HR 1022Follow

And the IV, V, VI VIII Amendments don't require recitation of Miranda rights when someone is taken into custody, yet the the US Supreme Court that is so enthralled by the NRA decided that failure to do so is a breach of our civil rights.


Also, I like pie.

We're just listing things completely unrelated to the discussion, right?


What the Friggin' hell is the matter with you people that you are so afraid of guns?

Courtesy of the CDC:

Firearm related deaths- 11,250
Alcohol related deaths- 20,687
Suicide- 31,484
Vehicular related deaths- 46,933


Right.


Don't be afraid of guns, be afraid of stupid people.

You terrify me.

And I'm ok with that.

Might make being a full time Catholic worth it.

Sorry, got distracted by something shiny while I was posting that and I have no idea what I was originally going to say.




I should have been clearer.

1. Gun ownership doesn't correlate with anything other then gun ownership.

2. The fact that I am a gun owner doesn't make me more or less likely to die as the result of a gunshot wound or increase the probability that I will shoot someone else.

3. The number of guns that I own does not increase the probability that I will die of a gunshot wound or increase the probability that I will shoot someone else.

4. The type of guns that I own does not increase the probability that I will die of a gunshot wound or increase the probability that I will shoot someone else.

5. Proper training and exposure to guns does decrease the probability that I will accidentally shoot and kill someone and the probability that I will shoot and kill myself.

6. That in conjunction with my previous post, of the 4 causes of death as noted by the CDC, deaths by firearm are the least likely to occur, indicating that the genesis of this legislation is political and not due to an escalating number of deaths by firearms. (The number of deaths by homicide was 17,732, a 1.6% decrease from 2002. The number of homicides in 2004 dropped to 11,250. On the other hand vehicular deaths in 2003 were 43,340 and increased to 46,933 in 2004, but no one is campaigning to ban cars because they are dangerous.)

7. The government has attempted to regulate drugs and alcohol consumption and failed.

8. The government regulates automobile safety with only moderate success.

Given these factors, the effective solution is to not react out of fear or lack of understanding, but to understand the issue and encourage responsible ownership. If you doubt this go and spend some time around a shooting range and see how trained gun owners behave. You will find that they have strict rules about safe gun handling and most ranges have range masters to oversee these rules.

Hope I was more intelligible this time around.

I'm ever so glad you brought that up, my dear.

Your car has to be a certain type. You cannot have a tank, you cannot have a monster truck with tires above regulation. Your windows cannot be tinted so dark that a cop cannot see into your car. In certain areas, your car has to pass an emissions test before you can renew your tags. Your car is registered. When the cops run your tags, your name comes up as the owner. You have to have a license to drive a car, and you have to be a certain age to be able to drive a car.

That is exactly what this bill is trying to do with guns. Limit the types of guns allowed in the general populace, register them so they can be traced back to the owner, run a background check so we know that the person buying the gun isn't a psycho.

Thank you for proving my point.



I don't really care how "responsible gun owners" act. It's not them I'm worried about. It's the guy who breaks into your house and steals your assault rifle, then goes to Wal-Mart and shoots everyone in sight. I'm sure that you are responsible. That's all fine and good. But what about the people who buy guns illegally? They obviously are not going to walk in and get trained how to use it, and they are obviously up to no good.

I do not see how any of your points (aside from the car analogy which only pushes home the point about registering and limiting the types of guns that should be out there) have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Edited, Mar 30th 2007 9:00am by Belkira

Taking the analogy further, if you wish to drive special vehicles (over a certain tonnage, passenger capacity, etc) then you need to train for and receive a special license. Which requires jumping through additional hoops.

I disagree on one premise, non-gun owners have a zero chance of shooting someone. While gun owners have *some* chance of shooting someone.

I spent some time googling this last night, and I have a few questions:

1) Why is the 1934 law banning private ownership of machine guns (fully automatic weapons) still in effect and never derided by the NRA?

2) Why did the 1994 law have a "sunset provision" that after ten years it just went away?

3) Why do anti-gun control web sites always claim that gun control people are out to ban all guns and that each incremental restriction is part of some slippery slope plot? Was the 1934 law part of that slippery slope? If so, why isn't the NRA calling for its repeal?

4) Does anyone really believe that in this age of high-tech military hardware, a bunch of citizens armed with AR-15s or HK-93s are going to maintain the "security of a free state"? I think someone's been watching Red Dawn on AMC.

5) Where do anti-gun control people think "illegal" guns come from? Is Ruger running a secret third shift to satisfy the demands of drug dealers and bank robbers?

How many people own guns?
How many people drink alcohol?
How many people are SEVERELY depressed?
How many people drive a vehicle?

You're statistics A. have nothing to do with the issue B. Do absolutely nothing but prove that 11,250 people might still be alive if there weren't a billion guns in your country.

Canada has gun control. You can't just buy a gun here, and certainly not a handgun or automatic weapon. You need an FAC (firearms control licence) which means you need to take a safety course. Compare the firearms related death percentages of the US and Canada. We have very very few firearms related deaths because people can't just grab their gun and shoot someone when they snap. They also can't conceal their weapons because you can only purchase hunting rifles (without a special permit). If someone is shot it's easier to track down the culprit because you're registered. Most firearm related shootings are by normal people that lost it for one reason or another and had access to a gun, not by criminals that obtained their weapons illegally.

And wtf does the CDC have to do with firearms related deaths? They shooting Flu victims now?

Never posted here befor but the saying Canada has registered firearms has got my attention.We have registerd handguns since around 1967. At which point most firearm related deaths were caused by rifles ,handgun related shootings are the magority here now .All firearms here now need to be registered last large killing spree was done by someone who went through all the jumps and hurdles bought his guns and killed people .For what the registration has cost us we could have put roughly another 10000 police on streets across this country . Anyone not know where to get drugs if they want them? Why would guns be any different?

Anyone not know where to get drugs if they want them? Why would guns be any different?

The demand for them is minuscule and no one has a gun addiction where they have to buy one daily or feel like they're dying. Look how easy that was, eh?

Bless you one and all.

A couple of weeks back, a friend of mine on another board, one with a decidedly right wing Republican views, went on a rant about "intolerant conservatives" who ripped on him everytime he posted. It is a gun related bbs and he is a hunter and gun owner (he owns more guns the I do), but he is also a liberal Democrat who also believes in gun control legislation. Being a free market conservative and having seen the ooter's reaction to pro gun postings, I saw a way to make a quick buck and made a bet with him.

The bet: That posters on most bulletin boards will respond to an unpopular opinion without regard to political or social orientation and without regard to normative social standards and bahaviors.

The terms: That I could get at least one poster to treat me in the same way that posters treat him, without provoking the response by any name calling, vulgar innuendo or similiar type of stategy. That the responding post would be confrontational, personally inappropriate and without merit.

The reward: $20 and 12 months bragging rights.

Smash, thanks to you the bet is won.