|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
markinOhio 
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:35 pm |
|
   |
The president has indicated that limiting magazine capacity is a "common sense" approach to reducing gun violence. Where is the evidence?
Some points to consider:
1) The previous AWB set the limit to 10 rounds, and there is no evidence that the AWB had any significant impact on gun violence.
2) Mass shootings, the only crime that has the potential to be impacted by a limit, are extremely rare, and the frequency is not increasing.
3) It only takes approximately 2 seconds to eject and insert a magazine
4) The deadliest mass shooting in US History was carried out with multiple 10 round magazines
5) Multiple guns are just as deadly as a single gun with higher capacity
6) Magazine capacity can easily be mechanically altered
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
OverUnder
Group: Members
Posts: 191
Joined: Jan. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:42 pm |
|
 |
There is no evidence to support this but at the end of the day as long as you "feel good" about what you have done isn't that what really matters.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10792
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 12:43 pm |
|
|
OK, if magazine capacity is not the answer to firing multiple bullets into a crowd, how about we just ban all semi-automatics? Nothing with a magazine at all. Then, we can ban speed loaders for revolvers. Limiting the capacity of any firearm would be a good start. How does 1 sound? Sure, the bad guy could just carry more firearms, but if each of them is a single shot, that bad guy would be loaded down with weight.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10792
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm |
|
|
IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:10 pm |
|
|
Perhaps we should just limit the numbers of crazy people...that would be a good start
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
markinOhio
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm |
|
|
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims).
I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society.
But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7073
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 22 2013, 11:39 pm |
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 8:45 am |
|
|
(markinOhio @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm)
QUOTE
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims). I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society. But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there.
Even if we did not have the many millions of magazines already in circulation, no intelligent person can really believe that some silly law will simply make them "go away"
feinstein wants the intellectually challenged to believe that this will "dry up the supply"
Yeah right....just like prohibition dried up the supply of booze
Or the war on drugs ...you know how that turned out 
In Mexico you can go to jail for possesion of a few rounds of .22lr and yet mass killings are more the norm there than in this country.
New York had a 10 round limit but they recently decided that 7 was really the magic number
How smart does that sound???
The real problem is that there are too many people that just want to "do something" so they can feel better and go back into their bubble of delusion....and those same folks have a severely limited undertanding of firearms in general
Bad Combination
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Lamebeaver
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Group: Members
Posts: 16220
Joined: Aug. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 8:59 am |
|
|
The legislation being passed is weak and watered down, so it won't really have any impact at all.
In a crowded theater, a small homemade grenade would probably be much more effective. People who want to commit mass murder will just get a bit more creative.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2324
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 9:13 am |
|
|
(BillBab @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:45 am)
QUOTE
(markinOhio @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm)
QUOTE
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims). I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society. But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there. Even if we did not have the many millions of magazines already in circulation, no intelligent person can really believe that some silly law will simply make them "go away" feinstein wants the intellectually challenged to believe that this will "dry up the supply" Yeah right....just like prohibition dried up the supply of booze Or the war on drugs ...you know how that turned out In Mexico you can go to jail for possesion of a few rounds of .22lr and yet mass killings are more the norm there than in this country. New York had a 10 round limit but they recently decided that 7 was really the magic number How smart does that sound??? The real problem is that there are too many people that just want to "do something" so they can feel better and go back into their bubble of delusion....and those same folks have a severely limited undertanding of firearms in general Bad Combination
Bab lets try something new. How about you offering what restrictions on firearm's owners you would approve of. Any at all?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 23 2013, 9:16 am |
|
|
(BillBab @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:45 am)
QUOTE
(markinOhio @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:36 pm)
QUOTE
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 1:07 pm)
QUOTE IMO, if we can reduce the victims involved in mass shootings by limiting the capacity of the firearm, then that would also reduce gun violence (by reducing the victims). I appreciate that everyone wants to reduce violence in our society. But, I think that your post illustrates the point that I’m trying to make (obviously, not very well on my part). On the surface, limiting magazine capacity would seem to be an effective measure to reducing gun violence. However, when you look beyond the surface, past the emotion and fear, the evidence is simply not there. Even if we did not have the many millions of magazines already in circulation, no intelligent person can really believe that some silly law will simply make them "go away" feinstein wants the intellectually challenged to believe that this will "dry up the supply" Yeah right....just like prohibition dried up the supply of booze Or the war on drugs ...you know how that turned out In Mexico you can go to jail for possesion of a few rounds of .22lr and yet mass killings are more the norm there than in this country. New York had a 10 round limit but they recently decided that 7 was really the magic number How smart does that sound??? The real problem is that there are too many people that just want to "do something" so they can feel better and go back into their bubble of delusion....and those same folks have a severely limited undertanding of firearms in general Bad Combination
America's weak gun laws arm the Mexican drug cartels to the teeth and then you highlight how ineffective Mexico's gun laws are as a reason for maintaining Americas joke gun laws and enforcement.
Do you ever actually think?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Raznation
Why surf when you can make waves!
Group: Members
Posts: 23541
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 1:47 pm |
|
|
(BillBab @ Feb. 24 2013, 12:22 pm)
QUOTE
(Lamebeaver @ Feb. 23 2013, 8:59 am)
QUOTE The legislation being passed is weak and watered down, so it won't really have any impact at all.
In a crowded theater, a small homemade grenade would probably be much more effective. People who want to commit mass murder will just get a bit more creative. If a nutbar chained the doors and set a fire he could kill a ton of folks And I doubt we would try to ban matches or gasoline
Yea, cuz the movie is that good where no one will see someone walk into a theater with lengths of chains, locks, and a five gallon can of gas.
You FAIL.
--------------
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
double cabin
Group: Members
Posts: 15426
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 1:56 pm |
|
|
With all due respect Zeke hit the nail on the head. By reducing gun consequence you unequivocally reduce/limit "violence."
As to "silly laws" Bill: Why does this country have the irrefutably worst problem with guns in the developed world? Could it be existing "silly laws?"
--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.
http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8461
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 2:42 pm |
|
|
markinOhio said
QUOTE
The president has indicated that limiting magazine capacity is a "common sense" approach to
reducing gun violence. Where is the evidence?
Some points to consider:
1) The previous AWB set the limit to 10 rounds, and there is no evidence that the AWB had any significant impact on gun violence.
2) Mass shootings, the only crime that has the potential to be impacted by a limit, are extremely rare, and the frequency is not increasing.
3) It only takes approximately 2 seconds to eject and insert a magazine
4) The deadliest mass shooting in US History was carried out with multiple 10 round magazines
5) Multiple guns are just as deadly as a single gun with higher capacity
6) Magazine capacity can easily be mechanically altered
Ok so in a previous thread I quoted the following
4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and
found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This
holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different state., Citations here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....print=1
The above in turn was based on this source
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
I also quoted the following
5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and
other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:
“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,”
explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in
place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths
are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample
sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states
that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage
requirements for guns (-.48).”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs....print=1
which was based on public policy analyst and economist(PHD from columbia) Richard Florida
and his work in the following link
http://www.theatlantic.com/nationa....54
Mark's reaction to those links was that they not credible, unscientific with essentially no
evidence without explaining how its not unscientific, no evidence and not credible
Ok lets juxtapose the illogical standard he set above with the standard he sets for himself
like for example in the above.
Mark starts of his OP with
The president has indicated that limiting magazine capacity is a "common sense" approach
to reducing gun violence. Where is the evidence?
So Mark asks for evidence but then precedes to make 6 assertions NONE of which Mark gives
ANY evidence in support of those 6 assertions.
So clearly Mark has two sets of standards when it comes to evidence and proof. One set for
himself where he gets to make assertions without evidence and then another set for those
who disagree with his positions where even they present substantial evidence he will dismiss
it as not credible. There is another words for this. It usually starts with an H.
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 3:09 pm |
|
|
This country is certainly no safer because of the silly laws
In fact, the areas with the most silly laws like NYC, DC, And Chicago are definitely less safe
Most firearms deaths are the results of criminals killing each other
So making more crap illegal may be the worst thing you can do
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 6:09 pm |
|
|
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 22 2013, 12:43 pm)
QUOTE OK, if magazine capacity is not the answer to firing multiple bullets into a crowd, how about we just ban all semi-automatics? Nothing with a magazine at all. Then, we can ban speed loaders for revolvers. Limiting the capacity of any firearm would be a good start. How does 1 sound? Sure, the bad guy could just carry more firearms, but if each of them is a single shot, that bad guy would be loaded down with weight.
Ok, so bad guys import thousands of kilos of cocaine totally against the law but making 30 round magazines illegal will ensure few to none are brought into the country by criminals?
Remember Mexico our neighbor to the south. Firearms are nearly impossible for a law abiding, non politically connected citizen to own. Where is the correlation you suggest between prohibitions and reduced crime?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7073
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 6:58 pm |
|
|
(Three @ Feb. 24 2013, 3:09 pm)
QUOTE Remember Mexico our neighbor to the south. Firearms are nearly impossible for a law abiding, non politically connected citizen to own. Where is the correlation you suggest between prohibitions and reduced crime?
Statistically, we'd be less likely to be murdered in Mexico than in the US:
"According to FBI crime statistics, 4.8 Americans per 100,000 were murdered in the US in 2010. The US State Department reports that 120 Americans of the 5.7 million who visited Mexico last year were murdered, which is a rate of 2.1 of 100,000 visitors. Regardless of whether they were or weren’t connected to drug trafficking, which is often not clear, it’s less than half the US national rate."
Source
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 24 2013, 8:51 pm |
|
|
Lots of the so-called gun friendly states are not all that friendly. State like Texas, Georgia, South Carolina and other "gun-friendly" states micro manage concealed carry to the point it becomes meaningless. In m,any of those states you can't carry in a church, a bar, within 150 feet of a polling place, a medical facility, a sporting event, or even a local government office. One of those states even prohibits carry in a private residence unless you have specific permission to do so.
In New York a concealed carry permit gives you the right to carry everywhere except on school property. Of course, as in all states, the owners of any particular property can property can specifically prohibit weapons. So, for example, the state parks (but not the state forest lands) prohibit handguns.
Most upstate towns have no prohibition on concealed carry in government offices. Do that in Georgia and you go to jail under state law.
But I'd rather have 7 on my hip than 30 locked in my car.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8461
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 12:27 am |
|
|
(george of the j @ Feb. 24 2013, 8:06 pm)
QUOTE
(Dennis The Menace @ Feb. 24 2013, 2:42 pm)
QUOTE
5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Dennis, I dispute this. One measure of stricter gun control he uses is assualt weapon restrictions. There are 7 states with assault weapon restrictions( source). Here are the 2010 gun murder rates, per 100,000 population, for each of these states ( source): California 3.4 Conneticut 2.7 Hawaii 0.5 Mass. 1.8 New Jersey 2.8 NY 2.7 Virginia 3.1 Now here is a list of states WITHOUT assault weapons restrictions where gun murder rates are less than or equal to 1 per 100,000: Idaho Iowa Maine Minnisotea New Hampshire N. Dakota Oregon S. Dakota Utah Wyoming I would have to conclude that state laws restricting assault weapons have nothing to do with the states' gun murder rates. ----George
Couple things. The correlation was for specifically 'ban assault weapons' not just 'assault
weapon restrictions'. Second the criteria wasn't just for Assault weapons ban but other
criteria looked at. Third those stats were from 2007 not 2010. Fourth they were from
firearm deaths which include murders but not only murders. 5th you've selectively included
states that don't have assault weapons restrictions with a particular murder rate while
leaving so many more than have much higher murder rates
For example here are the top 10 in murder rates for states in 2011
Louisiana 11.2
Mississippi 8.0
New Mexico 7.5
Maryland 6.8
South Carolina 6.8
Alabama 6.3
Michigan 6.2
Arizona 6.2
Missouri 6.1
Tennessee 5.8
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state
Of those 10 states with the highest murder rate ONLY maryland has some kind Assault weapons
restriction and in Maryland's case that is only partial on handguns. Geez. Selectively choose
the states with no assault weapons restrictions that have the lowest murder rates while
ignoring the top 10 murder rate states in which the vast vast majority of those don't have
an assault weapons restriction laws? I mean come on.
Oh and I don't know the specifics of how they came up with those stats but it could have
been very possible to compare the years before and after the Assault weapons ban
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
george of the j
Group: Members
Posts: 463
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 4:07 am |
|
|
Dennis,
Of course I listed the states with low gun murder rates and no assault weapons restrictions; this shows that assault weapon restrictions have nothing to do with gun murder rates. Some states with no restrictions have lower rates than states with restrictions, and some states without restrictions have higher rates. This suggests that the assault weapon restrictions have no bearing on gun murder rates.
You wrote that the study compared states with assault weapon "bans," not "restrictions," to states without. Which states have all-out bans? I couldn't find any on the Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post. Only NY would have a ban, by virtue of the magazine capacity limitation, but this is the 2013 law. Every other state had restrictions, but not an all-out ban (except maybe Hawaii; the article did not give the details of their law).
You wrote that the study included all gun deaths, not just murders. But the statement you posted read: "Staes with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence." Besides Murder, what is considered death by gun related violence. Are you calling accidents and suicides violence?
You wrote that other criteria than the assault weapon restrictions were used in the study. But if the assault weapon criterion is meaningless, why include it?
You complained that the study was from 2007 and I used 2010 data to refute it. I bet that if I could find the 2007 data or those from any other recent year there would not be much difference---they would still show state assault weapon restriction have no bearing on gun murder rates, and that other factors must be behind the numbers.
----George
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8461
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 5:23 am |
|
|
george of the j Said
QUOTE
Dennis,
Of course I listed the states with low gun murder rates and no assault weapons restrictions;
of course you listed the states with the low murder rate because that was the only way
you could make your case. You have to look at the totality of all the states. The only
logical way it would make sense to look at only a small subset if you were trying to
contradict the argument that there is a perfect negative -1.00 correlation between
banning assault weapons and firearm deaths but the study I cited didn't make that argument
not did I.
george of the j Said
QUOTE
this shows that assault
weapon restrictions have nothing to do with gun murder rates.
No it doesn't. What kind of warped logic is that you think you can draw that kind of conclusion
based on small sample size that shows what you want it to show? Once again you can't selectively
look at a small subset of data just so it makes your case while you ignore the rest. The rest which
once again includes the 10 top murder rates for states of which every state in that top 10, with
the slight exception of Maryland, doesn't havce assault weapons restrictions.
george of the j Said
QUOTE
Some states with no restrictions have lower rates than states with restrictions, and some states without restrictions
have higher rates. This suggests that the assault weapon restrictions have no bearing on gun murder rates.
but yet for the top 10 murder rate for states only Maryland had any kind of assault weapons restrictions and
that was only partially
Oh ya and the study used other criteria than just "assault weapons ban"
george of the j said
QUOTE
You wrote that the study compared states with assault weapon "bans," not "restrictions," to states without. Which
states have all-out bans? I couldn't find any on the Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post. Only NY would
have a ban, by virtue of the magazine capacity limitation, but this is the 2013 law. Every other state had restrictions,
but not an all-out ban (except maybe Hawaii; the article did not give the details of their law).
THe wiki link you used even says
For instance, some US stateS have created assault weapon bans that are similar to the expired federal assault weapons ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
thats plural
also according to the following link there are seven states with assault-weapons bans
New York is one of only seven states that have assault-weapons bans in place, according to the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence.
http://online.wsj.com/article....52.html
george of the j Said
QUOTE
You wrote that the study included all gun deaths, not just murders. But the statement you posted read: "Staes with
stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence." Besides Murder, what is considered death by
gun related violence. Are you calling accidents and suicides violence?
They are not? If you read one of the links where this comes from it stated
The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include
accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/nationa....54
george of the j Said
QUOTE
You wrote that other criteria than the assault weapon restrictions were used in the study. But if the assault weapon criterion is meaningless, why include it?
Its not meaningless. You say its meaningless. From the above link you can find the following
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small,
we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require
trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
george of the j Said
QUOTE
You complained that the study was from 2007 and I used 2010 data to refute it
Complained? What? No. By that argument you must be complaining to
I noted that you used 2010 data while the study used 2007
george of the j Said
QUOTE
I bet that if I could find the 2007 data or those from any other recent year there would not be much difference---they would still show state assault weapon restriction have no bearing on gun murder rates, and that other factors must be behind the numbers.
You haven't shown it with the 2010 #'s. You had to selectively use a small subset to make
your case while ignoring the fact that top 10 states with the highest murder rate all had
NO assault weapons restrictions with the slight exception of Maryland.
Beyond that refute the following
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small,
we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require
trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
Do you contest those are legitimate #'s?
If so refute them.
cite sources as reliable as the following that refutes the following
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Raznation
Why surf when you can make waves!
Group: Members
Posts: 23541
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 25 2013, 7:57 am |
|
|
(hbfa @ Feb. 24 2013, 1:05 pm)
QUOTE
(BillBab @ Feb. 24 2013, 10:22 am)
QUOTE If a nutbar chained the doors and set a fire he could kill a ton of folks
And I doubt we would try to ban matches or gasoline Nutballs just seem to have greater infatuations with firearms than they do with gasoline and matches. Why...some nutballs are so infatuated with firearms that they would refuse to live in a state that enacts a law they disagree with!
Fee to use indoor shooting range = $10
Cost of tracer rounds = $30
Burning down the shooting range with tracer rounds = priceless
Linky Linky
--------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
