Shannyn Moore: My Guns Are Less Regulated Than My Uterus

[Clementine]

What does a 22 week old fetus look like? Check out this clump of cells. And some want to kill it even later.

 

[Vastator]

Just a quick question.....................how much lead do you REALLY need to be able to throw downrange? Are you that bad of a shot?

Answer: As much lead as can be sent incoming, by a government who has lost the consent of the governed can bring to bear against the people.

 

[bgrouse]

It has nothing to do with vaginas. Our constitution protects everyone’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So protecting the unborn child who has no voice, becomes the responsibility of those with a voice.

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

You’re so full of shit lol

So once again what do you think your study proves and what part of the text were you referencing?

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

 

[2aguy]

Just a quick question.....................how much lead do you REALLY need to be able to throw downrange? Are you that bad of a shot?

You don't know until you need it...that is why more is better. If you don't need it, you don't shoot it. If you need it, you won't regret having it....

 

[2aguy]

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

You’re so full of shit lol

So once again what do you think your study proves and what part of the text were you referencing?

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

And yet.....real world numbers show the opposite...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Concealed carry permit number....

 

[Billy000]

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

You’re so full of shit lol

So once again what do you think your study proves and what part of the text were you referencing?

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

Um EVERY study is limited in confidence. If the study had no confidence, it wouldn’t have been published. Conclusions, for the sake of being objective, will discuss possible variables that may confound their findings. That doesn’t mean that they do to a significant extent. The results of the study speak for themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

I will vote to deregulate you uterus if you vote to deregulate my guns. Deal?

No fucking way. Our right to privacy has nothing to do with guns and the idiots who use them.

and yet you felt no reason to inform the OP of this

And why would I do that? The whole point of the original post was to point out that a woman's uterus is subject to more regulation than gun ownership.

My uterus is not and was never any concern of yours. But if you want to own a weapon than can kill people, you should have to prove you've had training, know how to use it properly, store it safely, and not whip it out whenever you feel like it.

You have to have a license to drive a car, but not own a gun. It makes no logical sense.

 

[bgrouse]

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

You’re so full of shit lol

So once again what do you think your study proves and what part of the text were you referencing?

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

Um EVERY study is limited in confidence. If the study had no confidence, it wouldn’t have been published. Conclusions, for the sake of being objective, will discuss possible variables that may confound their findings. That doesn’t mean that they do to a significant extent. The results of the study speak for themselves.

So you don't even know what you're arguing? I figured you were a moron.

 

[Billy000]

You’re so full of shit lol

So once again what do you think your study proves and what part of the text were you referencing?

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

Um EVERY study is limited in confidence. If the study had no confidence, it wouldn’t have been published. Conclusions, for the sake of being objective, will discuss possible variables that may confound their findings. That doesn’t mean that they do to a significant extent. The results of the study speak for themselves.

So you don't even know what you're arguing? I figured you were a moron.

Um no. It’s not my fault you’re too dumb to understand the nuance.

 

[bgrouse]

So once again what do you think your study proves and what part of the text were you referencing?

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

Um EVERY study is limited in confidence. If the study had no confidence, it wouldn’t have been published. Conclusions, for the sake of being objective, will discuss possible variables that may confound their findings. That doesn’t mean that they do to a significant extent. The results of the study speak for themselves.

So you don't even know what you're arguing? I figured you were a moron.

Um no. It’s not my fault you’re too dumb to understand the nuance.

I understand just fine that you're a retard who can't do much more than post a link. Usually the morons I encounter here at least state a claim. It ends up being a bad, unsupported claim, but they get that far. You? You're special!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I will vote to deregulate you uterus if you vote to deregulate my guns. Deal?

No fucking way. Our right to privacy has nothing to do with guns and the idiots who use them.

and yet you felt no reason to inform the OP of this

And why would I do that? The whole point of the original post was to point out that a woman's uterus is subject to more regulation than gun ownership.

and yet you ask what does one have to do with the other?

My uterus is not and was never any concern of yours.

and yet all you do is bring it up, I don't want hear about your uterus ever again, ever
.

But if you want to own a weapon than can kill people, you should have to prove you've had training, know how to use it properly, store it safely, and not whip it out whenever you feel like it.

You are of course referring only to responsible law abiding citizens and not criminals.

You have to have a license to drive a car, but not own a gun. It makes no logical sense.

and here in is why liberals only pretend to care about rights and civil liberties...driving is not a right,it is a privilege, read the constitution to find out what gun ownership is...just don't expect to find any such reference to your uterus in that document.

 

[Billy000]

Lol perhaps you don’t know how to navigate your way around an article. Read the abstract. All the pertinent information is in there. Go ahead and read it. That’s where the point is being made.

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

Um EVERY study is limited in confidence. If the study had no confidence, it wouldn’t have been published. Conclusions, for the sake of being objective, will discuss possible variables that may confound their findings. That doesn’t mean that they do to a significant extent. The results of the study speak for themselves.

So you don't even know what you're arguing? I figured you were a moron.

Um no. It’s not my fault you’re too dumb to understand the nuance.

I understand just fine that you're a retard who can't do much more than post a link. Usually the morons I encounter here at least state a claim. It ends up being a bad, unsupported claim, but they get that far. You? You're special!

I am special. I’ve provided statistical evidence. You have not.

 

[bgrouse]

Here's the summary of the conclusion:

Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.

It discusses firearm related deaths and goes on to say the study is limited in confidence. So what are you trying to prove with it? That gun bans reduce violent crime?

Um EVERY study is limited in confidence. If the study had no confidence, it wouldn’t have been published. Conclusions, for the sake of being objective, will discuss possible variables that may confound their findings. That doesn’t mean that they do to a significant extent. The results of the study speak for themselves.

So you don't even know what you're arguing? I figured you were a moron.

Um no. It’s not my fault you’re too dumb to understand the nuance.

I understand just fine that you're a retard who can't do much more than post a link. Usually the morons I encounter here at least state a claim. It ends up being a bad, unsupported claim, but they get that far. You? You're special!

I am special. I’ve provided statistical evidence. You have not.

Here's some research I just did: 5 out of 10 coin flips ended up being tails. Other other 5 ended up being heads.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm old enough to remember when the NRA was invited into our schools to educate students on gun safety. Yes, I'm old, and I grew up in rural Alaska, but the NRA as an institution has changed as much as everything else has since then. It now operates as a lobby for gun manufacturers rather than for responsible gun owners who grew up with the traditions of hunting and shooting.

It has blamed everything from video games, to Hollywood to "gun-free zones" for escalating gun violence in the country. In 2010, the NRA held its convention in North Carolina in a location where guns were banned. Its cheery note to attendees told them to leave their guns at home. It seemed fine enough with a "gun-free zone" then. Charlotte Allen blames (the brutal mass murder in Newtown, Conn., last week on) a lack of men and the "over-feminization" of our school system. Autism and mental health have been blamed. A godless tolerance for homosexuals has been faulted. Several people have said God wouldn't show up in public schools where he's not wanted. Apparently, he's still smarting from the lack of audible prayer, so he allowed the shooting to happen.

One week after the massacre, the NRA, in a paranoid fit, proposed changes. Let's have more guns in schools! Armed guards have been present at many massacres and haven't been able to stop them. And who is supposed to pay for the wages and benefits for armed guards at every school in the nation? "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," says the NRA. It's a nice advertisement for gun sales but it's ludicrous. The bad guy in Tucson, Ariz., who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was stopped because he was reloading. Should we have armed guards everywhere there has been a mass shooting? Schools, malls, theaters, grocery stores and churches? Are they proposing a jobs bill?

"If only those teachers had a gun," laments the NRA. At a time when teachers are blamed for far more than what is in their control, and for being "union thugs," you want them to carry a weapon? Seriously? Think about that for a minute. A company in Utah had profits jump 500 percent this week by selling BULLET-PROOF BACKPACKS FOR CHILDREN. Children should not be shouldering the panic. The best thing about little children is they haven't figured out yet that some people want to hurt them. Times have changed. If you're not a cynic by third grade, you're not paying attention.

I'm worried that again nothing will happen in the face of a great problem. The violence that destroyed so many lives in Newtown, Conn., has changed the discussion in this country on gun control, but will that be enough this time?

In Alaska, many of us need guns to fill our freezers, but if you need a 30-round clip you're a pretty poor hunter. If you are hoarding automatic (yes, they are legal) or semi-automatic weapons, you need Viagra.

Oh, that's right, it's about the "well-regulated militia." The Second Amendment was written by men who had fought alongside men who didn't survive their revolt against tyranny. They had the assistance of the French government. They used muskets. If you think it is your right or duty to overthrow the government at this point in time, you're going to need more than a few guns and monster clips. You'll need weapons-grade uranium, a few tanks, a submarine and an army of your own to go up against our 3 million strong military. You very well may need the aid of another country. Good luck with that, and I think your three-cornered hat may be on a little too tight. The same founders who thought a militia was a good idea would never have expanded gun ownership to blacks. The whole slavery situation could have gotten awkward quickly.

So the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of kindergarteners, mall shoppers and moviegoers? Is that freedom?

More: Shannyn Moore: My Guns Are Less Regulated Than My Uterus

But have you seen the shit she has done with her uterus?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I personally would like conservatives to shut the fuck up about sex and contraception and mind their own narrow minded ignorant business.

I personally would like leftists to shut the fuck up about things that they obviously have not a fucking clue about, Balls.

 

[Lakhota]

So the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of kindergarteners, mall shoppers and moviegoers? Is that freedom?

so what do you want to do about it? Put all the mentally ill in hospitals and hire a Nazi to collect all the guns in America???

I personally would like conservatives to shut the fuck up about sex and contraception and mind their own narrow minded ignorant business.

Ditto!

 

[keepitreal]

You know what I find really interesting? Every time there is a mass shooting, not only do the gun sales go up, but stock in gun manufacturers goes up as well.

Now think about this..................guns killed 59 people (so far), and injured over 400 in just one night, by just one shooter.

If any other industry killed 59 people and injured over 400 in just one day, by just one company (think food poisoning or air bags going off unintended), then the American people would be calling for the heads of the CEO's of that company because they killed people.

But nothing when guns are used for mass shootings. Why?

Now think about this..................guns killed 59 people (so far), and injured over 400 in just one night, by just one shooter

An unstable nutcase, using a semi automatic firearm
opened fire on a large group of people, killing 59

Guns didn't kill them, he killed them using a gun...
he could have thrown a grenade or bomb into the crowd

If any other industry killed 59 people and injured over 400 in just one day, by just one company (think food poisoning or air bags going off unintended), then the American people would be calling for the heads of the CEO's of that company because they killed people.

But nothing when guns are used for mass shootings. Why?

The abortion industry kills THOUSANDS of babies EVERY DAY
when women use their services to kill their babies

He chose to fire a semi automatic firearm into a crowd,
women(girls) choose to go to an abortion clinic,
both resulted in loss of life

Let's use the examples you provided....
food poisoning and defective air bags

In both those examples, injury or loss of life,
is due to negligence, safety standards and greed

Food poisoning results from cross contamination
and the failure to handle, process and store food products

When a glitch occurs in numerous cars,
of a specific make and model,
where injury or loss of life occurs,

somewhere along the line,
proper testing and safety standards
were inadequate or ignored.

In both cases, the companies are to blame
because there is an assumption, on the part of the consumer
that the company implements and adheres to strict standards
where consumer protection and safety is first and foremost.

Why should gun manufacturers be responsible
for a loon that goes on a shooting spree?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people,
using guns, knives, rope, hammers, poison,
cars, bats, pipes, bricks, screwdrivers, chainsaws,
axes, wire, extension cords, anti freeze, you name it

People kill...what they use is irrelevant

 

[Dragonlady]

You know what I find really interesting? Every time there is a mass shooting, not only do the gun sales go up, but stock in gun manufacturers goes up as well.

Now think about this..................guns killed 59 people (so far), and injured over 400 in just one night, by just one shooter.

If any other industry killed 59 people and injured over 400 in just one day, by just one company (think food poisoning or air bags going off unintended), then the American people would be calling for the heads of the CEO's of that company because they killed people.

But nothing when guns are used for mass shootings. Why?

Now think about this..................guns killed 59 people (so far), and injured over 400 in just one night, by just one shooter

An unstable nutcase, using a semi automatic firearm
opened fire on a large group of people, killing 59

Guns didn't kill them, he killed them using a gun...
he could have thrown a grenade or bomb into the crowd

If any other industry killed 59 people and injured over 400 in just one day, by just one company (think food poisoning or air bags going off unintended), then the American people would be calling for the heads of the CEO's of that company because they killed people.

But nothing when guns are used for mass shootings. Why?

The abortion industry kills THOUSANDS of babies EVERY DAY
when women use their services to kill their babies

He chose to fire a semi automatic firearm into a crowd,
women(girls) choose to go to an abortion clinic,
both resulted in loss of life

Let's use the examples you provided....
food poisoning and defective air bags

In both those examples, injury or loss of life,
is due to negligence, safety standards and greed

Food poisoning results from cross contamination
and the failure to handle, process and store food products

When a glitch occurs in numerous cars,
of a specific make and model,
where injury or loss of life occurs,

somewhere along the line,
proper testing and safety standards
were inadequate or ignored.

In both cases, the companies are to blame
because there is an assumption, on the part of the consumer
that the company implements and adheres to strict standards
where consumer protection and safety is first and foremost.

Why should gun manufacturers be responsible
for a loon that goes on a shooting spree?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people,
using guns, knives, rope, hammers, poison,
cars, bats, pipes, bricks, screwdrivers, chainsaws,
axes, wire, extension cords, anti freeze, you name it

People kill...what they use is irrelevant

Guns make it easy to kill people. Unfettered access to guns means that people who are planning to kill people can do so easily and efficiently.

I'm grateful I live in a country where handgun ownership is very restricted, and semi-automatic and automatic weapons are banned. Mass shootings are very rate. Our murder rate, gun crime rate, and suicide by gun are a fraction of yours.

If guns kept you safe, the US would be the safest first world country there is, instead of the most dangerous.

 

[keepitreal]

Unfettered access to guns means that people who are planning to kill people can do so easily and efficiently.

And, they could pass the most restrictive
gun ownership/possession laws ever,
and if someone is on a mission and wants a gun,
they'll get one and carry out their plan, regardless

Where this is a will, there's a way
Supply and demand...
if you can't get it on the open market,
you'll get it on the black market

If violent crimes, carried real consequences
which were swift and non negotiable,
you'd see violent crime plummet!

If you take a life, you lose yours....
like, immediately, within a week,
end of story, case closed, next

 

[Lakhota]

Maybe it's time to tax the hell out of guns and ammo - including all powder and accessories.