Not the most coherent thing I’ve ever read but OK, so, in your view, Joe Biden is a “gun grabber”. Anyone else?
Also, has Mr. Biden successfully grabbed any guns? I’m guessing no, since mass killings still seem to be proceeding apace.
Paper towel tubes can be used as the barrel.
Yes - disciplined soldiers who have undergone basic training, not a bunch of yahoo Rambo wannabees. There is absolute nothing in common between the military culture we have here and your American gun bullshit.
Awesome!
I can use physics to prove it was impossible for Jill Biden to fire a warning shot without having to get into an impossible crouching position.
Nice example of an irrelevancy.
If I drink in the privacy of my home, nobody else is affected.
If I drink in public, suddenly, there are all sorts of additional restrictions on how intoxicated I can appear in public, whether or not I can be served, whether or not I can legally drive, etc.
Those have nothing to do with restricting my freedoms but protecting other people’s freedom from my behavior.
In other words, you want carte blanche to act like a douchebag and have only shitty examples to back it up.
ETA: I correct myself. You don’t just want carte blanche to act like a douchebag. You want people to thank you for it, too. Ok, fine. Thank you for acting like a douchebag. You set a wonderful example for the rest of us.
Clearly, no such test is required to register a guest account.
Well, before you buy a gun, you have to fill out a form and go through a background check. It is a federal offense punishable by ten years in jail to lie on those forms. There are a LOT of cases of people lying on those forms and noone ever follows up. A Milwaukee police chief once famously said he doesn’t chase paper, he chases criminals. The FBI and ATF don’t really prosecute a lot of these guys either.
In my area something like 1% of the gun dealers account for over 50% of guns used in crimes. And its not like the guns from these dealers are all showing up in the gun dealer’s neighborhood, they are showing up all over the region.
First of all, I disagree with Bricker, I think you have to do more than prove a problem exists before you pass a law that abridges constitutional rights. I oppose voter ID laws that have no real effect on voter fraud just as I oppose AWBs that have no real effect on gun violence. I also think both end up hurting your own cause (see 2012 election with record turnout by minorities and the incredible jump in firearms sales and NRA membership after Feinstein got the microphone).
We don’t always know which ideas will work but we tried an AWB for TEN YEARS with no noticable reduction in gun violence. If you can’t prove efficacy after a ten year test run, I think you need to come up with a good reason to try the same thing over again.
BTW, how does the mechanism of a revolver limit the rate of fire?
I have a revolver with more capacity than my 1911.
Most gun murders are committed by people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place. So if we can figure out how to keep guns out of their hands, it is a good bet that gun murders will come down. I think licensing and registration is about the only thing that will work without violating the second amendment.
And what is the significance of the frequency of mass murders of more than 12 people (I wonder why they picked the number 12) over our history? The rate of gun death in the USA has been steadily declining over the last 30 years. The homicide rate has dropped from 5.9 to 4.7 (per 100,000) over the last 6 years, thats like a 20% drop in the homicide rate over 6 years during one fo the worst and most prolonged recessions in living memory. Which is the more important statistic?
No shit. It the universal signal for “get the fuck out of my house”
Gun porn? Or is the picture of a woman with a gun (in a bikini NSFW)?
Hentor will chime in and whine about why none of the current estimates are reliable but the current estimates range between 55,000 (by an anti-gun activist) and 2.5 million (by a pro-gun acitvist). The DOJ survey puts the number at about 100,000 abnd other social scientists usign the same data (but making some reasonable adjustments) come up with numbers between 250,000 and 370,000. My understanding is that a lot depends on how you define defensive gun use and how you parse/weight the data but it is clear that more study in this area would be helpful to the gun rights debate.
Why does it have to be against other people with handguns? Why can’t it just be against some unarmed guy thats going to rape you or just beat the shit out of you?
/agree, you can’t really draw too many lessons from the decisionmaking process of crazy people.
Really?!?!:rolleyes:
What peer reviewed articles are you talking about? And are you sure that there aren’t any studies going the other way?
This is not loke global warming where 99% of the scientists believe the same thing and other 1% work for Chevron.
Well, you probably also don’t have a problem with your soldiers raping each other.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph
But hey, your side has the movie listings from Colorado.
Talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit there, you stupid fuck. I suspect you probably don’t even realize it.
I’ve shared the following material with Dumb Assguy several times. In case others who are capable of getting it are interested, the links go to three papers that discuss the methodological limitations to the study of defensive gun uses. They also provide multiple examples of why gun strokers’ report of defensive gun use are highly suspect.
These are people who are petrified about the world around them. They are biased to see threats where none exist. Of course they are going to imagine that they’ve scared off threats using their guns. It’s what they fantasize about.
I have to say though, that DA used to assert that “we” have ESTABLISHED that the best estimate of defensive gun use is 350K. At least he appears to have stopped saying that. Perhaps he is somewhat less stupid than he otherwise appears!
No, that’s not what I have pointed out. It’s a true statement in many circumstances, but it cannot be generalized to be true in all cases.
Indeed, when strict scrutiny is applied to a law, the government must show that the law is efficacious: that it is narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate and important government goal.
And I suspect you knew that, and knew that I knew it, and knew that I said it, but you had no interest in being overly burdened by the truth when the truth was inconvenient to your preferred narrative.
And Jesus of America.
And that is why no laws are ever passed that do not meet those exacting standards. Thank Heaven for that!
What does that sentence mean, “…although we could not determine causation…?”
It means somewhere a hack lawyer is playing with his balls while yapping on an Internet message board.
Which of the words is giving you trouble? It’s almost as if you want to inject doubt about the study, but without making an easily dismissed argument.
grabs your gun
I am sure the study is on solid ground.
I am asking you what you believe those words mean. Or to put it another way, I am asking you what you believe the study proves.
That is not a rebuttal that is remarkable for its cogency.
Then again, you might well be a monorchid.
A few of you are guilty of overstating the strength of the gun control supporters arguments. If your case was so rock solid why did that last bit of legislation post Sandy Hook go down in flames?