RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 12:51:47 PM)

Freaking hell, you want a full casualty list? The fact that no one on the right said anything about the victims is no different than no one on the left saying anything about them either.

In point of fact, the first thing out of anyone's mouth from the left is "this wouldnt happen if their were no guns."

Should we mourn the victims, hell yes, but to say no gun rights supporter hasnt thought about them implies some omnipotent mind reading power possessed by the liberals, that quite frankly I doubt exists.

Let me drop a bombshell on you folks, something coming from a gun owner, and pointed right to your "antigun" bullshit, knee jerk crap.

First, a mass shooting as any incident involving more than four people at one location or a series of related events.

That is the DOJ definition.

As it stands now, there have been more "mass" shootings in the US than days in the year so far.

On the same day as the incident in Oregon, there was one in Florida, three people killed before the shooter killed himself. No national news on that one.

Incidents involving four or more victims happen routinely in major cities, written up as gang related. In south central LA, the average victim count on drive by is 5, and there are more than one a day.

Yet it is this type of incidents that get the headlines. Why?

The answer is simple, any other place in the US where this is common it is considered so routine that it is ignored by the national media.

Where is the liberal outcry for the thousands killed and injured in those incidents? They are just as important as the students at a small community college. There is one difference, those other incidents happen in places where the liberals dont give a crap about.

If they did, MSNBC and the liberal news outlets would be all over it.

Gun related violence is not because guns are easy to get, gun related violence happens in places where guns in private hands should not happen at all, because officially, no private person can own guns.

The problem is not, never has been the ease at getting a gun, it has been in the fact that of over a million pages of gun legislation passed, the crap is so convoluted as to be damn near unenforceable.

We hear about the gun show loop hole, which is kind of a bullshit theory, simply because most dealers at a gun show hold a FFL, and in many cases, more than one, and have no problem using the various smart phone, tablet and lap top apps to run back ground checks to follow the law as far as it can be.

The problem is that most of the shit that should show up on that back ground check is not readily available.

Shrinks do not want to notify authorities of a patient with a violence problem, because that violates their ethical rules, in most states it is not even mandatory unless the patient is admitted for more than observation.

Then there is the fact that even in this era of "instant" information access, information is slow to get into the places it needs to be so that someone would know about a potential violation or block to the purchase.

And as for callous or an uncaring attitude, well gee, it is kind of hard to appear anything but when you are trying to defend your beliefs in light of so much bullshit being thrown around.

Here is a good example:

Semiautomatic assault weapon.

(a) Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as:

(1) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models),
(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil,
(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70),
(4) Colt AR-15,
(5) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC,
(6) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12,
(7) Steyr AUG,
(8) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, and
(9) Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;


(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,
(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
(3) A bayonet mount,
(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and
(5) A grenade launcher;


© A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip,
(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer,
(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,
(4) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, and
(5) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

(d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,
(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
(3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, and
(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine.


For the military and international community:

assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

For most anti gun fanatics it is anything with technology other than singleshot smooth bore musket.



mnottertail -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 1:01:00 PM)

quote:


In point of fact, the first thing out of anyone's mouth from the left is "this wouldnt happen if their were no guns."


You may begin a promenade of citations from notably left that say that, first thing out of their mouths. There must be billions then.



BamaD -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 1:07:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Freaking hell, you want a full casualty list? The fact that no one on the right said anything about the victims is no different than no one on the left saying anything about them either.

In point of fact, the first thing out of anyone's mouth from the left is "this wouldnt happen if their were no guns."

Should we mourn the victims, hell yes, but to say no gun rights supporter hasnt thought about them implies some omnipotent mind reading power possessed by the liberals, that quite frankly I doubt exists.

Let me drop a bombshell on you folks, something coming from a gun owner, and pointed right to your "antigun" bullshit, knee jerk crap.

First, a mass shooting as any incident involving more than four people at one location or a series of related events.

That is the DOJ definition.

As it stands now, there have been more "mass" shootings in the US than days in the year so far.

On the same day as the incident in Oregon, there was one in Florida, three people killed before the shooter killed himself. No national news on that one.

Incidents involving four or more victims happen routinely in major cities, written up as gang related. In south central LA, the average victim count on drive by is 5, and there are more than one a day.

Yet it is this type of incidents that get the headlines. Why?

The answer is simple, any other place in the US where this is common it is considered so routine that it is ignored by the national media.

Where is the liberal outcry for the thousands killed and injured in those incidents? They are just as important as the students at a small community college. There is one difference, those other incidents happen in places where the liberals dont give a crap about.

If they did, MSNBC and the liberal news outlets would be all over it.

Gun related violence is not because guns are easy to get, gun related violence happens in places where guns in private hands should not happen at all, because officially, no private person can own guns.

The problem is not, never has been the ease at getting a gun, it has been in the fact that of over a million pages of gun legislation passed, the crap is so convoluted as to be damn near unenforceable.

We hear about the gun show loop hole, which is kind of a bullshit theory, simply because most dealers at a gun show hold a FFL, and in many cases, more than one, and have no problem using the various smart phone, tablet and lap top apps to run back ground checks to follow the law as far as it can be.

The problem is that most of the shit that should show up on that back ground check is not readily available.

Shrinks do not want to notify authorities of a patient with a violence problem, because that violates their ethical rules, in most states it is not even mandatory unless the patient is admitted for more than observation.

Then there is the fact that even in this era of "instant" information access, information is slow to get into the places it needs to be so that someone would know about a potential violation or block to the purchase.

And as for callous or an uncaring attitude, well gee, it is kind of hard to appear anything but when you are trying to defend your beliefs in light of so much bullshit being thrown around.

Here is a good example:

Semiautomatic assault weapon.

(a) Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as:

(1) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models),
(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil,
(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70),
(4) Colt AR-15,
(5) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC,
(6) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12,
(7) Steyr AUG,
(8) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, and
(9) Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;


(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,
(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
(3) A bayonet mount,
(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and
(5) A grenade launcher;


© A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip,
(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer,
(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,
(4) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, and
(5) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

(d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,
(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
(3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, and
(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine.


For the military and international community:

assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

For most anti gun fanatics it is anything with technology other than singleshot smooth bore musket.

Actually someone, I am pretty sure it was DCnovice posted a rest in peace message, I agreed with this for all but the shooter and Tommy was offended because I believe in Hell. But other than that you are correct about the lack of sympathy posts. You are correct it is difficult to sound sympathetic when told that if you do not buy into the gunaphobes approach you are an uncarring sociopathic lunitic.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 1:23:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

i didnt say you hated muslims...please point out where I did?
butthurt over something that wasnt said, and ignoring all the other things I did
useless idiot

Considering you're the one throwing insults around, I'd say you were the one who was butthurt but that would be an assumption...sort of like your assumption that I was offended by the young man being a Muslim.



kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 8:11:40 PM)

quote:

Define unsecured?

And no, I should not be held liable for my stolen property being used in the commission of a crime be it a car, gun, mace, lock pick set, whatever.


All guns should be stored in home in a gun safe and or with a cable or trigger lock.... even if you are the only resident. They should be properly registered. In a vehicle they should be stored in the trunk with a cable or trigger lock and the vehicle should be properly secured... Simple. There are quick access safes so storing a weapon properly and complaining about quick access just means you are to cheap to store it properly.

And yes you should be liable for a stolen unsecured weapon... even children can and do steal and if they can get to and use your weapon you are at fault...complete fault... the child bears none. In the same vane if you are negligent and leave your weapon unsecured and it is stolen and used in a crime you should bear some degree of responsibility... because you would be too damn stupid and careless to be trusted with a killing weapon.

Now I do not know you...Bama... or even LG and for all I know you are all responsible gun owners... but i cannot for the life of me understand why you three would not want responsible gun owners and laws to encourage them to be responsible... After all your children are at risk from unsecured weapons just as mine...and we are all at risk of gun crime fueled and supplied with weapons by irresponsible gun owners and the insane.

Butch




BamaD -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 8:41:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Define unsecured?

And no, I should not be held liable for my stolen property being used in the commission of a crime be it a car, gun, mace, lock pick set, whatever.


All guns should be stored in home in a gun safe and or with a cable or trigger lock.... even if you are the only resident. They should be properly registered. In a vehicle they should be stored in the trunk with a cable or trigger lock and the vehicle should be properly secured... Simple. There are quick access safes so storing a weapon properly and complaining about quick access just means you are to cheap to store it properly.

And yes you should be liable for a stolen unsecured weapon... even children can and do steal and if they can get to and use your weapon you are at fault...complete fault... the child bears none. In the same vane if you are negligent and leave your weapon unsecured and it is stolen and used in a crime you should bear some degree of responsibility... because you would be too damn stupid and careless to be trusted with a killing weapon.

Now I do not know you...Bama... or even LG and for all I know you are all responsible gun owners... but i cannot for the life of me understand why you three would not want responsible gun owners and laws to encourage them to be responsible... After all your children are at risk from unsecured weapons just as mine...and we are all at risk of gun crime fueled and supplied with weapons by irresponsible gun owners and the insane.

Butch



A. There are already endangerment laws.
B. You clearly haven't read the Consumer Report peice.
C. You haven't even read the part I reprinted.
D. You don't need to single out gun owners, see A/
E. Your rules would make firearms unaccessible when needed.
F. No once it is stolen the owner should no more be responsible for what the thief does with it or do you want to force car owners to anchor their cars in such a way that they can't move untill the driver is in it?
G. You never did answer my question about the pool, if the kid next door drowns in their pool while they are gone shouldn't they be punished if they don't have at a minimum a cage, over the top of the pool because kids climb fences, an electric fence, or a 24/7 guard because that is the equivilant security you want to enforce on gun owners even though the other two are far more likely to kill them.

It still looks like you only care about kids if a gun is involved.

PS If we apply your standards across the board, which unless you are just on an anti gun crusade, we would have to, pretty soon everyone will be in jail.



Lucylastic -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/7/2015 10:09:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

i didnt say you hated muslims...please point out where I did?
butthurt over something that wasnt said, and ignoring all the other things I did
useless idiot

Considering you're the one throwing insults around, I'd say you were the one who was butthurt but that would be an assumption...sort of like your assumption that I was offended by the young man being a Muslim.

So i didnt say it.....thank you, i accept your apology
Lol gonna pretend you dont throw insults?
Pot calling the kettle grimy arse??



slavemali -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 12:00:24 AM)

Well CloudBoy, the thing is if you can limit the amount of one thing, than perhaps someone would limit something you wanted...unreasonably.... I have gathered up sold than regathered weapons several times in my life... you think it proper to punish me, because of the failings of the medical community to first identify and than apply a solution to such individual as did the shooting recently in Oregon..... Also what about the cop recently who obviously not insane, just pissed off who killed the unarmed blackman....


Sorry weapons don't kill they take a person to do that. But to apply restriction on guns outside of common sense restriction such as automatic fire, their is only two solutions complete ban or the acceptance that having a society inwhich gun ownership is favored than the cost for this gun ownership is situations like this....

The police had to put respond, because the victims did not have a gun or knife to defend themselves. Waiting for the police to respond is part of the problem as well...don't you think?



slavemali -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 6:33:39 AM)

Butch

wow, the world you describe is not attainable in three life times, much less in a four year political cycle we live in. Good things happen to bad people and bad things to good people, it is the luck of the draw. The world you seem to prefer is one based on fear and it is not possible to protect yourself if all you do is think of yet another fear to worry about.

thank you, this is my reply to what you said with absolutely no intent to antagonize.



thompsonx -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 7:44:31 AM)

ORIGINAL: kdsub


All guns should be stored in home in a gun safe and or with a cable or trigger lock.... even if you are the only resident. They should be properly registered. In a vehicle they should be stored in the trunk with a cable or trigger lock and the vehicle should be properly secured... Simple. There are quick access safes so storing a weapon properly and complaining about quick access just means you are to cheap to store it properly.

And yes you should be liable for a stolen unsecured weapon... even children can and do steal and if they can get to and use your weapon you are at fault...complete fault... the child bears none. In the same vane if you are negligent and leave your weapon unsecured and it is stolen and used in a crime you should bear some degree of responsibility... because you would be too damn stupid and careless to be trusted with a killing weapon.

By that simple minded logic if a child breaks into my home and drinks the draino that I have stored under the kitchen sink I am somehow responsible????[8|]



tweakabelle -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 7:55:57 AM)

I came across this article in Mother Jones, which reprinted it from USA Today:


Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, it's been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

Second Amendment activists have long floated this theme, and now lawmakers across the nation are using it too. During a recent floor debate in the Colorado Legislature, Republican state Rep. Carole Murray put it this way: "Most of the mass killings that we talk about have been effected in gun-free zones. So when you have a gun-free zone, it's like saying, 'Come and get me.'"

The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime.

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Thirty-six of the killers committed suicide at or near the crime scene. These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.
Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings emphasis added



Kirata -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 8:20:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended. Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Yeah, no. It doesn't follow that if those places hadn't been gun free they would still have done it anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Thirty-six of the killers committed suicide at or near the crime scene. These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack. Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

Whether they planned to accept the consequences of their actions is irrelevant. If you want to make a big splash and kill a lot of people, you're not going to pick a gun range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.

Law-abiding gun owners do not carry their weapons in locations where to do so is not permitted, like most workplaces and schools. So if nobody there was armed, then of course the shooters wouldn't be stopped by someone who was.

Good grief, tweakabelle.

K.



cloudboy -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 8:29:39 AM)


The number of guns killing people is about 30,000 a year.

http://wtop.com/dc/2015/07/police-child-injured-in-se-d-c-shooting/

^^^ It is happening every day.



kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 8:30:48 AM)

OK lets imagine Tom a loaded unsecured gun placed on the kitchen table along side a bottle of Dranio... then let your children, say 3 to 8 years old, in the room unsupervised... which do you think presents the most danger? If these items were placed by another putting your children in danger do you think there should be a greater degree of responsibility placed on the proper securing of Dranio or the weapon?

Please don't turn into a bama on me.

Butch



kdsub -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 8:34:44 AM)

There is nothing unattainable about the proper storage and use of guns... If stiff fines and imprisonment were administered for the negligence of irresponsible gun owners there would be a reduction at least in accidental gun deaths and crime by stolen weapons... I think this is reasonable to assume and certainly worth a try.

Butch



CreativeDominant -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 8:51:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

i didnt say you hated muslims...please point out where I did?
butthurt over something that wasnt said, and ignoring all the other things I did
useless idiot

Considering you're the one throwing insults around, I'd say you were the one who was butthurt but that would be an assumption...sort of like your assumption that I was offended by the young man being a Muslim.

So i didnt say it.....thank you, i accept your apology
Lol gonna pretend you dont throw insults?
Pot calling the kettle grimy arse??

Oh no...I do throw insults. Not up (or down) to your level of mean-spiritedness but I do. I just noted, correctly, that you were the one using them first and more often...throwing around...in our exchange.



Kirata -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 9:38:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The number of guns killing people is about 30,000 a year.

http://wtop.com/dc/2015/07/police-child-injured-in-se-d-c-shooting/

^^^ It is happening every day.

Whoa there. You're including suicides in that total. Deaths like the tragic accident you linked that killed a three-year old aren't happening every day. The latest data at WISQARS on accidental firearms deaths of children aged 0-3 finds only 20, and only 55 total among children under 12, in a population of ~318 million people with an estimated 310 million guns. Tragic as each one is, that's about as close to a perfect safety record as it's possible to get, and a long way from "happening every day".

As for your gratuitous inclusion of suicides:

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."

Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

K.



BamaD -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 9:55:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

OK lets imagine Tom a loaded unsecured gun placed on the kitchen table along side a bottle of Dranio... then let your children, say 3 to 8 years old, in the room unsupervised... which do you think presents the most danger? If these items were placed by another putting your children in danger do you think there should be a greater degree of responsibility placed on the proper securing of Dranio or the weapon?

Please don't turn into a bama on me.

Butch

If you had paid attention to consumer reports you would know that the kid is 16x as likely to die from the draino than the gun.
I also noticed that you defelected from his question. Yes or No should he be held responsible?
Just like you refused to answer about the kid drowning in the pool.
Julst like you refused to answer about making people put cages around their pools.
Just like you refused to answer about making people incapacitate their cars.



mnottertail -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 9:59:55 AM)

since we are 16 times more likely to kill with draino, kill by drowning, kill by car, baseball bat, knife, stabbing someone in the tonsils with a fork when eating mashed potatos, why do you need a gun to defend yourself, with all these other wonderful ways available?



cloudboy -> RE: Oregon Shooter had fifteen firearms (10/8/2015 10:25:29 AM)


YES



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.640625E-02