You truly don't see through the smoke on that study do you?

Hint: Criminals carry. Alot.

Are you at all surprised at the discovery that so many people "randomly" gunned down had guns on them?

I'm sure the statistics themselves are quite accurate.

Now, show me a study showing lawful concealed carriers are 4.5x more likely to get shot" and I'll perk up a bit.

As of right now, you're including crim on crim homicide, police v crim homicide (whether the cop or the crim dies, somebody with a gun is dying) or crim vs legally armed civilian (what the study is falsely attempting to show).

Just like that number that you guys like to throw around about how a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder (only if you include everyone in the home, including the owner of the gun as a family member and include suicide deaths in your stat).

Do you see a reason people shouldn't be able to own hydrogen bombs? How about owning some ebola viruses? Maybe some artillery cannons? Is there some reason we're not allowed to say that item "a" is more dangerous than item "b" and therefore its ownership should be controlled?

Also, I believe an assault weapon was used both in Colorado and in Oregon. You wanna make an over/under on how long before the next mass shooting involving an assault weapon?

I guess there's the rub, what's more important to society: the freedom to walk around without much chance of being shot because guns are prohibited, or the freedom to own guns?

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...deaths/260189/

like this?

Hydrogen bomb can accidentally kill an insane amount of people while a gun can kill a few at most on accident?

The lulz is in thinking with 300M guns in this country and that pesky 4th Amendment stopping the random door to door searches that you'd be any safer because of a law.

Well, there was one today in Alabama that involved an AK-47.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2307505.html

Fortunately, cops got him before he could kill any more than three. Grunching, but I'm sure at least one nit ITT will say "three is hardly a mass shooting".

The trainwreck lover in me would prolly vote for an all out ban just to watch the heads assplode of the gun fanatics.

Would subscribe to butthurt thread

goofball, why do you hate privacy from government intrusion into your mental state? - paraphrasing a nont-random Desert Eagle owner

Obv, the government has no business knowing whether you're a bat**** crazy psychotic until after you've used a gun to rampage and kill. Because requiring you to demonstrate your sanity prior to purchase is just an invasion of everything we hold dear as a nation. You know, because of Orwell, Alex Jones, and the Trilateral Commission.

Well I'm against drug tests, but I'm for a background check for sure, even a waiting period. I'm definitely a gun training advocate.

NeBlis wouldn't be around to post, he said something to the effect that he'd be out shooting people in a civil war. Which would obv have the unintended side effect of reducing the level of butthurt in the thread.

lol

In all seriousness (Please no one turn this into a civics lesson, I'm well aware this isn't how government actually works) assuming a nationwide popular vote supporting a gun ban/repealing the 2nd Amendment, do you think you'd win?

You say "Butthurt" as though its a lock.

In fact, when you start talking about banning all guns, it's a dead lock for the pro-gun camp.

There's a reason your side goes after the guns that are used to kill by far the smallest number of people every year, rather than handguns, which are massively supported.

Your danger of being killed by an "Assault Weapon" is insanely low. They're just low hanging fruit that many moderates don't care about.

That's an old pole but that's all I could find on the Gallup website.



Are there more recent poles (from legit polesters, not some gun nut website) that you could show us that says the majority of Americans support your stance?

How often are 50AE Desert Eagles used in murders in the US?

If by 'my side' you mean the United States Military vs. a bunch of gun nuts...Yeah, I'm buying a couple extra TVs and taking all bets offered

Lock it up

For the 289734th time ITT, there's sufficient measures that can be taken that go far short of banning the possession of handguns.

We can start with absolute total 100% background checks, elimination of the so called "loophole" that actually results in 40% of gun purchases taking place without background checks.

Can continue with 20 year mandatory minimum sentences for anyone straw purchasing for someone who later uses that gun during commission of a felony.

Can require fingerprint sensors on triggers. Expensive, sure...but the self-styled freedom lovers don't care about expense when talking about defense spending, so whining butthurt about cost is disingenuous.

Can require mandatory trigger locks.

None of those require or necessitate banning all guns.

About as often as you ask a relevent, non-rhetorical question ITT.

Well, here's some ongoing polling from 1986-2011:



(I'm sure "US Elections" will not be viewed as "Legit Polls" ITT)

No ones talking about "Red Dawn".

You seriously believe if a popular vote took place on a total gun ban in this country, you'd win?

lol dbj trying hard for the worst cite of all time

I mean how many days ago was it someone posted about the Michigan legislature voting something through that voters just struck down in the November election? gjge bro

How many if those states changing colors were decided by a popular vote?

And how many of those laws were passed via referendum of registered voters, versus how many were passed stealthily by GOP state legislatures using 100% ALEC approved text, with no direct vote by the populace?

Elections are always centered around gun control. Good one.

rumor has it that DBJ circa 2010 confirmed popular opinion growing against gay marriage by posting a similar graph of gay marriage bans