Yeah right, keep dreaming!
Well the American public seems to be voting with their wallets: ammunition manufacturers are maxed out and still can’t meet the demand:
http://www.news10.net/news/article/239767/2/Gun-store-owners-Ammunition-shortage-not-going-away
Winning!
So, that’s the “american public”, then? Vast majorities of Americans, is it? Should we take that to mean that those polls showing majorities of Americans favoring more regulation and restrictions, those are all lies?
Or should we take that as artful wording on your part, to imply what you cannot honestly say?
If heroin sources in America suddenly dried up, addicts would panic. Would that be the “American public” panicking, or just the addicts?
Gun debates invariably end up being a War of the Statistics:
“This study conclusively shows that guns in the home decrease safety.”
“THIS study shows that it deters crime!”
“That study is flawed.”
“The study that claimed to discredit this study is flawed!”
“Biased sample!”
“Slanted parameters!”
And so on…
In other words, it’s nearly pointless to trot out a cite and then declare “debate over!” on a subject with such heavy ideological bias on both sides.
Another reason why I favor the “liability insurance” approach. if the insurance companies see an opportunity for a tidy and reliable profit, they will probably be willing to fund the research, and are likely to pick the most non-biased researchers. Because money. Which wouldn’t involve all those rabid gun-grabbers at the CDC, necessarily.
They would do it so they can accurately analyze just how much risk is involved in gun ownership, how much it impacts home liability and health concerns. They are quite good at that, because money.
So then at least we would have some reliable statistics to argue from. I grant you the respect of believing you would like that. I very much doubt the NRA would like that, because I think they y already know that it wouldn’t look as good as they might like. The can hire academic whores as easily as anyone else, and they probably have, and they told them the truth. Didn’t tell us. But they know.
So, what do you think? We have liability insurance for cars, why not guns? If you guys are right about how safe guns are, what a boon they are to the home, you should have no problem, right?
Is that crickets I hear?
From my perspective they end up being a war on statistics.
And I assure you that the research is not of equal merit on each side.
Certainly not with all them lying gun grabbers out there.
If this doesn’t show how ‘safe’ you are carrying a gun, I don’t know what does:
Miss. Detective Fatally Shot by Suspect in Interrogation Room
One “of the best” and a “veteran”! Can’t imagine what Joe Carrying Citizen would have done better. But I am sure you can…
I have tried this too - just to defray the costs to society of gun violence rather than from general tax revenues and higher medical insurance premiums.
It is usually waved off as being a ‘Poll tax’ on a constitutional right.. :smack:
btw, the NRA sells liability insurance to their members already.
I did better. A guy broke into my house and I shot him and held him at gunpoint until the cops came and took him away.
I think people should be able to voluntarily buy any insurance they want.
Read it and weep you saps:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/18/cnn-poll-is-support-for-gun-control-dipping/
Winning!
And I quite agree.
Just as they voluntarily buy insurance when they voluntarily decide to buy a car. Because that’s the law, when you voluntarily buy a car, you got to buy the insurance.
But how would this be a problem? Why, just as soon as they get done gathering their data, which will prove what you guys have been saying all along, that guns are just peachy dandy when it comes to home safety!
Hell, shouldn’t you guys be expecting a discount on your insurance, since you have guns? And they make you so much safer, and all?
I own 5 guns including one that would be considered an assault weapon. Referring to those that disagree with us as “saps” isn’t helping.
So, you shot this guy and held him at gunpoint until the cops took him away. Not an ambulance? Not the coroner? The cops? OK.
That’s the right thing to do. Presumably he told the dispatcher that the intruder was injured and let them call an ambulance.
He was shot in the arm. The cops still cuffed him at least initially I think but they had me go in another room and unload my gun while they handled Mr. Home Invader, my girlfriend said that ambulance took him away but I was at the hospital getting stitches at that point. I could give you a lot more detail if you want, but I was really only intending a one liner.
My girlfriend just called 911 and they took it from there.