Pro-gun article

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Ask Sean Taylor how that worked out?
Make sure your stick is loaded. An unloaded stick is useless.
BTW, an "Assault Weapon" is basically no different than most other weapons. An American public that knows no better, has just been sold a.....bill of goods

Sorry, should have said if I ever need a gun, didn't mean to get the assault rifle craziness going again, I was just thinking of what was in the pic.

No guarantees a gun would have given ST any better of a chance. But if you sleep better at night so be it.

[Hog1]

AND I do not wish to resurrect the...nonsense surrounding "Assault" mania.....
Guarantee's? No
Odd's? absolutely
As the saying goes.....Never bring a knife to a gun fight.....
HTTR....

[Hog1]

Schneed's not here when you need him..
Giants...Suck!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Schneed's not here when you need him..
Giants...Suck!

Hold on, I'll go find you a tampon and a Midol .

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Hold on, I'll go find you a tampon and a Midol .

Just look in your medicine cabinet, I'm sure you have plenty left over from the past football season.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Just look in your medicine cabinet, I'm sure you have plenty left over from the past football season.

Not the forum jr.

[Giantone]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/op...oney.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.
This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.
As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Hold on, I'll go find you a tampon and a Midol .

Appreciate the offer.....you may want to hang on to it as the Midol will help with your headache, the Tampon will help soak up your tears.
the season is just around the corner........

[Ruhskins]

I honestly feel that if people wouldn't get such a hard on for guns or if it weren't a hobby, there would not be a debate on guns. Unfortunately, both sides are unwilling to have a civilized debate about this issue. On the one hand, it is ridiculously to say that they should get rid of all the guns. But on the other had, I find it stupid for someone to say that we need AK-47s to defend your freedom.

[RedskinRat]

What cops think:


PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.

11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.

But what would they know, eh?

[Chico23231]

CBS 6 EXCLUSIVE: Police take guns from armed Obama protester | WTVR.com

These are some of the looneys the Tea Party attracts. Who in their right mind perches up on the overpass with an assault rifle?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This is old and stupid. I guess we should attach this too alcohol sales, cars, knifes, and anything where there are victims of a product killing another person.

Yes, let's remove any personal responsibility from poor decision making.

[Chico23231]

I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.

The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are by gun dealers (FFLs) and therefore require a background check. Only guns sold or transferred between private individuals do not require background checks, regardless if at a gun show or at a police station.

A big problem with requiring private individuals to complete background checks when selling a gun is that it costs a lot. A background check for a private sale averages around $40. You can only hire a professional to do it. You have to go to the professional's place of business to do it, and some people don't live in areas with easy access to a FFL or have cars.

And like most restrictions, background checks primarily hurt poor people. A lot of shotguns are only worth $100 and your entry level handgun costs $150-$200. So your talking about a fee that is between 20-40% of a guns value. Even with a nice $500 dollar glock you are still looking an 8% fee.

What if you had to preform a "registration check" before selling a car to a private party that cost around 20-40% of car's value? What if you also had to travel 100 miles to complete the transaction with a car dealer? What if it was your granddad selling you your first car for a one dollar bill? Or what if you are a poor person who isn't married and you want to put the car in your baby mamma's name before your government deploys you to the Middle East? And what if 99.9% of all car accidents were from dealer sales, or illegally bought or stolen cars, yet private party sales were hit the hardest with fees and restrictions?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.

Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks - Washington Post
Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks


By Philip Rucker,August 05, 2013
The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun-show loophole.
<A href="http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719" data-xslt="_http">A new study by Third Way , a center-left think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, found that thousands of guns, including so-called assault weapons, are for sale online and that many prospective buyers were shopping online specifically to avoid background checks.
The study focused on Armslist.com — a popular classified site similar to Craigslist.org that facilitates private sales of firearms and ammunition based on location — and analyzed listings in 10 states where senators voted against a background-check compromise this spring.