Wow, do I feel insignificant, I post this earlier and nobody pays attention.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16176409&postcount=1646
Oh well.
I saw it, read it, and was surprised.
Kable does not read anything unless it is part of a YouTube video.
Yeah, the no comments surprised me considering the debates going around.
Gun grabbers are the victims all about confirmational bias more than anything else. You have to throw this stuff in their face a number of times to get them to notice.
Why, yes, of course, that explains it! Yeah. Sure. Uh-huh. You betcha!
This is why I punch every 4 year old I see in the face and run for it, before they can shoot me. They won’t let me back in the daycare center anymore but its worth it because I’m safe!
I’ve heard this statistic somewhere before (and I presume most gun rights advocates already know this) and I think the gun control side would rather ignore it.
I think it would be helpful to see if cops felt that licensing and registration would be helpful. The cops I know would rather have more mandatory training and a good way to keep track of firearms than get rid of a small subset of firearms.
I like this one:
NRA Says Background Checks Will Not Prevent Shootings
Because of America’s “broken mental health system,” every nut has a right to get a gun. Makes sense to me.
Obviously the minimum age for admiring a gun should be 4 and over. That is till the 3 year old start bitching…
On a more serious note, here’s how background checks would – or wouldn’t – change many of those horrible mass shootings:
How Many Shootings Would the Senate’s Background Check Deal Have Prevented?
I say one life saved would be enough. But what do I know? Never been a cowboy…
The flip side is that some small percentage would be denied the ability to buy a gun due to false positives. IMO, it’s unacceptable when we do it to voters and we should take the same precautions here given that gun ownership is currently viewed by SCOTUS as an individual right.
As far as I can tell, News 4 in Charleston is not a parody site. I had to check twice after reading this story of a man who shot a pet pig. After plugging the Piggly Wiggly mascot, he was going to take it to a butcher, because:
“The way I grew up, when you shoot something, you eat it. I mean, that’s the way I was raised.”
Interesting read. Sounds to me like the link is admitting the proposed background checks wouldn’t save very many lives at all, but they want them anyway.
Piggly Wiggly get’s upset about the murder of their pardoned pig, but their website has all these recipes for pork?
http://www.pigglywiggly.com/recipes/Pork
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Kable demands stronger regulations and stricter controls, because this law “wouldn’t save very many lives…”. Film at eleven, YouTube, natch.
More good news!
Poll: Most Americans Disapprove of Obama on Guns
Brilliant. When you want a pork chop do you go shoot your neighbor’s pet? This isn’t about where meat comes from, you dope.
I wouldn’t shoot my neighbor’s pet, but either it’s wrong to eat pigs or it isn’t. From the pigs perspective I can’t think of any good reason why the death and consumption of one pig is more or less moral than another. Aside from property rights I can’t think any difference from a human perspective either.
Mass shootings are a very small part of gun deaths. Expanded background checks could have a larger effect if it can keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
The purpose of background check legislation isnt to stop mass murders, that objective is virtually impossible to achieve. It is to reduce the over 30, 000 other gun deaths (particularly the over 10,000 gun murders) we see every year. If we were really serious about making a differnece rather than making a point, we would see a push for licensing and registration instead of a magazine cap amd an AWB.
I agree.
I imagine this would be reeeeeally easy to sell to the NRA, and their political party of choice right?