Gun violence needs a vacation

[lostinblue 1,989]

Because what is lacking here is context. I have no idea why people that are for guns pick such a stupid comparison. There is no outrage because those are accidents, you know, unintentional. Nobody drove a car into a school and killed 20 kids.

And tell me why you need more than 7 rounds? If it's that bad where you live, move or become a better shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SOwK6L5-mk

This answer your question. ....Who needs more than seven

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Your answer is to move? Classic.

[/quote

I was using that as an example. So many times I have seen on this forum when someone doesn't agree with something in America, the first response is to tell them to move. I guess when the right says it, it's patriotic, when the left says it, it's a form of control.

I hear this line often. Somehow the deaths of 26 people in one short period have become more important than statistical death tolls that are higher. Why? Emotion not logic.

You should tell gun owners this, because whenever we say gun control, they hear take our guns.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Since when does Slim need give a reason for owning more than 7? Is that how we govern these days?

Same logic applies to buying medicine, getting a car, and various other things. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You said yourself emotion not logic. For some reason when anyone talks about gun control things get emotional really quick.

Do you need a car? That whole "need" aspect seems to be important these days. If you live in a city I'm sure there is public transport.

Do you need a gun? Because most of the folks that covet guns live in places that don't need them. You don't people in bad neighborhoods complaining about smaller clips, they just want to stop burying their loved ones every week.

[lostinblue 1,989]

ame='Usui Takumi' timestamp='1361128800' post='5985888']

Your answer is to move? Classic.

[/quote

I was using that as an example. So many times I have seen on this forum when someone doesn't agree with something in America, the first response is to tell them to move. I guess when the right says it, it's patriotic, when the left says it, it's a form of control.

You should tell gun owners this, because whenever we say gun control, they hear take our guns.

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

Not for the lack of trying

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

Not for the lack of trying

I see an attempt on assault rifles and large clips, I don't see all the guns. But I will say that a pistol can kill just like any other weapon so I don't see the point in the ban, but I still don't know why you must have an AR, when you can get a handgun and do the same damage, just have to reload more.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I see an attempt on assault rifles and large clips, I don't see all the guns. But I will say that a pistol can kill just like any other weapon so I don't see the point in the ban, but I still don't know why you must have an AR, when you can get a handgun and do the same damage, just have to reload more.

These are also handguns, BTW:

[Danno 1,228]

These are also handguns, BTW:

Those are commonly referred to as clown-guns as they have this "appearance" of being more than a regular handgun but certainly no more lethal as they work the same way.

If I were going to be shot at by someone with a hand gun, I would hope he would have one of those, they seem much harder to use accurately and the owner would more than likely be a bozo.

IN a fully auto mode.... ya might have something.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Those are commonly referred to as clown-guns as they have this "appearance" of being more than a regular handgun but certainly no more lethal as they work the same way.

I see.

[james&olya 1,121]

Soon as more are killed with firearms that'd make sense. Till then, keep up the attack on automobiles.

If you are limited in your mental capacity such that you cannot focus on more than one thing that might make sense. Most of us are capable of a great deal more and for us we can, as they say, walk and chew gum at the same time. We can focus on reducing gun violence at the same time we try to reduce vehicular accident related carnage. I guess if you were a physician you would reject the idea of treating any disease besides whatever was the number one killer at the time. No treatment for you if you have kidney infection since cardiac disease kills more people!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Seems to me, if I was already armed, which I am, I would feel much better, if it was much harder for other people to get firearms, which I would hope would be the case.

[Novembro 1,763]

So many more have died in cars. Wheres the outrage?

Because cars are necessary to traverse our nation?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Do you need a gun? Because most of the folks that covet guns live in places that don't need them. You don't people in bad neighborhoods complaining about smaller clips, they just want to stop burying their loved ones every week.

Yes I do. I live in an urban area with high crime.

[Danno 1,228]

When anyone says its wrong.

Thus far there have been many state bills that have an element of confiscation in them. So yes, logic dictates that some gun control is leading to confiscation.

And even if there were not a whisper of bans or confiscation, after Tx. or Fl. is Hispanic enough and the Left has those electoral votes secured (as they do in Ca.) the Left will own the whitehouse and you folks in 2013 made easy confiscation possible..... and what did you get in return?

A promise of safer streets and the warm feeling of...."we did something".

[^_^ 5,021]

And even if there were not a whisper of bans or confiscation, after Tx. or Fl. is Hispanic enough and the Left has those electoral votes secured (as they do in Ca.) the Left will own the whitehouse and you folks in 2013 made easy confiscation possible..... and what did you get in return?

A promise of safer streets and the warm feeling of...."we did something".

This assumes the Democrats keep their current coalition forever.

That would be an assumption that flies in the face of American political history. Coalitions shift all the time.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1361163376' post='5986638]

Coalitions shift all the time.

If labor was smart, they would have formed their own party long ago, before the Dems bankrupted and destroyed the private sector unions. But, then again, unions are used to having outsiders steal their union dues and pension funds.

UNION CORRUPTION IN AMERICA: STILL A GROWTH INDUSTRY