NRA issues point-blank 'no' on gun control

[92Roadster]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

In the sand is better than up your ass.

So show all of us evil Second Amendment supporters ONE single gun that has committed attrocities in a public arena against others without the help of a crazy person. Oh? you can't? Until you people stop complaining about evil guns and start looking at the TRUE reason for these crimes, OH YES, CRIMES...there are already laws against taking such actions. Did those laws work? Until you people stop making decisions based on your emotions, I'll continue to post proof that Gun laws have no effect on criminals committing crimes. These criminals will continue the same actions with or without the wasteful laws that allow you to sleep better.

...please give me your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment....

[92Roadster]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

Guess you need to read the source's sources then.

....nope not me, it your source post.....

[raidmagic]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

In the sand is better than up your ass.

So show all of us evil Second Amendment supporters ONE single gun that has committed attrocities in a public arena against others without the help of a crazy person. Oh? you can't? Until you people stop complaining about evil guns and start looking at the TRUE reason for these crimes, OH YES, CRIMES...there are already laws against taking such actions. Did those laws work? Until you people stop making decisions based on your emotions, I'll continue to post proof that Gun laws have no effect on criminals committing crimes. These criminals will continue the same actions with or without the wasteful laws that allow you to sleep better.

Talking to you is pointless...I'm out of here

[92Roadster]

Originally Posted by AK's Z06

You mean you're not impressed with the cut and paste fluff? If it's on the internet, it must be true!

...nada, I love cut & paste, just need to be accurate....

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by 92Roadster

....nope not me, it your source post.....

And you're the one denouncing it. So prove it wrong.

Invalidate it if you don't like it. I've seen you post nothing to prove it wrong.

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by 92Roadster

...please give me your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment....

How long do you wipe your ass after it's already clean?

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by raidmagic

Talking to you is pointless...I'm out of here

I guess when there's no facts to back your opinon?
See ya.

[BJC99Hardtop]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

Well THERE's the problem. We should just make explosives illegal or harder to purchase. Because if it is regulated strictly, then the crazy's will never get their hands on it!

[92Roadster]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

How long do you wipe your ass after it's already clean?

....depends on the feel....

[Poncherello]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

Yes. Let us be sensible.
Often with fire. Revolutionary War veteran Barnett Davenport is widely considered the first mass murderer in U.S. history. On the evening of Feb. 3, 1780, Davenport burst into the bedroom of his employer, Caleb Mallory, and began to bludgeon Mallory and his wife with a club. When the club broke in two, Davenport beat the couple to death with Mallory’s gun. If Davenport had stopped there, he would be remembered as just an ordinary killer; most criminologists define mass murder as the killing of at least three people in a single incident. After beating the Mallorys to death, however, Davenport burned the house down, killing their three grandchildren.

In 1780 the police, if there were in any in that area, and the fire department weren't a simple phone call away. In 1780 someone could go across the countryside killing at will until he was unlucky enough to run into the local sheriff or a band of community members hell bent on stopping him/her. And in this instance the victim's gun didn't protect him because the defendant used it against him.

The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s,

I'm sure the NFA of 1934 had nothing to do with this drop in so called mass murders.

Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

A combination of more efficient policing and timely reporting of incidents. In general, during this time police departments around the country focused more on being proactive rather than reactive which had been the norm through the 20th century.

[92Roadster]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

And you're the one denouncing it. So prove it wrong.

Invalidate it if you don't like it. I've seen you post nothing to prove it wrong.

....You can post what ever you like if it makes you Happy, it
don't me shit to me, I usually read better than that.....

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by raidmagic

Really? You honestly think he could have killed all of those kids if he had been armed with a hammer? This whole guns don't kill people, people kill people is bullshit. Mass murders wouldn't happen like they do without these guns. How many people would have survived in Colorado if that guy busted in there with a knife?

The dude in china slashed 22 on the same day as Sandy Hook.. how many would have survived if the Aurora guy had a knife? Hard to say since the tool of choice was a gun. The day I cath one of my guns leaving to commit and atrocity, I will all for any ban. Until then.. hands off.

Originally Posted by raidmagic

I'd like to say, as I did in a prior thread, I am not against guns or gun ownership but as you asked 92roadster, "let's be sensible"...

And we need to be. No legislation is being considered or put forth that would remove these guns from society. So you feel good about doing something, even though once again that something does nothing to stop drugged out psychopathic killers from doing drug out psychopathic shit.. so you accomplished nothing.

The so called "assault weapon" used at Sandy Hook was not one. Automatic weapons are harder to come by than frog teeth, and they start around $12k so your average psycho-drug addict isn't going to be able to buy one, much less get the tax stamp needed to own such a weapon. The Bushmaster rifle was not classified as an assault weapon, otherwise it could not be bought in Conn.

The media like to use key words to confuse the masses.. and it works pretty good.

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by 92Roadster

....depends on the feel....

[BJC99Hardtop]

Originally Posted by Poncherello

I'm sure the NFA of 1934 had nothing to do with this drop in so called mass murders.

Of far greater impact was the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment (prohibition). Alcohol was legalized, putting all the violent booze-runners out of business.

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

The media like to use key words to confuse the masses.. and it works pretty good.

They proved that right here.