europe and is fine

japan ALLOWS gun ownership yet had 38 deaths due to guns last year

Britain is doing great

and so many more


It is too complicated to explain to gunnnuts, they do not understand reality and how disarming the USA public would work out perfectly in the long run - how at first, yes, criminals would have illegal weapons, but for a short time

they can not accept that a simple tazer can make a gun obsolete and many other substitutes for self-defense, which are actually BETTER at protecting people

they will never accept that hunting arms should be stored and kept, only to be checked out for limited times to go hunting by the owners - REAL gun owners would have no problem with each county or town having multiple places that stores all hunting fire-arms

this country will disarm the public, not anytime soon, but any measure to start the ball rolling will be great

in the end, no matter what people think now - the USA will only have our military and police armed and similar groups

it will happen, it is just common sense that in time our country will be gun free (for you idiots - hunting and sport shooting will be here, just read above on where the guns will be held)

30 years - 50 or 100, it will happen, so enjoy your rock throwing toys while you can

yes, some of the hunting and sport guns will be checked out and used to murder, but the number of gun related homicides will be 50 per year verse 12,000

Banning guns, as with any Prohibition, won't work.

Ban gun owners instead.

And that is not kidding.

Require training and review of gun owners; require safe storage for all guns and sworn statements by gun owners about them; jail any gun owner who lies.

No need to INVENTORY guns by the Government - the Government can simply assume EVERYONE owns guns and go from there.

"A well-regulated militia" - trained, reviewed, certified. Own anything they want but own responsibly, something which we obviously don't have now.

Actually, give that a suggestion a try. It is worth the enlightenment for your own peace of mind. Make no mistake about it, there is only one reason to disarm the citizens of America. You won't like the answer, so I won't shock and try to disturb you here, but I encourage you to read history (actual, unadulterated history) and FIND OUT THE ANSWER. Find out for yourself what you are really supporting; it may not be what you want to support after all.

Please do not force what you THINK you want on others at the risk of taking away Liberty.

I just do not like guns, but I found out why guns were a tool to maintenance and assure peace, and found out that disarming me as a citizen and all other citizens offered anything but peace. It is our duty as an American to keep this country on the track it was built upon. Not following the Crown, but of being a Free and Liberated Country. Is this what you are willing to sacrifice?

Why do you think the Brits are so concerned with America's gun control? The same reason they have always been concerned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un_f9hPsJkE&noredirect=1
It is not the guns; no more than it is the cars, or anything else, it is the one holding the gun and working to disarm others. Correct your brainwashing before it is too late.

America, the UN will take your guns away
Uploaded on Dec 16, 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zP7_koRXQ

Hillary Clinton has committed to the UN Small Arms Treaty! What Americans don't realize is that in the U.S. Constitution there is a clause which states that treaties will trump it.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

An example of deceptive leftist intentions:

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” — Adolph Hitler

Governments and outlaws, no pun intended, won’t give up their guns, and neither should “we the people.”

http://lubbockonline.com/editorial-letters/2013-01-05/letter-americans-should-not-give-their-guns

Is there a militia in this area? How does one contact them?

WhereHowabba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a militia in this area? How does one
> contact them?


The VDF is always looking for new members.
Thank you in advance for your service to this country.

http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/

WhereHowabba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a militia in this area? How does one
> contact them?

Read the Virginia Constitution dumbass.

What no liberals will admit is that banning guns will increase crime on women. Look at India... they do not have single guys with guns raping a woman, they travel in packs of five or six to overpower her, then they take turns with her for hours in a secluded area. So would you rather be raped by one guy who runs away, or six guys that stick around for more?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/mother-of-indian-rape-victim-calls-for-death-penalty-for-all-suspects/2013/01/13/c25fb500-5d5a-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html?tid=pm_pop


New York state hates guns but does nothing while retarded children are raped in classrooms... yeah that's the "American Way" as liberals see it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261576/Mentally-challenged-girl-15-gang-raped-desk-class-teacher-did-NOTHING.html

Actually, TomJefferson, that is a really good start... have you read it lately? It has not changed and remains as powerful as it was when written. The Constitution does direct us (dumbasses) to have a militia... :)

y6WpJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> only gunnuts say, or choose to hear, "Guns kill
> people! Ban all guns" when consistently shown
> their failed logic
>
> their only defense is to try to dumb-down the
> conversation to a 4th grade level
>
> 70% of the country understands even the most basic
> logic, but it continues to escape gunnuts from the
> nra down to posters on ffu

Then why do the majority of Americans oppose more gun control?

EnUnN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is too complicated to explain to gunnnuts, they
> do not understand reality and how disarming the
> USA public would work out perfectly in the long
> run - how at first, yes, criminals would have
> illegal weapons, but for a short time

Criminals are going to always violate the law, regardless of what it is. The same argument could have been made for weed. Criminals still have it.


> they can not accept that a simple tazer can make a
> gun obsolete and many other substitutes for
> self-defense, which are actually BETTER at
> protecting people

A taser (notice correct spelling) does not make a gun obsolete. Some people can resist the effects of tasers. Tasers honestly suck as defense weapons. Outside of a few feet, they're worthless. Like it or not, you can't resist the effects of a 9mm or .45 ACP.


> they will never accept that hunting arms should be
> stored and kept, only to be checked out for
> limited times to go hunting by the owners - REAL
> gun owners would have no problem with each county
> or town having multiple places that stores all
> hunting fire-arms

That's called an armory. Many areas have that. However, it's for military weapons. I have a problem with it because it infringes on Constitutional rights. "The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms..."


> this country will disarm the public, not anytime
> soon, but any measure to start the ball rolling
> will be great
> in the end, no matter what people think now - the
> USA will only have our military and police armed
> and similar groups

Absolutely not, the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. No matter how hard Feinstein and the other left-wing nutjobs try, guns won't be banned. Public opinion is against it.


> it will happen, it is just common sense that in
> time our country will be gun free (for you idiots
> - hunting and sport shooting will be here, just
> read above on where the guns will be held
> 30 years - 50 or 100, it will happen, so enjoy
> your rock throwing toys while you can

If the government tries it, there will be another Civil War.


> yes, some of the hunting and sport guns will be
> checked out and used to murder, but the number of
> gun related homicides will be 50 per year verse
> 12,000


It's clear you don't own guns or understand the responsibility inherent in owning one. I don't own one, but I appreciate the reasoning behind it AND the responsibility inherent in owning one.

by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

[Editor's note: A version of this piece was published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous than guns." ]

What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.

whydoyouthink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics,
> University of Chicago
>
> [Editor's note: A version of this piece was
> published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 28,
> 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous than
> guns." ]
>
> What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun?
> When it comes to children, there is no comparison:
> a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
>
> In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are
> available), 742 children under the age of 10
> drowned in the United States last year alone.
> Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75
> percent of the total — occurred in residential
> swimming pools. According to the most recent
> statistics, there are about six million
> residential pools, meaning that one young child
> drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
>
> About 175 children under the age of 10 died in
> 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of
> those deaths were homicides. There are an
> estimated 200 million guns in the United States.
> Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed
> by guns for every one million guns.
>
> Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a
> swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool
> is about 100 times more likely to kill a child
> than the gun is.

omg you and your facts! liberals will not stand for such logic! 100 times more than what? Did klebold walk into columbine with a swimming pool? no. case closed.

what we need to do is make killing people illegal.

whydoyouthink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics,
> University of Chicago
>
> [Editor's note: A version of this piece was
> published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 28,
> 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous than
> guns." ]
>
> What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun?
> When it comes to children, there is no comparison:
> a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
>
> In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are
> available), 742 children under the age of 10
> drowned in the United States last year alone.
> Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75
> percent of the total — occurred in residential
> swimming pools. According to the most recent
> statistics, there are about six million
> residential pools, meaning that one young child
> drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
>
> About 175 children under the age of 10 died in
> 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of
> those deaths were homicides. There are an
> estimated 200 million guns in the United States.
> Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed
> by guns for every one million guns.
>
> Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a
> swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool
> is about 100 times more likely to kill a child
> than the gun is.


Same nonsensical argument over and over. "cars kill, should we ban cars?"
"Pools kill, should we ban pools?" and so on.


We NEED to ban guns period. Yes it may take 150 years to round up half of them but we have to start somewhere.

The New American male. You boys act like they were going to cut your dicks off. Probably half of you would let them snip away to keep your precious guns. Let's see who rises to this occasion.
And fannypacks or man purses. Seriously?
I think any man who carries a gun is the real vagina.

Chicken Salad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The New American male. You boys act like they were
> going to cut your dicks off. Probably half of you
> would let them snip away to keep your precious
> guns. Let's see who rises to this occasion.
> And fannypacks or man purses. Seriously?
> I think any man who carries a gun is the real
> vagina.

yeah! like cops and soldiers! fucking pussies! trying to protect themselves and this country and shit. they got some fucking nerve!!!!! pussies. grab a rock like the good old days when no one hurt anyone until guns were invented! pussies.

i agree with you 10% cuz you're smart.

I carry a gun at all times because I am a big pussy.

right over yer head Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whydoyouthink Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics,
> > University of Chicago
> >
> > [Editor's note: A version of this piece was
> > published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 28,
> > 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous than
> > guns." ]
> >
> > What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a
> gun?
> > When it comes to children, there is no
> comparison:
> > a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
> >
> > In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are
> > available), 742 children under the age of 10
> > drowned in the United States last year alone.
> > Approximately 550 of those drownings — about
> 75
> > percent of the total — occurred in
> residential
> > swimming pools. According to the most recent
> > statistics, there are about six million
> > residential pools, meaning that one young child
> > drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
> >
> > About 175 children under the age of 10 died in
> > 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of
> > those deaths were homicides. There are an
> > estimated 200 million guns in the United
> States.
> > Doing the math, there is roughly one child
> killed
> > by guns for every one million guns.
> >
> > Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have
> a
> > swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming
> pool
> > is about 100 times more likely to kill a child
> > than the gun is.
>
>
> Same nonsensical argument over and over. "cars
> kill, should we ban cars?"
> "Pools kill, should we ban pools?" and so on.

The nonsensical argument comes from the left. The real concern should be to prevent deaths, actually postpone deaths, because everyone eventually dies. If cars or pools or anything else are the major cause of deaths, we should strive to make them safer. Not ban them but continue to improve their safety. The left is not concerned with saving lives, they are an emotional bunch only concerned with what is in the news today. Guns are not the device that kills the most, let's put our resources into something that will really work and save the most lives.


> We NEED to ban guns period. Yes it may take 150
> years to round up half of them but we have to
> start somewhere.

This will not work. It didn't work in prohibition when alcohol was banned. Once a technology like alcohol or guns is in the public domain and is then banned, it will continue to be produced illegally underground making it more dangerous. Libs are quick to point this out with abortion. If we ban abortion then it will go to the "back alley" and be more dangerous. It probably will because that technology is also in the public domain. It works both ways.

conservtard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I carry a gun at all times because I am a big
> pussy.


At least you are honest about it. Most gun carry guys are fags or pussys.

I dont own a single firearm and dont ever intend to. However, I dont think any sort of gun control should not be passed. The bigger problem in this nation is the mental health care sytem, lets face it, it is broken. All of these shooters have had one thing in common and that is a major psychological issues.


The U.S. does have a problem with firearm violence but most homocides via guns are in urban areas that suffer from extremely high crime rates such as rape, robbery, aggrivated assault ect. If you were to take Chicago, Detroit, Mephis, Baltimore, Oakland, DC, PG county and a few dozen other cities it would account for well over 2/3 of all firearm related deaths. There is something to be said about that. Crack down on crime with federal assistance in those areas and you would see the murder rate in this country drop drastically. But ghettos are often ignored and will be for years to come.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011/05/CDC-US-murder-toll-from-guns-highest-in-big-cities/47159990/1

If someone wants to go out and purchase any sort of firearm they should be free to do so without any further limitations. My opinion is the constitution is the law of the land and politicians should abide by it no matter what their own view point is.

Firearm owners should use common sense, keep your guns locked up and they wont be stolen or end up in the hands of a nutty family member such as the Lanza kid. But, a nut is a nut and if it is not a gun they will use something else.

Interesting data-

http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/

Brady Act - No effect. Even proponents concede acceptance of null hypothesis as far as any correlation with gun-related deaths and/or violent crime.

Assault Weapons Ban - No effect. Even proponents concede acceptance of null hypothesis as far as any correlation with gun-related deaths and/or violent crime.

CA State assault weapons restrictions - Prior to they had about 8-10 deaths using assault weapons (within their definition including all of tactical-sytle rifles, shotguns, pistols), they have about 8-10 after.

Useless Feelgood Happy Pills Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brady Act - No effect. Even proponents concede
> acceptance of null hypothesis as far as any
> correlation with gun-related deaths and/or violent
> crime.
>
> Assault Weapons Ban - No effect. Even proponents
> concede acceptance of null hypothesis as far as
> any correlation with gun-related deaths and/or
> violent crime.
>
> CA State assault weapons restrictions - Prior to
> they had about 8-10 deaths using assault weapons
> (within their definition including all of
> tactical-sytle rifles, shotguns, pistols), they
> have about 8-10 after.


You are 98% wrong.

office of reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Useless Feelgood Happy Pills Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Brady Act - No effect. Even proponents concede
> > acceptance of null hypothesis as far as any
> > correlation with gun-related deaths and/or
> violent
> > crime.
> >
> > Assault Weapons Ban - No effect. Even
> proponents
> > concede acceptance of null hypothesis as far as
> > any correlation with gun-related deaths and/or
> > violent crime.
> >
> > CA State assault weapons restrictions - Prior
> to
> > they had about 8-10 deaths using assault
> weapons
> > (within their definition including all of
> > tactical-sytle rifles, shotguns, pistols), they
> > have about 8-10 after.
>
>
> You are 98% wrong.


Any evidence or just talking out your ass?

office of reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are 98% wrong.



No, actually I'm not wrong.

See, for example, the most comprehensive peer-reviewed study of the Brady Act:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946#qundefined

Other than the firearm-related suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older, they find no association with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates as a result of implementing the Act. Note that the authors very clearly are not pro-gun advocates. They just presented an update at the day-long anti-gun meeting that Bloomberg, et. al., held the other day with same results.

Dr. Feelgood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> office of reality Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You are 98% wrong.
>
>
>
> No, actually I'm not wrong.
>
> See, for example, the most comprehensive
> peer-reviewed study of the Brady Act:
>
> http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid
> =192946#qundefined
>

Conclusions Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. However, the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets.

Hardly a ringing condemnation of the Brady Act.

Knower Of Things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Feelgood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > office of reality Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > You are 98% wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > No, actually I'm not wrong.
> >
> > See, for example, the most comprehensive
> > peer-reviewed study of the Brady Act:
> >
> >
> http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid
>
> > =192946#qundefined
> >
>
> Conclusions Based on the assumption that the
> greatest reductions in fatal violence would be
> within states that were required to institute
> waiting periods and background checks,
> implementation of the Brady Act appears to have
> been associated with reductions in the firearm
> suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older
> but not with reductions in homicide rates or
> overall suicide rates. However, the pattern of
> implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a
> reliable analysis of a potential effect of
> reductions in the flow of guns from
> treatment-state gun dealers into secondary
> markets.
>
> Hardly a ringing condemnation of the Brady Act.


Didn't say that it was a condemnation of the Act. They are anti-gun advocates and good statisticians. They will not say that.

What it does say that based on all of the various analyses that they can do relative to the association of the implementation of the Act and gun-related deaths, injuries, suicide, etc., there is no valid correlation that they can demonstrate.

Same for virtually all good quality studies that have been done by NAS, CDC, etc., e.g.,:

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

"The Task Force found the evidence available from identified studies was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed singly or in combination."

Which is stats-speak for there was no demonstrable effect for any aspect analyzed.

Likewise, CA's stats for death incidents associated with "assault weapons" before and after are easily found if you want to look. Again, no demonstrable effect.

Dr. Feelgood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What it does say that based on all of the various
> analyses that they can do relative to the
> association of the implementation of the Act and
> gun-related deaths, injuries, suicide, etc., there
> is no valid correlation that they can demonstrate.

Using 2000 census data, a decrease in gun-related deaths amongst persons +54 years of age of 0.92 per 100,000 would mean that the Brady Act saves +/- 545 lives per year.

I would call that a significant impact.

Knower Of Things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Feelgood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What it does say that based on all of the
> various
> > analyses that they can do relative to the
> > association of the implementation of the Act
> and
> > gun-related deaths, injuries, suicide, etc.,
> there
> > is no valid correlation that they can
> demonstrate.
>
> Using 2000 census data, a decrease in gun-related
> deaths amongst persons +54 years of age of 0.92
> per 100,000 would mean that the Brady Act saves
> +/- 545 lives per year.
>
> I would call that a significant impact.

Wait, thats saved 545 people over the age of 54?

And why?

The old are a burden on our society that will be taking all our Obamacare resources.

End bans that save the old f-s!

Libbys Old Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait, thats saved 545 people over the age of 54?
>
> And why?
>
> The old are a burden on our society that will be
> taking all our Obamacare resources.
>
> End bans that save the old f-s!

There's the compassion we've come to expect from you Connies.

Knower Of Things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Feelgood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What it does say that based on all of the
> various
> > analyses that they can do relative to the
> > association of the implementation of the Act
> and
> > gun-related deaths, injuries, suicide, etc.,
> there
> > is no valid correlation that they can
> demonstrate.
>
> Using 2000 census data, a decrease in gun-related
> deaths amongst persons +54 years of age of 0.92
> per 100,000 would mean that the Brady Act saves
> +/- 545 lives per year.
>
> I would call that a significant impact.


No, actually it does not "prove" even that. It simply shows some marginally statistically valid reduction in the rates before and after. Very well could be, but this study does not "prove" that. It further doesn't prove that all of the suggested marginal change is associated with the Act (i.e., there very well may be other active factors not analyzed) or attempt to quantify what amount of that reduction was associated with the Act. Neither were tested.

Furthermore, the active hypothesis for passing a law is that it serves the primary intended purpose(s). unless the Act was designed to reduce the suicide rate among the over-55 age group, which it was not, then the law does not very well serve its intended purpose. Therefore, the hypothesis that the Act has served its intended purpose(s) fails.

Dr. Feelgood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, actually it does not "prove" even that. It
> simply shows some marginally statistically valid
> reduction in the rates before and after. Very
> well could be, but this study does not "prove"
> that. It further doesn't prove that all of the
> suggested marginal change is associated with the
> Act (i.e., there very well may be other active
> factors not analyzed) or attempt to quantify what
> amount of that reduction was associated with the
> Act. Neither were tested.

I did not use the word 'prove'. I calculated the number of lives potentially not lost to gun violence annually based upon the statistical results of the study.

> Furthermore, the active hypothesis for passing a
> law is that it serves the primary intended
> purpose(s). unless the Act was designed to reduce
> the suicide rate among the over-55 age group,
> which it was not, then the law does not very well
> serve its intended purpose.

So reducing the incidence of gun-related deaths, injuries, suicide, etc. among the over-55 age group was specifically excluded from the intended purpose of the ACT? Really? I had no idea.

Deluded Connie Logic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libbys Old Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wait, thats saved 545 people over the age of 54?
>
> >
> > And why?
> >
> > The old are a burden on our society that will
> be
> > taking all our Obamacare resources.
> >
> > End bans that save the old f-s!
>
> There's the compassion we've come to expect from
> you Connies.

Libbys, the first to make a wise-crack and the last to get the joke.

Knower of Things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I did not use the word 'prove'. I calculated the
> number of lives potentially not lost to gun
> violence annually based upon the statistical
> results of the study.
>
> > Furthermore, the active hypothesis for passing
> a
> > law is that it serves the primary intended
> > purpose(s). unless the Act was designed to
> reduce
> > the suicide rate among the over-55 age group,
> > which it was not, then the law does not very
> well
> > serve its intended purpose.
>

You did not. That was my term given the way that people generally interpret such things. I didn't say that part as well as I might have.

What is shows it that statistical analysis of the data show that there MAY BE
some degree of association, not that there is. As they say in the businsess, further funding would be required to determine that.

In contrast, they cannot say even that is true for any of the other variables examined given that there appears to be no correlation.

You did go a little too far in assuming that the number of gun-related suicides necessarily indicates that those lives were "saved" given that numerous studies re gun-related suicide done in Canada, Japan, Australia following restrictions implemented on firearms demonstrate that, largely, people simply substitute some other means. That is, the gun-related rate decreases, as expected; however, the overall rate does not decrease. That applies to other methods as well. When you, for example, make it harder for people to jump off of bridges or have a campaign to stop them from poisoning themselves using some popular method, they just hang themselves instead. People intent in offing themselves typically do and that represents the bulk of suicides as opposed to much less common transient suicide events where some loser's girlfriend leaves him and he does a handful of oxy and gets drunk and offs himself. Bottom line, the analysis did not address the degree to which lives actually were saved.

Although I have no data to support the conclusion, if I had to guess, then I'd expect that the over 55 result would be due to both of the representative number within that group being excluded by general restrictions (felony convictions, alien status, etc.) equal to their number in the general population and, possibly, due to a larger degree by restrictions specifically on those with mental health restrictions which affected their ability to buy the gun. Again, doesn't address how many may have done it some other way. Likely may have saved some of the transient, less motivated within that group.


> So reducing the incidence of gun-related deaths,
> injuries, suicide, etc. among the over-55 age
> group was specifically excluded from the intended
> purpose of the ACT? Really? I had no idea.


No, it very obviously was not "specifically excluded" and nobody said such. You've tried to twist it to the absurd. That certainly was not the primary objective of the Act nor the basis on which it was enacted with respect to keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals and reducing the overall rates of gun-related crime and death.

And if you actually do want to address the over-55 rate of suicide specifically, then there very likely are other ways to do that more effectively on a more direct basis.

Overall, the results track fairly well with what would be expected intuitively. That is, people operating outside of legal restrictions don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to legal restrictions, so you don't see much of an effect from passing a law. The rest are presumed to operate within and abide by laws. Of that group, some relatively small percentage will be potential suicide victims. Of those, some smaller number are over 55 who are less likely to violate laws and don't/can't go out and buy a new gun in order to kill themselves (but, again, doesn't mean that they don't do it some other way).

Who cares what "Pro gun folks" need or want? Anyone who is pro gun is no count.

in the works yes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who cares what "Pro gun folks" need or want?
> Anyone who is pro gun is no count.


Says the party of inclusiveness.

Look Deeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> right over yer head Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > whydoyouthink Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics,
> > > University of Chicago
> > >
> > > [Editor's note: A version of this piece was
> > > published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July
> 28,
> > > 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous
> than
> > > guns." ]
> > >
> > > What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a
> > gun?
> > > When it comes to children, there is no
> > comparison:
> > > a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
> > >
> > > In 1997 alone (the last year for which data
> are
> > > available), 742 children under the age of 10
> > > drowned in the United States last year alone.
> > > Approximately 550 of those drownings —
> about
> > 75
> > > percent of the total — occurred in
> > residential
> > > swimming pools. According to the most recent
> > > statistics, there are about six million
> > > residential pools, meaning that one young
> child
> > > drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
> > >
> > > About 175 children under the age of 10 died
> in
> > > 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of
> > > those deaths were homicides. There are an
> > > estimated 200 million guns in the United
> > States.
> > > Doing the math, there is roughly one child
> > killed
> > > by guns for every one million guns.
> > >
> > > Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and
> have
> > a
> > > swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming
> > pool
> > > is about 100 times more likely to kill a
> child
> > > than the gun is.
> >
> >
> > Same nonsensical argument over and over. "cars
> > kill, should we ban cars?"
> > "Pools kill, should we ban pools?" and so on.
>
> The nonsensical argument comes from the left. The
> real concern should be to prevent deaths, actually
> postpone deaths, because everyone eventually dies.
> If cars or pools or anything else are the major
> cause of deaths, we should strive to make them
> safer. Not ban them but continue to improve their
> safety. The left is not concerned with saving
> lives, they are an emotional bunch only concerned
> with what is in the news today. Guns are not the
> device that kills the most, let's put our
> resources into something that will really work and
> save the most lives.
>
>
> > We NEED to ban guns period. Yes it may take 150
> > years to round up half of them but we have to
> > start somewhere.
>
> This will not work. It didn't work in prohibition
> when alcohol was banned. Once a technology like
> alcohol or guns is in the public domain and is
> then banned, it will continue to be produced
> illegally underground making it more dangerous.
> Libs are quick to point this out with abortion.
> If we ban abortion then it will go to the "back
> alley" and be more dangerous. It probably will
> because that technology is also in the public
> domain. It works both ways.


I stopped reading after "This will not work."

brought to us by the party of NO.

There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys."

CH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no
> such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a
> bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the
> hands of a good person is no danger to anyone
> except the bad guys."

You know, unless it's discharged 'accidentally'. Or a child 'plays' with it. Or it's stolen by a 'bad guy'. Or the 'good guy' uses the gun like a 'bad guy'.

Your naiveté is frightening.

PaTreeotic as hell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look Deeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > right over yer head Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > whydoyouthink Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > by Steven D. Levitt, Professor of
> Economics,
> > > > University of Chicago
> > > >
> > > > [Editor's note: A version of this piece was
> > > > published in the Chicago Sun-Times on July
> > 28,
> > > > 2001 under the title "Pools more dangerous
> > than
> > > > guns." ]
> > > >
> > > > What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or
> a
> > > gun?
> > > > When it comes to children, there is no
> > > comparison:
> > > > a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
> > > >
> > > > In 1997 alone (the last year for which data
> > are
> > > > available), 742 children under the age of
> 10
> > > > drowned in the United States last year
> alone.
> > > > Approximately 550 of those drownings —
> > about
> > > 75
> > > > percent of the total — occurred in
> > > residential
> > > > swimming pools. According to the most
> recent
> > > > statistics, there are about six million
> > > > residential pools, meaning that one young
> > child
> > > > drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
> > > >
> > > > About 175 children under the age of 10 died
> > in
> > > > 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds
> of
> > > > those deaths were homicides. There are an
> > > > estimated 200 million guns in the United
> > > States.
> > > > Doing the math, there is roughly one child
> > > killed
> > > > by guns for every one million guns.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and
> > have
> > > a
> > > > swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming
> > > pool
> > > > is about 100 times more likely to kill a
> > child
> > > > than the gun is.
> > >
> > >
> > > Same nonsensical argument over and over.
> "cars
> > > kill, should we ban cars?"
> > > "Pools kill, should we ban pools?" and so on.
> >
> > The nonsensical argument comes from the left.
> The
> > real concern should be to prevent deaths,
> actually
> > postpone deaths, because everyone eventually
> dies.
> > If cars or pools or anything else are the
> major
> > cause of deaths, we should strive to make them
> > safer. Not ban them but continue to improve
> their
> > safety. The left is not concerned with saving
> > lives, they are an emotional bunch only
> concerned
> > with what is in the news today. Guns are not
> the
> > device that kills the most, let's put our
> > resources into something that will really work
> and
> > save the most lives.
> >
> >
> > > We NEED to ban guns period. Yes it may take
> 150
> > > years to round up half of them but we have to
> > > start somewhere.
> >
> > This will not work. It didn't work in
> prohibition
> > when alcohol was banned. Once a technology
> like
> > alcohol or guns is in the public domain and is
> > then banned, it will continue to be produced
> > illegally underground making it more dangerous.
>
> > Libs are quick to point this out with abortion.
>
> > If we ban abortion then it will go to the "back
> > alley" and be more dangerous. It probably will
> > because that technology is also in the public
> > domain. It works both ways.
>
>
> I stopped reading after "This will not work."
>
> brought to us by the party of NO.


Brought to us by the party who believes that communism can work, it just hasn't been done by the right people in the past.

lawmakers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Guns dont kill people....... people kill
> people"
>
> "If guns are outlawed........only outlaws will
> have guns"
>
> " I need guns because........my daddy secret
> touched me when I was 7"
>
>
> What a bunch of fucking idiots.
Attachments:

The bottom line is that we need gun control in this country and we need lots of it as soon as possible, the educated and intelligent citizens of this country know this for an absolute fact. We do not need to ban guns except for handguns. Guns that are sold or owned need to be taxed heavily on a annual basis. This is nothing less than pure common sense.
I have to admit that it is fun to watch the gun loving ignorant fucks cry and complain as the process to take away their precious little gun toys gets under way.

I hope you all enjoy rape because when the criminals come for you, you best bend over bitches!

Whatchu gonna do? Shoot em? With what? Your piss? HAHAHA That'll only make them angrier.


Oh and see if you can shoot shit without practice n00bs.

Prepare the lube for your family and yourself!

I have REALLY big sticks I can beat criminals with! When the shit hits the fan I can beat all you suckers with big ass guns with my big ass sticks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

guifyy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope you all enjoy rape because when the
> criminals come for you, you best bend over
> bitches!
>
> Whatchu gonna do? Shoot em? With what? Your piss?
> HAHAHA That'll only make them angrier.
>
>
> Oh and see if you can shoot shit without practice
> n00bs.
>
> Prepare the lube for your family and yourself!


Americans will continue to be able to own some types of long guns provided they are registered and the yearly ownership fees are paid up to date.

mr mainstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line is that we need gun control in
> this country and we need lots of it as soon as
> possible, the educated and intelligent citizens of
> this country know this for an absolute fact. We do
> not need to ban guns except for handguns. Guns
> that are sold or owned need to be taxed heavily on
> a annual basis. This is nothing less than pure
> common sense.
> I have to admit that it is fun to watch the gun
> loving ignorant fucks cry and complain as the
> process to take away their precious little gun
> toys gets under way.


More feel good crap from the left. Makes his asertions as if they are fact, but offers no explanation to back them up. Lefties love to spout off about what is needed and say it is "common sense" but if you ask them to explain their position, their brains freeze up.

mr mainstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line is that we need gun control in
> this country and we need lots of it as soon as
> possible, the educated and intelligent citizens of
> this country know this for an absolute fact. We do
> not need to ban guns except for handguns. Guns
> that are sold or owned need to be taxed heavily on
> a annual basis. This is nothing less than pure
> common sense.
> I have to admit that it is fun to watch the gun
> loving ignorant fucks cry and complain as the
> process to take away their precious little gun
> toys gets under way.

So tell my why should handguns be legal then? Theyre responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun murders.

You anti gun folks are so stupid your own arguments contradict themselves. But while were tearing up amendments I say we get rid of what ever one gave you the right to vote

mr mainstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> guifyy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I hope you all enjoy rape because when the
> > criminals come for you, you best bend over
> > bitches!
> >
> > Whatchu gonna do? Shoot em? With what? Your
> piss?
> > HAHAHA That'll only make them angrier.
> >
> >
> > Oh and see if you can shoot shit without
> practice
> > n00bs.
> >
> > Prepare the lube for your family and yourself!
>
>
> Americans will continue to be able to own some
> types of long guns provided they are registered
> and the yearly ownership fees are paid up to date.


lol. You're dreaming. Hate to break it to you but there's not a chance in hell that guns will be regulated to the extent that you seem to think. Obama's not even suggested such. Not only are you folks ignorant of guns, you're not even up on what's been realistically proposed. You're living in some alternate reality where you think that it's going to into Canada (which btw has recently dropped its registration for permitted guns because it was a useless intrusion).

Americans are going to be able to continue to own pretty much whatever they want with no "registration" or ownership fees (lol!). About the only thing that you may see at a Federal level are an expansion of Federal background checks and limits to imports of certain weapons which don't amount to much anyway these days. A return of the "assault weapons" ban is unlikely. Reid has said as much himself. While maybe slightly more realistic, restrictions on high capacity "clips" also are unlikely. Beyond that any changes are at the state level. Since most where such things might pass already restrict most of the same things, you're not going to see much of a change.

Sorry to pop your little unicorn and glitter filled bubble.

i have an idea. lets have all the gun haters move to one part of the country, and gun owners in the other part. that way, those of us who have them will live in a crime reduced area. its non gun owners who become helpless victims of crime, because they are to week to defend themselves. instead of standing up to criminals, they lay down and give them what they want. that means most dems will have to leave, therefore making the area we live in better. its a win win, and those gun haters can move to cities like new york, chicago, and dc, where it is safe cause guns arent allowed, and gun violence NEVER happens. just ask buck ofama how gun control in chicago has worked out. safest city to live in.....hahahaha

gun owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i have an idea. lets have all the gun haters move
> to one part of the country, and gun owners in the
> other part. that way, those of us who have them
> will live in a crime reduced area. its non gun
> owners who become helpless victims of crime,
> because they are to week to defend themselves.
> instead of standing up to criminals, they lay down
> and give them what they want. that means most dems
> will have to leave, therefore making the area we
> live in better. its a win win, and those gun
> haters can move to cities like new york, chicago,
> and dc, where it is safe cause guns arent allowed,
> and gun violence NEVER happens. just ask buck
> ofama how gun control in chicago has worked out.
> safest city to live in.....hahahaha


Well now thanks for sharing your little "idea" with the rest of us. Too bad you dont get to make all the rules for the rest of us because thats the way this country was set up. Here in the USA we can change or amend laws by majority rule.
Here is another idea, you could take all your little weapons and your little ammo along with all your little insecure gun loving friends and go start your own little gun country somewhere else in the world. You guys cold have a big gang bang every weekend while you pet and stroke your guns.

why should i have to move. you tards are the ones trying to take away my constitutional right to bear arms? i support the constitution, and im not trying to take away your rights, such as freedom of speech. why dont you fucktards move to your safe, no gun country so you can live in the safety of your little bubble where nothing bad ever happens. ill stay here in the real world.

gun owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why should i have to move. you tards are the ones
> trying to take away my constitutional right to
> bear arms? i support the constitution, and im not
> trying to take away your rights, such as freedom
> of speech. why dont you fucktards move to your
> safe, no gun country so you can live in the safety
> of your little bubble where nothing bad ever
> happens. ill stay here in the real world.


Again, this country is set up for majority rule. At the present time the majority of us are going to put some restrictions on gun ownership. As long as no one can prove you are mentally unstable you can continue to own guns with a few minor restrictions. I understand that you are unable to see the wisdom behind these measures but they are in your best interest nonetheless.

its not with just a few minor restrictions. why should i have to be told what and what i cant own, because some mental dipshit killed a bunch of people, after he killed his mother and stole her guns? fix the mental health system, and these senseless acts will stop. my rights should not be infringed upon. more people die from dwi accidents than guns each year. why dont we ban your cars you own, or the alcohol you drink? that would stop the problem right? what happened during prohibition? did people stop drinking alcohol? obama is just out on a power trip, because the puppets behind the scene are pulling his strings. i dont care what they ban, im not giving them up. come take them if you want, but its at your own risk.