Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
He killed his mother and took her guns. No one sold or gave him a gun.
Are you this stupid in person?
No gun laws would have prevented what happened in Newport.
[
He killed his mother and took her guns. No one sold or gave him a gun.
Are you this stupid in person?
No gun laws would have prevented what happened in Newport.
His mother was as crazy as he was... that was the point.
A gun law, "Hey, you can't own more than one gun, you have to have a background check, and, oh, yeah, you can't have a military grade weapon" definitely would have prevented Newtown.[/QUOTE]
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
[
A gun law, "Hey, you can't own more than one gun, you have to have a background check, and, oh, yeah, you can't have a military grade weapon" definitely would have prevented Newtown.
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
Oh, Kellerman has never been debunked. .
If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand Yeah---
Dr. Arthur Kellerman
[
A gun law, "Hey, you can't own more than one gun, you have to have a background check, and, oh, yeah, you can't have a military grade weapon" definitely would have prevented Newtown.
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
If he had a revolver, he would have gotten off exactly six shots, instead of the 154 he was able to shoot.
Given his shot-to-kill ratio was 5.9 rounds for every person he killed, he might not have been able to inflict even one fatality at that rate.
Oh, Kellerman has never been debunked. .
Kellerman himself disclaims the 43 to 1 number... and as for debunking, I like this quote:
]
It is an unreasonable position because we are ALL people just like him. Impinging on the rights of individuals for things they might do is totalitarian and evil.
Individuals have the right to bear arms. If that bothers you, repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Don't you understand that the government already has a workaround to negate that right?
They actually have at least TWO ways to limit guns in the hands of the citizen:
1. Taxation of guns and ammo
2. Making gun ownership subject to FORCED INSURANCE.
What they can (will?) do is make it virtually impossible for middle class and lower to own guns legally because the people cannot afford them.
Sadly I doubt that will have much effect on crime by gun, or on spree killers, either.
But it certainly have the effect of disarming many citizens who are neither criminals or spree killers.
What part of "shall not be infringed" gives you trouble?
Is it the two-syllable word?
[
A gun law, "Hey, you can't own more than one gun, you have to have a background check, and, oh, yeah, you can't have a military grade weapon" definitely would have prevented Newtown.
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
If he had a revolver, he would have gotten off exactly six shots, instead of the 154 he was able to shoot.
Given his shot-to-kill ratio was 5.9 rounds for every person he killed, he might not have been able to inflict even one fatality at that rate.
[
A gun law, "Hey, you can't own more than one gun, you have to have a background check, and, oh, yeah, you can't have a military grade weapon" definitely would have prevented Newtown.
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
If he had a revolver, he would have gotten off exactly six shots, instead of the 154 he was able to shoot.
Given his shot-to-kill ratio was 5.9 rounds for every person he killed, he might not have been able to inflict even one fatality at that rate.
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
If he had a revolver, he would have gotten off exactly six shots, instead of the 154 he was able to shoot.
Given his shot-to-kill ratio was 5.9 rounds for every person he killed, he might not have been able to inflict even one fatality at that rate.
It takes a few seconds to swap speedloaders...I can manually reload a revolver in ten. (Just tried it, took between nine and ten all three times.)
Because you Say " there is no good reason for most civilians to own firearms" Thus you ARE a fucking gun grabber, and I dont trust you on ANYTHING regarding gun issues.
Its like asking PETA for recipies for standing rib roast.
FOAD.
Not really. Didn't say you couldn't have a gun. Said there was no good reason. But if you WANT a gun, that's fine.
After I am reasonably sure that you 1) aren't a crazy person or criminal, 2) are properly licensed, trained and insured so your own negligence doesn't become a danger to the rest of us.
Where does the 2nd amendment say I have to be properly liscensed, trained and insured?
Do you have to do the same thing to exercise your 1st amendment rights?
And it doesnt matter what you say, we all know you are a grabber.
If states decide they want to disarm thier own citizens with over-reaching gun control bills, then the follow amendment should be proposed in each case:
1. Police officers shall follow all the requirements of the gun control bill, with the exception of when on duty. In this case they must return the "illegal" weapon to an armory for storage every day.
2. Any carry home piece they are allowed must follow ALL regulations that anyone else in the state must follow, from banned weapons, to magazine limits, to trigger lock requirements and storage requirements.
3. Police must follow the same regulations for off duty concealed carry. They should not be given exceptions in places where one has to show cause for having one.
4. All government officals that are not police officers have to follow the same rules as everyone else, no exceptions. This includes any private security they might use.
5. Security guards for the well off should follow the same laws as everyone else, no exceptions.
Lanza could have done newtown with a revolver, and he only did use one gun anyway.
You can't say "definitely" and you know it, you hack.
If he had a revolver, he would have gotten off exactly six shots, instead of the 154 he was able to shoot.
Given his shot-to-kill ratio was 5.9 rounds for every person he killed, he might not have been able to inflict even one fatality at that rate.
not necessarily so
those with limited shots
tend to insure they make the mark more often
He did not have a military-grade weapon.
154 shots in 5 minutes isn't actually that rapid. I could average that with a revolver, a Mauser 98, or some pump shotguns.
He did not have a military-grade weapon.
154 shots in 5 minutes isn't actually that rapid. I could average that with a revolver, a Mauser 98, or some pump shotguns.
And I'm sure you fantasize about it frequently...
He did not have a military-grade weapon.
154 shots in 5 minutes isn't actually that rapid. I could average that with a revolver, a Mauser 98, or some pump shotguns.
And I'm sure you fantasize about it frequently...
I am armed, trained and screened, (by the FBI in order to hold a CCW permit) but you want to take away what may be my preferred weapon and capacity choice because you piss your britches every time you see a scary black gun. In effect, you want criminals who could not pass the screening I have to be better armed than I am. You want all guns registered with a federal database. You will shout that you don't want to confiscate my "legal" weapons, but refuse to acknowledge that the government knowing what weapons I own is a precursor to confiscation.[
1) Than number has been debunked countless times, stop using it.
2) not counting the times people used a gun to defend themselves WITHOUT killing someone, or even the deterrence value an armed populace has.
3) Not related to legal gun owners. The crackhead knows his crack dealer, when one or the other shoots the other one, how is that related to legal gun ownership?
Why do you enjoy the idea of a ruling class that has more rights than you do? Do you feel the need to be a sheep, mewling for whatever handout your "betters" are willing to give you?
Gee, maybe because I want the guy who has to go into a building full of criminals to be armed, trained and screened before we give him a gun.
Some whack who thinks he's a comic book supervillian, no, I don't want him to have a gun and I don't want people who are arming like the Zombie Apocolypse is coming to have them, either.
You don't need a gun.
Oh, Kellerman has never been debunked. Gun Whacks stomping their feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" is not debunking. It's a tantrum.
Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are 43 times more likely to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]
[
He killed his mother and took her guns. No one sold or gave him a gun.
Are you this stupid in person?
No gun laws would have prevented what happened in Newport.
His mother was as crazy as he was... that was the point.
A gun law, "Hey, you can't own more than one gun, you have to have a background check, and, oh, yeah, you can't have a military grade weapon" definitely would have prevented Newtown.
