If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"   (salon.com) divider line 522
    More: Obvious, making excuses, New York City Police Department  
•       •       •

10871 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:27 AM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-18 11:50:52 AM

Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?


SCOTUS in their latest rulings.
 
2013-09-18 11:52:10 AM
> salon.com

Phew, for a second there I thought it was true.
 
2013-09-18 11:53:11 AM
Salon Fail

Off duty cop, carrying his pistol..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
 
2013-09-18 11:54:13 AM

Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".


The way we have to deter tyranny and protect our rights is through use of our voting process to elect the officials that support the will of the people.

Sure, there maybe some loonies out in the woods playing militia dreaming about the day they can take the government down, but it would never happen, and if they tried, they'd be routed in the first fire fight.

Fantasies of armed rebellion are not a valid reason for firearm ownership.
 
2013-09-18 11:54:25 AM
Phinn:

Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Pretty sure 100% of them are people with guns.
 
2013-09-18 11:55:35 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The way we have to deter tyranny and protect our rights is through use of our voting process to elect the officials that support the will of the people.


Except when the other side wins an election, then democracy has been subverted/ended.
 
2013-09-18 11:55:47 AM

AirForceVet: /Too many Americans love their guns too much


So, stop liking what you don't like then?
 
2013-09-18 11:55:57 AM

supayoda: Elegy: Unless you're suggesting we disqualify anyone from the list that has ever served in the military or police.

Nobody's going to claim that they don't count, per se, but again... The point being made is that there is a vast difference between "armed person" and "armed civilian." To say that something was stopped by an "armed civilian" would imply that said person has had no professional military or law enforcement training, and I think we can all agree that there is a vast difference between someone who has had that training and someone who hasn't and how each would react in these situations. The idea seems to be among some that simply having a gun (no training) would be enough to stop these things. That isn't necessarily the case.

I'm personally all for guns, but I also strongly believe that people should be required to go through basic firearms training at the very least. I've told the story at least a dozen times of the woman I encountered who was going on about her new gun and how she couldn't tell whether or not it was loaded. If Darwin only took out the stupid ones where guns were concerned, I wouldn't be so worried about people like her.


Bizarre argument is bizarre argument, because it ignores that many "armed civilians" with a ccw either: a)spend more time on the range than the police officers you proport to be highly trained; b) hasn't gone through a civilian training course (as many ccw holders have for "fun" and education; c) that off duty military and police officers aren't civilians when they are off duty; and d) that any state will license you for a CCW without a mandatory training course.

It's just a bizarre line of argument. Heinlein-esque, even.

Are there idiots that own guns? You bet. But I think you're failing to realize that many, many CCW holders are military/ex-military or cops/ex-cops precisely BECAUSE they see the value of having a weapon at all times.

My google-fu is failing me and I can't find any hard data, but I would be willing to bet (ex)military and (ex)cops are vastly over represented on the CCW rolls when compared with the general population, so there's probably a self-selection bias towards service members/cops being involved in these sorts of incidents.
 
2013-09-18 12:00:09 PM
No, in fact, they incorporated the 2nd Amendment it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


Fascinating interpretation, bro!
 
2013-09-18 12:01:29 PM

hasty ambush: Now they are kept "secure" in what amount to a locked vault (a practice started before Clinton):


Thank god. We had enough shootings at Fort Hood the two years I was there without weapons available to the Troop. And that was years before Major Dickface went nuts.

Two incidents where people did drive-bys of formations. It was nuts. Probably because everyone was cheating on everyone and drugs were rampant.
 
2013-09-18 12:03:03 PM

Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".


Look out folks, we got us a capitalizer.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:17 PM
i eat my cereal with a gun.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:44 PM

Klaumbaz: Salon Fail

Off duty cop, carrying his pistol..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting


Honestly, I'm surprised we got this far w/o The Great "What Is A Civilian?" Debate.
 
2013-09-18 12:06:58 PM
drunk driving is illegal, but it still happens!  What a stupid law.
 
2013-09-18 12:08:51 PM

feckingmorons: That is simply untrue.

The Clackamas Town Center shooting was stopped by an armed civilian. He however didn't shoot the gunman, the criminal fled after seeing the armed citizen.


According the guy with the CWP who initially hid and didn't come forward with the story until a day or two later.  The only reason we even know that guy's story is because pro-gun folks picked it up as "evidence" that an armed citizen can stop a shooter.

The ONLY responsible thing about that shady knucklehead is that he didn't pull the trigger himself.
 
2013-09-18 12:18:36 PM

Phinn: Phinn: Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Gah! Trying again...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1862771


Oh, so it's people that do not resemble the Swiss or the Norwegians in some specific way?

Your link is about NYC, one of the safest cities in the US, by the way. Interestingly, while looking for a more national perspective, I came upon this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-sh ap ed-by-race-in-america/

If you're black, you're 5 times as likely to be shot by someone else as you are to shoot yourself. If you're white, it's the opposite. But suicides by gun are much more common than homicides by gun:

www.washingtonpost.com

So, if you are white, you really should think twice about arming yourself, since you are the one most likely to shoot at you. If you are black, maybe not so much. Maybe that's why so many black people are against gun control:

www.washingtonpost.com

Oh nevermind.
 
2013-09-18 12:20:51 PM

Brainsick: NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand

It also means fewer people getting 'the card' (because they'll be on a list) or, flip side, they'll get the MJ card and buy their guns somewhere besides a licensed dealer. Hooray Government for encouraging the black market!


...if you're going to reduce it to those terms, ALL crime is a result of a rule making something illegal so people do something illegally. Driving dangerously because you never passed your test? Hooray Government for promoting your illegal bad driving.

You're absolving criminals for being criminals. Well, so much for the "Ideology Of Personal Responsibility".

/What part of "illegal" don't you understand?
 
2013-09-18 12:24:36 PM

Calipataa: Phinn: Phinn: Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?


Oh, and apparently it really sucks to live in Wyoming. Sorry, Wyomingers, just going by the statistics.
 
2013-09-18 12:26:44 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

Apparent contradiction.

If you are a moron and think most criminals get their guns legally.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?

Felons aren't allowed to posses and buy firearms. They are already breaking the law.

Without...a...background...check...how...would...you...know...you're. . .selling...to...a...criminal...?


Repeating your stupidity?

It is illegal for a felon to buy or own a gun. Regardless of the sellers knowledge, the buyer is breaking the law. So the guy claiming that we "allow" anyone who wants to won a gun to do so is flat out wrong.

But don't let reality get in your way. You grabbed two lines out of context you were too stupid to get, so you are going to keep clinging to them.


Giltric: liam76: Ithis is interesting new fark logic.

I guess vets aren't civilians.

To the people making this argument, do you think vets should have special rights when it comes to carrying weapons in public?

Only from certain MOS.

18s? definitely.

15s? how about no.


Yeah, I have a big problem saying vets should get special rights.


Calipataa: You're probably familiar with the fact that Switzerland is pretty well armed. Almost half as many guns per capita as the US. And twice the gun death rate as here in Norway.


You are missing my point.

If you are going to ban guns you need to do two things.
1-do so in a manner that takes them from criminals first.
2-change the constitution.

Most gun laws I see are more intnet on taking away things they don't think peopel need from otherwise lawful gun owners.
 
2013-09-18 12:27:07 PM

Prophet of Loss: How gun owners see themselves:

[mobiusband.com image 300x420]

The reality:

[hellogiggles.com image 478x310]


fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-09-18 12:27:10 PM

Calipataa: Calipataa: Phinn: Phinn: Gothnet: Phinn: Would you like to know who commits most of the gun crime in the USA?

Oh, and apparently it really sucks to live in Wyoming. Sorry, Wyomingers, just going by the statistics.


Here's the breakdown by race/state

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/
 
2013-09-18 12:29:12 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".

The way we have to deter tyranny and protect our rights is through use of our voting process to elect the officials that support the will of the people.



Sure. That always works.

Three women walking down the street are accosted by an armed mugger, who demands their wallets. One woman objects, and suggests that the four VOTE on whether or not the mugging should continue. Naturally, the three women vote NO, so the mugger, being outvoted, simply gives up and goes home.

Right?


TuteTibiImperes: Sure, there maybe some loonies out in the woods playing militia dreaming about the day they can take the government down, but it would: never happen, and if they tried, they'd be routed in the first fire fight.

Fantasies of armed rebellion are not a valid reason for firearm ownership.



Don't be daft.

The RKBA isn't about mounting an offensive "armed rebellion" to "take the government down", rather it is a deterrence that helps those that govern maintain a healthy level of respect for those that they intend to rule.

The RKBA is a deterrant.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

Ever wonder why dogs will sometimes drag home dead squirrels and rabbits, but not porcupines?


/9 out of 10 dogs surveyed want porcupines to be de-quilled
 
2013-09-18 12:35:26 PM

pacified: i eat my cereal with a gun.


I see you've played knifey-spooney before!

/Or gunney-spooney
//Or somethin'
 
2013-09-18 12:41:12 PM
liam76:
You are missing my point.

If you are going to ban guns you need to do two things.
1-do so in a manner that takes them from criminals first.
2-change the constitution.

Most gun laws I see are more intnet on taking away things they don't think peopel need from otherwise lawful gun owners.


I don't think I am. I don't think you could instantly remove all guns from the US, nor would I want to. I respect hunters, though I don't hunt anymore, and I actually really enjoy target shooting. I don't think you could take them from criminals first, but I think you could gradually decrease the whole supply of guns, making everyone safer. But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy. Go ahead, I guess. But I feel less safe, not more safe, thinking that the average moron around me might be packing, so I'd like to see gun ownership restricted. Not eliminated, restricted.

As for the constitution, well... I think reasonable gun control can be enacted within constitutional limits, although SCOTUS kinda messed with the settled interpretation in Heller. But yeah, I actually think the 2nd is a relic. The reasons for it back in the 18th century were to fight Indians, slave insurrections, and a repressive government. The first 2 were immoral and are now irrelevant, and the third, well, I think your right to assembly is a lot more important these days, since any potential armed resistance to the US government would be hopelessly outgunned...
 
2013-09-18 12:42:59 PM

liam76: Regardless of the sellers knowledge, the buyer is breaking the law.


Perhaps if the seller knew the buyer was a criminal he wouldn't sell him a gun. A background check would be helpful with that.
 
2013-09-18 12:43:26 PM
Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.
 
2013-09-18 12:45:00 PM
"In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"

MOAR GUNZ!!!
 
2013-09-18 12:45:04 PM
Stupid article is stupid. THE reason the U.S. has never been attacked by ground troops in the modern era is because of armed civilians.
 
2013-09-18 12:46:21 PM

Pockafrusta: Stupid article is stupid. THE reason the U.S. has never been attacked by ground troops in the modern era is because of armed civilians.


LOL
 
2013-09-18 12:46:30 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: check would be helpful with that.


As a note, a private seller still can mandate a background check before selling.  All it takes is to make the transaction through a FFL dealer.
 
2013-09-18 12:46:39 PM
The RKBA is a deterrant.

It's there to make the government afraid of people with guns?

The government being who, the police? Soldiers? Code enforcement officers? Librarians?

Is it a good thing if the police are afraid to arrest people, because they might have guns?

Or something?

I mean, we send the police after people with guns all the time. You think some dystopian oppressive government will leave you alone because GUNS?
 
2013-09-18 12:46:46 PM
Lack of an armed citizen at the scene of prior mass shootings doesn't support any argument for stricter gun control. If anything it suggests that restrictive concealed carry laws put the public at risk.
 
2013-09-18 12:48:19 PM

Pockafrusta: Stupid article is stupid. THE reason the U.S. has never been attacked by ground troops in the modern era is because of armed civilians.


cough, oceans, cough
 
2013-09-18 12:48:35 PM

Earguy: Well, that's because guns aren't allowed in areas where mass shootings occur.


Like that Navy base this week.  No guns.  Guns aren't allowed on military bases, so no one carries one.
 
2013-09-18 12:48:35 PM

Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: TuteTibiImperes: Amos Quito: "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"


So, stopping mass shootings was the reason that the framers of the Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment?

Who knew?

No, in fact, they incorporated it to make sure there was a supply of available men and arms to defend the country as a militia should the need arise, something which is no longer needed today, which makes it odd that it's held to be so sacred.


The RKBA is held "sacred" because it is the only effective means that The People have to deter tyranny - the one "right" that allows The People to defend all other "rights" if and when government becomes intolerably oppressive.

But of course folks like you believe that all government is inherently and perpetually benevolent, so I wouldn't expect you to "get it".

The way we have to deter tyranny and protect our rights is through use of our voting process to elect the officials that support the will of the people.


Sure. That always works.

Three women walking down the street are accosted by an armed mugger, who demands their wallets. One woman objects, and suggests that the four VOTE on whether or not the mugging should continue. Naturally, the three women vote NO, so the mugger, being outvoted, simply gives up and goes home.

Right?


TuteTibiImperes: Sure, there maybe some loonies out in the woods playing militia dreaming about the day they can take the government down, but it would: never happen, and if they tried, they'd be routed in the first fire fight.

Fantasies of armed rebellion are not a valid reason for firearm ownership.


Don't be daft.

The RKBA isn't about mounting an offensive "armed rebellion" to "take the government down", rather it is a deterrence that helps those that govern maintain a healthy level of respect for those that they intend to rule.

The RKBA is a deterrant.

[img.fark.net image 659x417]

[img.fark.net image 375x280]

...



archive.foolzashit.com 

But dogs still attack porcupines thanks to stupidity. Would the government be any smarter?
 
2013-09-18 12:49:28 PM

Calipataa: It's there to make the government afraid of people with guns?


Mostly bad guys, whether they are criminals or tyrannical goverment.  Nothing will make it easier for the bad guy to win than to disarm the good guys.
 
2013-09-18 12:50:39 PM

BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.


The availability of alcohol correlates stronger with domestic violence and felonies. Better go dry too.
 
2013-09-18 12:50:48 PM

BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.


A) How many people get shot in homes that contain no guns (during home invasions/robberies)?

B) How many people get shot in homes with guns (accidental or intentional)?

Do you think the answer to 'A' is the bigger number?
 
2013-09-18 12:51:21 PM

super_grass: Would the government be any smarter


They have been known to do very stuipd things in the past (Ruby Ridge for example).  The fallout was bad enough that I would likel to think that they learned their lesson on that, but nothing is certain.
 
2013-09-18 12:52:23 PM
FTFA: "Moreover, according to the Mother Jones study, there is not a single piece of evidence that any shooters deliberately chose to target locations where guns were prohibited."

Ummm, yes there is.  Have you heard of a mass shooting at a gun store?  What about a mass shooting at a gun range?  Hasn't happened.  Why, because even crazy  people know not to shoot up on of those places.

/mass shootings, not individual shootings
//There have been shootings at gun ranges.
///http://abcnews.go.com/US/seal-chris-kyle-allegedly-killed-marine/ story ?id=18389238
 
2013-09-18 12:54:41 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.

A) How many people get shot in homes that contain no guns (during home invasions/robberies)?

B) How many people get shot in homes with guns (accidental or intentional)?

Do you think the answer to 'A' is the bigger number?


The burden falls on you to prove the point, not for me to disprove it.
 
2013-09-18 12:54:55 PM

super_grass: BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.

The availability of alcohol correlates stronger with domestic violence and felonies. Better go dry too.


Booze is delicious, and has plenty of non-domestic-violence related uses. You TAKE THAT BACK. ;) No seriously, that's a stupid argument. Other things kill people. LOOK, A SQUIRREL!!

We're talking about American gun ownership.
 
2013-09-18 12:56:41 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: It's there to make the government afraid of people with guns?

Mostly bad guys, whether they are criminals or tyrannical goverment.  Nothing will make it easier for the bad guy to win than to disarm the good guys.

 How about disarming the bad guy?
 
2013-09-18 12:58:44 PM

BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.


http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM12080.pdf

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-ra te s-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
 
2013-09-18 12:59:10 PM

Calipataa: How about disarming the bad guy?


Works for me.  The Devil is in the details on the best way to get it done without stepping on the toes of lawful gun owners.
 
2013-09-18 01:03:05 PM

super_grass: But dogs still attack porcupines thanks to stupidity. Would the government be any smarter?



Never underestimate the brash stupidity of arrogant tyrants.

OTOH, rare is the dog that is so stupid that it will attack a porcupine more than once.
 
2013-09-18 01:09:16 PM

sid244: FTFA: "Moreover, according to the Mother Jones study, there is not a single piece of evidence that any shooters deliberately chose to target locations where guns were prohibited."

Ummm, yes there is.  Have you heard of a mass shooting at a gun store?  What about a mass shooting at a gun range?  Hasn't happened.  Why, because even crazy  people know not to shoot up on of those places.

/mass shootings, not individual shootings
//There have been shootings at gun ranges.
///http://abcnews.go.com/US/seal-chris-kyle-allegedly-killed-marine/ story ?id=18389238


Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a bike shop? Or at a boat ramp? Or at a retractable roof stadium? Or at a fry-bread taco stand? Hint: Mass shootings happen at places with masses of people. Or just places, even. Gun shops and run ranges are a small subset of 'places'.
 
2013-09-18 01:17:23 PM
Not going to read the whole thread, but assuming that the headline is correct:

In the past 30 years, not a single SUCCESSFUL mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian.

Madman walks into crowded restaurant, pulls gun, gets shot by other patrons isn't a successful mass shooting.
Madman walks into crowded restaurant that happens to be gun-free, pulls gun, kills 7 before shooting himself when the cops show up 5 minutes later, is.

By definition, the armed civilian (which can mean armed off-duty cop) is usually right there and can at least TRY to shut that whole thing down before it even gets started.

If your study can't get that right, or at least acknowledge that particular bias, it's a shiatty study.
 
2013-09-18 01:21:06 PM

Calipataa: I don't think you could take them from criminals first, but I think you could gradually decrease the whole supply of guns, making everyone safer.


You could make it much more risky fro criminals to have them and improve the tools for LEO's to get peopel who are sellingt o criminals.

All legislation shoudl be focused on this.


Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.


That is like claiming you know a person is in more danger of getting an accident because of the car they drive.


Calipataa: But I feel less safe, not more safe, thinking that the average moron around me might be packing, so I'd like to see gun ownership restricted. Not eliminated, restricted.


So you want to restrict consitutional rights because of how you feel?


Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Regardless of the sellers knowledge, the buyer is breaking the law.

Perhaps if the seller knew the buyer was a criminal he wouldn't sell him a gun. A background check would be helpful with that.


It would help, but absent an overhaul on how private guns transactions are performed it would only be a dent.

And the fact remians that the person I was responding to was flat out wrong about anybody who wants a gun being "allowed" to have one.

But don't let reality get in your way. You grabbed two lines out of context you were too stupid to get, so you are going to keep clinging to them.
 
2013-09-18 01:26:38 PM
I have a friend who lives in a rough part of town. He has stopped at least two home invasions, while he was inside the house, by displaying his own weapon (shotgun). If he had not been armed he almost surely would have been harmed by the invader. Unfortunately there is still a need to defend ourselves in this manner.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report