Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally know of two people who were in terrible car accidents, but survived because they were not wearing seatbelts. True.

But try pinning that statistic on any sort of policy or even psa to discourage folks from wearing seatbelts.

Why? Because the exception isn't the rule.

and people should have common sense. Using a seat belt is the smart thing to do.

The chance that I would stop a violent attack with my gun versus the chance that I would kill myself, or accidentally hurt someone else. It is just idiocy to think that a gun reduces violence.

Rivara and his team discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide — they released this information in a series of peer-reviewed articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The CDC both funded Rivara’s original research and stood by the findings.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

So congress has stopped CDC from doing research on gun violence.

Gun Lobby is so scared of the results that their pawns have outlawed common sense research.

A bunch of scared impotent cowards is the NRA.

NO, CONGRESS HAS NOT "stopped CDCP from doing research on gun violence."

Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. "


[Congress] not FUNDING the CDCP research isn't the same thing as Congress prohibiting research. Why don't YOU put your money where your rmouth is to fund some research?

Make an effort to know what you're talking about before launching the invective, grabber.

What are they supposed to stop work on in order to do this? Childrens' Leukemia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally know of two people who were in terrible car accidents, but survived because they were not wearing seatbelts. True.

But try pinning that statistic on any sort of policy or even psa to discourage folks from wearing seatbelts.

Why? Because the exception isn't the rule.

and people should have common sense. Using a seat belt is the smart thing to do.

The chance that I would stop a violent attack with my gun versus the chance that I would kill myself, or accidentally hurt someone else. It is just idiocy to think that a gun reduces violence.

Rivara and his team discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide — they released this information in a series of peer-reviewed articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The CDC both funded Rivara’s original research and stood by the findings.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

So congress has stopped CDC from doing research on gun violence.

Gun Lobby is so scared of the results that their pawns have outlawed common sense research.

A bunch of scared impotent cowards is the NRA.

NO, CONGRESS HAS NOT "stopped CDCP from doing research on gun violence."

Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. "


[Congress] not FUNDING the CDCP research isn't the same thing as Congress prohibiting research. Why don't YOU put your money where your rmouth is to fund some research?

Make an effort to know what you're talking about before launching the invective, grabber.

Anonymous wrote:Gun lobby is just a pawn for gun manufacturers.

And a bunch of cowards afraid of facts.

For nearly two decades, Congress has banned needed research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last week, Congress, doing the bidding of the gun industry, quietly killed a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would have reversed that ban.

In so doing, it left intact an anti-science smoke screen that has helped the industry and its lobbyists deny and dispute the facts of the gun violence that takes more than 30,000 lives a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/opinion/the-republican-fear-of-facts-on-guns.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=MostViewed&version=Full&src=mv&WT.nav=MostViewed&_r=0

+1000

Gun lobby is just a pawn for gun manufacturers.

And a bunch of cowards afraid of facts.

For nearly two decades, Congress has banned needed research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last week, Congress, doing the bidding of the gun industry, quietly killed a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would have reversed that ban.

In so doing, it left intact an anti-science smoke screen that has helped the industry and its lobbyists deny and dispute the facts of the gun violence that takes more than 30,000 lives a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/opinion/the-republican-fear-of-facts-on-guns.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=MostViewed&version=Full&src=mv&WT.nav=MostViewed&_r=0

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]That's a slippery slope argument from the NRA with no real basis in historical fact, for example the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired after 10 years.[/quote]
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was indeed a slippery slope. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban targeted semi-automatic weapons that cosmetically look like true military assault rifles. These so called assault weapons are no more powerful than your typical wood stock semi-automatic hunting rifle. A true assault weapon (aka machine gun) can fire multiple shots with a single pull of a trigger. True assault weapons are already banned at the federal level. So functionally speaking the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban signaled that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous and should be banned which would include many hunting rifles. The only feature keeping semi-automatic hunting rifles from being banned was cosmetics.

Part of the problem is the loose definition that politics have created to define an assault rifle.[/quote]

Everyone keeps saying that it's just cosmetics and correctly pointing out that they are functionally equivalent to a Remington semi auto hunting rifle, but again, what did the Paris attackers use? What did the Colorado Planned Parenthood attacker use? A Remington? No, they used AK style semi auto assault rifles, and why? Because of the mindset, acting like Rambo. They aren't the same.[/quote]

So you want to ban semi-auto rifles? What do you want people to use? Old-fashioned bolt-action like the winchester repeater from the 1850s? Blunderbusts? People who drone on about "semi-auto assault weapons!" don't realize that almost all guns are semi auto. Virtually every pistol is semi-auto (e.g., glocks, barretas, double action revolvers, etc.). Do you want people to be forced to use old-fashioned single-action revolvers that you have the cock the hammer each time you want to take a shot?[/quote]

I don't want to ban semi-autos, I am just more sensible than the folks who are fixated on "military look" weapons, like AR-15s and AKs. Though I've used ARs, AKs, and the real deal, full auto M-16s I grew up on bolt-action hunting and military rifles and between hunting and military marksmanship training can probably do a lot better than the typical yokel Rambo wannabe with an AR, in particular bigger grain weight/caliber, higher velocities, et cetera.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a slippery slope argument from the NRA with no real basis in historical fact, for example the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired after 10 years.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was indeed a slippery slope. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban targeted semi-automatic weapons that cosmetically look like true military assault rifles. These so called assault weapons are no more powerful than your typical wood stock semi-automatic hunting rifle. A true assault weapon (aka machine gun) can fire multiple shots with a single pull of a trigger. True assault weapons are already banned at the federal level. So functionally speaking the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban signaled that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous and should be banned which would include many hunting rifles. The only feature keeping semi-automatic hunting rifles from being banned was cosmetics.

Part of the problem is the loose definition that politics have created to define an assault rifle.

Everyone keeps saying that it's just cosmetics and correctly pointing out that they are functionally equivalent to a Remington semi auto hunting rifle, but again, what did the Paris attackers use? What did the Colorado Planned Parenthood attacker use? A Remington? No, they used AK style semi auto assault rifles, and why? Because of the mindset, acting like Rambo. They aren't the same.

The Paris attackers used true military grade assault rifles capable of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
They had Chinese Model 56 variants of the AK47 Kalashnikov assault rifle and Zastava M70 assault rifles. Both types of guns are Federally banned in the US and banned throughout Europe.
They also had semi-automatic pistols.

I'm not so sure you can blame mass shootings on Hollywood Rambo movies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a slippery slope argument from the NRA with no real basis in historical fact, for example the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired after 10 years.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was indeed a slippery slope. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban targeted semi-automatic weapons that cosmetically look like true military assault rifles. These so called assault weapons are no more powerful than your typical wood stock semi-automatic hunting rifle. A true assault weapon (aka machine gun) can fire multiple shots with a single pull of a trigger. True assault weapons are already banned at the federal level. So functionally speaking the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban signaled that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous and should be banned which would include many hunting rifles. The only feature keeping semi-automatic hunting rifles from being banned was cosmetics.

Part of the problem is the loose definition that politics have created to define an assault rifle.

Everyone keeps saying that it's just cosmetics and correctly pointing out that they are functionally equivalent to a Remington semi auto hunting rifle, but again, what did the Paris attackers use? What did the Colorado Planned Parenthood attacker use? A Remington? No, they used AK style semi auto assault rifles, and why? Because of the mindset, acting like Rambo. They aren't the same.

So you want to ban semi-auto rifles? What do you want people to use? Old-fashioned bolt-action like the winchester repeater from the 1850s? Blunderbusts? People who drone on about "semi-auto assault weapons!" don't realize that almost all guns are semi auto. Virtually every pistol is semi-auto (e.g., glocks, barretas, double action revolvers, etc.). Do you want people to be forced to use old-fashioned single-action revolvers that you have the cock the hammer each time you want to take a shot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a slippery slope argument from the NRA with no real basis in historical fact, for example the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired after 10 years.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was indeed a slippery slope. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban targeted semi-automatic weapons that cosmetically look like true military assault rifles. These so called assault weapons are no more powerful than your typical wood stock semi-automatic hunting rifle. A true assault weapon (aka machine gun) can fire multiple shots with a single pull of a trigger. True assault weapons are already banned at the federal level. So functionally speaking the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban signaled that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous and should be banned which would include many hunting rifles. The only feature keeping semi-automatic hunting rifles from being banned was cosmetics.

Part of the problem is the loose definition that politics have created to define an assault rifle.

Everyone keeps saying that it's just cosmetics and correctly pointing out that they are functionally equivalent to a Remington semi auto hunting rifle, but again, what did the Paris attackers use? What did the Colorado Planned Parenthood attacker use? A Remington? No, they used AK style semi auto assault rifles, and why? Because of the mindset, acting like Rambo. They aren't the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple weapon owner here.

OP, what about the CCW holder in Michigan who fired indiscriminately at shoplifters in a crowded Home Depot parking lot? Not even the security personnel thought it was prudent to fire at the suspect in a CROWDED parking lot. Luckily, the police arrested HER and she was charged with reckless endangerment. During my cert training, the instructor spent a lot time telling us that drawing the weapon is the last resort and should actually be avoided at all cost. So, yea, I would not want to be shopping with my kids and have some bozo draw their weapon to fire at a shoplifter.

Besides that, I thought that statistically, open carry was a bigger crime deterrent under the theory that the criminal can see that folks are carrying. At least, that is what the NRA literature said. LOL

Is it worth accidentally shooting some innocent bystander in the head just because some thug is trying to run off with a shoplifted $20 item? Is human life in America really so worthless that we'd throw lives away for $20?

No, it's about being able to protect yourself from the typical young men who think nothing of taking another human being's life.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

PP here. No one in our family has ever had a gun (other than a long ago hunting rifle), and I'm not planning to ever have one. I also try to avoid times and situations where crimes usually occur in our city. Your attempt at humor, however, does not change the fact that there are places where it would be helpful if someone other than criminals and in your words "gangsta thugs" had a weapon.

Um, that's why we have cops.

Yes, and it's so reassuring to know that there are enough of them to protect us whenever needed, as in the recent situation where a man was brutally beaten with no one to help him.

Yeah well there are 500 times more civilian gun owners than there are cops and obviously none of them stepped up to help him. So much for the idea of the country being so much safer with "good guys with guns" to intervene...

Anonymous wrote:That's a slippery slope argument from the NRA with no real basis in historical fact, for example the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired after 10 years.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was indeed a slippery slope. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban targeted semi-automatic weapons that cosmetically look like true military assault rifles. These so called assault weapons are no more powerful than your typical wood stock semi-automatic hunting rifle. A true assault weapon (aka machine gun) can fire multiple shots with a single pull of a trigger. True assault weapons are already banned at the federal level. So functionally speaking the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban signaled that semi-automatic weapons are dangerous and should be banned which would include many hunting rifles. The only feature keeping semi-automatic hunting rifles from being banned was cosmetics.

Part of the problem is the loose definition that politics have created to define an assault rifle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh whoops I meant to reply to the guy who called me a coward.

And you replied w a stupid playground insult ("little lib")...

Some of us are lifelong shooters and even CCW permit holders who also think he NRA is a bunch of unhinged looney blowhards... Hardly "little libs."

I'm not an NRA member and I support reasonable gun restrictions. The problem is that, if you make ANY concessions on gun regulations, the democrats will take that as a sign that they can demand even more restrictive concessions. This is the pattern the left has taken on many issues (e.g., gay rights starting out just being civil unions which "would never be gay 'marriage', then turning around and demanding gay marriage, then demanding acceptance of "trans" people and so on and so forth). The NRA has figured out that you need to fight on every little issue and not give an inch, or the left will end up using their momentum to ban guns entirely.

That's a slippery slope argument from the NRA with no real basis in historical fact, for example the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which expired after 10 years.

Remember the Night Stalker murders in LA and San Fran? Idiot Diane Feinstein gave away vital details in an on-air PSA to the public, including the shoes that the killer always wore. The police were using those shoe prints to link the cases.

Result was Ramirez changed shoes after that and very nearly destroyed the case altogether, as the officers never did find the shoes when Ramirez was caught. He had disposed of them. In addition, Ramirez changed his behavior, throwing off the police, leading to more deaths.

With this kind of 'help' from elected officials, seems to me staying armed is not a bad thing.

Might I remind y'all that while Feinstein told Californians no guns, she, herself, had a concealed weapons permit and carried? She must've felt pretty safe from the Night Stalker,
given the security she already had as an elected official plus this rare permit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh whoops I meant to reply to the guy who called me a coward.

And you replied w a stupid playground insult ("little lib")...

Some of us are lifelong shooters and even CCW permit holders who also think he NRA is a bunch of unhinged looney blowhards... Hardly "little libs."

I'm not an NRA member and I support reasonable gun restrictions. The problem is that, if you make ANY concessions on gun regulations, the democrats will take that as a sign that they can demand even more restrictive concessions. This is the pattern the left has taken on many issues (e.g., gay rights starting out just being civil unions which "would never be gay 'marriage', then turning around and demanding gay marriage, then demanding acceptance of "trans" people and so on and so forth). The NRA has figured out that you need to fight on every little issue and not give an inch, or the left will end up using their momentum to ban guns entirely.

Why do gun sales skyrocket after an incident? Because once is enough to be caught with your pants down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Multiple weapon owner here.

OP, what about the CCW holder in Michigan who fired indiscriminately at shoplifters in a crowded Home Depot parking lot? Not even the security personnel thought it was prudent to fire at the suspect in a CROWDED parking lot. Luckily, the police arrested HER and she was charged with reckless endangerment. During my cert training, the instructor spent a lot time telling us that drawing the weapon is the last resort and should actually be avoided at all cost. So, yea, I would not want to be shopping with my kids and have some bozo draw their weapon to fire at a shoplifter.

Besides that, I thought that statistically, open carry was a bigger crime deterrent under the theory that the criminal can see that folks are carrying. At least, that is what the NRA literature said. LOL

Is it worth accidentally shooting some innocent bystander in the head just because some thug is trying to run off with a shoplifted $20 item? Is human life in America really so worthless that we'd throw lives away for $20?

No, it's about being able to protect yourself from the typical young men who think nothing of taking another human being's life.

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/54014523-story

LMAO! Yeah, and you think you're protecting yourself from them with concealed carry out there in the hinterlands of America. Gangsta thugs are hidin' out behind the sagebrush in Wyoming, yo! Gangsta thugs gonna jump yo ass as you leave the Old Country Buffet out in suburban Ohio!

PP here. No one in our family has ever had a gun (other than a long ago hunting rifle), and I'm not planning to ever have one. I also try to avoid times and situations where crimes usually occur in our city. Your attempt at humor, however, does not change the fact that there are places where it would be helpful if someone other than criminals and in your words "gangsta thugs" had a weapon.

Um, that's why we have cops.

Yes, and it's so reassuring to know that there are enough of them to protect us whenever needed, as in the recent situation where a man was brutally beaten with no one to help him.