Timelordwho wrote:
This just in from Gbaji-land, armed gangs loitering around schools deter school shooters.
Seriously? Did you lick too much paint as a child or something?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow
Seriously? Did you lick too much paint as a child or something?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a point at which consistent correlation *does* imply causation. In the case of fatality statistics when armed civilians intervene, we're well beyond that point IMO.
gbaji wrote:
Correlation is not causation. European nations happen to have stricter gun control laws. But there's no evidence that they enjoy lower violent crime rates because of those laws.
Yeah. There's a point where you have sufficient correlation that you can imply causation. Which is the case when we look at fatality rates when civilians intervene versus when they don't. This is *not* the case when looking at gun control laws and their effect on violent crime. I'll ask again: Where is the evidence that it's the strict gun control that is responsible for those lower crime rates?
Even your image bears this out. Notice that Mexico has lower gun ownership than several other nations with much lower gun death rates. There isn't even a correlation there. And if said chart bothered to include more nations, you'd see even less correlation. Clearly, there's something more than mere gun ownership at work here, right?
I will also point out for the umpteenth time that "gun deaths" is circular. We should be looking at all violent crimes, regardless of how they are committed. Looking only at gun crimes starts with the assumption that the objective is to reduce gun crime, and not "crime". As I pointed out earlier though, in nations where guns are harder to obtain, the ratio of murders committed with other weapons increases dramatically. This suggests that gun control doesn't prevent violent crime, but merely changes how they are committed.
Of course, that assessment requires that we apply logic and reason rather than emotion and rhetoric.
Edited, Feb 6th 2013 2:49pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Also, Germany is not New Zealand is not Norway is not Chile is not Canada is not Spain is not Australia is not Luxembourg is not Greece is not Great Britain is not Austria is not Ireland...
...yet all of these countries with all their geographic differences and cultural differences manage to ride the pretty obvious line between gun ownership and gun homicides. But somehow the United States is magically different and exempt and we should never, ever consider those correlations.
Making up speculative narratives of cowboy shoot-outs drawn from a couple pro-gun websites and calling that evidence is, of course, perfectly okay.
...yet all of these countries with all their geographic differences and cultural differences manage to ride the pretty obvious line between gun ownership and gun homicides. But somehow the United States is magically different and exempt and we should never, ever consider those correlations.
Making up speculative narratives of cowboy shoot-outs drawn from a couple pro-gun websites and calling that evidence is, of course, perfectly okay.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Of course, that assessment requires that we apply logic and reason rather than emotion and rhetoric.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Even your image bears this out. Notice that Mexico has lower gun ownership than several other nations with much lower gun death rates.
That's honestly the hook you're going to hang your case on?
Ok then. You might as well have just said "You're completely correct and I give up".
Quote:
We should be looking at all violent crimes, regardless of how they are committed.
We could look at all homicides per nation but I'll warn you now that you won't like that data any more.
Keep moving the goalposts perhaps?
Edited, Feb 6th 2013 4:55pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Yeah. There's a point where you have sufficient correlation that you can imply causation. Which is the case when we look at fatality rates when civilians intervene versus when they don't.
Interestingly, the fatality rate is far lower when the shooter and targets are outside. Dramatically moreso than any correlation between lower death rates and armed targets. What we need to do is stop focusing on guns and start focusing on ROOFS. I mean we can easily imply that it's the ROOFS that cause the higher death tolls, right? There's certainly sufficient correlation.
Interestingly, the fatality rate is far lower when the shooter and targets are outside. Dramatically moreso than any correlation between lower death rates and armed targets. What we need to do is stop focusing on guns and start focusing on ROOFS. I mean we can easily imply that it's the ROOFS that cause the higher death tolls, right? There's certainly sufficient correlation.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Jimmy from the roofer's union just called and suggests that you delete that post.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Even your image bears this out. Notice that Mexico has lower gun ownership than several other nations with much lower gun death rates.
That's honestly the hook you're going to hang your case on?
That and a host of other nations not included in the chart which also have strict gun control and high violent crime rates, which shows that the correlation you're trying to argue is causative doesn't really exist and certainly does not suggest that there's a causal relationship between gun laws and violent crime within any given country. The fact that most European countries happen to have both low violent crime rates and low gun ownership rates is a coincidence.
Quote:
Quote:
We should be looking at all violent crimes, regardless of how they are committed.
We could look at all homicides per nation but I'll warn you now that you won't like that data any more.
Sure. Why not?
Homicide rates tend to vary by geographical factors, not gun ownership.
But just to be sure, let's compare to Guns per capita
Look at the two nicely colored maps Joph. There is no freaking correlation at all. Some of the areas with the lowest gun ownership rates (green and yellow) have the highest homicide rates. Some areas with very high gun ownership rates (like the US) have quite moderate homicide rates. Australia has a relatively high per capita gun ownership rate (15/100), but a low homicide rate (1/100k). Meanwhile, Brazil has about half the gun ownership rate (8/100), yet has a high homicide rate (21/100k). If there was a correlation, we'd expect Brazil to have half the homicide rate as Australia, yet instead it's got 21 times the homicide rate.
There is no correlation between the two. It's a completely BS argument invented by gun control advocates by ignoring all data that doesn't support their position. By choosing to only look at nations with low crime rates when comparing to low gun ownership, they create a false impression of correlation.
Um... But even within those nations, there's no real correlation. The UK has a gun ownership rate of 6.2/100 and a homicide rate of 1.2/100k, but France has a gun ownership rate of 31.2/100 and a homicide rate of 1.1/100k. So why is France's homicide rate slightly lower than the UKs despite having 5 times as many guns per person? No correlation. While you can certainly find some nations with low rates of both, and some with high rates of both, there are so many which don't follow that pattern that you can't possibly say that one is causing the other. It's coincidence.
Quote:
Keep moving the goalposts perhaps?
Not at all. You, on the other hand, are ignoring data.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It's a completely BS argument invented by gun control advocates by ignoring all data that doesn't support their position. [...] You, on the other hand, are ignoring data.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah. There's a point where you have sufficient correlation that you can imply causation. Which is the case when we look at fatality rates when civilians intervene versus when they don't.
Interestingly, the fatality rate is far lower when the shooter and targets are outside. Dramatically moreso than any correlation between lower death rates and armed targets.
Interestingly, the fatality rate is far lower when the shooter and targets are outside. Dramatically moreso than any correlation between lower death rates and armed targets.
Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.
Quote:
What we need to do is stop focusing on guns and start focusing on ROOFS. I mean we can easily imply that it's the ROOFS that cause the higher death tolls, right? There's certainly sufficient correlation.
I would argue it's the WALLS that are important, not the ROOFS. But then I'm just contrary like that!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm just waiting for Joph to make good on his warning about the homicide rates per country. Good times!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.
I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor. The argument *should be* that easy availability of firearms in a wealthy society with wide income disparity contributes negatively to the overall homicide rate. If you want to look at correlations, I think wealth is a good place to start.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
When you see high homicide rates for nations near the top of this list, that should indicate there's some societal problem. Given that indication, I'd be inclined to limit deadly weapon availability in those societies. France has a low homicide rate and fairly available deadly weapons. There seems to be no reason to limit availability in France. That's the idea. Regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm all for changing US society to be more like France. If you want more guns, then lower income disparity via strong social welfare programs. There's a problem in the US around gun violence. Yes, it may have nothing to do with guns, really. It may be an income disparity problem, or a heterogeneous society problem. It might be a cultural issue about how we view manhood. It might be thousands of other things. It might be the trade off we have to make for being a young nation with no real cohesive sense of self.
Here's the crux of the current debate: Doing nothing doesn't seem to be effective. Doing something may or may not be effective. The only "something" there's any political will to attempt at the moment is some level of increased regulation around guns. I don't see a compelling argument against this. The idea that more regulation would limit defensive use of firearms borders on the absurd. When congress is debating a bill outlawing handgun ownership wholesale, get back to me. Making it slower to stockpile weapons, and limiting capacity or cyclic rate have no noticeable impact on your argument that I can determine. If you disagree, let me know.
I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor. The argument *should be* that easy availability of firearms in a wealthy society with wide income disparity contributes negatively to the overall homicide rate. If you want to look at correlations, I think wealth is a good place to start.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
When you see high homicide rates for nations near the top of this list, that should indicate there's some societal problem. Given that indication, I'd be inclined to limit deadly weapon availability in those societies. France has a low homicide rate and fairly available deadly weapons. There seems to be no reason to limit availability in France. That's the idea. Regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm all for changing US society to be more like France. If you want more guns, then lower income disparity via strong social welfare programs. There's a problem in the US around gun violence. Yes, it may have nothing to do with guns, really. It may be an income disparity problem, or a heterogeneous society problem. It might be a cultural issue about how we view manhood. It might be thousands of other things. It might be the trade off we have to make for being a young nation with no real cohesive sense of self.
Here's the crux of the current debate: Doing nothing doesn't seem to be effective. Doing something may or may not be effective. The only "something" there's any political will to attempt at the moment is some level of increased regulation around guns. I don't see a compelling argument against this. The idea that more regulation would limit defensive use of firearms borders on the absurd. When congress is debating a bill outlawing handgun ownership wholesale, get back to me. Making it slower to stockpile weapons, and limiting capacity or cyclic rate have no noticeable impact on your argument that I can determine. If you disagree, let me know.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
If you disagree, let me know.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
That and a host of other nations not included in the chart which also have strict gun control and high violent crime rates, which shows that the correlation you're trying to argue is causative doesn't really exist and certainly does not suggest that there's a causal relationship between gun laws and violent crime within any given country. The fact that most European countries happen to have both low violent crime rates and low gun ownership rates is a coincidence.
As previously noted, the chart is based off "developed nations" with an actual definition of "developed". Seeing as how you spend your post trying to draw comparisons to any other country except those most closely related to the US, I'm going to guess that you're just flailing randomly at this point. I mean, yeah sure, the US murder rate is lower than that of Liberia. Why you'd think that's relevant but comparing the murder rate in the US to other industrialized nations with secure democratic governments is just beyond the pale is a mystery to me. I mean, beyond the obvious reason.
gbaji wrote:
I'm just waiting for Joph to make good on his warning about the homicide rates per country. Good times!
Erm, you realize you linked to a map showing nearly every country on the original chart having a lower homicide rate than the US and you're "waiting" for me to make good on what you already proved?
Edited, Feb 6th 2013 9:28pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.
I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor.
I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the argument that Joph and several others have been making for a week or so now. Take from that what you will.
Quote:
The argument *should be* that easy availability of firearms in a wealthy society with wide income disparity contributes negatively to the overall homicide rate. If you want to look at correlations, I think wealth is a good place to start.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Sure. If we can both acknowledge that this list isn't telling us anything about income disparity. Just want to clear that up right off the bat.
Quote:
When you see high homicide rates for nations near the top of this list, that should indicate there's some societal problem.
Or geographical factors. As I mentioned before, take the entire population of Finland and plop it into a similarly sized location in the middle of Africa or South America (replacing those currently living there), and change nothing else, and you'll see violent crime skyrocket. I get what you're saying in terms of wealth and violence, but being next to a nation with high poverty and violent crime is going to have an effect on your own violent crime rate. Swap the US and Canada geographically, but keep everything else the same, and we'd likely swap homicide rates as well.
I think that absolutely dwarfs the kind of social stuff you're talking about. I don't disagree that societal and wealth factors within a country affect their own violent crime rates, but who your neighbors are (and how easily their problems can spill into your country) is a pretty massive effect as well.
Quote:
Given that indication, I'd be inclined to limit deadly weapon availability in those societies. France has a low homicide rate and fairly available deadly weapons. There seems to be no reason to limit availability in France. That's the idea.
That's a circular idea though. What France shows us is that there's no direct causal relationship between the availability of deadly weapons, and their use in homicides. A nation that is violent and has lots of homicides will be violent and have lots of homicides no matter how much you restrict access to guns. I just think that you're looking at the weakest relationship here.
Quote:
Regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm all for changing US society to be more like France. If you want more guns, then lower income disparity via strong social welfare programs.
One has nothing to do with the other though, so why?
Quote:
There's a problem in the US around gun violence. Yes, it may have nothing to do with guns, really. It may be an income disparity problem, or a heterogeneous society problem. It might be a cultural issue about how we view manhood. It might be thousands of other things. It might be the trade off we have to make for being a young nation with no real cohesive sense of self.
Ok. So we'd expect to have about the same rate of homicides whether we have ready availability to firearms or not, right? So that sorta discounts the argument for stricter gun control. It's not about the guns.
Quote:
Here's the crux of the current debate: Doing nothing doesn't seem to be effective. Doing something may or may not be effective.
And restricting guns is restricting an enumerated right that the founders thought was so important that they listed it right after free speech. So we should balance the "may or may not be effective" against "will infringe the rights of the people" and perhaps look at all of the other things we could do instead.
Quote:
The only "something" there's any political will to attempt at the moment is some level of increased regulation around guns.
That's not because it's the "something" that makes sense, but because that's what the anti-gun people want to do. They'd argue for it even if our homicide rate was half what it is. If we had a homicide rate lower than Japan with our current gun laws, they'd still be arguing for tighter gun control. It's cart before the horse logic. They start by wanting to restrict and/or eliminate guns and then go looking for arguments to support what they want to do. That's where the political will comes from. It has nothing to do with reducing actual rates of violent crimes and you damn well know it.
Quote:
I don't see a compelling argument against this.
I just gave you two.
Quote:
The idea that more regulation would limit defensive use of firearms borders on the absurd.
Depends on the regulation. Certainly, there's massive evidence that regulating away conceal carry would limit defensive use of firearms, right? I've been arguing for a week that regulating away all civilian carry in certain "gun free zones" is contributing to our upswing in rampage shootings in those zones.
Quote:
When congress is debating a bill outlawing handgun ownership wholesale, get back to me. Making it slower to stockpile weapons, and limiting capacity or cyclic rate have no noticeable impact on your argument that I can determine. If you disagree, let me know.
If that was all we were talking about you might have a point. In this thread though, my argument has primarily been about two things: Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations. If not, then why have people been arguing with me for a week or so?
We can discuss those other things as well, but it's hard to take those seriously given the hard core "guns are bad and should be eliminated" background noise to the whole issue. I don't believe anyone on the gun control side of this who claims that they really just want to restrict large capacity magazines, and make sure our background check process doesn't have loopholes. They want to ban guns. Period. Failing to recognize that would be pretty darn stupid. If I thought for a moment that those things would end the debate, I and every member of the NRA would line up to implement them today. But no one actually believes that and can you really blame them?
if you're honest with yourself, you don't believe it either. The anti-gun lobby doesn't really care about magazine sizes, or background checks except as a means to the end goal of ridding society of guns. Let's not kid ourselves about this.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That and a host of other nations not included in the chart which also have strict gun control and high violent crime rates, which shows that the correlation you're trying to argue is causative doesn't really exist and certainly does not suggest that there's a causal relationship between gun laws and violent crime within any given country. The fact that most European countries happen to have both low violent crime rates and low gun ownership rates is a coincidence.
As previously noted, the chart is based off "developed nations" with an actual definition of "developed".
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland? None of those count as developed I guess. All have higher homicide rates than the US, but all have fewer guns per capita than the US. Shocking isn't it?
Quote:
Seeing as how you spend your post trying to draw comparisons to any other country except those most closely related to the US...
Except Mexico, which is right next door and has like 4 times the homicide rate as the US.
Quote:
I mean, yeah sure, the US murder rate is lower than that of Liberia.
And those other developed low gun owning European countries I listed earlier. If your point is that there's no freaking correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates, you'd be correct. Can we move on now?
Quote:
Why you'd think that's relevant but comparing the murder rate in the US to other industrialized nations with secure democratic governments is just beyond the pale is a mystery to me.
Backpedaling a bit there? So now, it's not developed nations, but developed nations with "secure democratic governments". Um... How about instead of cherry picking your data, we just look at the vastly more obvious correlations out there, like geography. You know, like I'd pointed out at least 3 times now.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm just waiting for Joph to make good on his warning about the homicide rates per country. Good times!
Erm, you realize you linked to a map showing nearly every country on the original chart having a lower homicide rate than the US and you're "waiting" for me to make good on what you already proved?
That the homicide rates don't correlate to gun ownership rates? Yes. I proved that quite nicely. The bizarre thing is that you're continuing to argue even though the very data you asked for proves you wrong. I never said that the US didn't have a higher homicide rate than most European nations. I said that the reason we have a higher homicide rate has nothing to do with gun ownership rates. And I've proven that. Thanks for reminding me of that data though. Helped a lot.
Edited, Feb 6th 2013 8:38pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
It's almost as though I previously linked various criteria and you ignored it. Fancy that.
Well, lead a horse to water, yadda yadda...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
It would be kinda interesting to index nations by homicide rate by gun ownership rate. So the US has 4.8 homicides per 100k and we divide that by the number of guns per 100 people, and end out with 4.8/88= .054. The UK has 1.2 homicides per 100k, and we divide that by their gun rate and end out with 1.2/6.6=0.181. So the UK's homicide rate is 3 times as high when we adjust for relative gun ownership. Interesting...
Ok. This really means nothing, but that's the point. There's no correlation. Not sure how many times I have to point this out.
Ok. This really means nothing, but that's the point. There's no correlation. Not sure how many times I have to point this out.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
It's almost as though I previously linked various criteria and you ignored it. Fancy that.
And it's almost as though I previously mentioned the circular nature of listing only "gun deaths" and you ignored that. Fancy that indeed.
Do you see how once we change "gun deaths" to "homicides", the correlation you thought was there disappears? Which is precisely why that chart used that data instead. Cart leading horse.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? So where's Russia? Ukraine? Estonia? Lithuania? Greenland?
I did. I also noted that "gun deaths" isn't the correct metric to use. Do you see why? Now do you see why I singled out these nations?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Now do you see why I singled out these nations?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
And it's almost as though I previously mentioned the circular nature of listing only "gun deaths" and you ignored that. Fancy that indeed.
Because "circular logic!" is your fallback when you're wrong. Nothing more complex to it than that.
"Oh shit, that data clearly links number of guns in developed nations to the number of homicid--- wait, no, umm... circular logic! Doesn't count!"
In reality, there's nothing "circular" about it. I understand that you don't like the data and you're very uncomfortable with how it conflicts with your ideology but that's not really the same thing.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Correlation is not causation. European nations happen to have stricter gun control laws. But there's no evidence that they enjoy lower violent crime rates because of those laws.
So wait, correlation does not equal causation, except for when you say it does?
Do you have someone who looks after you?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations.
Nope, not close. Universal background checks are on the radar, limiting high capacity magazines is on the radar. If Christ showed up and let the Democrats know they could have a free miracle, they might try for a national gun registry law enforcement could easily access. Nowhere, anywhere in the country, is there any initiative to restrict concealed carry or to create new "gun free zones". In fact, I hadn't heard the term in public debate in the last decade. When I goggled it, all that's returned are conservative op eds against it. Imagine you bringing it up in a post where you don't read any of those. Bizarre!
Anyway, let's have your arguments against background checks and limiting 32 shot Saiga shotgun drums.
Nope, not close. Universal background checks are on the radar, limiting high capacity magazines is on the radar. If Christ showed up and let the Democrats know they could have a free miracle, they might try for a national gun registry law enforcement could easily access. Nowhere, anywhere in the country, is there any initiative to restrict concealed carry or to create new "gun free zones". In fact, I hadn't heard the term in public debate in the last decade. When I goggled it, all that's returned are conservative op eds against it. Imagine you bringing it up in a post where you don't read any of those. Bizarre!
Anyway, let's have your arguments against background checks and limiting 32 shot Saiga shotgun drums.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 333
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (333)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A firearm question for you Lefties
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC