Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

Should’ve drawn yours first and shot his out of his hand!

Here’s at least one more. Don’t worry though, the 3 kids and the mom were killed with a .22 rifle. He saved the “assault rifle” to kill his dad, then loaded both guns in a van and was allegedly considering shooting up a store when he was apprehended. So, 27?

And not a bar stool in sight.

Speaking of the old assault weapons ban, it lasted from 1994 until 2004. In that time, how many handguns or shotguns were seized from lawful gun owners?

Here’s my entry for today:

What chaps my ass is this fascist from the story trying to infringe on our rights:

You mean, murdered like the Granny in your example who talked the maniac down and managed to end the situation peacefully after being able to miss him only once? Instead of firing wildly around her with a semi-auto?

I’d run like hell if she were compensating for her poor marksmanship with a G19, as well. Or any other automatic for that sake. Doesn’t need to be a G18.

I am all for banning pink handguns.

Ca3799 was keeping count of everything since Newtown. So out of 1600 and something that makes for a total of 7 by your count. My guess would be maybe 2% so maybe 30 or so? Either way it’s a whole lot less than 1600.

It’s the NRA, so I suppose it’s "stupid gun news: NRA’s “enemies list”: Most of America. They’ve published a list of “anti-gun” people and organizations that apparently includes much of the national population.

I sure hope you answer my question because I’m wondering why you posted the 1619 number? Is it because you think all guns are bad and should be banned? Or is it you think assault rifles are responsible for the whole number. Or is it because you want people to think assault rifles are responsible for the whole number so you can gather support to ban them first, then when the number stays the same you can go after handguns? Some other reason?

None. Do you wish they had seized some?

You would agree the churches are bad at least, wouldn’t you?

So your fear mongering about slippery slopes won’t hunt.

Sure. But for entirely different reasons.

Slippery slope is out. The word now is incrementalism.

It hunts just fine, and it’s not a fallacy.

I’m against them because they are irrational. How about you?

That’s funny, because you are also irrational.

How so?

Ah, that’s right, you also have trouble with comprehension.

Because you ascribe to “incrementalism”.