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.
To the Super Liberal Morons on this thread.................
Why do you idiots continue to push your version of Liberty on all..........As you only agree with those like you.................While most of the Country doesn't agree with you...............Even your own Democratic Senators REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE UN TREATY......................
You always say you are the party of the people..............so why do the people DISAVOW YOUR BS BELIEFS............
]
In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed. The poll also showed a decline in overall support for expanding gun background checks, from 91 percent in a January survey to 83 percent now, though that could be due in part to a slight wording change in the question, Gallup said.
"Regardless of whether one looks at the 91 percent or the 83 percent support level, it is clear that more Americans support the concept of a law expanding background checks for gun purchases than say the Senate should have passed such a law," wrote Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, in a memo accompanying the poll results.
The real problem is most Americans don't really know how lax our gun laws are, that criminals can walk into a store and buy a gun.
The real problem is most Americans don't really know how lax our gun laws are, that criminals can walk into a store and buy a gun.
Not really.
The real problem is most Americans don't really know how lax our gun laws are, that criminals can walk into a store and buy a gun.
Not really.
Um, yeah, really.
Two women who are unlikely to be raped.
I don't know why anti-gun nuts want women to be raped. That's just sick.
No, we just don't want them shooting their husbands during an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best or their kids shooting themselves because their girlfriend unfriended them on Facebook.
Both far more likely, given the gun statistics.
Not really.
Um, yeah, really.
How ?
Um, yeah, really.
How ?
Walk into a store.. put down some money, walk out with a gun.
Just like this guy did.
and this guy...
and this guy...
But..but...but... OOOOOOObama!
Is the man paying rent on that space he's occupying in your head?
's think, take a look at this gem!!!
Did you notice how the number keeps going down?[
...and then there is this:
"Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. (Steven) Lippmann (of the University of Louisville School of Medicine) and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder. "
Daily Kos: Guns in homes kill people
First it was 43 times. Then 22. Now 12.
Come back when they get it right.
Any of those numbers are equally bad.
But here's the thing. When Kellerman came out with his study, the NRA ran whining to Congress to make sure the CDC never, ever studied this subject again.
Strikes me they know what the truth is, and really don't want you to know. Which is fine, because you don't want to know.
Did you notice how the number keeps going down?
First it was 43 times. Then 22. Now 12.
Come back when they get it right.
Any of those numbers are equally bad.
But here's the thing. When Kellerman came out with his study, the NRA ran whining to Congress to make sure the CDC never, ever studied this subject again.
Strikes me they know what the truth is, and really don't want you to know. Which is fine, because you don't want to know.
and what is stopping anyone else from studying the raw data? After all, it is still collected.
But this is a first, its the first time JoeBlow has even come close to realizing or semi-admitting that Kellerman is complete bullshit.
Any of those numbers are equally bad.
But here's the thing. When Kellerman came out with his study, the NRA ran whining to Congress to make sure the CDC never, ever studied this subject again.
Strikes me they know what the truth is, and really don't want you to know. Which is fine, because you don't want to know.
and what is stopping anyone else from studying the raw data? After all, it is still collected.
But this is a first, its the first time JoeBlow has even come close to realizing or semi-admitting that Kellerman is complete bullshit.
Other people have and have come to the same conclusions.
But here's the thing, the only people who can really collect that kind of data and have be meaningful is the government.
The thing is, Kellerman is accurate. I know you guys wish he wasn't, because the implications are too scary for you.
some people are obsessed with the nanny state. Back in the day, they read Hobbes, Thomas Moore and Plato et. al. and embraced it for life. Just braindead. They want government control of everything. These meatheads think that if you ban guns, murders will stop happening, when actually, the opposite has been proven to be true.
But don't take my word for it.......see what Harvard University determined in April of this year about the effect banning guns has on civilized societies >>>>
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Spambot delivers !!!!!
Not really. A firearm is a far more effective deterrent than pissing your pants or throwing up, don't you think?Two women who are unlikely to be raped.
And one lame strawman who is unlikely to be entertained.
Not really. A firearm is a far more effective deterrent than pissing your pants or throwing up, don't you think?And one lame strawman who is unlikely to be entertained.
"Deterrent" pre-assumes "threat". There's your problem right there: seeing everything around you as a "threat".
That, along with subsequent escalation of that paranoia. You have a rock? I get a rock. You have a stick? I get a stick. You have a thermonuclear device? I get a thermonuclear device. What could possibly go wrong.
some people are obsessed with the nanny state. Back in the day, they read Hobbes, Thomas Moore and Plato et. al. and embraced it for life. Just braindead. They want government control of everything. These meatheads think that if you ban guns, murders will stop happening, when actually, the opposite has been proven to be true.
But don't take my word for it.......see what Harvard University determined in April of this year about the effect banning guns has on civilized societies >>>>
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Spambot delivers !!!!!
Way to go, confusing leftist anti-american loons with facts
-Geaux
Not really. A firearm is a far more effective deterrent than pissing your pants or throwing up, don't you think?
"Deterrent" pre-assumes "threat". There's your problem right there: seeing everything around you as a "threat".
That, along with subsequent escalation of that paranoia. You have a rock? I get a rock. You have a stick? I get a stick. You have a thermonuclear device? I get a thermonuclear device. What could possibly go wrong.
So I guess every person out there with insurance is paranoid because they are mitigating a risk.
