Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So many people are fixated on the BS "assault weapon" name. You can kill as many people with a handgun or shotgun. If nobody is armed, what stops someone from reloading multiple times? NOTHING!
So many people are fixated on the BS "assault weapon" name. You can kill as many people with a handgun or shotgun. If nobody is armed, what stops someone from reloading multiple times? NOTHING!
The AZ shooter was stopped because he had to reload. He had a 33rd mag. What if he only had 10 rds? Maybe some people would still be with us. There were two CCW holders carrying that day and they did not stop the shooter and almost shot each other.
I have hunted birds and if I have a large mag with a semi auto I can shoot much more and kill much more than if I had any other kind of weapon. A pump with a limit of 5 rounds I can not hold people still from running away while at the same time reloading. Its just not possible. So your argument is just not going to hold water.
Yaaa there you go again, putting god back into the schools is the trick. Do you hear yourself? Do you hear how dumb you sound? The fact is that China a godless culture for the most part has 1/5th the murder rate as the USA. WTF are you even talking about. If you did not have liberals to hate you would have to find something else to hate. I bet you have a stuffed animal you hit at night just to get enough of your aggression out to go to sleep. You are a tin foil bat crap crazy idiot
Funny- Liberals, when faced with uncomfortable facts, usually resort to casting dispersions and calling others "stupid", when in fact their behavior is an example of stupidity. This is the refuge of those who cannot debate the facts, and therefore resorts to name calling. Hilarious!
Didn't read the link? Of course- you don't like facts that refute your core beliefs.
Care to call me more names? I find it very amusing. It is similar to all liberals, when faced with an inability to formulate a coherent, thoughtful response in a discussion, simply shout, "racist"! and walk away. You have conceded defeat.
PS- better clean up those posts or we will have to have the mods take a look at your naughty behavior.
The AZ shooter was stopped because he had to reload. He had a 33rd mag. What if he only had 10 rds? Maybe some people would still be with us. There were two CCW holders carrying that day and they did not stop the shooter and almost shot each other.
I have hunted birds and if I have a large mag with a semi auto I can shoot much more and kill much more than if I had any other kind of weapon. A pump with a limit of 5 rounds I can not hold people still from running away while at the same time reloading. Its just not possible. So your argument is just not going to hold water.
Oh BS! So they run, you go after them. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can unload 20 12 gauge rounds 6 at a time in under 3 minutes. I'm not talking about pump shotguns, semi-auto's. you can fire them much more quickly than a pump.
Totally wrong. The SCOUTS has ruled that even if a gun or Marijuana is not intended to go out of state that the Federal Gov. has the right under the 10th amendment to regulat them. Your argument just will not fly old boy.
It's the SCOTUS, scouts tie knots.
Under the 10th Amendment...?
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You wanna run past me how that works...? Given the meaning of the 10th, and the fact that the initial enforcement of the Brady Law was found unconstitutional under the 10th because the original bill required the background check to be performed via local and state law enforcement, it was reworked so that states police departments could run the background checks, but if they didn't want to, the FBI had to run them. You know sometimes it's prudent to keep your mouth shut and let people suspect you don't know what you're talking about, than to open it and confirm their suspicions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No, that is not true. To get a license to purchase a firearm in Russia, you first need to own a gas pistol etc, and then you can purchase a "real" gun.
Russia is an eternal source of misconceptions in the western world and firearms issues are not excluded. ...
So in general things are more or less now as they were in the USSR. Russian citizens may keep…
• Hunting Firearms
• Trauma Pistols (Guns that shoot rubber bullets only)
• Pneumatic Pistols
• Gas Pistols
You wanna give me your citation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Rampant lawlessness in Russia means out of control mafia, gangs, and corrupt police force. We do not have such issues in US.
Oh really we don't...?
We don't have Mexican Drug Cartels pushing into the South West?
We don't have ATF agents allowing guns to be trafficked to those same cartels?
We don't have 500 murders+ per year in Chicago alone, what this is girl scouts fighting over cookies?
So why we talking gun control again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
That's what I said. There was a dramatic decrease in murder when the ban went into effect, but there may have been other factors. And when the ban expired in 2004, the violence did not jump back to where it was before the ban. Will it go back in near future? I doubt it, but in FL the numbers are creeping back up. I think in late 1980s and early 1990s the biggest reason for the violent crime explosion was the crack-cocaine epidemic.
No the trend was downwards even before the ban, look at the graph, here are the figures as delta's 1991 9.8/100,000 (base), 1992 -0.5/100,000 probably an anomaly, 1993 +0.2/100,000 or this one was an anomaly, 1994 -0.5/100,000, then looking at the end (if there was a suppressive effect, you'd expect to see some bounce back) there is no meaningful bounce back, indeed the downward trend stalls in 2000 when the AWB was in full effect.
Anyway as SourD states correctly the AWB was a waste of time anyway, given that it was purely cosmetic.
You wanna run past me how that works...? Given the meaning of the 10th, and the fact that the initial enforcement of the Brady Law was found unconstitutional under the 10th because the original bill required the background check to be performed via local and state law enforcement, it was reworked so that states police departments could run the background checks, but if they didn't want to, the FBI had to run them. You know sometimes it's prudent to keep your mouth shut and let people suspect you don't know what you're talking about, than to open it and confirm their suspicions.
We don't have Mexican Drug Cartels pushing into the South West?
We don't have ATF agents allowing guns to be trafficked to those same cartels?
We don't have 500 murders+ per year in Chicago alone, what this is girl scouts fighting over cookies?
So why we talking gun control again?
No the trend was downwards even before the ban, look at the graph, here are the figures as delta's 1991 9.8/100,000 (base), 1992 -0.5/100,000 probably an anomaly, 1993 +0.2/100,000 or this one was an anomaly, 1994 -0.5/100,000, then looking at the end (if there was a suppressive effect, you'd expect to see some bounce back) there is no meaningful bounce back, indeed the downward trend stalls in 2000 when the AWB was in full effect.
Anyway as SourD states correctly the AWB was a waste of time anyway, given that it was purely cosmetic.
Amazing, isn't it? The libs simply ignore the data that shows gun control does nothing to deter crime at all. Why? It does not fit thier political agenda, therefore they choose to ignore these "inconvenient truths".
It really causes one to pause and ask, when one chooses to ignore facts and make decisions based on false presumptions and innaccuracies, one can certainly expect an adverse outcome. This, of course, is liberalism- improper decision based on bad data which results in ineffective policy. That is why "tickleyourinnards" continues to espouse action which has been shown to be ineffective.
Again, given the FACTUAL DATA shows that gun control DOES NOT DETER CRIME, can any liberal say why it should be enacted?
Why not perform self flagellation or "leeching", as those methods would have equal merit and efficacy?
Perhaps the goals of "gun control" have nothing to do with crime and everything about reducing the ability of citizens to act against an oppressive government.
The founding fathers were right, and Obama is dead wrong.
Again, given the FACTUAL DATA shows that gun control DOES NOT DETER CRIME, can any liberal say why it should be enacted?
Why not perform self flagellation or "leeching", as those methods would have equal merit and efficacy?
Perhaps the goals of "gun control" have nothing to do with crime and everything about reducing the ability of citizens to act against an oppressive government.
The founding fathers were right, and Obama is dead wrong.
Again you ignore all the data that shows strict regulation on guns can and does work. The full auto or 1934 gun act strictly regulated full auto weapons. Since then there have been very few to no crimes committed by legal full auto guns.
Australia has shown that there were 13 mass shootings before the gun ban and non after. You ignore what you don't want to hear with your little brain.
You are an OCD over emotional person that uses the Texas sharp shooter fallacy to show what you want to show.
Why should anyone on this board give a rats ass about "gun control in Austrailia?" I'm thinking we might have found a new forum idiot, a one trick pony who has to reach outside of American borders to make a non-existent point.
The OP is dead on. You can judge this by the number of irrelevant posts thrown out but liberal anti-gun nuts.
Again, given the FACTUAL DATA shows that gun control DOES NOT DETER CRIME, can any liberal say why it should be enacted?
The founding fathers were right, and Obama is dead wrong.
What were they right on? That all men excpet blacks are created equal? That
Women should not vote? Maybe as Jefferson said that the bibile was too full of supernatural garbage and so he wrote the Jefferson bible.
Or maybe you mean Thomas Paine was right when he said,
"as to the book called the bible,it is blasphemy to call it the word of god. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men"
Thomas Paine
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
