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.
Well, the thing is Bob, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-others having the mentality that they can shoot others, and I'm anti-the-wrong people just willy nilly allowed a gun because an outdated bit of paper gives any idiot a gun, and I'm anti-gun-safety where said idiots think it's sensible to leave loaded guns lying around the house and to take them in public places.
I also prefer stats, as in, what actually happened out there as opposed to what gun nuts want others to believe with their idiotic opinions.
So there's no confusion from me about guns because unlike yourself, I'm from a much much much safer gun culture, the UK. Where the confusion about guns starts, is with you guys honestly believing you're the safe good guys, and you also have no clue about guns outside of your borders. Hence the cliché rhetoric you all keep belching.
If adjudicated, it is.Just be ause something is legal doesn't mean it's a right.
In my state the drinking age for beer used to be 18. There were problems but not enough to justify raising it to 21.Yet we send kids of 18 years old into wars, that allows them to use guns, some even fully automatic and bigger.
Traveling is a right for most of us that means driving but driving a car on public roads may not rise to the standards of rights in the sense of the right to vote or the right to bear armsYou don't need a license to drink.Driving is called a privilege but it's actually a right.
In my state the drinking age for beer used to be 18. There were problems but not enough to justify raising it to 21.
Who is it that grants the 'privilege' to drive to 233 million people. The public pays for the roads, we should have the right to use them. And if driving is an absolute necessity for most how can it not be a right?Traveling is a right for most of us that means driving but driving a car on public roads may not rise to the standards of rights in the sense of the right to vote or the right to bear arms
Interesting, because most drunk drivers, including most who kill others while driving drunk, are well over 21. Worse is that most have multiple DUI's on their record.That was accomplished by the federal government withholding highway funds from any state that didn't comply with the "suggestion" that the drinking age be raised to 21
Conservatives are still going to attack the source and refuse to provide evidence in support of their personal, subjective opinions – because there are no such facts.This avoids dissing the source or not providing evidence on your opinion.
^^^^Conservatives are still going to attack the source and refuse to provide evidence in support of their personal, subjective opinions – because there are no such facts.
Conservatives will continue to lie about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated.’
And conservatives will continue to refuse to address the problem of gun crime and violence.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution that says people have the right to drive a car, but they do have a right to bear arms, against governments foreign and domestic.Who is it that grants the 'privilege' to drive to 233 million people. The public pays for the roads, we should have the right to use them. And if driving is an absolute necessity for most how can it not be a right?
Wrong.Suicided is not a violent gun death
Gang bangers killing other gangbangers is not a mass shooting.
18-20 year olds are not children
In 2023 driving is a de facto right. There are compelling reasons not to grant a driver's license to many 16-year-olds, yet they get one no questions asked.Because there is nothing in the Constitution that says people have the right to drive a car, but they do have a right to bear arms, against governments foreign and domestic.
No you're wrong you anti rights fascist pig.Wrong.
There’s nothing more violent than dying by gunshot.
It comes as no surprise that the racist right ignores Americans of color dying the consequence of gun crime and violence.
Whether 18 to 20 year olds are considered children is irrelevant; their deaths by gun crime and violence is just as tragic.
Oh? I think being beaten to death tops being shot.Wrong.
There’s nothing more violent than dying by gunshot.
It comes as no surprise that the racist right ignores Americans of color dying the consequence of gun crime and violence.
Whether 18 to 20 year olds are considered children is irrelevant; their deaths by gun crime and violence is just as tragic.
I'm a conservative and I've already addressed the problem. Lock the addicts up in treatment centers. Then watch the drug trade implode, and the violence decline..’
And conservatives will continue to refuse to address the problem of gun crime and violence.
Vermont is the only state that doesn't consider an eighteen-year-old an adult for criminal proceedings. Five states including California consider sixteen-year-olds as adults for criminal proceedings. Most states allow fourteen-year-olds to be charged as adults in serious cases.No you're wrong you anti rights fascist pig.
Gang bangers killing other gang bangers is not a mass shooting .
And 18- 20 years olds are not children they can be charged as adults.
Wouldn't they charged them as an adult in a capital crime?Vermont is the only state that doesn't consider an eighteen-year-old an adult for criminal proceedings. Five states including California consider sixteen-year-olds as adults for criminal proceedings. Most states allow fourteen-year-olds to be charged as adults in serious cases.
Wrong.
There’s nothing more violent than dying by gunshot.
It comes as no surprise that the racist right ignores Americans of color dying the consequence of gun crime and violence.
Whether 18 to 20 year olds are considered children is irrelevant; their deaths by gun crime and violence is just as tragic.
Whether 18 to 20 year olds are considered children is irrelevant;
Wrong.
There’s nothing more violent than dying by gunshot.
It comes as no surprise that the racist right ignores Americans of color dying the consequence of gun crime and violence.
Whether 18 to 20 year olds are considered children is irrelevant; their deaths by gun crime and violence is just as tragic.
Statistics prepared by an organization that was created as an anti-gun lobby? Surely you can find a more objective source than that?Here's a useful site -
Gun resources
It's useful because when it states some gun/incident fact, most have the link to the study on that fact. This avoids dissing the source or not providing evidence on your opinion.
So for example -
In a robbery or an assault, studies show people without a gun are just as likely to escape harm as people who are carrying one.
In the link in that claim, you can click to the PDF to its evidence/studies. Then you can read the facts -
We could not find a basic, thorough, descriptive epidemiologic analysis of self-defense gun use using NCVS data—describing who uses guns, where and in what circumstances. Among relevant studies (Tark and Kleck, 2004; McDowall and Wiersema, 1994), the study (Hart and Miethe, 2009) that comes closest to that target analyzes the data in a manner that is not particularly helpful for policy or individual decision-making. That study by Hart and Miethe divides crime situations into 48 categories, as determined by five variables as follows: (a) sexual assault, non-sexual assault, or robbery; (b) offender armed or not; (c) daytime or not; (d) private or public location; and (e) offender on drugs/alcohol or not. These situations are then ranked by the likelihood that a firearm is used in self-defense. Not surprisingly, very low incident categories have both the highest rates and the lowest rates of self-defense gun use. For example, the highest incident rate of self-defense gun use—17% of the time (1/6)—occurred in sexual assaults, when the offender was armed, in a private location, during the day, when the offender was high on drugs/alcohol; the lowest rate—0% of the time (0/7)—occurred for robberies in a private location at night when the offender was armed and high on drugs/alcohol.
So "crime" was broken down into 48 categories, as opposed to just crime. So now if anyone wants to make a claim or lay opinion, you can check beforehand.
I can see this being a valuable resource !!!!!
