T1B

Papa Willie wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:People are generally more polite to one another if they suspect each other may be armed.

Uh no

Uh - yeah:
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Diego in Seattle wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The only logical way to defend public places is to give the public the ability to protect themselves. I think this goes for any place, including bars.

Uh, no.

I'm betting that most gun owners don't spend all that much time on the range. And hitting a live, moving target that is firing back is a lot harder than hitting a stationary paper target. Now you want to add alcohol to the mix of people shooting in a public place? Gee, I wonder what could go wrong?

Wolfman wrote:As far as I know, there is no statistical evidence to support that a well legally armed citizenry creates massive gun shootings. It's the criminals who don't give a rat's ass about the law. It actually was the same even back in the old west. Movies and TV westerns would have you believe that all people did back then was going around shooting at each other.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Wolfman wrote:As far as I know, there is no statistical evidence to support that a well legally armed citizenry creates massive gun shootings. It's the criminals who don't give a rat's ass about the law. It actually was the same even back in the old west. Movies and TV westerns would have you believe that all people did back then was going around shooting at each other.

You guys watch too many action flicks.

smackaholic wrote: Ask the folks that died cowering in the shitter in that club in Orlando. Oh wait, don't bother, they're kind of dead.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Only a true coward tries to prove a point by referring to dead people.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Any potential lives saved from mass gun shootings as a result of a "well legally armed citizenry" would be dwarfed by the increased number of lives lost from gun related accidents and incidents as a result of having more guns on the streets and in homes.

You guys watch too many action flicks.

Carson wrote:I'm both surprised and dismayed that you can remember to breathe.

Left Seater wrote:Link? So we should see an increase in accidents after mass shootings since gun sales surge after said shootings. Hook us up the the stats proving your theory.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Carson wrote:I'm both surprised and dismayed that you can remember to breathe.

:?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Link? So we should see an increase in accidents after mass shootings since gun sales surge after said shootings. Hook us up the the stats proving your theory.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire ... e-gun-use/

Do you honestly believe that a substantial increase of guns in society would somehow result in a decline of accidental gun deaths? I didn't figure even the most ardent gun guy would argue with basic arithmetic.

88 wrote: Terms don't kill people. Morons with AR-15's and high capacity magazines do.

And before you get your panties in a wad, I will confess to owning three AR-15's. One is configured as a National Match Rifle. The other two were gifts to me from a close family friend, who wanted me to give them to my sons (which I will do, when they are out of college and own a gun safe).

I've been a member of the NRA since before I could drive a car. I understand the notion that Americans should be able to keep and bear arms. They should be able to do so for the protection of their homes and family, and possibly to thwart tyranny from their government (ignoring, of course, that that train left he station around 1937 or so).

If you've been to a gun show in recent years (I have, many times), and you are sane (which I am), you come away with a mixed feeling on things. In one sense, it is good to know that if you think you need weapons to secure the safety and well-being of your own person and family, you can get them. Easily. But in the other sense, you look around the facility and notice that there are a lot of seriously fucked-up people buying incredible amounts of lethal weaponry. And that is unnerving. At least to me.

Several years ago, I stood in line at a gun show to buy some .223 ammunition. I shot quite often back then. So buying 10,000 rounds was not unusual. But the guy in front of me that day was talking about the amount of ammo he had in 30-round magazines. He was buying rounds by the tens of thousands, and packing them in 30-round magazines for the zombie apocalypse (a guess) his tiny mind could only see. He was scary.

I've seen people buy .50 caliber rifles as long as a kitchen table. For what? You cannot hunt with them. I do not know of any gun ranges (and I am a member of six) that allow them. They are basically a 2-mile accurate artillery piece that the common Joe can buy. Why?

And don't even get me started with the myriad of other "street-sweeper" types of guns that get sold at gun shows. It is insane what we tolerate being distributed within our society. And this is coming from an NRA member that has shot at every National Match (except one - 'sup Alaska) since 1991.

What is your grand solution, aside from arguing about terminology? Do we arm every citizen to the teeth with weapons that can bring hundreds of rounds onto target in a matter of minutes (select fire, whatever)? Or, do we consider restraining the ownership and possession of firearms a little bit? I haven't drawn any final conclusions on this issue myself, other than to conclude that there are a (freaking) lot of people who possess firearms lawfully in this society that I personally find scary as shit.

smackaholic wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The only logical way to defend public places is to give the public the ability to protect themselves. I think this goes for any place, including bars.

Uh, no.

I'm betting that most gun owners don't spend all that much time on the range. And hitting a live, moving target that is firing back is a lot harder than hitting a stationary paper target. Now you want to add alcohol to the mix of people shooting in a public place? Gee, I wonder what could go wrong?

Ask the folks that died cowering in the shitter in that club in Orlando. Oh wait, don't bother, they're kind of dead. But I'm guessing that if you took a poll in there as they were living out their last few minutes, they might think that having a gun or three might have been a good idea. And yes, being a little buzzed and scared to death might not help marksmanship much, it does give you somewhat better odds. Also, that fukk was a loser faggit himself. I suspect that if he heard hot rounds coming back at him, he might have pissed down his leg and ran away.

Felix wrote:

BSmack wrote:Errr not exactly. Blame the Mongols for fucking up their sense of dignity beyond all repair.

The Mongol invasion wasn't until the late 1100's to 1200's.....Muhammad was born in 570AD and ripped off the bible for stories about how Islam was the way to truth.....really, it was a way in which to justify his pedophilia as he "married" a nine year old girl and allegedly had sex with many similarly aged girls and teens....the guy created a cult that got out of hand and now it's become what you see it is today......like I said, I reread the Quran and found it most interesting that it was more about muslims sex life than it was about brotherhood and universal love.....

the guy was a fucking perv and convinced others that being a perv was okay.....

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The only logical way to defend public places is to give the public the ability to protect themselves. I think this goes for any place, including bars.

Uh, no.

I'm betting that most gun owners don't spend all that much time on the range. And hitting a live, moving target that is firing back is a lot harder than hitting a stationary paper target. Now you want to add alcohol to the mix of people shooting in a public place? Gee, I wonder what could go wrong?

Go Coogs' wrote:dumb conservatives

Go Coogs' wrote: I wish our dumb conservatives were a lot like dumb liberals; can't read and don't own to a computer.

KC Scott wrote:There are some common sense proposals for regulating gun sales I'd support

* Background Federal and State DB checks at gun shows (or if you to make it easier, set up an easy system to get a pre-registration card similar to TSA pre-check)
* Ban anyone on No Fly lists from purchasing guns
* Ban anyone treated for mental illness from buying guns

Unfortunately none of these will ever be enacted because the NRA views any new gun law as opening the door for further laws

Their argument is there's already ____ laws on the books that aren't being enforced, so why add more legislation that in reality only makes it tougher for honest citizens to buy guns?

I see the issue from both sides, and there's no easy answer

smackaholic wrote: I have never carried in public and maybe I never will.

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote: I have never carried in public and maybe I never will.

Figured as much.

x 1,000,000

So you're expecting some other limp-dicked John Wayne / Clint Eastwood wannabee to save your worthless ass when the time comes. Good luck with that.
If "gun-free" zones are so dangerous, maybe you should just avoid them.