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.
That is such a bullshit. Everyone knows that you can kill much more people with guns. People go on killing spree because it is so much easier and cleaner to pull the trigger, than murder a person with a cold weapon.
"Many more people", and more than what, precisely? A bomb? A car? Poison? I don't think so.
I do -- because:
People go on shooting sprees because it gives them the best of both nightmarish worlds: the fast, mass killing of a bomb combined with the close-up view of people's terror and death of a knife or club.
Thank you for making my point. A gun massacre could be way more cool and appealing to many loons than a knife or a bomb.
I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?
The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.
why did you need another gun thread today? the others weren't enough?
whining pretend libertarian.
It is going to happen. The question is how many people would have to die before Americans decide that enough is enough.
No, the question is how many people are going to have to die because idiots like you have decided enough self-protection is enough?
Self-protection my ass:
Fathers gun fires, kills 7-year-old son, two days ago.
I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?
The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.
Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.
Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?
Let me see, ban everything but hunting rifles, which would disarm police, and that, somehow, magically protects us from people printing a gun using their computer.
Alternatively, you could admit that you don't care how many people die, all you want is to take away guns.
or the harder it is to get a gun....the more crimes we'll see being committed with other weapons of choice...knives, grenades, cars, hand to hand violence etc.
That is such a bullshit. Everyone knows that you can kill much more people with guns. People go on killing spree because it is so much easier and cleaner to pull the trigger, than murder a person with a cold weapon.
Funny, I thought the largest mass murder in American history used airplanes.
Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.
Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?
Let me see, ban everything but hunting rifles, which would disarm police, and that, somehow, magically protects us from people printing a gun using their computer.
Right. That's your idea of a serious discussion?
Alternatively, you could admit that you don't care how many people die, all you want is to take away guns.
Stop being a moron. I love guns -- who doesn't? I would happily own one if I could be sure that it will be never used on me, or on people I care about. That is simply too high a price for a hobby.
Are you for real? There nothing impossible about banning anything shorter than a hunting rifle, all semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines. And making licensing of the rest hard and expensive, so only determined hunters could get it.
Then if you are a homicidal maniac, where would steal your gun from? Police?
Let me see, ban everything but hunting rifles, which would disarm police, and that, somehow, magically protects us from people printing a gun using their computer.
Right. That's your idea of a serious discussion?
Stop being a moron. I love guns -- who doesn't? I would happily own one if I could be sure that it will be never used on me, or on people I care about. That is simply too high a price for a hobby.Alternatively, you could admit that you don't care how many people die, all you want is to take away guns.
However, it's a lot faster - and more logical and less emotional, which is probably why you don't want to go there - to stick to statistics. And statistics tell us that approximately 65 lives are saved by gun use every year for every 2 lives lost to guns.
How's that concept working out with drugs?
I don't know if you're a woman, but I am, and I'd be fascinated if you could name for me one other item that will level the playing field between me and a violent man the way a gun in my hands can.
I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?
The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.
However, it's a lot faster - and more logical and less emotional, which is probably why you don't want to go there - to stick to statistics. And statistics tell us that approximately 65 lives are saved by gun use every year for every 2 lives lost to guns.
Well, that is not the statistics I know of:
Do Guns Save Lives? - TIME
How's that concept working out with drugs?
Prohibition does not work where it does not make sense.
I don't know if you're a woman, but I am, and I'd be fascinated if you could name for me one other item that will level the playing field between me and a violent man the way a gun in my hands can.
You know, people advocating burkas and female circumcisions make the same "protection from violent men" argument.
I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?
The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.
owning a gun is not freedom, only americans think it is
The problem liberals have on the issue of guns is the same problem Republicans have on Gay marriage but in reverse.
In the future gays will get married because that's how it in fact will happen.
In the future guns will even become more deadly and still legal.
To fight against gay marriage is useless as fighting to ban guns. You just look like bigots because thats what you are.
However, it's a lot faster - and more logical and less emotional, which is probably why you don't want to go there - to stick to statistics. And statistics tell us that approximately 65 lives are saved by gun use every year for every 2 lives lost to guns.
Well, that is not the statistics I know of:
Do Guns Save Lives? - TIME
Yeah, TIME Magazine definitely trumps The Journal of Crime and Criminology on the subject of gun violence.
Have you always been a halfwit, or did you take special lessons just for us?
Prohibition doesn't work AT ALL.
I don't know if you're a woman, but I am, and I'd be fascinated if you could name for me one other item that will level the playing field between me and a violent man the way a gun in my hands can.
You know, people advocating burkas and female circumcisions make the same "protection from violent men" argument.
You know, that's not an answer. I believe I've already commented on your apparent terror of ever actually answering a question, so this second non-answer constitutes
Thank you. You may have my gun when you have the balls to try to come take it from me. And make sure you come unarmed, so that you're not a hypocrite
I heard on the news earlier that the guy was 20, if thats true he didn't obtain the handguns legally. You have to be 21 in Connecticut. So if he didn't obey the current gun laws I seriously doubt he would have obeyed any stricter laws.
I heard on the news earlier that the guy was 20, if thats true he didn't obtain the handguns legally. You have to be 21 in Connecticut. So if he didn't obey the current gun laws I seriously doubt he would have obeyed any stricter laws.
Well, I'd say the way he blew off the whole "illegal to kill other human beings" thing pretty much indicates he wasn't a big respecter of laws.
Hey idiot, there is a special place in hell for socialists to, good luck.I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?
The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.
Asshole. Scum.
you just pissed on the parents who lost their children today.
there's a special place in hell for the NRA and Wayne LaPierre.
I have been listening to the pundits talk about the need to get guns out of the hands of crazy people, and how happy they are that Obama said something needs to be done to stop tragedies like the one today. What, exactly, are the alternatives? We have no way to determine if someone is going to flip out and go on a shooting spree. Even if we did, what are we going to do? If we put them in a database that prevents them from buying a gun what is to stop them from stealing one? Should we require everyone to be tested, and lock everyone who the tests identify as a danger up? Do we really want to create a society that locks people up because they might do something?
The way I see it is we have two choices, either deny everyone freedom, or accept the fact that crazy people are going to do crazy things. If anyone has an actual alternative to those options I would love to hear it.
Thousands of people die needlessly a year from hundreds of causes.0.0009 percent of the people are killed a year.....Your own numbers.....27k divided by 300 million.This is not about having 0 death a year. This is about coming down from 27,000 death a year to 2700, or even less.
Not the epidemic you make it out to be.
There are over 200 million guns in this country. That is 0.000135 deaths per gun if we assume that 27k people were killed by guns in this country.
The hysteria is simply amazing.
Thousandths people dying needlessly each year is not a cause for concern?
