When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Myth #9: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.

Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

Why can't you give the commie magazine Mother Jones credit for the bullshit you copy pasted?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2015 08:35AM by WingNut.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can't you give the commie magazine Mother
> Jones credit for the bullshit you copy pasted?

Because I know troglodytes like you will do it for me.

OP That what us gun lobbyist do, put plenty of holes in the target.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

Gunlover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP That what us gun lobbyist do, put plenty of
> holes in the target.

The only holes here are those that shred your gunlover-tard arguments. lol.

Never run out of spin.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people - quite often by accident.

The most important day in your life is the day some gunlover-tard accidentally kills you

Face it, teabaggers love guns. They love'm so much they think it's 100% legitimate for a guy on the no-fly list who stopped taking his meds to go out and buy an AK-47 a few days before he's ready to snap. That is freedom!

was the asshole on, exactly? The one that let him fly back and forth from the 7th century with his new "bride"?

Yeah, you're lost, gertard. Why so butthurt?

>They love'm so much they think it's 100% legitimate for a guy on the no-fly list who stopped taking his meds to go out and buy an AK-47 a few days before he's ready to snap. That is freedom!

You are a dope!

> What "No Fly List"

Exactly. The Obama Administrations "Vetting Process" is to ask them "Questions"

And They Lie and are let right in..

Liberals Are Sooo Stupid....

DAJAX

guntards gunna tard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Face it, teabaggers love guns. They love'm so
> much they think it's 100% legitimate for a guy on
> the no-fly list who stopped taking his meds to go
> out and buy an AK-47 a few days before he's ready
> to snap. That is freedom!


Seems like the start of the problem and the cause of is that he stopped taking his meds!

If he didnt have a gun, he could run his car through a crowd or make a bomb with the same or worse results.

If he needs meds NOT to kill people then he shouldn't be allowed out in public.

Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that challenged an assault-rifle ban in Illinois. So the ban stands. This sends the message that the right to bear arms can be regulated.

The right to free speech is not a license to slander. The right to a free press is not a license to libel. The right to assemble is not a license to riot. And the right to freedom of faith is not a license to throw virgins into volcanoes.

Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms may also be regulated. In fact, the second amendment specifically states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This implicitly gives the federal government the authority to REGULATE gun ownership.

Where is the line drawn on first amendment rights? Where there is significant risk -- where there is the possibility of harm to others. Slander, libel, rioting, et al, represent a breakdown of civil authority. The first amendment is not a license to ill.

Likewise, the same limitations and restrictions must be applied to the second amendment (and all other) rights. Where there is the possibility of harm to others, that is the limitation of the right.

As I have pointed out, more than once, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. It affirms rights that are recognized as inalienable. But the Constitution ALSO affirms the authority of the federal government to act on behalf of the people, for the well-being of the people, for the greater good of the nation. That part is in the mission statement which preambles the document:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is the mission statement of America. It is the authorization for the government to act on behalf of the people, to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" etc. This is the authority that the federal government has to take steps to regulate the commerce and the laws of the nation.

The second amendment is not a suicide pact. Nor is it authorization to take arms against the federal government if you disagree with its policies. Nor is it a license to behave like a bully, parading your terror everywhere you go.

The second amendment is there to protect the rights of self-defense, the right to hunt, and the right of local, state, and federal governments to organize militias to protect the security of the state. That's it. That's what the founders intended.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a case
> that challenged an assault-rifle ban in Illinois.
> So the ban stands. This sends the message that the
> right to bear arms can be regulated.
>
> The right to free speech is not a license to
> slander. The right to a free press is not a
> license to libel. The right to assemble is not a
> license to riot. And the right to freedom of faith
> is not a license to throw virgins into volcanoes.
>
> Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms may also
> be regulated. In fact, the second amendment
> specifically states, "A well regulated Militia,
> being necessary to the security of a free
> State..." This implicitly gives the federal
> government the authority to REGULATE gun
> ownership.
>
> Where is the line drawn on first amendment rights?
> Where there is significant risk -- where there is
> the possibility of harm to others. Slander, libel,
> rioting, et al, represent a breakdown of civil
> authority. The first amendment is not a license to
> ill.
>
> Likewise, the same limitations and restrictions
> must be applied to the second amendment (and all
> other) rights. Where there is the possibility of
> harm to others, that is the limitation of the
> right.
>
> As I have pointed out, more than once, the
> Constitution doesn't grant rights. It affirms
> rights that are recognized as inalienable. But the
> Constitution ALSO affirms the authority of the
> federal government to act on behalf of the people,
> for the well-being of the people, for the greater
> good of the nation. That part is in the mission
> statement which preambles the document:
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to
> form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
> insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
> secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
> our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> This is the mission statement of America. It is
> the authorization for the government to act on
> behalf of the people, to "establish justice,
> insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare" etc.
> This is the authority that the federal government
> has to take steps to regulate the commerce and the
> laws of the nation.
>
> The second amendment is not a suicide pact. Nor is
> it authorization to take arms against the federal
> government if you disagree with its policies. Nor
> is it a license to behave like a bully, parading
> your terror everywhere you go.
>
> The second amendment is there to protect the
> rights of self-defense, the right to hunt, and the
> right of local, state, and federal governments to
> organize militias to protect the security of the
> state. That's it. That's what the founders
> intended.

Just where does the 2nd Amendment mention hunting? I must have missed that one.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a case
> that challenged an assault-rifle ban in Illinois.
> So the ban stands. This sends the message that the
> right to bear arms can be regulated.
>
> The right to free speech is not a license to
> slander. The right to a free press is not a
> license to libel. The right to assemble is not a
> license to riot. And the right to freedom of faith
> is not a license to throw virgins into volcanoes.
>
> Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms may also
> be regulated. In fact, the second amendment
> specifically states, "A well regulated Militia,
> being necessary to the security of a free
> State..." This implicitly gives the federal
> government the authority to REGULATE gun
> ownership.
>
> Where is the line drawn on first amendment rights?
> Where there is significant risk -- where there is
> the possibility of harm to others. Slander, libel,
> rioting, et al, represent a breakdown of civil
> authority. The first amendment is not a license to
> ill.
>
> Likewise, the same limitations and restrictions
> must be applied to the second amendment (and all
> other) rights. Where there is the possibility of
> harm to others, that is the limitation of the
> right.
>
> As I have pointed out, more than once, the
> Constitution doesn't grant rights. It affirms
> rights that are recognized as inalienable. But the
> Constitution ALSO affirms the authority of the
> federal government to act on behalf of the people,
> for the well-being of the people, for the greater
> good of the nation. That part is in the mission
> statement which preambles the document:
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to
> form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
> insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
> secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
> our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> This is the mission statement of America. It is
> the authorization for the government to act on
> behalf of the people, to "establish justice,
> insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare" etc.
> This is the authority that the federal government
> has to take steps to regulate the commerce and the
> laws of the nation.
>
> The second amendment is not a suicide pact. Nor is
> it authorization to take arms against the federal
> government if you disagree with its policies. Nor
> is it a license to behave like a bully, parading
> your terror everywhere you go.
>
> The second amendment is there to protect the
> rights of self-defense, the right to hunt, and the
> right of local, state, and federal governments to
> organize militias to protect the security of the
> state. That's it. That's what the founders
> intended.

What total bullshit! Get off the dope and learn history. The right to bear arms is to protect yourself from government plain and simple. Fuck! Do you libs go to special schools to learn how to be so ignorant and dumb?

libs hate America. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What total bullshit! Get off the dope and learn
> history. The right to bear arms is to protect
> yourself from government plain and simple. Fuck!
> Do you libs go to special schools to learn how to
> be so ignorant and dumb?

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

100,000,000 guns sold since Obama took office. LOL libs are so mad.

Yet another lib whines about guns with his anytown bullet points. How unoriginal and lame!

Hey OP, here is the impact and significance about your bitching about the topic...really working out well for you there! No one gives a shit about you whining liberals.

Americans stock up on weapons after California shooting
http://news.yahoo.com/americans-stock-weapons-california-shooting-140648043.html

Black Friday Gun Sales Soared, FBI Data Shows
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/black-friday-gun-sales-soared-fbi-data-shows.html

Black Friday breaks record with 185K gun background checks
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/01/black-friday-breaks-record-185k-gun-background-checks/76624604/

Background Checks For Gun Sales Hit Record High On Black Friday
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gun-sales-black-friday_565e5e8be4b079b2818c860b

whiningliberaltearslol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey OP, here is the impact and significance about
> your bitching about the topic...really working out
> well for you there! No one gives a shit about you
> whining liberals.

With no Daddy figure to metaphorically hold their hand, Conserva-tards are frightened and confused. So, naturally, they by more guns.

Conserva-tards are pathetically weak & that's sad.

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a case
> that challenged an assault-rifle ban in Illinois.
> So the ban stands. This sends the message that the
> right to bear arms can be regulated.
>
> The right to free speech is not a license to
> slander. The right to a free press is not a
> license to libel. The right to assemble is not a
> license to riot. And the right to freedom of faith
> is not a license to throw virgins into volcanoes.
>
> Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms may also
> be regulated. In fact, the second amendment
> specifically states, "A well regulated Militia,
> being necessary to the security of a free
> State..." This implicitly gives the federal
> government the authority to REGULATE gun
> ownership.
>
> Where is the line drawn on first amendment rights?
> Where there is significant risk -- where there is
> the possibility of harm to others. Slander, libel,
> rioting, et al, represent a breakdown of civil
> authority. The first amendment is not a license to
> ill.
>
> Likewise, the same limitations and restrictions
> must be applied to the second amendment (and all
> other) rights. Where there is the possibility of
> harm to others, that is the limitation of the
> right.
>
> As I have pointed out, more than once, the
> Constitution doesn't grant rights. It affirms
> rights that are recognized as inalienable. But the
> Constitution ALSO affirms the authority of the
> federal government to act on behalf of the people,
> for the well-being of the people, for the greater
> good of the nation. That part is in the mission
> statement which preambles the document:
>
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to
> form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
> insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
> secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
> our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
> Constitution for the United States of America."
>
> This is the mission statement of America. It is
> the authorization for the government to act on
> behalf of the people, to "establish justice,
> insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare" etc.
> This is the authority that the federal government
> has to take steps to regulate the commerce and the
> laws of the nation.
>
> The second amendment is not a suicide pact. Nor is
> it authorization to take arms against the federal
> government if you disagree with its policies. Nor
> is it a license to behave like a bully, parading
> your terror everywhere you go.
>
> The second amendment is there to protect the
> rights of self-defense, the right to hunt, and the
> right of local, state, and federal governments to
> organize militias to protect the security of the
> state. That's it. That's what the founders
> intended.

Oh look. Yet another liberal moron interprets the constitution for what he wants it to mean...not as it actually is.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

All of you libs want to censor, ban, and gloss over everything. If they 2nd Amendment wasn't there, you idiots would have modified the other ones already.

If you own a gun or two, then man up and shut up. Your feeble attempts to brag and post on this silly forum just shows how immature you are. You must be feeling insecure to continuously post about your right to bear arms. You have the right to own guns, be stupid and afraid but why embarrass yourself posting about it? Just go out and save lives instead of what writing about what overs did.
Most of you should have your guns taken away for being whiny bitches.

What a bunch of crybabies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of you should have your guns taken away for
> being whiny bitches.

Ok, only if YOU attempt to take them away.

What a bunch of crybabies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you own a gun or two, then man up and shut up.
> Your feeble attempts to brag and post on this
> silly forum just shows how immature you are. You
> must be feeling insecure to continuously post
> about your right to bear arms. You have the right
> to own guns, be stupid and afraid but why
> embarrass yourself posting about it? Just go out
> and save lives instead of what writing about what
> overs did.
> Most of you should have your guns taken away for
> being whiny bitches.

just because you have freedom of speech and get to act like an idiot doesn't mean you HAVE to continually post your idiotic rants. we get it, you have the right to express yourself. now just shut up and go be an idiot somewhere else.

Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whiningliberaltearslol Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey OP, here is the impact and significance
> about
> > your bitching about the topic...really working
> out
> > well for you there! No one gives a shit about
> you
> > whining liberals.
>
> With no Daddy figure to metaphorically hold their
> hand, Conserva-tards are frightened and confused.
> So, naturally, they by more guns.
>
> Conserva-tards are pathetically weak & that's
> sad.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!

Buy not by.

How ignorant must one be to believe that only conservatives own 300,000,000 weapons.

JHhYW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just because you have freedom of speech and get to
> act like an idiot doesn't mean you HAVE to
> continually post your idiotic rants. we get it,
> you have the right to express yourself. now just
> shut up and go be an idiot somewhere else.

Perhaps I CHOSE to because I seeing libs like you bitch and moan about everything is funny as hell. And no, I will not shut up.

grinch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How ignorant must one be to believe that only
> conservatives own 300,000,000 weapons.

Who said that 'only conserva-tards own' guns?

Are conserva-tards far more likely than progressives to own a gun? Absolutely.

Are conserva-tards who own guns far more likely to own multiple guns? Positively.

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

oksure11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a bunch of crybabies Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most of you should have your guns taken away
> for
> > being whiny bitches.
>
> Ok, only if YOU attempt to take them away.


Why? Are you a whiny bitch?

lol!!!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet another lib whines about guns with his anytown
> bullet points. How unoriginal and lame!


I own a gun just so I can feel like a man. I talk about shooting it constantly so that people know exactly how tough I am.

Note: I like my guns/ammo and I am keeping my guns. I have zero plans to shoot anyone. But that could change if someone breaks into my home putting me or my family in fear of harm or if any institution comes onto my property in an effort to confiscate my guns/ammo.

You Progressives can post whatever you want. You can whine all you want. But it will not change my right to protect myself/family with equal force from whoever is creating a threat.
Attachments:

^^^^^
That's stupid.

F.O.F. (Friend of Fruppie) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^^^
> That's stupid.

To you maybe, but that's because libtardz can't think

esrkjdtgbcm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Note: I like my guns/ammo and I am keeping my
> guns. I have zero plans to shoot anyone. But that
> could change if someone breaks into my home
> putting me or my family in fear of harm or if any
> institution comes onto my property in an effort to
> confiscate my guns/ammo.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

> You Progressives can post whatever you want. You
> can whine all you want. But it will not change my
> right to protect myself/family with equal force
> from whoever is creating a threat.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

.
Attachments:

heymack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .

How's it hangin' there, douche?

PS - That's one of the most stupid, least cogent memes I've seen in quite a while.

Thanks for crawling out from under your rock to share it with the group! :-)

heydouche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> heymack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .
>
> How's it hangin' there, douche?
>
> PS - That's one of the most stupid, least cogent
> memes I've seen in quite a while.
>
> Thanks for crawling out from under your rock to
> share it with the group! :-)


So you're saying it's fair to ban flags, etc from one group who committed a hate crime but it's not ok to ban flags, etc from other who do the same thing?

uacgjnxvm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you're saying it's fair to ban flags, etc from
> one group who committed a hate crime but it's not
> ok to ban flags, etc from other who do the same
> thing?

To what group does the confederate battle flag belong?

That punk-assed bitch who kill parishioners in SC was not affiliated with any group.

Those psycho Bonnie & Clyde wannabes who slaughtered those civil servant is CA were not affiliated with any group.

Guns don't protect, they kill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> esrkjdtgbcm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Note: I like my guns/ammo and I am keeping my
> > guns. I have zero plans to shoot anyone. But
> that
> > could change if someone breaks into my home
> > putting me or my family in fear of harm or if
> any
> > institution comes onto my property in an effort
> to
> > confiscate my guns/ammo.
>
> Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
>
> Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns
> in America, but it's clear there's no practical
> way to round them all up (never mind that no one
> in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you
> fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down
> the government, you'll rest easy knowing that
> America's roughly 80 million gun owners already
> have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of
> around 79 to 1.
>
> > You Progressives can post whatever you want.
> You
> > can whine all you want. But it will not change
> my
> > right to protect myself/family with equal force
> > from whoever is creating a threat.
>
> Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you
> safer.
>
> Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher
> risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death
> by gun.
> • For every time a gun is used in self-defense
> in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11
> suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns
> in or around a home.
> • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least
> one unlocked firearm.
> • In one experiment, one third of
> 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled
> the trigger.
>
> Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
>
> Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women
> were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners
> than murdered by male strangers.
> • A woman's chances of being killed by her
> abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access
> to a gun.
> • One study found that women in states with
> higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more
> likely to be murdered by a gun than women in
> states with lower gun ownership rates.


#1 - I didn't say they were. I said IF.

#5 and #7 - Thanks but we'll take our chances. You'll be happy to know that I have no interest in taking my guns anywhere near you. This also includes times where you may need someone to defend you.
Attachments:

heydouche Wrote:

> Those psycho Bonnie & Clyde wannabes who
> slaughtered those civil servant is CA were not
> affiliated with any group.

You don't follow the news much do you? The incident has been deemed an act of terror by Muslims who pledged loyalty to ISIS.

Go fuck yourself you terrorist-supporting anti-American libtard

esrkjdtgbcm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #1 - I didn't say they were. I said IF.

Since no one with any power is even talking about it, 'IF' is a long way off.

> #5 and #7 - Thanks but we'll take our chances.

Yes, you will.

> You'll be happy to know that I have no interest in
> taking my guns anywhere near you. This also
> includes times where you may need someone to
> defend you.

Thanks but I'll take my chances.

heydouche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uacgjnxvm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So you're saying it's fair to ban flags, etc
> from
> > one group who committed a hate crime but it's
> not
> > ok to ban flags, etc from other who do the same
> > thing?
>
> To what group does the confederate battle flag
> belong?

NONE, and yet it's being banned as a feel-good measure to pussified libtardz. But it's ok. Since it was banned, racism has disappeared. ;)

ecjrgjek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't follow the news much do you? The
> incident has been deemed an act of terror by
> Muslims who pledged loyalty to ISIS.

1) Only 'Bonnie' pledged loyalty to ISIS, 'Clyde' did not.

2) You must be a product of FCPS to believe that a Facebook 'pledge of loyalty' = affiliation.

Laws against owning certain types of guns would work as well as the laws against possession of heroin.

We need to 'just say no' to guns.

We need a war on drugs.

Sillary Clit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Laws against owning certain types of guns would
> work as well as the laws against possession of
> heroin.
>
> We need to 'just say no' to guns.
>
> We need a war on drugs.

You mean a War on Guns.

heydouche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ecjrgjek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You don't follow the news much do you? The
> > incident has been deemed an act of terror by
> > Muslims who pledged loyalty to ISIS.
>
> 1) Only 'Bonnie' pledged loyalty to ISIS, 'Clyde'
> did not.
>
> 2) You must be a product of FCPS to believe that a
> Facebook 'pledge of loyalty' = affiliation.


So the kid who shot up the blacks and had a confederate flag was not an actual member of any group. He wrote a bunch of bullshit about his racists beliefs.

So what's your point? Ban the confederate flag because a racist kid who belongs to no groups (including religious) decides to kill some people. But Muslims get a free ride even though the evidence is established that they are terrorists?

I'm not arguing it anymore. If you can't see my side whatsoever, you're an idiot.

Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang
Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang.

The sweet sound you will always hear thanks to our constitution. I love the sound and love to make it.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why
Attachments:

hkxfnkw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the kid who shot up the blacks and had a
> confederate flag was not an actual member of any
> group.

Well, he didn't have an actual confederate battle flag on his person when he committed the murders; but no, he was not a member of any group.

> He wrote a bunch of bullshit about his
> racists beliefs.

That's my understanding, yes.

> So what's your point? Ban the confederate flag
> because a racist kid who belongs to no groups
> (including religious) decides to kill some people.
> But Muslims get a free ride even though the
> evidence is established that they are terrorists?

That's not what I said.

Here's my point: It would violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to ban the hajib, the Quran, other Muslim symbols, and all Mosques from US soil.

heydouche Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not what I said.
>
> Here's my point: It would violate the 1st
> Amendment of the US Constitution to ban the hajib,
> the Quran, other Muslim symbols, and all Mosques
> from US soil.

I lied. Last post. I agree with you. It's absurd to ban any of those. I also feel it's absurd to ban guns because of the insane actions of a few (relative to population) nutjobs.

Ok, now really last post on this. Dinner. Have a great night.

Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> grinch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How ignorant must one be to believe that only
> > conservatives own 300,000,000 weapons.
>
> Who said that 'only conserva-tards own' guns?
>
> Are conserva-tards far more likely than
> progressives to own a gun? Absolutely.
>
> Are conserva-tards who own guns far more likely to
> own multiple guns? Positively.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!


Typical Libiot. Presuming facts not in evidence. So pray tell, what is the Libiot motive for owning firearms?

jwercjcunhkjhk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also feel it's absurd to
> ban guns because of the insane actions of a few
> (relative to population) nutjobs.

Again, no one is talking about banning guns (no one with any sense, or with the power to do so, anyway). Limiting the TYPES of guns available for purchase, the sizes of their ammunition magazines, and/or the quantity and frequency of gun purchases is another matter.

> Ok, now really last post on this. Dinner. Have a
> great night.

You, too.

grinch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical Libiot. Presuming facts not in evidence.
> So pray tell, what is the Libiot motive for owning
> firearms?

Sport & personal protection, I imagine, but I really don't know.

What motivates gun ownership amongst 'tards?

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

Gun Nutty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Myth #9: We don't need more gun laws—we just
> need to enforce the ones we have.
>
> Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the
> gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
> • Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve
> private sellers and don't require background
> checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in
> their crimes got them this way.

Oddly, this is the law in CA -- private sellers must involve a gun dealer, yet someone broke it. How are you going to stop private sellers from selling? Another law?

Since one of your points is invalid, I am not going to bother with the rest.

The grinch preparing for whatever......
He's tough on fishes.
Attachments:

Are any of you part of a state or Federally well regulated militia? No? THEN NO GUNS FOR YOU!

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are any of you part of a state or Federally well
> regulated militia? No? THEN NO GUNS FOR YOU!


why is eesh posting under this name?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are any of you part of a state or Federally well
> regulated militia? No? THEN NO GUNS FOR YOU!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

- State is capitalized so it refers to the United States.
- It says because it's necessary to protect the Country, the people, not just military/authorities, have the right to keep and bear arms. This is to keep the balance of power and help prevent a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with sport or hunting. The founding fathers knew that "leaders" will steal power and oppress the people if the people cannot fight back.

But wait. George Mason and Thomas Jefferson addressed this:

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


"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

6ppDU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Nutty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Myth #9: We don't need more gun laws—we just
> > need to enforce the ones we have.
> >
> > Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by
> the
> > gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
> > • Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve
> > private sellers and don't require background
> > checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in
> > their crimes got them this way.
>
> Oddly, this is the law in CA -- private sellers
> must involve a gun dealer, yet someone broke it.
> How are you going to stop private sellers from
> selling? Another law?

Criminals violate laws? Are you shitting me?!?!?!

Well, then why do we have laws at all, right?

Dumbass.

Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whiningliberaltearslol Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey OP, here is the impact and significance
> about
> > your bitching about the topic...really working
> out
> > well for you there! No one gives a shit about
> you
> > whining liberals.
>
> With no Daddy figure to metaphorically hold their
> hand, Conserva-tards are frightened and confused.
> So, naturally, they by more guns.
>
> Conserva-tards are pathetically weak & that's
> sad.
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!


According to you, this. You must find it difficult to keep track of your thoughts. Which is scary as you don't really have many.

grinch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to you, this. You must find it difficult
> to keep track of your thoughts. Which is scary as
> you don't really have many.

Conserva-tards!

LoLz!

Yep, that is about the only one you have...

libtardz!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are any of you part of a state or Federally
> well
> > regulated militia? No? THEN NO GUNS FOR YOU!
>
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
> security of a free State, the right of the people
> to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> - State is capitalized so it refers to the United
> States.
> - It says because it's necessary to protect the
> Country, the people, not just
> military/authorities, have the right to keep and
> bear arms. This is to keep the balance of power
> and help prevent a tyrannical government. The 2nd
> Amendment has nothing to do with sport or hunting.
> The founding fathers knew that "leaders" will
> steal power and oppress the people if the people
> cannot fight back.
>
> But wait. George Mason and Thomas Jefferson
> addressed this:
>
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> the whole people, except a few public officers."
> - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 4, 1788
>
>
> "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

You want access to weapons? Do what I did and join the US military. Otherwise GTFO.

grinch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, that is about the only one you have...


Imposter!

Gun Nutty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blah, blah, blah

TL:DR

^^^^^
You're a little late to the party, Skippy. lol.