Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
MAD and a gun fight are not even on the same level unless perhaps in a gang war, where your being shot might be avenged by a fellow gang member(s).
A gunfight is IAD (maybe), since one individual will be shot but their destruction is far from assured.
Ridiculous. You should have stuck with your original retort. This is getting more absurd with each post.
And if were likening gun ownership to MAD, let's go hog wild ...
1. We have it now; I shoot and kill you and I might destroy myself (20 years on death row and lethal injection). Our laws preventing misuse, make it mutually likely destruction.
2. Some kook president or general secretary with his/her finger on the button is what we feared most. And some kook killing school kids is very much the same: wants to kill others without regard for their own safety. And here's the rub: we never feared that until we had a PROLIFERATION OF NUKE WEAPONS!!! (noodle on that, within the context of the proliferation of hand guns in America; you might have an epiphany.)
The simple fact is, it worked.
- They do? Are you saying that every murder in this country is solved by the police, and that every murderer is, eventually, killed by lethal injection?
- Actually, what we feared most was what would happen if some crazy guy got his finger on the trigger and the other side couldn't shoot back.
And if were likening gun ownership to MAD, let's go hog wild ...
1. We have it now; I shoot and kill you and I might destroy myself (20 years on death row and lethal injection). Our laws preventing misuse, make it mutually likely destruction.
2. Some kook president or general secretary with his/her finger on the button is what we feared most. And some kook killing school kids is very much the same: wants to kill others without regard for their own safety. And here's the rub: we never feared that until we had a PROLIFERATION OF NUKE WEAPONS!!! (noodle on that, within the context of the proliferation of hand guns in America; you might have an epiphany.)
The simple fact is, it worked.
- They do? Are you saying that every murder in this country is solved by the police, and that every murderer is, eventually, killed by lethal injection?
- Actually, what we feared most was what would happen if some crazy guy got his finger on the trigger and the other side couldn't shoot back.
1. Yes. Nope; reread it.
2. Indeed; albeit they (Ruskies) did, too. Kinda works both ways.
It (cold war) did help bring the USSR down financially; no argument. But obviously, for the 31,347 who died by gunfire in the US last year, penalties for misuse of firearms proved unsuccessful. So at best we can hope it mitigated the problem, but it is a far cry from "worked."
The simple fact is, it worked.
- They do? Are you saying that every murder in this country is solved by the police, and that every murderer is, eventually, killed by lethal injection?
- Actually, what we feared most was what would happen if some crazy guy got his finger on the trigger and the other side couldn't shoot back.
1. Yes. Nope; reread it.
2. Indeed; albeit they (Ruskies) did, too. Kinda works both ways.
It (cold war) did help bring the USSR down financially; no argument. But obviously, for the 31,347 who died by gunfire in the US last year, penalties for misuse of firearms proved unsuccessful. So at best we can hope it mitigated the problem, but it is a far cry from "worked."
Around 175,000 people drown every year, maybe we should restrict access to water.
The simple fact is, it worked.
- They do? Are you saying that every murder in this country is solved by the police, and that every murderer is, eventually, killed by lethal injection?
- Actually, what we feared most was what would happen if some crazy guy got his finger on the trigger and the other side couldn't shoot back.
1. Yes. Nope; reread it.
2. Indeed; albeit they (Ruskies) did, too. Kinda works both ways.
It (cold war) did help bring the USSR down financially; no argument. But obviously, for the 31,347 who died by gunfire in the US last year, penalties for misuse of firearms proved unsuccessful. So at best we can hope it mitigated the problem, but it is a far cry from "worked."
Around 175,000 people drown every year, maybe we should restrict access to water.
1. Yes. Nope; reread it.
2. Indeed; albeit they (Ruskies) did, too. Kinda works both ways.
It (cold war) did help bring the USSR down financially; no argument. But obviously, for the 31,347 who died by gunfire in the US last year, penalties for misuse of firearms proved unsuccessful. So at best we can hope it mitigated the problem, but it is a far cry from "worked."
Around 175,000 people drown every year, maybe we should restrict access to water.
Plus, and I'm sure this already occurred to you: me swimming and dying doing it, ain't the same as standing there and getting shot by someone. Me doing me, due to ineptitude or accident, ain't quite like having someone shoot my ass. But either way, seems some thoughts on mitigating both are worthwhile.
And here's the deal: Shit is happening that's a fucking nightmare for NRA public relations; and both common folks and pols are on a mission to do something about it. So instead of letting it fester to the point that folks are so pissed off that an amendment to 2A seems possible, perhaps some scaling back of "nothing that gets in the way of gun commerce" is a good idea. Plus if the product is less lethal, and can project fewer bullets, fewer PR nightmares happen for NRA, which is a real bonus, not to mention some kids get home to mommy and daddy that mightn't have otherwise.
1. Yes. Nope; reread it.
2. Indeed; albeit they (Ruskies) did, too. Kinda works both ways.
It (cold war) did help bring the USSR down financially; no argument. But obviously, for the 31,347 who died by gunfire in the US last year, penalties for misuse of firearms proved unsuccessful. So at best we can hope it mitigated the problem, but it is a far cry from "worked."
Around 175,000 people drown every year, maybe we should restrict access to water.
Just advocating for lifeguards, and not draining the pool, metaphorically speaking. No shit. Reread what I wrote.
1. Yes. Nope; reread it.
2. Indeed; albeit they (Ruskies) did, too. Kinda works both ways.
It (cold war) did help bring the USSR down financially; no argument. But obviously, for the 31,347 who died by gunfire in the US last year, penalties for misuse of firearms proved unsuccessful. So at best we can hope it mitigated the problem, but it is a far cry from "worked."
Around 175,000 people drown every year, maybe we should restrict access to water.
Plus, and I'm sure this already occurred to you: me swimming and dying doing it, ain't the same as standing there and getting shot by someone. Me doing me, due to ineptitude or accident, ain't quite like having someone shoot my ass. But either way, seems some thoughts on mitigating both are worthwhile.
And here's the deal: Shit is happening that's a fucking nightmare for NRA public relations; and both common folks and pols are on a mission to do something about it. So instead of letting it fester to the point that folks are so pissed off that an amendment to 2A seems possible, perhaps some scaling back of "nothing that gets in the way of gun commerce" is a good idea. Plus if the product is less lethal, and can project fewer bullets, fewer PR nightmares happen for NRA, which is a real bonus, not to mention some kids get home to mommy and daddy that mightn't have otherwise.
Around 175,000 people drown every year, maybe we should restrict access to water.
Plus, and I'm sure this already occurred to you: me swimming and dying doing it, ain't the same as standing there and getting shot by someone. Me doing me, due to ineptitude or accident, ain't quite like having someone shoot my ass. But either way, seems some thoughts on mitigating both are worthwhile.
And here's the deal: Shit is happening that's a fucking nightmare for NRA public relations; and both common folks and pols are on a mission to do something about it. So instead of letting it fester to the point that folks are so pissed off that an amendment to 2A seems possible, perhaps some scaling back of "nothing that gets in the way of gun commerce" is a good idea. Plus if the product is less lethal, and can project fewer bullets, fewer PR nightmares happen for NRA, which is a real bonus, not to mention some kids get home to mommy and daddy that mightn't have otherwise.
Or, perhaps, people can stop blaming the symptoms and treat the actual problem.
Just a thought.
Plus, and I'm sure this already occurred to you: me swimming and dying doing it, ain't the same as standing there and getting shot by someone. Me doing me, due to ineptitude or accident, ain't quite like having someone shoot my ass. But either way, seems some thoughts on mitigating both are worthwhile.
And here's the deal: Shit is happening that's a fucking nightmare for NRA public relations; and both common folks and pols are on a mission to do something about it. So instead of letting it fester to the point that folks are so pissed off that an amendment to 2A seems possible, perhaps some scaling back of "nothing that gets in the way of gun commerce" is a good idea. Plus if the product is less lethal, and can project fewer bullets, fewer PR nightmares happen for NRA, which is a real bonus, not to mention some kids get home to mommy and daddy that mightn't have otherwise.
Or, perhaps, people can stop blaming the symptoms and treat the actual problem.
Just a thought.
Sure, but hear me out: let's say we reduce the threat a smidgen, kinda like polio vaccines, so symptoms such as legs of jello occur less frequently. FDR might have liked that.
In gun matters, perhaps folks don't need assault weapons with 30 slug clips. Maybe 4-shot hand guns are plenty for protection and working on our aim (how I use mine most). And sure, that might mean that in the future I'm reloading more often at Butch's Gun Shop (in the range, not the shop) when kicking some paper target ass. But it'll help by thinking maybe fewer kids get projectiles ripping through their vital organs, which might be an upside.
Just saying.
Plus, and I'm sure this already occurred to you: me swimming and dying doing it, ain't the same as standing there and getting shot by someone. Me doing me, due to ineptitude or accident, ain't quite like having someone shoot my ass. But either way, seems some thoughts on mitigating both are worthwhile.
And here's the deal: Shit is happening that's a fucking nightmare for NRA public relations; and both common folks and pols are on a mission to do something about it. So instead of letting it fester to the point that folks are so pissed off that an amendment to 2A seems possible, perhaps some scaling back of "nothing that gets in the way of gun commerce" is a good idea. Plus if the product is less lethal, and can project fewer bullets, fewer PR nightmares happen for NRA, which is a real bonus, not to mention some kids get home to mommy and daddy that mightn't have otherwise.
Or, perhaps, people can stop blaming the symptoms and treat the actual problem.
Just a thought.
Sure, but hear me out: let's say we reduce the threat a smidgen, kinda like polio vaccines, so symptoms such as legs of jello occur less frequently. FDR might have liked that.
In gun matters, perhaps folks don't need assault weapons with 30 slug clips. Maybe 4-shot hand guns are plenty for protection and working on our aim (how I use mine most). And sure, that might mean that in the future I'm reloading more often at Butch's Gun Shop (in the range, not the shop) when kicking some paper target ass. But it'll help by thinking maybe fewer kids get projectiles ripping through their vital organs, which might be an upside.
Just saying.
Plus, and I'm sure this already occurred to you: me swimming and dying doing it, ain't the same as standing there and getting shot by someone. Me doing me, due to ineptitude or accident, ain't quite like having someone shoot my ass. But either way, seems some thoughts on mitigating both are worthwhile.
And here's the deal: Shit is happening that's a fucking nightmare for NRA public relations; and both common folks and pols are on a mission to do something about it. So instead of letting it fester to the point that folks are so pissed off that an amendment to 2A seems possible, perhaps some scaling back of "nothing that gets in the way of gun commerce" is a good idea. Plus if the product is less lethal, and can project fewer bullets, fewer PR nightmares happen for NRA, which is a real bonus, not to mention some kids get home to mommy and daddy that mightn't have otherwise.
Or, perhaps, people can stop blaming the symptoms and treat the actual problem.
Just a thought.
Sure, but hear me out: let's say we reduce the threat a smidgen, kinda like polio vaccines, so symptoms such as legs of jello occur less frequently. FDR might have liked that.
In gun matters, perhaps folks don't need assault weapons with 30 slug clips. Maybe 4-shot hand guns are plenty for protection and working on our aim (how I use mine most). And sure, that might mean that in the future I'm reloading more often at Butch's Gun Shop (in the range, not the shop) when kicking some paper target ass. But it'll help by thinking maybe fewer kids get projectiles ripping through their vital organs, which might be an upside.
Just saying.
Conservatives and Republicans often quote Reagan but Reagan signed the ban on plastic weapons, had they passed you can be sure many today would argue for their use and defend them as symbols of freedom. When something doesn't directly affect your life all is OK. Reagan also was involved with the assault rifle legislation. Today many conservatives and republicans associate guns with freedom instead of with their designated use. Freedom is an abstraction and outside of context a meaningless excuse for all that is.
"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html
Or, perhaps, people can stop blaming the symptoms and treat the actual problem.
Just a thought.
Sure, but hear me out: let's say we reduce the threat a smidgen, kinda like polio vaccines, so symptoms such as legs of jello occur less frequently. FDR might have liked that.
In gun matters, perhaps folks don't need assault weapons with 30 slug clips. Maybe 4-shot hand guns are plenty for protection and working on our aim (how I use mine most). And sure, that might mean that in the future I'm reloading more often at Butch's Gun Shop (in the range, not the shop) when kicking some paper target ass. But it'll help by thinking maybe fewer kids get projectiles ripping through their vital organs, which might be an upside.
Just saying.
Four dead, thirty dead...dead is dead. Why don't you want to consider the underlying pathology instead of accepting some feel-good, mumbo-jumbo placebo that will ultimately not change a damned thing?
Or, perhaps, people can stop blaming the symptoms and treat the actual problem.
Just a thought.
Sure, but hear me out: let's say we reduce the threat a smidgen, kinda like polio vaccines, so symptoms such as legs of jello occur less frequently. FDR might have liked that.
In gun matters, perhaps folks don't need assault weapons with 30 slug clips. Maybe 4-shot hand guns are plenty for protection and working on our aim (how I use mine most). And sure, that might mean that in the future I'm reloading more often at Butch's Gun Shop (in the range, not the shop) when kicking some paper target ass. But it'll help by thinking maybe fewer kids get projectiles ripping through their vital organs, which might be an upside.
Just saying.
Sure, if you can post anything that shows the proposed gun legislation does any such thing. So far, 5 threads, ONE poster brought ONE op-ed to support that view (filled with the standard inaccuracies). I have brought information from many different places and shown that such laws are completely irrelevant.
We can mitigate that threat if you can find something that can successfully do so. Gun laws are not successful in that regard.
Your 'easy' is lacking facts. Period.Sure, but hear me out: let's say we reduce the threat a smidgen, kinda like polio vaccines, so symptoms such as legs of jello occur less frequently. FDR might have liked that.
In gun matters, perhaps folks don't need assault weapons with 30 slug clips. Maybe 4-shot hand guns are plenty for protection and working on our aim (how I use mine most). And sure, that might mean that in the future I'm reloading more often at Butch's Gun Shop (in the range, not the shop) when kicking some paper target ass. But it'll help by thinking maybe fewer kids get projectiles ripping through their vital organs, which might be an upside.
Just saying.
Sure, if you can post anything that shows the proposed gun legislation does any such thing. So far, 5 threads, ONE poster brought ONE op-ed to support that view (filled with the standard inaccuracies). I have brought information from many different places and shown that such laws are completely irrelevant.
We can mitigate that threat if you can find something that can successfully do so. Gun laws are not successful in that regard.
Easy. Reinstate the assault rifle/weapons ban, but with a better grandfather provision than the original, which Clinton signed, which had one other flaw: sunset provision at the 10-year mark.
Here's why: the last ban was only marginally effective, since the grandfather provision left a big hole that domestic and foriegn producers walked through with ease, by scaling up production and inventories, socking them away in importer and dealer warehouses. Thus the sale continued nearly unmitigated, for most of the period of the so called "ban."
So revisions needed would be:
Grandfather: only those currently in the possession of end users. Dealer and importer inventories purchased at cost plus 10% for handling by US Government for military use and/or destruction.
Sunset: not. If it has no mitigating effect, we have Congress who can rewrite laws at any time. Arbitrary time limits merely do the work, ineffectively, that we pay Congress to do every day it's in session.
Moreover, expand the ban to include magazines in excess of 6 bullets; those already owned by end-users, should be limited to using them at gun clubs / shooting ranges. Carrying while in the society at large, with a shot-capability in excess of six bullets should be a federal crime resulting in loss of gun ownership priviledge for life.
Your 'easy' is lacking facts. Period.Sure, if you can post anything that shows the proposed gun legislation does any such thing. So far, 5 threads, ONE poster brought ONE op-ed to support that view (filled with the standard inaccuracies). I have brought information from many different places and shown that such laws are completely irrelevant.
We can mitigate that threat if you can find something that can successfully do so. Gun laws are not successful in that regard.
Easy. Reinstate the assault rifle/weapons ban, but with a better grandfather provision than the original, which Clinton signed, which had one other flaw: sunset provision at the 10-year mark.
Here's why: the last ban was only marginally effective, since the grandfather provision left a big hole that domestic and foriegn producers walked through with ease, by scaling up production and inventories, socking them away in importer and dealer warehouses. Thus the sale continued nearly unmitigated, for most of the period of the so called "ban."
So revisions needed would be:
Grandfather: only those currently in the possession of end users. Dealer and importer inventories purchased at cost plus 10% for handling by US Government for military use and/or destruction.
Sunset: not. If it has no mitigating effect, we have Congress who can rewrite laws at any time. Arbitrary time limits merely do the work, ineffectively, that we pay Congress to do every day it's in session.
Moreover, expand the ban to include magazines in excess of 6 bullets; those already owned by end-users, should be limited to using them at gun clubs / shooting ranges. Carrying while in the society at large, with a shot-capability in excess of six bullets should be a federal crime resulting in loss of gun ownership priviledge for life.
Where are the facts that back up your assertion that those gun laws would be effective. I see a lot of ban this, make that illegal and other tripe and yet I have seen zero evidence that those laws would accomplish squat.
Those laws have been attempted and they have failed. The data has been posted. Instead of refuting it, you have waited a number of pages and then completely ignored it. In this thread, the data was posted. Why have you completely ignored such facts? Why have you yet to post a single fact of your own?
Your 'easy' is lacking facts. Period.Easy. Reinstate the assault rifle/weapons ban, but with a better grandfather provision than the original, which Clinton signed, which had one other flaw: sunset provision at the 10-year mark.
Here's why: the last ban was only marginally effective, since the grandfather provision left a big hole that domestic and foriegn producers walked through with ease, by scaling up production and inventories, socking them away in importer and dealer warehouses. Thus the sale continued nearly unmitigated, for most of the period of the so called "ban."
So revisions needed would be:
Grandfather: only those currently in the possession of end users. Dealer and importer inventories purchased at cost plus 10% for handling by US Government for military use and/or destruction.
Sunset: not. If it has no mitigating effect, we have Congress who can rewrite laws at any time. Arbitrary time limits merely do the work, ineffectively, that we pay Congress to do every day it's in session.
Moreover, expand the ban to include magazines in excess of 6 bullets; those already owned by end-users, should be limited to using them at gun clubs / shooting ranges. Carrying while in the society at large, with a shot-capability in excess of six bullets should be a federal crime resulting in loss of gun ownership priviledge for life.
Where are the facts that back up your assertion that those gun laws would be effective. I see a lot of ban this, make that illegal and other tripe and yet I have seen zero evidence that those laws would accomplish squat.
Those laws have been attempted and they have failed. The data has been posted. Instead of refuting it, you have waited a number of pages and then completely ignored it. In this thread, the data was posted. Why have you completely ignored such facts? Why have you yet to post a single fact of your own?
Facts and would be (that's an in the future thing) are different animals.
Might be? Sure. So maybe this time close the back doors, and see if it works. If not, we can always course correct.
Your 'easy' is lacking facts. Period.
Where are the facts that back up your assertion that those gun laws would be effective. I see a lot of ban this, make that illegal and other tripe and yet I have seen zero evidence that those laws would accomplish squat.
Those laws have been attempted and they have failed. The data has been posted. Instead of refuting it, you have waited a number of pages and then completely ignored it. In this thread, the data was posted. Why have you completely ignored such facts? Why have you yet to post a single fact of your own?
Facts and would be (that's an in the future thing) are different animals.
Might be? Sure. So maybe this time close the back doors, and see if it works. If not, we can always course correct.
Wouldn't it be smarter to do something which empirical evidence exist to demonstrate efficacy?
